Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-01-16 Architectural Review Board Agenda PacketARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD Regular Meeting Thursday, January 16, 2025 Council Chambers & Hybrid 8:30 AM Architectural Review Board meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with the option to attend by teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safety while still maintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose to participate from home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe and participate in the meeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged if attending in person. 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. Board member 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.Director's Report, Meeting Schedule, and Upcoming Agenda Items ACTION ITEMS Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Ten (10) minutes, plus ten (10) minutes rebuttal. All others: Three (3) minutes per speaker. 2.PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI‐JUDICIAL. 640 Waverley Street [24PLN‐00064]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Major Architectural Review to Allow the Demolition of Two Existing Buildings on a 5,277 Square Foot Lot and Redevelopment with a Proposed Four‐Story, Approximately 11,050 Square Foot Mixed‐Use Development with Ground Floor Office and Four Residential Units Above. Environmental Assessment: Initial Study/15183 Streamlined CEQA Review. Zoning District: CD‐C(P). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Claire Raybould at Claire.Raybould@CityofPaloAlto.org      At‐Places Memo added STUDY SESSION Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 3.Discussion on Criteria for Architectural Review Board Design Awards: Recognizing Built Projects (2020‐2024) APPROVAL OF MINUTES Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 4.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for December 5, 2024 BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS AND AGENDAS Members of the public may not speak to the item(s). ADJOURNMENT PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email, teleconference, or by phone. 1. Written public comments may be submitted by email to arb@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, January 16, 2025Council 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. Board member 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.Director's Report, Meeting Schedule, and Upcoming Agenda Items ACTION ITEMS Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Ten (10) minutes, plus ten (10) minutes rebuttal. All others: Three (3) minutes per speaker. 2.PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI‐JUDICIAL. 640 Waverley Street [24PLN‐00064]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Major Architectural Review to Allow the Demolition of Two Existing Buildings on a 5,277 Square Foot Lot and Redevelopment with a Proposed Four‐Story, Approximately 11,050 Square Foot Mixed‐Use Development with Ground Floor Office and Four Residential Units Above. Environmental Assessment: Initial Study/15183 Streamlined CEQA Review. Zoning District: CD‐C(P). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Claire Raybould at Claire.Raybould@CityofPaloAlto.org      At‐Places Memo added STUDY SESSION Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 3.Discussion on Criteria for Architectural Review Board Design Awards: Recognizing Built Projects (2020‐2024) APPROVAL OF MINUTES Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 4.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for December 5, 2024 BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS AND AGENDAS Members of the public may not speak to the item(s). ADJOURNMENT PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email, teleconference, or by phone. 1. Written public comments may be submitted by email to arb@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, January 16, 2025Council 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. Board member 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.Director's Report, Meeting Schedule, and Upcoming Agenda ItemsACTION 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]:Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Major Architectural Review to Allow theDemolition of Two Existing Buildings on a 5,277 Square Foot Lot and Redevelopment witha Proposed Four‐Story, Approximately 11,050 Square Foot Mixed‐Use Development withGround Floor Office and Four Residential Units Above. Environmental Assessment: InitialStudy/15183 Streamlined CEQA Review. Zoning District: CD‐C(P). For More InformationContact the Project Planner Claire Raybould at Claire.Raybould@CityofPaloAlto.org     At‐Places Memo addedSTUDY SESSIONPublic Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.3.Discussion on Criteria for Architectural Review Board Design Awards: Recognizing BuiltProjects (2020‐2024)APPROVAL OF MINUTESPublic Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.4.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for December 5, 2024 BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS AND AGENDAS Members of the public may not speak to the item(s). ADJOURNMENT PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email, teleconference, or by phone. 1. Written public comments may be submitted by email to arb@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, January 16, 2025Council 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. Board member 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.Director's Report, Meeting Schedule, and Upcoming Agenda ItemsACTION 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]:Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Major Architectural Review to Allow theDemolition of Two Existing Buildings on a 5,277 Square Foot Lot and Redevelopment witha Proposed Four‐Story, Approximately 11,050 Square Foot Mixed‐Use Development withGround Floor Office and Four Residential Units Above. Environmental Assessment: InitialStudy/15183 Streamlined CEQA Review. Zoning District: CD‐C(P). For More InformationContact the Project Planner Claire Raybould at Claire.Raybould@CityofPaloAlto.org     At‐Places Memo addedSTUDY SESSIONPublic Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.3.Discussion on Criteria for Architectural Review Board Design Awards: Recognizing BuiltProjects (2020‐2024)APPROVAL OF MINUTESPublic Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.4.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for December 5, 2024BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS ANDAGENDASMembers of the public may not speak to the item(s). ADJOURNMENT PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email, teleconference, or by phone. 1. Written public comments may be submitted by email to arb@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: January 16, 2025 Report #: 2501-3970 TITLE Director's Report, Meeting Schedule, and Upcoming Agenda Items RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) review and comment as appropriate. BACKGROUND This document includes the following items: •ARB meeting schedule •Upcoming ARB agenda items •Recently submitted and pending projects subject to ARB review Board members are encouraged to contact Veronica Dao (Veronica.Dao@CityofPaloAlto.org) to notify staff of any planned absences one month in advance, if possible, to ensure the availability of an ARB quorum. Approved projects can be found on the City’s Building Eye webpage at https://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning. Any party, including the applicant, may request a hearing by the ARB on the proposed director’s decision(s) within the 10-day or 14-day appeal period by filing a written request with the planning division. There shall be no fee required for requesting such a hearing. However, there is a fee for appeals. Pursuant to 18.77.070(b)(5) any project relating to the installation of cabinets containing communications service equipment or facilities, pursuant to any service subject to Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 2.11, Chapter 12.04, Chapter 12.08, Chapter 12.09, Chapter 12.10, or Chapter 12.13 is not eligible for a request for hearing by any party, including the applicant. No action is required by the ARB for this item. Item 1 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 5     Item No. 1. Page 2 of 2 UPCOMING ARB AGENDA ITEMS The following items are tentative and subject to change: MEETING DATE TOPICS February 6, 2025 •70 Encina Ave: Rezone and Multifamily Residential (2nd Hearing) •164 Hamilton Ave: Minor Façade Changes (1st Hearing) RECENTLY SUBMITTED PROJECTS The following new ARB project was submitted since the last ARB meeting: ADDRESS & RECORD # DATE SUBMITTED PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2100 Geng Rd (24PLN-00356) (24PLN-00357) 12/18/2024 Tentative Map/Subdivision and Site and Design & Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the transformation of an existing underutilized business park at 2100-2400 Geng Road into a new residential neighborhood with 137 multi-family townhome units and community space. Project site totals approximately 11-acres. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: 2025 Meeting Schedule & Assignments Attachment B: Pending ARB Projects AUTHOR and ARB LIAISON1 Steven Switzer, Historic Preservation Planner (650) 329-2321 Steven.Switzer@CityofPaloAlto.org 1 Emails maybe sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@CityofPaloAlto.org. Item 1 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 6     Architectural Review Board 2025 Meeting Schedule & Assignments 2025 Meeting Schedule Meeting Dates Time Location Status Planned Absences 1/2/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Cancelled 1/16/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 2/6/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 2/20/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular Adcock 3/6/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 3/20/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 4/3/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 4/17/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 5/1/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 5/15/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 6/5/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 6/19/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 7/3/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 7/17/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 8/7/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 8/21/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 9/4/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 9/18/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 10/2/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 10/16/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 11/6/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 11/20/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 12/4/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 12/18/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 2025 Ad Hoc Committee Assignments Assignments will be made by the ARB Chair January February March April May June July August September October November December Item 1 Attachment A: 2025 Meeting Schedule & Assignments     Packet Pg. 7     ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD Pending ARB Projects The following projects will soon be reviewed by the ARB. For more information, visit the project webpages at bit.ly/PApendingprojects or via Building Eye at bit.ly/PABuildingEye. Permit Type Filed Permit #Address Type Work Description Status/Notes Major Architectural Review 9/16/20 20PLN-00202 250 Hamilton Ave Bridge Allow the removal and replacement of the Pope-Chaucer Bridge over San Francisquito Creek with a new structure that does not obstruct creek flow to reduce flood risk. The project will also include channel modifications. Environmental Assessment: The SFCJPA, acting as the lead agency, adopted a Final EIR on 9/26/19. Zoning District: PF. On-hold for redesign Major Architectural Review Zone Change 12/21/21 21PLN-00341 24PLN-00239 660 University 680 University Mixed-Use Planned Community (PC), to Combine 3 Parcels (511 Byron St, 660 University Ave, 680 University Ave/500 Middlefield Rd), Demolish Existing Buildings (9,216 SF Office) and Provide a New Four Story Mixed-Use Building with Ground Floor Office (9,115 SF) and Multi- Family Residential (all floors) Including a Two Level Below-Grade Parking Garage. Proposed Residential Proposed Residential (42,189 SF) Will Include 65 Units (47 Studios, 12 1-Bedroom, 6 2- Bedroom). NOI Sent. Request for Major Architectural Review to Allow SB330/Builder’s Remedy project and construct a new six (6) story mixed-use building. The proposal includes ground floor non- residential (5,670 SF), ground and sixth floor office (9,126 SF), multi-family residential (all floors), and a two level below-grade parking garage. Proposed residential will include 88 units with 20% on-site BMR. ARB 1st formal 12/1/22, ARB recommended approval 4/22; Applicant is revising project plans Item 1 Attachment B: Pending ARB Projects     Packet Pg. 8     Permit Type Filed Permit #Address Type Work Description Status/Notes Major Architectural Review 6/8/23 23PLN-00136 23PLN-00277 (Map) 23PLN-00003 and -00195 – (SB 330) 24PLN-00230 (Code compliant version) 24PLN-00231 (Map) 3150 El Camino Real Housing – 380 units Request for Major Architectural Review for construction of a 380- unit Multi-family Residential Rental Development with 10% Below Market Rate. The project includes a 456,347 square foot apartment building with a 171,433 square foot garage that extends to 84 feet in height. Staff is reviewing the project to ensure the requested concessions and waivers are in accordance with the State Density Bonus laws. Focus Area Compliant Application Filed 8/7/24; NOI Sent 9/7/24. Pending Resubmittal. Tentative ARB 11/7/2024. Ad Hoc (Rosenberg, Hirsch) Reported out 5/4 on SB 330 Ad Hoc (Rosenberg, Hirsch) Reported out on 8/17 ARB 11/7 Rec. approval Major Architectural Review 7/19/23 23PLN-00181 824 San Antonio Road Housing – 16 senior units, 12 convalescent units Request for Major Architectural Review to allow the Demolition of an existing 2-Story office building and the new construction of a 4- Story private residential senior living facility, including 15 independent dwelling units, 12 assisted living dwelling units and 1 owner occupied unit. Common space amenities on all floors, underground parking, and ground floor commercial space. Zoning District: CS (Commercial Services). 12/21/23 ARB hearing; Revised Plans resubmitted 9/25/24; ARB 11/21 Rec. approval PC Amendment 8/9/23 23PLN-00202 4075 El Camino Way Commercial 16 convalescent units Request for a Planned Community Zone Amendment to Allow New Additions to an existing Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility consisting of 121 Units. The additions include 16 Additional Assisted Living Dwelling Units; 5 Studios and 9 One Bedrooms. Zoning District: PC-5116 Community Meeting in October. 2/28/24 and 6/12/24 PTC hearing, 7/18/24 ARB hearing, ARB 10/17/24, PTC & Council hearings TBD. Ad Hoc (Baltay, Chen) reported out 6/1 Item 1 Attachment B: Pending ARB Projects     Packet Pg. 9     Permit Type Filed Permit #Address Type Work Description Status/Notes Major Architectural Review 1/10/24 24PLN-00012 3265 El Camino Real Housing Request for rezoning to Planned Community (PC)/Planned Home Zoning (PHZ). New construction of a 5-story 100% affordable multifamily housing development with 44 dwelling units and ground level lobby and parking. Zoning District: CS. NOI Sent 1/10/24. PTC 4/10/24; ARB 4/22/24; Applicant submitted revised project 9/13/24 with 55 Units; Tentative ARB 11/21/24. Ad Hoc (Rosenberg, Thompson) reported out 8/17 on prescreening Ad Hoc (Rosenberg, Hirsch) ARB 11/21 Rec. approval Major Architectural Review 3/6/24 24PLN-00064 640 Waverley Mixed-Use Request for a Major Architectural Review Board application to allow the construction of a new four-story, mixed use commercial and residential building with below grade parking. The ARB held a preliminary review on 6/15/23. Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: CD-C(P). NOI Sent 4/5/24. ARB 6/6/24. Pending Resubmittal; Preparing 15183 Exemption. Tentative ARB January 2025. Ad Hoc (Rosenberg, Hirsch) Minor Architectural Review 3/7/24 24PLN-00066 180 El Camino Real Restaurant Minor Board Level Architectural Review to allow exterior upgrades for a restaurant tenant (Delarosa); to include new exterior pergola over seating and planters in existing location. New metal awnings over main entrance to replace existing acrylic and new metal awning at rear to replace existing fabric awning. New signage and replace existing light fixtures. Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: (CC) NOI Sent 4/10. Pending Resubmittal. Major Architectural Review – Builder’s Remedy 4/02/24 24PLN-00100 24PLN-00223 (Map) 156 California Mixed-Use Request for Major Architectural Review in accordance with California Government Code 65589.5(D)(5) “Builders Remedy" which proposes to redevelop two lots located at 156 California Avenue and Park Blvd. Lot A, 156 California Ave ( 1.14 ACRE) is situated at the corner of Park and California, Lot B, Park Blvd. (0.29 ACRE) is at the corner of Park and Cambridge Avenue; the reinvention of both sites will include the conversion of an existing parking lot and Mollie Stone's Grocery Store into a Mixed Use Multi Family Development. This project consists of three NOI Sent 5/2/2024; 60-day Formal Comments sent 6/1; Resubmitted, Request for Supplemental Info Sent 7/11; Pending Resubmittal. SB 330 Pre-app Item 1 Attachment B: Pending ARB Projects     Packet Pg. 10     Permit Type Filed Permit #Address Type Work Description Status/Notes integrated structures; (1) 7 Story Podium Building with 5 levels of TYPE IIIB Construction over 2 levels of TYPE I Construction, 15,000 square feet will be dedicated to the Mollie Stone Grocery Store, (1) 17 Story Tower, (1) 11 Story Tower, both Towers will be proposed and conceptualized as TYPE IV Mass Timber Construction. Environmental Assessment: Pending Zoning District: CC(2)(R)(P) and CC(2)(R) (Community Commercial) submitted 11/21/24 Ad Hoc (Baltay, Adcock) Zone Change 03/28/24 24PLN-00095 70 Encina Housing – 10 Units Request for Planned Community Zone Change (PHZ) to allow construction of a new 3-story, 22,552 sf building (1.86 FAR); to include ten (10) residential condominium units organized around a common access court that provides both vehicular and pedestrian access and full site improvements to replace the existing surface parking area. Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: CC, (Community Commercial). NOI Sent 4/28/2024. PTC 9/11/24, Plans Pending Resubmittal, Tentative 1st ARB November 2024. ARB prelim 12/7 Ad Hoc (Hirsch, Adcock) ARB 11/07 Continued Major Architectural Review – Builder’s Remedy 4/23/24 24PLN-00120 762 San Antonio Housing – 198 Units Request for Major Architectural Review to Allow CA GOV CODE 65589.5(D)(5) “Builders Remedy" which proposes the demolition of three existing commercial buildings and the construction of a 7- story multi-family residential building containing 198 rental apartments. This is 100% Residential Project. Environmental: Pending. Zoning District: (CS) AD. NOI Sent 5/23/2024. Tentative ARB December 2024. Ad Hoc (Baltay, Chen) Streamlined Housing Development Review 5/28/24 24PLN-00152 24PLN-00023 (Prelim) 4335- 4345 El Camino Housing – 29 Units Request for Major Architectural Review to allow a housing development project on two noncontiguous lots (4335 & 4345 El Camino Real) including the demolition of an existing commercial building (4335 El Camino Real) and an existing motel building (4345 El Camino Real) and construction of 29 three-story attached residential townhome-style condominiums with associated utilities, private streets, landscaping, and amenities. Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: CS (Service Commercial). NOI Sent 6/27/2024. ARB 9/19/24. Pending Resubmittal of Plans. Ad Hoc (Hirsch, Baltay) reviewed prelim Major Architectural Review – Builder’s Remedy 6/10/24 24PLN-00161 24PLN-00048 (SB 330) 3781 El Camino Real Housing – 177 units Request for Major Architectural Review to demolish multiple existing commercial and residential buildings located at 3727-3737 & 3773-3783 El Camino Real, 378-400 Madeline Court and 388 Curtner Avenue to construct a new seven-story multi-family residential housing development with 177 units. Two levels of above ground parking, rooftop terraces, and tenant amenities are NOI Sent 7/10/2024. Resubmittal on 11/22/24 Item 1 Attachment B: Pending ARB Projects     Packet Pg. 11     Permit Type Filed Permit #Address Type Work Description Status/Notes proposed. Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: CN & RM-30. (Previous SB 330 and Builder’s Remedy: 24PLN-00048) Major Architectural Review – Builder’s Remedy 6/10/24 24PLN-00162 24PLN-00047 (SB 330) 3606 El Camino Real Housing – 335 Units Request for Major Architectural Review to demolish multiple existing vacant, commercial, and residential buildings located at 3508, 3516, 3626-3632 El Camino Real, and 524, 528, 530 Kendall Avenue to construct a new seven-story, multi-family residential housing development project with 335 units. The new residential building will have a two levels of above ground parking, ground floor tenant amenities, and a rooftop terrace facing El Camino Real and Matadero Avenue. Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: CN, CS, RM-30, RM-40 NOI Sent 8/1/2024. Resubmittal on 11/22/24 Major Architectural Review – Builder’s Remedy 7/17/24 24PLN-00184 24PLN-00232 (Map) 3400 El Camino Real Housing – 231 units & Hotel – 92 rooms Major Architectural Review of a Builder's Remedy application to demolish several low-rise retail and hotel buildings located at 3398, 3400, 3450 El Camino Real and 556 Matadero Avenue and replace them with three new seven-to-eight story residential towers, one new seven-story hotel, one new three story townhome, and two new underground parking garages. Three existing hotel buildings will remain with one being converted to residential units. 231 total residential units and 192 hotel rooms. Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: various (SB330) NOI Sent 8/16/2024 and 9/12/2024; Pending Resubmittal. Minor Architectural Review & Conditional Use Permit 9/24/24 24PLN-00263 3950 Fabian Way Private Education Request for Minor Board Level Architectural Review for exterior modifications to an existing 32,919 square foot, 2-story commercial building, site modifications and a new approximately 4200 sf addition to the North side. The project also includes a Request for a Conditional Use Permit for the change of use to private education to accommodate Girls Middle school. Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: GM. NOI Sent 10/24/2024. Early ARB 11/21 Streamlined Housing Development Review 10/08/24 24PLN-00280 3997 Fabian Way Residential Request for Streamlined Housing Development Review to deconstruct two existing commercial buildings located at 3977 & 3963 Fabian Way and surface parking lot at 3997 Fabian Way to construct a new single structure of seven stories containing 295 multifamily residential rental apartment units (8% very low- income units – 19 units), 343 parking spaces, 295 secured bike parking spaces, open courtyards, several outdoor gathering spaces, a pool area, and a rooftop terrace. The project is proposed to comply with the City’s GM/ROLM Focus Area Development Standards and is proposed in accordance with State Density Bonus Law. Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: General __ Item 1 Attachment B: Pending ARB Projects     Packet Pg. 12     Permit Type Filed Permit #Address Type Work Description Status/Notes Manufacturing (GM). (Housing Inventory Site & State Density Bonus Law) (Previous SB 330 Pre-Application: 24PLN-00111) Master Sign Program 11/7/24 24PLN-00322 340 Portage Av Mixed-Use Master Sign Program for the installation of 2 Project ID Monuments, 2 Entry ID's, 2 Parking ID's, 2 Directional Wall signs, 1 Brand/Tenant ID Wall sign, and 2 Tenant ID Canopy signs at The Cannery Palo Alto. Zoning District: RM-30 (Medium Density Multiple-Family Residence District). Environmental Assessment: Pending. Minor Architectural Review 12/03/24 24PLN-00339 2280 El Camino Real Restaurant Minor Board Level Architectural Review for the exterior and interior remodel of the existing Jack in the Box restaurant. Modification to the exterior of the building include the removal of the mansard roof, installation of new parapets, new finishes and branding panels. No increase in building footprint. Site and Design & Conditional Use Permit 12/8/24 24PLN-00356 24PLN-00357 2100 Geng Rd Housing – 137 Units Tentative Map/Subdivision and Site and Design & Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the transformation of an existing underutilized business park at 2100-2400 Geng Road into a new residential neighborhood with 137 multi-family townhome units and community space. Project site totals approximately 11-acres. Item 1 Attachment B: Pending ARB Projects     Packet Pg. 13     Item No. 2. Page 1 of 7 Architectural Review Board Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: January 16, 2025 Report #: 2412-3940 TITLE PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI-JUDICIAL. 640 Waverley Street [24PLN-00064]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Major Architectural Review to Allow the Demolition of Two Existing Buildings on a 5,277 Square Foot Lot and Redevelopment with a Proposed Four-Story, Approximately 11,050 Square Foot Mixed-Use Development with Ground Floor Office and Four Residential Units Above. Environmental Assessment: Initial Study/15183 Streamlined CEQA Review. 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. Consider the Environmental Analysis (Attachment F); and 2. Recommend Approval of the proposed project to the Director of Planning and Development Services based on the findings in Attachment B and subject to the conditions of approval in Attachment C. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The applicant is requesting Major Architectural Review of the proposed redevelopment of a 5,277 square foot lot on the edge of the commercial downtown area. The project includes demolition of two existing office buildings and redevelopment with a proposed four-story, approximately 11,165 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. A location map is included in Attachment A and the project plans are included in Attachment F. 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 Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.24. Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 14     Item No. 2. Page 2 of 7 The City, acting as the lead agency in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), has prepared a streamlined environmental analysis in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, which analyzes the project‘s consistency with the comprehensive plan and associated Environmental Impact Report (EIR). PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant proposes to demolish the two existing single-story buildings that are currently used as offices and to construct a new 11,165 square foot, four-story mixed-use building. The ground floor would include 2,369 square feet of office and the upper levels would include four residential dwellings (8,796 square feet). A driveway provides access to a lift that would lower cars to an underground parking facility, which provides eight parking spaces. Parking spaces would be provided for the residential tenants only. Vehicular access would be provided from Waverley Street. The property owner has not yet determined whether the units would be proposed for rental or ownership. The applicant has expressed their intent to subdivide the project for ownership; therefore, a Tentative Map and Final Map process would also be required as a condition of approval of the project if they applicant wishes to pursue ownership. Requested Entitlements, Findings, and Purview: The following discretionary application is being requested: •Architectural Review – Major (AR): The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC Section 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 ARB’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 BACKGROUND On June 20, 2024, the ARB held a first formal hearing to provide feedback on the proposed design. Comments from board members and the applicant’s responses are summarized in the following table. ARB Comments/Direction Applicant’s Response Plant Maintenance. The ARB requested further details on long term maintenance of plants. A memorandum prepared by SWA, the applicant‘s landscape architect, has been provided in Attachment E. The memorandum summarizes how the plants will be maintained long-term. Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 15     Item No. 2. Page 3 of 7 ARB Comments/Direction Applicant’s Response Parking. The ARB requested a better diagram to understand the parking design as well as a visual for the lift in open and closed positions to clarify what this will look like from each level. Asked about the maneuverability of one of the parking spaces. Photos and diagrams demonstrating car lift operation and accessibility have been added to sheet A0.10. Representative shop drawings for a similar car lift installation provided on A0.11. Privacy Screening. Samples of the metal privacy screening and a better understanding of the screen to understand whether it was too open, if metal screens are necessary, etc. Full scale mock-ups of building cladding and screen material will be provided at the hearing for board members and the public to view. Spacing between screen slats has been doubled and late width has been narrowed. Connection with Neighbor. The ARB expressed concerns about the visual impact to the neighbor at 636 Waverley Street and asked whether the plans could be revised along that property line to provide more views into open space areas versus a wall. The revised design reduces the proposed concrete along the shared property line with 636 Waverley Street in accordance with the ARB’s comments. In particular, reductions have been made at the fourth-floor entry porch and first floor residential entry. Where necessary for privacy or fire rating, metal screens are used. See A3.02. Planter Design. The ARB asked the applicant to consider fleshing out the planting areas more in terms of how the planters are designed (e.g. walkable vs raised). They noted that openings in-between the vine channels could improve the design of stair #2. The third-floor terrace above the residentially entry has been reduced in size and no longer has planters. Planters in stair #2 are newly reflected in project plans. See A3.04 and landscape irrigation and planting plans. The ARB also provided preliminary feedback on a conceptual plan, filed under a preliminary review application (23PLN-00092) of the proposed project at a study session on June 1, 2023. The staff report from the June 20, 2024, hearing summarized board member’s feedback from that study session and revisions made to the design to address those comments. ANALYSIS Staff has evaluated the proposed project for conformance with relevant plans, policies, guidelines and regulations and found the project to be consistent, as detailed in this analysis. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans, and Guidelines 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 Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 16     Item No. 2. Page 4 of 7 development, are encouraged in proximity to major transit stops. Attachment B includes an analysis of the project’s consistency with relevant policies in the Comprehensive Plan. Zoning Compliance Attachment D 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 PAMC Chapter 18.24. However, the applicant has indicated their intent to forego compliance with PAMC Chapter 18.24 and instead comply with the context- based design criteria for the CD-C Zone District (set forth in PAMC Section 18.18.110) and the Major Architectural Review process, as is allowed per code. Context-Based Design Criteria An analysis of the project’s consistency with the Context Based Design Criteria is included in the findings for approval in Attachment B. 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 ARB Comments In response to recommendations from board members during the preliminary review study session, the applicant made several revisions to the plans, mainly reducing the amount of proposed concrete and incorporating more natural materials and vegetation into the design to soften the look and feel of the building. The stair tower at the rear, design of the trash rooms, and design of the parking system and layout were also revised. In response to the ARB’s comments on June 20, 2024, on the formal application, the applicant made further revisions to address comments from board members. These included refinements to the design of the project as it related to the neighboring building at 636 Waverley Street (mainly reducing concrete), small refinements and clarity on the parking design, and revisions and clarity to landscape planting and its long-term maintenance. Overall, the applicant was responsive to the ARBs comments and has made improvements to the design to address/reflect those comments. 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 square feet 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 square feet per fiscal year and allows up to 100,000 square feet with a rollover from the previous year. Currently, there is 47,400 square feet of office space that was rolled over from the fiscal year 2024. Therefore, the threshold for this fiscal year is 97,400 square feet. The project proposes a net increase in 672 square feet of office space. Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 17     Item No. 2. Page 5 of 7 Therefore, the approval of the proposed project would not cause the City to exceed the annual office limit. 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 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 Palo Alto Caltrain Station, which qualifies as a major transit stop. Therefore, no automobile parking spaces are required under State law for the proposed project, but bicycle parking spaces are still required. Parking that is provided meets California Building Code requirements for EV and ADA based on the number of spaces provided. The project has been reviewed and is consistent with the building and green building code requirements. A transportation analysis has been prepared and is included in Attachment E. The analysis concludes that the project as designed would not impact existing transit facilities and includes appropriate circulation for the project site. Housing Accountability Act and Senate Bill (SB) 330 The proposed project qualifies as a Housing Development in accordance with the Housing Accountability Act and SB 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, SB 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, therefore no tenant relocation is required. Citywide Affordable Housing Requirements The project is proposing four residential units, which results in a fractional (0.6) below market rate unit that would be required in accordance with PAMC Section 16.65, which includes the Citywide Affordable Housing requirements. The applicant intends to pay housing in-lieu fees for the fractional unit. Payment of this fee is required as set forth in the conditions of approval. In accordance with SB 937, which allows payment of fees prior to occupancy for housing development projects. Historic The project site has been deemed ineligible for listing in the California Register of Historic Resources as detailed in the environmental analysis. The Historic Resources Evaluation for this site was previously reviewed by the City’s Historic Resources Board (HRB) and the HRB 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 environmental analysis, A/HC evaluated whether the proposed project would impact the neighboring historic structure Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 18     Item No. 2. Page 6 of 7 in a manner that is inconsistent with the SOIS standards. The analysis concluded that the proposed project is compatible with 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 December 27, 2024, which is 21 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on January 2, 2025, which is 14 days in advance of the meeting. 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 was refined prior to the last hearing and the neighbor has since expressed his support of the project both at the previous hearing and in writing. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The City, acting as the lead agency, has analyzed the project in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Specifically, the City prepared an analysis of the project in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, which evaluated the project’s consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and the Comprehensive Plan EIR. The 15183 exemption allows for streamlining of infill projects where the previous adopted EIR for a Comprehensive Plan has been adopted and adequately addresses the impacts of the proposed project. Plan level technical reports were prepared to confirm that the Comprehensive Plan EIR, including any mitigation that would be addressed as required through that EIR, would adequately address the impacts of the proposed project. A link to the analysis and attachments are included in Attachment F. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS In addition to the recommended action, the Architectural Review Board may: 1. Recommend the project return to the ARB at a date (un)certain. 2. Recommend Denial based on revised findings. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Location map Attachment B: Findings for Approval Attachment C: Conditions of Approval Attachment D: Zoning Consistency Analysis Attachment E: SWA Memorandum Attachment F: Project Plans and Environmental Analysis Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 19     Item No. 2. Page 7 of 7 Report Author & Contact Information ARB1 Liaison & Contact Information Claire Raybould, AICP, Interim Manager Current Planning Steven Switzer, Historic Planner Current Planning (650) 329-2116 (650) 329-2321 claire.raybould@cityofpaloalto.org Steven.Switzer@cityofpaloalto.org 1 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 20     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 664325 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 ALTOINCORPORATED CALI FORNIA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f APRIL 1 6 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto chodgki, 2023-05-23 10:24:11 (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) Item 2 Attachment A - Location Map     Packet Pg. 21     ATTACHMENT B ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL 640 Waverley 24PLN-00064 The design and architecture of the proposed improvements, as conditioned, complies with the Findings for Architectural Review as required in Chapter 18.76 of the PAMC. Finding #1: The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant design guides. The project is consistent with Finding #1 because: The proposed project complies with the zoning code. The project is subject to the context-based design criteria (as outlined under finding #2). The project is not located within the boundaries of a coordinated area plan area. The proposed project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, below is an analysis of the applicable goals and policies: Comp Plan Goals and Policies How project adheres or does not adhere to Comp Plan The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the site is Community Commercial 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 development, are encouraged in proximity to major transit stops. The project is located within 0.5 miles of the Palo Alto Caltrain Station and is walking distance to the University Avenue downtown shopping areas. Land Use and Community Design Policy L-1.2: Limit future urban development to currently developed lands within the urban service area. The boundary of the urban service area is otherwise known as the urban growth boundary. Retain undeveloped land west of Foothill Expressway and Junipero Serra as open The project is located on currently development lands within the urban service area. Item 2 Attachment B - ARB Findings for Approval     Packet Pg. 22     space, with allowances made for very low- intensity development consistent with the open space character of the area. Retain undeveloped land northeast of Highway 101 as open space. Policy L-1.3: Infill development in the urban service area should be compatible with its surroundings and the overall scale and character of the city to ensure a compact, efficient development pattern. The project is an urban infill development proposal in the urban service area of the city. Policy L-1.5: Regulate land uses in Palo Alto according to the land use definitions in this Element and Map L-6. The project is consistent with the land use definitions in this element and Map L-6, which identify this site as community commercial. Policy L-1.6: Encourage land uses that address the needs of the community and manage change and development to benefit the community. The project replaces ground floor office space with pedestrian oriented ground floor office use and 4 net new residential units. The project seeks to addresses the housing crisis that the City Council has identified as a top priority. Policy L-1.11: Hold new development to the highest development standards in order to maintain Palo Alto’s livability and achieve the highest quality development with the least impacts The project utilizes high-quality material including smooth and textured concrete, tongue and groove wood, and metal and the design is high quality, meeting the ARB findings for approval. Policy L-2.5: Support the creation of affordable housing units for middle to lower income level earners, such as City and school district employees, as feasible. Although the project provides market rate units on site, it also will be required to pay in- lieu fees for 0.6 unit, which would be used toward below market rate units. Policy L-2.8: When considering infill redevelopment, work to minimize displacement of existing residents. The project replaces existing office with a new office space. No residents would be displaced as a result of this project. Policy L-2.11: Encourage new development and redevelopment to incorporate greenery and natural features such as green rooftops, pocket parks, plazas and rain gardens. The project includes ground floor common areas and private balconies that include planting areas in order to incorporate greenery into the design. Policy L-3.1: Ensure that new or remodeled structures are compatible with the neighborhood and adjacent structures. The development is generally consistent with the height of structures in the immediate vicinity of the project site. The project has been Item 2 Attachment B - ARB Findings for Approval     Packet Pg. 23     Policy L-6.1: Promote high-quality design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces. appropriately designed to ensure that the project would not impact the historic integrity of the neighboring structure. Policy L-3.4: Ensure that new multi-family buildings, entries and outdoor spaces are designed and arranged so that each development has a clear relationship to a public street. The proposed residential uses above are designed to include balconies that provide eyes on the street, consistent with this policy. Policy L-6.2: Use the Zoning Ordinance, design review process, design guidelines and Coordinated Area Plans to ensure high quality residential and commercial design and architectural compatibility. The project is consistent with the City’s Zoning Ordinance and meets the City’s design guidelines and the ARB findings for approval. Policy L-6.7: Where possible, avoid abrupt changes in scale and density between residential and non-residential areas and between residential areas of different densities. To promote compatibility and gradual transitions between land uses, place zoning district boundaries at mid-block locations rather than along streets wherever possible. The project includes a four-story development within the commercial downtown district where surrounding development generally ranges from 2-4 stories. The project complies with the setback and daylight plane requirements that is required for a development on this site. Policy L-6.8: Support existing regulations that preserve exposure to natural light for single- family residences The project complies with daylight plane and setbacks that would otherwise be required under the base zoning (and that exceed the single-family residential zone district requirements) where it abuts R-1 zoning. Policy L-9.2: Encourage development that creatively integrates parking into the project, including by locating it behind buildings or underground