Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-02-06 Architectural Review Board Summary MinutesPage 1 of 12 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 2/06/25 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MEETING MINUTES: February 6, 2025 Council Chamber & Zoom 8:00 AM Call to Order / Roll Call The Architectural Review Board (ARB) of the City of Palo Alto met on February 6, 2025 in Council Chambers and virtual teleconference at 8:48 AM. Present: Chair Kendra Rosenberg, Vice Chair Yingxi Chen, Board member Mousam Adcock, Board member Peter Baltay, Board member David Hirsch Absent: None. Oral Communications None. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions None. City Official Reports 1. Director’s Report, Meeting Schedule, and Upcoming Agenda Items Claire Raybould, Interim Manager of Current Planning, provided a slide presentation including upcoming/recently submitted items and 2025 meeting schedules. She noted Boardmember Adcock would be absent at the next hearing and asked to be notified of anyone else planned on being absent. Boardmember Hirsch queried if they could be involved in the discussion other than just make a presentation on the townhomes. He requested a checkup on the Nobu project. Ms. Raybould replied it was her understanding they came to conclusions with straw polls from the Board on all of the different items. There could be a level of discussion but it was noticed as an action item. They hoped to get a formal recommendation at the end of that from the Board. She believed the Nobu project was within the timeframe and she would double check the list to confirm. Chair Rosenberg declared she would tentatively be absent on June 19. She would confirm that later. She indicated the landscape format was easier to read. She inquired if June 19 was a City holiday. Page 2 of 12 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 2/06/25 Ms. Raybould answered the City got a floating holiday for June 19 and not all staff would be off that day. Action Item 2. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI‐JUDICIAL. 164 Hamilton Avenue [24PLN‐00287]: Recommendation on a Minor Board Level Architectural Review Application to Allow Façade Modifications to an Existing 10,150 Square Foot Office Building. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Existing Facilities). Zoning District: Downtown Commercial with Ground Floor and Pedestrian Combining Districts(CD‐C(GF)(P)). Chair Rosenberg asked the Boardmembers to affirm if they had visited the site or had any disclosures. Boardmember Adcock and Vice Chair Chen both reported having visited the site. Chair Rosenberg and Boardmembers Baltay and Hirsch all indicated having visited the site and having nothing to disclose. Nishita Kandikuppa, Associate Planner, provided a slide presentation for the 164 Hamilton Avenue façade modifications including the location of the project site, an overview of the project, images of the existing versus proposed conditions, key considerations and recommendation. Boardmember Adcock observed there were a significant amount of stucco joints shown on the drawings of the building but not on the renderings. Nicholas Tedesco, applicant, provided a slide presentation with the project location and context, project existing condition, project proposed design, materials and finishes and 3D views showing the materiality of the building in its context. PUBLIC COMMENT Martin Bernstein requested to not have the back alley blocked with construction materials or traffic control as a condition of approval. Chair Rosenberg had questions about the existing metal panel system on the upper level. She wanted to know if there was a reason why the front façade would have the grout lines reduced and the rest would remain. She asked for clarification on the aluminum panels near the front door. Mr. Tedesco answered the goal was to have as few joint lines showing as possible. He indicated they were only replacing the metal panels in the front. The intention was to paint the existing stucco. He stated the aluminum panels at the upper left of the windows would be painted a color that would match the modeled metal panels due to cost. They felt it was higher up and out of view. Vice Chair Chen queried if the two painted upper panels on the stairwell were recessed. Mr. Tedesco replied they were slightly recessed. Page 3 of 12 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 2/06/25 Boardmember Adcock asked if the intent was to have the same smooth finish where they were converting existing metal panels of the two different types to cement plaster. She wanted to know if having a tighter joint pattern on the right side of the building was intentional. She asked for details about the window colors and why they were removing a window. She observed the canopies were thin and asked if there would be any ribbing or support. Mr. Tedesco confirmed the intent was to have the same smooth finish on the existing metal panels. He stated the intention of the joint pattern was to simplify and have less joint lines where possible. The windows would be an integral color. The window removal was to help balance the façade better. The intention was to bring attention to the main portion of the façade and not the stairwell. The did not think it impacted the light level in the stair. They did not think the stairs would be used much as there was an elevator at the entrance. He indicated they would work with the fabricator on the canopies and would have more support if the fabricator felt it was necessary. Boardmember Baltay asked if the intention was to increase the height of the parapet wall on the third floor. He wanted to know if the windows were operable. He asked for details regarding the color