Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-01-19 Architectural Review Board Agenda PacketARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD Regular Meeting Thursday, January 19, 2023 Council Chambers & Hybrid 8:30 AM Pursuant to AB 361 Palo Alto City Council 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. The meeting will be broadcast on Cable TV Channel 26, live on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen Media Center https://midpenmedia.org. Visit https://bit.ly/PApendingprojects to view project plans and details. Commissioner names, biographies, and archived agendas and reports are available at https://bit.ly/paloaltoARB.  VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/96561891491) Meeting ID: 965 6189 1491    Phone: 1(669)900‐6833 PUBLIC COMMENTS Public comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or an amount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutes after the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance to arb@CityofPaloAlto.org and will be provided to the Council 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. CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL 1.Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing Use of Teleconferencing for Architectural Review Board During Covid‐19 State of Emergency ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 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 2.Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2) Tentative Future Agenda Items and 3) Recently Submitted Projects ACTION ITEMS Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Ten (10) minutes, plus ten (10) minutes rebuttal. All others: Three (3) minutes per speaker. 3.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI‐JUDICIAL. 900 Welch Road [22PLN‐00328]:  Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Modification to Existing Master Sign Program to add Sign Exceptions for Two New Free‐Standing Vehicular Directional Signs Along New Road. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from CEQA per Section 15301 (Existing Facilities). Zoning District: MOR (Medical Office and Medical Research). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Emily Foley at emily.foley@cityofpaloalto.org. 4.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI‐JUDICIAL. 414 California Avenue [22PLN‐00207]: Recommendation on Applicant's Request for Approval of a Minor Board‐Level Architectural Review to Allow the Removal and Replacement of Existing Stucco with new Tenant Colors, Rooftop Mechanical Equipment and Enclosure, Removal of two Parking lot Trees, Replace Existing Front Breeze‐Block Screen Wall with a new Lattice System, new Landscaping, and new Signage. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the Provisions of CEQA per Section 15301. Zoning District: CC(2)(R)(P) (Community Commercial). STUDY SESSION 5.3200 Park Boulevard/200 Portage/340 Portage [22PLN‐00287 and 22PLN‐00288]: Study Session to Consider a Request for a Development Agreement, Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Planned Community Zoning, and Tentative Map, to Allow Redevelopment of a 14.65‐acre site at 200‐404 Portage Avenue, 3040‐3250 Park Boulevard, 3201‐3225 Ash Street and 278 Lambert. This Study Session will Focus on Feedback Regarding the Design of the Remaining portion of the Cannery Building and the New Adjacent Parking Garage. The Full Scope of Work Includes the Partial Demolition of an Existing Commercial Building That has Been Deemed Eligible for the California Register as Well as an Existing Building With a Commercial Recreation use at 3040 Park and Construction of (74) new Townhome Condominiums, a one Level Parking Garage, and Dedication of Approximately 3.25 acres of Land to the City for Future Affordable Housing and Parkland Uses. The Existing Building at 3201‐3225 Ash Street Would Remain in Office use, and an Automotive use at 3250 Park Boulevard Would Convert to R&D use. Environmental Assessment: Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the 200 Portage Townhome Development Project was Circulated on September 16, 2022 in Accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The EIR Comment Period Ended on November 15, 2022. The Proposed Development Agreement is Evaluated as Alternative 3 in the Draft EIR. Zoning District: RM‐30 (Multi‐Family Residential) and GM (General Manufacturing). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Claire Raybould at Claire.Raybould@cityofpaloalto.org. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 6.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for December 1, 2022 7.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for November 17, 2022 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 Council, 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 Council, 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 B‐E 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 Council. 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 19, 2023Council Chambers & Hybrid8:30 AMPursuant to AB 361 Palo Alto City Council meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with theoption to attend by teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safetywhile still maintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose toparticipate from home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe andparticipate in the meeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged ifattending in person. The meeting will be broadcast on Cable TV Channel 26, live onYouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen MediaCenter https://midpenmedia.org. Visit https://bit.ly/PApendingprojects to view project plansand details. Commissioner names, biographies, and archived agendas and reports are availableat https://bit.ly/paloaltoARB. VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/96561891491)Meeting ID: 965 6189 1491    Phone: 1(669)900‐6833PUBLIC COMMENTSPublic comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or anamount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutesafter the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance toarb@CityofPaloAlto.org and will be provided to the Council 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 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. CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL 1.Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing Use of Teleconferencing for Architectural Review Board During Covid‐19 State of Emergency ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 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 2.Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2) Tentative Future Agenda Items and 3) Recently Submitted Projects ACTION ITEMS Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Ten (10) minutes, plus ten (10) minutes rebuttal. All others: Three (3) minutes per speaker. 3.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI‐JUDICIAL. 900 Welch Road [22PLN‐00328]:  Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Modification to Existing Master Sign Program to add Sign Exceptions for Two New Free‐Standing Vehicular Directional Signs Along New Road. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from CEQA per Section 15301 (Existing Facilities). Zoning District: MOR (Medical Office and Medical Research). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Emily Foley at emily.foley@cityofpaloalto.org. 4.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI‐JUDICIAL. 414 California Avenue [22PLN‐00207]: Recommendation on Applicant's Request for Approval of a Minor Board‐Level Architectural Review to Allow the Removal and Replacement of Existing Stucco with new Tenant Colors, Rooftop Mechanical Equipment and Enclosure, Removal of two Parking lot Trees, Replace Existing Front Breeze‐Block Screen Wall with a new Lattice System, new Landscaping, and new Signage. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the Provisions of CEQA per Section 15301. Zoning District: CC(2)(R)(P) (Community Commercial). STUDY SESSION 5.3200 Park Boulevard/200 Portage/340 Portage [22PLN‐00287 and 22PLN‐00288]: Study Session to Consider a Request for a Development Agreement, Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Planned Community Zoning, and Tentative Map, to Allow Redevelopment of a 14.65‐acre site at 200‐404 Portage Avenue, 3040‐3250 Park Boulevard, 3201‐3225 Ash Street and 278 Lambert. This Study Session will Focus on Feedback Regarding the Design of the Remaining portion of the Cannery Building and the New Adjacent Parking Garage. The Full Scope of Work Includes the Partial Demolition of an Existing Commercial Building That has Been Deemed Eligible for the California Register as Well as an Existing Building With a Commercial Recreation use at 3040 Park and Construction of (74) new Townhome Condominiums, a one Level Parking Garage, and Dedication of Approximately 3.25 acres of Land to the City for Future Affordable Housing and Parkland Uses. The Existing Building at 3201‐3225 Ash Street Would Remain in Office use, and an Automotive use at 3250 Park Boulevard Would Convert to R&D use. Environmental Assessment: Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the 200 Portage Townhome Development Project was Circulated on September 16, 2022 in Accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The EIR Comment Period Ended on November 15, 2022. The Proposed Development Agreement is Evaluated as Alternative 3 in the Draft EIR. Zoning District: RM‐30 (Multi‐Family Residential) and GM (General Manufacturing). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Claire Raybould at Claire.Raybould@cityofpaloalto.org. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 6.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for December 1, 2022 7.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for November 17, 2022 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 Council, 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 Council, 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 B‐E 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 Council. 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 19, 2023Council Chambers & Hybrid8:30 AMPursuant to AB 361 Palo Alto City Council meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with theoption to attend by teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safetywhile still maintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose toparticipate from home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe andparticipate in the meeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged ifattending in person. The meeting will be broadcast on Cable TV Channel 26, live onYouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen MediaCenter https://midpenmedia.org. Visit https://bit.ly/PApendingprojects to view project plansand details. Commissioner names, biographies, and archived agendas and reports are availableat https://bit.ly/paloaltoARB. VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/96561891491)Meeting ID: 965 6189 1491    Phone: 1(669)900‐6833PUBLIC COMMENTSPublic comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or anamount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutesafter the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance toarb@CityofPaloAlto.org and will be provided to the Council 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.CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL1.Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing Use of Teleconferencing for Architectural ReviewBoard During Covid‐19 State of EmergencyORAL COMMUNICATIONSMembers 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 REPORTS2.Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2) TentativeFuture Agenda Items and 3) Recently Submitted ProjectsACTION ITEMSPublic Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Ten (10) minutes, plus ten (10) minutes rebuttal. All others: Three(3) minutes per speaker.3.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI‐JUDICIAL. 900 Welch Road [22PLN‐00328]:  Recommendationon Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Modification to Existing Master Sign Program toadd Sign Exceptions for Two New Free‐Standing Vehicular Directional Signs Along NewRoad. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from CEQA per Section 15301 (ExistingFacilities). Zoning District: MOR (Medical Office and Medical Research). For MoreInformation Contact the Project Planner Emily Foley at emily.foley@cityofpaloalto.org.4.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI‐JUDICIAL. 414 California Avenue [22PLN‐00207]:Recommendation on Applicant's Request for Approval of a Minor Board‐LevelArchitectural Review to Allow the Removal and Replacement of Existing Stucco with newTenant Colors, Rooftop Mechanical Equipment and Enclosure, Removal of two Parking lotTrees, Replace Existing Front Breeze‐Block Screen Wall with a new Lattice System, newLandscaping, and new Signage. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the Provisionsof CEQA per Section 15301. Zoning District: CC(2)(R)(P) (Community Commercial).STUDY SESSION5.3200 Park Boulevard/200 Portage/340 Portage [22PLN‐00287 and 22PLN‐00288]: Study Session to Consider a Request for a Development Agreement, Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Planned Community Zoning, and Tentative Map, to Allow Redevelopment of a 14.65‐acre site at 200‐404 Portage Avenue, 3040‐3250 Park Boulevard, 3201‐3225 Ash Street and 278 Lambert. This Study Session will Focus on Feedback Regarding the Design of the Remaining portion of the Cannery Building and the New Adjacent Parking Garage. The Full Scope of Work Includes the Partial Demolition of an Existing Commercial Building That has Been Deemed Eligible for the California Register as Well as an Existing Building With a Commercial Recreation use at 3040 Park and Construction of (74) new Townhome Condominiums, a one Level Parking Garage, and Dedication of Approximately 3.25 acres of Land to the City for Future Affordable Housing and Parkland Uses. The Existing Building at 3201‐3225 Ash Street Would Remain in Office use, and an Automotive use at 3250 Park Boulevard Would Convert to R&D use. Environmental Assessment: Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the 200 Portage Townhome Development Project was Circulated on September 16, 2022 in Accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The EIR Comment Period Ended on November 15, 2022. The Proposed Development Agreement is Evaluated as Alternative 3 in the Draft EIR. Zoning District: RM‐30 (Multi‐Family Residential) and GM (General Manufacturing). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Claire Raybould at Claire.Raybould@cityofpaloalto.org. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 6.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for December 1, 2022 7.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for November 17, 2022 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 Council, 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 Council, 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 B‐E 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 Council. 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 19, 2023Council Chambers & Hybrid8:30 AMPursuant to AB 361 Palo Alto City Council meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with theoption to attend by teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safetywhile still maintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose toparticipate from home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe andparticipate in the meeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged ifattending in person. The meeting will be broadcast on Cable TV Channel 26, live onYouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen MediaCenter https://midpenmedia.org. Visit https://bit.ly/PApendingprojects to view project plansand details. Commissioner names, biographies, and archived agendas and reports are availableat https://bit.ly/paloaltoARB. VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/96561891491)Meeting ID: 965 6189 1491    Phone: 1(669)900‐6833PUBLIC COMMENTSPublic comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or anamount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutesafter the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance toarb@CityofPaloAlto.org and will be provided to the Council 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.CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL1.Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing Use of Teleconferencing for Architectural ReviewBoard During Covid‐19 State of EmergencyORAL COMMUNICATIONSMembers 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 REPORTS2.Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2) TentativeFuture Agenda Items and 3) Recently Submitted ProjectsACTION ITEMSPublic Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Ten (10) minutes, plus ten (10) minutes rebuttal. All others: Three(3) minutes per speaker.3.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI‐JUDICIAL. 900 Welch Road [22PLN‐00328]:  Recommendationon Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Modification to Existing Master Sign Program toadd Sign Exceptions for Two New Free‐Standing Vehicular Directional Signs Along NewRoad. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from CEQA per Section 15301 (ExistingFacilities). Zoning District: MOR (Medical Office and Medical Research). For MoreInformation Contact the Project Planner Emily Foley at emily.foley@cityofpaloalto.org.4.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI‐JUDICIAL. 414 California Avenue [22PLN‐00207]:Recommendation on Applicant's Request for Approval of a Minor Board‐LevelArchitectural Review to Allow the Removal and Replacement of Existing Stucco with newTenant Colors, Rooftop Mechanical Equipment and Enclosure, Removal of two Parking lotTrees, Replace Existing Front Breeze‐Block Screen Wall with a new Lattice System, newLandscaping, and new Signage. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the Provisionsof CEQA per Section 15301. Zoning District: CC(2)(R)(P) (Community Commercial).STUDY SESSION5.3200 Park Boulevard/200 Portage/340 Portage [22PLN‐00287 and 22PLN‐00288]: StudySession to Consider a Request for a Development Agreement, Comprehensive PlanAmendment, Planned Community Zoning, and Tentative Map, to Allow Redevelopment ofa 14.65‐acre site at 200‐404 Portage Avenue, 3040‐3250 Park Boulevard, 3201‐3225 AshStreet and 278 Lambert. This Study Session will Focus on Feedback Regarding the Designof the Remaining portion of the Cannery Building and the New Adjacent Parking Garage.The Full Scope of Work Includes the Partial Demolition of an Existing CommercialBuilding That has Been Deemed Eligible for the California Register as Well as an ExistingBuilding With a Commercial Recreation use at 3040 Park and Construction of (74) newTownhome Condominiums, a one Level Parking Garage, and Dedication of Approximately3.25 acres of Land to the City for Future Affordable Housing and Parkland Uses. TheExisting Building at 3201‐3225 Ash Street Would Remain in Office use, and anAutomotive use at 3250 Park Boulevard Would Convert to R&D use. EnvironmentalAssessment: Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the 200 Portage TownhomeDevelopment Project was Circulated on September 16, 2022 in Accordance with theCalifornia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The EIR Comment Period Ended onNovember 15, 2022. The Proposed Development Agreement is Evaluated as Alternative 3in the Draft EIR. Zoning District: RM‐30 (Multi‐Family Residential) and GM (GeneralManufacturing). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Claire Raybould atClaire.Raybould@cityofpaloalto.org.APPROVAL OF MINUTES6.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for December 1, 20227.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for November 17, 2022BOARD 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 Council, 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 Council, 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 B‐E 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 Council. 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 3 Architectural Review Board Staff Report From: Jonathan Lait, Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: January 19, 2023 TITLE Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing Use of Teleconferencing for Architectural Review Board During Covid-19 State of Emergency RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) Adopt a Resolution (Attachment A) authorizing the use of teleconferencing under Government Code Section 54953(e) for meetings of the ARB and its committees due to the Covid-19 declared state of emergency. BACKGROUND In February and March 2020, the state and the County declared a state of emergency due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Both emergency declarations remain in effect. On September 16, 2021, the Governor signed AB 361, a bill that amends the Brown Act, effective October 1, 2021, to allow local policy bodies to continue to meet by teleconferencing during a state of emergency without complying with restrictions in State law that would otherwise apply, provided that the policy bodies make certain findings at least once every 30 days. AB 361, codified at California Government Code Section 54953(e), empowers local policy bodies to convene by teleconferencing technology during a proclaimed state of emergency under the State Emergency Services Act in any of the following circumstances: (A) The legislative body holds a meeting during a proclaimed state of emergency, and state or local officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing. (B) The legislative body holds a meeting during a proclaimed state of emergency for the purpose of determining, by majority vote, whether as a result of the emergency, meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees. (C) The legislative body holds a meeting during a proclaimed state of emergency and has determined, by majority vote, pursuant to subparagraph (B) (B), that, as a 1     Packet Pg. 5     Item No. 1. Page 2 of 3 result of the emergency, meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees. (Gov. Code § 54953(e)(1).) In addition, Section 54953(e)(3) requires that policy bodies using teleconferencing reconsider the state of emergency within 30 days of the first teleconferenced meeting after October 1, 2021, and at least every 30 days thereafter, and find that one of the following circumstances exists: 1. The state of emergency continues to directly impact the ability of the members to meet safely in person. 2. State or local officials continue to impose or recommend measures to promote social distancing. ANALYSIS Although conditions have changed since the beginning of 2022, staff believe it is still reasonable to find that the circumstances in Section 54953(e)(1)(A) exist. The Santa Clara County Health Officer continues to recommend measures to promote outdoor activity, physical distancing, and other social distancing measures, such as masking, in certain contexts. In addition, the California Department of Industrial Relations Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) has promulgated Section 3205 of Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations, which requires most employers in California, including in the City, to train and instruct employees about measures that can decrease the spread of COVID-19, including physical distancing and other social distancing measures. Accordingly, Section 54953(e)(1)(A) authorizes the City to continue using teleconferencing for public meetings of its policy bodies, provided that any and all members of the public who wish to address the body or its committees have an opportunity to do so, and that the statutory and constitutional rights of parties and the members of the public attending the meeting via teleconferencing are protected. The City Attorney’s office recently provided an updated analysis to the City Council regarding the ability to meet remotely under the Brown Act. That analysis is available on packet page 150 of the City Council’s October 3, 2022 agenda document: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes- reports/agendasminutes/city-council-agendas-minutes/2022/20221003/20221003accsm- amendedpresentations.pdf Adoption of the Resolution in Attachment A will make the findings required by Section 54953(e)(3) to allow the continued use of teleconferencing for meetings of the Architectural Review Board and its committees. 1     Packet Pg. 6     Item No. 1. Page 3 of 3 Report Author & Contact Information Albert Yang, City Attorney (650) 329-2171 Albert.Yang@CityofPaloAlto.org ARB1 Liaison & Contact Information Claire Raybould, Senior Planner (650) 329-2116 Claire.Raybould@CityofPaloAlto.org ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Resolution Authorizing Use of Teleconferencing Under Government Code Section 54953(e) for Meetings of Architectural Review Board 1 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@CityofPaloAlto.org 1     Packet Pg. 7     NOT YET APPROVED 2 3 2 Resolution No. ARB – 2022-12 Resolution Making Findings to Allow Teleconferenced Meetings Under California Government Code Section 54953(e) R E C I T A L S A. California Government Code Section 54953(e) empowers local policy bodies to convene by teleconferencing technology during a proclaimed state of emergency under the State Emergency Services Act so long as certain conditions are met; and B. In March 2020, the Governor of the State of California proclaimed a state of emergency in California in connection with the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (“COVID-19”) pandemic, and that state of emergency remains in effect; and C. In February 2020, the Santa Clara County Director of Emergency Services and the Santa Clara County Health Officer declared a local emergency, which declarations were subsequently ratified and extended by the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, and those declarations also remain in effect; and D. On September 16, 2021, the Governor signed AB 361, a bill that amends the Brown Act to allow local policy bodies to continue to meet by teleconferencing during a state of emergency without complying with restrictions in State law that would otherwise apply, provided that the policy bodies make certain findings at least once every 30 days; and E. While federal, State, and local health officials emphasize the critical importance of vaccination and consistent mask-wearing to prevent the spread of COVID-19, the Santa Clara County Health Officer has issued at least one order, on August 2, 2021 (available online at here), that continues to recommend measures to promote outdoor activity, physical distancing and other social distancing measures, such as masking, in certain contexts; and F. The California Department of Industrial Relations Division of Occupational Safety and Health (“Cal/OSHA”) has promulgated Section 3205 of Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations, which requires most employers in California, including in the City, to train and instruct employees about measures that can decrease the spread of COVID-19, including physical distancing and other social distancing measures; and G. The Architectural Review Board has met remotely during the COVID-19 pandemic and can continue to do so in a manner that allows public participation and transparency while minimizing health risks to members, staff, and the public that would be present with in-person meetings while this emergency continues; now, therefore, 1     Packet Pg. 8     NOT YET APPROVED 2 3 2 The Architectural Review Board RESOLVES as follows: 1. As described above, the State of California remains in a state of emergency due to the COVID-19 pandemic. At this meeting, the Architectural Review Board has considered the circumstances of the state of emergency. 2. As described above, State and County officials continue to recommend measures to promote physical distancing and other social distancing measures, in some settings. AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That for at least the next 30 days, meetings of the Architectural Review Board and its committees will occur using teleconferencing technology. Such meetings of the Architectural Review Board and its committees that occur using teleconferencing technology will provide an opportunity for any and all members of the public who wish to address the body and its committees and will otherwise occur in a manner that protects the statutory and constitutional rights of parties and the members of the public attending the meeting via teleconferencing; and, be it FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Architectural Review Board staff liaison is directed to place a resolution substantially similar to this resolution on the agenda of a future meeting of the Architectural Review Board within the next 30 days. If the Architectural Review Board does not meet within the next 30 days, the staff liaison is directed to place a such resolution on the agenda of the immediately following meeting of the Architectural Review Board. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: Staff Liaison Chair of Architectural Review Board APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: City Attorney Department Head 1     Packet Pg. 9     Item No. 2. Page 1 of 2 Architectural Review Board Staff Report From: Jonathan Lait, Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: January 19, 2023 TITLE Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2) Tentative Future Agenda Items and 3) Recently Submitted Projects RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) review and comment as appropriate. BACKGROUND The attached documents are provided for informational purposes. The Board may review and comment as it deems appropriate. If individual Boardmembers anticipate being absent from a future meeting, it is requested that this be brought to staff’s attention when considering this item. The first attachment provides a meeting and attendance schedule for the current calendar year. Also included are the subcommittee assignments, which are assigned by the ARB Chair as needed. The second attachment is a Tentative Future Agenda that provides a summary of upcoming projects or discussion items. The hearing dates for these items are subject to change. The attachment also has a list of pending ARB projects. 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. 2     Packet Pg. 10     Item No. 2. Page 2 of 2 However, 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. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: ARB Meeting Schedule Assignments Attachment B: Tentative Future Agenda and New Planning Projects Report #: 2301-0784 2     Packet Pg. 11     Architectural Review Board 2023 Meeting Schedule & Assignments 2 9 3 2023 Meeting Schedule Meeting Dates Time Location Status Planned Absences 1/05/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Cancelled 1/19/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 2/02/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 2/16/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 3/02/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 3/16/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 4/06/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 4/20/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 5/04/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 5/18/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 6/01/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 6/15/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 7/06/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 7/20/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 8/03/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 8/17/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 9/07/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 9/21/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 10/05/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 10/19/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 11/02/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 11/16/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 12/07/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 12/21/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 2023 Ad Hoc Committee Assignments Assignments will be made by the ARB Chair January February March April May June July August September October November December 2     Packet Pg. 12     3 6 6 Architectural Review Board 2023 Tentative Future Agenda and New Planning Projects The following items are tentative and subject to change: Meeting Dates Topics February 2, 2023 •CANCELLED February 17, 2023 •3001 El Camino Real: 129 Unit Affordable Housing (Tentative) The following items are likely to be heard by the ARB in the near future and have a pending project webpage (bit.ly/PApendingprojects) and/or can be view via Building Eye (bit.ly/PABuildingEye). Grey items are recently approved projects or Council prescreening items that may come forth to the ARB as part of a future formal application. Permit Type Submitted Permit # Project Mgr.Address Type Work Description AR Major - Board 10/21/19 19PLN- 00347 CHODGKI 486 HAMILTON AV Mixed use On-hold pending environmental review for vibration. Major Architectural Review for a new three story mixed use project including 2,457 square feet of retail space, 2,108 square feet of office space, and four (4) residential units. Zoning District: CD-C(P) AR Major - Board 9/16/20 20PLN- 00202 CHODGKI 250 HAMILTON AV Bridge On-hold for redesign - Allow the removal and replacement of the Pope-Chaucer Bridge over San Francisquito Creek with a new structure that does not obstruct creek flow to reduce flood risk. The 2     Packet Pg. 13     3 6 6 project will also include channel modifications. Environmental Assessment: The SFCJPA, acting as the lead agency, adopted a Final EIR on September 26, 2019. Zoning District: PF. AR Major - Board 1/28/21 21PLN- 00028 GSAULS 3300 EL CAMINO REAL R&D 1st formal 4/7/22, 2nd formal 10/20/22 (recommended approval with AdHoc Committee requirement) - Major Architectural Review to Allow the Construction of a two-story, 50,355 sf office/R&D project with 40% surface parking & 60% below-grade parking, includes a 2,517 sf amenity space. Environmental Assessment: MND Pending. Zoning District: RP (Research Park). AR Major - Board 6/16/21 21PLN- 00172 EFOLEY 123 SHERMAN AV Office ARB 1st formal 12/1/22 - Major Architectural Review application to allow demolition of existing buildings to allow the construction of a new 3-story office building with 2 levels of below grade parking. This project would also require the combination of 3 existing parcels. Zoning District: CC (2)(R). Environmental Assessment: Pending. AR Major - Board Zone Change 12/21/21 21PLN- 00341 EFOLEY 660 University Mixed use ARB 1st formal 12/1/22 - 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). AR Major – Board, Development Agreement and PC 7/28/2020 10/28/2021 8/25/2022 20PLN- 00155 21PLN- 00108 22PLN- 00287 CHODGKI 340 Portage (former Fry’s) 200 Portage 3200 Park Blvd Commercial and townhomes Was heard by PTC on 11/30/22, ARB study sessions held on 12/15/22 and 1/19/2022 – Development Agreement, Rezoning and Major Architectural Review application to allow the redevelopment of an approximately 4.86-acre portion of the site. Scope of work includes the partial demolition of an existing commercial building and construction of 91 or 74 new Townhome Condominiums. Zoning District: RM-30 (Multi-Family Residential). Environmental Assessment: Pending. Prescreening and Preliminary Architectural Review 04/25/2022 22PLN- 00129 CHODGKI 800 SAN ANTONIO RD Housing Heard by Council on 8/15/22; waiting for formal application- Pre-screening to rezone from Commercial Services (CS) to Planned Home Zoning and to redevelop the site with 75 condominium units in a five-story structure. The study session will give the Council and the community an opportunity to comment on the applicant’s proposal AR Major - Board 04/28/2022 22PLN- 00142 GSAULS 901 S California AV Office Prelim 3/3/22, ARB hearing 10/20 - Major Architectural Review to allow the demolition of an existing two-story office building totaling approximately 55,000 Square Feet and Construction of a new two- Story approximately 55,583 square foot office building with a 2,525 square foot amenity space. Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: RP (Research Park). 2     Packet Pg. 14     3 6 6 Prescreening Council 06/13/2022 22PLN- 00198 EFOLEY 70 Encina AV Housing Heard by Council on 9/12/22, waiting for formal application - Prescreening for a New multi-family residential condominium project with 20 units. The project is pursuing approval for the use of PHZ zoning regulations under the Palo Alto Municipal Code. AR Major - Board 06/16/2022 22PLN- 00201 CHODGKI 739 SUTTER AV Housing Prelim 11/18/21, NOI sent 7/15/22, waiting for revised plans - Major Architectural Review to Allow the Demolition of an Existing 8- unit apartment building, and Construction of 12 new townhome units on the project site Using the State Density Bonus Allowances. The proposed units are 3-stories in height, and 25,522 sf of floor area. Rooftop Open Space is proposed for the units adjacent to Sutter Avenue. A Compliant SB 330 Pre-Application was submitted on 5/5/2022; however, the applicant did not resubmit plans within 90 days; therefore, the project will be subject to the current objective standards upon resubmittal. Zoning District: RM-20 (Low Density Multi-Family Residential). Environmental Assessment: Pending AR Minor - Board 07/06/2022 22PLN- 00223 THARRISON 180 EL CAMINO REAL, STE E705A Commercial Minor Architectural Review Board (ARB) review of The Melt restaurant (currently The Melt), Space #705A, Bldg. E (#E705A). Exterior improvements include new façade, new storefront glazing, redesigned outdoor patio and new signage. Interior improvements will include complete interior remodel. No change of use. (CUP 11PLN-00253). Zoning District: CC. AR Major - Board 07/07/2022 22PLN- 00229 22PLN- 00057 (SB 330) CHODGKI 3001 EL CAMINO REAL Affordable Housing ARB 1st formal hearing 11/17/22 - 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. (Senate Bill 330 Housing Development Project). Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: CS (Commercial Service). Prescreening Council 07/07/2022 22PLN- 00227 GSAULS 3400 EL CAMINO REAL Housing Heard by Council on 9/19/22, waiting for formal application - Pre-Screening for a Planned Housing Zone (PHZ) to build 382 residential rental units comprised of 44 studios, 243 one-bedroom, 86 two-bedroom and 9 three-bedroom units in two buildings. Zoning District: CS, CS(H), RM-20 (Service Commercial, Hotel, Multi- Family Residential). AR Minor - Board and Conditional Use Permit 7/19/2022 22PLN- 00237 THARRISON 180 EL CAMINO REAL, STE E700A Commercial Minor Architectural 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. No change of use. Zoning District: CC. 2     Packet Pg. 15     3 6 6 AR Minor - Board 7/26/2022 22PLN- 00243 THARRISON 221 FOREST AV Commercial/ Office Architectural Review for proposed improvements to the interior and to the front and rear of 221-227 Forest. The floor area will increase but the volume of the building envelope will not increase. Zoning District: CD-C (P). AR Major - Board 10/11/2022 22PLN- 00328 EFOLEY 900 WELCH RD Signs Major Architectural Review for Master Sign Program and Sign Exception to Allow installation of Proposed New Wayfinding Signage and messaging updates to existing signage on the Stanford Medicine campus to support the upcoming Blake Wilbur Drive Roadway Extension. Council Prescreening 10/18/2022 22PLN- 00355 EFOLEY 250 CAMBRIDGE AVE Code Change – roof gardens Pre-Screening to consider the potential entitlement process at 250 Cambridge Avenue for installation of a new rooftop garden terrace at the front half of the existing building roof facing Cambridge Avenue. Zoning District: CC(2). Site and Design 10/27/2022 22PLN- 00367 CHODGKI 2501 EMBARCADERO WY Utility – Water Filtration Request for Site and Design Review to allow construction of a Local Advanced Water Purification System at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP). The proposed project will include the construction and operation of a membrane filtration recycled water facility and a permeate storage tank at the City’s RWQCP to improve recycled water quality and increase its use. Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: Public Facilities with Site and Design combining district (PF)(D). Zone Change 11/17/2022 22PLN- 00391 EFOLEY 4075 El Camino Way Residential - add 14 units to existing Request for Planned Community Zone Change to add 14 new units to an existing Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility in a similar style to the existing building. Twelve of the additional units proposed are to be stacked above the existing building footprint with the other two units proposed to be located as minor expansion to existing building footprint. The new units are to be of a similar size and layout to the existing units. Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: PC-5116 (Planned Community). SB 330 Pre- Application 1/04/2023 23PLN- 00002 CHODGKI 4200 Acacia Residential- 16 units replacing surface parking lot SB 330 Pre-Application for a 16-unit Multi-family Residential Townhome Project. The Project will Provide 15% Below Market Rate On-site and Includes Requested Concessions and Waivers in Accordance with the State Density Bonus. 2     Packet Pg. 16     3 6 6 SB 330 Pre- Application 1/10/2023 23PLN- 00003 GSAULS 3150 El Camino Real Residential- 380-unit apartment building replacing existing eating and drinking and office uses SB 330 Pre-Application for a 16-unit Multi-family Residential Townhome Project. The Project will Provide 15% Below Market Rate On-site and Includes Requested Concessions and Waivers in Accordance with the State Density Bonus. 2     Packet Pg. 17     Item No. 3. Page 1 of 6 Architectural Review Board Staff Report From: Jonathan Lait, Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: January 19, 2023 TITLE PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 900 Welch Road [22PLN-00328]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Sign Exception and Modification to an Existing Master Sign Program to add Two New Vehicular Directional (aka Freestanding) Signs Along a New Road. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from CEQA per Guidelines Section 15311 (Accessory Structures). Zoning District: MOR (Medical Office and Medical Research). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Emily Foley at emily.foley@cityofpaloalto.org RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s): 1. Recommend approval of the proposed project to the Director of Planning and Community Development based on findings and subject to conditions of approval. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Stanford University Medical Center (SUMC) is requesting a Modification to their Master Sign Program to allow two new signs in the existing freestanding “vehicular directional” typology along the new Blake Wilbur Road Extension, currently on the 900 Welch Road parcel. The two new signs will meet the design requirements of the current Master Sign Program, however a Sign Exception and Modification is required because all vehicular directional signs size and locations exceed the allowances of the Sign Code. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Applicant proposes installing two new freestanding “vehicular directional” signs at the SUMC site, with no removal of existing signs (See Page 14 and 15 of the plan set for details). The new signs will match the existing typology for vehicular direction signs. The purpose of these new signs is to provide drivers with directional information along the soon to be constructed Blake Wilbur Road Extension (20PLN-00299). The road extension was previously approved as a part the overall SUMC Master Plan. Because it did not involve modification to any buildings, and was fully in conformance with the SUMC Master Plan, it was processed at the staff level. The road construction itself is currently under review for a Public Works Streetwork Permit. A Sign Exception is requested because the freestanding vehicular directional signs are 7’6” tall, and less than 20 ft from a property line. Under the Sign Code, freestanding signs taller than 5ft are only allowed in the Hospital zone, GM zones and on El Camino Real in the CN and CS zones 3     Packet Pg. 18     Item No. 3. Page 2 of 6 and for service stations, restaurants and shopping centers. While this project is associated with hospital use, the property is in the MOR zone. There are 16 signs of this typology existing in the campus vicinity today, and 3 of them are in the MOR zone. The two new proposed signs are in keeping with the intent of previous similar approvals, to provide necessary wayfinding in potentially emergency situations where signage must be clear and functional. As Shown on Sheet 17 and 18 of the plan set, the project also includes wording modifications to three existing signs. These meet the existing Master Sign Program, and are not under the purview of the ARB. Requested Entitlements, Findings and Purview: The following discretionary applications are being requested: Architectural Review – Minor (AR): The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC 18.77.070. AR applications are reviewed by the ARB and recommendations are forwarded to the Planning & Development Services Director for action within five business days of the Board’s recommendation. Action by the Director is appealable to the City Council if filed within 14 days of the decision. AR projects are evaluated against specific findings. All findings must be made in the affirmative to approve the project. Failure to make any one of the findings requires project redesign or denial. The findings to approve an AR application are provided in Attachment C. BACKGROUND Project Information Owner: Stanford University Designer: Clearstory Wayfinding + Placemaking Representative: Molly Swenson, Stanford Healthcare Department of Planning, Design, and Construction Legal Counsel: N/A Property Information Address:900 Welch Road Neighborhood:Stanford University Medical Center (SUMC) – Outer Welch Rd Area Lot Dimensions & Area:2.75 Acres, approximately 277 ft by 432 ft Housing Inventory Site:N/A Located w/in a Plume:N/A Protected/Heritage Trees: N/A Historic Resource(s):N/A Existing Improvement(s):SUMC-owned office building, not a part of project Approved roadway under separate permit process Existing Land Use(s):Medical Office Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North: Stanford West Apartments (various addresses) – RM-30 (D) South: Stanford Hospital - HD (Hospital District) East: 800 Welch – Medical Office (MOR) 3     Packet Pg. 19     Item No. 3. Page 3 of 6 West: 1000 Welch – Medical Office (MOR) Aerial View of Property: Source: Google Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans Comp. Plan Designation:Research Office (RO) Zoning Designation:Medical Office and Research (MOR) Yes Yes Yes Baylands Master Plan/Guidelines (2008/2005) El Camino Real Guidelines (1976) Housing Development Project Downtown Urban Design Guidelines (1993) South El Camino Real Guidelines (2002) Utilizes Chapter 18.24 - Objective Standards 3     Packet Pg. 20     Item No. 3. Page 4 of 6 Individual Review Guidelines (2005) Within 150 feet of Residential Use or District Context-Based Design Criteria applicable SOFA Phase 1 (2000)Within Airport Influence Area SOFA Phase 2 (2003)Stanford University Medical Center Master Plan x Prior City Reviews & Action City Council:None PTC:None HRB:None ARB:Master Sign Program 18PLN-00331 approved April 2019 Amendment to Master Sign Program, including a Sign Exception 22PLN-00059 approved August 2022 ANALYSIS Neighborhood Setting and Character There are currently four main sign typographies in the Master Sign Program (2019): 2. vehicular directional, 3. pedestrian directional, 4. building ID, and 5. campus monuments. The directional signs within and surrounding the campus are consistent with regards to materials, fonts, and how information is displayed. It is crucial for the operations of the hospital that people are quickly able to identify where to go, particularly in finding the emergency room facilities at both the general and pediatric hospitals. The colors of Stanford Red, Stanford Gray, and two shades of off-white (also identified as Antique White and Stone Gray), confirm the branding of the hospital and blend in with the color tones of the hospital buildings. The proposed project will use the same colors, materials, and Source Sans Pro font as the existing signage. The proposed locations are consistent with locations for similar signs. The Master Sign Program shows there are small, medium, and large subtypes of this sign. The large ones are proposed, based on these signs being along a major entry street, and located on the opposite side of a detached sidewalk from the vehicle travel lane. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans and Guidelines[1] The Comprehensive Plan includes Goals, Policies, and Programs that guide the physical form of the City. The Comprehensive Plan provides the basis for the City’s development regulations and 3     Packet Pg. 21     Item No. 3. Page 5 of 6 is used by City staff to regulate building and development and make recommendations on projects. Further, ARB Finding #1 requires that the design be consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan Land Use chapter includes “Policy L-6.10: Encourage high-quality signage that is attractive, energy-efficient, and appropriate for the location, and balances visibility needs with aesthetic needs.” The design of the signs, materials, and colors are consistent with the existing Master Sign Program, attractive, and appropriate for the buildings and the surrounding area. Zoning Compliance[2] A detailed review of the proposed project’s consistency with applicable zoning standards has been performed. A summary table is provided in Attachment B. Multi-Modal Access & Parking This project will enable the installation of signs to clarify that the appropriate drop-off location for access to the 300 Pasteur Cancer Center building entrance is the main drop-off roundabout. However, this does not change the existing circulation. Vehicular directional signs are a crucial component to the site circulation around and within the medical center. The inbound will provide direction towards six major destinations within the hospital area. The outbound sign will provide direction towards Interstate 280, Highway 101, El Camino Real, and the Stanford Shopping Center, which are useful as SUMC is a regional destination and many visitors may not be familiar with the area. Consistency with Application Findings Overall, the project meets application findings for Architectural Review and a Sign Exception. Findings are included in Attachment C. [1] The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/landuse/compplan.asp [2] The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: http://www.amlegal.com/codes/client/palo-alto_ca Public Notification, Outreach & Comments The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least ten days in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Daily Post on January 6, 2023 and postcard mailing occurred on January 5, 2023. Public Comments As of the writing of this report, no project-related, public comments were received. 3     Packet Pg. 22     Item No. 3. Page 6 of 6 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. Specifically, the project is exempt from CEQA under Guideline 15311 Accessory Structures. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS In addition to the recommended action, the Architectural Review Board may: 1. Continue the project to a date (un)certain; or 2. Recommend project denial based on revised findings. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Location Map Attachment B: Zoning Comparison Table Attachment C: Draft Findings Attachment D: Draft Conditions of Approval Attachment E: Project Plans AUTHOR/TITLE: Emily Foley, Planner Report #: 2212-0507 3     Packet Pg. 23     142-03-036 142-03-037 142-23-004 142-23-005 142-23-006 142-23-007 142-03-042 WELCH ROAD BLAKE WILBUR DRIVE PASTEUR DRIVE WELCH ROAD WELCH ROAD SAND HILL ROAD SMARX WAY 780 900 1000 1100 1120 1189 851 801 71 dg 11 250-288 Bldg 7 900 1187 500 800 1110 249 248 This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Assessment Parcel Palo Alto Assessment Parcel Palo Alto Assessment Parcel Outside Palo Alto abc Road Centerline Small Text (TC) Curb Face (RF) Pavement Edge (RF) Address Label Points (AP) Current Features 0' 93' Attachment A: Location Map 900 Welch Road CITY OF PALO ALTOINCORPORATED CAL I F ORN I A P a l o A l t o T h e C i t y o f AP R I L 1 6 1 8 9 4 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto efoley2, 2023-01-10 16:08:37 Assessor Parcels (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Meta\View.mdb) 3     Packet Pg. 24     2 1 9 ATTACHMENT B ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 900 Welch Rd/22PLN-00328 Proposed Sign / Type PAMC 16.24 Compliance Allowed Dimensions/Height Proposed Dimensions Vehicular Directional 114 Requires Exception Less than 5ft tall, 27.5 sf 7’6” tall, 4’3” wide = 30 sf Vehicular Directional 115 Requires Exception Less than 5ft tall, 27.5 sf 7’6” tall, 4’3” wide = 30 sf 16.20.120 Freestanding signs. Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, every freestanding sign shall comply with the requirements of this section. (a) Freestanding Signs Over Five Feet. Freestanding signs over five feet in height shall be permitted only on nonresidential properties in the Hospital zone, GM zones and on El Camino Real in the CN and CS zones and for service stations, restaurants and shopping centers elsewhere. (1) Area and Height. The maximum area and height of such signs is set forth in Table 2.* (2) Location. Every sign shall be wholly on the owner's property, except that for any site that encompasses a minimum of ten acres in size and contains a minimum of 50,000 square feet of retail square footage, but does not have its primary frontage on a freeway, expressway, or major arterial, a freestanding sign may be located offsite on private property with frontage on the nearest major arterial roadway. The sign size and height shall be governed by the criteria set forth in Table 2*, using the average site length dimension as the lot frontage for calculation purposes, but in no case shall the sign size exceed fifty square feet. The sign shall comply with all other regulations of this chapter, the total site signage (including the offsite sign) shall not exceed the total allowed for the site, and all other signs on the offsite property must comply with sign regulations for that site. (3) Number. Subject to the provisions of Section 16.20.170, there may be one such sign for each frontage and one additional sign for any portion of frontage in excess of two hundred fifty feet. The size of any additional sign shall be determined from Table 2* by counting as frontage that portion thereof which is in excess of two hundred fifty feet. In the case of shopping centers and other multiple occupancies having a common frontage, the frontage shall be deemed to be 3     Packet Pg. 25     2 1 9 that of the shopping center or commonly used parcel and not the frontages of the individual businesses or occupancies. (4) Construction. In addition to the requirements of Section 16.20.190, every such sign shall be constructed wholly of metal, incombustible plastic or other approved fire-resistant material. (b) Freestanding Signs Five Feet or Less In Height. Freestanding signs five feet or less in height shall be permitted in all districts within the limitations set forth in this section. (1) Area. The maximum area of such signs is set forth in Table 1.* (2) Location. Every such sign shall be wholly on the owner's property. (3) Number. Subject to the provisions of Section 16.20.170, there may be no more than one such sign for each frontage. In the case of shopping centers and other multiple occupancies having a common frontage, the frontage shall be deemed to be that of the shopping center or commonly used parcel and not the frontages of the individual businesses or occupancies. (c) Multisided Freestanding Sings. Freestanding signs constructed back-to-back, with faces in approximately parallel planes (such as both sides of a single panel) shall count as only one sign both as to number and area (i.e. only one side needbe counted). Every other freestanding sign having multiple sides or faces, including a sign constructed in the form of a cylinder or sphere or similar figure shall be limited to total area to that shown on Table 1* or Table 2*, whichever is applicable. (d) Lighting of Freestanding signs. No freestanding sign shall be constructed in such a way that any light bulb or filament is visible from the front of the sign or from beyond the property line. Nothing herein shall be construed to prohibit signs of neon tubing or similar self-illuminating material of equivalent or less intensity. (Ord. 5123 § 3 (part), 2011: Ord. 4923 § 6, 2006: Ord. 3559 § 1 (part), 1984) * Editor's Note: Tables 1 and 2, referred to herein, may be found at the end of this chapter in a printed edition of this code. 16.20.160 Special purpose signs. (3) Directional Signs. Directional signs may be erected for the purpose of facilitating or controlling the efficient or safe movement of pedestrians or vehicles on private property. Such signs shall not be used for advertising purposes and particularly shall not include the name of any person, firm, company, organization or any product or service except as approved to designate directions to different businesses on the same site. Such signs shall be located on the property to which they pertain, shall not exceed an area of six square feet nor a height of three feet and shall be located at least twenty feet within the nearest property line, except that directional signs of not more than three square feet in area may be located not less than ten feet within any front property line. Such signs shall not be permitted in R-E, R-1, or R-2 districts. 3     Packet Pg. 26     2 1 9 Chapter 16.20 — Table 2 Allowable Sign Area for Freestanding Signs Over Five Feet High NOTE: THESE ARE MAXIMUM DESIGN DIMENSIONS, AND MAY BE REDUCED IN THE DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 18.77 (Processing of Permits and Approvals) • Applicable to nonresidential properties in the GM zone and El Camino Real in the CN and CS zones. Also applicable to restaurants, service stations and shopping centers in other zones. • For requirements affecting freestanding signs generally, see Section 16.20.160. • For computation of sign area generally, see Section 16.20.010(11). • For requirements in the HD district, see Section 16.20.160(a)(1). (Ord. 5373 § 1 (part), 2016) 3     Packet Pg. 27     2 1 7 ATTACHMENT C ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL 900 Welch Road/22PLN-00328 Master Sign Program The following findings have been made to support the application for a Master Sign Program, as modified by the ARB approval conditions. The existing Master Sign Program is modified with the following signage: •Two (2) freestanding/vehicular directional signs in keeping with the MSP design 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 design is consistent and compatible with Comprehensive Plan policy L-6.10: Encourage high quality signage that is attractive, energy-efficient, and appropriate for the location, and balances visibility needs with aesthetic needs. The design of the signs, materials, and colors are consistent with the existing MSP, and attractive and appropriate for the buildings and the surrounding area. The proposed signage was designed to be compatible with the large scale structures on the site and meet the high-visibility needs of the hospital. 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 master sign program presents a framework for purposes of wayfinding and site visibility. The proposed signage uses consistent materials and colors that is unified and coherent, and create a hierarchy of signage at both the pedestrian and vehicular scale. The design is compatible with the hospital environment and university branding, and is appropriately scaled for visibility while driving. 3     Packet Pg. 28     2 1 7 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 existing master sign program uses a clean, limited color palette of Stanford branding reds and grays, off-whites, and black and white. The off-white colors compliment the building colors whereas the red promotes branding and stands out in a manner consistent with the use as a hospital, which requires high visibility for signage. The aluminum and vinyl signs are durable and easily cleaned. 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 signage has been placed to assist in wayfinding for vehicles, including potentially emergency vehicles, entering the SUMC campus. The light colored background with dark gray letters provides easy- to-read contrast. 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: Finding #5 is not applicable for this project. The existing landscaping will not be impacted by the proposed signage. 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: The proposed signs are not illuminated. There are no elements of Green Building that are applicable to freestanding signs. 3     Packet Pg. 29     2 1 7 Sign Exception The following findings have been made to support the sign exception request, as modified by the ARB approval conditions. The specific exception that has been requested is for the following standard: •To allow two freestanding signs taller than 5 feet tall in the MOR zoning district, and less than 20 feet from a property line. 1. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district; The property is distinct from other MOR-zoned properties in that the new road will be an entrance to the site. The proposed signage is identical to other signage on site, as freestanding signs taller than 5ft are allowed in the HD (Hospital) Zoning District. This exception will allow for the signage to be consistent throughout the campus. 2. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardships; In that it is crucial for a hospital to have a high visibility of signage for directional purposes. The entry direction sign in particular will be one of the first that drivers will see when entering the campus. 3. The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience. The signs were designed to be aesthetically pleasing, in keeping with the design of other signs on the site, and would not detract from the visual environment. The placement and appearance of the signs do not pose any safety hazards nor do they detract from on site building or surrounding properties. 3     Packet Pg. 30     22PLN-00328 Page 1 of 2 2 1 8 ATTACHMENT D CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 900 Welch Road/22PLN-00328 Planning Division 1. CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS. Construction and development shall conform to the approved plans entitled, "Stanford Medicine Master Sign Program, Blake Wilbur Drive Extension, Addendum to 18PLN-00331” stamped as received by the City on January 4, 2023 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 approval with conditions shall be printed on the second page of the plans submitted for building permit. 4. TREE PROTECTION FENCING. Tree protection fencing shall be required to protect trees that are to remain during construction. 5. PLANNING FINAL – PHOTO VERIFICATION. Photo verification of the signage installation shall be emailed to the Project Planner, Emily Foley, at Emily.Foley@cityofpaloalto.org. 6. LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE. All landscape material shall be well maintained and replaced if necessary, to the satisfaction of the Urban Forester and Director of Planning. 7. 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. 8. PERMIT EXPIRATION. The project approval shall be valid for a period of one year from the original date of approval. In the event a building permit(s), if applicable, is not secured for the project within the time limit specified above, the approval shall expire and be of no further force or effect. A written request for a one-year extension shall be submitted prior to the expiration date in order to be considered by the Director of Planning and Development Services. 3     Packet Pg. 31     22PLN-00328 Page 2 of 2 2 1 8 Building Division 9. Submit building permit for the signs shown - including structural calculations for all free- standing monument signs. Wall signs - please include the weight, size, and method of connections to the wall structural elements matching the site as-builts (no boiler plate). If illuminated signage, please include T24 Energy calculation, disconnect, and electrical power panel to power the signs. 3     Packet Pg. 32     2 2 0 Attachment E Project Plans In order to reduce paper consumption, a limited number of hard copy project plans are provided to Board members for their review. The same plans are available to the public, at all hours of the day, via the following online resources. Directions to review Project plans online: 1. Go to: bit.ly/PApendingprojects 2. Scroll down to find “900 Welch” and click the address link 3. On this project specific webpage you will find a link to the project plans and other important information Direct Link to Project Webpage: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/News-Articles/Planning-and-Development-Services/900-Welch-Road Materials Boards: During Shelter-in-Place, color and material boards will be available to view in the display case outside of City Hall, on the exterior elevator near the corner of Hamilton Ave. and Bryant St. 3     Packet Pg. 33     Item No. 4. Page 1 of 5 Architectural Review Board Staff Report From: Jonathan Lait, Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: January 19, 2023 TITLE PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 414 California Avenue [22PLN-00207]: Recommendation on Applicant's Request for Approval of a Minor Board-Level Architectural Review to Allow the Removal and Replacement of Existing Stucco with new Tenant Colors, Rooftop Mechanical Equipment and Enclosure, Removal of two Parking lot Trees, Replace Existing Front Breeze- Block Screen Wall with a new Lattice System, new Landscaping, and new Signage. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the Provisions of CEQA per Section 15301. Zoning District: CC(2)(R)(P) (Community Commercial). RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s): 1. Recommend approval of the proposed project to the Director of Planning and Development Services based on findings and subject to conditions of approval. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The application is a request for an architectural review for the renovation of an existing 6,195- square-foot (SF) one-story bank/financial service building. The project includes the refinishing and painting of the existing stucco plaster, modifications to the building colors to reflect the tenant business colors, a new rooftop mechanical equipment enclosure, removal of two parking lot trees, removal of the front breeze-block screen wall to be replaced with a new aluminum lattice system, new groundcover landscaping, and new tenant ID signage. The subject property is a 16,231 SF parcel currently developed with a commercial building occupied by Silicon Valley Bank (SVB). The existing building’s square footage will remain the same. The item was heard by the Architectural Review Board on October 20, 2022, and the staff report and video can be accessed at this link: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Planning-Development- Services/Architectural-Review-Board-ARB/Current-ARB-Agendas-Minutes. 