wherever possible, or by providing for shared use of parking areas. Encourage other alternatives to surface parking lots that minimize the amount of land devoted to parking while still maintaining safe streets, street trees, a vibrant local economy and sufficient parking to meet demand. The current site is primarily paved parking lot. The proposed project reduces curb cuts and provides the parking within a first-floor parking garage behind active uses along the EL Camino Real frontage. Policy L-9.3: Treat residential streets as both public ways and neighborhood amenities. Provide and maintain continuous sidewalks, healthy street trees, benches and other amenities that promote walking and “active” The project improves the street right-of-way through improved street planting and clear separation of the public sidewalk from the private property. The project increases the sidewalk along El Camino Real by providing a Item 2 Attachment B - ARB Findings for Approval     Packet Pg. 24     transportation.public easement to allow for a 12-foot effective sidewalk width. The clear walking path has been increased to 7’6” and additional planting on the interior yard and development that corresponds to the street provides a more inviting pedestrian environment. Policy T-1.17: Require new office, commercial and multi-family residential developments to provide improvements that improve bicycle and pedestrian connectivity as called for in the 2012 Palo Alto Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan. Policy T-1.19: Provide facilities that encourage and support bicycling and walking. The project provides short term and long-term bicycle parking on site for both the residential and commercial use and improves the pedestrian experience along the sidewalk through improved landscaping and pedestrian oriented design. Policy T-5.1: All new development projects should manage parking demand generated by the project, without the use of on-street parking, consistent with the established parking regulations. As demonstrated parking demand decreases over time, parking requirements for new construction should decrease. The project provides all its required parking onsite. A TDM plan is required for the proposed project and is required to reduce trip generation by 30%. The TDM plan is currently being prepared. Policy N-2.10: Preserve and protect Regulated Trees, such as native oaks and other significant trees, on public and private property, including landscape trees approved as part of a development review process and consider strategies for expanding tree protection in Palo Alto. There are few trees on site, and none of which are of high quality. Trees removed will be replaced pursuant to City requirements to ensure no net loss of canopy, as required by code. Program H2.1.2: Allow increased residential densities and mixed-use development only where adequate urban services and amenities, including roadway capacity, are available. The project is located within an urban area in the commercial downtown area, within close proximity to high-quality transit. Goal H-2: Support the construction of housing near schools, transit, parks, shopping, employment and cultural institutions The project replaces existing vacant retail and paved parking with a new multi-family housing development in a transit-oriented location that is also near schools, shopping, and employment along El Camino Real and within the immediate vicinity of Stanford Research Park. The project has also been reviewed for conformance with the development standards in the zoning code and found to be in compliance with the intent and regulations contained therein. A Item 2 Attachment B - ARB Findings for Approval     Packet Pg. 25     comprehensive review of the project to applicable development standards is included in the administrative record (See Attachment D for a complete zoning consistency analysis). Finding #2: The project has a unified and coherent design, that: a. creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community, b. preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site and the historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant, c. is consistent with the context-based design criteria of the applicable zone district, d. provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations, e. enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent residential areas. The project is consistent with Finding #2 because: The area is comprised of a mix of single-family residential, mixed-use and commercial development along Waverley Street and within the immediate vicinity. The project proposes to construct a building that is similar in height to several other buildings within the vicinity and adjacent to the site, but that is taller than the single family residence to the south of the property. However, the project is designed to give deference to the single family residential building with respect to massing and through material choices, which provide a strong base (concrete) and lighter top (using glass and wood materials). The existing structures are not historic and an analysis of the project’s impacts on the neighboring property concludes that the project would not impact the historic integrity of the neighboring historic residence. The project provides new tree plantings along the street and along the frontage and enhances the permeable, planted open space area on the site. The project provides new, high quality residential uses on site in an area close to transit, consistent with goals and policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. Pursuant to PAMC 18.16.090, the following context-based design considerations and findings are applicable to this project. These context-based design criteria are intended to indicate relationships between the site's development to adjacent street types, surrounding land uses, and on-site or nearby natural features, such as creeks or trees. Effective transitions to these adjacent uses and features are strongly reinforced by Comprehensive Plan policies. The purpose is to encourage residential development in the commercial districts to be responsible to its context and compatible with adjacent development. 1. Pedestrian and Bicycle Environment 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 Item 2 Attachment B - ARB Findings for Approval     Packet Pg. 26     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. 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 Item 2 Attachment B - ARB Findings for Approval     Packet Pg. 27     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. Finding #3: The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. The project is consistent with Finding #3 because: The project uses high quality materials that are incorporated well into the design of the structure. The design is well thought out to consider neighboring structures, including designing the massing to give deference to the historic structure to the south, while also considering the privacy of neighboring residents. The proposed colors are neutral and warm, compatible with surrounding color schemes. The project incorporates landscaping and reduces paving in comparison to the existing condition at the site in order to enhance the appearance of the site, particularly along the street frontage. Finding #4: The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and providing for elements that support the building’s necessary operations (e.g. convenient vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.). The project is consistent with Finding #4 because: The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic to the site. The project provides short-term bicycle parking within the front courtyard as well as one bicycle rack along Waverley. A long-term bicycle parking room is also accessible from the elevator to provide ease of access to residents utilizing this room. The project provides a single point of vehicular access from Waverley. The project provides appropriate trash rooms for the different uses and provides appropriate utilities rooms and connections on the site. The project exceeds the require on-site open space requirements. 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 Item 2 Attachment B - ARB Findings for Approval     Packet Pg. 28     indigenous drought resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat that can be appropriately maintained. The project is consistent with Finding #5 because: The project will provide drought-tolerant planting, the majority of which were selected from a California native palette. Finding #6: The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning. The project is consistent with Finding #6 because: In accordance with the City’s Green Building Regulations, the project will satisfy the requirements for CALGreen Mandatory + Tier 2. This includes providing solar and being an all-electric building. Drought tolerant native planting would also help to reduce water use and the planting palette complies with the Model Water Efficiency Landscape Ordinance requirements. Item 2 Attachment B - ARB Findings for Approval     Packet Pg. 29     Attachment C PLANNING DIVISION 1. CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS. Construction and development shall conform to the approved plans entitled, "640 Waverley Street Palo Alto , California Major Architectural Review Submittal #3 11.26.2024,” stamped as received by the City on November 26, 2024 on file with the Planning Department, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California except as modified by these conditions of approval. 2. BUILDING PERMIT. Apply for a building permit and meet any and all conditions of the Planning, Fire, Public Works, and Building Departments. 3. BUILDING PERMIT PLAN SET. A copy of this cover letter and conditions of approval shall be printed on the second page of the plans submitted for building permit. 4. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS. All modifications to the approved project shall be submitted for review and approval prior to construction. If during the Building Permit review and construction phase, the project is modified by the applicant, it is the responsibility of the applicant to contact the Planning Division/project planner directly to obtain approval of the project modification. It is the applicant’s responsibility to highlight any proposed changes to the project and to bring it to the project planner’s attention. 5. LANDSCAPE PLAN. Plantings shall be installed in accordance with the approved plan set and the memorandum dated November 6, 2024 prepared by SWA landscape architects as provided in Attachment E of staff report # 2412-3940 and shall be permanently maintained and replaced as necessary. 6. NOISE THRESHOLDS ON RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. In accordance with PAMC Section 9.10.030, No person shall produce, suffer or allow to be produced by any machine, animal or device, or any combination of same, on residential property, a noise level more than six dB above the local ambient at any point outside of the property plane. 7. LIGHTING. Between the hours of 10:00pm-6:00am (normal cessation of business hours), lighting within the building or on the property shall be reduced to its minimum necessary to facilitate security, in order to minimize light glare at night. 8. SIGN APPROVAL NEEDED. No signs are approved at this time. All signs shall conform to the requirements of Title 16.20 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (Sign Code) and shall be subject to approval by the Director of Planning. 9.NOISE REPORT. At the time of building permit issuance, the specifications for the mechanical equipment, including the maximum decibel level of the equipment shall be provided. If the proposed noise level exceeds the anticipated noise level previously analyzed, further analysis to show compliance with the city’s noise ordinance shall be provided. Where the acoustical analysis projected noise levels at or within 5 dB less than the Noise Ordinance limits, the applicant shall demonstrate the installed equipment complies with the anticipated noise levels and the Noise Ordinance prior to final Planning inspection approval. Item 2 Attachment C - Conditions of Approval     Packet Pg. 30     10. USE AND OCCUPANCY PERMIT. A Use and Occupancy Permit is required prior to occupancy of the commercial space by any tenant. 11. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) associated with the project and attached here as Exhibit A is incorporated by reference and all mitigation measures shall be implemented as described in said document. Prior to requesting issuance of any related demolition and/or construction permits, the applicant shall meet with the Project Planner to review and ensure compliance with the MMRP, subject to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning of Planning and Community Environment. 12. NESTING BIRD SURVEY. Vegetation or tree removal shall be prohibited during the general avian nesting season (February 1 – August 31), if feasible. If nesting season avoidance is not feasible, the applicant shall retain a qualified biologist, as approved by the City of Palo Alto, to conduct a preconstruction nesting bird survey to determine the presence/absence, location, and activity status of any active nests on or adjacent to the project site no more than 14 days prior to scheduled vegetation clearance and/or demolition activities. If nesting birds are found to be present, a suitable buffer (typically a minimum buffer of 50 feet for passerines and a minimum buffer of 250 feet for raptors) as determined appropriate by the biologist, shall be established around such active nests and no construction shall be allowed within the buffer areas until a qualified biologist has determined that the nest is no longer active (i.e., the nestlings have fledged and are no longer reliant on the nest). A report documenting any data recovered during monitoring shall be prepared by a qualified biologist and submitted to the Director of Planning prior to final planning inspection. 13. UNANTICIPATED DISCOVERY OF BURIED ARCHAEOLOGICAL, PALEONTOLOGICAL, AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES. No known archeological or paleontological resources are present on or within the immediate vicinity of the site. However, in the unlikely event that an archeological resource or paleontological resource is unearthed during ground disturbing activities, work in the immediate area must be halted and an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for archeology (National Park Service 1983) shall be contacted immediately to evaluate the find. If the find is Native American in origin, then a Native American representative must also be contacted to participate in the evaluation of the find. The qualified archaeologist, and, if applicable, the Native American representative, shall examine the find and make recommendations regarding additional work necessary to evaluate the significance of the find and the appropriate treatment of the resource. Recommendations could include, but are not limited to, invasive or non-invasive testing, sampling, laboratory analysis, preservation in place, or data recovery. A report of findings documenting any data recovered during monitoring shall be prepared by a qualified archaeologist and submitted to the Director of Planning prior to final planning inspection. 14. REFUSE. All trash areas shall be effectively screened from view and covered and maintained in an orderly state to prevent water from entering into the garbage container. No outdoor storage is allowed/permitted unless designated on the approved plan set. Trash areas shall be maintained in a manner to discourage illegal dumping. 15. Watershed Protection Requirements. At the Building permit stage, the project shall demonstrate compliance with the following Municipal Code Sections: a. Section 16.09.075 (Grease Control, Drainage Fixtures), Item 2 Attachment C - Conditions of Approval     Packet Pg. 31     b. Section 16.09.075(q)(2) (Covered Dumpsters, Recycling and Tallow Bin Areas), c. Section 16.09.075(m)(2)(B) (Large Item Cleaning Sink), and d. Section 5.30.020 (Prohibitions on the Use of Plastic Foam and Non-Recyclable Plastics) 16. AFFORDABLE HOUSING REQUIREMENT (OWNERSHIP PROJECT): This project is subject to the affordable housing requirements set forth in Section 16.65.030 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. The Code goes on to state that “for projects on sites of less than five acres, fifteen percent (15%) of the dwelling units in the project shall be made available at affordable sales price to very low, low, and moderate income households”. Therefore, the proposed project is required to provide 0.6 fractional unit through payment of housing in-lieu fees, currently estimated at $580,536. This fee shall be collected along with other required development impacts fees prior to occupancy. 17. ESTIMATED IMPACT FEE: Development Impact Fees, currently estimated in the amount of $340,494.62 plus the applicable public art fee, per PAMC 16.61.040, and the applicable affordable housing in-lieu fee as detailed in COA 16 shall be paid prior to occupancy. 18. IMPACT FEE 90-DAY PROTEST PERIOD. California Government Code Section 66020 provides that a project applicant who desires to protest the fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions imposed on a development project must initiate the protest at the time the development project is approved or conditionally approved or within ninety (90) days after the date that fees, dedications, reservations or exactions are imposed on the Project. Additionally, procedural requirements for protesting these development fees, dedications, reservations and exactions are set forth in Government Code Section 66020. IF YOU FAIL TO INITIATE A PROTEST WITHIN THE 90-DAY PERIOD OR FOLLOW THE PROTEST PROCEDURES DESCRIBED IN GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66020, YOU WILL BE BARRED FROM CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OR REASONABLENESS OF THE FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS, AND EXACTIONS. If these requirements constitute fees, taxes, assessments, dedications, reservations, or other exactions as specified in Government Code Sections 66020(a) or 66021, this is to provide notification that, as of the date of this notice, the 90-day period has begun in which you may protest these requirements. This matter is subject to the California Code of Civil Procedures (CCP) Section 1094.5; the time by which judicial review must be sought is governed by CCP Section 1094.6. 19. INDEMNITY. To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City for its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice. 20. ENTITLEMENT EXPIRATION. The project approval shall be valid for a period of two years from the date of issuance of the entitlement. If within such one/two years period, the proposed use of the site or the construction of buildings has not commenced, the Planning entitlement shall expire. Application for a one year extension of this entitlement may be made prior to expiration. Item 2 Attachment C - Conditions of Approval     Packet Pg. 32     21. FINAL INSPECTION: A Planning Division Final inspection will be required to determine substantial compliance with the approved plans prior to the scheduling of a Building Division final. Any revisions during the building process must be approved by Planning, including but not limited to; materials, landscaping and hard surface locations. Contact your Project Planner, Claire Raybould at claire.raybould@cityofpaloalto.org to schedule this inspection. BUILDING 22. A building permit is required. Submit complete plans and documentation with the building permit application. The checklist for building permit submittal is available online at: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/4/development-services/building- division/checklists/simplified/c1-new-comm-shell-checklist.pdf PUBLIC WORKS 23. TENTATIVE MAP: A Tentative Map is required for the proposed development as it is deemed a Major Subdivision. All existing and proposed dedications and easements must be shown on the submitted map. This application is filed with the Planning Division. 24. PUBLIC WORKS APPLICATIONS, FORMS, AND DOCUMENTS: Applicant shall be advised that most forms, applications, and informational documents related to Public Works Engineering conditions can be found at the following link: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Public-Works/Engineering-Services/Forms-and-Permits 25. OVERVIEW AND GUIDELINES FOR THE REVIEW OF SUBDIVISION PROJECTS: Developer shall familiarize themselves with the guidelines described in the November 2007 revision of the document titled “Overview and Guidelines for the Review of Subdivision Projects”. Particularly Section II (items 5 through 12) and Section V (items A through C). https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/planning-amp-development-services/file- migration/current-planning/forms-and-guidelines/overview-and-guidelines-for-the-review-of-subdivision- projects.pdf 26. SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT: The applicant shall execute a Subdivision Improvement Agreement and provide improvement securities (Bonds) for all proposed public improvements. THE AGREEMENT SHALL BE EXECUTED PRIOR TO MAP RECORDATION OR ISSUANCE OF ANY PERMITS FOR CONSTRUCTION, ONSITE AND OFFSITE. ADVISORY -- The applicant shall provide a detailed itemized stamped and signed engineer's estimate for all off-site public improvements which will be reviewed to determine the security amount. 27. PARCEL MAP/FINAL MAP: This project is subject to, and contingent upon the approval of a tentative map/final map and recordation of a Final Map. The submittal, approval and recordation of the Map shall be in accordance with the provisions of the California Subdivision Map Act and Palo Alto Municipal Code Title 21 Subdivision requirements. All existing and proposed property lines, easements, dedications shown on the tentative map are subject to City’s technical review and staff approval during the map process prior to Item 2 Attachment C - Conditions of Approval     Packet Pg. 33     issuance of any construction permits. 28. MAP THIRD-PARTY REVIEW: The City contracts with a third-party surveyor that will review and provide approval of the map’s technical correctness as the City Surveyor, as permitted by the Subdivision Map Act. The Public Works Department will forward a Scope & Fee Letter from the third-party surveyor and the applicant will be responsible for payment of the fee’s indicated therein, which is based on the complexity of the map. 29. STREETWORK PERMIT: The applicant shall obtain a Streetwork Permit from the Department of Public Works for all public improvements. 