of the horizontal metal finish of the stair tower and the windows. He asked if the brick on the second floor would follow the control joints. He inquired who the owner of the building was and what the use was going to be. Mr. Tedesco confirmed the intention was to line up with the interior window sills. He thought the existing building had a one foot solid portion of the parapet and then metal above. The upper level windows were not operable. He could not recall about the lower and mid‐level windows. He indicated the client did not request operable windows. The intention of the paint of the horizontal metal finish was to create one large shadow line out of the three windows. He indicated anywhere there was brick wall would have all new control joints. The large format stone slab on the lower level would be pulled off and redone. He stated all three levels would be redone. Levels one and two had brick and the third level had metal panels that would come off and be replaced with stucco. There would be control joints in the brick. They were not shown on the plans. The intention would be for them to match the ones in the stucco on the second level. He stated the building was going to be used as an office building. He believed it would be owned by an investment company. Boardmember Hirsch asked for details about the clear windows. He thought the raising of the parapet seemed like a good decision. He asked about the top mechanical area. He wanted to know what would happen to the metal canopies in the back. He thought it was important to have natural ventilation as much as possible. He observed an open deck on the third level. Mr. Tedesco explained the front portion of the building would be a reception space. The idea was to try to engage the street as much as possible. The interior program was meant to be an alternative space with a coffee shop vibe. He said the top mechanical area would remain the way it is and be painted to match the stucco. The goal was to hide it from view as much as possible. The metal canopies in the back would remain the same material but be painted to be less visual in the back. He indicated the open deck on the third level was a very small walkout. There would be a door that opened out to it for maintenance purposes. Boardmember Baltay questioned if they could feasibly have a condition of approval regarding access of the alleyway as requested by a member of the public. Page 4 of 12 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 2/06/25 Ms. Raybould thought that should be reasonable. Boardmember Adcock had questions about the windows on the right of the door on the first floor. She asked for details about materials on the sides. She did not understand where the steel plate cladding between the mullions would fall on the elevation. Mr. Tedesco confirmed the windows fully opened to the outside. He stated what was on the material board was a patinaed metal. He explained the steel plate cladding between the mullions was on the ground level and was the metal panels in between the windows. Yulia Korneeva, applicant, explained the detail was a carryover of an old design. All the windows, including the ones downstairs, were proposed to be fixed. Chair Rosenberg clarified all windows on the ground level would be fixed with the exception of the two operable doors. The elevation accurately indicated swings. She stated the 4 inch detail between the windows was between each fixed window. She asked if that would apply to the upper level windows and mullions, as well. Ms. Korneeva confirmed her comments to be accurate. She indicated the mullion was for an old detail that would not be used anymore and would be stricken from the plan set in the future. Boardmember Hirsch asked if it would be possible that the top window on the second level could be operable. Ms. Korneeva confirmed it would be possible but it would be pretty high to access. Mr. Tedesco said they would look into that. Boardmember Hirsch opined they should attempt to provide some form of natural ventilation in all rooms and it should be studied more. Boardmember Baltay supported requesting or insisting on the ventilation. He opined it was inconsistent that the ground floor levels were significantly vertical whereas the new windows on the second floor were wider horizontally. He advised one more round of design study on the window mullion patterns with an effort to make them operable and more closely scaled to what a brick façade building might have with a greater consistency. He questioned making all the windows fixed on the ground floor. He recognized privacy issues and suggested frosted glass or shades to allow some visual access to the street. He felt that design issue required more thought such as high awning transoms or a lower solid spandrel panel. He expressed the importance of activating the sidewalk and keeping a strong public presence. He advised considering the vertical element with a different treatment. He wanted them to consider painting the spandrel between the three windows a different color or redesign it. He suggested considering using brick lintels to treat the metal braces supporting the canopy. He recommended making the upstairs balcony a planted area. Boardmember Hirsch wanted to consider the possibility of having the windows more recessed or having planters outside in order to allow the opportunity to have an operable window while maintaining privacy. Chair Rosenberg felt they were asking the client and the applicant to go beyond their intended scope. Page 5 of 12 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 2/06/25 Boardmember Adcock explained how the wall of glazing operated would be a fundamental issue. She thought removing the sliding door in the revision made sense and