Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-06-06 Architectural Review Board Agenda PacketARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD Regular Meeting Thursday, June 06, 2024 Council Chambers & Hybrid 8:30 AM Architectural Review Board meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with the option to attend by teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safety while still maintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose to participate from home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe and participate in the meeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged if attending in person. T h e   m e e t i n g   w i l l   b e   b r o a d c a s t   o n   C a b l e   T V   C h a n n e l   2 6 ,   l i v e   o n YouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen Media Center https://midpenmedia.org. Visit https://bit.ly/PApendingprojects to view project plans and details. Commissioner names, biographies, and archived agendas and reports are available at https://bit.ly/paloaltoARB.  VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/96561891491) Meeting ID: 965 6189 1491    Phone: 1(669)900‐6833 PUBLIC COMMENTS Public comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or an amount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutes after the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance to arb@CityofPaloAlto.org and will be provided to the Board and available for inspection on the City’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you are referencing in your subject line. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson's presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. The Chair may limit Public Comments to thirty (30) minutes for all combined speakers. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak for Study Sessions and Action Items to two (2) minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers. PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted only by email to arb@CityofPaloAlto.org at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Once received, the Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. To uphold strong cybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storage devices are not accepted. Signs and symbolic materials less than 2 feet by 3 feet are permitted provided that: (1) sticks, posts, poles or similar/other type of handle objects are strictly prohibited; (2) the items do not create a facility, fire, or safety hazard; and (3) persons with such items remain seated when displaying them and must not raise the items above shoulder level, obstruct the view or passage of other attendees, or otherwise disturb the business of the meeting. CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL PUBLIC COMMENT  Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS The Chair or Board majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management. CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS 1.Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2) Tentative Future Agenda Items and 3) Recently Submitted Projects ACTION ITEMS Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Ten (10) minutes, plus ten (10) minutes rebuttal. All others: Three (3) minutes per speaker. 2.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI‐JUDICIAL. 640 Waverley Street [24PLN‐00064]: Consideration of a Major Architectural Review to Allow the Demolition of Two Existing Buildings on a 5,277 square foot lot and Redevelopment of the Site with a Proposed Four‐story, Approximately 11,403 Square Foot Mixed‐use Development with Ground Floor Office and Four Residential Units Above. Environmental Assessment: The City is Preparing Documentation to Support an Exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in accordance with Guideline 15183 (Consistency with an adopted Comprehensive Plan). Zoning District: CD‐C (P). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Claire Raybould at Claire.Raybould@Cityofpaloalto.org. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 3.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for February 15, 2024 BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS AND AGENDAS Members of the public may not speak to the item(s). ADJOURNMENT AD HOC COMMITTEE 4.300 Pasteur Drive [21PLN‐00235]: Ad Hoc Review of Modifications to the Approved Nursing Pods Project to Study Improvements to the Visual Interest and Materials At the Base of the Building’s Extensions. PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email, teleconference, or by phone. 1. Written public comments may be submitted by email to arb@cityofpaloalto.org. 2. Spoken public comments using a computer will be accepted through the teleconference meeting. To address the Board, click on the link below to access a Zoom‐ based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully. You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in‐ browser. If using your browser, make sure you are using a current, up‐to‐date browser: Chrome 30, Firefox 27, Microsoft Edge 12, Safari 7. Certain functionality may be disabled in older browsers including Internet Explorer. You may be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify you that it is your turn to speak. When you wish to speak on an Agenda Item, click on “raise hand.” The Clerk will activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak. When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. A timer will be shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments. 3. Spoken public comments using a smart phone will be accepted  through the teleconference meeting. To address the Board, download the Zoom application onto your phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter the Meeting ID below. Please follow the instructions above. 4. Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the Board. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted. CLICK HERE TO JOIN    Meeting ID: 965 6189 1491   Phone: 1‐669‐900‐6833  Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329‐2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARDRegular MeetingThursday, June 06, 2024Council Chambers & Hybrid8:30 AMArchitectural Review Board meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with the option to attendby teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safety while stillmaintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose to participatefrom home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe and participate in themeeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged if attending inperson. T h e   m e e t i n g   w i l l   b e   b r o a d c a s t   o n   C a b l e   T V   C h a n n e l   2 6 ,   l i v e   o nYouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen MediaCenter https://midpenmedia.org. Visit https://bit.ly/PApendingprojects to view project plansand details. Commissioner names, biographies, and archived agendas and reports are availableat https://bit.ly/paloaltoARB. VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/96561891491)Meeting ID: 965 6189 1491    Phone: 1(669)900‐6833PUBLIC COMMENTSPublic comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or anamount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutesafter the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance toarb@CityofPaloAlto.org and will be provided to the Board and available for inspection on theCity’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you are referencing in your subjectline.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified aspresent at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson's presentation will be allowed up tofifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking membersagree not to speak individually. The Chair may limit Public Comments to thirty (30) minutes forall combined speakers. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak for Study Sessions andAction Items to two (2) minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers.PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted onlyby email to arb@CityofPaloAlto.org at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Once received,the Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. To uphold strongcybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storage devices are notaccepted. Signs and symbolic materials less than 2 feet by 3 feet are permitted provided that: (1) sticks, posts, poles or similar/other type of handle objects are strictly prohibited; (2) the items do not create a facility, fire, or safety hazard; and (3) persons with such items remain seated when displaying them and must not raise the items above shoulder level, obstruct the view or passage of other attendees, or otherwise disturb the business of the meeting. CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL PUBLIC COMMENT  Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS The Chair or Board majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management. CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS 1.Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2) Tentative Future Agenda Items and 3) Recently Submitted Projects ACTION ITEMS Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Ten (10) minutes, plus ten (10) minutes rebuttal. All others: Three (3) minutes per speaker. 2.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI‐JUDICIAL. 640 Waverley Street [24PLN‐00064]: Consideration of a Major Architectural Review to Allow the Demolition of Two Existing Buildings on a 5,277 square foot lot and Redevelopment of the Site with a Proposed Four‐story, Approximately 11,403 Square Foot Mixed‐use Development with Ground Floor Office and Four Residential Units Above. Environmental Assessment: The City is Preparing Documentation to Support an Exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in accordance with Guideline 15183 (Consistency with an adopted Comprehensive Plan). Zoning District: CD‐C (P). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Claire Raybould at Claire.Raybould@Cityofpaloalto.org. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 3.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for February 15, 2024 BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS AND AGENDAS Members of the public may not speak to the item(s). ADJOURNMENT AD HOC COMMITTEE 4.300 Pasteur Drive [21PLN‐00235]: Ad Hoc Review of Modifications to the Approved Nursing Pods Project to Study Improvements to the Visual Interest and Materials At the Base of the Building’s Extensions. PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email, teleconference, or by phone. 1. Written public comments may be submitted by email to arb@cityofpaloalto.org. 2. Spoken public comments using a computer will be accepted through the teleconference meeting. To address the Board, click on the link below to access a Zoom‐ based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully. You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in‐ browser. If using your browser, make sure you are using a current, up‐to‐date browser: Chrome 30, Firefox 27, Microsoft Edge 12, Safari 7. Certain functionality may be disabled in older browsers including Internet Explorer. You may be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify you that it is your turn to speak. When you wish to speak on an Agenda Item, click on “raise hand.” The Clerk will activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak. When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. A timer will be shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments. 3. Spoken public comments using a smart phone will be accepted  through the teleconference meeting. To address the Board, download the Zoom application onto your phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter the Meeting ID below. Please follow the instructions above. 4. Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the Board. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted. CLICK HERE TO JOIN    Meeting ID: 965 6189 1491   Phone: 1‐669‐900‐6833  Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329‐2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARDRegular MeetingThursday, June 06, 2024Council Chambers & Hybrid8:30 AMArchitectural Review Board meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with the option to attendby teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safety while stillmaintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose to participatefrom home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe and participate in themeeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged if attending inperson. T h e   m e e t i n g   w i l l   b e   b r o a d c a s t   o n   C a b l e   T V   C h a n n e l   2 6 ,   l i v e   o nYouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen MediaCenter https://midpenmedia.org. Visit https://bit.ly/PApendingprojects to view project plansand details. Commissioner names, biographies, and archived agendas and reports are availableat https://bit.ly/paloaltoARB. VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/96561891491)Meeting ID: 965 6189 1491    Phone: 1(669)900‐6833PUBLIC COMMENTSPublic comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or anamount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutesafter the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance toarb@CityofPaloAlto.org and will be provided to the Board and available for inspection on theCity’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you are referencing in your subjectline.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified aspresent at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson's presentation will be allowed up tofifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking membersagree not to speak individually. The Chair may limit Public Comments to thirty (30) minutes forall combined speakers. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak for Study Sessions andAction Items to two (2) minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers.PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted onlyby email to arb@CityofPaloAlto.org at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Once received,the Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. To uphold strongcybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storage devices are notaccepted.Signs and symbolic materials less than 2 feet by 3 feet are permitted provided that: (1) sticks,posts, poles or similar/other type of handle objects are strictly prohibited; (2) the items do notcreate a facility, fire, or safety hazard; and (3) persons with such items remain seated whendisplaying them and must not raise the items above shoulder level, obstruct the view orpassage of other attendees, or otherwise disturb the business of the meeting.CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALLPUBLIC COMMENT Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker.AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONSThe Chair or Board majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management.CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS1.Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2) Tentative FutureAgenda Items and 3) Recently Submitted ProjectsACTION ITEMSPublic Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Ten (10) minutes, plus ten (10) minutes rebuttal. All others: Three(3) minutes per speaker.2.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI‐JUDICIAL. 640 Waverley Street [24PLN‐00064]: Considerationof a Major Architectural Review to Allow the Demolition of Two Existing Buildings on a5,277 square foot lot and Redevelopment of the Site with a Proposed Four‐story,Approximately 11,403 Square Foot Mixed‐use Development with Ground Floor Office andFour Residential Units Above. Environmental Assessment: The City is PreparingDocumentation to Support an Exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) in accordance with Guideline 15183 (Consistency with an adoptedComprehensive Plan). Zoning District: CD‐C (P). For More Information Contact the ProjectPlanner Claire Raybould at Claire.Raybould@Cityofpaloalto.org.APPROVAL OF MINUTESPublic Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.3.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for February 15, 2024BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS ANDAGENDASMembers of the public may not speak to the item(s).ADJOURNMENT AD HOC COMMITTEE 4.300 Pasteur Drive [21PLN‐00235]: Ad Hoc Review of Modifications to the Approved Nursing Pods Project to Study Improvements to the Visual Interest and Materials At the Base of the Building’s Extensions. PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email, teleconference, or by phone. 1. Written public comments may be submitted by email to arb@cityofpaloalto.org. 2. Spoken public comments using a computer will be accepted through the teleconference meeting. To address the Board, click on the link below to access a Zoom‐ based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully. You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in‐ browser. If using your browser, make sure you are using a current, up‐to‐date browser: Chrome 30, Firefox 27, Microsoft Edge 12, Safari 7. Certain functionality may be disabled in older browsers including Internet Explorer. You may be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify you that it is your turn to speak. When you wish to speak on an Agenda Item, click on “raise hand.” The Clerk will activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak. When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. A timer will be shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments. 