30. GRADING AND EXCAVATION PERMIT: A Grading Permit is required per PAMC Chapter 16.28. The permit application and all applicable documents (see Section H of application) shall be submitted to Public Works Engineering. Add the following note: “THIS GRADING PERMIT WILL ONLY AUTHORIZE GENERAL GRADING AND INSTALLATION OF THE STORM DRAIN SYSTEM. OTHER BUILDING AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS ARE SHOWN FOR REFERENCE INFORMATION ONLY AND ARE SUBJECT TO SEPARATE BUILDING PERMIT APPROVAL.” 31. ROUGH GRADING: provide a Rough Grading Plan for the work proposed as part of the Grading and Excavation Permit application. The Rough Grading Plans shall including the following: pad elevation, elevator pit elevation, ground monitoring wells, limits of over excavation, stockpile area of material, overall earthwork volumes (cut and fill), temporary shoring for any existing facilities, ramps for access, crane locations (if any), tree protection measures, etc. 32. CIVIL ENGINEER CERTIFICATION: Upon completion of the rough grading work and at the final completion of the work, applicant shall provide an as-graded grading plan prepared by the civil engineer that includes original ground surface elevations, as-graded ground surface elevations, lot drainage patterns and locations and elevations of all surface and subsurface drainage facilities. The civil engineer shall certify that the work was done in accordance with the final approved grading plan. 33. SOILS ENGINEER CERTIFICATION: Upon completion of the rough grading work and at the final completion of the work, applicant shall provide a soil grading report prepared by the soils engineer, including locations and elevation of field density tests, summaries of field and laboratory tests and other substantiating data, and comments on any changes made during grading and their effect on the recommendations made in the soils engineering investigation report. The soils engineer shall certify as to the adequacy of the site for the intended use. 34. SHORING & TIEBACKS: Provide a shoring plan showing the existing utilities (if needed), to clearly indicate how the new structures will be constructed while protecting the existing utilities (if any). If tiebacks are proposed they shall not extend onto adjacent private property, existing easements or into the City’s right-of- Item 2 Attachment C - Conditions of Approval     Packet Pg. 34     way without having first obtained written permission from the private property owners and/or an encroachment permit from Public Works. 35. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER STATEMENT: The grading plans shall include the following statement signed and sealed by the Geotechnical Engineer of Record: “THIS PLAN HAS BEEN REVIEWED AND FOUND TO BE IN GENERAL CONFORMANCE WITH THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT”. 36. CONSTRUCTION DEWATERING: This project requires a dewatering permit during construction due to the groundwater level relative to the depth of excavation. 37. ENCROACHMENT PERMIT: Prior to any work in the public right-of-way, the applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Public Works Department for any work that encroaches onto the City right- of-way. 38. LOGISTICS PLAN: A construction logistics plan shall be provided addressing all impacts to the public including, at a minimum: work hours, noticing of affected businesses, bus stop relocations, construction signage, dust control, noise control, storm water pollution prevention, job trailer, contractors’ parking, truck routes, staging, concrete pours, crane lifts, scaffolding, materials storage, pedestrian safety, and traffic control. All truck routes shall conform to the City of Palo Alto’s Trucks and Truck Route Ordinance, Chapter 10.48, and the route map. NOTE: Some items/tasks on the logistics plan may require an encroachment permit. 39. STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION: All improvement plan sets shall include the “Pollution Prevention – It’s Part of the Plan” sheet. 40. C.3 THIRD-PARTY CERTIFICATION: Applicant shall provide certification from a qualified third-party reviewer that the proposed permanent storm water pollution prevention measures comply with the requirements of Provision C.3 and Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.11. Submit the following: a. Provide a stamped and signed C.3 data form (April 2024 version) from SCVURPPP. https://scvurppp.org/2024/09/19/provision-c-3-data-form-2024/ b. Final stamped and signed letter confirming which documents were reviewed and that the project complies with Provision C.3 and PAMC 16.11. 41. C.3 STORMWATER AGREEMENT: The applicant shall enter into a Stormwater Maintenance Agreement with the City to guarantee the ongoing maintenance of the permanent storm water pollution prevention measures. The City will inspect the treatment measures yearly and charge an inspection fee. The agreement shall be executed by the applicant team prior to building permit final. 42. C.3 FINAL THIRD PARTY CERTIFICATION PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY: Within 45 days of the installation of the required storm water treatment measures and prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit for the building, Item 2 Attachment C - Conditions of Approval     Packet Pg. 35     the third-party reviewer shall submit to the City a certification verifying that all the permanent storm water pollution prevention measures were installed in accordance with the approved plans. 43. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA: The project will be creating or replacing 500 square feet or more of impervious surface. Accordingly, the applicant shall provide calculations of the existing and proposed impervious surface areas with the building permit application. The Impervious Area Worksheet for Land Developments form and instructions are available at the Development Center or on our website. To determine the impervious surface area that is being disturbed, provide the quantity on the site plan. 44. PRIOR TO PUBLIC WORKS FINAL/ACCEPTANCE (STORM DRAIN LOGO): The applicant is required to paint “No Dumping/Flows to ______” in blue on a white background adjacent to all onsite storm drain inlets. The name of the creek to which the proposed development drains can be obtained from Public Works Engineering. Stencils of the logo are available from the Public Works Environmental Compliance Division, which may be contacted at (650) 329-2598. Include the instruction to paint the logos on the construction grading and drainage plan. 45. PRIOR TO PUBLIC WORKS FINAL/ACCEPTANCE (RECORD DRAWINGS): At the conclusion of the project applicant shall provide digital as-built/record drawings of all improvements constructed in the public right- of-way or easements in which the City owns an interest. 46. PRIOR TO PUBLIC WORKS FINAL/ACCEPTANCE (INDEFINITE ENCROACHMENT PERMIT): An approved indefinite encroachment permit will be required for private infrastructure constructed in the public right-of- way, easement or on property in which the City holds an interest, but that was not authorized by a building permit. Zero Waste 47. REQUIRED DECONSTRUCTION. In conformance with PAMC 5.24, deconstruction and source separation are required for all residential and commercial projects where structures (other than a garage or ADU) are being completely removed, demolition is no longer allowed. Deconstruction takes longer than traditional demolition, it is important to plan ahead. For more information, visit www.cityofpaloalto.org/deconstruction. 48. SALVAGE SURVEY FOR REUSE. A Salvage Survey is required for deconstruction permit applications. The survey shall be conducted by a City approved reuse vendor. The survey submittal shall include an itemized list of materials that are salvageable for reuse from the project. The applicant shall source separate and deliver materials for reuse. Certification is required indicating that all materials identified in the survey are properly salvaged. Contact The ReUse People to schedule this FREE survey by phone (888) 588-9490 or e- mail info@thereusepeople.org. More information can be found at www.TheReusePeople.org. Please upload a completed copy to the deconstruction permit. 49. SOURCE SEPARATION FOR RECYCLING. The applicant shall source separate deconstruction materials into specific categories for recycling. Additional staging areas for source separated materials will need to be considered. All materials shall be delivered to one of the City approved materials recovery facilities listed in Green Halo, all records shall be uploaded to www.greenhalosystems.com. Item 2 Attachment C - Conditions of Approval     Packet Pg. 36     For more information, refer to www.cityofpaloalto.org/deconstruction. TRANSPORTATION 50. PARKING RESTRICTION SIGNAGE. Signage restricting parking in front of the property during trash pickup hours is required. Applicant shall install required parking restriction signs as part of the project. The parking restriction signage plan shall be reviewed by the Office of Transportation as part of the building permit application. 51. RED ZONE FOR VISIBILITY. The project shall be required to keep the existing five-foot No Parking (red zone) on the left side of the project driveway to increase visibility. URBAN FORESTRY The following shall be addressed prior to issuance of a Building Permit, Excavation and Grading Permit, Certificate of Compliance, Street Work Permit and/or Encroachment Permit. See general UF COA below: 52. The owner and contractor shall implement all protection and inspection schedule measures, design recommendations and construction scheduling as stated in the TPR and/or Sheet T-1, and is subject to code compliance action pursuant to PAMC 8.10.080. The required protective fencing shall remain in place until final landscaping and inspection of the project. If called for, project arborist approval must be obtained and documented in the monthly activity report sent to the City. 53. Tree Damage, Injury Mitigation and Inspections apply to Contractor. Reporting, injury mitigation measures and arborist inspection schedule (1-5) apply pursuant to TTM, Section 2.20-2.30. Contractor shall be responsible for the repair or replacement of any publicly owned or protected trees that are damaged during the course of construction, pursuant to Title 8 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, and city Tree Technical Manual, Section 2.25. 54. The following general tree preservation measures apply to all trees to be retained: No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment shall be permitted within the tree enclosure area. The ground under and around the tree canopy area shall not be altered. Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. 55. TREE PROTECTION VERIFICATION INSPECTION REQUIRED. Prior to any site work, contractor must call Uriel Hernandez at 650-329-2450 to schedule an inspection of any required protective fencing. The fencing shall contain required warning sign and remain in place until final inspection of the project. 56. Any approved grading, digging or trenching beneath a tree canopy shall be performed using ‘air-spade’ method as a preference, with manual hand shovel as a backup. For utility trenching, including sewer line, roots exposed with diameter of 1.5 inches and greater shall remain intact and not be damaged. If directional boring method is used to tunnel beneath roots, then Table 2-1, Trenching and Tunneling Distance, shall be printed on the final plans to be implemented by Contractor. Item 2 Attachment C - Conditions of Approval     Packet Pg. 37     57. During the permit phase of a project an applicant must provide the proposed square footage of the rehabilitated landscape to determine if the project requires a MWELO compliance review. Please see the document titled “Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO) Compliance Submittals and Guidelines” (https://cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/76159) to determine if the project qualifies for MWELO Review. If a MWELO review is required, please follow the instructions in the above document when submitting your permit application and plan set. 58. NO NET LOSS OF CANOPY: In order to comply with the city’s no net loss of canopy policy (Urban Forest Master Plan: Goals 6.A, 6.B & 6.C & Comprehensive Plan Natural Environment Chapter: Goal N-2 and others) all trees 4” DBH and larger are subject to replacement to avoid a loss of canopy at the neighborhood level. Replacement ratios are determined by table 3-1 in the Tree Technical Manual (Section 3.20.C). New landscape tree plantings (24” box or larger) count towards the replacement total. If unable to plant the required number of trees on site (our preferred solution) there is the option of paying in-lieu fees of $650 per each 24” box tree into the forestry fund. 59. The final Plans submitted for building permit shall include the following information and notes on relevant plan sheets: The building permit plan set will include the Sheet T-1 (Tree Protection-it's Part of the Plan!) Item 2 Attachment C - Conditions of Approval     Packet Pg. 38     Page 1 of 2 ATTACHMENT D ZONING CONSISTENCY TABLE 640 Waverley Street, 24PLN-00064 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.18 (CD-C DISTRICT) Mixed-Use Development Standards Regulation Required 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 4” min, 1 foot typical Street Side Yard No requirement Not Applicable Maximum Site Coverage (building footprint) None Required 77.4% 4,085 square feet Landscape Open Space Coverage 20% 1,000 square feet 39.8% 2,100 square feet Open Space Required 150 square feet per residential unit (600 sf) 1,806 square feet 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 square feet 1,387 square feet Maximum Nonresidential Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 1.0:1 FAR 0.45:1 FAR 2,369 sf Maximum Residential Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 2.0:1 1.71:1 FAR 8,796 sf Total Floor Area Ratio 3.0:1 15,831 square feet 2.12:1 11,051 square feet 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 D - Zoning Comparison Table     Packet Pg. 39     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 D - Zoning Comparison Table     Packet Pg. 40     530 Bush Street 6th Floor San Francisco, California 94108 +1.415.836.8770 www.swagroup.com MEMORANDUM The proposed property at 640 Waverly St features a collection of exterior planted spaces, worked into and around the ground level commercial space, and residential units on levels 2-4. With the exception of small areas at the front and rear of the property, all proposed planted areas are over structure. Planting on this project is woven into the fabric and character of the architecture, both for internal spaces available to tenants and guests, but also in how the project is experienced from the public realm. As such, we understand the importance of maintaining the living elements on the project. Below is a description of how planting areas will be cared for: Water All planted areas will receive permanent irrigation, with plant groupings hydro-zoned for efficient water use. Soils On-structure planting areas will use lightweight growing media for efficient drainage. On grade planting areas will use soils amended with organic compost.  Access and Frequency of Care A number of planters are located in private areas typically only accessible to residents. These planters will be maintained on a quarterly basis by, in coordination with the property owner and tenants. Ground level planting areas at the street and commercial space common areas will be maintained on a monthly basis.  In this case, “maintenance” should be understood to mean weeding and pruning as necessary, replacement of failed plant materials, and repair of irrigation systems when needed. Planters may also receive infrequent application of organic fertilizer to reinvigorate growing media.  One planter, located on the L2 balcony facing Waverly St presents a fall risk for maintenance staff, and will be accessed when necessary by personnel who will be secured using safety “tie-ins” located on the L2 balcony, in compliance with OSHA standards. To: Mason Hayes From: Ben Waldo Date: 11.06.2024 Sent Via: Project Number: JLCT301 Project Name: 640 Waverly St Subject: Landscape Maintenance Narrative Item 2 Attachment E - SWA Memorandum     Packet Pg. 41     Attachment F 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. Environmental Document A streamlined analysis/checklist has been prepared in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 and is available online on the project webpage for review. Directions to review Project plans and environmental documents 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 Materials Boards: Color and material boards will be available to view in chambers during the ARB hearing. Item 2 Attachment F - Project Plans and Environmental Documents     Packet Pg. 42     Item No. 2. Page 1 of 1 2 6 6 5 Architectural Review Board At-Places Memorandum From: Claire Raybould, AICP, Interim Manager, Current Planning Meeting Date: January 16, 2024 Item Number: 2 Report #:2412-3940 TITLE PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI-JUDICIAL. 640 Waverley Street [24PLN-00064]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Major Architectural Review to Allow the Demolition of Two Existing Buildings on a 5,277 Square Foot Lot and Redevelopment with a Proposed Four-Story, Approximately 11,050 Square Foot Mixed-Use Development with Ground Floor Office and Four Residential Units Above. Environmental Assessment: Initial Study/15183 Streamlined CEQA Review. Zoning District: CD-C(P). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Claire Raybould at Claire.Raybould@CityofPaloAlto.org. RECOMMENDATION This At-Places Memorandum includes a correction to the staff report. Staff inadvertently provided a version of the Draft Findings for Approval (Attachment B) that included references to a different project. This memo provides the corrected, complete Draft Findings for Approval for the proposed project, now labeled as Attachment G. ATTACHMENTS Attachment G: Revised Findings for Approval APPROVED BY: Claire Raybould, AICP, Interim Manager Current Planning Item 2 At Places Memo - 640 Waverley     Packet Pg. 43     ATTACHMENT G ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL 640 Waverley 24PLN-00064 The design and architecture of the proposed improvements, as conditioned, complies with the Findings for Architectural Review as required in Chapter 18.76 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC). Finding #1: The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant design guides. The project is consistent with Finding #1 because: The proposed project complies with the zoning code. The project is subject to the context- based design criteria (as outlined under finding #2). The project is not located within the boundaries of a coordinated area plan area. The proposed project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, below is an analysis of the applicable goals and policies: Comp Plan Goals and Policies How project adheres or does not adhere to Comp Plan The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the site is Community Commercial 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 development, are encouraged in proximity to major transit stops. The project is located within 0.5 miles of the Palo Alto Caltrain Station and is walking distance to the University Avenue downtown shopping areas. Land Use and Community Design Policy L-1.2: Limit future urban development to currently developed lands within the urban service area. The boundary of the urban service area is otherwise known as the urban The project is located on currently development lands within the urban service area. Item 2 Attachment G - Revised Findings for Approval     Packet Pg. 44     growth boundary. Retain undeveloped land west of Foothill Expressway and Junipero Serra as open space, with allowances made for very low-intensity development consistent with the open space character of the area. Retain undeveloped land northeast of Highway 101 as open space. Policy L-1.3: Infill development in the urban service area should be compatible with its surroundings and the overall scale and character of the City to ensure a compact, efficient development pattern. The project is an urban infill development proposal in the urban service area of the City. Policy L-1.5: Regulate land uses in Palo Alto according to the land use definitions in this Element and Map L-6. The project is consistent with the land use definitions in this element and Map L-6, which identify this site as Community Commercial. Policy L-1.6: Encourage land uses that address the needs of the community and manage change and development to benefit the community. The project replaces ground floor office space with pedestrian oriented ground floor office use and four net new residential units. The project seeks to addresses the housing crisis that the City Council has identified as a top priority. Policy L-1.11: Hold new development to the highest development standards in order to maintain Palo Alto’s livability and achieve the highest quality development with the least impacts The project utilizes high-quality material including smooth and textured concrete, tongue and groove wood, and metal and the design is high quality, meeting the ARB findings for approval. Policy L-2.5: Support the creation of affordable housing units for middle to lower income level earners, such as City and school district employees, as feasible. Although the project provides market rate units on site, it also will be required to pay in- lieu fees for 0.6 unit, which would be used toward below market rate units. Policy L-2.8: When considering infill redevelopment, work to minimize displacement of existing residents. The project replaces existing office with a new office space. No residents would be displaced as a result of this project. Policy L-2.11: Encourage new development and redevelopment to incorporate greenery and natural features such as green rooftops, pocket parks, plazas and rain gardens. The project includes ground floor common areas and private balconies that include planting areas in order to incorporate greenery into the design. Policy L-3.1: Ensure that new or remodeled structures are compatible with the neighborhood and adjacent structures. The development is generally consistent with the height of structures in the immediate vicinity of the project