Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-05-15 Architectural Review Board Summary MinutesPage 1 of 11 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 5/15/25 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MEETING SUMMARY MINUTES: May 15, 2025 Council Chamber & Zoom 8:00 AM Call to Order / Roll Call The Architectural Review Board (ARB) of the City of Palo Alto met on May 15, 2025 in Council Chambers and virtual teleconference at 8:35 a.m. Present: Chair Kendra Rosenberg, Vice Chair Yingxi Chen, Board member Mousam Adcock, Board member Peter Baltay, Board member David Hirsch Absent: None. Oral Communications None. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions None. City Official Reports 1. Director’s Report, Meeting Schedule, and Upcoming Agenda Items Steven Switzer, Historic Preservation Planner/ARB Liaison, provided the Director’s Report via slide presentation including an update on the upcoming meeting; 2025 meeting schedules; updates on ARB Awards; scheduled May 27 ARB interviews; and June 9 proclamation recognizing departing board members and commissioners. Mr. Switzer responded to Chair Rosenberg’s questions stating that the new members could potentially be selected at the June 2 Council meeting. A new board composition might be in place for the June 5 meeting. More than likely it will occur in July. Chair Rosenberg announced a planned absence for the June 5 meeting but might possibly be there for the second half. Assistant Director Armer recommended postponing the elections of chair and vice chair to the July meeting. Boardmember Adcock will be absent at the July 17 meeting. Page 2 of 11 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 5/15/25 Action Item 2. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 180 El Camino Real [25PLN-00027]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Major Architectural Review of Exterior Storefront Modification, Including Façade Change, a Redesigned Outdoor Dining Area and Signage for a New Tenant, Cedar & Sage (Space #1300B, Building DD), at the Stanford Shopping Center. CEQA Status: Exempt from CEQA per Section 15301 (Existing Facilities). Zoning District: CC (Community Commercial). Chair Rosenberg asked if any of the board members had visited the site or had any disclosures. Boardmember Adcock visited the site and observed the plaster that remained when the previous sign was removed has a greenish tint that looks different than what is shown in the rendering. Vice Chair Chen visited the site. Chair Roseberg visited the site and had nothing else to disclose. Boardmember Baltay visited the site and wanted to disclose some dimensions taken that were different from what was on the plans later in the meeting. Boardmember Hirsch visited the site and did not take any measurements. Tamara Harrison, Contract Planner, provided a slide presentation about 180 El Camino Real including the project location, a background, project overview, colors and material board, signage considerations, key considerations and conditions and the recommended motion. In response to questions posed by Boardmember Baltay, Ms. Harrison explained the shopping center is at a parking ratio of 1 per 275 square feet. This tenant alone does not trigger a new space. The spreadsheet of the overall center is being updated. It is overparked by 21 spaces. Once the final numbers and building permit is received, if anything changes there is an overage that can be deducted from. The Transportation department determined the short-term bike parking spaces has been met and work is still being done on meeting the long-term bike parking spaces. They will not be adding any additional bike parking spaces for this tenant. When the center was originally established, it was non- compliant in the terms of bike spaces and attempts had been made to get closer to the number going along with the new tenants. The 7-foot sidewalk dimension is an existing condition and the tenant is not making the condition worse. Ms. Harrison provided responses to Boardmember Adcock’s questions explaining the bathroom condition was added because there was a question about the bathroom count that the building department had. Richard Wessells, Simon Property Group, added when the redevelopment was done and new building were built in 2016, they were in compliance with code at that time. The Building Department is believed to be requesting that the current codes be utilized and not when the building was done in 2016. Work is being done to finalize this issue with David Chung on getting this rectified. Ms. Harrison remarked further discussions will be held regarding whether or not this condition will remain and everything will be updated as necessary before any approvals are issued. Mr. Wessells confirmed Boardmember Adcock’s understanding that the Building Department is asking to remedy for the overall building outside of the limits of work. JC Clow provided a description and overview of the proposed restaurant. Page 3 of 11 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 5/15/25 Chris Canney, Arcanum Architecture, addressed the comments about the quality of the existing plaster. Anthropologie was contacted for permission to blend that into the scope at their cost with no response. An attempt is being made to work with Anthropologie to update that plaster. A slide presentation was provided including renderings of the proposed new plaster, crosshatch, the bi-folding opening door system, the entry access portal and pivot door, the blade sign, the patio, the perimeter of the patio, dining area and retractable windscreen behind the planters, building graphics being added to the façade