3. Spoken public comments using a smart phone will be accepted  through the teleconference meeting. To address the Board, download the Zoom application onto your phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter the Meeting ID below. Please follow the instructions above. 4. Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the Board. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted. CLICK HERE TO JOIN    Meeting ID: 965 6189 1491   Phone: 1‐669‐900‐6833  Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329‐2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARDRegular MeetingThursday, June 06, 2024Council Chambers & Hybrid8:30 AMArchitectural Review Board meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with the option to attendby teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safety while stillmaintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose to participatefrom home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe and participate in themeeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged if attending inperson. T h e   m e e t i n g   w i l l   b e   b r o a d c a s t   o n   C a b l e   T V   C h a n n e l   2 6 ,   l i v e   o nYouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen MediaCenter https://midpenmedia.org. Visit https://bit.ly/PApendingprojects to view project plansand details. Commissioner names, biographies, and archived agendas and reports are availableat https://bit.ly/paloaltoARB. VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/96561891491)Meeting ID: 965 6189 1491    Phone: 1(669)900‐6833PUBLIC COMMENTSPublic comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or anamount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutesafter the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance toarb@CityofPaloAlto.org and will be provided to the Board and available for inspection on theCity’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you are referencing in your subjectline.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified aspresent at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson's presentation will be allowed up tofifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking membersagree not to speak individually. The Chair may limit Public Comments to thirty (30) minutes forall combined speakers. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak for Study Sessions andAction Items to two (2) minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers.PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted onlyby email to arb@CityofPaloAlto.org at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Once received,the Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. To uphold strongcybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storage devices are notaccepted.Signs and symbolic materials less than 2 feet by 3 feet are permitted provided that: (1) sticks,posts, poles or similar/other type of handle objects are strictly prohibited; (2) the items do notcreate a facility, fire, or safety hazard; and (3) persons with such items remain seated whendisplaying them and must not raise the items above shoulder level, obstruct the view orpassage of other attendees, or otherwise disturb the business of the meeting.CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALLPUBLIC COMMENT Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker.AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONSThe Chair or Board majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management.CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS1.Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2) Tentative FutureAgenda Items and 3) Recently Submitted ProjectsACTION ITEMSPublic Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Ten (10) minutes, plus ten (10) minutes rebuttal. All others: Three(3) minutes per speaker.2.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI‐JUDICIAL. 640 Waverley Street [24PLN‐00064]: Considerationof a Major Architectural Review to Allow the Demolition of Two Existing Buildings on a5,277 square foot lot and Redevelopment of the Site with a Proposed Four‐story,Approximately 11,403 Square Foot Mixed‐use Development with Ground Floor Office andFour Residential Units Above. Environmental Assessment: The City is PreparingDocumentation to Support an Exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) in accordance with Guideline 15183 (Consistency with an adoptedComprehensive Plan). Zoning District: CD‐C (P). For More Information Contact the ProjectPlanner Claire Raybould at Claire.Raybould@Cityofpaloalto.org.APPROVAL OF MINUTESPublic Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.3.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for February 15, 2024BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS ANDAGENDASMembers of the public may not speak to the item(s).ADJOURNMENTAD HOC COMMITTEE4.300 Pasteur Drive [21PLN‐00235]: Ad Hoc Review of Modifications to the ApprovedNursing Pods Project to Study Improvements to the Visual Interest and Materials At the Base of the Building’s Extensions. PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email, teleconference, or by phone. 1. Written public comments may be submitted by email to arb@cityofpaloalto.org. 2. Spoken public comments using a computer will be accepted through the teleconference meeting. To address the Board, click on the link below to access a Zoom‐ based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully. You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in‐ browser. If using your browser, make sure you are using a current, up‐to‐date browser: Chrome 30, Firefox 27, Microsoft Edge 12, Safari 7. Certain functionality may be disabled in older browsers including Internet Explorer. You may be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify you that it is your turn to speak. When you wish to speak on an Agenda Item, click on “raise hand.” The Clerk will activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak. When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. A timer will be shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments. 3. Spoken public comments using a smart phone will be accepted  through the teleconference meeting. To address the Board, download the Zoom application onto your phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter the Meeting ID below. Please follow the instructions above. 4. Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the Board. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted. CLICK HERE TO JOIN    Meeting ID: 965 6189 1491   Phone: 1‐669‐900‐6833  Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329‐2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service. Item No. 1. Page 1 of 2 Architectural Review Board Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: June 6, 2024 Report #: 2405-3080 TITLE Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2) Tentative Future Agenda Items and 3) Recently Submitted Projects RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) review and comment as appropriate. BACKGROUND The attached documents are provided for informational purposes. The Board may review and comment as it deems appropriate. If individual Board members anticipate being absent from a future meeting, it is requested that this be brought to staff’s attention when considering this item. The first attachment provides a meeting and attendance schedule for the current calendar year. Also included are subcommittee assignments, which are assigned by the ARB Chair as needed. The second attachment is a Tentative Future Agenda that provides a summary of upcoming projects or discussion items. The hearing dates for these items are subject to change. The attachment also has a list of pending ARB projects and potential projects. Approved projects can be found on the City’s Building Eye webpage at https://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning. Any party, including the applicant, may request a hearing by the ARB on the proposed director’s decision(s) within the 10-day or 14-day appeal period by filing a written request with the planning division. There shall be no fee required for requesting such a hearing. However, there is a fee for appeals. Pursuant to 18.77.070(b)(5) any project relating to the installation of cabinets containing communications service equipment or facilities, pursuant to any service subject to Palo Alto Item 1 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 5     Item No. 1. Page 2 of 2 Municipal Code Chapter 2.11, Chapter 12.04, Chapter 12.08, Chapter 12.09, Chapter 12.10, or Chapter 12.13 is not eligible for a request for hearing by any party, including the applicant. No action is required by the ARB for this item. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: 2024 Meeting Schedule & Assignments Attachment B: Tentative Future Agenda AUTHOR/TITLE: ARB Liaison1 & Contact Information Claire Raybould, AICP, Principal Planner (650) 329-2116 Claire.Raybould@CityofPaloAlto.org 1 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@CityofPaloAlto.org. Item 1 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 6     Architectural Review Board 2024 Meeting Schedule & Assignments 2024 Meeting Schedule Meeting Dates Time Location Status Planned Absences 1/4/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Cancelled 1/18/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 2/1/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Cancelled 2/15/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 2/29/2024 9:00 AM Hybrid Retreat 3/7/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 3/21/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Canceled 4/4/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 4/18/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 5/2/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 5/16/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular Rosenberg 6/6/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular Chen 6/20/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular Adcock, Rosenberg 7/4/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Cancelled 7/18/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 8/1/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 8/15/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 9/5/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 9/19/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 10/3/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 10/17/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 11/7/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 11/21/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 12/5/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 12/19/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 2024 Ad Hoc Committee Assignments Assignments will be made by the ARB Chair January February March April May June Hirsch, Adcock 4/4 July August September October November December Item 1 2024 Meeting Schedule & Assignments     Packet Pg. 7     Palo Alto Architectural Review Board Tentative Future Agenda The following items are tentative and subject to change: Meeting Dates Topics June 20, 2024 •3000 El Camino Real (1st formal) July 4, 2024 •Cancelled July 18, 2024 •Lighting and Bird Safe Glazing Ordinances •4075 El Camino Way (1st formal) •525 University Avenue/530 Lytton Avenue Master Sign Program (2nd formal) Pending ARB Projects The following items are pending projects and will be heard by the ARB in the near future. The projects can be viewed via their project webpage at bit.ly/PApendingprojects or via Building Eye at bit.ly/PABuildingEye. Permit Type Submitted Permit # Project Mgr.Address Type Work Description Assigned Ad Hoc AR Major - Board 9/16/20 20PLN- 00202 CRAYBOU 250 Hamilton Ave. Bridge On-hold for redesign - Allow the removal and replacement of the Pope-Chaucer Bridge over San Francisquito Creek with a new structure that does not obstruct creek flow to reduce flood risk. The project will __ Item 1 Attachment B-2024 Agenda and New Projects List 0606     Packet Pg. 8     also include channel modifications. Environmental Assessment: The SFCJPA, acting as the lead agency, adopted a Final EIR on 9/26/19. Zoning District: PF. AR Major - Board Zone Change 12/21/21 21PLN- 00341 EKALLAS 660 University Mixed use ARB 1st formal 12/1/22, ARB recommended approval 4/22; PTC tentatively scheduled June 2024; Council tentatively schedule August 2024- Planned Community (PC), to Combine 3 Parcels (511 Byron St, 660 University Ave, 680 University Ave/500 Middlefield Rd), Demolish Existing Buildings (9,216 SF Office) and Provide a New Four Story Mixed-Use Building with Ground Floor Office (9,115 SF) and Multi-Family Residential (all floors) Including a Two Level Below-Grade Parking Garage. Proposed Residential Proposed Residential (42,189 SF) Will Include 65 Units (47 Studios, 12 1-Bedroom, 6 2- Bedroom). __ Site and Design 10/27/2022 22PLN- 00367 CRAYBOU 2501 EMBARCA DERO WY Public Utility – Water Filtration Application Resubmitted 8/8/23; 11/2 ARB Hearing, Resubmitted 2/5; PTC recommended approval 2/28 ARB recommended approval 4/4; Council Scheduled May 13, 2024.- Request for Site and Design Review to allow construction of a Local Advanced Water Purification System at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP). The proposed project will include the construction and operation of a membrane filtration recycled water facility and a permeate storage tank at the City’s RWQCP to improve recycled water quality and increase its use. Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: Public Facilities with Site and Design combining district (PF)(D). __ Zone Change 1/19/2023 23PLN- 00010 EKALLAS 800-808 San Antonio Road Housing 8/17 ARB; Resubmitted 1/29/24; 3/7/24 hearing, 4/4/24 AdHoc, 4/10 PTC, 5/6 Council - Request for a zone change from CS to Planned Community (PHZ) for a 76- unit, 5-story residential building. 16 of the units would be provided at below market rate, 4 of which would be to low income and 7 of which would be to very low income. The building is designed as a 5-story building with four levels of wood framing over a concrete podium superstructure, with two levels of subterranean parking. Project went to a Council prescreening on 8/15. Rosenberg, Hirsch Reported out 5/4 Major Architectural Review 3/22/23 23PLN- 00061 EKALLAS 702 Clara Street Housing – 3 units No activity from applicant since November 2023; Request for Withdrawal or resubmittal sent to applicant. Request for Major Architectural Review and Individual Review to Allow the Construction of Three new two-Story homes approximately 1700sf Square Foot each, to be located on the same Lot, Subdivision Item 1 Attachment B-2024 Agenda and New Projects List 0606     Packet Pg. 9     Major Architectural Review 5/5/2023 23PLN- 00110 CRAYBOU 3000 El Camino Office NOI Sent 6/6/23; Resubmitted 9/25; NOI Sent 10/25; Resubmitted 1/24/24, NOI Sent 2/23/24; Tentative June 2024 ARB hearing. Request for a Major Architectural Review to convert an existing 10,000 square foot movie theater into new office space. Zoning District: Planned Community (PC-4637 and 2533). Baltay, Rosenberg Major Architectural Review 6/8/2023 23PLN- 00136 23PLN- 00277 (Map) 23PLN- 00003 and - 00195 – SB 330 GSAULS 3150 El Camino Real Housing - 380 units NOI sent 11/3/23. Pending Resubmittal. Request for Major Architectural Review for construction of a 380-unit Multi-family Residential Rental Development with 10% Below Market Rate. The project includes a 456,347 square foot apartment building with a 171,433 square foot garage that extends to 84 feet in height. Staff is reviewing the project to ensure the requested concessions and waivers are in accordance with the State Density Bonus laws. Rosenberg, Hirsch Reported out 5/4 on SB 330 Rosenberg, Hirsch Reported out on 8/17 Major Architectural Review 7/19/2023 23PLN- 00181 EKALLAS 824 San Antonio Road Housing – 16 senior units, 12 convalescen t units 12/21/23 ARB hearing; pending resubmittal. Request for Major Architectural Review to allow the Demolition of an existing 2-Story office building and the new construction of a 4-Story private residential senior living facility, including 15 independent dwelling units, 12 assisted living dwelling units and 1 owner occupied unit. Common space amenities on all floors, underground parking, and ground floor commercial space. Zoning District: CS (Commercial Services). ___ PC Amendment 8/9/2023 23PLN- 00202 EKALLAS 4075 El Camino Way Commercial — 14 additional assisted living units Community Meeting in October. 2/28/24 PTC hearing, second PTC tentative May 2024. Request for a Planned Community Zone Amendment to Allow New Additions to an existing Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility consisting of 121 Units. The New additions include 14 Additional Assisted Living Dwelling Units; 5 Studios and 9 One Bedrooms. The total Proposed 135 Units are for Assisted Living and for the elderly in need of day-to-day care for Memory Issues. Zoning District: PC-5116 (Planned Community). Baltay, Chen reported out 6/1 Master Sign Program 11/14/23 23PLN- 00308 EKALLAS 525 University Signs NOI Sent 12/15/2023, ARB hearing 5/16/24. Master Sign Program to allow for the installation of one illuminated monument, one illuminated canopy address, one illuminated wall property ID, one parking ID w/ uplight, one illuminated parking monument, one non-illuminated parking entry ID. Zoning District: CD-C (P) (Downtown Commercial). _____ Master Sign Program 11/15/23 23PLN- 00311 EKALLAS 530 Lytton Signs NOI Sent 12/15/23, ARB Hearing 5/16/24; . Master Sign Program for the installation of 1 illuminated monument, 1 illuminated address, 1 illuminated wall property ID, 1 ___ Item 1 Attachment B-2024 Agenda and New Projects List 0606     Packet Pg. 10     parking ID w/ uplight, 1 illuminated parking blade and 1 non-illuminated parking entry ID. This application is being reviewed along with 435 Tasso and 525 University. Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: CD- C (P) Downtown Commercial District (Pedestrian Shopping). Major Architectural Review 1/10/2024 24PLN- 00012 GSAULS 3265 El Camino Real Housing NOI Sent 1/10/24. PTC 4/10/24; ARB 4/22/24. Request for rezoning to Planned Community (PC)/Planned Home Zoning (PHZ). New construction of a 5-story 100% affordable multifamily housing development with 44 dwelling units and ground level lobby and parking. Zoning District: CS. Rosenberg, Thompson reported out 8/17 on prescreening plans Rosenberg/ Hirsch Streamlined Housing Development Review 2/15/2024 24PLN- 00041 CHODGKI 3980 El Camino Real Affordable Housing NOI Sent 3/15/24. Plans resubmitted-ARB Study Session 5/2/24. Request for a Major Architectural Review Board application to allow the redevelopment of the Buena Vista Village mobile home park into two parcels, featuring a new affordable housing development with a 61-unit multi-family apartment building on one parcel and a 44- unit, occupant owned mobile home park on the second parcel. Zoning District: RM-20 Baltay, Chen Major Architectural Review 3/6/2024 24PLN- 00064 CHODGKI 640 Waverley Mixed-Use NOI Sent 4/5/24. ARB tentatively Scheduled 6/6/24. Request for a Major Architectural Review Board application to allow the construction of a new four-story, mixed use commercial and residential building with below grade parking. The ARB held a preliminary review on 6/15/23. Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: CD-C(P). Rosenberg, Hirsch Major Architectural Review 4/02/2024 24PLN- 00100 CHODGKI 156 California Mixed-Use NOI Sent 5/2/2024; 60-day Formal Comments Due 6/1 Request for Major Architectural Review in accordance with California Government Code 65589.5(D)(5) “Builders Remedy" which proposes to redevelop two lots located at 156 California Avenue and Park Blvd. Lot A, 156 California Ave ( 1.14 ACRE) is situated at the corner of Park and California, Lot B, Park Blvd. (0.29 ACRE) is at the corner of Park and Cambridge Avenue; the reinvention of both sites will include the conversion of an existing parking lot and Mollie Stone's Grocery Store into a Mixed Use Multi Family Development. This project consists of three integrated structures; (1) 7 Story Podium Building with 5 levels of TYPE IIIB Construction over 2 levels of TYPE I Construction, 15,000 square feet will be dedicated to the Mollie Stone Grocery Store, (1) 17 Story Tower, (1) 11 Story Tower, both Towers will be proposed and Baltay, Adcock Item 1 Attachment B-2024 Agenda and New Projects List 0606     Packet Pg. 11     conceptualized as TYPE IV Mass Timber Construction. Environmental Assessment: Pending Zoning District: CC(2)(R)(P) and CC(2)(R) (Community Commercial) SB 330 Pre-app submitted 11/21/24 Zone Change 03/28/2024 24PLN- 00095 EKALLAS 70 Encina Housing- 10 Units NOI Sent 4/28/2024. Request for Planned Community Zone Change (PHZ) to allow construction of a new 3- story, 22,552 sf building (1.86 FAR); to include ten (10) residential condominium units organized around a common access court that provides both vehicular and pedestrian access and full site improvements to replace the existing surface parking area. Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: CC, (Community Commercial). ARB prelim held 12/7 Hirsch, Adcock Major Architectural Review 4/23/2024 24PLN- 00120 EKALLAS 762 San Antonio Housing - 198 Units NOI Sent 5/23/2024. Request for Major Architectural Review to Allow CA GOV CODE 65589.5(D)(5) “Builders Remedy" which proposes the demolition of three existing commercial buildings and the construction of a 7-story multi-family residential building containing 198 rental apartments. This is 100% Residential Project. Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: (CS) AD. Baltay, Chen SB 330 5/14/2024 24PLN-- 00145 CHODGKI 680 University Mixed Use- 110 Units and 9,215 sf of office Note: Submitted as an Alternative to 660 University Rezoning Project. Request for review of an SB330/Builder’s Remedy project that seeks to combine 3 parcels (511 Byron St, 660 University Ave, 680 University Ave/500 Middlefield Rd), demolish existing buildings (9,215 SF Office) and provide a new six (6) story mixed- use building with a roof deck (7 stories per building code). The proposal includes ground floor office (9,115 SF), multi-family residential (all floors), and a two level below- grade parking garage. Proposed residential (75,739 SF) will include 110 units (85 studios, 20 1-bedrooms, 5 2- bedrooms), and 20% of the total units will be provided as on-site below market rate (BMR) units. Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: RM-20. Housing- Streamlined Housing Development Review 5/28/2024 24PLN- 00152 EKALLAS 4335-4345 El Camino Housing-29 Units Request for Major Architectural Review to allow a housing development project on two noncontiguous lots (4335 & 4345 El Camino Real) including the demolition of an existing commercial building (4335 El Camino Real) and an existing motel building (4345 El Camino Real) and construction of 29 three-story attached residential townhome-style condominiums with associated utilities, private streets, landscaping, and amenities. Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: CS (Service Commercial). Item 1 Attachment B-2024 Agenda and New Projects List 0606     Packet Pg. 12     Potential Projects This list of items are pending or recently reviewed projects that have 1) gone to Council prescreening and would be reviewed by the ARB once a formal application is submitted and/or 2) have been reviewed by the ARB as a preliminary review and the City is waiting for a formal application. Permit Type Submitted Permit # Project Mgr.Address Type Work Description Assigned Ad- Hoc Prescreening Council SB 330 Pre- Application 07/07/2022 22PLN- 00227 23PLN- 00149 GSAULS 3400 El Camino Real Housing – 382 units Heard by Council on 9/19/22, SB 330/Builder’s Remedy application submitted 6/14/23, waiting for formal application - Prescreening for a Planned Housing Zone (PHZ) to build 382 residential rental units comprised of 44 studios, 243 one-bedroom, 86 two-bedroom and 9 three- bedroom units in two buildings. Zoning: CS, CS(H), RM-20. __ Preliminary Architectural Review 7/6/2023 23PLN- 00171 CHODGKI 425 High Street Commercial Preliminary Hearing Held 9/7; waiting on formal application submittal. Request for Preliminary Architectural Review to provide feedback on a proposal to add a new 4th floor (2,632 square feet) for either a new office use (existing hotel to remain) or to provide eight new guest rooms to the existing three-story Hotel Keen structure. Environmental Assessment: Not a Project. Zoning District: CD-C (P) (Downtown Commercial-Community with Pedestrian Combining District). Preliminary Architectural Review 8/29/2023 23PLN- 00231 CHODGKI 616 Ramona Commercial Preliminary ARB hearing held 11/2; waiting on formal application submittal. Request for Preliminary Architectural Review to Allow the Partial Demolition and remodel of an Existing 8,357 square foot, Commercial Building with the addition using TDR and exempt floor area earned from ADA Upgrades. Preliminary Architectural Review 12/19/2023 23PLN- 00339 EKALLAS 1066 E Meadow Private School ARB Hearing 1/18/24; pending formal application. Request for Preliminary Architectural Review to Consider the Deconstruction of an Existing 35,000 Square Foot Commercial Building, and Construction of a new 2-Story, 46,000 sf School Building. It Will Contain Classrooms, Administrative Offices, and a Multi-Purpose Room. Site Improvements Include Parking, a Play Area, and a Rooftop Garden. Zoning District: ROLM Rosenberg, Adcock Item 1 Attachment B-2024 Agenda and New Projects List 0606     Packet Pg. 13     Preliminary Architectural Review 1/25/2024 24PLN- 00023 CHODGKI 4335/4345 El Camino Real Housing Preliminary Review Application Withdrawn. Request for Preliminary Architectural Review to allow demolition of an existing commercial building (4335 El Camino Real) and an existing motel building (4345 El Camino Real) and to redevelop the two parcels with a 28-unit multi-family townhome style development project with associated utilities, private streets, landscaping, and amenities. Hirsch, Baltay SB 330 Pre- Application 2/15/2024 24PLN- 00047 CHODGKI 3606 El Camino Real Housing SB 330 Pre-Application. Request for review of an SB330 Pre-Application for a Builder's Remedy project consisting of construction of a 315-unit multifamily residential rental and condo map, to include five levels of Type IIIA construction over 2 levels of Type IA residential parking (with 388 spaces) and residential support spaces. The project comprises the following parcels: 137-08-016, 137- 08-070, 137-08-077, 137-08-079, 137-08-080, 137- 08-081, & 137-08-088. Street addresses include: 3508-3628 El Camino Real and 528-530 Kendall Ave. Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: (CN, CS,RM-30, RM-40) Neighborhood Commercial, Commercial Service, High Density Multiple-Family Residential, Multiply Family Residential, and Commercial Service. SB 330 Pre- Application 2/15/2024 24PLN- 00048 CHODGKI 3781 El Camino Real Housing SB 330 Pre-Application. Request for review of an SB330 Pre-Application for a Builder's Remedy project to construct a 169-unit multifamily residential rental and condo map project comprising 5-levels of Type IIIA construction over 2 levels of Type IA residential parking with 215 parking spaces and residential support spaces. The project includes the following parcels: 132-41-019, 132-41-020, 132-41- 083, & 132-41-084; and the following street addresses: 3727-3781 El Camino Real, 388-400 Curtner Street. Zoning District: (CN, RM-30,) Neighborhood Commercial, Multiply Family Residential. SB 330 Pre- Application 4/10/2024 24PLN- 00107 GSAULS 531 Stanford Housing SB 330 Pre-Application for a housing development project that proposes 30 new detached single-family homes and six new below- market-rate units in a standalone multi-family building on the approx. 1.18-acre project site at the intersection of Stanford Avenue and El Camino Real. 20% of the units would be deed restricted for Item 1 Attachment B-2024 Agenda and New Projects List 0606     Packet Pg. 14     lower-income households. Zoning: RM-30. Environmental Assessment: Pending. SB 330 Pre- Application 4/15/2023 24PLN- 00111; 24PLN- 00112 GSAULS 3997 Fabian Housing – up to 350 units SB 330 Pre-Application - Request for a 292 or 350-unit apartment development in an 8-story structure. Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: GM (General Manufacturing). Note: project has not changed but previous SB 330 pre-apps expired. Chen, Hirsch reported out 8/17 Item 1 Attachment B-2024 Agenda and New Projects List 0606     Packet Pg. 15     Item No. 2. Page 1 of 8 Architectural Review Board Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: June 6, 2024 Report #: 2405-3023 TITLE PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 640 Waverley Street [24PLN-00064]: Consideration of a Major Architectural Review to Allow the Demolition of Two Existing Buildings on a 5,277 square foot lot and Redevelopment of the Site with a Proposed Four-story, Approximately 11,403 Square Foot Mixed-use Development with Ground Floor Office and Four Residential Units Above. Environmental Assessment: The City is Preparing Documentation to Support an Exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in accordance with Guideline 15183 (Consistency with an adopted Comprehensive Plan). Zoning District: CD-C (P). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Claire Raybould at Claire.Raybould@Cityofpaloalto.org. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s): 1. Review and provide comments, then continue the project to a date uncertain EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The applicant is requesting Major Architectural Review of the proposed redevelopment of a 5,277 sf lot on the edge of the commercial downtown area to demolish two existing buildings and to redevelop the site with a proposed four-story, approximately 11,403 square foot mixed- use development comprised of ground floor office and three levels of residential (four residential units in total). The project also includes a below-grade parking garage for the residential units. An office use has been occupying the space for several years (since at least 2017). The project qualifies as a Housing Development Project in accordance with the Housing Crisis Act (SB 330). However, the applicant is electing to follow the Major Architectural Review process and comply with the context-based design criteria in-lieu of the objective design standards set forth in PAMC Section 18.24. Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 16     Item No. 2. Page 2 of 8 The City, acting as the lead agency in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, is preparing an exemption in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 in order to streamline the project in accordance with the comprehensive plan and associated EIR. BACKGROUND Project Information Owner:Linnovations, LLC Architect:Hayes Group Architects Representative:Mason Hayes and Ken Hayes, Hayes Group Architects Legal Counsel:Not Applicable Property Information Address:640 Waverley Street Neighborhood:University South Lot Dimensions & Area:51 feet wide X 105 feet long (5,277 sf) Housing Inventory Site:Not Applicable Located w/in a Plume:Not Applicable Protected/Heritage Trees:Existing street trees Historic Resource(s):Not Applicable (See further discussion below about adjacent historic resources) Existing Improvement(s):Two single-story wood-framed residences that are currently in office use totaling approximately 1,000 sf Existing Land Use(s):Two-family residential (640 and 646 Waverley Street) Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North: RM-40 (Multi-family and Office uses) West: CD-C (P) and PF (Mixed-use and Post office) East: CD-C and DHS (Category 2 Single-Family Home and mixed-use) South: CD-C and PF (Public surface parking lot and mixed-use) Aerial View of Property: Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 17     Item No. 2. Page 3 of 8 Source: Google Satellite Maps Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans Comp. Plan Designation:CD-C(P) (Commercial Downtown-Community with Pedestrian Combining District) Zoning Designation:Community Commercial Yes Yes Yes Baylands Master Plan/Guidelines (2008/2005) El Camino Real Guidelines (1976) Housing Development Project Downtown Urban Design Guidelines (1993) South El Camino Real Guidelines (2002) Utilizes Chapter 18.24 - Objective Standards Individual Review Guidelines (2005) Within 150 feet of Residential Use or District Context-Based Design Criteria applicable SOFA Phase 1 (2000)Within Airport Influence Area SOFA Phase 2 (2003) Prior City Reviews & Action City Council:None PTC:None HRB:The HRB reviewed an HRE for this site on May 25, 2017 Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 18     Item No. 2. Page 4 of 8 ARB:The ARB held a study session on June 1, 2023 to review a preliminary ARB review application for this project. A summary of key comments from board members and how the project has been refined to address those comments is included in the analysis. The HRB held a hearing to discuss a previously proposed three-story, mixed-use development with a basement for this site on May 25, 2017. At the hearing, the HRB discussed a Historic Resources Evaluation (HRE) prepared for this site and a development project. The HRB concluded that it agreed with the findings of the HRE that the site is not historic and discussed the proposed three-story development‘s context in relationship to the neighboring Category 2 historic structure. The three-story structure was never ultimately developed. The applicant submitted an application for preliminary Architectural review of the currently proposed project, which the ARB reviewed on June 1, 2023.1 Following is a summary of key comments from board members during that study session: •All board members recommended the addition of more natural materials to the design (wood, vegetation, etc.) and less concrete, especially toward the front, to soften the feel of the building and step down by material connection •Most board members asked for clarity/reconsideration of the trash room design and how residents are getting to the trash room •Board members recommended putting more thought into the treatment on the 636 Waverley side, particularly with respect to the privacy wall •Wanted more clarity on the basement parking, maneuvering, and traffic flow •Recommended further breaking up the stair tower on the south side •Noted that the rear façade on the commercial level seemed abrupt •Asked for a landscaping plan to be included in the formal plan set Project Description The applicant proposes to demolish the two existing single-story buildings, which have most recently been used for an office use and to construct a new 11,403 sf, four-story mixed-use building. The ground floor would include 2,369 sf of office and the upper levels would include four residential dwellings (9,033 sf). A driveway provides access to a lift that would lower cars to an underground parking facility, which provides six parking spaces (two of which are ADA spaces and therefore count twice toward the parking total). Parking spaces would be provided for the residential tenants only. In accordance with Assembly Bill AB 2097, no parking is required for either of the proposed uses. Vehicular access would be provided from Waverley Street. 