4     Packet Pg. 34     Item No. 4. Page 2 of 5 ANALYSIS On October 20, 2022, the ARB held a hearing on the project. The Board’s comments and the applicant’s responses are summarized in the following table: ARB Comments/Direction Applicant Response Introduce a new horizontal element where the breeze block is removed to create a pedestrian scale to the building •The applicant is providing a new extruded aluminum lattice structure reminiscent of the original breeze block to infill the three structural bays. The new design of the rotated lattice members provides a play on light and shadow and will protect the south- facing glazing from solar heat gain. The scale of the new infill lattice elements are in proportion to the neighboring businesses providing a more pedestrian scale to the building. Study changing pavers under the entry canopy •The applicant notes that the existing concrete is in good structural condition however the exposed finish is splotchy in nature. SVB will power wash the surface to return the concrete finish to a consistent monolithic color. If spottiness remains, a light grind and seal will be provided in the area under the building canopy. The intent is not to make the paving surface a design feature that might detract from the new lattice element and proposed mural. Introduce art elements or other design elements to wrap around the •The tenant is excited to partner with and propose a large full- height mural on the front opaque portion of the building that wraps the corner to 4     Packet Pg. 35     Item No. 4. Page 3 of 5 corner of the building facing the parking lot the 1st structural bay so that it is visible on the approach and front of the building. The planting area alongside the building wall facing the parking lot is now proposed to have vertical growth California Honeysuckle (Lonicera hispidula) along a cable mounted system. This will break up the long blank façade facing the parking lot and soften the façade appearance. Study planting a new street tree at the east-side corner of the building adjacent to 408 California Avenue •After speaking with the Palo Alto Urban Forestry Department confirmed, the proposed street tree is not feasible due to underground utilities running in this location. Study placing a bench on site •After speaking with the Palo Alto Public Works department staff, they are not interested in putting a bench in the public right of way for maintenance and access purposes. The proposed location would require the relocation of a public newspaper stand elsewhere on public property. There are a lot of utilities present in this immediate area that require access and could be impeded by placing a bench in the planter strip. •Additionally, the proposed location of the bench is between two drive aisles (Mimosa Lane and the parking lot entrance for 414 California Ave) creating an isolated and undesirable seating area. There is also limited visibility from tenant and given the unhoused population in the area poses potential security/ liability risks. The bench could be placed in front of the mural or on the other side of the front door Consider making the break room window operable •The applicant notes that having an operable window at the ground plane poses a large security risk to the financial institution. SVB’s Head of Global Security provides a letter describing the risk to the bank and the regulatory agencies they report to (ATTACHMENT C). Staff finds the proposed project plans adequately address ARB comments stated during the previous hearing. Furthermore, the proposed aluminum lattice shading structure and new colorful mural will provide references to the original mid-century brise-soleil proposed to be removed and the prior mosaic mural that may have lost integrity. Staff notes these are appropriate and welcome features replacing the building’s original energy-saving and pedestrian-oriented features. 4     Packet Pg. 36     Item No. 4. Page 4 of 5 Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans, and Guidelines1 ARB Finding #1 requires the design to be consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the project site is Community Commercial, which is reserved for major commercial centers that provide a variety of services. The site has been a bank/financial service since the 1970s, and the proposed project continues that use. On balance, the project is consistent with the policies in the Comprehensive Plan and therefore fulfills the goals of the Plan as well. A detailed review of the project’s consistency with the Comprehensive Plan is provided in Attachment D. Zoning Compliance2 Staff performed a detailed review of the proposed project’s consistency with applicable zoning standards. A summary table is provided in Attachment B. The proposed project complies with all applicable codes in a manner that is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. Consistency with Application Findings Staff has prepared a detailed review of the proposed project’s consistency with the Findings for approval. The draft findings, tailored to the project, are provided in Attachment D. The proposed project appears to meet all applicable findings for Architectural Review approval. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The subject project was assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City’s environmental regulations. In September 2022, the City’s consultant evaluated the building and found it to have lost integrity and therefore to be ineligible for the California Register of Historic Resources. The project qualifies as a Class 1 (Existing Facilities) since the exterior modifications to the building do not increase the allowed square footage of the building and only affect the materials used on the façade of the building. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS In addition to the recommended action, the Architectural Review Board may: 1. Approve the project with modified findings or conditions 2. Continue the project to a date (un)certain, or 3. Recommend project denial based on revised findings. 1 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/landuse/compplan.asp 2 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: http://www.amlegal.com/codes/client/palo-alto_ca 4     Packet Pg. 37     Item No. 4. Page 5 of 5 AUTHOR/TITLE: Garrett Sauls, Planner Garrett.Sauls@CityofPaloAlto.org 650-329-2471 4     Packet Pg. 38     Lot C-5 Parking Lot Bank of_the West California Station Country Sun 130.0' 135.6' 250.0' 97.2' 280.0' 260.1' 31.3' 280.0' 192.5' 174.7' 160.0' 174.7' 103.6' 140.0' 12.3'3.4' 113.1' 32.0' 35.2' 71.1' 26.7' 50.9' 125.0' 111.9' 40.0' 99.2' 40.1' 96.5' 50.0' 96.5' 50.4' 90.2' 71.8'100.0' 71.8'100.0' 135.0' 99.8' 10.0'7.9' 125.0' 107.7' 30.0' 99.8' 30.0' 99.8' 130.0' 100.0' 25.0' 130.0' 95.0' 40.0' 95.0' 40.0' 95.0' 49.0' 95.0' 49.0' 95.0' 41.0' 25.0' 50.0' 120.0' 91.0' 120.0' 100.0' 120.0' 100.0' 130.0' 50.0' 130.0' 50.0' 130.0' 100.0'130.0' 100.0' 120.0' 100.0' 120.0' 100.0' 50.0' 130.0' 50.0' 130.0' 50.0' 131.6' 40.0' 11.6' 46.1' 75.0' 90.0' 120.0' 90.0' 120.0' 40.0'22.2' 90.0' 271.6' 120.0' 14.1' 239.4' 165.0' 100.0'165.0' 100.0' 90.0' 48.0'90.0' 48.0' 127.0' 50.2' 127.0' 50.2' 125.0' 20.0' 125.0' 20.0' 125.0' 50.0' 125.0' 50.0' 125.0' 46.0' 125.0' 46.0' 125.0' 37.0' 125.0' 37.0' 125.0' 65.5' 125.0' 65.5' 93.0' 61.0' 26.7' 71.1' 35.2' 40.0' 58.6' 40.0' 58.6' 22.7' 20.0'13.8' 7.2' 27.7'2.0' 62.0' 25.6' 90.0' 14.1' 25.0' 22.7' 90.0' 40.9' 90.0' .3' 35.0' 53.4' 35.0' .3' 90.0' 43.8' 125.0' 44.0' 92.8' 8.7'9.4' 100.0' 110.0' 95.1' 62.0' 2.0' 27.7' 7.2'18.8' 70.0' 16.0' 75.0' 9.4'8.7' 92.8' 18.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 133.9' 50.0' 134.1'134.1' 46.8' 21.8'3.2' 150.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50 50.0' .0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 75.0' 150.0' 75.0' 75.0' 150.0' 50 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 133.2' 50.0' 133.4' 50.0' 133.4' 50.0' 133.5' 50.0' 133.1' 50.0' 133.2' 50.0' 133.0' 50.0' 133.1' 50.0' 132.8' 50.0' 133.0' 50.0' 132.7' 50.0' 132.8' 50.0' 100.0' 14.1' 237.8' 14.1' 100.0' 257.8' 24.6' .3' 50.4' 100.0' 75.0'100.3' 133.3' 50.0' 133.6' 50.0' 100.0'133.9' 100.0'133.6' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 3.2' 102.4' 22.1' 100.0' 102.4' 100.0' 102.4' 100.0'133.9' 100.0'133.6' 100.0'133.9' 100.0'133.6' 100.0'133.9' 100.0'133.3' 100.0'133.9' 100.0'133.6' 100.0'133.9' 100.0'133.6' 100.0'133.9' 100.0'133.6' 100.0'133.9' 100.0'133.6' 100.0'133.9' 100.0'133.6' 100.0'133.9' 100.0'133.6' 40.1' 312.4' 130.0' 309.7' 40.0' 121.4' 40.6' 75.0' .6' 46.4' 75.2'125.0' 60.2' 15.7' 40.5' 74.7' 84.4' 75.0' 84.4' 75.0' 125.0' 46.0' 40.0' 46.4'85.0' 92.4' 125.0' 46.8' 125.0' 46.9' 79.0' 21.0' 79.0' 21.0' 21.0' 110.0' 20.2' 14.1' 100.0' 30.3' 95.0'125.0' 95.0'125.0'125.0' 51.0' 125.0' 51.0' 125.0' 50.0' 125.0' 50.0' 125.0' 42.0' 125.0' 42.0' 125.0' 50.0' 125.0' 50.0' 110.0' 50.0' 110.0' 50.0' 110.0' 50.0' 110.0' 50.0' 110.0' 50.0' 110.0' 50.0' 110.0' 195.0' 110.0' 195.0' 125.0' 130.2' 115.0' 14.1' 120.3' 115.0' 50.0' 125.0' 40.0' 14.1' 125.0' 32.5' 125.0' 32.5' 50.0'.9' 100.0' 99.9' 100.0' 99.9' 110.0' 51.0' 110.0' 51.0' 110.0' 96.0' 110.0' 96.0' 125.0' 96.0'125.0' 96.0' 100.0' 75.0'100.0' 75.0' 100.0' 100.0' 100.0' 100.0' 100.0' 25.0' 100.0' 25.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 132.4' 50.4' 132.4' 50.0' 132.6' 50.0' 132.7' 50.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 110.0' 82.5'110.0' 82.5' 250.0' 110.0' 50.0' 132.3'125.0' 38.5' 125.0' 38.5' 38.5' 125.0' 40.0' 90.0' 40.0' 90.0' 85.0' 100.0' 85.0' 100.0' 92.0' 125.0' 100.0'125.0' 100.1' 280.0' 94.8' 137.1' 49.5' 49.5' 49.5' 49.5' 49.5' 86.5' 86.5'86.5' 79.0' 70.5' 70.5' 29.5' 29.5'29.5' 46.3' 71.7' 82.5' 82.5' 82.5' 82.5' 99.0' 26.0' 26.0' 99.0' 41.0' 41.0'41.0' 125.0' 84.0' 62.9' 26.2' 26.2'26.2' 36.7' 45.5' 125.0' 125.0' 46.5' 126.0' 120.0' 185.6' ALIFOR NIA AVENUE GRANT AVENUE EL CAMINO REAL EL CAMINO SHERMAN AVENUE SHERMAN AVENUE JACARANDA LANE ASH STREET NEW MAYFIELD LANE NEW MAYFIELD LANE EL CAMINO REAL CALIFOR NIA AVENUE CALIFORNIA AVENUE PERAL LANE MIMOSA LANERO LANE CAMBRIDGE AVENUE T BIRCH STREET NEWC BIRCH STREET COLLEGE AVENUE CA JACARANDA LANE This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend abc Known Structures Tree (TR) Curb Edge abc Dimensions (AP) Highlighted Features 0' 101' 414 California Avenue CITY OF PALO ALTOINCORPORATED CAL I F ORN I A P a l o A l t o T h e C i t y o f AP R I L 1 6 1 8 9 4 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto gsauls, 2022-09-28 08:31:49 Parcel Report with zoningdistricts (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) 4     Packet Pg. 39     ATTACHMENT B ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 414 California Avenue, 22PLN-00207 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.16 (CC(2) DISTRICT) Exclusively Non-residential Development Standards Regulation Required Existing Proposed Minimum Site Area, width and depth No Requirement 32,642 sf. 32,642 sf. Minimum Front Yard 0-10 feet to create an 8-12 foot effective sidewalk width (1), (2), (8) 12 ft 12 ft Rear Yard No Requirement 8 ft 8 ft. Street Side Yard No Requirement N/A N/A Interior Side Yard No Requirement 10 ft & 35 ft 10 ft & 35 ft Build-to-lines 50% of frontage built to setback on Park Boulevard; 33% of side street built to setback on Grant Avenue (7) Canopy is built to front property line; no street side yard No change proposed Max. Site Coverage No Requirement 5,077 sf 5,077 sf Max. Building Height 37 feet (4)24’-7”24’-7” Max. Floor Area Ratio (FAR)2.0:1 (68,768 sf)6,195 sf 6,195 sf Daylight Plane for lot lines abutting one or more residential zone districts other than an RM-40 or PC Zone None (6)N/A N/A (1) No parking or loading space, whether required or optional, shall be located in the first 10 feet adjoining the street property line of any required yard. (2) Any minimum front, street side, or interior yard shall be planted and maintained as a landscaped screen excluding areas required for access to the site. A solid wall or fence between 5 and 8 feet in height shall be constructed along any common interior lot line.. (4) As measured to the peak of the roof or the top of a parapet; penthouses and equipment enclosures may exceed this height limit by a maximum of five feet, but shall be limited to an area equal to no more than ten percent of the site area and shall not intrude into the daylight plane. (6) The initial height and slope shall be identical to those of the most restrictive residential zone abutting the site line in question. (7) 25 foot driveway access permitted regardless of frontage, build-to requirement does not apply to CC district. (8) A 12 foot sidewalk width is required along El Camino Real frontage Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) for Office* Type Required Existing Proposed Vehicle Parking 1/180 sf of financial service gross floor area for 34 parking spaces 20 20 4     Packet Pg. 40     Bicycle Parking 1/1,800 sf (40% long term and 60% short term) equals 3 spaces for financial service 4 ST 4 ST Loading Space 0 loading spaces for less than 9,999 sf 0 0 4     Packet Pg. 41     SVB Confidential SVB Confidential Memorandum To: Ben Kracke, Managing Principal, STUDIOS architecture From: Dennis Cochran – Senior Director Physical Security Date: December 21, 2022 Re: SVB Palo Alto Branch Security Hi Ben, I recently learned of a proposed item at Silicon Valley’s new branch in the City of Palo Alto that I would like address. On the East side of the building there is currently a drive-up teller window. I understand there is a recommendation to replace this with a window that would be able to be opened. I am opposed to this proposition as it creates an increased risk to physical security of the office. We follow the standards provided under The Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC) and the Bank Protection Act. Allowing a window that could open would present a Risk and Gap to physical security and we ask that it not be allowed. Please let me know if you have any questions. Dennis Cochran Senior Director, Physical Security Silicon Valley Bank EXHIBIT A 4     Packet Pg. 42     ATTACHMENT D ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL 414 California Avenue 22PLN-00207 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 project is in conformance with the following Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies: Comprehensive Plan Goal/Policy Consistency Policy L-6.6 Design buildings to complement streets and public spaces; to promote personal safety, public health and wellbeing; and to enhance a sense of community safety. The proposal seeks to repair damaged stucco and refresh the façade of the building. The retention of the stucco establishes the relationship of this building to those in its immediate context while the introduction of the aluminum lattice creates a subtle contrast from the existing structure that enhances the building’s aesthetics. Policy N-2.1 Recognize the importance of the urban forest as a vital part of the city’s natural and green infrastructure network that contributes to public health, resiliency, habitat values, appreciation of natural systems and an attractive visual character which must be protected and enhanced. The applicant has proposed to remove two trees located in the parking lot to the site and pay an in-lieu fee. The site already exceeds the 50% parking lot shading requirements. These in-lieu fees will support tree plantings off site in the City where they may provide a greater impact at reducing heat island effects and achieving the City’s canopy coverage goals. Policy B-6.4 Foster the establishment of businesses and commercial services in the California Avenue business district that serve the adjacent neighborhoods, as well as Stanford Research Park. The proposed modifications would support the establishment of Silicon Valley Bank at this location. Additionally, the modifications will help to repair damaged stucco to the building to refresh the visual appearance of the building from the pedestrian perspective. The project has been evaluated for consistency with the Zoning Code, and the project meets all 4     Packet Pg. 43     applicable development standards. The project is consistent with the Context-Based Design Criteria and Performance Criteria of 18.16 and 18.40, respectively. 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 design of the project is well ordered and provides a coherent plan that is readily understood in the California Avenue context. The replacement of the existing stucco and brise- block system will not only bring new life to an aging building but will retain elements of the building that is consistent with buildings in its immediate and historical context. The introduction of the aluminum lattice structure adds a contemporary/modern element of the building that does is appropriately incorporated into the design. As the Page and Turnbull report noted, the breeze-block system is not an historic element of the building that, by removing it, would damage the historic integrity of the site as it is not eligible for the California Register of Historic Resources. 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 contemporary design of the building utilizes a variety of complimentary building materials, textures and colors that are appropriate to the setting of California Avenue. As noted in Finding #2 the stucco material connects the character of the existing building with those adjacent to it and the introduction of the aluminum lattice structure is complimentary to the overall design approach. The proposed paint scheme will distinguish the building from those around it but will also be compatible with adjacent buildings. 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.). 4     Packet Pg. 44     The project is consistent with Finding #4 because: The design is appropriate to the function of the project in that the removal and replacement of the breeze-block system will resolve the structural issues associated with retaining and reinforcing the system if it were kept. The new aluminum lattice structure complements the design of the building and pays homage to the previous brise-soleil system. The proposed design will provide openness at façade of the building while breaking up the two-story massing. These elements help to create a more welcoming experience for pedestrians. Replacing the existing stucco will also enhance the building’s appearance from the street and resolve other maintenance issues occurring on site. 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: The plant material is suitable and adaptable to the site, capable of being properly maintained, and is of a majority native and drought-resistant to reduce consumption of water in its installation and maintenance. The landscape plan increases the use of groundcover plants along the California Avenue street frontage. The landscaping plan supplements the City’s tree canopy with additional plantings off site through in-lieu fees; the site currently exceeds the 50% canopy coverage. As the site is in a developed portion of California Avenue, it is not considered prime habitat. 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: The project will replace the existing stucco on the building which will help the building to be more resilient over time. The applicant will be required to follow the City’s Cal Green Checklist to ensure conformance with applicable requirements regarding green building techniques. The site’s existing tree canopy exceeds the City’s 50% shading requirements which significantly reduces the “heat island effect” associated with surface parking. New groundcover plantings would consist of a variety of native and drought tolerant species. 4     Packet Pg. 45     2 4 7 ATTACHMENT E DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 414 California Avenue 22PLN-00207 PLANNING DIVISION 1. CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS. Construction and development shall conform to the approved plans entitled, “414 California Avenue” dated December 23, 2022 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 approval included in this document. 3. BUILDING PERMIT PLAN SET. The ARB approval letter including all Department conditions of approval for the project shall be printed on 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. TREE REPLACEMENT IN-LIEU FEES. The tree replacement in-lieu fee of $3,250, equivalent to five 24” box trees, shall be paid prior to building permit issuance. See Condition #15. 6. PROJECT ARBORIST. The property owner shall retain a certified arborist to ensure the project conforms to all Planning and Urban Forestry conditions related to landscaping/trees, as shown in the approved plan set. 7. TREE PROTECTION FENCING. Tree protection fencing shall be required to protect trees that are to remain during construction. 8. LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE. All landscape material shall be well maintained and replaced if the plant material dies or if the irrigation equipment fails. Planters shall not drain onto sidewalk, ground, or public right of ways. 9. PROJECT EXPIRATION. The project approval shall automatically expire after two years from the original date of approval if, within such two year period, the proposed use of the site or the construction of buildings has not commenced pursuant to and in accordance with the provisions of the permit or approval. Application for a one-year extension of this entitlement may be made prior to the expiration. (PAMC 18.77.090(a)) 10. 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. 4     Packet Pg. 46     2 4 7 11. 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. 12. 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, Garrett Sauls at Garrett.Sauls@CityofPaloalto.org to schedule this inspection. PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING 13. Provide the following note on the Site Plan: “The contractor shall not stage, store, or stockpile any material or equipment within the public right-of way. This includes job site trailers, dumpsters, storage containers and portable restrooms. Construction phasing shall be coordinated to keep materials and equipment onsite." 14. Provide the following note on the Site Plan: “If the work will impact pedestrian or vehicular traffic in the public right-of-way, the contractor must obtain an encroachment permit from Public Works.” URBAN FORESTRY 15. Applicant proposes to remove two Carolina Laurel Cherry and pay in-lieu fees to replace the five 24” box trees that will be placed of site. These in-lieu fees are assessed at $3,250 (five trees at $650 each for a total of $3,250). These fees shall be paid prior to building permit issuance. 16. TREE PROTECTION COMPLIANCE. The owner and contractor shall implement all protection and inspection schedule measures, design recommendations and construction scheduling as stated in the TPR & 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. Project arborist approval must be obtained and documented in the monthly activity report sent to the City. The mandatory Contractor and Arborist Monthly Tree Activity Report shall be sent monthly to the City (pwps@cityofpaloalto.org) beginning with the initial verification approval, using the template in the Tree Technical Manual, Addendum 11. 17. PLAN CHANGES. Revisions and/or changes to plans before or during construction shall be reviewed and responded to by the (a) project site arborist, or (b) landscape architect with written letter of acceptance before submitting the revision to the Building Department for review by Planning, PW or Urban Forestry. 4     Packet Pg. 47     2 4 7 18. TREE DAMAGE. Tree Damage, Injury Mitigation and Inspections apply to Contractor. Reporting, injury mitigation measures and arborist inspection schedule (1-5) apply pursuant to TTM, Section 2.202.30. 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. 19. GENERAL. 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. 20. BUILDING PERMIT SUBMITTAL- PROJECT ARBORIST CERTIFICATION LETTER. Prior to submittal for staff review, attach a Project Arborist Certification Letter that he/she has; (a) reviewed the entire building permit plan set submittal and, (b) affirm that ongoing Contractor/Project Arborist site monitoring inspections and reporting have been arranged with the contractor or owner (see Sheet T-1) and, (c) understands that design revisions (site or plan changes) within a TPZ will be routed to Project Arborist/Contractor for review prior to approval from City. 21. TREE PROTECTION VERIFICATION. Prior to any site work verification from the contractor that the required protective fencing is in place shall be submitted to the Urban Forestry Section. The fencing shall contain required warning sign and remain in place until final inspection of the project. 22. PLAN SET REQUIREMENTS. The final Plans submitted for building permit shall include the following information and notes on relevant plan sheets: a. SHEET T-1, BUILDING PERMIT. The building permit plan set will include the City’s full-sized, Sheet T-1 (Tree Protection-it's Part of the Plan!), available on the Development Center website at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/31783. The Applicant shall complete and sign the Tree Disclosure Statement and recognize the Project Arborist Tree Activity Inspection Schedule. Monthly reporting to Urban Forestry/Contractor is mandatory. (Insp. #1: applies to all projects; with tree preservation report: Insp. #1-7 applies) b. The Tree Preservation Report (TPR). All sheets of the Applicant’s TPR approved by the City for full implementation by Contractor, shall be printed on numbered Sheet T-1 (T-2, T-3, etc.) and added to the sheet index. c. Plans to show protective tree fencing. The Plan Set (esp. site, demolition, grading & drainage, foundation, irrigation, tree disposition, utility sheets, etc.) must delineate/show the correct configuration of Type I, Type II or Type III fencing around each Regulated Tree, using a bold dashed line enclosing the Tree Protection Zone (Standard Dwg. #605, Sheet T- 1; City Tree Technical Manual, Section 6.35-Site Plans); or by using the Project Arborist’s unique diagram for each Tree Protection Zone enclosure. 4     Packet Pg. 48     Attachment F Project Plans During Shelter-in-Place, project plans are only available to the public online. Hardcopies of the plans have been provided to Board members. Directions to review Project plans online: 1. Go to: bit.ly/PApendingprojects 2. Scroll down to find “414 California Avenue” and click the address link 3. On this project specific webpage you will find a link to the project plans and other important information Direct Link to Project Webpage: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/News-Articles/Planning-and-Development-Services/414- California-Ave 4     Packet Pg. 49     Item No. 5. Page 1 of 10 1 3 9 3 Architectural Review Board Staff Report From: Jonathan Lait, Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: January 19, 2023 TITLE 3200 Park Boulevard/200 Portage/340 Portage [22PLN-00287 and 22PLN-00288]: Study Session to Consider a Request for a Development Agreement, Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Planned Community Zoning, and Tentative Map, to Allow Redevelopment of a 14.65-acre site at 200-404 Portage Avenue, 3040-3250 Park Boulevard, 3201-3225 Ash Street and 278 Lambert. This Study Session will Focus on Feedback Regarding the Design of the Remaining portion of the Cannery Building and the New Adjacent Parking Garage. The Full Scope of Work Includes the Partial Demolition of an Existing Commercial Building That has Been Deemed Eligible for the California Register as Well as an Existing Building With a Commercial Recreation use at 3040 Park and Construction of (74) new Townhome Condominiums, a one Level Parking Garage, and Dedication of Approximately 3.25 acres of Land to the City for Future Affordable Housing and Parkland Uses. The Existing Building at 3201-3225 Ash Street Would Remain in Office use, and an Automotive use at 3250 Park Boulevard Would Convert to R&D use. Environmental Assessment: Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the 200 Portage Townhome Development Project was Circulated on September 16, 2022 in Accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The EIR Comment Period Ended on November 15, 2022. The Proposed Development Agreement is Evaluated as Alternative 3 in the Draft EIR. Zoning District: RM-30 (Multi-Family Residential) and GM (General Manufacturing). 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. Conduct a study session to consider the design of the commercial portion of the development plans for the proposed Development Agreement at 3200 Park Boulevard, including the remaining portion of the cannery building and the new parking garage. The full proposed scope of work will return to the ARB for formal hearings. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In Fall 2022, the Sobrato Organization, LLC (Sobrato) submitted an application for a development agreement, rezoning, tentative map, and architectural review associated with the 5     Packet Pg. 50     Item No. 5. Page 2 of 10 1 3 9 3 redevelopment of the 14.65-acre site at 200-404 Portage Avenue, 3040-3250 Park Boulevard, 3201-3225 Ash Street and 278 Lambert. In the course of reviewing the application, staff have identified that a comprehensive plan amendment and subdivision map exceptions would also be required. The project includes 74 townhome housing units that would take the place of approximately 84,000 square feet (sf) of the historic cannery building at 200-404 Portage Avenue and associated changes including a new parking garage. The plans presented to the ARB for this hearing were recently resubmitted to planning and reflect initial comments on the plans provided by all departments. These plans are still under review. Subsequent revisions are anticipated to address comments from the ARB from this study session and the December 19, 2022 study session as well as comments from the HRB provided on January 12, 2022. The intent of this hearing is to obtain feedback on the proposed development plan, particularly with respect to the modifications/treatment to the remaining cannery building and the new associated parking garage. The parking garage would replace the existing surface lot parking spaces on the proposed parcel to be dedicated to the City for a public park and future affordable housing project. A location map is included in Attachment A. A summary of the project description and the proposed rezoning is summarized in the applicant’s Development Statement (Attachment B). BACKGROUND The staff report for the December 15, 2022 study session provides background information about the proposed Development Agreement, including the formation of the Council ad hoc committee and previous Council and Planning and Transportation Commission comments and motions related to the project. Feedback from the Council and Planning and Transportation Commission is also summarized in this report. Project Description The project consists of a Development Agreement between the Sobrato Organization and the City to allow for the redevelopment of 14.65 acres located at 200-404 Portage Avenue, 3040- 3250 Park Boulevard, 3201-3225 Ash Street & 278 Lambert Avenue, as shown in the Location Map in Attachment A. The project would include the partial demolition of an existing building, the former Bayside Canning Company building (a portion of which was more recently occupied by Fry’s electronics). The building has been found eligible for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources. Key components of the Development Agreement include: •Construction of the parking garage to facilitate dedication of a ~3.25-acre BMR/parkland dedication parcel (including relocation of an existing above-ground powerline) •Removal of approximately 84,000 sf of the former cannery building; •Restoration/rehabilitation of the remaining portions of the former cannery building, retaining the same approximate floor area of existing R&D uses in the building and, establishing a new retail tenant space with outdoor seating area; •Merger and re-subdivision of the property into five parcels (remaining cannery, townhomes, Ash Building, Audi Building, and Below Market Rate (BMR)/parkland dedication parcel to facilitate the project, and dedication of that parcel to the City for affordable housing and park purposes; 5     Packet Pg. 51     Item No. 5. Page 3 of 10 1 3 9 3 •Retention of the existing office uses of the Ash Building; •Conversion of the Audi Building from existing automotive uses to R&D use; •Development of 74 three- and four-bedroom market-rate townhomes; and •A ten-year term during which the City may not modify the zoning or approved uses of the site The Development Program Statement (project description) is included in Attachment B. Links to the project plans (Development Plan) and the Draft EIR are included in Attachment H. The requested entitlements, findings, and purview are summarized in the December 15, 2022 ARB staff report1 and include the following discretionary action that is subject to the ARB’s purview: •Planned Community Rezoning. The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.38.065. Planned Community rezoning applications require review by the PTC and the Architectural Review Board, a final review of a development plan for review and recommendation by the PTC, and a decision by the Council. The findings under 18.38.060 must be made in the affirmative for project approval. The Architectural Review Board makes a recommendation on the development plan in accordance with the findings for architectural review in Section 18.76.020 pursuant to 18.38.065(b). These findings are included in Attachment B. Additional entitlements being requested as part of the project include: •Development Agreement •Comprehensive Plan Amendment •Tentative Subdivision Map with exceptions •Historic Review ANALYSIS The project plans for the Development Agreement alternative are still under review (Attachment H) Although the proposed development project reflects negotiations between the Council Ad Hoc Committee and Sobrato, the project has not been approved or entitled. Therefore, feedback from the ARB and the public is encouraged. For this meeting, staff would like the ARB to focus its discussion on the remaining cannery building and new parking garage design. Neighborhood Setting and Character The site is located within the Ventura neighborhood, within the area of the proposed North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan. The site abuts single-family residential uses to the northwest, Park Boulevard to the northeast, a paved at-grade parking lot to the southeast, and Portage Avenue/Ash Street to the Southwest. On the southeast side, the project site encompasses both the northwest and southeast sides of Matadero Creek with a small connection out to Lambert. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans and Guidelines 1 December 15, 2022 ARB Staff Report, ID #14861: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas- minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/architectural-review-board/2022/arb-12.15.2022-3200-park.pdf 5     Packet Pg. 52     Item No. 5. Page 4 of 10 1 3 9 3 The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the majority of the 14.65-acre site is Multifamily Residential; a small portion of the property located at 3040 Park Boulevard has a land use designation of Light Industrial. Detailed information on proposed changes to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map is included in the December 15, 2022 staff report to the ARB. The proposed parcel for the remaining cannery building and the new parking garage would be redesignated to a Service Commercial land use designation in order to align the existing nonconforming uses that are proposed to remain with the Comprehensive Plan. In addition, because of the total land area being dedicated to the City (which significantly reduces the size of the existing cannery parcel), the total non-residential gross floor area in the remaining building would exceed the 0.4:1 FAR. This threshold is stipulated not only in the CS Zone development standards but also noted in the description of the Service Commercial designation in the Comprehensive Plan. To address this, a Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment is proposed for the Service Commercial designation description as follows (additional proposed text shown underlined): “Facilities providing citywide and regional services and relying on customers arriving by car. These uses do not necessarily benefit from being in high-volume pedestrian areas such as shopping centers or Downtown. Typical uses include auto services and dealerships, motels, lumberyards, appliance stores, and restaurants, including fast service types. In almost all cases, these uses require good automobile and service access so that customers can safely load and unload without impeding traffic. In some locations, residential and mixed-use projects may be appropriate in this land use category. Examples of Service Commercial areas include San Antonio Road, El Camino Real, and Embarcadero Road northeast of the Bayshore Freeway. Non-residential FARs will generally range up to 0.4 but may exceed this threshold in a Planned Community Zone. Consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s encouragement of housing near transit centers, higher density multi-family housing may be allowed in specific locations.” Although this change would apply citywide to parcels with a Service Commercial land use designation, staff does not expect that this change would impact other parcels because the Zoning Code continues to regulate the allowable floor area for Service Commercial designated parcels citywide and any new Planned Community rezoning would be a legislative action requiring a recommendation from the PTC and ARB and Council approval. In addition, following the PTC’s November 30, 2022 comments, staff wish to highlight that the Service Commercial land use designation remains compatible with the future use of the entire site for housing. This legislative action is not subject to the ARB’s purview; the information may help the ARB and public to understand the full scope of the project. North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan The project site is located within the boundaries of the proposed North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP). The boundaries are, generally, Page Mill Road, El Camino Real, Lambert Avenue, and the Caltrain tracks. The City Council set goals and objectives in March 2018, and NVCAP working group meetings commenced in 2018. 5     Packet Pg. 53     Item No. 5. Page 5 of 10 1 3 9 3 On November 14, 2022, City Council reviewed and endorsed the refined preferred alternative plan, with several changes as reflected in meeting minutes2. Council changes enabled: •a 45-foot building height transition on El Camino Real •a 65-foot height for 100% affordable housing at 340 Portage without retail, (to include 5 stories of residential, with one level for parking) •a 55-foot height limit along Park Blvd for residential or residential mix use without increasing commercial Floor Area Ratio (FAR) •no parking maximums and a (defined) strict Transportation Demand Management •evaluation of: (1) a city initiated Residential Permit Parking (RPP) district, (2) removing the woonerf to decrease congestion (as an EIR option), (3) zoning changes to increase FAR for housing on commercial sites along Park Blvd and Page Mill Rd Council also directed staff to review and return with a recommendation about designating 340 Portage Road as a local historical resource. An analysis of the project’s consistency with key goals articulated for the NVCAP process is included in Attachment C. The City, in its negotiations with Sobrato, focused on the key goals of the NVCAP and the expressed interests of the public and NVCAP working group. These included: •Open space adjacent to Matadero Creek •Housing, particularly affordable housing •Retention and historic rehabilitation of the cannery building •Improved bicycle and pedestrian connections •Transportation Demand Management Plan Zoning Compliance3 Because the Development Agreement alternative includes the donation of a significant portion of the property to the City of Palo Alto, the remaining buildings, as well as the proposed townhome development, would not comply with certain aspects of the zoning ordinance. These include development standards such as FAR, lot coverage, and site open space, which are based on the size of the parcel, but also include standards such as setbacks, which are reduced in some cases based on the new location of parcel boundaries. The applicant is seeking, through the Development Agreement and Planned Community (PC) rezoning, permission to deviate from certain code standards, in a manner that is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. Staff’s detailed review of existing and proposed cannery building parcel’s improvements’ consistency with applicable Zoning standards is included in Attachment D. 2 Action minutes from November 14, 2022 City Council meeting: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/city-council- agendas-minutes/2022/20221114/20221114amccsm.pdf 3 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: http://www.amlegal.com/codes/client/palo-alto_ca 5     Packet Pg. 54     Item No. 5. Page 6 of 10 1 3 9 3 To address any inconsistencies with the municipal code, the project would include rezoning this parcel to a Planned Community zone district. Rezoning of the site is not subject to the ARB’s purview; however, the final Development Plan will inform the standards set forth in the proposed ordinance for the Planned Community zone district. Objective Design Standards and Context-Based Design Criteria The proposed Development Agreement is not subject to Chapter 18.24 of the Municipal Code (objective standards) because it is not a housing development project, as defined in Government Code Section 65589.5. It is also not subject to the Context-Based Design Criteria outlined under 18.16 because these requirements are not technically a requirement for proposed Planned Community Zone Districts. However, the Planned Community rezoning process provides the City discretion with respect to the design and applicable requirements for the new zone district. Therefore, an analysis of the project’s consistency with the context-based design criteria that would normally apply to commercial projects is provided in Attachment E. The proposed parking garage will be located adjacent to existing single-family homes. The existing wall on the site would be moved to align with the property line and existing fence lines of the neighboring residences. The parking garage is set back between 10 and 25 feet from the residential parcels (10 feet on the western end and about 25 feet at the center and on the eastern end) and complies with the daylight plane requirements. However, it’s not clear whether the design would present privacy impacts to residents due to views from the second level. Staff has asked the applicant to incorporate visuals showing line of sight from the top level of the parking garage to adjacent single-family uses into the plan set. Staff would appreciate the ARB discussing the retention of existing mature trees in this area, where feasible, in order to reduce privacy impacts. Although planting is proposed, Staff believes that preservation of existing mature trees is preferable as they will more quickly reduce line of sight impacts into adjacent parcels. Lighting from the parking garage should also be discussed. Multi-Modal Access & Circulation Vehicular The proposed project includes five points of vehicular ingress/egress to the site from Park Boulevard, Portage Avenue/Ash Street, and Acacia Avenue. Private streets would provide internal access between the Townhome units and other uses. The Development Agreement and associated plans include various ingress/egress easements including a public access easement between Portage Avenue and Park Boulevard along the alignment of Street B in the plans (Sheet L-1.1 and AR1.0.0). Access to the parking garage for the cannery building would be provided through an existing easement and entrance at the rear of the property at 4200 Acacia Avenue (where Acacia Avenue meets Ash Street). The parking garage would replace existing at-grade parking on the east side of the cannery building as well as accommodate surface parking that would be removed on the City dedication parcel (adjacent Matadero Creek). Removal of the surface parking spaces adjacent to the creek will allow for that area to be used for a public park and a future affordable 5     Packet Pg. 55     Item No. 5. Page 7 of 10 1 3 9 3 housing project. Additional parking is provided along Street B (south side of the cannery building), Street C (east of the cannery building), and on the cannery parcel to the North of the parking garage. Bicycles Sobrato is required to provide an enhanced bicycle connection. This is to serve as mitigation identified in the EIR to address inconsistency with an adopted plan (City of Palo Alto Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan and Citywide Trails Plan), or through the development agreement. An enhanced bicycle connection requires, at minimum, sharrows.4 Staff is exploring options with Sobrato for these bicycle improvements that would exceed the requirement of providing sharrows and to resolve any potential conflicts between parking and the enhanced bicycle connection. In particular, staff is reviewing an option that could allow for two-way Class I bicycle lanes. If feasible, the lanes would utilize a portion of both the applicant’s parcel as well as the proposed City parcel, providing safe bicycle access that would be separated from the perpendicular vehicular parking spaces. Pedestrian Pedestrian access to the site is provided from Park Boulevard across the townhome parcel, from Portage/Ash in the same manner as the existing pedestrian access, and between the parking garage and cannery building from Acacia. The pedestrian connection from Acacia is unclear. The most recent plans submitted by the applicant seem to suggest that the pedestrian mews continue through in the renderings and elevations. But the floor plans show that the pedestrian mews only continue through until the 380 Portage tenant space. it is staff’s understanding that a portion of that area is controlled by the tenant Playground Global and currently its assumed that there is not a pedestrian connection out to Acacia, which would be more desirable. The plans will need to be updated to more clearly show the intent for this area. Transit Demand Management Plan The applicant’s proposed Transit Demand Management (TDM) Plan is provided in Attachment G. The TDM plan is proposed voluntarily by the developer as part of the Development Agreement in order to align with goals and policies that are anticipated as part of the NVCAP. Council has expressed an interest in setting TDM requirements for office uses within the NVCAP area in order to reduce vehicular trips. Under the current code the City’s TDM ordinance is not applicable because the applicant’s project is anticipated to result in less than 50 net new morning or evening weekday and weekend peak hour trips. Although the traffic analysis in the DEIR concluded that complete buildout of the development agreement alternative, including the affordable housing project on City property, would result in more than 50 net new AM and PM peak hour trips (70 net new trips), 62 of these net new trips would be a result of an assumed 75-unit future affordable housing project. This future affordable housing use will not be owned or operated by the developer and will be subject to its own TDM requirement. It should also be noted that the trip generation assumptions do not provide any trip credits for the 84,000 sf of former retail 4 A Sharrow is a road marking in the form of two inverted V-shapes above a bicycle, indicating which part of a road should be used by cyclists when the roadway is shared with motor vehicles. 5     Packet Pg. 56     Item No. 5. Page 8 of 10 1 3 9 3 space that is proposed to be removed. The planned community ordinance and development agreement would set forth the requirements with respect to parking and trip reduction requirements for this project. Remaining Cannery Building Design The HRB report for the January 12, 2023 hearing as well as the attached Secretary of the Interior’s Standards Analysis analyzes changes to the cannery building and where the project is or is not consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. As detailed in the Environmental Impact Report and the SOI Standards analysis, the building would no longer be eligible for the California Register of Historic Resources following demolition of a portion of the building in order to create the townhome parcel. Therefore, regardless of the changes to the remaining cannery building, the project and modifications to the building would not be consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. However, some community members and councilmembers expressed an interest in retaining the remainder of the building as consistent as possible with the SOI standards. The analysis prepared by Rincon consultants concludes that many of the modifications proposed would not be consistent with the standards. Staff requested feedback from the HRB on whether there is value in retaining the existing building as it is today to the extent feasible, even if it has already lost its eligibility as a resource. The trade off to this possibly resulting in a less desirable design for the proposed use, particularly, the proposed retail space from an urban design perspective, and possibly less desirable pedestrian connections and views. The HRB did not provide detailed feedback on the specific design changes to the cannery building. However, the general feedback from the board was to try to limit changes to the remaining building to be more in line with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation with priority given to the portion of the building below the monitor roofs, which was the originally constructed building at the site (the cannery building consisting of a number of additions to the building within the period of significance that were all related to the cannery use). The HRB also expressed an interest in having additional evaluation completed to determine whether the Ash building would retain its integrity for the California Register (even if the cannery would not) to determine if the Ash Street office building could be individually listed on the California Register. The HRB agreed that there was an interest in considering both the cannery building and Ash Street building for the City’s local register. Commercial Trash Pickup The commercial trash pickup is planned to be moved from the rear of the building to an area along Private Street B and would serve the Ash building as well as the remaining cannery building. Staff notes that the proposed location is across for the planned future affordable housing location. Staff requested that the applicant explore alternative locations. If no other locations are feasible other than an area along Street B, the trash enclosure should at least be moved closer to Portage so that it is not directly across from the future affordable housing site. Public Art 5     Packet Pg. 57     Item No. 5. Page 9 of 10 1 3 9 3 The Council ad hoc committee expressed an interest in utilizing the required public art funds from the proposed project to further convey important aspects of the history of the site to the public. The Public Art Commission will hold a public meeting tonight to provide initial input to the applicant on the public art themes, location, etc. that should be considered. This initial meeting is a requirement and it is anticipated that the applicant will take that feedback and utilize it in selecting an artist and coming up with a conceptual design. A representative from the HRB will attend that hearing. The HRB has expressed an interest in having any public art provided on site relate, in particular, to Thomas Foon Chew and his role in providing opportunities for minorities and as a leader in furthering diversity. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT Although this is a study session and notification of this study session is not required in accordance with the Palo Alto Municipal Code, notices were published in a local paper and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least ten days in advance. Notice of a study session for this project was published in the Daily Post on January 7, 2022, which is 12 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on January 5, 2022, which is 14 days in advance of the meeting. The City has received significant input with respect to the project area as part of the NVCAP process, including from members of the public, recommending bodies, Council, and the NVCAP working group. That input informed the objectives identified for the NVCAP process as discussed above and included in Attachment C. The Council study session on August 1, 2022, served as the prescreening meeting required for a proposed development agreement and legislative changes, including Planned Community rezoning and a Comprehensive Plan amendment, in accordance with PAMC Chapter 18.79. The session provided an opportunity for initial comments on the general development terms and public benefits. Councilmember comments were summarized in the December 15, 2022 staff report5 to the ARB for the study session on the townhome portion of the project. The Planning Commission held two study sessions in October 2022 to provide feedback on the project and to allow for public comments on the project during the draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) comment period. Following these study sessions, the PTC voted to move the formal application forward to the ARB for review. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. Specifically, the City, acting as the lead agency, circulated a Notice of Preparation on December 16, 2021, for a 30-day comment period. The City received comments from one individual and three agencies: the Native American Heritage Commission, California Department of Transportation, and County Department of Parks and Recreation. The 5 December 15, 2022 ARB Staff Report, ID #14861: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas- minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/architectural-review-board/2022/arb-12.15.2022-3200-park.pdf 5     Packet Pg. 58     Item No. 5. Page 10 of 10 1 3 9 3 Notice of Preparation and Comments on the Notice of Preparation are included in Appendix A of the Draft EIR. The City released the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the 200 Portage Avenue Townhome project on September 16, 2022. The 45-day comment period was extended to 60 days in response to public comment. Circulation ended on November 15, 2022. In addition to comments received prior to and during the PTC hearing, the City received written comments from Valley Water, the Department of Toxic Substances Control, the property owner, and six individuals. These comments are included in Attachment F. Responses to all oral and written comments on the Draft EIR will be formally responded to in the Final EIR. Staff is also working with an adjacent property owner to address his concerns regarding drainage from the site to his property. The Draft EIR concludes that the proposed project would have a significant and unavoidable impact on a historic resource because it includes the partial demolition of a building that the City’s consultant has identified as being eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources. Therefore, to approve the proposed project, Council would be required to adopt findings to adopt a Statement of Overriding Consideration for the proposed project as well as any of the proposed alternatives. The Development Agreement is analyzed as Alternative 3 in the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR concludes that Alternative 3 would similarly result in a significant and unavoidable impact on a cultural resource because it similarly requires the demolition of a large portion of the cannery building at 200 Portage/3200 Park Boulevard. When the ARB makes a recommendation on the proposed project, the board is required to consider the environmental analysis and its conclusions in making the recommendation. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Location Map Attachment B: Development Program Statement Attachment C: NVCAP Key Goal Consistency Attachment D: Zoning Consistency Analysis For Cannery Parcel Attachment E: Context based design criteria consistency Attachment F: Written Comments on the Draft EIR Attachment G: Transit Demand Management Plan Attachment H: Architectural Plans and Environmental Documents Report Author & Contact Information Claire Raybould, AICP, Senior Planner 650 329-2116 Claire.Raybould@cityofpaloalto.org ARB Liaison & Contact Information Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Manager of Current Planning (650) 329-2575 jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Report #: 2301-0783 5     Packet Pg. 59     2 8 5 Attachment C: Consistency with North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan Goals North Ventura CAP Goals Development Agreement Alternative Housing and Land Use: Add to the City’s supply of multifamily housing, including market rate, affordable, “missing middle,” and senior housing in a walkable, mixed use, transit‐accessible neighborhood, with retail and commercial services and possibly start up space, open space, and possibly arts and entertainment uses. The project adds up to 149 units to the City’s housing supply including 74 market rate units as well as one acre and funding to support a 75-unit affordable housing project on the City dedication land. The project also provides 2.25 acres of open space adjacent Matadero Creek. Transit, Pedestrian and Bicycle Connections: Create and enhance well‐defined connections to transit, pedestrian, and bicycle facilities, including connections to the Caltrain station, Park Boulevard and El Camino Real. The project creates an enhanced bikeway connection between Park Boulevard and portage Avenue, consistent with the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan and Countywide Trail Plan. Connected Street Grid: Create a connected street grid, filling in sidewalk gaps and street connections to California Avenue, the Caltrain Station, and El Camino Real where appropriate. The project would provide a private street between Portage Avenue and Park Boulevard. However, a connection (parking lot) exist there today. The change may allow for vehicular traffic to cut through; however, cut through traffic is not anticipated given that there are other options already connecting El Camino Real and Park Boulevard that would be more convenient for surrounding uses. Community Facilities and Infrastructure: Carefully align and integrate development of new community facilities and infrastructure with private development, recognizing both the community’s needs and that such investments can increase the cost of housing. The project includes community facilities, including a public park and a retail/public space that will provide public access to view the monitor roofs. Balance of Community Interests: Balance community‐wide objectives with the interests of neighborhood residents and minimize displacement of existing residents and small businesses. The project replaces vacant retail space with housing and a small retail/public space for viewing the monitor roofs. It does not displace any small businesses. Although research and development uses were not encouraged to remain at this site in accordance with the NVCAP process, the retention of existing uses would allow for other community benefits identified throughout the process, including a public park and housing. Urban Design, Design Guidelines and Neighborhood Fabric: Develop human‐scale urban design strategies, and design guidelines that strengthen and support the neighborhood fabric. Infill development will respect the scale and character of the surrounding residential neighborhood. Include transition zones to surrounding neighborhoods. The project proposes to retain existing buildings (a portion of the cannery, Ash office building and Audi building) and to construct 35-foot tall townhomes. The proposed height and multi- family use aligns with existing surrounding R&D, retail-like and residential uses. 5     Packet Pg. 60     2 8 5 Sustainability and the Environment Protect and enhance the environment, while addressing the principles of sustainability. The new housing project building will be all electric and will comply with GB-1 plus Tier 2 requirements. Any modifications to the cannery that qualify as a substantial improvement would require upgrades to meet the new green building code. The applicant is looking to design, if feasible, a net zero cannery building in accordance with comments from the Council and commissioners. 5     Packet Pg. 61     200 Park Boulevard Project - Planned Community Rezoning Development Program Statement Because The Sobrato Organization ("Sobrato" or the "Owner") is donating significant acreage to the City, its Parcels 1, 3, 4, and 5 will no longer comply with existing City zoning standards, including for example with regard to open space, lot size, and floor area ratio. The City is also interested in restricting the uses of Parcels 1, 3, 4, and 5 to a greater extent than is possible with the use of existing base zoning districts. Accordingly, the following provides Sobrato's Development Program Statement in support of its request for four separate Planned Community Districts that would apply to Parcels 1, 3, 4, and 5 of the 200 Park Boulevard Project. Please see the enclosed Project Description for further information regarding the Project. We understand that the City separately proposes to redesignate the dedication parcel (Parcel 2) to PF. Necessity and Support for Findings Regarding Planned Community District •Parcel 1: Because Sobrato is donating significant acreage to the City, Parcel 1 will no longer comply with existing City zoning standards. Further, approval of Planned Community zoning for Parcel 1 would allow for greater flexibility and excellence in design, and allow the City to restrict use to townhome development. A Comprehensive Plan Amendment would also be processed for Parcel 1, to redesignate the small portion of the site that is currently designated Light Industrial to Multiple Family Residential, consistent with the remainder of the site which is already designated Multiple Family Residential. The Multiple Family Residential designation is consistent with the uses and development standards proposed for the Parcel 1 Planned Community district. •Parcel 3: Because Sobrato is donating significant acreage to the City, Parcel 3 will no longer comply with existing City zoning standards. Approval of Planned Community zoning for Parcel 3 will also allow retail use in the Cannery Building and allow the City to restrict the remainder of its use to R&D, as existing commercial zones all allow greater flexibility. A Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Service Commercial Designation would also be processed for Parcel 3, along with a minor text amendment for the designation, which would make the Parcel 3 Planned Community district consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. •Parcel 4: Because Sobrato is donating significant acreage to the City, Parcel 4 will no longer comply with existing City zoning standards. Further, approval of Planned Community zoning for Parcel 4 will allow the City to restrict use to office, as existing commercial zones all allow great flexibility. A Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Service Commercial Designation would also be processed for Parcel 4, along with a minor text amendment for the designation, which would make the Parcel 4 Planned Community district consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. •Parcel 5: Because Sobrato is donating significant acreage to the City, Parcel 5 will no longer comply with existing City zoning standards. Further, approval of Planned Community zoning for Parcel 5 will allow the City to restrict use to R&D use, as existing commercial zones all allow great flexibility. A Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the 5     Packet Pg. 62     2 #177083191_v3 2 8 4 Service Commercial Designation would also be processed for Parcel 5, along with a minor text amendment for the designation, which would make the Parcel 5 Planned Community district consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Permitted Uses in Each District •Parcel 1: Restricted to 74 townhomes and all associated improvements including landscaping, parking, and circulation elements. Development would consist of the following, and sales prices would be market rate: •Parcel 3: Restricted to R&D use and up to 2,600 square feet of retail use, and all associated improvements including landscaping, a 2-story parking garage, and circulation elements •Parcel 4: Restricted to office use •Parcel 5: Restricted to R&D use Development Plan Please see the enclosed plan set submitted for the Project's Major Architectural Review as well as its Planned Community Rezoning, which satisfies the requirements for a Development Plan contained in Palo Alto Zoning Code Section 18.38.090. Development Schedule With regard to Parcels 4 and 5, the Project does not propose any development, and the sole change at this time is associated with the uses permitted within the existing structures. The uses noted above would be permitted as of the effective date of the Project's Development Agreement, subject to all applicable provisions of the Development Agreement. With regard to Parcels 1 and 3, development will occur as described in the Phasing Plan contained in the Project's Development Agreement. The first phase (beginning with the submission of applications for permits) will commence within 90 days of the Development Agreement's effective date, with remaining phases progressing as specified in the Phasing Plan. The townhomes will be constructed at the time dictated by the market, and subject to further applicable provisions of the Development Agreement regarding the length of its term and the City's remedies in the event of non-construction. Please see the Development Agreement for further details. 5     Packet Pg. 63     ATTACHMENT D ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 22PLN-00287 (bold indicates non-compliance) Table 1: 340-404 Portage Avenue (Cannery Building) COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.16 (CS DISTRICT) Regulation Required Proposed Minimum Site Area, width and depth 8,500 sf area, 70-foot width, 100 foot depth ~590 feet X ~420 feet (irregular; 6.3 acres) Minimum Front Yard 0-10 feet to create an 8-12 foot effective sidewalk width (1), (2), (8) None (Alley between Acacia and Portage)* Rear Yard None ~15 feet (abutting new townhome parcel) Interior Side Yard None 10 to 25 feet (adjacent residences to new parking garage) 60 feet (south of Street B on south side of newly created parcel) Street Side Yard None Not applicable Min. yard for lot lines abutting or opposite residential districts or residential PC districts 10 feet (2)10.5 feet Build-to-lines 50% of frontage built to setback 33% of side street built to setback(7) Cannery building built to front setback (Alley between Acacia and Portage) Side street is not applicable Special Setback 24 feet – see Chapter 20.08 & zoning maps Not Applicable Max. Site Coverage None 49.7% Max. Building Height 35 ft within 150 ft. of a residential district (other than an RM-40 or PC zone) abutting or located within 50 feet of the site 23 feet, two inches to top of stairs 11 foot, six inches to second floor deck for parking garage ~No change to cannery building roof heights Max. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 0.4:1 (109,771 sf) 18.18.060(e)0.6:1 (164,656.8 sf)* 5     Packet Pg. 64     Daylight Plane for lot lines abutting one or more residential zone districts other than an RM-40 or PC Zone None (6)Complies *Note: compliance would require modifications to existing historic cannery building. **Parking garage does not constitute floor area as parking is exempt from floor area in accordance with Chapter 18.04 of the municipal code. This number reflects existing cannery square footage but the ratio is based on dedication of a portion of the parcel to the City; therefore the resulting parcel would exceed the floor area ratio allowed under the zoning ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. Table 1A: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking) for Research and Development and Retail Type Required Proposed Vehicle Parking 1 space per 250 sf for R&D (x142,744 sf)= 570 spaces 1 space per 200 sf for retail (x2,600 sf)=13 spaces 2 loading spaces for (100,000-199,999 sf)= 2 spaces Total required: 583 spaces Total loading required: 2 spaces Parking garage:330 spaces Other uncovered spaces: 89 spaces Total spaces provided: 419 spaces Total loading provided: 1 space Bicycle Parking 1 space per 2,500 sf for R&D; 80% LT; 20% ST (x142,744 sf)=57 spaces (46 spaces LT; 10 spaces ST) 1 space per 2,000 sf for retail; 20% LT; 80% ST (x2600 sf)=1 ST space Total required: 57 Long term(LT); 11 Short term (ST) 49 spaces (37 existing; 12 new) Long term 20 Short term 5     Packet Pg. 65     24 10 4 24 24 24 24 2 FOR_MIXEDUSE_HOTEL_USES_3200_ECR_PAMC20_08_20 PARKING GARAGE 199.7' 149.7' 65.6' 149.7' 65.7' 199.7' 50.0' 199.7' 50.0' 199.7' 50.0' 199.7' 50.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 49.9' 150.0' 49.9' 150.0' 166.4' 32.5' 1.9' 108.2' 6.6' 270.2' 100.0' 149.8' 150.0' 149.8' 150.0' 100.0' 40.0' 149.7' 200.0' 150.0' 199.7' 10.0' 49.9' 150.0' 4 150.0' 49.9' 200.0' 200.0' 198.3' 100.0' 199.7' 98.9' 148.9' 71.4' 179.8' 75.8' 199.4' 98.2' 144.3' 58.1' 68.3' 90.0' 100.0' 40.0' 100.0' 50.0' 199.7' 276.0' 100.0' 242.1' 29.5' 54.7' 26.3' 49.9' 200.0' 200.0' 116.5' 55.4' 116.5' 55.4' 105.0' 25.0' 105.0' 25.0' 55.4' 116.5' 55.4' 116.5' 55.4' 116.5' 55.4' 116.5' 55.4' 116.5' 55.4' 116.5' 9.8' 69.0' 4.6' 45.4' 78.8' 50.0' 75.0'105.0' 75.0'105.0' 105.0' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 60.0' 120.0' 60.0' 90.0' 55.0' 120.0' 25.0' 47.1' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 25.0' 120.0' 25.0' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 44.0' 120.0' 44.0' 120.0' ' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 56.0' 120.0' 56.0' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 50.0' 45.