and heaters and lighting for the patio. Regarding comments made by Boardmember Baltay about the access aisle, the intent was to maintain the existing footprint of the patio and any corrections needed will be made. PUBLIC COMMENT No requests to speak. Boardmember Baltay measured a foot less space between the edge of the curb and building and about 6 feet 3 inches clear between the row of bollards and existing 2-inch metal rail and expressed concern that it needs to be enlarged to 8 feet. Mr. Canney remarked there would be discussion with the survey team to find out what happened there. The intent was to maintain the existing perimeter. Boardmember Baltay indicated that since the 2-inch metal railing is being removed, a new standard should apply. In response to Boardmember Adcock’s questions about the façade, Mr. Canney replied the plaster will have a 1-inch deep raking and the pattern is vertical and horizontal lines. The intent is to have a deep texture with some vibrancy. Boardmember Adcock recommended the plaster needed to be more controlled than what the image presented showed. Mr. Canney explained the detail on sheet 7.8.1 is similar to reverse halo lettering. It is within the lease line. The bottom of the window on the elevation is the floor line. The LED strips will get power through the façade. There is an approved interior permit currently issued by the City of Palo Alto. The front of house, dining area, all the kitchen restrooms and back of house is remaining essentially as is. The interior in the drawings is basically new. The bi-folding doors will be top mounted. It will hand from an existing beam. An additional tube steel beam has added to support the door system. The glazing shown on 5.1 will be transparent. Mr. Canney replied to Vice Chair Chen’s questions stating the posts will be 7 x 7 and the beams will be 6 x 8. The glass windscreen will be operated with a remote. Replying to Boardmember Hirsch’s observations, Mr. Canney indicated the planters in the utility locations can be on casters to be movable. Accommodations and shifting might have to be done in the banquette area. Every reduction in the existing s does affect the feasibility and economic functioning of the restaurant. When the lease was signed, it was understood Mr. Clow would be able to use the square footage that was there which posed somewhat of a hardship to the client and his expectations of what he signed up for if that that space is reduced. They will have to design around any of the existing mechanical and utilities. Mr. Smith added drawings were received from Water, Gas, Waste to identify the substructures in front of it. For review and approval through their system, the exterior drawings will be submitted through there system. It will be routed through them to confirm the access to the utilities will not be impeded. In response to Boardmember Hirsch’s concerns about the mechanism for glass that Page 4 of 11 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 5/15/25 sits beyond the line, Mr. Canney explained everything that powers the moving mechanisms is maintained within the structure of the trellis element and will not impede access. The canopy element is retractable and does not cover the entire space. It will be used just for sun shading over the banquette seating area. Mr. Smith remarked the sidewalk width is reviewed on a case-to-case basis. Increasing to the 8-feet mark would make affect the patio and cause egress issues. Boardmember Hirsch observed some unrelated signage that should be removed. Mr. Smith confirmed it would be removed. Mr. Clow responded to Chair Rosenberg’s by describing an operable windscreen system being used at another location that would be used in this project. The motors are in the valance and work with a remote. The awnings can stop and start at any point in time. Mr. Clow estimated the awnings will be operated 30 to 40% of the time or maybe a little more. The awnings are a PVC material. The fabric is very porous. The designers and engineers know the distance the heaters need to be from the awning. Chair Rosenberg commented it would be helpful to have the dimensions on sheet A8.1. Mr. Canney remarked all the clearances will be noted in the exterior permit. The Bromic heaters have a shield and a 14-inch clearance. It has been confirmed that the clearance above the linear fire feature meets standard. The trapezoidal-shaped awnings will stay fixed. Boardmember Hirsch wanted to know if a two blade sign possibility so it could go around the corner for better visibility. Ms. Harrison replied in the past the two blade signs have been allowed for that reason. If the applicant’s team wants to propose that, Staff will entertain it in compliance with the sign program sizing. Mr. Canney was in agreement. Chair Rosenberg suggested the planter could be changed to something else to allow for the 8-foot clearance. Mr. Canney indicated the point of the planters is to soften the façade. If that needs to go to maintain the area, it can be entertained. It was pointed out that the clearance from the railing to the curb is well over the 8 feet. Chair Rosenberg and Boardmember Adcock wanted clarification from Staff about this. Ms. Harrison stated because the railings are being removed, the patio is being placed in place of it so it is considered an existing condition. Mr. Wessells explained the building was ARB approved in 2016 which led to the assumption it would still be acceptable by giving the tenant the same patio space as what had been existing over the last 8 years. Boardmember Adcock thought it was a loose argument to say it is existing to remain when neither the railings are remaining nor the