1 Minutes of the June 1, 2023 hearing are available online at: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/architectural- review-board/2023/arb-approved-minutes-6-1-23.pdf Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 19     Item No. 2. Page 5 of 8 The property owner has not yet determined whether the units would be proposed for rental or ownership. If ownership is proposed, a Tentative Map and Final Map process would be required. Requested Entitlements, Findings and Purview: The following discretionary applications are being requested: •Architectural Review – Major (AR): The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC 18.77.070. AR applications are reviewed by the ARB and recommendations are forwarded to the Planning & Community Environment Director for action within five business days of the Board’s recommendation. Action by the Director is appealable to the City Council if filed within 14 days of the decision. AR projects are evaluated against specific findings. All findings must be made in the affirmative to approve the project. Failure to make any one finding requires project redesign or denial. The findings to approve an AR application are provided in Attachment B. Neighborhood Setting and Character The subject site is located within the Downtown Commercial Community (CD-C) district. Surrounding buildings generally range from two to five stories in height. The immediately adjacent mixed-use building to the west is four stories with two levels of office and two residences. A two-story single-family residence that is listed as a Category 2 Historic resource sits immediately adjacent the site to the east. To the rear of the site is a surface level City- owned public parking lot. Analysis2 Staff has evaluated the proposed project for conformance with relevant plans, policies, guidelines and regulations and found the project to generally be consistent, as detailed in this analysis. However, the plan sets are still being refined based on feedback from all departments and the project is currently being evaluated in accordance with CEQA. Therefore, this report does not include the proposed findings for approval. Staff will return for a formal recommendation following the completion of the CEQA analysis with draft findings for the decision. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans and Guidelines3 The project is designated Community Commercial (CC). The community commercial land use designation allows for mixed-use projects and states that “non-residential FARs range from 0.35 to 2.0.” The proposed mixed-use project includes ground floor office and multi-family residential uses. The floor area of the commercial use is 0.45:1. Therefore, the project is consistent with this land use designation. Residential uses, especially as part of a mixed-use 2 The information provided in this section is based on analysis prepared by the report author prior to the public hearing. The Architectural Review Board in its review of the administrative record and based on public testimony may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to make alternative findings. A change to findings may result in a final action that is different from the staff recommended action in this report. 3 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online: bit.ly/PACompPlan2030 Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 20     Item No. 2. Page 6 of 8 development, are encouraged in proximity to major transit stops. A complete analysis of the project’s consistency with the Comprehensive Plan objectives and policies will be included in the findings when the project returns to the ARB for approval. However, generally the project is consistent with housing element policies that encourage housing and is consistent with the various land use element policies related to high quality design. Zoning Compliance4 Attachment C includes an analysis of the project’s consistency with the zoning ordinance. The project is located within the Downtown Commercial Community Zone District (CD-C) as well as within the pedestrian (P) combining district. The project would be subject to the Objective Design Standards set forth in Chapter 18.24 of the code. However, the applicant has indicated their intent to forego compliance with Chapter 18.24 and instead comply with the context- based design criteria for the CD-C Zone District as set forth in PAMC 18.18.110 and follow the Major Architectural Review process. Context-Based Design Criteria An analysis of the project’s consistency with the Context Based design criteria is included in Attachment D. Overall the project is consistent with these criteria in that it provides a ground floor active use with attractive landscaping design along the frontage. It reinforces the façade at the frontage in a way that provides evidence of habitation with views into the balconies, but still provides privacy for residents. Revisions Based on Preliminary Architectural Review In response to recommendations from board members during the preliminary review study session, the applicant has made revisions to the plans. The project has less concrete and incorporates more natural materials and vegetation into the design to soften the look and feel of the building. A landscaping plan is also provided as part of the formal plan set. Although the trash room is still in the same general location, it has been redesigned to be code compliant, providing a separate trash room for residents and office users. Residents would need to use the elevator or stairs to access the trash room. Chutes are not provided and are generally not encouraged by zero waste for this size of building. The stair tower on the south side has been completely redesigned based on ARB feedback. Additional thought has also been given to the design on the north side to ensure privacy between residents while allowing for articulation in the north facade to avoid a solid concrete wall. Annual Office Limit The proposed project would be subject to the annual office limit under PAMC Section 18.40.210 because the project includes over 2,000 net new sf of office space, unless the applicant chooses to restrict the space to medical office or nonprofit office use. The annual office limit allows for up to 50,000 sf per fiscal year and allows up to 100,000 sf with a rollover from the previous year. Currently, there is 48,971 sf of office space that was rolled over from the fiscal year 2023. Therefore, the threshold for this fiscal year is 98,971 sf. Currently, the project and other known 4 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: bit.ly/PAZoningCode Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 21     Item No. 2. Page 7 of 8 projects anticipated within the 2024 fiscal year, if all are approved, would total less than 50,000 sf and, therefore would not exceed the threshold. Parking and Circulation The proposed project provides eight total parking spaces (six spaces, two of which are ADA spaces and therefore count twice in accordance with the municipal code). Under the City’s zoning ordinance, the proposed uses would be required to provide 16 spaces. However, under new state law enacted by Assembly Bill 2097, the City cannot impose minimum automobile parking requirements for residential uses and most commercial uses (including office) located within a one-half mile of a major transit stop. The site is located within 0.5 mile of the University Avenue Caltrain Station, which qualifies as a major transit stop. Therefore, no automobile parking spaces is required under state law for the proposed project, but bicycle parking spaces are still required. Parking that is provided is also required to meet California Building Code requirements for EV and ADA based on the number of spaces provided. The project is being reviewed by building and appears to meet the code requirements. A Transportation analysis is currently being prepared to analyze the proposed project and make recommendations, as needed, with respect to circulation and safety (ingress/egress, maneuvering, etc.) for the site design. Housing Accountability Act and Senate Bill 330 The proposed project qualifies as a Housing Development in accordance with the Housing Accountability Act and Senate Bill 330 regulations because the project it is at least two-thirds residential. The applicant has not filed a pre-application in accordance with Senate Bill 330. However, regardless of whether a pre-application is filed for the formal project, Senate Bill 330 also includes no net loss of housing requirements as well as any tenant relocation requirements if the existing housing has been used as residential rental in the past five years. Records from submittals to the City’s business registry show that the site has been utilized by the current office use for at least seven years. Historic The project site has been deemed ineligible for listing in the California Register of Historic Resources as detailed in the Attached Historic Resources Evaluation, which has been reviewed by the City’s Historic Resources Board. The board agreed with the findings of the analysis. However, the project is located adjacent to a Category 2 historic single-family residence on the City’s local inventory. The adjacent building, constructed in 1908, has been evaluated and found to be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places as well as the California Register of Historical Resources. As part of the CEQA analysis, the City has hired a consultant to review and evaluate whether the proposed project would have the potential to impact the historic status of the neighboring property. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Daily Post on May 24, which is 12 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on May 22, which is 14 days in advance of the meeting. Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 22     Item No. 2. Page 8 of 8 Public Comments The property owner of 1650 Waverley Street initially commented on the project and expressed concern about the project design, and more specifically how the location of the lift structure to the underground garage, would impact his property. The lift structure design has been refined in the current plan set and the neighbor has expressed that he is supportive of the design as proposed. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The subject review is being reviewed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Specifically, the City, acting as the lead agency, is currently preparing a 15183 exemption in accordance with CEQA, which includes an analysis of the project’s consistency with the adopted Comprehensive Plan and the associated Comprehensive Plan Environmental Impact Report. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Location Map Attachment B: Findings for Approval Attachment C: Zoning Consistency Analysis Attachment D: Context-Based Design Criteria Consistency Analysis Attachment E: Project Plans Report Author & Liaison5 Contact Information Claire Raybould, Principal Planner (650) 329-2116 Claire.Raybould@cityofpaloalto.org 5 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 23     6 7 Lanning Chateau Waverley Surgery_Ce Post Office 94301 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100 100.0' 30.0' 50.0' 150.0' 200.0' 200.0' 50.0 200.0' 500 200.0' 50.0' 200.0' 50.0' 200.0' 50.0' 130.0' 50.0' 130.0' 50.0' 100.0' 125.0' 100.0' 150.0' 125.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 150.0' 0' 150.0' 100.0' 230.0' 50.0' 30.0' 100.0' 200.0' 150.0' 150.0' 105.5' 150.0' 105.5' 50.0' 23.0'343.0' 193.0' 70.0' 193.0' 70.0' 193.0' 150.0' 218.0' 150.0' 218.0' 50.0' 105.5' 50.0' 105.5' 50.0' 105.5' 50.0' 105.5' 50.0' 105.5' 50.0' 105.5' 50.0' 105.5' 50.0' 105.5' 50.0' 218.0' 100.0' 112.5' 50.0' 105.5' 150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5' 150.0' 218.0' 100.0' 112.5' 100.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 100.0' 112.5' 100.0' 112.5'50.0' 105.5' 50.0' 105.5' 50.0' 105.5' ' 105.5' 100.0' 204.8' 123.0' 50.0' 218.0' 100.0' 112.5' 50.0' 105.5' 50.0' 218.0' 100.0' 112.5' 50.0' 105.5' 50.0' 218.0' 100.0' 112.5' 50.0' 105.5' 50.0' 218.0' 100.0' 112.5' 50.0' 105.5' 50.0' 218.0' 100.0' 112.5' 50.0' 105.5' 50.0' 218.0' 100.0' 112.5' 50.0' 105.5' 50.0' 218.0' 100.0' 112.5' 50.0' 105.5' 50.0' 218.0' 100.0' 112.5' 50.0' 105.5' 50.0' 218.0' 100.0' 112.5' 50.0' 105.5' 50.0' 218.0' 100.0' 112.5' 50.0' 105.5' 50.0' 218.0' 100.0' 112.5' 50.0' 105.5' 50.0' 218.0' 100.0' 112.5' 50.0' 105.5' 50.0' 218.0' 100.0' 112.5' 50.0' 105.5' 50.0' 218.0' 100.0' 112.5' 50.0' 105.5' 50.0' 218.0' 100.0' 112.5' 50.0' 105.5' 50.0' 218.0' 100.0' 112.5' 50.0' 105.5' 50.0' 218.0' 100.0' 112.5' 50.0' 105.5' 50.0' 218.0' 100.0' 112.5' 50.0' 105.5' 50.0' 218.0' 100.0' 112.5' 50.0' 105.5' 50.0' 218.0' 100.0' 112.5' 50.0' 105.5' 50.0' 218.0' 100.0' 112.5' 50.0' 105.5' 193 193.0' 10 130.0' 143.0' 130.0' 143.0' 130.0' 143.0' 130.0' 143.0' 130.0' 143.0' 130.0' 143.0' 130.0' 143.0' 130.0' 143.0' 130.0' 143.0' 130.0' 143.0' 130.0' 143.0' 130.0' 143.0' 130.0' 143.0' 130.0' 143.0' 130.0' 143.0' 130.0' 143.0' 130.0' 143.0' 130.0' 143.0' 130.0' 143.0' 130.0' 143.0' 130.0' 143.0' 130.0' 143.0' 130.0' 143.0' 130.0' 143.0' 130.0' 143.0' 130.0' 143.0' 130.0' 143.0' 130.0' 143.0' 130.0' 143.0' 130.0' 143.0' 130.0' 143.0' 130.0' 143.0' 130.0' 143.0' 130.0' 143.0' 130.0' 143.0' 130.0' 143.0' 650-654 661 635 690 675 734 724-730 720 712 704 360 35 332 653 -681 455 400 425 372 421 642 423 651 640-646 411 - 419 427-453560 650 636 628 385 365 375 380 345 664 325 25 635 43 400 683685 643GILMAN STREET WAVERLEY STREET TREET OREST AVEN UE EET FOREST WAVERLEY S PF CD-C (P) RM 40 RM-40 DHS Lot G Lot E PKG Williams This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Zone Districts Tree Current Features 0' 92' Attachment A: Location Map 640 Waverley Street CITY OF PALO ALTOI N C O R P O R A T E D CAL I F OR N I A P a l o A l t o T h e C i t y o f A P R I L 1 6 1 8 9 4 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto chodgki, 2023-05-23 10:24:11 (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) Item 2 Attachment A: Location Map     Packet Pg. 24     1 7 3 3 ATTACHMENT B ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL In order for the ARB to make a future recommendation of approval, the project must comply with the following Findings for Architectural Review as required in Chapter 18.76.020 of the PAMC. Finding #1: The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant design guides. Finding #2: The project has a unified and coherent design, that: a. creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community, b. preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site and the historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant, c. is consistent with the context-based design criteria of the applicable zone district, d. provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations, e. enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent residential areas. Finding #3: The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. Finding #4: The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and providing for elements that support the building’s necessary operations (e.g. convenient vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.). Finding #5: The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is appropriate to the site’s functions, and utilizes to the extent practical, regional indigenous drought resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat that can be appropriately maintained. Finding #6: The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning. Item 2 Attachment B: ARB Findings     Packet Pg. 25     Page 1 of 2 ATTACHMENT C ZONING CONSISTENCY TABLE 640 Waverley Street, 24PLN-00064 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.18 (CD-C DISTRICT) Mixed-Use Development Standards Regulation Required Existing Proposed Minimum Building Setback Front Yard None Required 5 feet Rear Yard 10 feet for residential portion; no requirement for commercial portion 1 foot for commercial; 10 feet for residential Interior Side Yard None Required 1 foot Street Side Yard No requirement 1 foot Maximum Site Coverage (building footprint) None Required 77.8% 4,104 sf Landscape Open Space Coverage 20% 1,000 sf 28.1% 1,484 sf Private Open Space 150 sf per residential unit (600 sf) 994 sf Maximum Height 50 feet 49’ 6” feet (measured to mid-slope) Daylight Plane for lot lines abutting one or more residential zoning districts or a residential PC district Daylight plane height and slope identical to those of the most restrictive residential zone abutting the lot line Not Applicable (No residential zone district abutting the lot line) Residential Density (net)40 33 du/ac (4 units) Maximum weighted average unit size 1,500 sf 1,390 sf Maximum Nonresidential Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 1.0:1 FAR 0.41:1 FAR 2,369 sf Maximum Residential Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 2.0:1 1.71:1 FAR 9,034 sf Total Floor Area Ratio 3.0:1 15,831 sf 2.16:1 11,403 sf 18.18.100 Performance Standards. In addition to the standards for development prescribed above, all development shall comply with the performance criteria outlined in 18.40 of the Zoning Ordinance. 