site. The project has Item 2 Attachment G - Revised Findings for Approval     Packet Pg. 45     Policy L-6.1: Promote high-quality design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces. been appropriately designed to ensure that the project would not impact the historic integrity of the neighboring structure. Policy L-3.4: Ensure that new multi-family buildings, entries and outdoor spaces are designed and arranged so that each development has a clear relationship to a public street. The proposed residential uses above are designed to include balconies that provide eyes on the street, consistent with this policy. Policy L-6.2: Use the Zoning Ordinance, design review process, design guidelines and coordinated area plans to ensure high quality residential and commercial design and architectural compatibility. The project is consistent with the City’s Zoning Ordinance and meets the City’s design guidelines and the ARB findings for approval. Policy L-6.7: Where possible, avoid abrupt changes in scale and density between residential and non-residential areas and between residential areas of different densities. To promote compatibility and gradual transitions between land uses, place zoning district boundaries at mid-block locations rather than along streets wherever possible. The project includes a four-story development within the commercial downtown district where surrounding development generally ranges from two to four stories. The project complies with the setback and daylight plane requirements that is required for a development on this site. Policy L-6.8: Support existing regulations that preserve exposure to natural light for single- family residences. The project is designed to provide deference to the adjacent single-family residential use, shifting massing toward the taller building to the north side of the site, consistent with this policy. Policy L-9.2: Encourage development that creatively integrates parking into the project, including by locating it behind buildings or underground wherever possible, or by providing for shared use of parking areas. Encourage other alternatives to surface parking lots that minimize the amount of land devoted to parking while still maintaining safe streets, street trees, a vibrant local economy and sufficient parking to meet demand. The project creatively integrates parking into the design through use of a lift system to a below-grade parking garage where the size of the site would otherwise provide limitations to constructing a ramp while maintaining the feasibility/layout of the underground parking. Policy L-9.3: Treat residential streets as both public ways and neighborhood amenities. Provide and maintain continuous sidewalks, healthy street trees, benches and other amenities that promote walking and “active” The project improves the street right-of-way through improved planting along the project frontage and clear separation of the public sidewalk from the private property. Item 2 Attachment G - Revised Findings for Approval     Packet Pg. 46     transportation. Policy T-1.17: Require new office, commercial and multi-family residential developments to provide improvements that improve bicycle and pedestrian connectivity as called for in the 2012 Palo Alto Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan. Policy T-1.19: Provide facilities that encourage and support bicycling and walking. The project provides short term and long-term bicycle parking on site for both the residential and commercial use and improves the pedestrian experience along the sidewalk through improved landscaping and pedestrian oriented design. Policy T-5.1: All new development projects should manage parking demand generated by the project, without the use of on-street parking, consistent with the established parking regulations. As demonstrated parking demand decreases over time, parking requirements for new construction should decrease. The project provides parking on site in a below grade parking garage, consistency with this policy. In accordance with State law, the project is not required to provide any parking, but chooses to provide parking for the proposed use. Policy N-2.10: Preserve and protect Regulated Trees, such as native oaks and other significant trees, on public and private property, including landscape trees approved as part of a development review process and consider strategies for expanding tree protection in Palo Alto. There are few trees on site, and none of which are of high quality. Trees removed will be replaced pursuant to City requirements to ensure no net loss of canopy, as required by code. Program H2.1.2: Allow increased residential densities and mixed-use development only where adequate urban services and amenities, including roadway capacity, are available. The project is located within an urban area in the commercial downtown area, within close proximity to high-quality transit. Goal H-2: Support the construction of housing near schools, transit, parks, shopping, employment and cultural institutions The project replaces the existing commercial uses while adding housing in a transit rich environment near jobs and other retail and retail-like uses. The project has also been reviewed for conformance with the development standards in the zoning code and found to be in compliance with the intent and regulations contained therein. A comprehensive review of the project to applicable development standards is included in the administrative record (See Attachment D for a complete zoning consistency analysis). 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, Item 2 Attachment G - Revised Findings for Approval     Packet Pg. 47     b. preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site and the historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant, c. is consistent with the context-based design criteria of the applicable zone district, d. provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations, e. enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent residential areas. The project is consistent with Finding #2 because: The area is comprised of a mix of single-family residential, mixed-use, and commercial development along Waverley Street and within the immediate vicinity. The project proposes to construct a building that is similar in height to several other buildings within the vicinity and adjacent to the site, but that is taller than the single-family residence to the south of the property. However, the project is designed to give deference to the single-family residential building with respect to massing and through material choices, which provide a strong base (concrete) and lighter top (using glass and wood materials). The existing structures are not historic and an analysis of the project’s impacts on the neighboring property concludes that the project would not impact the historic integrity of the neighboring historic residence. The project provides new tree plantings along the street and along the frontage and enhances the permeable, planted open space area on the site. The project provides new, high quality residential uses on site in an area close to transit, consistent with goals and policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. Pursuant to PAMC Section 18.16.090, the following context-based design considerations and findings are applicable to this project. These context-based design criteria are intended to indicate relationships between the site's development to adjacent street types, surrounding land uses, and on-site or nearby natural features, such as creeks or trees. Effective transitions to these adjacent uses and features are strongly reinforced by Comprehensive Plan policies. The purpose is to encourage residential development in the commercial districts to be responsible to its context and compatible with adjacent development. 1. Pedestrian and Bicycle Environment 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 Item 2 Attachment G - Revised Findings for Approval     Packet Pg. 48     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. 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. Item 2 Attachment G - Revised Findings for Approval     Packet Pg. 49     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. Finding #3: The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. The project is consistent with Finding #3 because: The project uses high quality materials that are incorporated well into the design of the structure. The design is well thought out to consider neighboring structures, including designing the massing to give deference to the historic structure to the south, while also considering the privacy of neighboring residents. The proposed colors are neutral and warm, compatible with surrounding color schemes. The project incorporates landscaping and reduces paving in comparison to the existing condition at the site in order to enhance the appearance of the site, particularly along the street frontage. Finding #4: The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and providing for elements that support the building’s necessary operations (e.g. convenient vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.). The project is consistent with Finding #4 because: The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic to the site. The project provides short-term bicycle parking within the front courtyard as well as one bicycle rack along Waverley. A long-term bicycle parking room is also accessible from the elevator to provide ease of access to residents utilizing this room. The project provides a single point of vehicular access from Waverley. The project provides appropriate trash rooms for the different uses and provides appropriate utilities rooms and connections on the site. The project exceeds the require on-site open space requirements. Finding #5: The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is appropriate to the site’s functions, and utilizes to the extent practical, regional indigenous drought resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat that can be appropriately maintained. The project is consistent with Finding #5 because: Item 2 Attachment G - Revised Findings for Approval     Packet Pg. 50     The project will provide drought-tolerant planting, the majority of which were selected from a California native palette. Finding #6: The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning. The project is consistent with Finding #6 because: In accordance with the City’s Green Building Regulations, the project will satisfy the requirements for CALGreen Mandatory + Tier 2. This includes providing solar and being an all- electric building. Drought tolerant native planting would also help to reduce water use and the planting palette complies with the Model Water Efficiency Landscape Ordinance requirements. Item 2 Attachment G - Revised Findings for Approval     Packet Pg. 51     Item No. 3. Page 1 of 3 Architectural Review Board Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: January 16, 2025 Report #: 2412-3941 TITLE Discussion on Criteria for Architectural Review Board Design Awards: Recognizing Built Projects (2020-2024) RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB): 1. Review the attached list of 64 projects reviewed by the ARB since 2020. 2. Discuss the ARB Design Awards, including: timeline; awards categories; and evaluation criteria and process. BACKGROUND Since the last meeting, the list of potential projects has been reduced to 64 locations (Attachment A). The project list was grouped into five different areas of the City to allow the current board members to conduct site or “drive by” visits of properties prior to this discussion. The goal of this meeting is to narrow the list of projects down and decide on winning projects. Each board member should come ready to the hearing with information about a handful of projects they would like to nominate. As noted at the December 19, 2024, ARB meeting, any incomplete construction addresses will be moved to a list of projects eligible for the ARB Design Awards in 2030, as was done in 2022 with the 2020 awards. Comprehensive Plan Program L6.1.1 The ARB Design Awards program implements the 2030 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Program L6.1.1, which states, "Promote awards programs and other forms of public recognition for projects of architectural merit that contribute positively to the community." ARB Bylaws The ARB Bylaws were amended in 2005 to add that the Design Awards program would occur every five years. The ARB Bylaws Article 8, Design Awards, sets forth the following: Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 52     Item No. 3. Page 2 of 3 •Design Awards for outstanding built projects may be awarded every five years beginning in 2005. Award-winning projects shall be selected from those reviewed by the ARB and completed since the last awards were made. •Criteria and number of awards shall be determined by the awarding board. •Winning projects may be displayed in the City Hall lobby for one month following the presentation of awards. The ARB shall request that the Mayor of the City of Palo Alto issue an appropriate proclamation. Purpose The ARB Design Awards were established to express appreciation for architects’ efforts to help create and maintain Palo Alto's unique visual character through their creative and responsive designs of public and private spaces, which contribute to the well-being and healthy environment of our city. Previous ARB Awards •1998: five awards went to five projects built prior to mid-1997. • 2005: five awards went to five projects constructed between mid-1997 and mid-2004. The eligible projects list was comprised of 70 major projects constructed prior to 2005; with criteria as follows: (1) Innovative, creative, and authentic; (2) Enriches the quality of the built environment in Palo Alto; (3) Respectful of its context and the environment; (4) Well-built, well- detailed, and durable. •2010: ten awards went to ten projects from an eligible list of over 100 projects constructed prior to 2010. The ARB determined the number of awards could be increased to ten, to include ‘honorable mention’ awards for a variety of projects. •2015: five awards went to five projects from an eligible list of over 34 projects constructed prior to 2015. The awards were presented in November 2015 and followed the same criteria set in 2005. The five main projects included the Hoover Pavilion on Quarry Road, Rinconada Library, Apple Store on University Ave, and Magical Bridge Playground; the Mitchell Park Library also received a special sustainability award, and Paris Baguette Remodel on University received a small project category award. •2020 (2022): Eight awards went to eight projects from an eligible list of 100 projects constructed prior 2020. The eight projects included the Junior Museum and Zoo on Middlefield (Public Project), Fire Station #3 replacement project (Public Project), 3223 Hanover Street (Office/R&D), 4175 Manuela Avenue (Religious Assembly), 375 University Avenue (Retail Façade Renovation), 611 Cowper Street (New Construction), Children’s Hospital at 701 Welch Road (Honorable Mention), Residence at 430 Forest Ave – (Honorable Mention) DISCUSSION Evaluation Criteria and Process Feedback from the December 19th ARB meeting revealed that a majority of the ARB supported awarding five awards. No award categories were selected during the previous meeting. Instead, through the process of narrowing down the list of projects, five awards will be chosen. The goal of this meeting will be to further narrow down the list of projects to see which five projects should be awarded. Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 53     Item No. 3. Page 3 of 3 Timing of the awards As mentioned at the last meeting, the American Institute of Architects (AIA) celebrates National Architecture Week during the week of Thomas Jefferson’s birthday, April 13th. The ARB Design Awards were previously presented in April or May in 2000, 2005, and 2010. The 2015 ARB Design Awards were presented in October. Given the shelter in place orders related to the COVID-19 pandemic, staff postponed the 2020 ARB Design Awards to 2021, with the awards ultimately presented in September 2022. Given the length of the evaluation process, the ARB may prefer to select the award date after the five projects have been chosen. Alternatively, setting an award date in advance and working backward could help better organize staff and board efforts. NEXT STEPS The ARB members may be ready to decide on award categories and/or winners, or another round of review may be needed. To effectively evaluate potential projects, the board should establish a clear process, including, but not limited to: 1. Narrow the Project List: Each board member should select the projects they feel deserve an award from their assigned list. 2. Select Five Projects: From the narrowed list, choose the five projects to be awarded. 3. Select Date of the Awards: The ARB may prefer to set the award date after selecting the five projects, or alternatively, establish a date upfront to better organize staff and board efforts. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: List of ARB-Reviewed Projects ARB1 Liaison & Contact Information Steven Switzer, Historic Preservation Planner 650-329-2321 Steven.Switzer@cityofpaloalto.org 1 2 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 54     Permit # Type Work Description 217 ALMA ST 22PLN-00164 Commerical Waiver From the Retail Preservation Ordinance for an Alternative Viable Use to Allow for an Animal Care provider (Modern Animal) to Occupy a 4200 square foot portion of the site. Zone District (CD-N[P]). 420 ACACIA AV 23PLN-00058 Residential Streamlined Housing Development Review to Allow the Construction of Multi-Family project consisting of 16 two and three-bedroom condominium units in four 2 and 3-story buildings. The Project would replace a paved, 68- space surface parking lot. The Project includes two Units provided at Below Market Rate and, Accordingly, Requests Concessions and Waivers Pursuant to State Density Bonus Law. 2609 ALMA ST 21PLN-00176 Residential Major Architectural Review to Allow the Demolition of two existing one-story Apartment Buildings containing four (4) units and to construct four (4) new three-story townhome style apartments. The total proposed floor area of the four units is 4,766 Square Foot. 695 Arastradero 20PLN-00182 Mortuary Building at Alta Mesa Cemetery 2585 E BAYSHORE RD 21PLN-00121 Commerical Minor Board Level Architectural Review application to allow the removal and replacement of building façade materials, addition of outdoor patio/employee amenity space, replacement of rooftop mechanical equipment, new landscaping throughout the site and changes to the parking lot. 2850 W BAYSHORE RD 21PLN-00177 Residential Request for a Major Architectural Review to allow for the demolition of an existing office building and construction of 48 townhomes in eight, six-unit buildings, with associated private streets, utilities, landscaping, and amenities. The project includes right of way expansion for a bike lane and construction of a 14-foot sound wall along West Bayshore Road across from the project frontage. In addition, the project includes a request for a Conditional Use Permit for a residential use within the ROLM zone district. 1310 BRYANT ST 19PLN-00116 School Castilleja School Project Including Subterranean Garage and New Campus Building Replacing Three Existing Classroom Buildings and a Maintenance Building and Other Site Modifications. Associated Concurrent Applications include Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and Variance applications (16PLN-00238) (the 2017 Tentative Map with Exceptions application (17PLN-00234) is not moving forward). 321 California AV 21PLN-00330 Commerical Request for a Minor Board Level Architectural Review application to allow the demolition of a 1969 addition to 321 California Ave and the construction of a new dining pavilion, bar, and courtyard. The project also includes a reconfigured parking lot and spaces and a new trash enclosure. 901 S California AV 22PLN-00142 Office Demolition of an existing 54,930 square foot, two-story office building and Construction of a new two-Story 55,583 square foot office building with a 2,709 square foot amenity space. 151, E101 California AV 22PLN-00363 Mixed Use Approval of a Waiver From the Retail Preservation Ordinance for an Alternative Viable Use to Allow for a Medical Office Use to Occupy a 3,500 Square Foot Tenant Space.formerly occupied by a restraurant tenant (151 California Avenue, Unit E101) in the Palo Alto Central mixed use condominium. 250 CAMBRIDGE AV 21PLN-00281 Commerical Minor Review to allow the revitalization of the façade for an existing 40 year old 3-story office building that includes new materials and refined proportions to create a more inviting public entry and improved pedestrian experience. A Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) is requested to increase the height of the building to allow for light monitors to be installed on the roof. Zoning District: CC(2)(R). 702 CLARA DR 18PLN-00068 Residential Demolition of an Existing 3,560 Square Foot, four unit apartment building and Construction of three detached single family homes totaling approximately 4,998 square feet. 650 CLARK WY 20PLN-00134 Public Facility Review to allow in-channel creek bank stabilization of the Children’s Health Council property. The proposed project will install a live log crib wall with a rock toe within San Francisquito Creek to prevent future erosion impacts. 4256 EL CAMINO REAL 18PLN-00096 Commerical Major Architectural Review to Allow the Demolition of an Existing 3,300 Square Foot Commercial Building and Construction of a new Five-Story approximately 51,300 Square Foot, 96 Room Hotel with Below-Grade Parking. A Director's Adjustment is Requested for a Reduction in Required On-site Parking (15%) and Loading Space Dimensions. 4260 EL CAMINO REAL 19PLN-00142 Office Minor Architectural Review to Allow for façade improvement to existing structure. Scope of work includes removing existing wood siding and replace with metal siding, and metal cable railing along all stairways 4115 EL CAMINO REAL Mixed Use 7 Unit Mixed-Use 3945 EL CAMINO REAL Hotel Comfort Inn Hotel Renovation 3980 EL CAMINO REAL 24PLN-00041 Residential Streamlined Housing Development Review application to allow the redevelopment of the Buena Vista Village mobile home park into two parcels, featuring a new 100% 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. The proposed 61-unit rental development and work within the City's public ROW is subject to the City's purview. Development of the mobile home parcel will be subject to HCD purview. 