exact configuration of the existing railings are remaining. Mr. Canney responded to Boardmember Baltay’s questions stating the space heaters are a part of the awning system. To bring in enough power to utilize electric heaters, a new transformer and panel would have to be installed off the main electrical room and it would be a large economic cost. The heaters are a prefabricated system from Palmiye. Addressing Boardmember Baltay’s concerns about the curved steel canopy, Mr. Cannery commented from a design standpoint, the intent was not to modify the façade more than necessary. Boardmember Hirsch observed the variety of speakers and paraphernalia appeared junky. Mr. Canney was open to removing them if the Board gave that direction. Boardmember Hirsch advised if it is going to stay it should be improved. Mr. Canney indicated another reason for leaving it there was the inability to cut into Anthropologie’s lease space and it would leave an awkward situation. Page 5 of 11 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 5/15/25 Boardmember Baltay observed an awkward juncture against the existing building on the bottom rendering on A0.3 and wondered if that is the design intent. Mr. Canney confirmed this was the intent without the vertical fins and existing awning and was in support of the design. Boardmember Baltay advised the awning ought to be more carefully designed to work with the radius. Applicants should be formally informed of the 8-foot walkway guideline. The shopping center does not have adequate parking. The City has to tell the shopping to bring the building up to standards and ask for some additional bike parking. Chair Rosenberg opined asking for the 8-foot space, parking, and bikes should be overall addressed. A question was posed if the 8-foot walkway was maintained, the applicant could square off the existing corner. Boardmember Baltay pointed out 12-inches or so could be gained back just by moving the bollards over. Chair Rosenberg suggested considering making the awnings all fixed. The existing canopy is fine. Chair Rosenberg wanted to see support given for working with Anthropologie to spruce up the painting. Vice Chair Chen agreed that the 8-foot walkway should be kept, advised cutting the existing steel trellis all the way for the entire dining area and working closely with the manufacturer to make sure all the details of the canopy structure are defined. Boardmember Hirsch thought the fixed awnings would be the best way to go. Having the corner cut would be a good directional thing and squaring off the corner was not a good idea. Boardmember Hirsch was not happy with the existing extending metal pieces above the whole framework around the building. A translucent or textural glass would be a better way of fixing that. There would be ways of doing that with a consistent gutter below. Boardmember Hirsch advised looking into maintaining the eight feet walkway. Boardmember Adcock described concerns with the canopy design. Using gas to heat the exterior space does not meet ARB finding #6 standards. Boardmember Baltay concurred. Boardmember Adcock agreed with redesigning the seating area to maintain the 8-foot walkway. Whether the canopy is fixed or operable needs to be thoughtfully designed depending on the hours of operation and where shading will be necessary. The retractable enclosure does disservice to the overall shopping center and pedestrians. Boardmember Adcock wanted to see a mock-up of the scratch coat type of plaster. Boardmember Baltay added the canopy would not be needed in that corner for solar protection for dinner or evening activity. The roof structure would be needed to capture the heat and get the dining ambiance. The mechanical awnings will be an added burden. Keeping the curved canopy and attaching structure to give the roof design was a possible design solution. Boardmember Baltay wanted the architects to come back with a more refined design. Assistant Director Armer queried if the Board was asking for short or long-term bike parking. The Board expressed frustration about having past discussions about bike parking that had not been resolved. Ms. Harrison agreed to look into the condition at the left of the Anthropologie store entrance to see if adding bike parking is feasible. Boardmember Adcock wanted to know more about the global bike parking plan the City was working on. Ms. Harrison explained the focus is more on the long-term bike parking. The center has moved forward to secure a bronze certification for bike parking at the center. Page 6 of 11 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 5/15/25 Work is still being done with the Transportation Department to see what can be done in addition to that certification to make the center more bike friendly. Motion: Boardmember Adcock moved to continue to a date uncertain with refinement of the following items: 1. 8-foot walkway maintained between impediments on either side of walkway. 2. Recommend exploring alternative heating options rather than gas. 3. Revise patio enclosure and canopy to better integrate with the structure and be consistent with fixed or retractable. With the option to remove the upper canopy. 4. Provide additional information to fully describe the plaster finish. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Baltay. The motion passed 5-0. 3. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 340 Portage Avenue [24PLN-00322]:Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Major Architectural Review Approval for a Master Sign Program. The Proposed Project Includes Nine Signs. CEQA Status: The City Council Certified a Final EIR for The Project (SCH#2021120444) on September 12, 2023 (Resolution No. 10123). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Kristina Dobkevicius at Kristina.Dobkevicius@PaloAlto.gov Chair Rosenberg had no disclosures and had not visited the site recently. Boardmember Adcock had visited the site and her office is close to the site. Vice Chair Chen visited the site the day before. Boardmember Hirsch visited the site that morning and many times previously. Boardmember Baltay visited the site many times, most recently the day before. Kristina Dobkevicius, Associate Planner, provided a slide presentation about 340 Portage Avenue Master Sign Program including project location, materials, type EI – entry ID – qty 2, type PI – parking ID – qty 2, type D2 – directional wall – qty 2, type T1 – tenant ID wall – qty 1, type T2 – tenant ID canopy – qty 2, type PA and BA signs plus existing signs, compliance and recommendation. In response to questions posed by Vice Chair Chen, Ms. Dobkevicius replied one freestanding and one directory sign could be done if that was the choice. Freestanding signs are required to be under 5 feet in height. The frontage length will determine the size of the freestanding sign. There is no font size requirement for the directory sign. There will be one sign on the corner. The Cannery Palo Alto will be a primary sign but this can be replaced by a future tenant. Chair Rosenberg asked if a future tenant would have the possibility of leaving the Cannery sign and adding an additional sign above the doors of the space below the Cannery sign. Ms. Dobkevicius answered there is an opportunity to do so based on the wall size. Dustin Passalalpi added the idea is that if one tenant took it over, one sign could go in place of the property ID and potentially one overhead awning signs at their main entrance. The intent is that if there are multiple tenant signs they would be cohesive with each other and the Cannery sign would remain. Page 7 of 11 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 5/15/25 In response to Boardmember Hirsch’s questions, Ms. Dobkevicius replied parking was not discussed as part of this project but assumed it was assessed as part of the planned community ordinance 5559, 5596 and 5597. The parking signage is located above the parking entrances so it is directing traffic where to park. Page 10 shows the overall site plan with the signage locations. Parking is a separate structure. Page 10 of the plan set shows the covered parking garage at the western side of the site just above the building. On Park Boulevard, there are two entry ID directory signs. The original proposal from the applicant included signage along El Camino but it was within the easement area and not on their parcel so the staff was not comfortable approving signage located on a different property. To answer Boardmember Baltay’s questions, Ms. Dobkevicius responded the 340 and 380 Portage is between two busy roads so signage was indicated to direct people where to go to find specific businesses. Boardmember Baltay observed having signs like that in front of townhomes is confusing and asked why that was being allowed. Claire Raybould, Manager of Current Planning, explained signage is needed to provide wayfinding to appropriately access the portions of the center. Boardmember Hirsch agreed it is a disservice to everyone living in the townhomes but it should be dealt with as a part of the site planning for the housing itself. Chair Rosenberg did not think it is totally incompatible with the whole master plan. Having signage on Park pointing to the direction of the Cannery is appropriate. The concept that the tenant itself is on those signs is inappropriate. Ms. Dobkevicius stated there is an easement agreement with the property on the corner of El Camino and Portage for the future tenant to put a sign; however, City of Palo Alto municipal code sign ordinance does not allow putting outside signage. There is a provision allowing for that on shopping centers but there is a minimum of 50,000 square feet of retail space requirement which the current building does not meet. Ms. Raybould indicated Staff has expressed that signage not be supported and the key concern is that while they wrote themselves an easement before selling that property, the City was not a party to that easement. It is inconsistent with the code to have signage on that frontage and. It limits the potential for redevelopment of that property the way that the signage was proposed along that corner. There are concerns about how that might limit design potential for any future project on that property. PUBLIC COMMENT No requests to speak. Ms. Dobkevicius replied to Boardmember Adcock’s observations explaining the directional sign is approximately 2 square feet over the limit. There is an option to make it smaller or add an additional tenant name in which case 1.5 square foot will be added to the allowable sign area. The directional sign is supported because it meets the sign ordinance that says the sign shall be situated at least two feet inside the property line. Ms. Raybould added when the townhouses are built it will become another property but currently it is not and is being treated similar to the underlying land use designation. It is a mixed use site. It will ultimately become another property but for wayfinding purposes it is felt appropriate as part of the project as a whole. If it is approved as part of this project, the City will not ask to have the sign removed if it becomes another property in the future. Presumably if that parcel is sold, it would be an easement on that parcel. Assistant Director Armer added it would then be considered potentially existing