18.18.110 Context-Based Design Criteria. Development in a commercial district shall be responsible to its context and compatible with adjacent development, and shall promote the establishment of pedestrian oriented design. Type Required Proposed Item 2 Attachment C: Zoning Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 26     Page 2 of 2 Vehicle Parking (within the Downtown Parking Assessment District) None required in accordance with Assembly Bill 2097 Per PAMC: 1/250 sf of gross floor area for a total of 10 parking spaces for office use and 6 for residential use 8 (including 4 standard and two ADA stalls*) Bicycle Parking 1/2,500 sf (40% long term and 60% short term) for office= 2 spaces (1 long term, one short term) 1 long-term space per unit; 1 guest space= 5 spaces Total Long Term: 5 Short Term: 2 Long Term: 6 Short Term: 4 (in public ROW) Loading Space None required None *Because ADA stalls count twice per PAMC, the applicant is indicating 8 total spaces on the project plans Item 2 Attachment C: Zoning Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 27     Attachment D: Context-Based Design Criteria 640 Waverley Street 24PLN-00064 Pursuant to PAMC 18.16.090(b), the following context-based design considerations and findings are applicable to this project. These context-based design criteria are intended to provide additional standards to be used in the design and evaluation of development in a commercial district. The purpose is to encourage development in a commercial district to be responsible to its context and compatibility with adjacent development as well as to promote the establishment of pedestrian oriented design. 1. Pedestrian and Bicycle Environment Project Consistency The design of new projects shall promote pedestrian walkability, a bicycle friendly environment, and connectivity through design elements This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project provides ground floor office use with an attractive landscaping design along the frontage and within the public right—of-way. The project provides bike racks near the building entrances for short term use to support the pedestrian and bicycle environment as well as at the ground level for officer users and in the parking garage for residents. Upper floor residential uses provide evidence of habitation that reinforce the frontage. Street trees and other landscape elements contribute to the streetscape environment. 2. Street Building Facades Street facades shall be designed to provide a strong relationship with the sidewalk and the street (s), to create an environment that supports and encourages pedestrian activity through design elements This finding can be made in the affirmative as the project is designed to allow views into the interior on the ground floor and provides glimpses into the upper levels to show evidence of habitation while maintaining privacy for residents. The façade is set back 5 feet to allow for landscaping, but the massing generally reinforces the street along the setback while giving deference to the historic property on the south side. The ground floor entrance is recessed but oriented toward the street. 3. Massing and Setbacks Buildings shall be designed to minimize massing and conform to proper setbacks This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project provides a five-foot setback to allow space for landscaping but reinforces the street, with massing focused toward the taller building on the north side and giving deference to the historic property on the south side. The design use materials or otherwise incorporates appropriate articulation that helps break-up the mass of the building. 4. Low Density Residential Transitions Where new projects are built abutting existing lower scale residential development, care shall be taken to respect the scale and privacy of neighboring properties This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project is designed to give deference to the single-family residential use to the south side of the property, which is also a category 2 historic structure on the city’s historic inventory. Item 2 Attachment D: Context Based Design Criteria Consistency     Packet Pg. 28     5. Project Open Space Private and public open space shall be provided so that it is usable for the residents and visitors of the site This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project provides open space with private balconies for the residents and an at-grade landscaping and walkways for residents and office users. 6. Parking Design Parking shall be accommodated but shall not be allowed to overwhelm the character of the project or detract from the pedestrian environment This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project’s parking is provided below grade. The lift system to enter the garage is visible, but does not detract from the pedestrian environment. 7. Large Multi-Acre Sites Large sites (over one acre) shall be designed so that street, block, and building patterns are consistent with those of the surrounding neighborhood This finding does not apply. 8. Sustainability and Green Building Design Project design and materials to achieve sustainability and green building design should be incorporated into the project This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project is subject to the California Green Building Code (CalGreen, Tier 2) and includes solar panels. o Item 2 Attachment D: Context Based Design Criteria Consistency     Packet Pg. 29     Attachment E Project Plans Project plans are available to the public online. Hardcopies of the plans have been provided to Board members. Directions to review Project plans online: 1. Go to: bit.ly/PApendingprojects 2. Scroll down to find “640 Waverley Street” and click the address link 3. On this project specific webpage you will find a link to the project plans and other important information Direct Link to Project Webpage: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Current- Planning/Projects/640-Waverley-Street Item 2 Attachment E: Project Plans     Packet Pg. 30     Item No. 3. Page 1 of 1 Architectural Review Board Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: June 6, 2024 Report #: 2405-3081 TITLE Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for February 15, 2024 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) adopt the attached meeting minutes. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Minutes of February 15, 2024 AUTHOR/TITLE: ARB Liaison1 & Contact Information Claire Raybould, AICP, Principal Planner (650) 329-2116 Claire.Raybould@CityofPaloAlto.org 1 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@CityofPaloAlto.org. Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 31     Page 1 of 21 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 02/15/24 4 7 1 0 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD DRAFT MINUTES: February 15, 2024 Council Chamber & Zoom 8:30 AM Call to Order / Roll Call The Architectural Review Board (ARB) of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in Council Chambers and virtual teleconference at 8:34 a.m. Present: Chair Peter Baltay, Vice Chair Kendra Rosenberg, Boardmember Yingxi Chen, Boardmember David Hirsch, Boardmember Adcock Absent: None Oral Communications Administrative Associate III Veronica Dao stated there were no cards submitted for public comment. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Senior Planner and Architectural Review Board (ARB) Liaison Claire Raybould indicated there were no Agenda changes, additions, or deletions. Chair Baltay indicated that Boardmember Hirsch would be making a comment regarding the SB9 policies under Board member comments on an upcoming meeting. City Official Reports 1. Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2) Tentative Future Agenda items and 3) Recently Submitted Projects Senior Planner Raybould reported that Chair Baltay will be absent from the meeting on March 21st, and there will be a retreat at City Hall on February 29th starting at 9AM until 11AM. Two tentative housing projects will be coming up on March 7th with a possibility of one moving to the March 21st meeting, as well as a preliminary review item being introduced for a twenty-eight multi-unit townhome development, a Summer Hill Homes project, at 4335 and 4345 El Camino Real. Senior Planner Claire Raybould noted that a formal application was filed for Buena Vista Mobile Homes and would be on the next agenda. Chair Baltay assigned ad hoc committees to Boardmember Adcock and Vice Chair Rosenberg for the 1066 East Meadow project, and Boardmember Hirsch and Chair Baltay for the 4335 El Camino project. Item 3 Attachment A - Minutes of February 15, 2024     Packet Pg. 32     Page 2 of 21 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 02/15/24 4 7 1 0 Study Session 2. Study Session to Provide Feedback on the Parameters and Concepts Set Forth for the Parklet Prototype Options and to Provide Input on the Recommended Outreach Strategy and Timeline for the Parklet Prototype Design Process Chair Baltay introduced the item and called for staff’s presentation. Ashwini Kantak with the City Managers Office proposed a parklet prototype design discussing timeline and review of the Stakeholder Outreach strategy, stating that on April 1st the Council will adopt a parklet program standard. Staff will defer enforcement from April 1st to July 1st, which will allow restaurants to take advantage of the prototypes, as well as approved shop drawings and user guides; this will also businesses the benefit to expedite review processes and save on design costs. Consultant Hannah Chan Smyth stated that in 2020, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the City implemented a pilot parklet program expanding outdoor dining opportunities in the downtown University Avenue and California Avenue business district; this allowed businesses to stay open during the pandemic. Currently there are twenty-seven parklets constructed in the Palo Alto area. Ms. Smyth noted that in 2021, Council directed Staff to develop a permanent parking program with input from the Architectural Review Board (ARB) and called it the permanent program to help distinguish the difference in standards from the pilot program; parklets are considered not permanent and are designed to be removed. On September 11, 2023, the Council adopted the permanent program standards and fees, and asked to work with ARB to create pre-approved parklet designs. The programs were permitted on University Avenue downtown and the California Business District, which included the car-free street portion of Ramona Street; however, it did not include California Avenue. The project objectives on the parklet prototype were to pre-approve parklet designs reflecting the Palo Alto brand that allowed businesses to have a streamlined approval process, and to create a user-friendly guide reflecting the designs and processes business can utilize. Three design concepts were: two parklet options having a wood and steel component for the roof, and one option without; modular parklet component kits and user guides included with different variations and sizes to meet what businesses needed. Per Architectural and Engineering consultation, it was recommended that they use a light-gauge steel option for the platform to allow prolonged durability. As directed by Council in September, the Beverly Hills parklet projects were used as an example, and that is what inspired this project’s design; excerpts from the design guide and the projected kit of parts modular design included in the staff report. Stakeholders involved with the project included the ARB, property owners, business owners, Palo Alto community, restauranters, and the City Council; once all feedback had been received, they will come back in May with draft prototypes and guides before being finalized in June. What changed between the permanent and pilot programs were the standard changes to setbacks, drainage requirements, enclosures, and the size of parklets; which resulted in existing parklets requiring modification to comply, and a feasibility study that had been conducted to estimate how many current parklets would be affected. Ms. Smyth mentioned some considerations to be made were the propane heaters being permitted under the permanent program with a Hazmat Permit and due to some requirements of the permit, it could deter businesses from using them, however, could provide an alternative option if they used an electric heater with required panel upgrade. Item 3 Attachment A - Minutes of February 15, 2024     Packet Pg. 33     Page 3 of 21 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 02/15/24 4 7 1 0 Ms. Kantak provided a material board and inquired about a possible ad hoc committee being assigned. Chair Baltay opened the item to Public Comment. PUBLIC COMMENT Karen Holman via Zoom commented she appreciated the work being done, however, there needed to be some type of standardization as the design had not appealed to the public. She was concerned an opportunity was being missed by not looking at the historic block on Ramona Street; iron railings would be an appropriate option for the area, which complemented the Spanish Colonial architecture style designed by Burge Clark and Pedro Delemos. She stated there were many resources that could be utilized when looking at designs, such as the furniture, colors, and lighting; plastic Adirondacks were an option, but she felt it was not appropriate for the area and asked for the consideration of location with a sense of place for the community. Chair Baltay closed public comments and opened the item for Boardmember questions. Vice Chair Rosenberg asked compared to the Beverly Hills design, what stage were they on with preparing the documents for the program. Ms. Smyth stated they were at the first stage and were looking for feedback to help move forward. Vice Chair Rosenberg inquired whether the existing parklets built during COVID would have a specific requirement to follow versus a new development in regard to compliance. Ms. Kantak responded that the adopted standards had a different clearance requirement due to safety reasons, and they would need to take down existing parklets to rebuild new ones so the preapproved prototypes would be helpful. Vice Chair Rosenberg questioned if the businesses with existing parklets would get retroactive approval by City Council, or if the new standards would need to be complied before. Ms. Kantak answered if they needed to tear down and rebuild, they needed to go through the review process and submit design drawings; if the prototypes were used, they hoped to get the preapproval by July, and would help the process move forward. Vice Chair Rosenberg asked if there had been a proposed timeline on the compliance requirements. Ms. Kantak stated that staff would propose phased enforcement to Council with the recommendation to defer the program from April 1 to July 1, 2024. Chair Baltay inquired what caused the incompliance of existing parklets. Ms. Kantak said the feasibility study done were related to the sightings of the area; the defined clearances now included the vehicular traffic, other parklets, parking, travel lanes and the distance from utilities; which gave insight to any major constraints. Item 3 Attachment A - Minutes of February 15, 2024     Packet Pg. 34     Page 4 of 21 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 02/15/24 4 7 1 0 Ms. Smyth added that the expected changes included the drainage modification under existing parklets and the safety and access standards to buildings included in the setbacks. Chair Baltay asked if the standards on restaurateurs that were created during the end of the pandemic will now change. Ms. Smyth responded that the standards the ARB made at the time had not been implemented, so the permanent standards adopted in September were the ones being shown. Vice Chair Rosenberg clarified that the feasibility study should show if the standards were too strict, and if there was a way to make changes without compromising public safety. Boardmember Chen inquired when the feasibility study would be done. Ms. Smyth answered that City Council would receive an initial draft this week. Boardmember Chen asked if a neighboring business were to take over an old space, would they be required to redesign and reduce the size of the parklet. Ms. Smyth stated a neighboring business had priority if they requested to utilize a space during the annual renewal point, and adjacent business parklet spaces would have to be modified. Ms. Kantak noted that there were provisions in the standards that said if a business used the space on street frontage, a process was in place that would allow a request to remove the parklet within a specific time period. Boardmember Adcock questioned if a neighboring business asked to revoke consent on a parklet would it also be applied for the year term. Ms. Kantak answered they would need to get back with the Board on the complete rules of consent. Boardmember Adcock asked if there was a reason why Palo Alto had three kit design options versus a full kit model to choose from. Ms. Kantak responded they needed to talk to Public Works Department to get the preapproval of the parts, and with the wood and steel options, they had six designs to choose from. Boardmember Adcock inquired if the approved drawings gave businesses the ability to go to any vender for the drawings. Ms. Smyth answered they are exploring the option of incorporating pre-manufactured parts, but if unable to do so, they intend to allow the restaurateur to take the required details and drawings to a manufacturer to have parts made. Boardmember Hirsch asked for the thought behind the design aspect of the Beverly Hills model, and if it had already been built. Ms. Kantak stated that the Beverly Hills model was a template example for Council and had one draft option adopted with the approval process but did not necessarily use the same materials or design, as they were waiting for feedback from the Board. Item 3 Attachment A - Minutes of February 15, 2024     Packet Pg. 35     Page 5 of 21 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 02/15/24 4 7 1 0 Ms. Smyth commented that they would be using Palo Alto standards that incorporated