having a row of planters would help make the separation to be visually connected while preventing the public from walking in but adding architectural interests to that streetscape. She agreed that the mullion pattern on the second floor required a second look for consistency. She acknowledged having operable windows was a significant cost but she urged the applicant, building owner and users to consider them. She urged the applicant to consider Boardmember Baltay’s comments about the canopy. She seconded the comment on the stair tower. Vice Chair Chen encouraged the consideration of natural ventilation especially for the upper floors. She advised reconsidering the molding pattern on the second floor. She felt the nature of the business would determine if the sliding doors were suitable. She thought having a planter would be nice for privacy and to soften the street view. She did not have a problem with the proposed materials. Chair Rosenberg expressed her personal observations stating appreciated the selection of materials. She thought doing paint instead of aluminum panels between the staircase windows was problematic and encouraged adding aluminum between them. She agreed with trying to recess the windows on the stairwell. She had no opposition to the storefront on the ground level. She encouraged them to consider a planter but did not agree with demanding it. She agreed that the second floor mullions were inconsistent with the first and third floor. She strongly encouraged natural ventilation where possible. She liked the suggestion of planters for the small walkout area on the third floor. She thought the increase of the parapet wall and the reduction of the railing was a clever design decision. She advised the lower window on the stairwell tower was not necessary. She appreciated that the stairwell tower was consistent with the third floor. She summarized the ARB’s observations as a whole by advising revisiting the second floor mullion pattern, the operation of the windows, the potential for planters, joint lines and the material between the windows on the stairwell. She added the structural canopies should be evaluated for secondary support. Boardmember Baltay pointed out that code required the street needs to be activated on the ground floor so he felt striving to meet that code on a renovation was appropriate. He advised putting a different mullion pattern in order to ensure privacy while giving the people inside the building the ability to keep the rest of it transparent. He thought the architect needed to do the job of trying to come closer to the current city standard of being a retail environment. He felt comfortable insisting that a building of this scale be required to have some natural ventilation on the upper floors. Vice Chair Chen asked for clarification if the project was required to have the ground floor be retail. Ms. Kandikuppa replied there was not a requirement for retail on this property. Ms. Raybould clarified there was normally a requirement to have ground floor retail but this was a nonconforming use that was continuing and they were not required to have a ground floor retail. They were not intending to design this to meet a certain requirement of the code. They had expressed that it would be a lobby area with a component of a gathering area for the office users. There were requirements to have visibility but not to how many openings or operational windows. Boardmember Hirsch remarked it seemed to him that it was more of a socializing space so would be less of a conflict with the idea having ventilation on that floor. Page 6 of 12 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 2/06/25 Boardmember Adcock agreed with Boardmember Baltay about thinking the function through knowing they were on a public street. Chair Rosenberg asked the applicant if he felt confidant they could come back with appropriate commentary for an ad hoc review on all the concerns the Board had mentioned to which he confirmed he did. MOTION: Recommend that the director approve the project subject to the following items to return to an ad hoc committee: • Revise the second floor mullion pattern modifications for greater consistency with the rest of the building. • Provide natural ventilation to the second and third floor. • Control joints be clarified at brick and stucco. • Consider adding planters to first floor and third floor. *Consider privacy issues with street level fenestration. • Reconsider treatment of the windows in the stairwell for a more 3‐dimensional expression (e.g. recessing or fins. • Evaluate whether the canopy will need struts at first and third floor. If support is needed it should be shown. Baltay, Hirsch seconded. VOTE: 5‐0 Chair Rosenberg and Boardmember Adcock volunteered for the ad hoc committee. 3. PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI‐JUDICIAL: 70 Encina Avenue [24PLN‐00095]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request to Rezone the Subject Property and an Adjacent Vacant Parcel to Planned Community/Planned Home Zoning, to Demolish a Surface Parking lot, and to Construct a New Three‐Story, 22,355 Square Foot Building with 10 Residential Condominium Units. Environmental Assessment: Streamlined Review in Accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 (Comprehensive Plan Consistency). Zone District: CC (Community Commercial). For More Information Please Contact the Project Planner, Emily Kallas, at Emily.Kallas@Cityofpaloalto.org Chair Rosenberg asked the board members if they had visited the site and had any additional disclosures. Boardmember Adcock had visited the site and observed the fencing had been improved since the last time she had walked by it. She met with Town & Country between the last meeting