nonconforming but would be allowed to remain or be replaced in kind. Page 8 of 11 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 5/15/25 Chair Rosenberg observed the Board did not have too many issues with the signs but the EI signs need to be revisited and rethought. Boardmember Baltay had issue with the orange color being out of character of the Cannery building and wanted to know what the design intent was. Evan Sockalosky remarked the color palette was intended to fit with the existing Playground Global as well as the overall project working with Sobrato and the City to get to this level. Boardmember Baltay found that the sign master program works. The colors, choice of fonts and character behind it do not match the historic character of the Cannery building. Chair Rosenberg had no complaints other than the tenant signs next to the townhouse is not acceptable. Boardmember Adcock expressed the EI.1 seemed unnecessary and in an unfortunate location. Ms. Raybould noted that the other side of the future park would have a bike lane through there. The EI.2 could not jump the other side of the road. Boardmember Baltay was comfortable saying those signs should not be allowed on El Camino and the signage should be in front of the building on their Portage Avenue frontage. That fact that it will be a separate parcel is something that can be used as a condition. Boardmember Hirsch thought the location of EI.1 is appropriate but the space around it relative to the housing should be designed appropriate for the signage and the housing. The EI.2 are less important. If it is not adequate to be separate from the housing by the location, that is the first mistake but eliminating the sign is not an appropriate answer. Vice Chair Chen agreed it is necessary to add the sign along the street to clearly direct people to go into the site and find the way to parking. Vice Chair Chen was reluctant to add the EI.1 sign between the townhomes. The EI.2 design is small and encouraged allowing them to make a monument sign for visibility. Boardmember Adcock pointed out a fundamental issue in that EI.1 and EI.2 are being asked to be put on a future separate property. There are residential and business area but that does not mean a sign for a business should be put in front of a residential. Boardmember Baltay mentioned in the future the sign will not only be on separate property but will direct people across one property to another. In the future, the townhomes will have something put up to prevent through traffic. The original intent was to have traffic come in off Portage, turn down along the side of the building and go into the back of the parking garage and not to cut through. Ms. Raybould spoke to points made by Boardmembers Baltay and Hirsch stating that there will be ingress/egress easements from Park Boulevard across these properties into 340 Portage. The area adjacent to the planned park will all be under public access easement making that street run through to Park Boulevard. She noted the applicant had expressed that the El Camino signs and the signs on Park were important to them to be able to find wayfinding. Staff could not justify the El Camino signage. The signage was much larger and there was not a development plan for those areas to understand what the potential might be and Staff did not want to limit that potential for that site so that was removed. The entry signs got smaller and were providing wayfinding in an appropriate way to 340 Portage. Once those Page 9 of 11 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 5/15/25 townhomes are developed, it would be hard to see the development at 340 Portage potentially and people need to be able to way find to the Cannery area. Ms. Raybould wanted to ask the applicant if having a sign to the Cannery would be amenable to them. The approach could have been taken to say it is going to be a future different parcel and therefore they could not have it but what exists today is one parcel so either approach can be taken. Providing the wayfinding to that area seemed appropriate and not like it directed traffic through there. It would be unreasonable to assume that no traffic for this entire site would come from Park Boulevard. Boardmember Hirsch agreed it should say the Cannery. The tenant name should be left off. Robert Tersini, Sobrato, said it was important to have the anticipation of having the new space tenant sign and Playground Global’s tenant sign on the signage, not just the Cannery. There is concern with visibility for tenants and for guests and visitors understanding where to go. The Cannery is a marketing name for the project not committed to having the Cannery logos anywhere on the building. Once it is occupied by the tenants, the Playground Global space will be occupied and then the newer renovated R&D space will presumably have their own tenant signage so the cannery will not mean anything from a naming standpoint. The intent is to have some ability to provide tenant signage on the frontages. Some public facing signage is needed once the townhomes are built that will only be out on Park Boulevard. Chair Rosenberg observed that embracing the history of the building and by celebrating what it is would benefit the applicant. The T1 signage should be kept and the tenants should have their own signs. Mr. Tersini indicated the Cannery will always remain but the building itself might not say the Cannery. The project will continue to be referred to as the Cannery. There are exhibits and an art mural underway celebrating the history of the Thomas Foon Chew family and historic relevance of the building. The intent is that from a wayfinding standpoint, the