the drainage areas that Public Works and City Council had established. Boardmember Hirsch questioned what would happen if a parklet owned by a neighboring business changed ownership, and the new owners complained that the parklet was interrupting their commercial space. Ms. Smyth answered per Council direction, if there is a roof or sidewall encroaching on a neighboring business it required a letter of consent, but if it is not needed, there were no existing mechanism to dispute the parklet. Boardmember Hirsch inquired if it was the lease holder or the owner who signed for the approval. Ms. Smyth stated if a letter of consent were needed, the tenant would be required to sign. Vice Chair Rosenberg asked if there was a process in place for items not on the approved list that staff could add for preapproved products and brands. Ms. Kantak responded they would work with Public Works to see what different variances and unique designs would be allowed. Boardmember Chen questioned if the permanent program permitted the same allowances as the pilot program regarding restaurants, personal services, and retail businesses; and if so, why were there only three limited prototype designs. Ms. Kantak answered it was not mandated, and to allow the establishment to create their own design. Boardmember Adcock referred to packet page 27, the adjacent angle parklet eight-foot, and inquired if the three-foot setback diagram shown was correct. Ms. Smyth stated the eight-foot setback requirement between two parklets came out of a discussion staff had with the Fire Department, but if it were an angled parklet not adjacent to another space, it would be set at the three-foot setback. Boardmember Adcock asked if the parklet next to the existing one would need to be moved five-feet back to meet the eight-foot requirement. Ms. Smyth responded they would need further consulting with Public Works on that situation. Boardmember Adcock referenced page 32 and inquired if there was a headroom requirement versus a height requirement for businesses that applied for a permit, the building code had a seven/six minimum that allowed six inches to build a roof. Ms. Smyth commented that there were no headroom standards for parklets, only a minimum and maximum height standard. Boardmember Adcock asked for clarification on the difference between the material and structural sections that were referenced under Section C3 on page 33, and why it showed the materials being defined and not the structure itself. Item 3 Attachment A - Minutes of February 15, 2024     Packet Pg. 36     Page 6 of 21 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 02/15/24 4 7 1 0 Ms. Kantak clarified that it was a duplicate section, section C called for plywood, polycarbonate, or sheet metal sheeting. Boardmember Hirsch questioned how electric and propane heaters would be allowed with the materials proposed. Ms. Kantak answered if the restaurants had met the requirements, such as storage and proximity to flammable materials and had a Hazmat Permit, it would be allowed. Chair Baltay asked if a business on private property with an outdoor patio would need to meet the same standards and requirements for a Hazmat Permit. Ms. Kantak stated that was assumed since it’s considered a safety hazard. Senior Planner Claire Raybould mentioned the roofing requirements and standards were the same for private property. Chair Baltay inquired what electric options were available if a parklet wanted power. Ms. Smyth responded that a permanent light or electrical fixture would require an electrical permit from the City; an alternative option could be a Ground Fault Circuit Interrupter (GFCI) on the outside of the building which has a single wire run to the parklet. Chair Baltay asked if the standards previously installed were included in this proposal, specifically on how the power ran across the sidewalk and conduit color. Ms. Smyth referenced packet page 39, Item 2B under section D, Electrical Power Supply, and stated that the power cords between buildings and parklets shall be secured to one overhead guide wire between structures. Chair Baltay inquired why they would not have a power cord installed underground in a conduit below the parklet. Ms. Smyth answered the City did not want to tear up the concrete or curbs in the area. Boardmember Hirsch asked how the prototype would be developed and if the Board would be updated as it progressed. Ms. Kantak responded that they were scheduled to return to the ARB in May, and an ad hoc committee would be welcomed. Chair Baltay inquired if a design or historic resource review had been done to areas such as the Ramona Street District. Ms. Kantak stated they had not researched the historic elements with the three prototypes, as it was considered a separate work effort related to Ramona; the downtown had a historic and car-free nature and needed a different approach. Chair Baltay asked why they excluded California Avenue from the parklet program. Item 3 Attachment A - Minutes of February 15, 2024     Packet Pg. 37     Page 7 of 21 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 02/15/24 4 7 1 0 Ms. Kantak answered that the car-free portion of California Avenue was on a separate timeline and effort, and Ramona Street had been recognized and was considered part of the historic downtown. Boardmember Chen referenced Item 5F on page 33, and questioned if the 5% referred to the square footage or seat count in a parklet; and if it would be rounded up if needed. Ms. Smyth replied that it would be rounded up for parklet spaces and the page referred to the seating space. Boardmember Hirsch commented on the equal divisions of the parklets that allowed fire access shown on page 36, and asked if it would be a standard requirement to have fire access along the street, as well as if it would affect the modular development. Ms. Smyth stated that the images shown showed what may be required by the Fire Department if a business had a long parklet space; the smaller parklets at the eight-foot gap should be sufficient, and would not be needed. Boardmember Hirsch mentioned the Beverly Hills model did not show specifics on design or selection of planters, and if they were allowed. Ms. Smyth responded that the Palo Alto program did not currently allow planters, and were not part of the design, instead it would be an enclosed guardrail structure. Chair Baltay called to bring comments on Site Planning. Boardmember Adcock commented her concerns were on the parklet ownership and businesses that needed consent if there were over-lapping parklets and felt it would be problematic due to the one-year timeline; where the three-foot versus the five-foot is allowed and needed the consent, it would affect the site plan effort. She mentioned that with the three-foot space between the parklets, the twenty-feet maximum made the three-hundred and fifty square foot allowance invalid and questioned if that were correct. Ms. Smyth responded the three-hundred and fifty square foot parklet would not likely need to comply as had been previously answered, it was not a requirement unless deemed necessary by the Fire Department. Boardmember Adcock clarified that if it were to become a requirement, then the 350 square foot could not become the upper limit, due to the 20ft times 8ft limit of the parklet, and could not be a contiguous three-hundred and fifty square feet if made to break up the parklets every three feet; then asked if it applied to just the roof. Ms. Smyth answered that the 350 square feet were restricted to the parklets with roofing; anything above that required sprinklers and needed other requirements, and if it were an unroofed parklet, there would be no restriction on the size. Boardmember Adcock inquired if the three-foot gap shown on page 36 were for parklets with a roof. Ms. Smyth stated it would be a gap all the way through the platform to the roof. Item 3 Attachment A - Minutes of February 15, 2024     Packet Pg. 38     Page 8 of 21 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 02/15/24 4 7 1 0 Chair Baltay expressed the twenty-foot requirement was too restrictive, and to require a business to break up the parklet was unreasonable and unnecessary; he suggested a no square foot limitation. Ms. Smyth commented that they would talk to the Fire Department to see if any flexibility would be allowed. Manager of Current Planning Jodie Gerhardt inquired if the Fire Department was concerned about the business parklets close in proximity to one another. Chair Baltay questioned why an angled parklet and vehicle parking did not require the same guidelines for the three-foot gap regulation, and suggested it be made to a one-foot gap; in his opinion it was too restrictive at the three-foot. Pressure treated wood as well as steel framing should be allowed, as businesses tend to use less expensive contractors, which would restrict restaurateurs from building platforms. Boardmember Adcock noted that it included in the diagram that fire retardant was placed in parentheses and felt they should choose one or the other to be used by businesses. Chair Baltay commented that the existing building codes should be used, such as the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) code, and those requirements needed to be met; he asked what the surface material of the platforms needed to be. Ms. Smyth answered the material section listed what applied to the platforms, but currently the standards were not specified. Vice Chair Rosenberg noted on packet page 51 there were materials, platform parklet, potential construction, roof, enclosures, sidewalls, and furnishings listed, but nothing on flooring; she felt some were problematic and were in violation of code and needed to be regulated. Chair Baltay referred to page 30 on the load capacity being specified at 100 pounds per square foot and said the building code should govern what was allowed; the curb needed to ensure water flowed along the street. Ms. Smyth stated that to be accessible to business owners for easy cleaning, grates were installed over- top which allowed better water flow. Boardmember Adcock inquired if the screening around the outer edge of the drainage was protected as well as kept the parklet from blocking water to the drainage system, and if a minimum opening were specified. Ms. Smyth answered there was a six and a half inch minimum opening needed, and currently has a drainage component along the edge that runs parallel to the travel lane. Boardmember Adcock asked if a business were allowed to put their parklet over a storm drain inlet. Ms. Smyth responded that there was a five-foot setback requirement on a storm drain catch basin, so no. Item 3 Attachment A - Minutes of February 15, 2024     Packet Pg. 39     Page 9 of 21 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 02/15/24 4 7 1 0 Chair Baltay commented that if a business had a fifty-foot frontage that was two-thirds of the way in, it would be too restrictive to have a five-foot setback requirement, which made compliance nearly impossible. Boardmember Hirsch noted that it needed to be framed around the drainage separately and that would affect the modular construction. Chair Baltay stated that the kit of parts needed to ensure drainage and could be installed with two by six- inch platforms on the street. Chair Baltay discussed that a two-hundred lateral load requirement for the parklet enclosures were too large and would be difficult without heavy anchorage to the street; noting that some regulations regarding dimensions and loads were being used from the Uniform Building Code (UBC) stair and guardrail requirements, which were not pertaining to the parklets as it referred to the difference in grade elevation starting at thirty inches. The same applied on the forty-two inch minimum height that were set too high and suggested it should be thirty to thirty-two inches. Vice Chair Rosenberg added that the four-inch sphere notifications were not necessary as well. Chair Baltay commented that the regular building code should be applied if there were no elevation changes and if there were a grade change, then the whole code should be applied. Boardmember Adcock stated that she agreed the forty-two-inch height and 200 pound minimums were unnecessary but felt the four-foot spacing was an added safety to patrons with children while eating or walking along the parklets. Boardmember Hirsch responded that planters to divide the parklets and street would look better than guardrails. Chair Baltay asked for clarification if the planters were not allowed. Ms. Smyth responded that was correct, in September City Council made the requirement due to Traffic Safety concerns. Chair Baltay stated that planters were needed to make this project suitable and would be further discussed; the forty-two-inch height requirement for the parklet enclosures were blocking public views to the scenery and it needed a visual connection to the area around the public included. Boardmember Adcock mentioned that the Beverly Hills guide used the 200 pound and four inches with a thirty-six inch to four foot maximum on a thirty-eight-inch height limit. Chair Baltay responded that calculations and requirements would be difficult for a small business to attain. Boardmember Adcock commented that they provided calculations for handrails and guardrails, but if a business were not attached to the ground, it would be difficult to provide. Ms. Smyth stated that the reason for the prototype program were to have calculations done beforehand and would be included in the shop drawings and pre-approved permit to negate business owners that needed to find engineers. Item 3 Attachment A - Minutes of February 15, 2024     Packet Pg. 40     Page 10 of 21 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 02/15/24 4 7 1 0 Vice Chair Rosenberg asked if there was a continuous system from platform through railing to roof that was set and pre-approved in the kits, and if a specific type and function of said railings were included as well as compliant to safety concerns. Chair Baltay referred to page 36, comment C on design of enclosures, which said: parklets shall integrate or incorporate vegetation into the enclosure treatment; he noted section I, which discussed plant material and asked why it had been added to the guide even though not allowed, and if it were City Council’s regulation. Ms. Smyth responded yes, it related to Traffic Safety and was implemented by Council. Boardmember Hirsch added that if only code issues were answered, it would not meet the aesthetic of the environment they wanted to attain. Boardmember Chen noted that an element previously discussed pertained to the shading, and if retractable or removable shadings would be allowed on outdoor parklets; and questioned what had been decided about them. Chair Baltay responded that it was an issue between the safety enclosures and roofs, as restaurateurs wanted areas with glass pieces that blocked the wind and sunlight, such as drop-down shades. Vice Chair Rosenberg noted that on packet page 37, it said: four side-walled parklets may include hard transparent screens between enclosures and roofs to provide wind screens and must have complete transparent and non-obstructing sidelines from the travel lane to sidewalk; it included what materials were not permitted, and that side-walls were not allowed in front of neighboring storefronts without letter of consent; she questioned what would apply if a business did not have a roof. Chair Baltay noted that even blocking traffic sight lines, the ARB felt as a balance between utility and benefit, retractable or adjustable awnings were also a reasonable choice. Chair Baltay discussed that the seven by six-foot minimum height requirement should be governed by the code, and from a zoning and planning point of view the total overall height were a concern and needed to stay to a maximum height allowance; and asked why a minimum height limitation was necessary. Vice Chair Rosenberg answered one was not needed, as the building code stated seven by six foot minimum for convenience in order to meet compliance. Boardmember Hirsch inquired how the engineers would meet requirements if they used the kit of parts. Chair Baltay commented that the kit of parts needed to specify a range of heights and the engineer would need to meet the maximum height; he felt the twelve-foot maximum was too out of scale. Vice Chair Rosenberg questioned whether the shed type of prototype was the only style allowed, or if a flat trellis style would be available; if no sloped roofs were on the enclosure, the height limit could be lowered. Boardmember Adcock stated that if the ten-foot maximum height were implemented, it would conflict with the eight-inch side wall; the twelve-foot height maximum would be suitable for most metal shed style prototypes. Item 3 Attachment A - Minutes of February 15, 2024     Packet Pg. 41     Page 11 of 21 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 02/15/24 4 7 1 0 Chair Baltay requested clarification on reasonable visual sights of the enclosures from the street front. Senior Planner Claire Raybould stated that a shed or flat roof design would be possible if less than twelve feet and asked if the ARB wanted multiple design options. Chair Baltay answered that he would like to see different design options as they wanted to eliminate a vinyl pitched tent roof structure, and the height limit should be measured from the sidewalk at a maximum of eleven foot. Senior Planner Claire Raybould questioned whether the eleven-foot height was measured from the sidewalk or street. Ms. Smyth responded that due to being premanufactured, the best way for it to be measured would be by the platform height. Chair Baltay commented that the painted plywood for the roof should be up to merchants