3877 EL CAMINO REAL Mixed Use Compadres Mixed Use Project ARB Awards Address Item 3 Attachment A: List of ARB-Reviewed Projects     Packet Pg. 55     3705 EL CAMINO REAL Housing 59 Affordable Units at Wilton Court 3585 EL CAMINO REAL 17PLN-00305 Mixed Use Review to allow the demolition of an existing approximately 800 square foot commercial structure and allow for construction of a new three-story approximately 6,252 square foot mixed-use building. The project includes three residential units and 3,126 square feet of office space. 3265 EL CAMINO REAL Mixed Use Mixed Use project 3159 EL CAMINO REAL New Mixed Use S&D 2100 EL CAMINO REAL 20PLN-00247 Commerical Approval of a Proposed Grocery Store Related to Planning Code Ordinance Number 5069 (College Terrace Centre) Based on the Finding That the Proposed Grocery Tenant Would be Comparable in Quality of Produce and Services as Previous Grocers at this Same Location 3001 EL CAMINO REAL 22PLN-00229 Residential Request for Major Architectural Review to demolish two existing retail buildings and to construct a 129 unit, 100% affordable, five-story, multi-family residential development utilizing allowances and concessions provided in accordance with State Density Bonus regulations. The units would be deed restricted to serve tenants meeting 30%-50% of Area Median Income. The project would be located on a proposed new 49,864 square foot lot located at 3001-3017 El Camino Real. The project is subject to streamlining in accordance with Senate Bill 330 as a qualifying Housing Development Project. 3300 EL CAMINO REAL 21PLN-00028 Office/R&D Request for approval of a Major Architectural Review to allow the construction of a new two-story, 50,355 square foot office/R&D building with 40% surface parking & 60% below-grade parking. The proposal includes 2,517 square feet of amenity space. 180 EL CAMINO REAL Commercial L'Occitane Facade Remodel 180 EL CAMINO REAL 22PLN-00049 Commerical Review application to allow the demolition of an existing 8,075 square foot building and the construction of two retail spaces totaling 11,799 square feet, the relocation of utilities in the proposed project area and an update to the pedestrian and bicycle circulation. 180 , BLDG B EL CAMINO REAL 23PLN-00155 Commerical Minor Review application to allow exterior modifications including changes to plaster, metal color, and modification of minor architectural details. 180 , STE 0 EL CAMINO REAL 19PLN-00110 Commerical Review to Allow the Demolition of the Existing 94,300 Square Foot Macy's Men's Located in the Stanford Shopping Center and Construction of a New Three-Story Stand Alone Retail Building, Approximately 43,500 Square Feet, Two Retail Buildings, Approximately 3,500 Square Feet Each and Construction of a new stand alone retail building, Approximate 28,000 square feet. (Total square feet 78,500). 180 , STE 002B EL CAMINO REAL 20PLN-00003 Commerical Review to Allow the Construction of a Two-Story Retail Building (Building FF Wilkes Bashford) of 28,714 Square Feet Located in the Stanford Shopping Center. 180, STE 16B EL CAMINO REAL 21PLN-00122 Commerical Peloton's new storefront façade, storefront glazing, and new signage at their new location (16B, Bldg. C - Bed Bath & Body Works) within the Stanford Shopping Center. The application includes a request for a Sign Exception for a sign that does not comply with the Master Tenant Façade & Sign (MTSF) program for the Stanford Shopping Center & the Municipal Code Sign Area Allowance. 180 , STE BB1130A EL CAMINO REAL 21PLN-00326 Commerical 180 El Camino Real [21PLN-00326]: Request by Jason Smith, on behalf of the Board of Trustees of Stanford University, for Major Architectural Review of ALO Yoga façade improvements and signage at Stanford Shopping Center 180 , STE D71 EL CAMINO REAL 22PLN-00028 Commerical 180 El Camino Real [22PLN-00028]: Request by Jason Smith, on behalf of the Board of Trustees of Stanford University, for Major Architectural Review of Brilliant Earth façade improvements and signage at Stanford Shopping Center, 180, STE E700A EL CAMINO REAL 22PLN-00237 Commerical Minor Review Board (ARB) review for Sushi Roku restaurant (formally Yucca De Lac) and CUP for alcohol service at Space #700B, Bldg. E (#E700B) at the Stanford Shopping Center. Exterior improvements include new façade, new storefront glazing, outdoor patios and new signage. Interior improvements will include complete interior remodel. 180, STE E705A EL CAMINO REAL 23PLN-00323 Commerical Major Architectural Review of “The Melt” façade improvements, redesign of outdoor dining area (removing 134 square feet of FAR) and new signage at Stanford Shopping Center, located in the Community Commercial zoning district (CC). 180 , STE E715 EL CAMINO REAL 22PLN-00070 Commerical Major Architectural Review Board (ARB) and CUP submittal for Hummus Mediterranean Kitchen ( Formally Cocola Bakery ) Space # 715, Bldg. E (#E715) at the Stanford Shopping Center. Exterior improvements include new oak infill panels, new entry façade, new bi-fold doors, signage, outdoor seating. Interior improvements will include complete interior remodel. 180 , STE V820B EL CAMINO REAL 23PLN-00009 Commerical Minor Board Level Architectural Review to allow exterior improvements, including a new façade, new storefront glazing, new signage, and a complete interior remodel for Arhaus at the Stanford Shopping Center. 1700 EMBARCADERO RD 21PLN-00191 Commerical Major Site and Design application to allow the demolition of the former Ming's restaurant building to allow the construction of a new two-story 26,336 square foot Mercedes Benz automotive dealership and service facility. On site improvements will include surrounding customer and inventory parking spaces, surrounding landscaping and construction of a dumpster enclosure. Item 3 Attachment A: List of ARB-Reviewed Projects     Packet Pg. 56     620 EMERSON ST 19PLN-00326 Commerical Minor Board level Architectural Review to allow to Allow Changes to a Previously Approved ARB Project (17PLN- 00331) for the Construction of a for construction of a new 2,756 square foot commercial building that will have an exterior garden element. The first and second floor will be an expansion of the existing NOBU restaurant at 180 Hamilton Avenue. 486 HAMILTON AV Mixed Use Mixed Use with Four Units 285 HAMILTON AV 18PLN-00006 Commerical Zone Change to allow for a text amendment to allow for roof-top decks and patios on existing structures over 50 feet in the Downtown Commercial zone districts, a Conditional Use Permit to allow an outdoor activity area in excess of 2,000 square feet, and Architectural Review to allow for a roof-top deck on an existing commercial building located at 285 Hamilton Avenue. Highway 101 Overpass Highway 101 Overpass Public Facility Pedestrian/Bicycle Overpass & Adobe Creek Reach Trail 575 LOS TRANCOS RD 21PLN-00196 Residential Site and Design Review to Allow the Construction of a new 7,110 sf single-family residence with a new 895 sf Accessory Dwelling Unit and associated site improvements, including a swimming pool, on a 5.38-acre site. 810 LOS TRANCOS RD 23PLN-00147 Residential Site and Design application to allow the removal of an existing pool and construction of a new lap pool, removal of three (3) existing trees and planting of ten (10) new 24-inch box trees, and proposed site improvements such as new retaining walls, steps, firepit, hardscaping, and lighting. 656 LYTTON AV 19PLN-00040 Residential Review of proposed revisions to the facades of existing multi-family affordable senior housing facilities and other minor site revisions including but not limited to new casework, flooring, paint, plumbing fixtures, and lighting fixtures as well as upgrades to the HVAC system. 555 MIDDLEFIELD RD 19PLN-00413 Commerical Minor Board Level Architectural Review and Design Enhancement Exception to Allow for Modifications to the Facade of an Existing Medical Office Building and Other Minor Site Improvements. 3600 MIDDLEFIELD RD 23PLN-00160 Public Facility Deconstruction of the existing Palo Alto Fire Station Number 4 and construction of a new 8,000 square foot fire station. The application also includes a Variance request from the City's 50% shading canopy coverage in the parking lot. 1250 PAGE MILL RD 21PLN-00092 Commerical Minor Review to allow façade improvements, including the installation of new doors and windows on the southern and western facade of Building 4 within an existing exterior storefront window-wall system. Modifications also include an outdoor dining patio and landscaping on the Southwest Corner of the building. 3200 PARK BL 22PLN-00287 Mixed Use Sobrato Organization for a development agreement application, a Planned Community rezoning, a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, and Major Architectural Review to allow the development of 74 townhomes, conversion of a 2,600 sf space that is currently automobile services to convert to Research and Development use, construction of a new single story parking garage. The project would also allow 154,506 square feet of existing R&D space and 4,707 square feet of existing office space to remain at the site. The project site is 14.65 acre property at 200-404 Portage Ave, 3040-3250 Park Blvd, 3201-3225 Ash St & 278 Lambert Ave. Zoning District: RM-30. 3241 PARK BL 20PLN-00032 Office Request for Major Architectural Review to demolish an existing 4,501 square foot building and construct a new 7,861 square foot office building. 300 Pasteur DR 21PLN-00235 Hospital Request for Approval of a Major Architectural Review to Allow an Addition of Approximately 37,000 sf to an Existing Stanford Hospital Building to Meet Seismic Standards and Enable Renovation of Existing Patient Rooms, and Associated Landscape Changes. Zoning District: HD. 3215 PORTER DR 19PLN-00237 Mixed Use Request for Major Architectural Review for the Construction of a New 22,029 Square Foot Two Story Office Building on a vacant lot within Stanford Research Park at 3215 Porter Drive. The new building will include 1,100 sq ft of amenity space, landscape improvements to the site, above and below ground parking facilities, and upgrades to the driveway entry to the site. 252 Ramona Street Two residential units in the NP 788 SAN ANTONIO RD 19PLN-00079 Mixed Use Architectural Review and Subdivision to Allow the Demolition of (2) existing buildings with the combined square footage of approximately 17,000 square feet. Construction of an approximately 85,724 square foot (4) Story mixed-use building and two-level below grade basement. The new structure will include (102) for sale residential units, 1,779 square feet of retail space, 107 parking stalls and (116) bike parking spaces. Sixteen units to be designated for BMR housing. 800 SAN ANTONIO RD 23PLN-00010 Residential Rezoning to Planned Community/Planned Home Zoning to Allow the merging of lots 800 and 808 San Antonio Road, to form an 0.88 acre site. The Project will be a 75 unit residential building with 15 BMR units. 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. The Project also includes a common-use interior courtyard and roof deck, as well as balconies and patios, and amenity spaces. San Francisquito Creek between Palo Alto and East Palo Alto San Francisquito Creek between Palo Alto and East Palo Alto19PLN-00130 Public Facility Review to Allow for the replacement of an existing bridge that spans San Francisquito Creek between Palo Alto and East Palo Alto. There will be new retaining walls in public right of way around the bridge, underground and above-ground utilities will be relocated, and the road along the bridge will be widened to accommodate vehicle and pedestrian traffic. Item 3 Attachment A: List of ARB-Reviewed Projects     Packet Pg. 57     123 SHERMAN AV 21PLN-00172 Commerical Review to Allow Demolition of Four Existing Buildings and to Allow the Construction of a New 3-story office building with Two Levels of Below-grade Parking. This Project Would also Require a Lot Merger to Merge three existing parcels. 739 SUTTER AV 22PLN-00201 Residential Streamlined Housing Development Review for Approximately 18,000 Square Foot (sf) Multi-Family Project Consisting of 12 Three-Bedroom Condominium Units in 3-story Buildings on an Approximately 0.38-acre (16,707 sf) Parcel. The Project would replace an existing 8-Unit Residential Rental Building. The Project includes two Units Provided at Below Market Rate and, Accordingly, Requests Concessions and Waivers Pursuant to State Density Bonus Law. 240-248 UNIVERSITY AV New Mixed Use 488 UNIVERSITY AV 19PLN-00038 Commerical Conversion of a Residential Use to a Hotel Use to Accommodate 100 Guestrooms. Historic Review Application for Interior and Exterior Renovations to the Hotel President and a Parking Adjustment to Accommodate the Hotel Use. Conditional Use Permit to Allow for Restoration and Use of a Historic Rooftop Garden. Proposed Revisions Include Structural and Seismic Retrofit of the Existing Structure. 160 WAVERLEY ST 20PLN-00301 Residential Review to allow the demolition of three existing residential structures (Detached Triplex) for the construction of two new structures containing three apartment flats. Each apartment flat is a 3-bedroom 3 1/2 bathroom dwelling unit. The front building is two-stories and has a second-story one apartment and 6 tuck-under parking stalls at grade. The front building also has a large rooftop terrace proposed. The second building is set back on the site, two stories, and has one apartment on each story. 436 WAVERLEY ST 20PLN-00295 Office Review to allow the remodel of an existing 2,761 SF, 2-story office building and an addition of 113 SF. 2321 Wellesley Street Residential Two New Units & Zone Change from R-1 to RMD(NP) 13 SCC David 13 Page Mill Yingxi 13 Downtown Peter 13 South Side Kendra 12 East Mousam 64 TOTAL Item 3 Attachment A: List of ARB-Reviewed Projects     Packet Pg. 58     Permit # Type Work Description 695 Arastradero 20PLN-00182 Mortuary Building at Alta Mesa Cemetery 4256 EL CAMINO REAL 18PLN-00096 Commerical Major Architectural Review to Allow the Demolition of an Existing 3,300 Square Foot Commercial Building and Construction of a new Five-Story approximately 51,300 Square Foot, 96 Room Hotel with Below-Grade Parking. A Director's Adjustment is Requested for a Reduction in Required On-site Parking (15%) and Loading Space Dimensions. 4260 EL CAMINO REAL 19PLN-00142 Office Minor Architectural Review to Allow for façade improvement to existing structure. Scope of work includes removing existing wood siding and replace with metal siding, and metal cable railing along all stairways 4115 EL CAMINO REAL Mixed Use 7 Unit Mixed-Use 3945 EL CAMINO REAL Hotel Comfort Inn Hotel Renovation 3980 EL CAMINO REAL 24PLN-00041 Residential Streamlined Housing Development Review application to allow the redevelopment of the Buena Vista Village mobile home park into two parcels, featuring a new 100% 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. The proposed 61-unit rental development and work within the City's public ROW is subject to the City's purview. Development of the mobile home parcel will be subject to HCD purview. 3877 EL CAMINO REAL Mixed Use Compadres Mixed Use Project 3705 EL CAMINO REAL Housing 59 Affordable Units at Wilton Court 3585 EL CAMINO REAL 17PLN-00305 Mixed Use Review to allow the demolition of an existing approximately 800 square foot commercial structure and allow for construction of a new three-story approximately 6,252 square foot mixed-use building. The project includes three residential units and 3,126 square feet of office space. 3265 EL CAMINO REAL Mixed Use Mixed Use project 3159 EL CAMINO REAL New Mixed Use S&D 575 LOS TRANCOS RD 21PLN-00196 Residential Site and Design Review to Allow the Construction of a new 7,110 sf single-family residence with a new 895 sf Accessory Dwelling Unit and associated site improvements, including a swimming pool, on a 5.38-acre site. 810 LOS TRANCOS RD 23PLN-00147 Residential Site and Design application to allow the removal of an existing pool and construction of a new lap pool, removal of three (3) existing trees and planting of ten (10) new 24-inch box trees, and proposed site improvements such as new retaining walls, steps, firepit, hardscaping, and lighting. ARB Awards (KENDRA) Address Item 3 Attachment A: List of ARB-Reviewed Projects     Packet Pg. 59     Permit # Type Work Description 321 California AV 21PLN-00330 Commerical Request for a Minor Board Level Architectural Review application to allow the demolition of a 1969 addition to 321 California Ave and the construction of a new dining pavilion, bar, and courtyard. The project also includes a reconfigured parking lot and spaces and a new trash enclosure. 901 S California AV 22PLN-00142 Office Demolition of an existing 54,930 square foot, two-story office building and Construction of a new two-Story 55,583 square foot office building with a 2,709 square foot amenity space. 151, E101 California AV 22PLN-00363 Mixed Use Approval of a Waiver From the Retail Preservation Ordinance for an Alternative Viable Use to Allow for a Medical Office Use to Occupy a 3,500 Square Foot Tenant Space.formerly occupied by a restraurant tenant (151 California Avenue, Unit E101) in the Palo Alto Central mixed use condominium. 250 CAMBRIDGE AV 21PLN-00281 Commerical Minor Review to allow the revitalization of the façade for an existing 40 year old 3-story office building that includes new materials and refined proportions to create a more inviting public entry and improved pedestrian experience. A Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) is requested to increase the height of the building to allow for light monitors to be installed on the roof. Zoning District: CC(2)(R). 2100 EL CAMINO REAL 20PLN-00247 Commerical Approval of a Proposed Grocery Store Related to Planning Code Ordinance Number 5069 (College Terrace Centre) Based on the Finding That the Proposed Grocery Tenant Would be Comparable in Quality of Produce and Services as Previous Grocers at this Same Location 3001 EL CAMINO REAL 22PLN-00229 Residential Request for Major Architectural Review to demolish two existing retail buildings and to construct a 129 unit, 100% affordable, five-story, multi-family residential development utilizing allowances and concessions provided in accordance with State Density Bonus regulations. The units would be deed restricted to serve tenants meeting 30%-50% of Area Median Income. The project would be located on a proposed new 49,864 square foot lot located at 3001-3017 El Camino Real. The project is subject to streamlining in accordance with Senate Bill 330 as a qualifying Housing Development Project. 3300 EL CAMINO REAL 21PLN-00028 Office/R&D Request for approval of a Major Architectural Review to allow the construction of a new two-story, 50,355 square foot office/R&D building with 40% surface parking & 60% below-grade parking. The proposal includes 2,517 square feet of amenity space. 1250 PAGE MILL RD 21PLN-00092 Commerical Minor Review to allow façade improvements, including the installation of new doors and windows on the southern and western facade of Building 4 within an existing exterior storefront window-wall system. Modifications also include an outdoor dining patio and landscaping on the Southwest Corner of the building. 3200 PARK BL 22PLN-00287 Mixed Use Sobrato Organization for a development agreement application, a Planned Community rezoning, a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, and Major Architectural Review to allow the development of 74 townhomes, conversion of a 2,600 sf space that is currently automobile services to convert to Research and Development use, construction of a new single story parking garage. The project would also allow 154,506 square feet of existing R&D space and 4,707 square feet of existing office space to remain at the site. The project site is 14.65 acre property at 200-404 Portage Ave, 3040-3250 Park Blvd, 3201-3225 Ash St & 278 Lambert Ave. Zoning District: RM-30. 3241 PARK BL 20PLN-00032 Office Request for Major Architectural Review to demolish an existing 4,501 square foot building and construct a new 7,861 square foot office building. 3215 PORTER DR 19PLN-00237 Mixed Use Request for Major Architectural Review for the Construction of a New 22,029 Square Foot Two Story Office Building on a vacant lot within Stanford Research Park at 3215 Porter Drive. The new building will include 1,100 sq ft of amenity space, landscape improvements to the site, above and below ground parking facilities, and upgrades to the driveway entry to the site. 123 SHERMAN AV 21PLN-00172 Commerical Review to Allow Demolition of Four Existing Buildings and to Allow the Construction of a New 3-story office building with Two Levels of Below-grade Parking. This Project Would also Require a Lot Merger to Merge three existing parcels. 2321 Wellesley Street Residential Two New Units & Zone Change from R-1 to RMD(NP) ARB Awards (YINGXI) Address Item 3 Attachment A: List of ARB-Reviewed Projects     Packet Pg. 60     Permit # Type Work Description 217 ALMA ST 22PLN-00164 Commerical Waiver From the Retail Preservation Ordinance for an Alternative Viable Use to Allow for an Animal Care provider (Modern Animal) to Occupy a 4200 square foot portion of the site. Zone District (CD-N[P]). 1310 BRYANT ST 19PLN-00116 School Castilleja School Project Including Subterranean Garage and New Campus Building Replacing Three Existing Classroom Buildings and a Maintenance Building and Other Site Modifications. Associated Concurrent Applications include Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and Variance applications (16PLN-00238) (the 2017 Tentative Map with Exceptions application (17PLN-00234) is not moving forward). 620 EMERSON ST 19PLN-00326 Commerical Minor Board level Architectural Review to allow to Allow Changes to a Previously Approved ARB Project (17PLN- 00331) for the Construction of a for construction of a new 2,756 square foot commercial building that will have an exterior garden element. The first and second floor will be an expansion of the existing NOBU restaurant at 180 Hamilton Avenue. 486 HAMILTON AV Mixed Use Mixed Use with Four Units 285 HAMILTON AV 18PLN-00006 Commerical Zone Change to allow for a text amendment to allow for roof-top decks and patios on existing structures over 50 feet in the Downtown Commercial zone districts, a Conditional Use Permit to allow an outdoor activity area in excess of 2,000 square feet, and Architectural Review to allow for a roof-top deck on an existing commercial building located at 285 Hamilton Avenue. 