tenants and visitors can be directed where they need to go. Mr. Tersini replied to Boardmember Baltay’s questions stating the Cannery logo would remain. The idea is that the sign gets built and installed day one. There will be blanks below the Cannery and the logo that is existing. Tenant plaques will be plugged into the sign for their logo. Ms. Raybould responded to Boardmember Baltay’s inquiries by explaining it will be a public access over private property which is different than dedicating it as a public street. Boardmember Baltay took exception when the applicant said there is not public frontage for the business aside from Park and El Camino. Regarding Boardmember Adcock’s request for clarification, Mr. Passalalpi stated only the E1 directionals would have the Cannery along the side if allowed. The sign is 7.5 inches wide. Boardmember Hirsch remarked the letters being only 1.5 inches is minor. The signpost should be the Cannery and the Cannery Palo Alto is okay for the face of the larger type. Having a monument sign with the tenants would be fine once inside. Boardmember Adcock remarked if there is a monument sign that says the Cannery on Park would be no different than putting it on El Camino because it is a similar easement on another property. Vice Chair Chen felt it is appropriate to have the tenant’s name on the entry ID. The Cannery sign on the side could be enlarged to be more visible. Page 10 of 11 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 5/15/25 Boardmember Baltay opined that given how this is entitled, it would be reasonable to allow a directional sign on both El Camino and Park each at the end of Portage Avenue directing traffic into the Cannery. There should be just a directional sign to the Cannery, not individual businesses. The building itself needs signage that identifies it as the Cannery. He suggested designing a sign that would be appropriate to be within 10 feet of a townhome and would not affect the ability of a future building on El Camino. It was a special situation and would be fair to ask for special signs for this special campus and allow it on both El Camino and Park. Chair Rosenberg summarized the consensus: 1. EI.1 and EI.2 would have no tenant signs, be much smaller and would direct to the Cannery specifically. 2. The Board would like to get an EI.3 either on Acacia or Portage. 3. The TI.1 must remain as the Cannery Branding. 4. The Board would like to add a TI.2 to the opposite corner. 5. The Board encouraged a T2.3 above the doors going in. Instead of swapping the Cannery to being the new tenant, keep the Cannery and the new tenant should be above the canopy if there is a separate tenant. If there is not a separate tenant, it can stay blank. Boardmember Baltay did not support keeping a sign at location EI.1. Vice Chair Chen agreed with emphasizing the historic side. A monument sign would be more appropriate than a directory sign. It would be reasonable and appropriate for the directory sign to have the tenant’s name on it because the businesses would be in the middle of the other lot. The directory sign is for the visitors to efficiently find where the buildings are. Boardmember Adcock would agree if the property went all the way to Park in the long term as part of this commercial development. There is a demarcation of townhouse against Park. It provides direction to the commercial development but on the end of a townhouse property. With the future easement from the townhouse property, the Cannery sign is appropriate but not putting a tenant sign. Chair Rosenberg agreed it would be imposing on the people in the townhomes. Will Pike endorsed the concerns of Boardmember Chen. The property is a different development in nature than a retail focused, multi-tenant development. The proposed signage intends to focus on wayfinding and identification of the existing tenants. It would be an unnecessary use of space to brand a campus where they were not trying to draw in the public to a common amenity space. Having an interpretive signage program or something else implemented to describe that within the campus might be more appropriate. The colors were chosen because of the heritage of the development to give something warmer than the normal tech campus which might have cooler colors. Boardmember Baltay expressed disappointment with the way the applicant referred to the building as just another commercial building and expressed the historical significance of the Cannery. Mr. Tersini explained the comments made were not meant to be dismissive. The concern was of the project was in leasing the commercial and retail spaces of the building and having identity on a public street. The logo had been created in support of the Cannery and the intention was to continue to celebrate that with the ongoing operation of the buildings. Page 11 of 11 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 5/15/25 Motion: Chair Rosenberg moved to continue to a date uncertain subject to the comments made by the Board. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Hirsch. The motion passed 5-0 Approval of Minutes 4. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for April 17, 2025 Motion: Chair Rosenberg moved to approve the Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for April 17, 2025, as drafted seconded by Boardmember Adcock. The motion passed 5-0. Board Member Questions, Comments, Announcements Or Future Meetings And Agendas Boardmember Baltay pointed out that City Council is considering modifying the objective design standards for wireless communication facilities the following Monday night. Adjournment Chair Rosenberg adjourned the meeting at 12:30 PM.