regarding what materials were used. Boardmember Hirsch questioned if the building sat at the eleven-foot height maximum, would an over- hanging roof be allowed, and how would the gutter drainage affect the façade to the roof. Chair Baltay asked if drainage systems and downspouts would be required if the parklet had an over- hanging roof. Ms. Smyth answered that gutters and leaders were required. Boardmember Chen inquired how far the over-hang requirement allowed. Ms. Smyth referred to packet page 32 and said the roof’s outer edges along the travel lane may extend six inches beyond the parklet footprint of eight foot or above. Chair Baltay questioned what would happen if the roof overhang extended beyond the parklet and they left the roof-overhang fall within the allowed for the space. Boardmember Adcock clarified that it allowed six inches into the two-foot section. Chair Baltay asked if the enclosure wall were brought back by six inches, would the businesses be allowed more than the six-inch roof overhang, and commented the six-inch roof over-hang should not be specified. Boardmember Adcock inquired as to why Item 6 in the guideline said that rain leaders and gutters were required if the parklets were small enclosures. Ms. Smyth responded they would take note of the guidelines. Vice Chair Rosenberg added that the ARB standards set on materials from previous projects should be applied such as the vinal roofs and loose fabric not being allowed, and the painted plywood not being feasible; and suggested there should be more options. Chair Baltay inquired if the Board wanted to implement a restriction on materials used for aesthetic reasons. Item 3 Attachment A - Minutes of February 15, 2024     Packet Pg. 42     Page 12 of 21 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 02/15/24 4 7 1 0 Boardmember Adcock clarified if that were strictly for the painted plywood, or if a variety of other sheet wood materials were included as well. Boardmember Hirsch asked if it would be wood or metal column structures and commented it would look appropriate as a metal structure with corrugated roofing on the street front. Vice Chair Rosenberg commented that the painted plywood was not up to ARB standards and the choice on roofing needed restriction. Boardmember Hirsch stated that the prototype needed to determine a starting point, and to let the individual business choose their own designs after being approved. Boardmember Adcock questioned whether the regulation would pertain to the function of shedding versus sieving of water in the gutters, the material used for the roof, or the look of the drainage and leads; or if all of them at once. Chair Baltay replied that the building code had detailed codes that should decide the functionality, and that there were requirements on site drainage, but buildings could be designed without gutters. Boardmember Adcock added that without gutters the parklet needed a sloped roof. Boardmember Hirsch disagreed with the metal gutter drainage and commented that recommendations should be made regarding the materials used on parklet roofing. Chair Baltay inquired the Board for comments regarding the propane and electric heaters. Boardmember Adcock commented that the requirements in place made it impossible for propane heaters to be approved in parklets. Chair Baltay mentioned that the merchants may be dissatisfied with the decision, but the ARB felt it was the right choice. Chair Baltay asked for input from Board members on the string lighting or electrical requirements. Vice Chair Rosenberg stated that if a business wanted to install lighting and had upgraded the electrical panels to code, they should be allowed to choose what they wanted. Boardmember Adcock inquired how much of a permanent structure should be allowed since the parklet was an annual permitted space on public property. Vice Chair Rosenberg replied that it should be as permanent as the roof structure itself. Chair Baltay commented that if the only permitted items allowed such as string lights, solar powered cords, and battery powered table lights, it would be too restrictive; and stated that this excluded permanent lighting. Vice Chair Rosenberg responded she did, and that the prefabricated had built in lighting, and they should not be prohibited. Ms. Smyth noted that page 40 showed an outline of standards for lighting, and if a business wanted permanent lighting, they would follow the appropriate permitting process. Item 3 Attachment A - Minutes of February 15, 2024     Packet Pg. 43     Page 13 of 21 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 02/15/24 4 7 1 0 Chair Baltay commented that any lighting allowed by code should be permitted, with an exception to Traffic Safety issues. Chair Baltay inquired if the use of amplified sound and television sets were allowed in the parklets, such as someone using a microphone for a live performance. Ms. Smyth answered that they were not permitted if associated with the parklet and was unsure of street performers. Boardmember Adcock indicated that the wattage being limited was excessive, but asked if any permit processes were required for parklet lighting as a stand-alone; separate from the business itself based on Title 24. Ms. Smyth stated that a single wire connected to the outside of the building was permitted along the parklet; if the parklet were to obtain an electrical permit separately, it would go through a different process. Senior Planner Claire Raybould noted that in the report, the color temperature and Kelvin lighting generally aligned with the Dark Skies ordinance. Boardmember Hirsch commented that the plastic furnishings should be eliminated. Chair Baltay asked Staff what were required and allowed on private property for site furnishings. Senior Planner Claire Raybould replied they followed the Architectural Review guidelines; if visible to the public they looked at what was proposed to the consistency in material, durability, and style, and if not visible to the public they were not as concerned. Chair Baltay stated that he did not favor site furnishings requirements, and they had the potential to hurt a business if forced to choose more expensive items. Vice Chair Rosenberg noted that if the furniture were not favored by the public, it would hinder the businesses. Boardmember Hirsch showed concern on how a business would attach an added structure to the ceiling if not planned in the prototype. Boardmember Adcock requested clarification if that included banners. Boardmember Hirsch replied if they had chosen to make the parklet stand out from others and added a solid ceiling or a different ceiling structure design. Chair Baltay referred to page 18 with the recommended prototype designs and five listed components: platform, flooring, enclosures, sidewalls, posts and roof. He proposed three element prototypes that included platforms and floorings, enclosures and sidewalls, and the roof; stating that the kit of parts should have included options from each category. The platform and flooring should have a wood and steel structure option included, with the surface platforms having a choice of materials approved by code, as well as planters and steel or solid railings added to the enclosures with metal designs or wood structures for the roof that gave the businesses freedom to mix and match options to choose from. Item 3 Attachment A - Minutes of February 15, 2024     Packet Pg. 44     Page 14 of 21 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 02/15/24 4 7 1 0 Vice Chair Rosenberg asked for clarification on if the kit of parts were an expedited review or if all items included were preapproved, as well as if the pre-designed components were necessary if the kit of parts were made to be hyper efficient in the prototype process. Ms. Smyth responded that the Beverly Hills program was designed with a pre-approved interchangeable kit of parts that were combined in many ways and waited for ARB feedback on which route to follow. Boardmember Adcock noted that having too many items to choose from could strain the City on what would be approved and permitted but felt the set of pre-approved components were unnecessary and businesses should have had more options allowed. Chair Baltay commented that the engineers should be told the design standard implemented more support pieces at corners, so if needed, more could be added later. Vice Chair Rosenberg added that if placed, there would be no need for a business owner to rebuild the parklet as it would already be pre-approved. Boardmember Chen stated that the interchangeable parts were an efficient and straightforward way to start on the prototypes. Ms. Kantak inquired if an ad hoc committee would be established. Chair Baltay asked if Staff wanted input on an Outreach Strategy. Ms. Kantak replied that the following week there would be a meeting with restauranters, business owners, and Property Owners on the approach and benefit once moved forward, but if ARB had feedback on the stakeholders or timelines, they welcomed the information. Chair Baltay appointed Vice Chair Rosenberg and Chair Baltay as ad hoc committee. The ARB took an 8 minute break and resumed with all member present except Vice Chair Rosenberg who returned 2 minutes later. 3. Study Session to Discuss the Concepts of an Ordinance to Reduce Light Pollution and Increase Bird Safety Chair Baltay introduced the item and called for staff’s presentation. Senior Planner Kelly Cha with the long-range division, presented City Council’s priority from 2023, the Dark Sky and Bird Safe glass design ordinance. City Council directed Staff to initiate an evaluation of strategies to protect natural wildlife habitats from glass safety and light pollution as well as the comprehensive plan that included a policy on bird funding designs. They worked with local advocates and reviewed ordinances from comparable cities to build their findings and wanted to work with ARB feedback and public comment on said items. Ms. Cha stated that Dark Sky referred to movements and achievements of significant reduction to light pollution that negatively impact humans and wildlife, which had grown awareness and had adopted relevant regulations in local cities. There were currently no Item 3 Attachment A - Minutes of February 15, 2024     Packet Pg. 45     Page 15 of 21 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 02/15/24 4 7 1 0 ordinance on Dark Sky in Palo Alto, but there were regulations related to the lighting in the municipal code Section 18.40.250. Staff recommended some requirements related to Dark Sky be implemented such as a curfew placed on businesses, motion sensor devices installed for after curfew, a requested maximum color temperature of 2700 Kelvin, as well as a regulated brightness of a maximum 20,000 lumens. She stated that Staff considered reducing the light trespass requirement of 0.5-foot candles to 0.1-foot candles when adjacent to residential neighborhoods; special purpose, security, outdoor recreational facilities, service station, and string lighting were some proposed options related to their use and purpose. A comprehensive plan policy and guideline that encouraged bird friendly designs were developed by looking at local Parks in the area; the considered design standards for glass treatment per ordinance were based on Cupertino’s ordinance. Ms. Cha said when they compared all the ordinances there were common standards; with a listed type of glazes, no more than 10% untreated glazing allowed between ground level to sixty-foot above ground, avoid funneling of flight paths required, switchboard requirements after hours, reduction or prohibition of transparent glass used and reduced glass on top of a building with a garden roof. Some standards only pertained to San Fransico and Sunny Vale and were presented for ARB information; ARB should consider San Francisco’s requirement on a reflective level that the bird safe design standard only applied to single family residence when a façade had 50% or more glazing. This had been a study session, so no action is required from ARB, but requested feedback and input on Staff consideration and public comment on Dark Sky and Bird Safe that helped develop and draft ordinances for the Planning and Transportation Commission hearing in April. In May or June of this year they hoped City Council would adopt the ordinances. Chair Baltay opened the floor to public comment. Administrative Associate Veronica Dao introduced Shani Kleinhaus. Shani Kleinhaus stated that she resided in Palo Alto and was on the Park and Recreation Commission but did not speak on their behalf. She represented the Sierra Club and Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society who worked with Staff, and developed a model ordinance on light pollution that was included in a letter to ARB sent the previous day. The United Nations reported a fifth of all migratory species were at risk of extinction, and were suffering from population decline; Palo Alto, being sat on a Pacific Flyway, was critical for birds and other migratory species. The lighted local buildings confused migration patterns and exposed them to hazardous human environments; as lighting increased worldwide, it was implicated that it drove to the extinction of bugs and to climate change which had resulted in lower migratory species. They asked that ARB consider lowering the light pollution by minimizing the increases allowed, and have current light pollution that were produced, reduced. Ms. Kleinhaus stated two recent ordinances Malibu and Brisbane adopted were to measure and implement the lighting structures installed be adjusted by being dimmed and asked that the enclosures included more than just glass; she gave other options such as wires and bridges for examples that Sunny Vale looked at. Ms. Kleinhaus added that ARB were free to call and speak on future questions. Chair Baltay thanked Ms. Kleinhaus for her presentation and her continued support and effort on behalf of the birds and brought questions or comments to the Board. Chair Baltay inquired where the codes were expected to be applied in Palo Alto, throughout the town or in specific areas. Item 3 Attachment A - Minutes of February 15, 2024     Packet Pg. 46     Page 16 of 21 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 02/15/24 4 7 1 0 Ms. Cha responded it was throughout the City, but still being discussed for considerations of different requirements for West of Foothill and Baylands. Chair Baltay commented it should be restricted to areas with specific needs or levels of regulations, and asked what type of buildings or uses would the regulations be applied to. Ms. Cha answered it would be applied potentially to all building types, but needed feedback if certain types of buildings should be applied or limited. Chair Baltay stated that it should not be applied to single-family residences, rather certain commercial buildings of a certain size. Boardmember Adcock noted that the section regarding Implementation and Compliance stated the compliance and added that the minimum on new projects, if applied, should not be limited to just new projects, they needed to implement limitations on existing buildings. She referred to page 87 that related to the limitations on total lighting load on a property that exceeded 160,000 lumens, and asked how they quantified a property and lumen level. Ms. Cha responded that the size requirements had not yet been worked through and would be a good idea to take the property size into account. Boardmember Adcock mentioned if a lumens per acre that multiplied evenly, or on larger properties, would not be adversely affected if they were implemented, but it should be made fair for owners; =no more than 300 lumens per string needed to be defined as to whether it were an eight-foot or fifty-foot string, or a single foot of string, and specify what the ordinance limited. Referencing page 89 regarding the ‘should be no more than forty-two lumens on a string’ and questioned if it meant per bulb or per string, and emphasized they needed to be specified in the ordinances. Vice Chair Rosenberg stated that she understood the uses and benefits of Dark Sky on the migratory patterns of birds, but felt it was overreached to force the ordinance on single family residences; it would be necessary on commercial or industrial buildings that had over 85% glazing on their four-story glass structures. Nearby towns have followed some exterior Dark Sky light fixture requirements, which were specifically designed to meet compliance, and if regulated on how many fixtures per footage, would be understood. She commented that the ordinances should be focused on appropriate cities and areas that are in the migratory bird paths, and that it was a mixed City with different environments. Boardmember Chen agreed about being focused on specified areas to implement ordinances, then questioned the language used on packet page 89 for streamlined residential uses, and if they could have used the term “private open space” instead of “rear yard” to cover both single and multi-family uses. Ms. Cha answered that what was seen were mostly single family homes, and the report focused on them, but the ordinances applied to everything; they had been used at times in areas where businesses had street closures, as well as multi-family developments in open common areas. She added that if any suggestions were made that added limitations, they would be interested in the feedback. Boardmember Hirsch stated that he disagreed with the Board on limited ordinances, the regulations would be violated if not applied to residential as well; the areas that were part of the final determination Item 3 Attachment A - Minutes of February 15, 2024     Packet Pg. 47     Page 17 of 21 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 