and the current time. Page 7 of 12 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 2/06/25 Vice Chair Chen visited the site before but not this time. She disclosed she met with the Town & Country people after the last hearing. Chair Rosenberg had visited the site and met with the Town & Country group. Boardmember Baltay visited the site and had a meeting with the Town & Country folks. He disclosed that they expressed a strong interest to look into developing the north portion of the Town & Country as a residential use. That was not previously known in the record. Boardmember Hirsch had visited the site many times so did not this time. He did not meet with Town & Country although he read all the letters that had been coming in. Emily Kallas, Senior Planner, gave a slide presentation about the 70 Encina Avenue planned home zoning with a background/process, prior recommendation, project location and overview, site and floor plans, side elevations, CEQA status – streamlined review, public comments received and recommendation. Chair Rosenberg recalled the Board had seen this project as a pre‐application and again as a formal submittal so this would be the third time they saw it but the second submittal. She also remembered that at the second hearing the Board was ready to recommend approval but had to wait for CEQA. Ms. Kallas confirmed the comments to be accurate. Boardmember Hirsch had inquiries about the garage and zoning. Ms. Kallas explained usable portions of the garage would be counted toward the floor area. The zoning code specified that the area used for covered parking would be exempt from the floor area calculation. That would be approximately 200 square feet per car. Jeffrey Galbraith, applicant, provided a slide presentation showing the façade, proposed plan changes of the ground floor and proposed plans of the second and third floors. PUBLIC COMMENT Dean Rubinson, director of development for Ellis Partners and Town & Country Village, indicated his organization had been working to explore the design and financial feasibility of a broader housing project in the north parking lot of Town & Country. The possibility of a combined housing project on all of the parcels in the north lot had been discussed. He stated they believed they would be ready to submit an application for a comprehensive project extending across the entire lot in the next few months. They believed a combined project would be best for all parties including the community and visitors to Town & Country Village and were eager to continue discussions. Herb Borock described reasons he opined it was premature to take action on the project which were an inadequate environmental document and the PHZ had not been adopted as part of the zoning code. Ms. Kallas explained the PHZ process was more specifically just the PC process. It laid out what the process for approving this project would be. It would include rezoning the property to a PC zone. The purpose of PHZ was a Council recommendation to include a higher level of affordability for these projects as a public benefit was a required part of all PC projects. Page 8 of 12 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 2/06/25 Ms. Raybould added that was referenced in the staff report. She clarified that the PHZ came from a recoining of the phrase “planned community”. In 2014, City Council made a motion to not continue to keep processing the planned community zone districts. In 2020, Council determined that this was a viable zone district that allowed for housing. In the City’s efforts to add more housing, they indicated they would start considering housing projects for planned community rezonings again but they indicated in their direction to staff in order to give some developers guidelines that if somebody was coming forward with a planned community rezoning for a housing development project, their expectation was to have certain criteria be met in terms of additional affordability requirements. The underlying zone district and process was planned community which was still set forth in the code and was never rescinded from the code. The project proposed to rezone through the planned community zone district. There were components of the project that did not meet the current underlying zoning but the purpose of the planned community zone district was to have Council and recommending boards and commissions help to create the guidelines and create the ordinance that would set forth the zoning and in doing so would align the zoning and make their motion to approve the project. The offset of that was to provide affordable housing as part of the project. Everything was set forth in a process in the code and the process and proposal were in alignment. Boardmember Hirsch inquired if there was a comprehensive plan that would have to be created for a significant development on this property. Ms. Kallas replied the Board was being asked to make a recommendation on the 10‐unit project that was before them. Ms. Raybould added there was no requirement for a comprehensive project that would align with other developments. The proposed project had development rights under their existing parcel. They were not required to collaborate with adjacent property owners in order to develop their site but they were asking for modifications to the standards to propose the project. She stated they were not required to have a coordinated area plan to develop a parcel. If a coordinated area plan was adopted, they would have to align with that coordinated area plan but development of a parcel and a rezoning did not require that they develop a coordinated area plan. There was a comprehensive plan for the City that they were aligning with. The CEQA analysis they prepared showed