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 28.8' 105.0' 28.8' 105.0' 25.0' 105.0' 25.0' 105.0' 78.8' 55.0' 78.8' 55.0' 50.0' 51.6' 3.4'.1'.1'.4' 49.5' 105.0' 50.0' 55.0' 120.0' 25.0' 47.1' 90.0' 90 120.0' 60.0' 120.0' 120.0' 60.0' 120.0' 50.0' ' 120.0' 55.0' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 50.0' 12 120.0' 120.0' 50.0' 47.1' 90.0' 80.0' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 40.0' 120.0' 40.0' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 45.0' 120.0' 45.0' 120.0' 120.0' 45.0' 120.0 120.0' 45.0' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 60.0' 120.0' 60.0' 120.0' 65.0' 120.0' 65.0' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 50.0' 60.0' 55.0' 30.0' 47.1' 25.0' 60.0' 55.0' 60.0' 55.0' 120.0' 52.0' 120.0' 52.0' 90.0' 47.1' 25.0' 120.0' 55.0' 120.0' 63.0' 120.0' 63.0' 50.0' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 115.7' 119.7' 115.7' 139.5' 50.0' 139.5' 50.0' 139.6' 50.0' 139.6' 50.0' 567.5' 754.2' 570.4' 755.8' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 66.9' 200.0' 66.9' 200.0' 233.0' 282.3' 116.5' 151.0' 143.4' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 55.4' 116.5' 55.4' 116.5' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 75.0'120.0' 75.0' 120.0' 75.0'120.0' 75.0' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 137.6' 158.7' 39.0' 88.7' 78.0' 7.3' 50.1' 94.5' 50.0' 98.9' 50.1' 98.9' 50.0' 103.2' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 98.6' 24.1' 67.5'105.0' 121.4' 105.0' 47.0' 105.0' 47.0' 105.0' 75.0'105.0' 75.0' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 53.0' 91.0' 54.7' 81.5' 85.9' 49.9' 81.5' 49.8' 90.2' 50.1' 85.9' 50.0' 94.5' 50.1' 90.2' 50.0' 80.2' 103.2' 79.9' 110.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 90.0' 44.8' 90.0' 44.8' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 90.0' 44.8' 90.0' 44.8' 90.0' 44.8' 90.0' 44.8' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 50.0' 134.5' 50.0' 134.5' 134.7' 115.6' 55.3' 65.0' 79.4' 60.3' 79.4' 52.7'95.9' 50.0' 95.9' 51.8' 109.3' 50.0' 109.3' 51.1' 119.7' 50.0' 119.3' 55.3' 105.6' 119.7 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.6' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 32.0' 17.5' 34.6' 97.9' 165.0' 137.0' 163.0' 138.8' 20.3' 19.0'17.0' 17.0' 101.7' 113.0' 50.0' 134.5' 50.0' 134.5'50.0' 134.5' 50.0' 134.5'50.0' 134.5' 50.0' 134.5'50.0' 134.5' 50.0' 134.5'60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 48.7' 134.5' 48.7' 134.5'48.8' 134.5' 48.8' 134.5'48.8' 134.5' 48.7' 134.5' 60.0' 269.0' 60.0' 269.0' 170.0' 67.3' 170.0' 67.3' 75.0' 134.5' 75.0' 134.5' 45.0' 134.5' 45.0' 134.5' 45.0' 134.5' 45.0' 134.5' 45.0' 134.5' 45.0' 134.5' 45.0' 134.5' 45.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5'134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 50.0' 134.5' 50.0' 134.5' 50.0' 134.5' 50.0' 134.5' 90.0' 67.8'90.0' 67.8' 90.0' 66.7'90.0' 66.7' 90.0' 44.8' 90.0' 44.8' 31.0' 134.5' 31.0' 134.5' 59.0' 134.5' 59.0' 134.5' 70.0' 134.5' 70.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 52.5' 134.5' 52.5' 134.5' 30.0' 134.5' 30.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 98 120.0' 29.6' 33.1' 50.0' 120 50.0' 50.0' 100.4' 50.0 52.3' 100.4' 54.0' 91.0' 52.5' 134.5' 52.5' 134.5' 52.5' 134.5' 52.5' 75.0' 134.5' 149.5' 75.0' 149.5' 12.0' 252.5' 142.5' 9.0' 281.1' 60.0' 134.5'0.0'45.0'134.5 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 45.0' 134.5' 45.0' 134.5' 45.0' 134.5' 45.0' 134.5' 30.0' 134.5' 30.0' 134.5'134.5' 30.0' 134.5'134.5' 70.0' 60.0' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5'45.0' 134.5' 45.0' 134.5' 45.0' 134.5' 45.0' 134.5' 35.0' 134.5' 35.0' 134.5' 35.0' 134.5' 35.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 65.0' 134.5' 65.0' 134.5' 65.0' 134.5' 65.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 90.0' 44.8' 90.0' 44.8' 90.0' 44.8' 90.0' 44.8' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5'134.5' 60.0' 60.0' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 70.0' 134.5' 70.0' 134.5' 70.0' 134.5' 6 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 70.0' 134.5' 70.0' 134.5' 50.0' 119.7' 65.7' 119.7' 65.6' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7'119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 47.9' 150.0' 9' 150.0' 95.7' 150.0' 200.0' 72.6' 200.0' 72.6' 134.7' 115.6' 134.7' 115.7' 134.7' 115.6' 134.7' 115.6' 134.7' 115.6' 134.7' 115.7' 28.8' 36.8' 498.2' 4.0' 60.0' 54.0' 105.0' 50.0' 221.4' 221.4' 6.2'10 76.4' 186.2' 186.2' 159.0' 159.0'159.0' 159.0' 98.0' 98.0'159.0'159.0'159.0' 159.0' 24.6' 24.6' 77.9' 77.9' 159.0' 159.0' 91.7' 91.7' 75.0'52.3' 170.0' 60.5' 134.5' 134.5' 48.8' 48.8' 67.9' 67.9' 90.0' 90.0'90.0' 90.0' 66.7' 66.7' 148.7' 51.0' 51.0' 148.7' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 150.0' 150.0' 99.8' 99.8' 199.7' 165.4 85.1 34.6 150.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 149.7' 149.7' 149.7' 115.7' 165.7' 100.0'50.0' 85.1 199.7' 149.7' 250.0' 151.5' 275.2' 14.4' 108.7' 108.7' 52.8' 52.8' 98.8' 67.2' 166.4' 166.4' 30.0' 30.0' 18.0' 18.0' 275.2' 185.2' 190.0' 275.0' 275.0' 275.0' 275.0' 275.0' 119.5' 119.5' 119.5' 119.5' 119.5' 119.5' 119.5' 119.5' 119.5' 119.5' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 250.0' 20.0' 20.0' 78.5'78.5' 5.8' 500 50.0' 120.0' 50.0' 90.0' 47.1' 25.0' 450.4' 263.1' 452.' 223.8' 223.8'292.1' 198.4'291.2' 370.9' 188.2' 427.3' 13.9' 56.2' 123.4' 164.9 199.7 109.85' 458.75' 239.70' 150.05' 129.85' 308.64' 129.85' 102.65' 129.85' 102.56 129.85' 205.99' 129.85' 206.05' 478.7' 109.8' 150.0' 21.8' 109.8' 19.8' 38.4' 38.4' 15.1' 15.1' 43.1' 47.3' 50.2' 133.3' 49.2' 49.2' 92.2'92.2' 116.5'116.5' 110.8' 78.3' 22.4' 35.9' 45.0'134.5' 60.0' 60.0' 134.5' 134.5 30.0' 134.5' 30.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5'134.5 60.0' 0.0' 3150 3170 3200 447 452- 460 448 418 440 434 420 429 439 379 3550 369 411 399 283 3159 411 435 3250425 435 3200 455 460 3200 3201 395 385 375 450 430 268 274 325 3421 284 3394 320 358 356 401 411 425 320 3290 300 280 271 261 251 231 221 211 201 210 220 230 241 231 221 3300211 291 3101 210 365 345 315 305 295 285 245 265 275 3040 3045 395 178 2822 2832 2840 2858 130 120 110 2800 2876 2886 2896 2906 2914 2920 2891 2831- 2835 2901- 2907 2893- 2899 231 3401 3395 3389 3389A 2931 2905 2904 2898 2 3381 2865 195 2619 2621 2631- 2639 2640 2666 2676 2690 2698 2704 2730 2746 180 190 2820 198189 2791 2643- 2651 2701 2705 2707 2709 2711 2715 287 2825 2830 2843 2859 2819 282 250 412 420 430 440 450 451 441 431 421 411 2904 456 470 2999 3128 3225 400 620 441 445 3250 286 7 286 9 277 7 265 3 - 266 1 252 3360 3215 3275 27 410 299 9 3348 3333 3201 3051 290 292 2687 3260 3265 3225 3239 3255 3295 455 3305 3337 3339 415 409 416 424 421 435 441 337-343 345-351 417 415 389 380 293 405 397 391 370 380 390 400 451 441 431 421 411 405 399 400 360 381 3420 350 3370 307 355 365 3395 281 3350 281 289 260 252 315 309 268 270 3275 3261 3251 220 230 336 340 370 380 3396 230 250 240 264 260 274 290 270 271 260 281 255 250 3371 3363 3357 3341 3350 3346 279 9 149 129 278 0 276 6 3197 272 5 - 2741 274 5 - 2757 277 3 - 2781 400408 179 281 7 282 9 281 1 284 5 288 8 287 6 286 0 287 5 289 5 286 1 284 4 288 9 3291 3241 282 1 - 2825 281 1 - 2815 287 7 - 2885 287 1 286 5 285 7 - 2863 284 1 - 2845 101-107 109-115 3410 253 253A275 242 2 260 9 - 261 1 259 2599 261 5 - 261 7 279 6 278 6 276 0 274 0 277 7 275 1 274 1 2741A 273 1 272 1 271 1 269 7 267 3 - 268 1 272127192717 271 0 268 9 2691 2693 2695 2830 461 3017 3001 412 200 2747 2785 2917 3127 3111 3333 440 3180 360 200 429 3390 3335 3360 3335 220 2858 3101 3160 278 419 FERNANDO AVENUE LAMBERT AVENUE EL CAMINO REAL ANSEN WAY EL DORA EL DORAD O AVENUE RAMONA STREET EMERSON STREET MARGARITA AV FERNANDO AVENUE LAMBERT AVENUE CHESTNUT AVENUE ASH STREET BIRCH STREET BIRCH STREET PARK BOULEVARD PARK BOULEVARD ALMA STREET ALMA STREET ACACIA AVENUE PORTAGE AVENUE OLIVE AVENUE ASH STREET ALMA STREET ORINDA STREET PAGE MILL RO AD PAGE MILL ROAD PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS BOARD PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS BOARD EL CAMINO REALEL CAMINO REAL RM-30 -2952 PF RM- PF RM-30 R-1 R-2 GM M-30 RM-20 CS CS ROLM GM GM GM (AD) CS (AD) CS John Boulware Park Park Blvd Substation Parcels merged for condos Aug 2016 This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Development Agreement Project Area 0' 293' Attachment A: Development Agreement Area (14.65 acres) CITY OF PALO ALTOI N C O R P O R A T E D CAL I F OR N I A P a l o A l t o T h e C i t y o f A P R I L 1 6 1 8 9 4 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto chodgki, 2022-09-30 12:29:30 (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) 5     Packet Pg. 66     2 8 7 Attachment E: Context-Based Design Criteria 3200 Park Boulevard 22PLN-00287 Pursuant to PAMC 18.16.090(b), the following context-based design considerations and findings are applicable to this project. These context-based design criteria are intended to provide additional standards to be used in the design and evaluation of development in a commercial district. The purpose is to encourage development in a commercial district to be responsible to its context and compatibility with adjacent development as well as to promote the establishment of pedestrian oriented design. 1. Pedestrian and Bicycle Environment Project Consistency The design of new projects shall promote pedestrian walkability, a bicycle friendly environment, and connectivity through design elements This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project will provide new short-term and long-term bike racks to comply with the code. The project will be required to provide an enhanced bikeway connecting Park Boulevard to Portage Avenue, and will provide an opportunity, through dedication of land and funds, for the City to provide improved connections across Matadero Creek. There are pedestrian pathways throughout the site, providing connectivity across proposed parcels. 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 On the cannery building site, the cannery building would be retained as-is on the west end and large portions of the southern façade closest to Ash Street/Portage Ave. A pedestrian mews would be provided between the parking garage and the existing cannery building to improve the pedestrian environment in this area. An access easement would be provided over Street B in order to accommodate an enhanced bicycle connection and public access to and from the park and future affordable housing project. Design changes to create a more inviting retail area are proposed. 3. Massing and Setbacks Buildings shall be designed to minimize massing and conform to proper setbacks The cannery building height and massing would not increase as a result of the proposed project. The new parking garage is the minimum height necessary to provide replacement parking for the commercial uses while accommodating the future park. The new parking garage meets the setback and daylight plane requirements that would typically be required for an RM-40 Zone District. The daylight plane next to the R-1 is based on the R-1 zone district requirements and has been met. 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 While the scale of the garage is the minimum necessary to replace the surface parking, improvements could be made to respect the privacy of adjacent uses. A line of sight diagram should be provided to understand how the 5     Packet Pg. 67     2 8 7 parking garage may provide views into backyards and, if necessary, improvements would be warranted to reduce line of sight impacts. Tree removal along the property line should be reduced as much as feasible to retain mature trees that help to address privacy concerns. 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 There is no public or private open space requirement for the cannery building parcel. However, open space areas on the north side (between the cannery and parking garage) and at the southwest corner (adjacent the retail space) are provided. It is anticipated that areas on the north side would be utilized primarily by private employees. The area adjacent to the retail space could be utilized by the public. An interpretive display portraying important historical information about the site would be located within this outdoor area and/or within the retail space under the monitor roofs. The development agreement includes dedication of 2.25 acres for the purposes of a public park, which would provide additional public open space opportunities on site. 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 The existing parking is at-grade and revised parking will be both at grade and within a new parking garage. The location of this parking garage adjacent to the single-family residential uses is not the most desirable location. However, in order to achieve the goal of providing a park, and possibly future naturalization of the creek in this area, while not creating parking impacts on the surrounding neighborhood, the parking garage is necessary. It is not located along a street frontage and is therefore desirable with respect to how the project looks from public streetscapes. The City is still exploring the parking spaces along the enhanced bikeway to figure out, in coordination with the applicant, an agreed upon solution that provides safe access for bicyclist through this private street while retaining all or most of the parking spaces. 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 The surrounding neighborhood, with the exception of Olive Avenue, is commercial. The remaining portion of the cannery building and the building at 3250 Park would not change. The small commercial building at 3040 Park (commercial recreation use) would be removed. The new parking garage on the cannery building parcel would be set back 10 feet at its closest point to adjacent single-family residential parcels, but the majority of the building would be set back 25 feet from the property line. At its closest point (on the west end) the parking garage would comply with the single-family residential daylight plane requirements (the most restrictive abutting zoning district). 8. Sustainability and Green Building Design 5     Packet Pg. 68     2 8 7 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 a variety of sustainable elements. The project will be subject to the most recently adopted building code standards, including increased energy efficiency standards that will become effective January 1, 2023. COMPLETE CODE LANGUAGE 18.16.090 Context-Based Design Criteria and Objective Design Standards In addition to the standards for development prescribed above, all Housing Development Projects in the CN, CS, CC, and CC(2) districts shall comply with the objective design standards outlined in Chapter 18.24 , as defined therein. All other developments, and all Housing Development Projects that elect to deviate from one or more objective design standards in Chapter 18.24, shall meet the Context Based Design Criteria, as determined by the Director pursuant to the Architectural Review process. (a) Contextual and Compatibility 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. (1) Context (A) Context as used in this section is 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. (B) The word "context" should not be construed as a desire to replicate existing surroundings, but rather to provide appropriate transitions to those surroundings. "Context" is also not specific to architectural style or design, though in some instances relationships may be reinforced by an architectural response. (2) Compatibility (A) Compatibility is achieved when the apparent scale and mass of new buildings is consistent with the pattern of achieving a pedestrian oriented design, and when new construction shares general characteristics and establishes design linkages with the overall pattern of buildings so that the visual unity of the street is maintained. (B) Compatibility goals may be accomplished through various means, including but not limited to: (i) the siting, scale, massing, and materials; (ii) the rhythmic pattern of the street established by the general width of the buildings and the spacing between them; (iii) the pattern of roof lines and projections; (iv) the sizes, proportions, and orientations of windows, bays and doorways; (v) the location and treatment of entryways; (vi) the shadow patterns from massing and decorative features; (vii) the siting and treatment of parking; and (viii) the treatment of landscaping. (b) Context-Based Design Considerations and Findings In addition to the findings for Architectural Review contained in Section 18.76.020(d) of the Zoning Ordinance, the following additional findings are applicable in the CN, CS, CC and CC(2) districts, as further illustrated on the accompanying diagrams: 1. Pedestrian and Bicycle Environment 5     Packet Pg. 69     2 8 7 The design of new projects shall promote pedestrian walkability, a bicycle friendly environment, and connectivity through design elements such as: A. Ground floor uses that are appealing to pedestrians through well-designed visibility and access (Figure 1-1); B. On primary pedestrian routes, climate and weather protection where possible, such as covered waiting areas, building projections and colonnades, and awnings (Figure 1-2); C. Streetscape or pedestrian amenities that contribute to the area's streetscape environment such as street trees, bulbouts, benches, landscape elements, and public art (Figure 1-3); D. Bicycle amenities that contribute to the area's bicycle environment and safety needs, such as bike racks, storage or parking, or dedicated bike lanes or paths (Figure 1-1); and E. Vehicle access from alleys or sidestreets where they exist, with pedestrian access from the public street. 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 such as: A. Placement and orientation of doorways, windows, and landscape elements to create strong, direct relationships with the street (Figure 2-1); 5     Packet Pg. 70     2 8 7 B. Facades that include projecting eaves and overhangs, porches, and other architectural elements that provide human scale and help break up building mass (Figure 2-2); C. Entries that are clearly defined features of front facades, and that have a scale that is in proportion to the size and type of the building and number of units being accessed; larger buildings should have a more prominent building entrance, while maintaining a pedestrian scale; D. Residential units and storefronts that have a presence on the street and are not walled-off or oriented exclusively inward; E. Elements that signal habitation such as entrances, stairs, porches, bays and balconies that are visible to people on the street; F. All exposed sides of a building designed with the same level of care and integrity; G. Reinforcing the definition and importance of the street with building mass; and H. Upper floors set back to fit in with the context of the neighborhood. 3. Massing and Setbacks Buildings shall be designed to minimize massing and conform to proper setbacks through elements such as: A. Rooflines that emphasize and accentuate significant elements of the building such as entries, bays, and balconies (Figure 3-1); B. Design with articulation, setbacks, and materials that minimize massing, break down the scale of buildings, and provide visual interest (Figure 3-1); C. Corner buildings that incorporate special features to reinforce important intersections and create buildings of unique architectural merit and varied styles (Figure 3-1); D. Building facades articulated with a building base, body and roof or parapet edge (Figure 3-2); E. Buildings set back from the property line to create an effective 12' sidewalk on El Camino Real, 8' elsewhere (Figure 3-4); 5     Packet Pg. 71     2 8 7 F. A majority of the building frontage located at the setback line (Figure 3-3); and G. No side setback for midblock properties, allowing for a continuous street facade, except when abutting low density residential (Figure 3-3). 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 through: A. Transitions of development intensity from higher density development building types to building types that are compatible with the lower intensity surrounding uses (Figure 4-1); B. Massing and orientation of buildings that respect and mirror the massing of neighboring structures by stepping back upper stories to transition to smaller scale buildings, including setbacks and daylight planes that match abutting R- 1 and R-2 zone requirements (Figure 4-2); C. Respecting privacy of neighboring structures, with windows and upper floor balconies positioned so they minimize views into neighboring properties (Figure 4-3); D. Minimizing sight lines into and from neighboring properties (Figure 4-3); E. Limiting sun and shade impacts on abutting properties; and F. Providing pedestrian paseos and mews to create separation between uses. 5. Project Open Space Private and public open space shall be provided so that it is usable for the residents, visitors, and/or employees of a site. A. The type and design of the usable private open space shall be appropriate to the character of the building(s), and shall consider dimensions, solar access, wind protection, views, and privacy; B. Open space should be sited and designed to accommodate different activities, groups, active and passive uses, and should be located convenient to the users (e.g., residents, employees, or public) C. Common open spaces should connect to the pedestrian pathways and existing natural amenities of the site and its surroundings; 5     Packet Pg. 72     2 8 7 D. Usable open space may be any combination of private and common spaces; E. Usable open space does not need to be located on the ground and may be located in porches, decks, balconies and/or podiums (but not on rooftops) (Figure 5-1); F. Open space should be located to activate the street façade and increase "eyes on the street" when possible (Figure 5-1); G. Both private and common open space areas should be buffered from noise where feasible through landscaping and building placement; H. Open space situated over a structural slab/podium or on a rooftop shall have a combination of landscaping and high quality paving materials, including elements such as planters, mature trees, and use of textured and/or colored paved surfaces (Figure 5-2); and I. Parking may not be counted as open space. 6. Parking Design Parking needs shall be accommodated but shall not be allowed to overwhelm the character of the project or detract from the pedestrian environment, such that: A. Parking is located behind buildings, below grade or, where those options are not feasible, screened by landscaping, low walls, etc.; B. Structured parking is fronted or wrapped with habitable uses when possible (Figure 6-1); C. Parking that is semi-depressed is screened with architectural elements that enhance the streetscape such as stoops, balcony overhangs, and/or art; D. Landscaping such as trees, shrubs, vines, or groundcover is incorporated into surface parking lots (Figure 6-2); 5     Packet Pg. 73     2 8 7 E. For properties with parking access from the rear of the site (such as a rear alley or driveway) landscaping shall provide a visual buffer between vehicle circulation areas and abutting properties (Figure 6-3); F. Street parking is utilized for visitor or customer parking and is designed in a manner to enhance traffic calming; G. For properties with parking accessed from the front, minimize the amount of frontage used for parking access, no more than 25% of the site frontage facing a street should be devoted to garage openings, carports, or open/surface parking (on sites with less than 100 feet of frontage, no more than 25 feet); H. Where two parking lots abut and it is possible for a curb cut and driveway to serve several properties, owners are strongly encouraged to enter in to shared access agreements (Figure 6-4); and I. Parking is accessed from side streets or alleys when possible. Figure 6-5 -- Mixed-Use with Surface Parking Figure 6-6 -- Mixed-Use with Podium Parking 5     Packet Pg. 74     2 8 7 Figure 6-7 -- Mixed-Use with Partial Sub-Grade Parking Podium Figure 6-8 -- Mixed-Use with Below-Grade Parking Podium 7. Large (Multi-Acre) Sites Large (in excess of one acre) sites shall be designed so that street, block, and building patterns are consistent with those of the surrounding neighborhood, and such that: A. New development of large sites maintains and enhances connectivity with a hierarchy of public streets, private streets, walks and bike paths (integrated with Palo Alto's Bicycle Master Plan, when applicable); B. The diversity of building types increases with increased lot size (e.g., <1 acre = minimum 1 building type; 1- 2 acres = minimum 2 housing types; greater than 2 acres = minimum 3 housing types) (Figures 7-1 through 7-3); and 5     Packet Pg. 75     2 8 7 C. Where a site includes more than one housing type, each building type should respond to its immediate context in terms of scale, massing, and design (e.g., Village Residential building types facing or abutting existing single- family residences) (Figures 7-2 and 7-3). 8. Sustainability and Green Building Design Project design and materials to achieve sustainability and green building design should be incorporated into the project. Green building design considers the environment during design and construction. Green building design aims for compatibility with the local environment: to protect, respect and benefit from it. In general, sustainable buildings are energy efficient, water conserving, durable and nontoxic, with high-quality spaces and high recycled content materials. The following considerations should be included in site and building design: A. Optimize building orientation for heat gain, shading, daylighting, and natural ventilation (Figure 8-1). B. Design landscaping to create comfortable micro- climates and reduce heat island effects. C. Design for easy pedestrian, bicycle, and transit access. D. Maximize onsite stormwater management through landscaping and permeable pavement (Figure 8-2). E. Use sustainable building materials. F. Design lighting, plumbing, and equipment for efficient energy and water use. G. Create healthy indoor environments. 5     Packet Pg. 76     2 8 7 H. Use creativity and innovation to build more sustainable environments. One example is establishing gardens with edible fruits, vegetables or other plants to satisfy a portion of project open space requirements. I. Provide protection for creeks and riparian vegetation and integrate stormwater management measures and open space to minimize water quality and erosion impacts to the creek environment. J. Encourage installation of photovoltaic panels (Figure 8- 3). 5     Packet Pg. 77     Printed on Recycled Paper SENT VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL October 31, 2022 Ms. Claire Raybould City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Claire.Raybould@CityofPaloAlto.org DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR 200 PORTAGE AVENUE TOWNHOME PROJECT – DATED SEPTEMBER 2022 (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER: 2021120444) Dear Ms. Raybould: The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) received a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the 200 Portage Avenue Townhome Project (Project). The Lead Agency is receiving this notice from DTSC because the Project includes one or more of the following: groundbreaking activities, work in close proximity to a roadway, presence of site buildings that may require demolition or modifications, and/or importation of backfill soil. DTSC recommends that the following issues be evaluated in the Hazards and Hazardous Materials section of the EIR: 1. A State of California environmental regulatory agency such as DTSC, a Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), or a local agency that meets the requirements of Health and Safety Code section 101480 should provide regulatory concurrence that the Project site is safe for construction and the proposed use. 2. The EIR acknowledges the potential for historic activities on or near the project site to result in the release of hazardous wastes/substances on the project site. Information presented in the EIR was primarily based on a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) report and a Soil Vapor Investigation 5     Packet Pg. 78     Ms. Claire Raybould October 31, 2022 Page 2 Report. Impacts related to the Project include demolition of buildings with potential hazardous materials, and hazardous materials sites on and around the Project site associated with VOCs detected below ground surface at the site that may contribute to vapor intrusion impacts during operation of the proposed project. Further studies should be carried out to delineate the nature and extent of contamination, and any potential threat to public health and/or the environment should be evaluated. The EIR should also identify the mechanism(s) to initiate any required investigation and/or remediation and the government agency who will be responsible for providing appropriate regulatory oversight. 3. Refiners in the United States started adding lead compounds to gasoline in the 1920s in order to boost octane levels and improve engine performance. This practice did not officially end until 1992 when lead was banned as a fuel additive in California. Tailpipe emissions from automobiles using leaded gasoline contained lead and resulted in aerially deposited lead (ADL) being deposited in and along roadways throughout the state. ADL-contaminated soils still exist along roadsides and medians and can also be found underneath some existing road surfaces due to past construction activities. Due to the potential for ADL-contaminated soil DTSC, recommends collecting soil samples for lead analysis prior to performing any intrusive activities for the project described in the EIR. 4. The EIR states that buildings are to be demolished on the project site. Surveys should be conducted for the presence of lead-based paints or products, mercury, asbestos containing materials, and polychlorinated biphenyl caulk. Removal, demolition, and disposal of any of the above-mentioned chemicals should be conducted in compliance with California environmental regulations and policies. In addition, sampling near current and/or former buildings should be conducted in accordance with DTSC’s 2006 Interim Guidance Evaluation of School Sites with Potential Contamination from Lead Based Paint, Termiticides, and Electrical Transformers. 5. If any projects initiated as part of the proposed project require the importation of soil to backfill any excavated areas, proper sampling should be conducted to ensure that the imported soil is free of contamination. DTSC recommends the imported materials be characterized according to DTSC’s 2001 Information Advisory Clean Imported Fill Material. 5     Packet Pg. 79     Ms. Claire Raybould October 31, 2022 Page 3 DTSC appreciates the opportunity to comment on the EIR. Should you choose DTSC to provide oversight for any environmental investigations, please visit DTSC’s Site Mitigation and Restoration Program page to apply for lead agency oversight. Additional information regarding voluntary agreements with DTSC can be found at DTSC’s Brownfield website. If you have any questions, please contact me at (916) 255-3710 or via email at Gavin.McCreary@dtsc.ca.gov. Sincerely, Gavin McCreary Project Manager Site Evaluation and Remediation Unit Site Mitigation and Restoration Program Department of Toxic Substances Control cc: (via email) Governor’s Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse State.Clearinghouse@opr.ca.gov Mr. Dave Kereazis Office of Planning & Environmental Analysis Department of Toxic Substances Control Dave.Kereazis@dtsc.ca.gov 5     Packet Pg. 80     Santa Clara Valley Water District | 5750 Almaden Expressway, San Jose, CA 95118-3686 | (408) 265-2600 | www.valleywater.org Clean Water • Healthy Environment • Flood Protection ♺ File: 23143 Matadero Creek November 15, 2022 Ms. Claire Rebould City of Palo Alto Planning and Development Services Department 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Subject: Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the 200 Portage Avenue Townhome Project (SCH# 2021120444) Dear Ms. Rebould: The Santa Clara Valley Water District (Valley Water) has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the 200 Portage Avenue Townhome Project, received on September 19, 2022. Based on our review of the DEIR Valley Water has the following comments: 1. Valley Water has easements along Matadero Creek within and adjacent to the project site. Figure 2-4, Proposed Townhome Project Site Plan, page 2-8 shows improvements, such as walkways and landscaping that appear to be located within Valley Water’s easement. W ork within Valley Water’s easement will require issuance of a Valley Water encroachment permit as per Valley Water’s Water Resources Protection Ordinance and Valley Water should be listed as an agency under the Required Approvals on page 2-13). Issuance of a Valley Water encroachment permit is a discretionary act and requires Valley Water to be considered a responsible agency under CEQA. 2. In the Hydrology and Water Quality section, the response to checklist question #4, which includes flood hazards, on page 4.9-15 needs to include a discussion of the flood hazards for the site. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) current Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) No. 06085C0017H, effective May 18, 2009, the majority of the site is within Zone X, areas of 0.2% annual chance flood; areas of 1% annual chance flood with average depths of less than 1 foot or with drainage areas less than 1 square mile; and areas protected by levees from 1% annual chance flood. However, the map also shows a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) Zone A, without base flood elevations, along Matadero Creek and adjacent to the creek. The map notes the 1% flood annual chance flood discharge is contained in the creek, though the mapping does not show it aligned with the creek throughout the site. It may be necessary to have the map revised to accurately show the Zone A in order to be in compliance with the City’s floodplain ordinance since it appears that some of the homes would be within the mapped SFHA Zone A area unless the map is corrected. DocuSign Envelope ID: 2F752A7F-2520-42E2-89DD-E24E1BC7F304 5     Packet Pg. 81     Page 2 November 15, 2022 Ms. Claire Rebould Santa Clara Valley Water District | 5750 Almaden Expressway, San Jose, CA 95118-3686 | (408) 265-2600 | www.valleywater.org ♺ 3. The DEIR should include a discussion of how the site complies with the Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams (Guidelines and Standards), which was adopted by the City of Palo Alto, in regard to creek setbacks and plantings. Concrete-lined channels are subject to failure as the lining ages and future construction repairs are required to maintain the integrity of the flood protection improvements. As such, setbacks from the creek for structures will allow Valley Water to do such work, as needed. While the adjacent section of Matadero Creek is concrete lined, plantings at the site should be in conformance with the Guidelines and Standards, in particular Design Guide 3, which will help ensure landscaping will be maintained in a manner consistent with the goal of protecting the local natives that may be found in downstream areas of the creek that are not concrete lined and preventing proliferation of invasive species that can impact flood improvements and channel conveyance capacity. This guide provides options for use of either non-invasive, drought-tolerant, non-native ornamental plants that will not have the potential to cross pollinate with native riparian species or else choosing non-invasive, drought-tolerant, non-local California natives (ornamental natives) with no potential to cross- pollinate with the local native species. 4. On page 4.9-22, the document incorrectly calculates water use based on estimated wastewater generation of 27,036 gallons of water per day, or 0.08 acre-feet per year. The document should be revised to show that 27,036 gallons of water per day is 0.08 acre-feet per day, which is calculated to be approximately 30 acre-feet per year. 5. Valley Water records indicate that six wells are located within the project site, three on APN: 132-38-071 and three on APN: 132-32-043. To protect groundwater quality and in accordance with Valley Water Ordinance 90-1, all existing wells affected by redevelopment of the site need to be identified and properly registered with Valley Water and either be maintained or destroyed in accordance with Valley Water’s standards. Destruction of any well and the construction of any new wells proposed, including monitoring wells, requires a permit from Valley Water prior to construction. Property owners or their representatives should contact the Valley Water Wells and Water Measurement Unit at (408) 630-2660, for more information. Please forward a copy of the Final EIR and plans for the improvements over Valley Water’s easement, when available. If you have any questions, please contact me at (408) 630-3157 or kthai@valleywater.org. Please reference Valley Water File No. 23143 on any future correspondence. Sincerely, Kevin Thai, CFM Associate Engineer Community Projects Review Unit cc: Y. Arroyo, C. Haggerty, M. Martin, K. Thai, File DocuSign Envelope ID: 2F752A7F-2520-42E2-89DD-E24E1BC7F304 5     Packet Pg. 82     City of Palo Alto Planning Department 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 I am writing to comment on the DEIR for the 200 Portage Avenue Townhome Project as someone who attended most of the NVCAP working group meetings, who has years of experience reviewing EIRs and additionally as someone who has many years’ experience working with CEQA and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. The DEIR is deficient in a number of ways including that it does not analyze numerous potential impacts, makes assumptions based on lack of evidence, is incomplete in providing project description enough to be able to identify impacts, and does not provide a CEQA-required alternative that would reduce the significant impact to the Cannery building. 2.5.5 Comments: Landscape and Open Space 1) The DEIR states that 70 trees will be removed including 1 Coast live oak and 2 redwoods that are protected. How many of the trees proposed to be removed are protected under the current and updated tree ordinance and what are they? 2) Is the updated tree ordinance being used to determine what trees are protected? 3) What are the 176 new trees –what is the variety and size, and do they satisfy the current and updated tree ordinance requirements? 4) Are the new trees planned compatible with a naturalized creek? 5) The Historic evaluation of the Cannery property indicates one of the character defining features is the landscape. Do the trees being removed or being planned impact or positively reflect the historic landscape features referenced in the Page & Turnbull (P&T) analysis? The DEIR does not analyze/address any of these 5 prior questions. 6) The DEIR states both that there are 3.25 acres or approximately 3.25 acres of land for open space and an affordable housing project. Which is it? 7) How much open space is required by code for the amount of development being proposed? 8) Will the 2.25 or approximate 2.25 acres of open space be dedicated as parkland according to the City’s park dedication ordnance? At the end of the 10 year 5     Packet Pg. 83     Development Agreement period will the parkland be subject to development or other use? 9) It appears the open space calculation includes the new street that is being introduced. Is this accurate and if so why? 10) It appears that the creek and creek bank are being included as part of the open space but what is the amount of open space being dedicated for parkland, and does it satisfy the amount of parkland required for the proposed project? 11) Assuming the affordable housing project is built for an unknown number of units/residents, how can it be determined if the amount of parkland is sufficient to satisfy code requirements for the number of new residents (townhomes and affordable housing units) combined? 12) Figure 2-2 indicates the area of Proposed Development will go all the way to the creek. If this is accurate or if development goes within the creek setback, that is a violation of code and an impact on the creek and that may include impacts to future migration routes after creek restoration. 13) Figure 2-2 in the DEIR and Figure 1 in the August 1 staff presentation differ significantly in depicting the open space configuration and location. Which is accurate? 2.5.4 Comments: Circulation, Access and Parking 1) The Historic evaluation of the Cannery property indicates one of the character defining features is the landscape and setting. Additionally, according to CEQA and the Secretary of Interior’s Standards determination of historic eligibility is based on not just the building but the setting, the context. The DEIR ignores this in its analysis, commenting on impacts as though the historic resource is the building and only the building. This should have been addressed in the DEIR and needs to be corrected. 2) Adding a new through street in front of the building is introducing a previously non- existing element. How does this satisfy the Secretary of Interior’s Standards. The P&T HRE states “…the overall shape and massing of 340 Portage Avenue and 3201-3225 Ash Street have been minimally altered since the end of their use as a cannery in 1949.” which is at the end of the period of significance. The DEIR does not analyze/address this issue. 3) Adding a parking structure behind the building is inconsistent with the context and setting. The DEIR does not analyze/address this questions or issues. 5     Packet Pg. 84     4) Adding a parking garage of unknown design is also a potential impact. Is it of a compatible design in consideration of the Cannery building? 5) Why is a parking structure, as opposed to one-level unenclosed parking, being added and why in this location so near the Cannery building? Again, it introduces another potential impact on the Cannery building that is unaddressed in the analysis. 6) What is the proposed one-story parking structure providing parking for….the R&D or the townhomes? It is on the same proposed parcel as the R&D. If any is for the townhomes, how will that provision be penned as it will be on a separate parcel? 7) How many parking spaces are being provided and are parking requirements satisfied for either the R&D and/or the townhomes? 8) How can an affordable housing project/building (mass, scale, etc) that has not been even preliminarily designed, be analyzed for traffic impacts? 4.2 Comments: Cultural Resources 1) The DEIR concludes multiple impacts to the Cannery property. And the DEIR indicates that the “renovation” to the remaining Cannery building does not satisfy the Secretary of Interior’s Standards. However, it does not consider there is a Cumulative Cultural Resources Impact as this one of the last remaining Cannery properties as part of the Valley of Hearts Delight. This is not considered in the DEIR. Why was this not considered/analyzed? “The building is a rare surviving example of Palo Alto’s and Santa Clara County’s agricultural past. As a result, the building at 340 Portage Avenue does appear to be individually significant at the local level under Criterion 1. The period of significance under this criterion begins in 1918, when canning operations began at the site under the Bayside Canning Company, and ends in 1949, when the Sutter Packing Company’s canning operations at the building ended.” Page 45 Page & Turnbull HRE 2) It should be made clear that the period of significance for the Cannery building “begins in 1918, when canning operations began at the site under the Bayside Canning Company, and ends in 1949, when the Sutter Packing Company’s canning operations at the building ended.” (Page 45 of P&T HRE) The additions and joining of the cannery buildings were all accomplished under the Sutter Company and during this period of significance. The character-defining features of the Cannery Building include its 5     Packet Pg. 85     • Long, linear massing • Composition of multiple smaller buildings • Primarily one-story, double-height volumes with taller central cannery section • Varied roof forms and structures None of the above character-defining features are included in the DEIR analysis but need to be included in the analysis as they are lost (impacts on the Cannery building) due to the proposed demolition. All of these features listed are impacted by the proposed development and need to be included and analyzed. 3) The building is eligible for the CA Register “Criterion 1 for its association with the history of the canning industry in Santa Clara County” and retains integrity in its Design, Materials, Workmanship. All of these are impacted by the demolition as part of the proposed project and need to be listed as impacts. 4) The DEIR finds significant impacts due to the amount of demolition (89,639 sq ft, approx. 40% of the building) that includes “removal of canning platforms, and cooling porches, and several character-defining features such as form and massing and varied roof forms and structures…Additionally, the proposed treatment of the building would not be consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards….including the introduction of new window and door openings, the addition of new canopies are not consistent with the building’s historic character and would obscure historic materials that characterize the property.” However, the DEIR does not consider the impacts according to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards as a result of a) the addition of a parking garage and its proximity to the canning platforms, cooling platforms and proximity to the remainder of the Cannery building. b) the mass, scale, location/proximity and design of the new proposed townhomes including its location in front of the remainder of the Cannery building (Fig 2-2). c) the mass, scale, location and design of the new affordable housing project including its location in front of the remainder of the Cannery building. All of the above need to be analyzed and included in the DEIR comment responses. 5) The staff presentation to the Council on August 1 states under Retail Space/Historic Preservation • Renovate Cannery Building • Consistent with Secretary of the Interior’s Standards • Consistent with CEQA Why are these assurances not represented by the proposed development in the DEIR? The DEIR confirms the proposed renovation of the remainder of the Cannery does not satisfy the Standards. Will the proposer be required to satisfy the assurances indicated in the staff presentation and listed again here? 5     Packet Pg. 86     6) It should be made clear that Mitigations CU-1 and CU-2, while commonly referred to as mitigations, do nothing to mitigate the loss of the historic resource as the building will still be significantly impacted by the demolition of 40% of the building and numerous other impacts both identified in the DEIR and herein and will no longer be eligible for the CA Register. 7) How can an affordable housing project/building (mass, scale, etc) that has not been even preliminarily designed, be analyzed for compatibility with or as an impact on the Cannery building? 6.4 Comments: Environmentally Superior Alternative and 6.2 Adaptive reuse of Eligible Resources for Housing 1) The DEIR remarkably concludes that a project that would preserve the Cannery building would have a significant and unavoidable impact on the historic building based on no evidence presented. “…because no development plans are available and it’s unclear whether proposed development would comply with the secretary of the interior’s standards for rehabilitation, this analysis conservatively assumes…” Rather than starting with preservation of the Cannery building using the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for historic properties as the basis for an alternative, the DEIR concludes that, in the absence of any drawings or other evidence, there will be a significant and unavoidable impact to the historic status of the Cannery. In other words, there is no analysis presented that could practically result in a conclusion. Nor is there an alternative that would satisfy the requirement of CEQA. “The range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by a ‘rule of reason’ that requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The alternatives shall be limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project” (15126.6[f]). (emphasis added) The alternative presented that “preserves” the Cannery starts, for unstated reason, by adding another story to the building which would in and of itself likely have a significant impact. There is no alternative presented that avoids the significant impact to the historic property as is required by CEQA. 2) What professional consultants and/or studies were performed that evaluated the feasibility of adaptive reuse of the building to inform what uses are feasible including structural, economic and preservation feasibility? Any studies used to evaluate these preservation alternative options should be provided. 5     Packet Pg. 87     3) What other uses were considered for adaptive reuse of the Cannery building besides housing? Alternatives do not necessitate housing as the use in the building. 4) What information was used to conclude another story would be necessarily added to the building? 5) Was housing within the Cannery and a single story addition to the Cannery building considered to reduce or eliminate impacts to the historic resource? 6) The Cannery is 232,383 sq. ft. with 142,744 sq. ft. now in R&D. Fry’s previously occupied 84,000 sq. ft. The 89,639 not currently in R&D use I the Cannery building should be studied to provide a) housing and b) housing and retail/services. What considerations were given to this/these alternatives? How many housing units could be created in that 89,639 sq ft of existing unutilized space? This information needs to be provided in order to understand the how the significant impacts might be avoided. 6a) What could be accomplished with a one-story housing addition at the back of the Cannery building or a detached low profile housing building using either to add to any housing that could be provided inside the Cannery building such that a significant impact might be avoided? 7) How many square feet are proposed in the new townhomes development? Why was this size and type of housing proposed as opposed to smaller units that could have eliminated or reduced impacts to the historic resource? No such alternative is presented. Questions 2-7 are a few examples but not an exhaustive list of questions that need to be answered to perform a preservation alternative to the proposed project that would avoid a significant impact to the Cannery. Again, reference the CEQA requirement for a preservation alternative that would reduce below the threshold of significant impact or that would eliminate the impact is required. Zoning comment: The proposal identifies Planned Community (PC) as the future zoning for at least some of the parcels proposed. 1) Which parcels will be governed by the PC ordinance? 2) Given the flexibility of that zoning, what will be the governing standards to provide assurance of maximum heights, minimum setbacks, e. g. as the project proceeds through the various design review steps to assure the project aligns with the environmental analysis and provides assurances to the community? 5     Packet Pg. 88     Timing/sequencing comment: It appears that the design review of the proposal will be conducted prior to the FEIR. What assurances are in place to assure that issues raised in the DEIR will not be for naught as the proposal goes through the design review process? Missing elements of the DEIR: The List of Preparers is the final entry in the DEIR. Missing are the Tables, Figures and Appendices. (Figure 2-2 that is referenced is provided on Page 2-3.) Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the DEIR. Karen Holman 5     Packet Pg. 89     City of Palo Alto Planning Department 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Hi, Claire, I have the following additional comments on the 200 Portage DEIR. Comment: Table 4.8-5 Intersection Operations under Existing and Existing Plus Project Conditions and Table 4.8-6 Intersection Operations under Background and Background Plus Project Conditions Tables indicate in several locations that the LOS is already at an F performance level. It does not, however, indicate the current seconds delay as is provided for the other LOS rated intersections and ratings. The current and future conditions both need to be provided to ascertain what the anticipated delays will be and if mitigations are warranted consistent on City policy. Why are these number not provided and please provide them. Comment: Areas of known controversy The DEIR does not include the preservation of the Cannery as an area of known controversy even though it was a common and high-profile topic of discussion at NVCAP Working Group meetings and in the community at large with a number of presentations about the Cannery, Thomas Foon Chew, and Bayside Cannery’s role in the canning industry as well as Mr. Chew as an important business man. See the P&T HRE for more information about Mr. Chew and the CA Register eligibility that were basis for these community presentations and Working Group discussions. Regards, Karen Holman 5     Packet Pg. 90     From:Arthur Keller To:Raybould, Claire Subject:Comments on Mitigated Negative Declaration/Draft Environmental Impact Report 200 Portage Date:Tuesday, November 15, 2022 4:19:51 PM You don't often get email from arthur@kellers.org. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. "Pursuant to Section 10564.5(b) of the CEQA guidelines a project may result in substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource if it causes physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired. Material impairment is defined as demolition or alteration “in an adverse manner [of] those characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion in, or eligibility for inclusion in, the [CRHR].”3 "Additional guidance on assessing impacts to historical resources is defined in Section 15064.5(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, states that impacts to historical resources are generally considered mitigated to a less than significant level when they meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (Secretary’s Standards) (Attachment 3). The Secretary’s Standards establish professional standards and provide guidance on the preservation and protection of historic properties. The intent of the Secretary’s Standards is to provide for the long-term preservation of a property’s significance through the preservation of its historic materials and features. These historic materials and features are commonly referred to as character-defining features and are indispensable in a historic property’s ability to convey the reasons for its historical significance. The Bayside Canning Company’s character-defining features were assessed by Page & Turnbull in their historic resource evaluation, as outlined above. To ensure a proposed project’s compliance with the Secretary’s Standards, a historic property’s character-defining features should therefore be identified and preserved as part of the final design. "In consideration of impacts to the 340 Portage Avenue property, the most substantial impact would occur through the demolition of 89,639 square-feet of the eastern portion of the Bayside Canning Company canning/warehouse building, constituting a loss of approximately 40 percent of the building. The proposed demolition would result in the removal of distinctive materials, the loss of several character-defining features, and would, therefore constitute material impairment to the historical resource. The proposed demolition would be in an adverse manner of those characteristics of the historical resource that convey its historical significance and justify its eligibility for listing in the CRHR. Additionally, the proposed treatment of the building would not be consistent with the Secretary’s Standards which recommends avoiding loss of historic materials through demolition and removal and encourages the retention of distinctive materials that characterize a property. The proposed would cause a loss of several of the the property’s character-defining features outlined above, including its form and masing and varied roof forms and structures through the proposed demolition. Additionally, the treatment proposed for the portion of the building that is to remain and be rehabilitated for continued use also does not meet the Standards. That Standards provide that the removal of distinctive materials should be avoided, alterations should not destroy historic materials, and that deteriorated features should be repaired or replaced in kind, where necessary. The proposed project includes the removal of distinctive materials like the character-defining exterior cannery features such as the loading platforms and cooling porches. The proposed changes to the building’s fenestration, most notably the addition of new window openings and the alterations to the entrances on the north and south elevations also do not meet the Standards. The addition of the proposed aluminum canopies above the entries and the proposed addition to the warehouse’s south elevation are not compatible with the warehouse’s historic character and would obscure historic materials that characterize the property and is, therefore, inconsistent with the Standards. Additionally, the proposed bisection of the canning/warehouse building would result in unknown and undefined treatment of a substantial portion of the building. The unidentified treatment of the remaining portion of the warehouse building could result in additional material impairment. Furthermore, the proposed demolition of the portion of the building included in project site would impair the building’s physical characteristics that convey the property’s historical significance such that the historic resource would not retain sufficient integrity for listing. "The goals of rehabilitation are to make possible the compatible new use of a historic property while preserving those portions or features that convey its historical, cultural, or architectural values. The project, as proposed, would result in material impairment to the resource and would not preserve the building’s historical value. The proposed project would result in substantial changes to the historic canning/warehouse building and would destroy distinctive materials, features, and spatial relationships that define its historic character. The partial demolition of the building and the proposed exterior updates would result in the removal of distinctive building materials. Finally, the proposed new additions and adjacent construction are proposed in a manner that requires the demolition of part of the historic building. If the proposed new construction were removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic building and its environment would be impaired and would not, therefore, meet the Standards. The proposed partial redevelopment of the warehouse building fails to meet the Standards for the reasons outlined above. The project as proposed would result in significant impact to a historical resource for the purposes of CEQA. "Recommendations 5     Packet Pg. 91     "To inform the alternatives analysis for CEQA compliance and identify measures to mitigate potential impacts, Rincon has provided the following recommendations. "In order to meet the Standards, thereby avoiding a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, the project would have to be redesigned to avoid subdivision of the historic resources on separate parcels as well as the partial demolition of the historic resource at 340 Portage Avenue. The buildings could be rehabilitated for a new use that would require minimal change to their distinctive features. For a successful rehabilitation, the design would have to retain the building’s character-defining features, as previously outlined.” Appendix C, pp. 17-19. "Alternative 2: Adaptive Reuse of Eligible Historic Resource for Housing "6.2.1 Description "Consistent with the City Council’s selected alternative for the NVCAP, Alternative 2 assumes that , the parcels across the project site would be merged and that development would occur across the entire project site, including parcels 132-38-071 and 132-32-036, -042, and -043, not just on the area of proposed development as identified in the description of the proposed project. The eligible historical resource at 200 Portage (also known as 340 Portage) would remain, would be increased in height to three stories, and the interior of the building would be developed with 281 residential units under this alternative. Although adaptive reuse would retain more of the historic integrity of the existing building by retaining it, it is unclear whether adaptive reuse of the building for housing could be completed in conformance with the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Treatment of in Section 6.2.2(b) below and further study may be required if this alternative is selected. "An additional residential townhome building up to 35 feet in height with 12 units would be constructed in the current parking area east of the 200 Portage building. Overall, this alternative assumes up to 293 residential units across the project site. The existing commercial space in the 200 Portage building would be reduced and only 7,400 square feet of commercial space would remain. The building at 3040 Park Boulevard and the auto uses east of Matadero Creek would not be demolished and would remain. Figure 6-1 shows the conceptual layout of this alternative. "Alternative 2 would meet most of the project objectives, though further study may be required into how this alternative could be achieved.” pp. 6-4 to 6-5 "6.4 Environmentally Superior Alternative "Table 6-9 indicates whether each alternative’s environmental impact is greater than, less than, or equivalent to that of the proposed project for each of the issue areas studied. Based on the alternatives analysis provided above, Alternative 1 (No Project) would be the environmentally superior alternative. However, Alternative 1 would not achieve the basic project objectives as stated in at the beginning of this section. This alternative does not involve housing development in the near term to help the City meet its housing supply and affordability goals and would not contribute towards the concept of a “complete neighborhood” consistent with the NVCAP. "Under Alternative 2 (Adaptive Reuse of Eligible Historic Resource for Housing), the CRHR-eligible building at 200 Portage would not be demolished. However, because no development plans are available and it’s unclear whether proposed development would comply with the secretary of the interior’s standards for rehabilitation, this analysis conservatively assumes that impacts related to cultural resources would remain significant and unavoidable. But it is assumed to be less impactful than the proposed project because demolition of a portion of the building would not occur. Because this alternative would result in fewer vehicle trips than the proposed project, associated impacts including air quality, energy, GHG emissions, and traffic noise would be reduced compared to the proposed project and would remain less than significant, the same as the proposed project. Alternative 2 would meet most of the objectives for the 200 Portage Avenue project. However, as with the proposed project, Alternative 2 may conflict with the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan since an enhanced bikeway traversing the site is not included as part of the project description or site plans. Implementation of Mitigation Measure T-1 would still be required to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. "Under Alternative 3 (Development Agreement), a portion of the CRHR-eligible building at 200 Portage would still be demolished and the unavoidably significant impact related to cultural resources would occur. Alternative 3 would meet all the objectives of the 200 Portage Avenue project. Although it would increase the number of housing units from 91 to 149, and accordingly would result in increased air quality, energy, noise and GHG emissions, the net new total emissions for air quality and GHG would still be below BAAQMD thresholds, and impacts related to air quality, energy, GHG emissions, and noise would be less than significant. Additionally, Alternative 3 would include a provision dedicating land to the City and a public easement for ingress/egress across the identified area for an enhanced bikeway. Because this would be documented in the Development Agreement and is therefore part of the proposed project, Mitigation Measure T-1 would no longer be required and impacts on transportation would be less than significant without mitigation. "Although none of the Alternatives (other than the No Project Alternative) would reduce the significant and unavoidable impact on a 5     Packet Pg. 92     historic resource to a less than significant level, because Alternative 2 would slightly reduce impacts related to air quality, energy, GHG emissions, and traffic noise, and transportation in comparison to proposed project and Alternative 3, Alternative 2 would be considered the Environmentally Superior Alternative.” pp. 6-20 to 6-21 Alternative 2 must be studied in order to determine whether the alternative development meeting most of the project alternatives can be built while retaining the features of the historic building. A delay in approving the project must occur in order to allow such a study to occur. 5     Packet Pg. 93     From:Jeff Levinsky To:Raybould, Claire Subject:DEIR Comments for 200 Portage Avenue Date:Monday, November 14, 2022 10:45:28 PM You don't often get email from jeff@levinsky.org. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Claire: Here are some questions for the DEIR: 1. Page 2-4 cites 18.70.030(b)(2)(E). Should that be 18.70.070(b)(2)(E)? 2. Is it correct that City staff’s interpretation of the current Municipal Code has been that the legal options on the main site are RM-30 use (the underlying zoning) or the ratio of retail, research and development, warehouse, and storage uses as existed when special rule 18.70.070(b)(2)(E) for the site was enacted? 3. Does the proposed project comply with these two options? 4. Would even a change in parcel lines be able to bring all of the resulting parcels into compliance with staff’s interpretation? In particular, even if one parcel were all RM-30, is it correct that the other would have acres of research and development without the retail space required to balance that? 5. The DEIR says, “The proposed project would not require amendments to the City’s Comprehensive Plan or the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC).” However, with the non-complaint research and development space, won’t the proposed project require amending the Municipal Code.to be legal? In particular, won’t 18.70.070(b)(2)(E) need to be modified or repealed to allow the research and development space to remain? 6. Why is this issue not listed under “Areas of Known Controversy” in the DEIR, given that the parcel owner has objected in writing to the staff’s interpretation of the municipal code? 7. Is a project that will not comply with allowed uses under our zoning laws eligible to use SB 330? 8. If this project is eligible to submit under SB 330, why can’t the City reject it as non-compliant with the current zoning laws based on the proposed mix of uses? 9. Can the density bonus the applicant hopes to use to increase the FAR overcome the non- compliance with the site usage? If so, how would that work? 10. Are any parcel line changes discretionary, especially as they would make the remaining portion of the cannery building less compliant with the allowed uses? 5     Packet Pg. 94     11. The DEIR says on page ES-2 that, “On the eastern boundary of the project site at 3250 Park Boulevard and 276 Lambert Avenue are one-story office and accessory buildings.” Isn’t 3250 Park Boulevard most recently an auto repair facility? Note that Table 6-1 of the DEIR itself calls it “Auto Care Center space,” which is not the same as “office.” 12. Table 4.6-1 of the DEIR evaluates “Project Consistency with the City of Palo Alto 2030 Comprehensive Plan.” However, is it correct that the table omits all mention of Comprehensive Plan Goal L-7, which is entitled “Conservation and preservation of Palo Alto’s historic buildings, sites and districts?” 