02/15/24 4 7 1 0 needed to be considered and enforced through the review process on private dwellings when a certain level is reached. He referred to a previous automobile commercial building ARB had discussed at length in Pescadero that had parking on the roof, and thought it was important for similar building structures to be regulated. However, he felt the lighting was not an issue due to the area being poorly lit at night. Boardmember Adcock asked if the Dark Sky ordinance pertained to the exterior lighting or the light leak from buildings through the glass and if it were City regulated. Ms. Cha responded there was no current language specified in the ordinance, but it intended for the indoor lights to be monitored with switchboards after hours with a curfew of two hours after they close for businesses, and it would be applied to all indoor and outdoor lighting. Boardmember Adcock commented that it did not seem specified as such in the Dark Sky ordinance, and suggested adding clarification on whether it was for light leaking from exterior lighting or storefront businesses. Vice Chair Rosenberg inquired if the regulation applied to interior lighting on a building and not the exterior glazing, and then would it be applied to the function of the building and not based on the percentage of glazing. Ms. Cha answered the Dark Sky portion does not discuss the glazing itself, the main focus was on the lumen brightness; if needed to be included they would work toward getting it implemented. Vice Chair Rosenberg stated that there were two portions to the Dark Sky ordinances, one on how exterior lighting affected the surroundings and the other being the illuminations from the interior of buildings; if they wanted to regulate the businesses to such extent, they needed to have pertinent or functional reasons as to why and how it would be implemented. Boardmember Hirsch showed concern for the winter months that needed longer lighting throughout the months and asked if they had done any studies on the issue. Chair Baltay stated that two environmentally sensitive areas in Palo Alto were West of 280, the Foothills, and the Baylands, to which neither were extensively residentially developed; the ordinances should be applied to all residences and businesses that resided in those areas. He suggested that they keep to the Dark Sky permissible exterior fixtures, which were the standards and easily implemented in communities along the Peninsula, and adjacent to the Foothill area. A light control system could be easily installed for businesses to manage the two hours after being closed curfew, as long as one was already in place, as well as interior window shades that ARB had used on commercial building projects previously. Boardmember Adcock asked if there was a reason the Dark Sky regulation on color temperature mentioned one at 2700 and one at 2200. Ms. Cha responded that they chose the 2700 over the 2200 or 3000, which was a Dark Sky recommendation. Boardmember Adcock noted that staff suggested encouraging and possibly requiring that more sensitive areas had luminaires below 2200 Kelvin for better nighttime. Item 3 Attachment A - Minutes of February 15, 2024     Packet Pg. 48     Page 18 of 21 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 02/15/24 4 7 1 0 Ms. Cha answered it applied to areas such as the Foothills and Baylands but is currently being questioned whether it should be lowered to 2200 Kelvin. Senior Planner Claire Raybould clarified that if it were set at 2200, it would have been harder to attain. Ms. Cha replied that was correct. Chair Baltay inquired if they had studied how complicated it would be for building inspectors and design teams to obtain the color temperature of all lighting fixtures, and what would happen if businesses changed the fixtures. Boardmember Adcock asked how they defined the project subject to bird safe development as referred to on page 90, and for the definition of the untreated glass referenced; with no more than 10% of the façade untreated on the surface allowed. She commented the standard compliance definitions were vague on what would be regulated and how to be complied; the ordinance that stated the glass treatment must have a high color contrast to the glass in order to be applied on the outer-most surface; which were not achievable due to insulated glass not usually being set on the number one surface of standard insulated glazing. Ms. Cha mentioned that the provisions written and added were done after the study and found that it would not be as effective if installed interiorly; if found infeasible by architectural standards, it would be further discussed at the time. Boardmember Adcock commented that she never had installed one to the outer-most surface due to it being short lived, and they should continue to do research on the topic; on the upper half of page 90 she questioned if the façade of all projects subjected to the bird safe development requirements applied to all or certain projects. Ms. Cha responded that with current recommendations and considerations it applied to all projects and buildings, but wanted feedback from ARB to determine if it would be feasible and if the requirement needed to be modified. Boardmember Chen stated that the North Ventura study found it were not only bird safe glass, but also highly reflective materials used that were considered bird hazards. She referred to packet page 90 on the alternative compliance method, and asked if there were any qualification requirements needed to be a third-party consultant. Ms. Cha answered that they would hire a technical consultant for the third-party; it would most likely be the City who hired the consultant on their behalf, which needed to be designed different from the elements the City required if proposed. Senior Planner Claire Raybould clarified that Boardmember Chen asked what qualifications the third-party consultant needed. Boardmember Chen inquired whether the consultant was hired from the City, or if the applicant needed to find a consultant qualified to conduct the review. Item 3 Attachment A - Minutes of February 15, 2024     Packet Pg. 49     Page 19 of 21 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 02/15/24 4 7 1 0 Senior Planner Claire Raybould responded that usually the applicant paid the City to hire a consultant to ensure that it was an independent third party. Boardmember Hirsch referred to the bird safe design requirements and felt it was a restrictive list. Senior Planner Claire Raybould clarified when the design requirement mentioned walkways, it referred to areas with glass along the path. Chair Baltay questioned if all balconies were restricted as it were written in the packet. Senior Planner Claire Raybould answered it should have been clarified to balconies or rooftop areas that had planters or glass on the exterior. Boardmember Hirsch commented that they needed an inspector for evenings to find the problems that were raised if it fit their budget. Vice Chair Rosenberg noted that they were implementing designs and guidelines based on lack of information of new bird safety materials continuously being studied by Scientists; she questioned how common bird strikes were in the confines of Palo Alto, and if the new rules and regulations to be implemented were on issues not closely related to the City. Vice Chair Rosenberg added that her opinion was to add bird safe glazing to the second story and up only; being on the first floor restricted business and office buildings too much, as well as historic structures and residential single-family homes be excluded due to not being predominantly glass structures. She commented that more consideration should go into how multi-family homes implement bird safe glass, whether it be on certain windows or not at all, because it obstructs views to the outside views. Boardmember Adcock stated that the section of the packet regarding standard compliance treatments did not state only fritted glass but listed permanent treatments such as opaque glass and window muntins; she questioned if it would meet code if there were only muntins along the middle of the highly reflective glass window, and if not, what to be complied needed to be clarified. She gave examples of different types and pattern designs of frit glassing that could be considered for residential or first-floor buildings, and noted the guidelines needed to be clarified on what could be used on glass without being too restrictive on compliance. Chair Baltay commented that he agreed with his fellow colleagues regarding bird safe glass windows on single and multi-family residential, that type of glass is difficult to attain and an item that needed to be special ordered or applied, which would make residential housing compliance difficult. He felt the restrictions should be confined to localized areas such as the Baylands and Foothills, and some tall rise commercial buildings downtown. Chair Baltay asked Ms. Kleinhaus for her thoughts on the regulation requirements for downtown. Ms. Kleinhaus commented the study showed most bird collisions happen in residential neighborhoods, with a one bird-per house-per year ratio, and residential requirements were placed on Cupertino’s single and multi-family homes; she had some different glass window designs available to show the ARB and stated that most storefront buildings and businesses were exempt from the regulations to allow the public an inside view. Regarding the lighting concerns, she added that the main problem came from businesses that use interior lighting for advertisement after hours. There are different options that can be used; at Item 3 Attachment A - Minutes of February 15, 2024     Packet Pg. 50     Page 20 of 21 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 02/15/24 4 7 1 0 Mitchell Park Library, the top levels use a reflective structure to deflect the birds as an alternative to fritted glass. Boardmember Hirsch stated that a catalog of glass should be in offices that allow residential housing consultants to choose from various designs for areas that have a naturalized environment or an abundance of trees that contain birds and wildlife. Vice Chair Rosenberg commented that could be too restrictive as there are regulations within Palo Alto that require certain amount of trees be planted in order to be permitted. Chair Baltay questioned how a regulation would be implemented on certain residential housing, and how it would be applied. Ms. Kleinhaus stated if the amount of glass used on a building were not limited, then the bird safe measures should be and recommended that architects who run into compliance issues on residential housing use foot-by-foot space muntin on the windows, have reflective film coated on the glass, colored screens, or add other visual cues. Chair Baltay inquired how difficult it would be to regulate a twelve-inch by twelve-inch limit on a single paned window. Manager of Current Planning Jodie Gerhardt answered that a regulation requiring divided light windows could be implemented and Staff could hold a review on the issue. Boardmember Adcock asked if a window treatment or visual cue on the glazing could be added rather than restricting divided light windows, as well as the highly reflective glass; and suggested it be clarified as to what is within the regulations and standards. Ms. Gerhardt responded that they would add clarifications moving forward. Ms. Cha commented that they were appreciative of the feedback, and they would look at how other Cities implement their regulations and standard ordinances on bird safety before returning before the Board; and they would add a list of drafted ordinance language. More regulation for naturalized areas would be considered, such as the Foothills, Baylands, and urbanized areas in Palo Alto. Senior Planner Claire Raybould noted that there were no future plans to return to the ARB, but it could be considered; and inquired if the ARB wanted an ad hoc committee assigned. Chair Baltay replied that he did not want to assign an ad hoc committee as one had been done previously on a project similar, however he did want them to return to the ARB with an updated draft ordinance. Chair Baltay closed the Study Session. Approval of Minutes 6. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for November 16, 2023. Chair Baltay asked for comments or a motion. Item 3 Attachment A - Minutes of February 15, 2024     Packet Pg. 51     Page 21 of 21 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 02/15/24 4 7 1 0 MOTION: Boardmember Chen moved, seconded by Vice Chair Rosenberg, to approve the meeting minutes for November 16, 2023 as written. VOTE: 5-0-0 Boardmember Questions, Comments or Announcements Chair Baltay announced that he attended the City Council meeting earlier in the week and they discussed, reviewed, and approved the SB9 Objective Standards and shared complements from Council with the Board members. Adjournment Chair Baltay adjourned the meeting at 12:14 p.m. Item 3 Attachment A - Minutes of February 15, 2024     Packet Pg. 52     Item No. 4. Page 1 of 2 Architectural Review Board Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: June 6, 2024 Report #: 2405-3012 TITLE 300 Pasteur Drive [21PLN-00235]: Ad Hoc Review of Modifications to the Approved Nursing Pods Project to Study Improvements to the Visual Interest and Materials At the Base of the Building’s Extensions. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s): 1. Discuss and provide direction or approve project revisions. BACKGROUND On March 16, 2022, the Director of Planning and Development Services approved the subject project. At the Board’s recommendation, a condition was imposed to return to the ARB Ad Hoc Committee with a study to consider improvements to the visual interest and materials at the base of the building extensions as it relates to the promenade. On April 7, 2022, the applicant returned to the Ad Hoc Committee. The plans presented described the existing public art, focal points, and activation points along the Promenade but did not propose or discuss façade alternatives as requested by the ARB. The applicants are returning now with a study of the proposed design and alternatives. ANALYSIS At the ARB’s recommendation, the following condition of approval (COA# 4a) was included in the approval letter for the project: •Provide a study to consider improvements to the visual interest and materials at the base of the building extensions as it relates to the promenade. Applicant’s Response Stanford University Medical Center would prefer to maintain the previously approved ribbed panel design, and to add landscaping instead. However, in response to the ARB Ad Hoc, they have Item 4 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 53     Item No. 4. Page 2 of 2 included the following options shown in Attachment A for the ARB Ad Hoc and staff’s consideration: •revisiting previously considered canted panels, (Attachment A, pages 7-8). •using wider horizontal plank siding instead of the horizontal rib material (Attachment A, pages 9-11) •differentiating the horizontal rib material at the ground floor (Attachment A, pages 12- 13) •adding vertical landscape trellis screens (Attachment A pages 19-25) Attachment B includes the applicant’s Ad Hoc submittal narrative. Staff Analysis: The approved plans included a horizontal rib material at the Promenade frontage. The ARB board members felt this material was not exciting and could feel harsh this close to the primary pedestrian walkway through the medical center. The previously considered canted panel and horizontal plank options were not approved by the ARB previously because they were not considered human scale enough. The ARB considered the ribbed panel to be an improvement. The vertical landscape trellises would require additional landscape maintenance and seem somewhat cluttered. The horizontal rib options shown on Pages 12-13 of Attachment A add further visual interest and reinforce a human scale ground floor. Staff believes either of these options address this condition of approval. It should also be noted that the four (4) freestanding signs in the renderings have not yet been submitted to the City for review. The Board is encouraged to provide direction to staff and the applicant as to whether the proposed changes are sufficient or require further refinement. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Project Plans Report Author & Contact Information ARB1 Liaison & Contact Information Emily Kallas, AICP, Planner Claire Raybould, AICP, Principal Planner (650) 617-3125 (650) 329-2116 emily.kallas@cityofpaloalto.org Claire.Raybould@cityofpaloalto.org 1 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org Item 4 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 54     If you need assistance reviewing the above documents, please contact the Project Planner or call the Planner-on-Duty at 650-617-3117 or email planner@cityofpaloalto.org Project Plans In order to reduce paper consumption, a limited number of hard copy project plans are provided to Board members for their review. The same plans are available to the public, at all hours of the day, via the following online resources. Directions to review Project plans and environmental documents online: 1. Go to: bit.ly/PApendingprojects 2. Scroll down to find “300 Pasteur” and click the address link 3. On this project-specific webpage you will find a link to the project plans and other important information Direct Link to Project Webpage: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/News-Articles/Planning-and-Development-Services/300-Pasteur-22PLN-00059 Materials Boards: Color and material boards will be available to view in chambers during the ARB hearing. Item 4 Attachment A: Project Plans     Packet Pg. 55