how the project would align with the comprehensive plan and the comprehensive plan environmental impact report that was prepared. Boardmember Baltay questioned what the process would be if other properties adjacent to this wanted to develop in a similar manner. Ms. Raybould replied it would depend on what they wanted to develop. Based on what was mentioned, presumably it would require a similar rezoning for those properties. It would not require a larger scale planning effort. It would be the City’s discretion to determine whether a coordinated area plan was required for an area and the City would have to have an adopted coordinated area plan in order to apply. She stated there were two parcels that were part of the proposed project that would be rezoned. Chair Rosenberg added that would require the project align with that in place before the applicant submitted for their project and since there was no coordinated area plan, they were not required to comply with one. Page 9 of 12 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 2/06/25 Ed Storm, applicant, indicated he told Jim Ellis he would consider working with him if there was a bigger project proposed. He recalled having approached Town & Country with this idea two years ago and they were not interested. He said that they were trying to use the Board as muscle to deny him this project so he would have to participate with them. He stated he would appreciate them going ahead with the project and the private sector could decide if there would be a way to merge the two properties. He would be glad to sit in on a study session and work it out but refused to do it under threat of them denying his project. Chair Rosenberg clarified it was the ARB’s job to review the proposal before them and reminded them they were ready to approve and were just awaiting the CEQA holdup. Boardmember Baltay had not seen anything in the environmental report that changed his previous position on this project. Boardmember Adcock wanted to understand what the note about the electric junction box and how it would interact with the sidewalk. Mr. Galbraith explained it was a flushed wall. They would be undergrounding a significant portion of the overhead electrical lines on Encina. When those move down below the sidewalk, they could only go so far before they needed to have a junction box. There would be some vaults along the sidewalk as part of that process. Boardmember Hirsch explained why it was his opinion that the project did not belong on the proposed site. He was impressed with Randy Popp’s letter and advised it should be read carefully. He mentioned comments in a letter from the lawyer who was hired to review the project and thought it should be read carefully. He opined the project should have been started with some form of coordinated plan. He did not understand why the objective was not to find a method to coordinate the ownership in order to be one project. He stated the property needed to have more density on it. He did not think there were enough lots in the City to solve the housing element and this property should go back to Council and they should reconsider a possibility of a denser project for the whole lot. He described how schematics could be presented that would show how the entry relationship to Town & Country would work within a larger scheme. Chair Rosenberg asked for clarification about the property owners of the multiple parcels. Mr. Rubinson explained other than the 70 Encina parcels, they leased everything else in Town & Country including the north lot from a single entity. Boardmember Adcock agreed that it would be fantastic if this was part of a coordinated area plan but it was not the project in front of them. The City could have zoning level decisions on how a property gets used. She stated to hold this project hostage for the dream of a future project seemed wrong. She remarked that if the project were approved but never got built, it would be fine if Town & Country, the current property owners and the applicant come up with a combined project. Vice Chair Chen agreed a coordination plan would be ideal but she thought they should focus on the package in front of them. She thought the applicant did all they could for the specific site. She did not think it was fair to postpone their decision. If the applicant and adjacent owners decided to make a big change and work together, that could be a new application for them to review. Page 10 of 12 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 2/06/25 Boardmember Adcock mentioned the current applicant had been working on this for two years at their cost and the sooner they could build this would be a benefit to the property. She did not think it seemed fair or to follow any ordinances or laws to not allow them to build this because their next door neighbor wanted to build something else. Without a coordinated area plan, the City could not stop this applicant on any legality and they had no reason to design‐wise. Boardmember Baltay shared Boardmember Hirsch’s sentiment, the applicant’s extreme frustration and Chair Rosenberg’s idea that they were supposed to follow what was in front of them. He thought they should recommend to whoever would be reviewing this that the building meets the required findings of the architecture review process, that they demolish the surface parking lot and that they consider rezoning the entire area of Town & Country and let them decide how they want this to go forward. Chair Rosenberg supported that idea but cautioned that they needed to maintain this applicant as its own piece. Ms. Raybould explained they could make that recommendation. When it went before Council, she thought they would be asked to make a recommendation on the application