13. Furthermore, some policies from Comprehensive Plan Goal L-7 are on page 4.2-6 of the DEIR but not all. Why was policy L-7.8 “Promote adaptive reuse of old buildings” omitted? 14. Why was Comprehensive Plan Policy L-7.11 omitted? In particular, it requires that proposed exterior alterations to designated Historic Landmarks make findings that the changes comply with the Secretary of the Interior standards. Although the two historic buildings on the site are not currently designated Historic Landmarks, the DEIR indicates they are eligible. Demolishing part of a historic structure seems like an exterior alteration – in fact, a rather extreme one. 15. Why was Comprehensive Plan Policy L-7.12 omitted? 16. Why was Comprehensive Plan Policy L-7.13 omitted? 17. Given the above, how does the DEIR conclude in its discussion immediately after Table 4.6-1 that the project is compatible with the Comprehensive Plan when (a) relevant parts of the Comprehensive Plan are missing from that table and (b) the project does not appear to comply with Comprehensive Plan Goal L-7, which calls for conservation and preservation of Palo Alto’s historic buildings and sites? 18. The Comprehensive Plan and Municipal Code both call for inclusionary housing. Under Alternative 3, will there be inclusionary housing among the townhomes? 19. The plans for the ARB dated August 12, 2022 on page A1.0.2 say that the parking needed for the “office” space is 476 spaces, based on one per 300 square feet. However, Table 1 in 18.52.040 of the Municipal Code, which the plans cite, seems to say that required parking in RM-20 is one per 250 square feet for Administrative, Medical, Professional, and General Business Offices. What is the explanation for the discrepancy? 20. If the answer is that the space to be parked is for Research and Development, as it requires only one space per 250 square feet, then shouldn’t the DEIR say that explicitly, as Research and Development is not an office use? That is, the DEIR seems wrong to say the cannery building will house offices and instead should say that the building will house only Research and Development (along with retail) – and that an office use such as a legal, accounting or non-profit firm could not presumably occupy the building because parking would be insufficient. 21. On this same topic, how does the City determine that a tenant’ use is Research and Development vs. an office use? Are these rules clearly established and enforced? There is a concern that a 5     Packet Pg. 95     firm in the cannery building is dubbed Research and Development, but were it to move to a zone that doesn’t allow that use, it is then dubbed an office use. 22. The DEIR says “Alternative 2 may conflict with the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan since an enhanced bikeway traversing the site is not included as part of the project description or site plans.” Why would it not be able to have an enhanced bikeway? 23. Why is a third floor needed for Alternative 2? 24. What would be the approximate average residence size in the cannery building if no third floor is added under Alternative 2? 25. In Alternative 3, a large parking garage would be built between the cannery building and the homes on Olive. What about putting homes where the garage would be built and converting the portion of the cannery building thaw would be demolished under Alternative 3 into parking and personal storage area for residents? The cannery building would likely allow for more than one level of parking in places and little to no exterior modifications would be needed. 2,600 square feet of the building could still be converted to retail space, and that space would front onto Park, which would be more pedestrian-friendly than Alternative 3’s plan to place it behind the condominiums. Trees could be used to screen the homes on Olive from the new housing that would be their rear neighbors. 26. Would this variant to Alternative 3 be more consistent with Goal L-7? 27. How would this variant to Alternative 3 differ in number of housing units from Alternative 3? 28. Does Table 6-1 on DEIR page 6-2 clearly distinguish between proposals that would demolish part of the cannery and ones that won’t? 29. Where that table says Alternative 2 would remove R&D and warehouse space, should it instead say that it would preserve the entire building but convert the space in the building to new uses? 30. Can the impacts on the jobs/housing imbalance for the different alternatives be added to that table? 31. What are the criteria for listing items in the section called “Areas of Known Controversy?” 32. Considerable controversy has existed in Palo Alto over special zoning granted to individual projects. These grants have been known as PCs, development agreements, and spot zoning. The controversy instigated a cover story in a local newspaper and the Council subsequently opted to cease granting PCs. They later brought PCs back in a limited way for housing projects but have not been encouraging even those in and near existing residential areas. Since the proposed project, Alternative 1, and Alternative 3 would require continuation of R&D uses on an RM-30 lot, which is likely a major concession to the owner of the property, why is that not listed under “Areas of Known Controversy?” 33. Furthermore, in response to the many criticisms of special zoning, council members asked that 5     Packet Pg. 96     future proposals be accompanied by an economic analysis of the benefits to the public versus those to the developer. Shouldn’t the absence of that analysis for this project be listed under “Areas of Known Controversy?” 34. Palo Alto was also criticized several years ago by the Santa Clara County Grand Jury for entering into non-public discussions of potentially substantial benefits being granted to private developers. The 27 University project, which was scuttled once the public and press found out about it, was in particular called out by the Grand Jury report. Why aren’t the private negotiations associated with this project, which the public had no ability to follow or comment on, listed under “Areas of Known Controversy?” 35. Can EIRs include analyses of the public and private benefits that will accrue from proposed developments? 36. Does any law preclude Palo Alto from conducting such a financial analysis and making it public? 37. Is it correct that the traffic analysis modeled future nearby traffic using a city annual growth rate of 1.62% for morning peak hour traffic and 1.58% for evening peak hour traffic (per page 12 of Appendix H)? 38. Is that rate of growth cited in Appendix H consistent with the NVCAP plan projecting 670 housing units compared to the 142 that exist now in North Ventura and no actual reduction in R&D and other office uses? I appreciate that some of that growth in housing units will occur on the project site itself, but by no means all. 39. Is the rate of growth cited in Appendix H consistent with office size shrinkage, which increases the number of workers even when office space is not increasing? 40. Is the rate of growth cited in Appendix H consistent with the overall RHNA goals for Palo Alto to add over 6,000 residences? 41. Is the rate of growth cited in Appendix H consistent with the nearby projects listed in Table 3-1? 42. Although the discussion above Table 3-1 says, “These projects are considered in the cumulative analyses in Section 4, Environmental Impact Analysis,” are they actually included in the traffic analysis? 43. Can traffic analysis use external growth rates derived from plans for the immediate surrounding area rather than city-wide? That is, many parts of Palo Alto are low-density residential and likely have very low rates of traffic growth. Other parts of the city have new office buildings, densified offices, new hotels, and/or new multi-unit housing and likely are experiencing much faster traffic growth. Thank you! Jeff Levinsky 5     Packet Pg. 97     From:Rebecca Sanders To:Raybould, Claire Cc:Lait, Jonathan Subject:Comments of the DEIR for 200 Portage Date:Tuesday, November 15, 2022 10:28:15 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Ms. Raybould: Please find my comments and questions concerning the DEIR for the proposed development at 200/340 Portage. An overarching concern I have is the dismissing of Alternative 2 with no numbers, comparison or analysis provided. Thank you. Becky Sanders 1. Regarding 4.2-12 Impact CUL-1, the proposal would “involve partial demolition” of the cannery building. We don’t have to lose this significant resource if we explore Adaptive Reuse. Why has there been no serious consideration of this option? Why no studies done? Why is this option being ignored when it should, by law, I believe. be as deeply studied as the third alternative with results included in the DEIR? 2. Regarding 4.4.2 Impact Analysis: When we examine all projects proposed for this area of Palo Alto, doesn’t it make sense to work to minimize all environment impacts for each project thereby bringing down the considerable cumulative impacts on climate change.? We just had a Climate Summit at Gunn High School this past weekend. We want to model reduce, reuse, and recycle. Again, why is there no study for adaptive reuse for this building when it is environmentally more favorable of the two, and when climate action is a stated core value of Palo Alto? 3. Table 4.4.2 p. 4.4.16 a. This math doesn’t add up as expected, please explain what appears to be 388-40=377 b. The proposed project will reduce annual emissions of MTCO2e from 2 (existing use) to 0, but we are adding people and new homes to the site. Is this realistic? How will this decrease in energy use be accomplished when we have intensified uses at the site? A decrease seems counterintuitive. Please explain. 4. Regarding P 4.5-8 - The site’s toxicity is well-known, but the extent to which the 5     Packet Pg. 98     site is suitable for excavation which exposes highly toxic chemicals is not known. Shouldn’t significant ground studies including soil and water analyses be undertaken to make sure that the exact nature of the threats to humans are understood? Diffusion of toxic vapors is almost a certainty. Other hazards like the possible deterioration of underground storage tanks also have not been studied. Excavating and construction of underground parking garages might well expose workers and future residents continuously to toxins. The EIR should not be deemed complete until we know the toxicity levels we are dealing with. I believe that construction has come to a standstill at the old Foot Locker site for just these reasons. Please don’t break ground without conducting comprehensive toxicity studies complete with recommendations for protecting workers and residents at the site. 5. Policy N.2-10 How many trees exactly are being proposed to be removed? How many protected trees are on the site and how many will be removed under current proposal.? Could we see a comparison of tree removal and retention between the as- yet to be done Adaptive Reuse Design and the Proposal before us? I assume that fewer heritage trees and protected trees will be removed if we adopt the more environmentally friendly approach to developing this site. Please provide the comparison chart and the exact numbers of trees removed. 6. Regarding Section 4.8-6, report page 187 – According to the Highway Design Manual, Caltrans, 2017, El Camino, Page Mill and Park Boulevard are classified as “Class II Bike Lane - A striped and signed lane for one-way bike travel on a street or highway.” a. The Class II implies that El Camino is just as safe as Park Boulevard which it observably is not. Have any studies been done on bicycle traffic along ECR versus Park? Bicyclists do ride mostly on the sidewalk on ECR from my own observation and my personal experience jumping out of the way of cyclists as I happen to live nearby and walk this area. I don’t resent the kids on the sidewalk; although I wish I could guarantee my own safety. Biking on ECR is hazardous, so to imply that this is a bikeway is misleading. b. Park Blvd has a bike lane but is still dangerous as we have a preponderance of cars and RVs parked up and down in the Bike Lane at all hours. Park Boulevard is supposed to be a “Bike Boulevard”, improvements to which bike commuters and Venturans have been waiting for years. This EIR should not misrepresent or glorify biking conditions near the proposed site along Park Boulevard or ECR. c. Additionally, having Portage accommodate cars from ECR all the way to 5     Packet Pg. 99     Park hands Ventura another cut-through traffic nightmare. Cars going through on Portage is not what the NVCAP working group recommended for the site. Having a bikeway or pedestrian way on Portage is preferred by residents. Why not have new families reach the site via Park Boulevard and Page Mill, and direct traffic away from ECR and Page Mill, the worst intersection in Palo Alto? Please perform a study of traffic patterns modeling this more people friendly use of Portage. 7. Regarding Policy T-5.1: I do not understand this sentence: “As demonstrated parking demand decreases over time, parking requirements for new construction should decrease.” What proof can the EIR cite to support this claim? 8. Regarding Policy T-5.6 which promotes “the use of below-grade or structured parking… where feasible,”, I challenge the feasibility of providing underground parking that relies on excavating a toxic site. Again, please perform in-depth toxicity studies as part of the Environmental Impact Report. We want to provide a safe environment in which families will live safely. 9. Regarding Section 4.8-12, Report P.195, it is noted that “no trip credits for the Research and Development or warehouse uses were applied since their size and function is anticipated to remain unchanged from existing conditions. As shown in Table 4.8-3, the proposed project could generate up to 596 daily vehicle trips, including 40 during the a.m. peak hour and 47 during the p.m. peak hour.” Where can we see the Research and Development trip numbers? Why omit the total number of trips? Why include only the residential use? Don’t we require a TDM? The report doesn’t say what the TDM will be? Will the TDM apply to the housing or the office use or both? How will it be reported and enforced? 10. Regarding Section 4.8-14, Report p. 197, the “project is located within a 0.5-mile walk to VTA bus stops for routes 22, 89, 522, Rapid 522, Express 101, Express 102, and Express 103, and is located approximately 0.6 miles away from the nearest Dumbarton Express Route DB1…therefore, the project would be adequately served by transit.” The buses do not run often enough nor connect with other buses to make bus service in North Santa Clara County along ECR a meaningful and reliable way to get to work. These buses should not be included here, or at least if they are, should be qualified as not expected to contribute significantly to car trips reduction, as is currently implied. This is misleading and not accurate. 11. Regarding Tables 4.8-5, 6 & 8: 5     Packet Pg. 100     a. Traffic delays will increase during peak morning and evening hours in the area, but by nearly 10% during peak evening hours at and around the City’s worst intersection, Page Mill & ECR. This intersection goes from E+ in the mornings to E in the evenings. Is a 10% delay not considered significant enough to drop this intersection to an F? b. Other intersections go from “A” to “B.” What can be done to mitigate this downward trend? c. Please provide the numbers underlying each “**”. It is hard to compare the numbers when up to a tenth of the data can’t be known or is defined as more than 120 seconds delay. Please show us the true numbers. d. Could you please define “background conditions?” e. Please provide a TDM for the proposed project. f. Please provide a TDM for Alternative 2. g. Please provide a side-by-side comparison of the TDMs for the two alternatives. 12. Regarding Report p. 200, “The project would therefore conflict with the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan and Countywide Trails Plan since an enhanced bikeway traversing the site is not included as part of the project description or site plans. This impact would be potentially significant.” Portage should not be extended for cars, only for bikes and pedestrians. One of the values stated by the NVCAP working group was for a walkable, bikeable neighborhood. This proposal goes in the wrong direction, preferring cars to people and bikes. 13. Regarding Section 4.9.9 a. “Therefore, the ratio of urban parks to residents in the City is 2.6 acres of parkland for every 1,000 residents…” Please provide a parkland-to-resident ratio for Ventura only, which will help us see the immediate impact of the project on Ventura. Will this project lower or raise the ratio of parks to people in Ventura? b. “The park closest to the project site is Peers Park” – correction: the closest park in Boulware 14. Regarding p.234, Alternative 3 is a “well-designed ownership residential townhome project that adds diversity to the City of Palo Alto's ownership housing supply and will meet a variety of residents' needs by providing a mix of 3- and 4- bedroom units to meet the needs of families.” a. Please define “diversity” in this context b. Will there be inclusionary housing within the boundaries of the town home 5     Packet Pg. 101     complex in accordance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan? c. Will the inclusionary units have the same design and layout and materials as the market rate units? d. There is some discussion of the applicant donating some amount of property for a below market rate development and parkland. i. How will this land be divided between parkland and homes? ii. This will be in addition to including inclusionary housing in the Town Home complex, yes? iii. Shouldn’t the townhome project be tied to this BMR and park expansion project in some way, whereby plans for both are discussed. 15. Regarding Alternative 2: Adaptive Reuse of Eligible Historic Resource for Housing 6.2.1 a. Alternative 2 is “consistent with the City Council’s selected alternative for the NVCAP", therefore, why is there no comprehensive DEIR data with comparison tables included as part of this report? b. Wouldn’t adding a third story to the Cannery building also negatively impact the Cannery’s eligibility for inclusion as a registered California Historic Resource? c. “Although adaptive reuse would retain more of the historic integrity of the existing building by retaining it, it is unclear whether adaptive reuse of the building for housing could be completed in conformance with the Secretary of the Interior Standards, etc.” i. Why is it unclear? The answer can be found by checking in with the Secretary of the Interior. Please make this clear and include a comprehensive study of Alternative 2 as part of the EIR ii. Why has no design been brought forward for adaptive reuse of the Cannery building as is, without affecting height or footprint. This report circles around this topic but provides no data to prove or disprove feasibility of Adaptive Reuse. We have no costs, no impacts, no comparison tables presented to help us compare and evaluate Alternative 2 with Alternative 3. Therefore, this DEIR is incomplete and must include as much detail on Alternative 2 as is offered for Alternative 3 iii. “Alternative 2 would meet most of the project objectives, though further study may be required into how this alternative could be achieved.” – Exactly, please proceed with further study to demonstrate how this alternative could be achieved, 5     Packet Pg. 102     iv. I believe it is considered best practices to begin with an alternative that would satisfy the Secretary’s requirements and to proceed from there v. It makes no sense to say that Alternative 2 can’t be done or shouldn’t be done without data to support such a claim. 16. Regarding Report Page 244, h. Transportation a. “Alternative 2 would involve construction and operation of more housing units compared to the proposed project, includes a 7,400-sf retail component, and removes 142,744 sf of R&D uses.” More housing is a good thing, consistent with our Housing goals. Less R&D is a good thing as the net will help reduce the city’s jobs/housing imbalance, correct? So, this is a desirable outcome, correct? b. “Since construction would not involve demolition and would include adaptive reuse of the existing building on site, trips generated from construction would be reduced compared to the proposed project.” Another bonus here is we will be engaging in the environmentally sounder of the projects vis a vis construction practices, less soil removal, less pollution, etc. This is a desirable outcome, correct? c. “Operation of Alternative 2 would result in an increased number of residential trips… the project would result in an estimated 24 new PM peak hour trips and a net reduction in AM peak hour trips since the new housing and retail would replace existing R&D and warehouse uses…” It goes without saying that more homes will generate more residential trips. Is this piece of the report suggesting that we should not build more housing (Alternative 2) because it will result in more residential trips. Wouldn’t the impacts of this traffic pattern be studied in a TDM? When will a TDM for both alternatives be produced so that we can compare the two? 5     Packet Pg. 103     From:holzemer/hernandez To:Raybould, Claire Subject:DEIR Comments, 200 Portage Date:Tuesday, November 15, 2022 4:57:21 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Claire, Below are my DEIR questions that I would like responses to: 1) 2.5.5 Trees -- why is a need to remove so many mature trees on the property for development? There should be effort made to remove less trees, especially mature ones that have been growing for maybe tens or hundreds of years. The proposed replacement trees are not identified, nor are they listed where they would be placed. Why is there no information on either the type of replacement trees nor the potential growing period of these trees or how quickly they could replace the existing mature trees. Why isn't there any involvement by the public in deciding why these trees should be kept or destroyed? 2) 3.3 Cumulative Development -- Why was there no cumulative analysis done that included the 231 Grant Avenue project, which will be built less than a mile from 200 Portage? This is a project clearly on the development map to be built in the next few years and it is totally ignored in the DEIR. Why? 3) 4.2 Historical Preservation of the current Cannery building. -- Under the City's own 2030 Comprehensive Plan, there are several questions to ask: 1) Under Policy L-7.1, it's states that the City should encourage (not discourage) public and private upkeep and preservation of resources that have historic merit." If this is so, why is the City not supporting the fact that 340 Portage is a valuable historic resource that should be preserved? All facts point to this building be of historic and regional importance, just as the HP Garage is today -- Why isn't this building on the City's own Historic Registry? There is no excuse for it not being there. 4) 4.2 Changes to the remaining Cannery building, after demolition -- how would modifying the existing, remaining cannery building (after 40% is demolished) effect the historic features or future historic status of the building? How does the idea of adding skylights, gable windows and new corrugated siding, which was not present in the original structure, change the historical status? 5) Demolition of 40% of a historic resource -- explain why does this destroys the historic status of this building? What protections would the remaining building have after the demolition is complete, if any? 6) 4.6, Land Use & Planning -- under Table 4.6.4, Project Consistency with the NVCAP vision. The table does not accurately reflect the goals and work done that the NVCAP Working Group, which I was a member of, for two years. Why is there no mention or effort to include the work or goals of the Working Group or what we stated in our final report to Council. No office development in this neighborhood, retail that is neighborhood serving, truly affordable housing (below 120 AMI) for those who need it most in our community, and the infrastructure to go with it. Why were these objectives, which we outlined to City Council and Staff not included in your analysis? 5     Packet Pg. 104     7) 4.8 Transportation -- Why was there no cumulative analysis done of the various project or planned projects in the area, especially regarding the one intersection which is largely impacted by commuter traffic now -- Park & Page Mill? Often this intersection has delays for traffic going down Park to get on to Oregon Expressway. With the new Public Safety Building, the proposed 231 Grant project, the 123 Sherman building, and several other commercial buildings along Park, how will traffic be handled at this one bottleneck intersection, which is already seeing traffic return from Pandemic days? These projects are not included in the Cumulative Traffic Analysis and need to be. 8) 6.2, Adaptive Reuse. This is the best alternative, but it not clear or explained why there is a need for a third story on a historic building? Would you put a second or third story on the HP Garage? There are ways to adaptively reuse the Cannery building for housing, without increasing height. if you say, it is "unclear" as to whether you could adapt the building in conformance with the Interior's Standards, then why are you not studying it? Explain why this study is not being done now? 9) Lack of Traffic Control Plan -- I don't know where this is outlined, if anywhere, in the DEIR. During construction, Park Blvd. is likely going to be the main entrance/exitway to project site, given that El Camino Real is a major thoroughfare and traffic impacts must be kept at a minimum. However, what is the Traffic Control Plan for Park Blvd,, who will manage it, and it must have community involvement, especially for those Ventura and Mayfield residents who use Park Blvd. on a regular basis. Where is this plan, who will administer it and who do residents report complaints to? 10) Hazardous Materials Plan -- How will residents be notified of hazardous materials/chemical exposure during construction? It's clear this site is near a Federal Super Fund site where exposure to chemicals used in the manufacture of silicon chips are present. If construction exposed the air or water to these hazards, how will residents know or be informed about that exposure and health impacts. No plan is outlined or identified in the DEIR. 5     Packet Pg. 105     If you need assistance reviewing the above documents, please contact the Project Planner or call the Planner-on-Duty at 650-617-3117 or email planner@cityofpaloalto.org 3 5 1 Attachment H Project Plans In order to reduce paper consumption, a limited number of hard copy project plans are provided to Boardmembers for their review. The same plans are available to the public, at all hours of the day, via the following online resources. Environmental Document An Environmental Impact Report has been prepared for the 200 Portage Avenue Townhome Project in accordance with the authority and criteria of the California Environmental Quality Act. The 3200 Park Boulevard Development Agreement was evaluated as Alternative 3 in the Draft EIR. This document was made available for a 60-day circulation period beginning September 16, 2022 and ending on November 15, 2022. Directions to review Project plans and environmental documents online: 1. Go to: bit.ly/PApendingprojects 2. Scroll down to find “200 Portage Avenue” or “3200 Park Boulevard” and click the address link 3. On these webpages you will find a link to the project plans for the 200 Portage Avenue Townhome Project and the 3200 Park Boulevard Development Agreement Alternative accordingly. As well as other important information Direct Link to 200 Portage Avenue Townhome Project Webpage: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/News-Articles/Planning-and-Development-Services/200-Portage- Avenue Direct link to the 3200 Park Boulevard Development Agreement Alternative Webpage: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/News-Articles/Planning-and-Development-Services/3200-Park- Boulevard 5     Packet Pg. 106     340 Portage Avenue Research and Development Transportation Demand Management Plan Prepared for: City of Palo Alto on Behalf of The Sobrato Organization August 8, 2022 Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Hexagon Office: 100 Century Center Court, Suite 501 San Jose, CA 95112 Hexagon Job Number: 22GB24 Phone: 408.971.6100 Client Name: The Sobrato Organization 5     Packet Pg. 107     340 Portage Avenue TDM August 8, 2022 Table of Contents 1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1 2. Existing Transportation Facilities and Services ............................................................................... 5 3. Proposed TDM Measures ............................................................................................................... 9 4. TDM Implementation, Monitoring, and Reporting ......................................................................... 14 List of Tables Table 1 Trip Generation Table ............................................................................................................ 4 Table 2 Existing Transit Services ........................................................................................................ 6 Table 3 TDM Measures and Responsibilites .................................................................................... 10 List of Figures Figure 1 Project Site Location .............................................................................................................. 2 Figure 2 Site Plan ................................................................................................................................. 3 Figure 3 Existing Transit Services ........................................................................................................ 7 Figure 4 Exisiting Bicycle Facilities ...................................................................................................... 8 Appendices Appendix A Santa Clara County VMT Evaluation Tool Report 5     Packet Pg. 108     340 Portage Avenue TDM August 8, 2022 P a g e | 1 1. Introduction This transportation demand management (TDM) plan has been prepared for the research and development project located at 340 Portage Avenue in Palo Alto, California. TDM is a combination of services, incentives, facilities, and actions that reduce single-occupant vehicle (SOV) trips to help relieve traffic congestion, parking demand, and air pollution problems. The purpose of this TDM plan is to propose effective and appropriate TDM measures that would satisfy the City’s requirement of a 15 percent reduction in vehicle trips. Project Description The project site is located on Portage Avenue between El Camino Real and Park Boulevard (see Figure 1). The project is an existing building that would be occupied with 143,000 square feet of research and development space. The project would provide 405 parking spaces and 48 bicycle parking spaces allocated to the building on site. The project site plan is shown on Figure 2. Project Trip Generation and Trip Reduction Target Trip generation resulting from the development is estimated using the trip rates published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) Trip Generation Manual 11th Edition (2021). Trips that would be generated by the proposed project were estimated using the ITE trip rates for “Research and Development Center” (Land Use Code 760). The ITE Trip Generation Manual describes Research and Development Center as a facility or group of facilities devoted almost exclusively to research and development activities, and are typically used for projects such as this that include a combination of office and labortory space. Based on the published trip rates, the project is expected to generate 147 trips during the AM peak hour and 140 trips during the PM peak hour (see Table 1). With the required minimum 15 percent trip reduction through TDM, the vehicle trips generated by the project should not exceed 125 trips during the AM peak hour and 119 trips during the PM peak hour. 5     Packet Pg. 109     Palo Alto 82 Park B l v d Ash S t El C a m i n o R e a l Ore g o n E x p y Brya n t S t Em e r s o n S t Ram o n a S t Oli v e A v e Birc h S t Gra n t A v e Sou t h C t Pa g e M i l l R d Ac a c i a A v e Lam b e r t A v e Sh e r i d a n Av e Fe r n a n d o A v e Ma r g a r i t a A v e Orin d a S t Sh e r m a n A v e Ha n sen W a y Mata d e r o Av e High S t Ch e s t n u t A v e Ore g o n A v e Wav e r l e y S t Pe p p e r A v e Po r t a g e A v e S C a l i f o r n i a A v e Alm a S t Colo r a d o A v e Birc h S t Hig h S t Ash S t Park B l v d Ash S t = Site Location LEGEND California Avenue Caltrain Station 340 Portage Avenue TDM Figure 1 Project Site Location 5     Packet Pg. 110     340 Portage Avenue TDM Figure 2 Site Plan PA R K B O U L E V A R D STREET B STREET A ST R E E T C BLD G 1 BLD G 2 BLD G 3 BLD G 4 BLD G 5 BLD G 6 BLD G 7 BLD G 8 BLD G 1 2 BLD G 1 1 BLD G 1 0 BLD G 9 LAMBERT AVE AS H S T R E E T AS H S T R E E T PORTAGE AVE BIR C H S T R E E T PARCEL 1 3.94 ACPARCEL 3 6.18 AC PARCEL 5 0.77 AC PARCEL 4 0.42 AC PARCEL 2 3.25 AC 5     Packet Pg. 111     340 Portage Avenue TDM August 8, 2022 P a g e | 4 Table 1 Trip Generation Table TDM Goal The TDM plan should reduce the peak hour trips by a minimum of 15 percent. The TDM plan will be monitored through employee surveys and driveway counts to determine if the peak hour trips are being reduced by 15 percent. Annual monitoring reports will be provided to the City for the first five years after occupancy and afterwards at the City’s request. Land Use Size Units Rate1 Trips Rate1 In Out Trips Rate1 In Out Trips Proposed Uses Research and Development 2 143,000 s.f.11.08 1,584 1.03 121 26 147 0.98 22 118 140 TDM Reduction (15%)3 (238) (18) (4) (22) (3) (18) (21) Trip Generation Goal 1,346 103 22 125 19 100 119 Note: s.f. = square feet Source: ITE Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition 2021. 1 2 3 The project would be required to meet a 15 percent trip reduction set by the City of Palo Alto staff for this project. Rate expressed in trips per 1,000 s.f. for Research and Development. Daily PM Peak-HourAM Peak-Hour Average rates used for Research and Development Center (Land Use 760). 