656 LYTTON AV 19PLN-00040 Residential Review of proposed revisions to the facades of existing multi-family affordable senior housing facilities and other minor site revisions including but not limited to new casework, flooring, paint, plumbing fixtures, and lighting fixtures as well as upgrades to the HVAC system. 555 MIDDLEFIELD RD 19PLN-00413 Commerical Minor Board Level Architectural Review and Design Enhancement Exception to Allow for Modifications to the Facade of an Existing Medical Office Building and Other Minor Site Improvements. 300 Pasteur DR 21PLN-00235 Hospital Request for Approval of a Major Architectural Review to Allow an Addition of Approximately 37,000 sf to an Existing Stanford Hospital Building to Meet Seismic Standards and Enable Renovation of Existing Patient Rooms, and Associated Landscape Changes. Zoning District: HD. 252 Ramona Street Two residential units in the NP 240-248 UNIVERSITY AV New Mixed Use 488 UNIVERSITY AV 19PLN-00038 Commerical Conversion of a Residential Use to a Hotel Use to Accommodate 100 Guestrooms. Historic Review Application for Interior and Exterior Renovations to the Hotel President and a Parking Adjustment to Accommodate the Hotel Use. Conditional Use Permit to Allow for Restoration and Use of a Historic Rooftop Garden. Proposed Revisions Include Structural and Seismic Retrofit of the Existing Structure. 160 WAVERLEY ST 20PLN-00301 Residential Review to allow the demolition of three existing residential structures (Detached Triplex) for the construction of two new structures containing three apartment flats. Each apartment flat is a 3-bedroom 3 1/2 bathroom dwelling unit. The front building is two-stories and has a second-story one apartment and 6 tuck-under parking stalls at grade. The front building also has a large rooftop terrace proposed. The second building is set back on the site, two stories, and has one apartment on each story. 436 WAVERLEY ST 20PLN-00295 Office Review to allow the remodel of an existing 2,761 SF, 2-story office building and an addition of 113 SF. ARB Awards (PETER) Address Item 3 Attachment A: List of ARB-Reviewed Projects     Packet Pg. 61     Permit # Type Work Description 650 CLARK WY 20PLN-00134 Public Facility Review to allow in-channel creek bank stabilization of the Children’s Health Council property. The proposed project will install a live log crib wall with a rock toe within San Francisquito Creek to prevent future erosion impacts. 180 EL CAMINO REAL Commercial L'Occitane Facade Remodel 180 EL CAMINO REAL 22PLN-00049 Commerical Review application to allow the demolition of an existing 8,075 square foot building and the construction of two retail spaces totaling 11,799 square feet, the relocation of utilities in the proposed project area and an update to the pedestrian and bicycle circulation. 180 , BLDG B EL CAMINO REAL 23PLN-00155 Commerical Minor Review application to allow exterior modifications including changes to plaster, metal color, and modification of minor architectural details. 180 , STE 0 EL CAMINO REAL 19PLN-00110 Commerical Review to Allow the Demolition of the Existing 94,300 Square Foot Macy's Men's Located in the Stanford Shopping Center and Construction of a New Three-Story Stand Alone Retail Building, Approximately 43,500 Square Feet, Two Retail Buildings, Approximately 3,500 Square Feet Each and Construction of a new stand alone retail building, Approximate 28,000 square feet. (Total square feet 78,500). 180 , STE 002B EL CAMINO REAL 20PLN-00003 Commerical Review to Allow the Construction of a Two-Story Retail Building (Building FF Wilkes Bashford) of 28,714 Square Feet Located in the Stanford Shopping Center. 180, STE 16B EL CAMINO REAL 21PLN-00122 Commerical Peloton's new storefront façade, storefront glazing, and new signage at their new location (16B, Bldg. C - Bed Bath & Body Works) within the Stanford Shopping Center. The application includes a request for a Sign Exception for a sign that does not comply with the Master Tenant Façade & Sign (MTSF) program for the Stanford Shopping Center & the Municipal Code Sign Area Allowance. 180 , STE BB1130A EL CAMINO REAL 21PLN-00326 Commerical 180 El Camino Real [21PLN-00326]: Request by Jason Smith, on behalf of the Board of Trustees of Stanford University, for Major Architectural Review of ALO Yoga façade improvements and signage at Stanford Shopping Center 180 , STE D71 EL CAMINO REAL 22PLN-00028 Commerical 180 El Camino Real [22PLN-00028]: Request by Jason Smith, on behalf of the Board of Trustees of Stanford University, for Major Architectural Review of Brilliant Earth façade improvements and signage at Stanford Shopping Center, 180, STE E700A EL CAMINO REAL 22PLN-00237 Commerical Minor Review Board (ARB) review for Sushi Roku restaurant (formally Yucca De Lac) and CUP for alcohol service at Space #700B, Bldg. E (#E700B) at the Stanford Shopping Center. Exterior improvements include new façade, new storefront glazing, outdoor patios and new signage. Interior improvements will include complete interior remodel. 180, STE E705A EL CAMINO REAL 23PLN-00323 Commerical Major Architectural Review of “The Melt” façade improvements, redesign of outdoor dining area (removing 134 square feet of FAR) and new signage at Stanford Shopping Center, located in the Community Commercial zoning district (CC). 180 , STE E715 EL CAMINO REAL 22PLN-00070 Commerical Major Architectural Review Board (ARB) and CUP submittal for Hummus Mediterranean Kitchen ( Formally Cocola Bakery ) Space # 715, Bldg. E (#E715) at the Stanford Shopping Center. Exterior improvements include new oak infill panels, new entry façade, new bi-fold doors, signage, outdoor seating. Interior improvements will include complete interior remodel. 180 , STE V820B EL CAMINO REAL 23PLN-00009 Commerical Minor Board Level Architectural Review to allow exterior improvements, including a new façade, new storefront glazing, new signage, and a complete interior remodel for Arhaus at the Stanford Shopping Center. ARB Awards (DAVID) Address Item 3 Attachment A: List of ARB-Reviewed Projects     Packet Pg. 62     Permit # Type Work Description 420 ACACIA AV 23PLN-00058 Residential Streamlined Housing Development Review to Allow the Construction of Multi-Family project consisting of 16 two and three-bedroom condominium units in four 2 and 3-story buildings. The Project would replace a paved, 68- space surface parking lot. The Project includes two Units provided at Below Market Rate and, Accordingly, Requests Concessions and Waivers Pursuant to State Density Bonus Law. 2609 ALMA ST 21PLN-00176 Residential Major Architectural Review to Allow the Demolition of two existing one-story Apartment Buildings containing four (4) units and to construct four (4) new three-story townhome style apartments. The total proposed floor area of the four units is 4,766 Square Foot. 2585 E BAYSHORE RD 21PLN-00121 Commerical Minor Board Level Architectural Review application to allow the removal and replacement of building façade materials, addition of outdoor patio/employee amenity space, replacement of rooftop mechanical equipment, new landscaping throughout the site and changes to the parking lot. 2850 W BAYSHORE RD 21PLN-00177 Residential Request for a Major Architectural Review to allow for the demolition of an existing office building and construction of 48 townhomes in eight, six-unit buildings, with associated private streets, utilities, landscaping, and amenities. The project includes right of way expansion for a bike lane and construction of a 14-foot sound wall along West Bayshore Road across from the project frontage. In addition, the project includes a request for a Conditional Use Permit for a residential use within the ROLM zone district. 702 CLARA DR 18PLN-00068 Residential Demolition of an Existing 3,560 Square Foot, four unit apartment building and Construction of three detached single family homes totaling approximately 4,998 square feet. 1700 EMBARCADERO RD 21PLN-00191 Commerical Major Site and Design application to allow the demolition of the former Ming's restaurant building to allow the construction of a new two-story 26,336 square foot Mercedes Benz automotive dealership and service facility. On site improvements will include surrounding customer and inventory parking spaces, surrounding landscaping and construction of a dumpster enclosure. Highway 101 Overpass Highway 101 Overpass Public Facility Pedestrian/Bicycle Overpass & Adobe Creek Reach Trail 3600 MIDDLEFIELD RD 23PLN-00160 Public Facility Deconstruction of the existing Palo Alto Fire Station Number 4 and construction of a new 8,000 square foot fire station. The application also includes a Variance request from the City's 50% shading canopy coverage in the parking lot. 788 SAN ANTONIO RD 19PLN-00079 Mixed Use Architectural Review and Subdivision to Allow the Demolition of (2) existing buildings with the combined square footage of approximately 17,000 square feet. Construction of an approximately 85,724 square foot (4) Story mixed-use building and two-level below grade basement. The new structure will include (102) for sale residential units, 1,779 square feet of retail space, 107 parking stalls and (116) bike parking spaces. Sixteen units to be designated for BMR housing. 800 SAN ANTONIO RD 23PLN-00010 Residential Rezoning to Planned Community/Planned Home Zoning to Allow the merging of lots 800 and 808 San Antonio Road, to form an 0.88 acre site. The Project will be a 75 unit residential building with 15 BMR units. 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. The Project also includes a common-use interior courtyard and roof deck, as well as balconies and patios, and amenity spaces. San Francisquito Creek between Palo Alto and East Palo Alto San Francisquito Creek between Palo Alto and East Palo Alto19PLN-00130 Public Facility Review to Allow for the replacement of an existing bridge that spans San Francisquito Creek between Palo Alto and East Palo Alto. There will be new retaining walls in public right of way around the bridge, underground and above-ground utilities will be relocated, and the road along the bridge will be widened to accommodate vehicle and pedestrian traffic. 739 SUTTER AV 22PLN-00201 Residential Streamlined Housing Development Review for Approximately 18,000 Square Foot (sf) Multi-Family Project Consisting of 12 Three-Bedroom Condominium Units in 3-story Buildings on an Approximately 0.38-acre (16,707 sf) Parcel. The Project would replace an existing 8-Unit Residential Rental Building. The Project includes two Units Provided at Below Market Rate and, Accordingly, Requests Concessions and Waivers Pursuant to State Density Bonus Law. Address ARB Awards (MOUSAM) Item 3 Attachment A: List of ARB-Reviewed Projects     Packet Pg. 63     Item No. 4. Page 1 of 1 Architectural Review Board Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: January 16, 2025 Report #: 2501-3974 TITLE Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for December 5, 2024 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) adopt the attached meeting minutes. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Minutes of December 5, 2024 AUTHOR/TITLE: ARB Liaison1 & Contact Information Steven Switzer, Historic Preservation Planner (650) 329-2321 Steven.Switzer@CityofPaloAlto.org 1 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@CityofPaloAlto.org. Item 4 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 64     Page 1 of 11 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/05/24 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MEETING DRAFT MINUTES: December 5, 2024 Council Chamber & Zoom 8:00 AM Call to Order / Roll Call The Architectural Review Board (ARB) of the City of Palo Alto met on December 5, 2024 in Council Chambers and virtual teleconference at 8:33 AM Present: Chair Kendra Rosenberg, Vice Chair Yingxi Chen, Boardmember Mousam Adcock, Boardmember Peter Baltay, Boardmember David Hirsch Absent: None. Oral Communications None. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions None. City Official Reports 1. Director’s Report, Meeting Schedule, and Upcoming Agenda Items Steven Switzer, Historic Planner/ARB Liaison, provided a slide presentation discussing upcoming meetings and pending ARB projects. Action Items 2.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI‐JUDICIAL. 660 University Ave. [21PLN‐00341]:Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Planned Community/Planned Home Zoning (PC/PHZ) on Three Parcels (511 Byron St, 660 University Ave, and 680 University Ave/500 Middlefield Rd), Deconstruction of Existing Medical Office Buildings and Construction of a New Six‐Story Mixed‐Use Building with 66 Residential Rental Units and Approximately 9,100 sf of Office and a Two Level Below‐Grade Parking Garage. Environmental Assessment: Environmental Impact Report Circulated for Public Review Beginning on April 2, 2024 and Ending on May 17, 2024. Zoning District: RM‐20 (Multi‐Family Residential). For More Information Contact the Project Planner, Emily Kallas, at Emily.Kallas@CityofPaloAlto.org. Item 4 Attachment A: Minutes of December 5, 2024     Packet Pg. 65     Page 2 of 11 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/05/24 Chair Rosenberg outlined the staff recommendations. She asked if any of the board members had visited the site or had any additional disclosures regarding the site or the project. Boardmember Adcock, Vice Chair Chen, Chair Rosenberg, Boardmember Baltay and Boardmember Hirsch all affirmed having visited the site. There were no additional disclosures. Emily Kallas, Senior Planner, provided a slide presentation about the project including a project overview, background/process, major changes from the version reviewed by the ARB in April, revised site plan, floor plan – third floor, floor plan – sixth floor, elevations compared to prior ARB meeting, primary elevation – University Avenue, interior side elevation, key considerations for ARB to discuss, height and daylight plane diagram, proposed open space, proposed parking, CEQA and the recommended motion. Boardmember Hirsch queried if there had been consideration to the fact that there are so many zero bedroom units in the figuring of the parking requirement. He asked if the objective standards apply as they had been approved by the City. He asked if the parking description included the larger amount of office space requirements as well. Ms. Kallas mentioned Attachment C on packet page 28 provided the comparison to the RM20 zoning requirements as well as a comparison to the prior version of the plans. Packet page 30 included a breakdown of the required and proposed parking. She believed that in cases where there is a parking reduction, the parking would be required to be uncoupled from the units. She explained the objective designs standards did not apply to this project which is going through a fully discretionary design review process. The objective design standards may be considered when they look at how this project differs from what would be required for a project processed in a less discretionary manner. She stated the proposed number of parking spaces would include some allocated for residential and some allocated for office. The reduction in parking would be slightly different. More of a reduction was requested for office use compared to housing. Jennifer Armer, Assistant Director, added there are some state laws that address whether reduced parking is coupled with the units. She thought how it would function was a good question for the applicant. In general, in the discussions they have had on recent projects, there often will be a reduction in the number of parking spaces with fewer bedrooms. Boardmember Baltay asked if there was a description of what the alternative project would be and what the process would be if they elected to go with that sort of entitlement instead. Ms. Kallas described the project as 88 units as opposed to 66 and they would be located where the building is currently stepped back. There would be a larger daylight plane protrusion as a part of that proposal. The height would be the same otherwise. The entitlement process would be streamlined but there would be at least one ARB hearing. All of the same environmental analysis would still apply. The process for that would be informed by the process the CEQA document would need to go through. Director Armer added those were things that could change if that came forward as a formal application, as long as the size of the project in terms of floor area and number of units did not change by more than Item 4 Attachment A: Minutes of December 5, 2024     Packet Pg. 66     Page 3 of 11 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/05/24 20 percent so it would be hard to know how much different that alternative proposal would end up being if it moved forward. Boardmember Adcock wanted to understand the zoning code requirement differences. Director Armer replied the standard zoning requirements would be required rather than this planned development that was proposed. If they took a look at a project submitted under SB 330 using one of the state laws that would allow them to waive some of the other standards, that could include things like daylight plane, setbacks, parking and other requirements. It would depend on which of the state laws invoked whether they were using density bonus in which case they may use unlimited numbers of waivers as long as they provide some justification. It would mean that through that alternative process they could have larger exceptions to the regulations. Boardmember Baltay asked if it would be permissible to get a waiver for the tree protection standards of the City under SB 330 or something similar. His understanding was that those environmental type issues were much more limiting. Director Armer stated she would assume that would be permissible provided that was something that would prevent them from doing the proposed project. It would depend on which state law. Caio Arellano, Chief Assistant Attorney, explained they were wading into a lot of the confusing complexities around how recent state housing laws had changed the way local agencies could review housing development projects. For the Builder’s Remedy project that the applicant had submitted, there was a lot of uncertainty around the details in what that project would look like. There were a lot of ways the application could change as long as they maintain a certain number of affordable units and a certain ratio of residential to commercial square footage. They did not expect anything significant on those pieces. Different aspects of the project could change. The applicant opted to focus on the PC flavor of the project. If PC does not end up happening and they pursue the Builder’s Remedy project, there would be very little discretion they could apply to the project. It was unclear under the law whether the City could use a discretionary environmental basis to deny a project. They could ask them to comply with their objective standards; however, the Builder’s Remedy clearly stated that they did not need to comply with them and their basis for denying a project would be very limited. Vice Chair Chen questioned if there were any updates on whether the street would be widened related to the special setback. She wanted to know if the City would require any special consideration for the structure calculations in the future for the basement garage. Ms. Kallas answered there were not plans to widen the street. She explained this conversation often comes up because their code identifies the special setbacks as being potential future locations for either street widening or other transportation improvements. She stated they would look into whether the City would require special consideration for the structure calculations in the future for the basement garage. Boardmember Adcock queried how stringent the square footage requirement was and if they could do without the commercial space. Item 4 Attachment A: Minutes of December 5, 2024     Packet Pg. 67     Page 4 of 11 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/05/24 Ms. Kallas explained the current multifamily land use designation did not discuss office use. It had been determined that a comprehensive plan amendment would be necessary to allow any type of office use in that land use designation. In this case, there was existing office on this site and other sites with frontage on Middlefield Road that were within the multifamily land use designation. In terms of this site in particular and likely other adjacent sites, she had not looked in detail at that. This property was in the flood zone. Their objective and subjective design standards encourage below grade parking. However, in order to provide below grade parking in a flood zone, certain FEMA requirements had to be met. That was where there would need to be a nonresidential component to this project. The square footage needed to be at least 25 percent of the total building floor area not including the parking garage. Any individual residential units were required to be above base flood elevation. Boardmember Hirsch wanted to know of the floodplain extended to Byron Street. Ms. Kallas answered all three existing parcels were identified as being in the flood zone in their parcel report. Boyd Smith, Applicant, gave a slide presentation showing an overview of the project and changes being made. Amanda Borden, Architect, gave a slide presentation showing the overall context plan, enlarged neighborhood plan, photos of the existing buildings, site plan of existing site, the proposed setbacks, updated renderings, renderings of expanded public art, proposed office deck, proposed ground floor common area plans, changes of the foundation wall in the parking garage as recommended, previous wall and balcony location on upper levels two through four that were shifted as requested and interior unit update at Byron, new fifth and sixth floor plans, updated studio and one and two bedroom unit plans, elevations, planted area, daylight plane, proposed five to six-foot tree area and additional exterior materials. Paul Lettieri, Guzzardo Partnership, gave a slide presentation talking about refinements that had been made, proposed materials, plant palette, new roof deck, existing photos and a cross-section showing how the pedestal paving would sit on the asphalt and how planter pots would work. PUBLIC COMMENT Christopher Ream (Dennis, Kay, Sophie, Joann), spoke on behalf of people living at the Hamilton. He provided a slide presentation outlining concerns about issues with the Coast Live Oak tree canopy, parking problems, size of parking spots, independent puzzle parking, the setback slashing through the fifth and sixth floor, the Middlefield setback and the balconies hanging over