before them. If they agreed, they would provide direction to staff to proactively explore rezoning the property. If the Council was interested in it for the neighboring properties, they would be directing staff to explore that further. Ken Hayes, Hayes Group Architects, thought Boardmember Baltay’s comments were interesting and that rezoning the entire property as a PHZ at some point in time would probably make sense if there were a bigger project and more housing to accomplish but there was no guarantee Ellis Partners would attempt to do that or their lease would allow them to rezone the property. He suggested they could tell Council the project meets the findings and the recommendation would be for removal of the parking but also for rezoning of this particular parcel to PHZ so it could be finished and also consider the rest of the site as a future PHZ should an application come forward. He explained the reason they went to Ellis Partners in the beginning was that Mr. Storm was saying the whole site would be a great opportunity for housing. They put a plan together, presented it to Ellis Partners and there had been constant resistance for the last three years. He thought if Ellis Partners got their way, nobody would get housing and their project would fall apart. He thought they needed some certainty they could go forward. Boardmember Baltay indicated that Ellis Partners had explained to him that they felt it was clear in the City Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Designation for Town & Country that residential uses were not prohibited; therefore, going into that exploration did not make sense. He advised they should be strongly recommending that Council should consider rezoning the entire parking lot area for residential use. Beyond that, the Planning Commission and Council would have to figure out how to do it. MOTION 1: • Recommend approval of demolition of the existing parking lot and construction of the proposed 10‐unit 3‐story building. • Recommend approval of proposed rezoning to PC. Baltay, Rosenberg seconded. Page 11 of 12 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 2/06/25 VOTE: 4‐1, Hirsch no MOTION 2: • Recommend rezoning of entire north parking lot area, excluding the subject parcels, for residential use. Baltay, Rosenberg seconded. VOTE: 4‐1, Hirsch no MOTION 3: • Recommend Council reconsider this parcel in combination with other parcels that comprise Town & Country Shopping Center and defer decision on this project until such a plan is made. Hirsch, no second. Boardmember Hirsch reiterated he thought the project was an excellent design but should not be at that location. He felt even if the project was moved another 20 feet one way or was the other side of the entry to the shopping center would make a more sensible division. He stated the roadway into the shopping center would be compromised by the fact that the property was designed in a specific way with a strong presentation dividing the property into two pieces. Chair Rosenberg appreciated Boardmember Hirsch’s sentiment but disagreed on the Board’s legal purview on the subject. Boardmember Adcock agreed with the principle that if it had come as a larger project or with a coordinated area plan, they would all have a different opinion but agree it was not in their or City Council’s purview to reject their proposed project. Vice Chair Chen thought it made sense to just focus on the project presented to them. Boardmember Baltay remarked that Boardmember Hirsch’s comments were correct but the process was not working. He stated they and City Council were falling short of using the power of zoning to solve the housing crisis. Chair Rosenberg opined that if this had been thought of or presented by City Council three years ago, they would be in a different situation. Pre‐planning would have prevented ending up in this situation. If the project was going to be a problem out of the gate, it should have been presented to the architect and the applicant three years ago. Approval of Minutes 4. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for December 19, 2024 Boardmember Baltay questioned the bottom paragraph on packet page 113 stating “Vice Chair Chen preferred a 65‐foot limit” and did not recall her making that statement. Vice Chair Chen recalled that discussion and that she brought up that higher number. Page 12 of 12 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 2/06/25 Boardmember Adcock wanted to correct “December 5” in the first sentence to December 19. On the third paragraph of page 107, Michael Quinn’s letter was from Palo Alto Forward, not Ford. Chair Rosenberg stated the sentence on packet page 110, fourth paragraph from the bottom, “Chair Rosenberg clarified that the goal of the state density bonus” was meant to read “they were encouraging people to choose the Palo Alto Standards over the state density bonus”. MOTION: Approve the Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for December 19, 2024, with the minor corrections. Adcock, Baltay seconded. VOTE: 5‐0 Board Member Questions, Comments, Announcements Or Future Meetings And Agendas Chair Rosenberg announced that they wanted to make sure they had narrowed down the ARB awards list at the next meeting. She asked the Board to review their short lists and see if they had anything to put forward for that. Boardmember Baltay inquired if the new Mercedes‐Benz showroom was on the list of applications of possible buildings. Boardmember Adcock confirmed that was on her list and she intended to photograph it that week. She would be missing the next meeting but she would send photographs of the few projects on her list to Steven with her recommendations. Adjournment Chair Rosenberg adjourned the meeting at 11:59 AM