University Avenue. Carol Gilbert (Rose, Franco) gave as slide presentation entitled "The TDM Dream” with concerns about transportation management, parking issues and limited width of Byron Street creating safety issues. She indicated the building and Byron Street should be reconfigured to handle the reduced parking. She asked the Board to decline the TDM plan. She did not think they had the data to support their plan. Stephen Levy requested moving the project forward. Item 4 Attachment A: Minutes of December 5, 2024     Packet Pg. 68     Page 5 of 11 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/05/24 Amie Ashton, Executive Director of Palo Alto Forward, indicated her organization had submitted a letter as well as an attachment with over 100 pages of letters from residents supporting the project. Regarding parking, if the project was one block closer to Caltrain, it would be covered by AB 2097 and not subject to parking mandates. She supported the increased height. She urged providing a recommendation to the Planning Commission and City Council to move the project forward. Corey Smith, Housing Action Coalition, expressed his organization’s support of the project along with letter of support from 30 neighbors. He remarked it was critical to support this project and having it move forward. Armando Murillo, representative of Local 405 of the Northern California Carpenter’s Union, expressed concern that the developer had not chosen a responsible contractor for the project. He urged the Board to advocate for responsible practices that prioritize fair wages, good benefits and the economic stability of the workforce. Noah Schneider, urban planning student at USC, supported the project and hoped for the Board to move it forward. Robert Aguirre, spoke in representation of unhoused people of Santa Clara. He provided statistics about the burden of income spent on housing in Palo Alto that lead to homelessness or unacceptable living conditions. He thought the tree was important to keep. He was in favor of this project and hoped for more of the same. Mr. Smith spoke about the comments regarding the tree. He indicated they were doing exactly what the City arborist had agreed they could do and they should trust the tree experts and let the process move ahead with the City’s guidelines on how to handle the tree. They would be putting up a bond of 200 percent of the value of the tree. Regarding parking, he maintained it was an extremely walkable site. They would provide 78 stalls 26 of which were for office that could be used by residents in the evening hours. He noted they lost parking when the residents of the Hamilton insisted they move the drive ramp from Middlefield to Byron. They would also be losing parking by maneuvering the ramp to preserve the oak tree. He maintained the TDM plan was solid. Boardmember Hirsch wanted information about the slope of the parking ramp and delivery and move in provisions. Ms. Borden replied the slope was proposed as a speed ramp, 22 percent with 11 percent blend. There would be a 10-foot blend at the top and bottom and a 5-foot slope up before sloping down that was part of the flood protection requirements. There would be a flood gate at the top. The opportunities for deliveries included removing a street stall to provide a loading stall for both the trash pickup as well as other incidental loading and there would also be a trash room onsite to accommodate loading for the project. A rollup door would be provided requiring coordination with the leasing office on the ground floor. If needed, the loading for the site for delivery vehicles could be accommodated by the onsite trash room. In the street, there would be a reserved loading stall parallel to the curb within the street parking zone. They were in discussion with a residential management company helping to make sure they accommodate all the amenities. There would be a mail room and a concierge to accommodate larger deliveries to the units. Approaches for food delivery being considered were having them delivered to the ground floor and accommodated by the leasing office during the day and in the evening the tenants Item 4 Attachment A: Minutes of December 5, 2024     Packet Pg. 69     Page 6 of 11 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/05/24 would need to go down to the ground floor or provide information so the deliverer could get to the upper floors. Vice Chair Chen had questions regarding the circulation for the office trash, the ground floor area, the entrance to the fitness center, explanation of parking levels, glazing and materials. Ms. Borden indicated the office trash was one revised in the new proposal. The sixth floor office trash would be handled by a janitorial staff. It would go down through the elevator into the trash room between the fitness area and residential amenity area. All office trash would be taken care of with the smaller rolling bins staged on Middlefield. She agreed to look into the current trash service and proposed trash service schedule. The residential amenities were intended for only the residents. The fitness center was proposed to be used by the office and the residential tenants but that could be discussed. She referred to the ground floor plan indicating a door from the amenity space leading to the office lobby and from the exterior they could go out to the front door and down and up the ramps. On the lowest parking level, the P2 was where the independent stackers were and they were residential only. P1 level was office parking and was available to residents on nights and weekends. The accessible parking was also in that area. She described a building code requirement to have raised pedestrian pathways. She stated a shadow box had been incorporated to provide the future tenant with the most light and view as possible. They would work with the tenant to provide an interior buildout amenable to the exterior building design. She explained the simulated concrete panel was lighter weight and better for constructability. Mr. Smith remarked opening the fitness center to the public had been considered but the strain on parking demand presented a challenge. Chair Rosenberg pointed out there appeared to be an exterior route taking the elevators down, walking out the front doors down the sidewalk into the fitness center or walk down the hallway through the office lobby into the fitness center. Boardmember Hirsch had questions about the concrete ramps on the front ground level elevation. Ms. Borden remarked there would be a low concrete base wall with a railing above. It would have a poured in place low wall between the ramp and the sidewalk. Boardmember Adcock asked about the timeline, the edge of the building and property line, the fence around the stairs to the garage on the Middlefield and Byron side, the planting outside the lounge and coffee bar, who the leasing office and Amazon mailboxes would benefit and minimizing the daylight plane impact. Ms. Borden believed it would be a 15 to 18-month construction process. On the three street frontages, the face of the exterior wall was at the property line. Shoring would need to encroach within the frontage underneath the sidewalk. The ramp wall was shifted away from the interior lot lines. All shoring was on their private property. That addressed all conditions. She demonstrated where the foundation wall had been moved an additional five feet from where it was previously. The shoring shown in the hatched area was 26 inches wide. That was all outbound of the 30-foot for the main portion of the parking. The ramp walls on either side of the P1 level would have shoring within the 30-foot protection shown accommodated by the arborist report and would be done under the supervision of the arborist. Regarding the stairs to the garage on Middlefield and Byron, there would be a concrete wall from grade Item 4 Attachment A: Minutes of December 5, 2024     Packet Pg. 70     Page 7 of 11 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/05/24 up to the base flood elevation required by FEMA and there would be an open railing above that for sight line. The height of the railing would be 3 foot 6. The height of the base flood would be 1 foot 10 above grade. The planting outside the lounge and coffee bar was planted and would be maintained from either side or from the stair itself. The leasing office and Amazon mailboxes were intended to be private residential use. She indicated making the daylight plane skinnier would not comply with the 25 percent minimum nonresidential area required for the project to have below grade parking. Vice Chair Chen wanted clarification of the floor to ceiling height. Ms. Borden stated 7 foot 9 would be the head height of the doors at the primary residential levels. The final ceiling height would require coordination with MEP. The aim was to have an eight foot ceiling. Chair Rosenberg wanted to know the precipice for changing from a four-story to six-story building. Ms. Borden replied the only way they could incorporate the 24-foot setback and meet all other requirements was to add two floors to the building. The FEMA requirements would have been the same on the previous project. Boardmember Adcock asked for clarification about the number of units. Ms. Borden replied the number of units was a result of the quantity of units being lost from the setback plus the increase from the quantity of studios to have more one to two bedrooms. Boardmember Baltay recalled discussing appointing and ad hoc committee for the project and wondered about that. He wanted to understand which materials and finishes on the exterior were previously approved by the ARB and which were new. He asked about the plans under the tree canopy and the trees being proposed. He asked staff why they were recommending to continue the project. Ms. Borden indicated one of the notes on the materials was about the LRV value of the white paint on the siding and the transition of the siding. Ms. Kallas clarified staff had reviewed the comments the applicant had responded to but they had not gone to an ad hoc meeting. In preparation for the Planning and Transportation Commission meeting, she had outlined how some of the ad hoc items had been responded to. A slide was provided outlining the ad hoc committee assignments. Mr. Lettieri pointed out where they would be retaining the asphalt paving under the tree canopy intended to minimize construction activity. He noted the rationale of planting the trees under the canopy was to meet the tree planting requirements for replacement. Cherry trees have worked before and the arbutus would grow in the shade. They were opening to changing the tree species. Ms. Kallas indicated the main reasons staff were asking for a continuation was to allow the ARB an opportunity to provide comments and see the responses. If a recommendation was made for approval, the next step would be going to the Planning Commission. The other reason was that the proposed changes had not finished being reviewed under CEQA. Although they did not anticipate any significant new changes as a result of adding the two stories, they just wanted that review to be complete. Chief Assistant Attorney Arellano explained they could move forward without having the final draft of the updated CEQA document. The decision on whether to accept that analysis would rest with the Item 4 Attachment A: Minutes of December 5, 2024     Packet Pg. 71     Page 8 of 11 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/05/24 Planning Commission and the Council. If there were concerns related to changes to the project that the ARB did want to wait and see how the CEQA analysis looked at those concerns, that consideration would cut in favor of continuing to another ARB hearing. Boardmember Hirsch observed there had been no resolution of the discussion of the bike room in the basement. He felt the ramp slope was excessive so all of the bikes would be coming through the elevator resulting in a conflict with movement within the building. He thought it would be more important to have a bike room on the first floor. He thought having two lounge areas on the first floor was unnecessary. He suggested looking into having one lounge and a bike room on the first floor. He was bothered by the way the panels extended out beyond the vertical elements. He thought it was important to create a distinct relationship. He thought ad hoc should look into how they would intend to take care of the water on the decks and study the vertical stair enclosure. He mentioned having operable windows and a concern about balcony railing issues. He had not seen details of privacy panels between the railings. He thought the daylight plane cutting through two floors where the building was out to the perimeter on the south side should be showing within the drawings. He thought the vertical wall being concrete material was an anomaly on the face of the building. He suggested changing the art deal on that particular wall. He thought they could strengthen the top of the building at the cornice line instead of having it divided. He remarked the objective standards asked for a recess at some point in the perimeter of the building. It was used with the smaller entryways on the ground floor. He thought that would change their standards. He commented it was a successful building. He thought the tree issue was serious and hoped the arborist would watch it carefully. He noted they had warmer materials as was requested. Overall, he supported the building. Boardmember Baltay was fine with the extra height of the building. He had no problem with the daylight plane against the residential office. He was fine with the Middlefield setback that was previously approved. He agreed with Boardmember Hirsch’s comments regarding the interplay of the materials and elements on the façade; however, he thought they were originally approved and he would not want to force the architect to go back through that. He thought at least some portion of bicycle parking needed to be at grade and felt it should be addressed. He was concerned about the balconies near the tree and would prefer to not have balconies where the tree would be impacted. He wanted to see all other apartments have balconies 100 percent as required by code. His biggest concern with the proposed design was the height of the office space at the top and the proposal to have it be all glass on the façade. He thought it should be cut down a couple of feet and the roof cornice line needed to be emphasized a little stronger. He was concerned about the impact on birds with the glass. He wanted to see the glass vertically reduced and not consistently along the whole façade of the building. He felt the roof eave needed to be larger to cap the building. He strongly supported keeping the previously approved tree protection in place. He wanted to see the landscape architect consult with the City arborist to come up with a planting plan that would mitigate impact to the tree possibly finding a different place to put the replacement trees. He was in favor of finding a way to recommend approval of the project with a return to an ad hoc committee. Chair Rosenberg admitted she was dismayed by the height at first but realized trade-offs had to be made in order to have the 24-foot setback along Middlefield. She was also dismayed that the unit increase was only three; however, noting how many increased from being studios to single bedrooms was favorable. She thought the tree would be impacted one way or the other and they would defer to the experts on that. She felt the applicant was being thoughtful and considerate with their design Item 4 Attachment A: Minutes of December 5, 2024     Packet Pg. 72     Page 9 of 11 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/05/24 choices and encouraged them to be thoughtful with their means and methods. She was not opposed to removing the balconies from those two units. She was pleasantly surprised with how much parking there was with this building. She was hopeful that this would be a walkable unit. She thought smaller footprint improved the site and landscaping. She talked about the benefits and drawbacks of the top floor office space. She thought there should be some consideration for timing of the overall large lighting on the top floor with the floor-to-ceiling glazing. She indicated the H plan needed work as the elevator going through made it uncomfortable. She wondered if the elevators in the entrance could be utilized better. Vice Chair Chen agreed they should trust the City and the arborist’s professional opinions regarding the tree. She thought the office on top solved some problems and the all glazing scheme would make the building lighter. She was okay with the building height. She appreciated the effort made with the special setback. She suggested the staff give clear direction on whether the applicant should take additional consideration on the structure support if any transportation improvements happen in the future. Boardmember Adcock pointed out the 24-foot setback needed to be designed for future sidewalk/bike lane/parking potential uses. She mentioned the nine balconies facing the tree should not be there. She explained a reduction of 1000 square feet of office on the sixth floor would give back a majority of the daylight plane. She thought it set a bad precedent for not holding to the daylight plane requirements of the City. She was not a fan of fake materials and thought the board formed material going to the eave line should be the same as the space surrounding the public art. She observed a minor swap on the upper levels of where the trash chutes were versus where the door entered the trash room would provide more depth into the first floor trash room which would be used as potential deliveries. Boardmember Baltay suggested recommending an imaginary daylight plane starting at 16 feet and going up. Boardmember Adcock agreed if the clipping of the corner of the sixth floor went away and some of the sixth floor glass box remained. Boardmember Hirsch did not think changing the profile of the building in this way was worth impacting the one-story building next door. He thought Planning should think about either raising the beginning of the daylight plane in buildings like this or allowing an encroachment. He was in favor of keeping the rear daylight plan with the exceptions being allowed here. He felt more strongly about having a bike room on the first floor than having additional commercial space. Chair Rosenberg agreed with Boardmember Hirsch’s comments that this was an extreme request and a big modification. She did not think the daylight plan or reduction in office space would make or break the project or set a negative precedent. She did not support that change. Vice Chair Chen supported keeping the plan as it was. Chair Rosenberg appointed Boardmember Hirsch and Vice Chair Chen to the ad hoc committee. MOTION: Boardmember Baltay moved to recommend approval of this project with the following items returning to an ARB ad hoc committee for review and seconded by Chair Rosenberg: Item 4 Attachment A: Minutes of December 5, 2024     Packet Pg. 73     Page 10 of 11 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/05/24 1. Ensure the approved plans do not further increase activity in the TPZ than currently shown in the plans without arborist review. Remove balconies from within the oak tree canopy. Support Urban Forestry’s COA for the 200 percent tree value bond. 2. Include the greater specification of all materials include complete material specifications and samples, the corner details, reduce the LRV level of the white paint finish to 83 or less. 3. Provide at least 25 percent of the long-term bicycle parking readily accessible at grade. 4. All residential units shall comply with the City’s private open space requirements, excluding the units within the oak tree canopy. 5. Revise the tree planting plan to eliminate or relocate proposed new trees under the oak tree canopy, with review from the City’s arborist. 6. Reduce the height and total transparent area of glazing on the sixth floor. 7. Review and revise the elevations to eliminate or mitigate co-planar situations with different building materials. Add a condition of approval to: 1. Provide a shade/blind and lighting control plan for after-hours within the office uses as applied to similar previous projects. 2. Ensure the structure over the below grade garage within the setbacks can accommodate proposed planting and utilities, with at least 3 feet of soil depth. VOTE: Motion carried 5-0 Study Session 3. Study Session to Review Potential Amendments to the Regulations for the El Camino Real Focus Area in Title 18 (Zoning Ordinance) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Implement Program 3.4E of the Adopted 2023‐2031 Housing Element. Environmental Assessment: On April 15, 2024, Council adopted Resolution No. 10155, approving an Addendum to the Comprehensive Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR). PUBLIC COMMENT Peter Giovannotto expressed support for the expanded study area. He was enthusiastic about the possibility of expanding it to include his family’s two projects on 3606 and 3781 El Camino Real. He highlighted the importance of creating the right conditions for a housing development. Chair Rosenberg requested making sure the public speaker’s comments were noted in the upcoming report. Mr. Switzer assured that the commentary would be included as a public comment. Item 4 Attachment A: Minutes of December 5, 2024     Packet Pg. 74     Page 11 of 11 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/05/24 Amie Ashton, Executive Director of Palo Alto Forward, remarked that staff flagged the issues they were looking at perfectly including the height transitions and step back requirements. She asked the Board to review the letter her organization sent. Mr. Switzer commented the projects the first public speaker referenced were included on packet pages 12 and 13 in the list of pending projects. MOTION: Chair Rosenberg moved to continue this agenda item to a date certain of December 19 and seconded by Vice Chair Chen. VOTE: Motion carried 5-0 Approval of Minutes 4. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for November 7, 2024 MOTION: Chair Rosenberg moved to approve the minutes as written and seconded by Vice Chair Chen. VOTE: Motion carried 5-0 Board Member Questions, Comments, Announcements Or Future Meetings And Agendas Chair Rosenberg indicated they would be reviewing the El Camino Real focus group along with the ARB design awards in two weeks. Adjournment Chair Rosenberg adjourned the meeting at 11:57 a.m. Item 4 Attachment A: Minutes of December 5, 2024     Packet Pg. 75