5     Packet Pg. 112     340 Portage Avenue TDM August 8, 2022 P a g e | 5 2. Existing Transportation Facilities and Services Transportation facilities and services that support sustainable modes of transportation include buses and shuttles, commuter rail, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities. This chapter describes existing facilities and services near the project site that would support the TDM measures described in this plan. Transit Services Existing transit services in the project area are provided by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) and Caltrain. VTA operates bus and light-rail transit (LRT) services in Santa Clara County. The VTA bus routes in the project vicinity and the bus stops near the project site are summarized in Table 2 and shown on Figure 3. Caltrain Commuter rail service between San Francisco and Gilroy is provided by Caltrain. Caltrain provides service with approximately 30-minute headways during the weekday AM and PM commute hours to the California Avenue station, which is located approximately ½ mile north of the project site. The Palo Alto station is a stop for the Caltrain local and limited lines. Weekday service is provided from approximately 5:00 AM to 1:00 AM in the northbound directions and from approximately 6:00 AM to 1:45 AM in the southbound direction. 5     Packet Pg. 113     340 Portage Avenue TDM August 8, 2022 P a g e | 6 Table 2 Existing Transit Services Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities A network of sidewalks is present along the streets in the immediate vicinity of the project site, including Portage Avenue, El Camino Real, and Park Boulevard. Crosswalks are provided at El Camino Real/Portage Avenue and El Camino Real/Hansen Way near the project site. The surrounding area includes residential and commercial uses, and most of the streets include sidewalks that have good connectivity and provides pedestrians with safe routes to transit services and other points of interest in the project vicinity. The existing bicycle facilities within the study area are listed below and shown on Figure 4. • Striped Class II bike lanes on Park Boulevard, Hansen Way, and Page Mill Road • Class III bike lanes on California Avenue, Bryant Street, Margarita Avenue and Park Boulevard from Lambert Avenue to Margarita Avenue The City of Palo Alto 2030 Comprehensive Plan shows proposed bicycle facilities within the project vicinity. These locations are listed below and shown on Figure 4. • Class II bicycle lane on El Camino Real from Page Mill Road/Oregon Expressway to Maybell Avenue, • Enhanced Class II bikeway on Portage Avenue, Hansen Way, and California Avenue • Class III shared arterial on Page Mill Road/Oregon Expressway from El Camino Real to St Francis Drive, • Class III bicycle boulevard on Margarita Avenue, • Class III shared arterial on Alma Street, • Class I multi-use pathway on Matadero Canal, Headways1 Route Route Description (minutes) VTA Bus Route Frequent Rapid Route 522 Palo Alto Transit Center - Eastridge Transit Center 5:20 AM - 11:15 PM 30 El Camino Real and California Avenue 0.5 mile Frequent Route 22 Palo Alto Transit Center - Eastridge Transit Center 4:00 AM - 1:30 AM 30 El Camino Real and Portage Avenue El Camino Real and Hansen Way 1,000 feet 1,300 feet Caltrain Caltrain Gilroy - San Francisco 5:00 AM - 1:45 AM 30 California Avenue Station 0.5 mile Notes: 1 Headways during weekday peak periods as of July 2022. Weekday Hours of Operation Nearby Bus Stops/Stations Walking Distance to Project Site 5     Packet Pg. 114     Palo Alto 82 Park B l v d Ash S t El C a m i n o R e a l Ore g o n E x p y Brya n t S t Em e r s o n S t Ram o n a S t Oli v e A v e Birc h S t Gra n t A v e Sou t h Ct Pa g e M i l l R d Ac a c i a A v e Lam b e r t A v e Sh e r i d a n Av e Fe r n a n d o A v e Ma r g a r i t a A v e Orin d a S t Sh e r m a n A v e Ha n sen W a y Mata d e r o A v e High S t Ch e s t n u t A v e Ore g o n A v e Wav e r l e y S t Pe p p e r A v e Po r t a g e A v e S C a l i f o r n i a A v e Alm a S t Colo r a d o A v e Birc h S t Hig h S t Ash S t Park B l v d Ash St = Site Location LEGEND 22 22 22 522 522 522 = Frequent Bus Route 22 = Rapid Bus 522 California Avenue Caltrain Station 340 Portage Avenue TDM Figure 3 Existing Transit Services 5     Packet Pg. 115     Palo Alto 82 Park B l v d Ash S t El C a m i n o R e a l Ore g o n E x p y Brya n t S t Em e r s o n S t Ram o n a S t Oli v e A v e Birc h S t Gra n t A v e Sou t h Ct Pa g e M i l l R d Ac a c i a A v e Lam b e r t A v e Sh e r i d a n Av e Fe r n a n d o A v e Ma r g a r i t a A v e Orin d a S t Sh e r m a n A v e Ha n sen W a y Mata d e r o A v e High S t Ch e s t n u t A v e Ore g o n A v e Wav e r l e y S t Pe p p e r A v e Po r t a g e A v e S C a l i f o r n i a A v e Alm a S t Colo r a d o A v e Birc h S t Hig h S t Ash S t Park B l v d Ash St California Avenue Caltrain Station = Site Location LEGEND = Proposed Class I Bike Path = Proposed Class II Bike Lane = Proposed Enhanced Class II Bikeway = Existing Class III Bike Route = Existing Class II Bike Lane = Existing Class III Bike Boulevard = Proposed Class III Bike Boulevard = Proposed Class III Shared Arterial 340 Portage Avenue TDM Figure 4 Existing Bicycle Facilities 5     Packet Pg. 116     340 Portage Avenue TDM August 8, 2022 P a g e | 9 3. Potential TDM Measures This chapter provides a menu of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures that the project will choose from to meet the 15% trip reduction requirement. These TDM measures include planning and design measures related to the attributes of the site location, site design, on-site amenities, and TDM programs. The TDM programs, including services, incentives, and actions, will encourage office employees to commute to work using alternatives to single-occupant vehicles. Table 3 presents a summary of the TDM measures in this plan and who would have primary responsibility for implementing each measure. The project’s VMT reduction has been estimated by VTA’s Santa Clara Countywide VMT Evaluation Tool, which provides an indication of the likely effectiveness of various trip reduction strategies in various settings. After the project site has been occupied and the TDM Plan has been implemented, employee mode-share surveys and driveway counts will serve as monitoring tools to determine if the City’s goal of a 15 percent VMT reduction has been met. If not, then the TDM coordinator (appointed by the property manager) will be responsible for implementing additional measures. 5     Packet Pg. 117     340 Portage Avenue TDM August 8, 2022 P a g e | 1 0 Table 3 TDM Measures and Responsibilites Project Location The project is located near to the California Avenue Caltrain station and near El Camino Real with frequent bus service. Bike lanes are present in the immediate vicinity of the project site. Thus, it is likely that transit and bicycling will be an option for employees. TDM Coordinator The project will appoint a TDM Coordinator who will be the primary contact with the City and will be responsible for implementing and managing the TDM plan. The TDM Coordinator will be a point of contact for employees/tenants when TDM-related questions arise and will be responsible for ensuring that employees are aware of all transportation options and how to fully utilize the TDM plan. The TDM Coordinator will provide the following services and functions to ensure the TDM plan runs smoothly: • Provide transportation information brochures to new employees. • Provide trip planning assistance and/or ride-matching assistance to employees who are considering an alternative mode. • Manage annual driveway counts and employee travel surveys. The results will be used to determine whether the implemented TDM measures are effective and whether new TDM measures should be implemented. TDM Measure Program Administration Designating a Transportation Coordinator Property Manager Online Kiosk/TDM Information Board 1 Transportation Coordinator Transportation Information Packets Transportation Coordinator Trip Planning Assistance Transportation Coordinator Program Monitoring and Reporting Annual Employee Surveys Transportation Coordinator Target Drive-alone Mode Share Monitoring Transportation Coordinator Transit Elements Proximity to Transit Center Site Location Transit Subsidy Employers/Tenants Resources (schedules, route maps & other info) Transportation Coordinator Telecomutting/Flexible Work Schedule Employers Bicycle Facilities Bicycle Parking Building Developer Showers, Changing Rooms, and Lockers Building developer Resources (bikeway maps & other info)Transportation Coordinator Parking Reduction Building developer Notes: 1 The building developer will have initial responsibility for creating an online kiosk and appointing the Transportation Coordinator. After the building is occupied, the Transportation Coordinator will have ongoing responsibility for the online kiosk and various program elements. Implementation Responsibility 5     Packet Pg. 118     340 Portage Avenue TDM August 8, 2022 P a g e | 1 1 TDM Marketing and Alternative Transportation Information The project will provide transportation information brochures to all new employees/tenants and ensure that employees/tenants are aware of the programs available to them. This brochure will include information about transit maps/schedules (Caltrain and VTA), locations of bus stops and Caltrain stations, transit fare subsidies or transit passes to be provided by employers, guaranteed ride home service to be provided by employers, ride matching programs (511.org’s RideMatching service, peer-to- peer matching apps, such as Scoop and Waze), 511.org’s carpool/vanpool subsidy program, bike maps, and bicycle parking on-site. Online Transportation Kiosk A key element of this TDM plan is to set up an “online kiosk” with site specific information about the transportation resources available to employees/tenants. The kiosk will include information about transit maps/schedules (Caltrain and VTA) and locations of bus stops and Caltrain stations. The TDM Coordinator will have responsibility for maintenance of the online kiosk with information regarding non-auto transportation alternatives. The online kiosk will include information about all the measures and services discussed in this Plan, and local bikeway maps and information about bike parking on site. Rideshare Matching Services One of the greatest impediments to carpool and vanpool formation can be finding suitable riders with similar work schedules, origins, and destinations. Facilitated rideshare matching can overcome this obstacle by enabling commuters who are interested in ridesharing to enter their travel preferences into a database and receive a list of potential rideshare partners. The success of these programs is largely determined by the number of participants and, in turn, the number of potential matches that can be made. The TDM Coordinator will provide employees/tenants with information on 511.org’s ridematching service and other ridematching services. For example, ridematching assistance is available through a number of peer-to-peer matching programs, such as Scoop and Waze Carpool, which utilize mobile apps to match commuters. Vanpool/Carpool Incentives The TDM Coordinator will provide employees/tenants with information on 511.org’s carpool/vanpool subsidy program. The 511.org’s Carpool/Vanpool Program offers several incentive programs to encourage people to try carpooling and vanpooling. Most of these programs are designed to reward someone for forming or trying a carpool or vanpool and provide an award or subsidy after the first three to six months of use. Transit Passes Subsidized transit passes are an extremely effective means of encouraging employees to use transit rather than drive to work. Transit passes allow employees to save money and avoid the stress of driving during the commute periods. The project could require future office tenants, as part of the lease agreement, to provide free transit passes (Caltrain and/or VTA) for their employees. There are a few ways to structure a financial incentive for transit. Employers can cover the total monthly cost of transit for those employees who take 5     Packet Pg. 119     340 Portage Avenue TDM August 8, 2022 P a g e | 1 2 transit through a pre-tax benefit, or purchase transit passes themselves and distribute them to employees or offer a universal transit pass program. Employers may consider universal transit pass programs in which an employer purchases a pass for all employees, regardless of whether they currently ride transit or not. These passes typically provide unlimited transit rides on local or regional transit providers for a low monthly fee; a fee that is lower than the individual cost to purchase a pass, since a bulk discount is given. Such programs can be more cost- effective option for employers to reducing vehicle trips as compared to purchasing individual passes. It is likely that many of the employees taking public transit will take Caltrain to work; therefore, future tenants should consider the Caltrain universal transit pass program (Go Pass program). The Caltrain Go Pass is an annual pass purchased by a company for its employees. All eligible employees receive the Go Pass, whether they use it or not. The passes are purchased from Caltrain at a significant discount and provide all employees with free Caltrain travel between all zones, seven days a week. Telecommute/Flexible Work Schedule Program Offering employees the opportunity to work from home or travel outside the peak travel periods can help reduce the number of commute trips to and from the project site. The project may include the following infrastructure to support its future tenants to implement an alternative work schedule: • Heating, cooling, and ventilation systems for extended schedules • High-bandwidth internet connections to facilitate telecommuting Bicycle Facilities Bicycle Parking Providing bicycle parking encourages bicycle commuting and reduces vehicle trips and parking demand. Based on the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the project will provide one bicycle parking space per 3,000 square feet, which equates to 48 bicycle parking spaces. Showers, Changing Rooms, and Lockers The project may provide shower stalls, changing rooms, and lockers for employees to use after biking or walking to the office. Having the option to shower and change clothes in the building encourages employees to bike or walk to work. Employees who ride their bike a considerable distance to the Caltrain station nearest to their home may also take advantage of these facilities. Bicycle Resources The following resources are available to bicycle commuters through 511.org. These resources would be noted in the transportation information brochure, to make employees aware of them. • Free Bike Buddy matching • Bicycle maps • Bicycle safety tips • Information about taking bikes on public transit • Location and use of bike parking at transit stations • Information on Bike to Work day • Tips on selecting a bike, commuter gear, and clothing 5     Packet Pg. 120     340 Portage Avenue TDM August 8, 2022 P a g e | 1 3 • Links to bicycle organizations Reduced Parking The project will provide parking below the municipal code requirement. The project proposes 405 spaces, whereas the municipal code requires 572 spaces. Reduced parking encourages new development at higher densities and promotes greater use of alternate modes of transportation. Estimated TDM Reduction The Santa Clara Countywide Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Evaluation Tool was used to calculate the trip reduction due to the TDM Program. This tool can calculate VMT reductions associated with certain TDM measures. The VMT Tool provides an estimate of the amount by which a project’s location and land use characteristics, its site enhancements, and the measures taken to reduce commute trips will reduce VMT. Hexagon has applied the VMT Tool to the TDM Plan for the R&D development at 340 Portage Avenue. The project is in TAZ 517, where the home-based work VMT per worker according to the model is 17.16. The results indicate that the plan would reduce the project VMT to 14.54 work VMT per worker, which is shown in Appendix A. This is a 15 percent reduction in VMT. Therefore, the project is expected is achieve the 15 percent peak-hour vehicle trip reduction target requested by the City of Palo Alto. 5     Packet Pg. 121     340 Portage Avenue TDM August 8, 2022 P a g e | 1 4 4. TDM Implementation, Monitoring, and Reporting The purpose of this TDM plan is to reduce the vehicle trips generated by the project. The property manager will submit to the City an annual TDM monitoring report that identifies the TDM plan’s effectiveness at achieving the trip generation reduction. Implementation The project applicant along with the property manager/TDM Coordinator will be responsible for ensuring the TDM plan is implemented. In addition, all lease agreements will require tenants to participate in the TDM plan immediately upon occupancy. Lease agreements will describe the elements of this plan for which tenants have immediate or potential future responsibility. Monitoring and Reporting The purpose of monitoring and reporting the TDM plan is to ensure that the plan is successfully meeting the trip reduction requirement. The property manager/TDM Coordinator will work with an independent consultant to implement annual employee surveys and driveway counts and document the results in a TDM monitoring report. The property manager/TDM Coordinator will submit the TDM monitoring report to the City. The initial TDM monitoring report for the project will be submitted two years after building occupancy. Subsequent reports will be submitted annually. The property manager/TDM Coordinator and/or the consultant preparing the report will coordinate with City staff for any additional reporting requirements. Employee Surveys The property manager/TDM Coordinator will conduct an annual survey of all employees to determine the mode split among employees, whether the existing TDM measures are effective, and whether employees prefer different TDM measures. Driveway Counts Consistent with common traffic engineering data collection principles, trip generation will be monitored by means of driveway counts at the project’s access points. The counts will be conducted one day per year on a typical weekday (Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday) when schools are in session. The TDM Coordinator will work with an independent consultant to obtain traffic count data and to document the results in a TDM monitoring report. 5     Packet Pg. 122     340 Portage Avenue TDM August 8, 2022 P a g e | 1 5 Annual Report The results of the driveway counts and surveys will be reported to the City of Palo Alto annually during the first five years of building occupancy. The annual reports will detail the awareness of the TDM program, quantify the site trip generation, and calculate the mode split. Program enhancements could be developed based on the findings of the TDM monitoring report regarding the employee’s awareness and usage of current TDM program elements. After the first five years of the project, an annual report would be submitted to the City upon request. 5     Packet Pg. 123     Appendix A Santa Clara County VMT Evaluation Tool Report 5     Packet Pg. 124     Santa Clara Countywide VMT Evaluation Tool - Version 2 - Report Project Details Timestamp of Analysis July 07, 2022, 11:42:24 AM Project Name 340 Portage Avenue Project Description The project proposes to redevelop 143,000 square feet of R&D space. Project Location Map Jurisdiction: Palo Alto APN TAZ 13238071 517 Analysis Details Data Version VTA Countywide Model December 2019 Analysis Methodology Parcel Buffer Method Baseline Year 2022 Project Land Use Residential: Single Family DU: Multifamily DU: Total DUs: 0 Non-Residential: Office KSF: Local Serving Retail KSF: Industrial KSF: 143 Residential Affordability (percent of all units): Extremely Low Income: 0 % Very Low Income: 0 % Low Income: 0 % Parking: Motor Vehicle Parking: 415 Bicycle Parking: 58 Proximity to Transit Screening Inside a transit priority area? Yes (Pass) 5     Packet Pg. 125     Santa Clara Countywide VMT Evaluation Tool - Version 2 - Report Office Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Screening Results Land Use Type 1: Office VMT Metric 1: Home-based Work VMT per Worker VMT Baseline Description 1: Bay Area Regional Average VMT Baseline Value 1: 15.33 VMT Threshold Description 1 / Threshold Value 1: 0% / 15.33 Land Use 1 has been Pre-Screened by the Local Jurisdiction: N/A Without Project With Project & Tier 1-3 VMT Reductions With Project & All VMT Reductions Project Generated Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Rate 17.16 16.5 14.54 Low VMT Screening Analysis No (Fail) No (Fail) Yes (Pass) 5     Packet Pg. 126     Santa Clara Countywide VMT Evaluation Tool - Version 2 - Report Tier 3 Parking PK01 Limit Parking Supply Minimum Parking Required by City Code: 572 Total Parking Spaces Available to Employees: 415 Is the Surrounding Street Parking Restricted?: PK02 Provide Bike Facilities Bicycle Parking: 58 Project End-of-trip Bike Facilities: Yes 5     Packet Pg. 127     Santa Clara Countywide VMT Evaluation Tool - Version 2 - Report Tier 4 TDM Programs TP04 CTR Marketing and Education CTR Marketing /Education Percent Expected Participants: 100 % TP07 Subsidized Transit Program Percent of Transit Subsidy: 100 % TP08 Telecommuting and Alternative Work Schedules Telecommuting and Alternative Work Schedule Type: 4/40 schedule Alternative Work Schedule Percent Participants: 25 % TP13 Ride-Sharing Programs Expected Percent of Ride-Sharing Participants: 4 % 5     Packet Pg. 128     Item No. 6. Page 1 of 1 Architectural Review Board Staff Report From: Jonathan Lait, Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: January 19, 2023 TITLE Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for December 1, 2022 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) adopt the attached meeting minutes. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Minutes of December 1, 2022 Report #: 6     Packet Pg. 129     Page 1 of 41 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/01/22 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD DRAFT MINUTES: December 1, 2022 Council Chamber & Zoom 8:30 AM Call to Order / Roll Call The Architectural Review Board (ARB) of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in Council Chambers and virtual teleconference at 8:30 a.m. Present: Chair David Hirsch, Vice Chair Peter Baltay, Boardmember Osma Thompson, Boardmember Kendra Rosenberg, Boardmember Yingxi Chen Absent: Oral Communications Veronica Dao, Administrative Associate III, stated there were none. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Claire Raybould, Senior Planner, indicated that staff had none. Boardmember Rosenberg had a question about 2023. She asked when the first meeting would be held. Ms. Raybould said it would be January 19, 2023. Boardmember Chen asked if they were ready to discuss the townhomes. Chair Hirsch asked if staff had received the slides. Ms. Raybould stated that they had and that she would present them on his behalf later. Boardmember Thompson asked if the item was on the agenda. Chair Hirsch said it would be a non-agendized item. Jodie Gerhardt, Manager of Current Planning, explained that it was not on the agenda but could be done during the announcements portion as a presentation and not a discussion. Vice Chair Baltay previously asked staff for a report on the 739 Sutter project. Ms. Raybould explained that she had heard back on the project the day before and they planned to resubmit. The City had not received a second set of plans after the initial round of comments on the project. City Official Reports 6     Packet Pg. 130     Page 2 of 41 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/01/22 1. Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2) Tentative Future Agenda items and 3) Recently Submitted Projects Ms. Raybould displayed the ARB meeting schedule and said that the next hearing was scheduled for December 15, 2023. Boardmember Rosenberg would be absent for that meeting so she asked if anyone else had to be in order to confirm they would have a quorum. Ms. Gerhardt stated that the ARB normally canceled its first hearing in January. The first meeting of 2023 would be January 19th. Ms. Raybould noted several new projects added to the prescreening list including 250 Cambridge and the Advanced Water Purification System. Chair Hirsch suggested that going forward staff place a checkmark next to the new projects. Ms. Raybould said that she could do that but had placed the new items at the bottom. Chair Hirsch asked if they would always be the last items. Ms. Raybould indicated they would. Chair Hirsch said that was simple enough and staff could continue doing that. Vice Chair Baltay noted that the 1700 Embarcadero site was going before City Council at the next meeting. He thought it would be great if the ARB had a representative there. Chair Hirsch asked if someone wanted to attend. Vice Chair Baltay thought that was normally the job of the Chair and asked staff to confirm. Ms. Gerhardt said that the Chair could delegate. Vice Chair Baltay confirmed that the project was up for final approval at the December 5th Council meeting. Ms. Gerhardt thought that was correct. Chair Hirsch asked if he would be asked any questions. Vice Chair Baltay thought the Council would appreciate hearing from the ARB. Chair Hirsch stated that he would attend. Ms. Gerhardt confirmed that it would be heard by Council on December 5th. Chair Hirsch asked if they had the ad hoc list worked out or if they needed additional assignments. He thought they appeared to be month by month assignments. Ms. Raybould asked Chair Hirsch to repeat his question. Chair Hirsch said that he was speaking about the ad hoc list. Boardmember Thompson said that was typically project specific. 6     Packet Pg. 131     Page 3 of 41 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/01/22 Chair Hirsch asked if they had it covered and what the next ad hoc to come in would be. Ms. Raybould said that the next item anticipated was 788 San Antonio. She needed to check with the planner to see if that would be ready for the December 15th or January 19th meetings. She thought it would be held on January 19th. There were ad hoc committee items related to that project. The applicant intended to file for their building permit by the end of the year prior to the code changes. Modifications would be made as necessary based on the ad hoc committee. Chair Hirsch stated that Boardmember Rosenberg and Boardmember Chen were not on the ARB for those hearings. Accordingly he assigned Vice Chair Baltay and Boardmember Thompson to the ad hoc committee. Ms. Gerhardt said staff would check if a decision had been made already, but Chair Hirsch was correct and the Boardmembers on the ad hoc committee might not be on the ARB anymore. Staff would email Chair Hirsch if necessary. Action Items 2. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 660 University [21PLN00341]: Consideration of a Planned Community (PC) Rezoning, 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 (41,570 SF) Will Include 65 Units (47 Studios, 12 1-Bedroom, 6 2-Bedroom); and Request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to Allow Replacement of Existing Office Floor Area in the Multiple Family (MF) Land Use Designation. Environmental Assessment: A Notice of Preparation for an Environmental Impact Report was circulated from November 4, 2022 Through December 5, 2022. For More Information, Please Contact the Project Planner: Emily Foley, emily.foley@cityofpaloalto.org. Chair Hirsch called for disclosures. Boardmember Thompson stated that she visited the site. Boardmember Chen disclosed that she visited the site. Vice Chair Baltay disclosed that he visited the site earlier in the week. Boardmember Rosenberg also disclosed that she visited the site. Chair Hirsch said that he lived nearby so had visited the site twice. He then called for the staff report. Boardmember Thompson reminded Chair Hirsch to introduce the project. Chair Hirsch introduced the project and then called for the staff report. Emily Foley, Project Planner, shared her screen with the ARB and explained that it was 9,115 square feet (sf) of office and 65 new residential units, 20% of which would be affordable. The project featured two levels of underground parking containing 88 total parking spots. With respect to the Comprehensive Plan Amendment there was a height exception to the 35 foot special requirement for Planned Community (PC) 6     Packet Pg. 132     Page 4 of 41 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/01/22 projects and reduced setbacks, including the Middlefield special setback. The project also merged three existing parcels. The project was located along University Avenue between Byron Street and Middlefield Road situated near two senior housing properties. The project was a PC or Planned Community District which allowed flexibility not otherwise attained under normal zoning requirements. The PC was required to provide a substantial public benefit and to conform with the Comprehensive Plan. There were special requirements that the project was subject to under zoning in the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) such as the 20% affordable housing and the requirement to provide more housing units than net new jobs. Council provided four options on how the project could attain the 20% and she displayed a slide with those broken down. The applicant proposed 20% Below Market Rate (BMR) units for a total of 13 units out of the 65. She then showed a slide demonstrating the PC process and explained this was the first ARB hearing on the project. Staff recommended that the item be continued since the environmental review had not been completed. After the ARB provided a recommendation the project would return to the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) for its recommendation. City Council ultimately had the final decision on the project. Simultaneously an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was being prepared and members of the public had until December 5th to comment on the scope. She showed a site plan of the project and stated that the proposed office was on the ground floor as was the lobby for the residential use and an owner’s unit. All other residential units in the building would be rental units. The office featured outdoor space. The parking circulation entered and exited off of Middlefield Road, but pedestrian entrances were available on all sides of the building. There were three levels of residential use planned and she displayed an example floorplan. Each residential unit had a balcony. She then showed the roof plan which included a roof garden amenity for the residents. She showed the Byron Street and Middlefield Road elevations and highlighted the entrance to the parking garage. The large oak tree shown was part of the neighboring property, but the building was designed with a larger 25 foot setback to avoid impacting the tree roots. Proposed materials included glass, colored plaster, and metal. She then displayed the University elevation and the rear elevation. The key considerations were how the project conformed to the Downtown Urban Design Guidelines, the height and daylight plane, the setback along Middlefield Road, and the circulation, parking, and bicycle parking. The Downtown Urban Design Guidelines identified the area as a gateway to Downtown and recommended including street trees on both the public right of way and within the project along University. The building was 45’5” to the top of the parapet, and 55’5” to the top of the mechanical enclosure. The roof deck required that the elevator tower be taller in order to provide the access. Accordingly, the elevator tower was 60’11”. A PC typically had a 35 foot height requirement when adjacent to the RM 20 zoning district. However, as part of the PC process the applicant could request an exception. The project complied with the daylight plane on the interior side but not on the Byron Street side. While that would typically be considered the rear yard it was a thorough lot and staff did not recommend that it be stepped back further. She showed a slide displaying the existing setbacks on Middlefield Road. There was a special setback of 24 feet originally intended to allow for the widening of the street. Many of the properties had a 12 to 20 foot setback and only one currently met the standard. The project proposed 10’ along Middlefield Road, 10’ along Byron Street, and 6’ along University Avenue. Staff appreciated any comments the ARB had on the setbacks. The project received a 20% parking space reduction with a 35% Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan. The TDM plan was currently under review and a staffer from the Office of Transportation was available to answer questions related to circulation and parking. The proposed bicycle parking had long term spaces in the below grade garage. That was allowed under the code so long as there was access to 6     Packet Pg. 133     Page 5 of 41 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/01/22 the elevators and stairwell, which the project complied with. The short term bicycle parking was along University where the building articulated inward. Staff recommended the ARB provide its initial comments and feedback then continue the item to a date uncertain. Finally, under the recently adopted Objective Standards projects with more than 50 dwelling units were required to provide at least one onsite short term loading space for rideshare, taxis, and delivery services. The project was not held to those standards and did not include the loading space, which the ARB could consider. The applicant was present and had a presentation for the ARB. Chair Hirsch asked if there were multiple presentations by the applicant. He heard that there was one and told the applicant they had 10 minutes. Boardmember Thompson requested the applicant state and spell their name for the record. Boyd Smith, Smith Development, stated that the team worked hard to create a beautiful project that would fit into the existing neighborhood and provide housing. The project was by Smith Development and Palo Alto Dental Group, who owned the land and had operated in the City since 1934. If the project advanced Palo Alto Dental Group planned to relocate within Palo Alto. He introduced the project architect. Ted Korth, KSH Architects, introduced his team and noted that Paul Lettieri of the Guzzardo Partnership was the landscape architect and was available via Zoom. He showed an aerial of the project site for context. There were a number of 4-story buildings adjacent to the site so it would not be the only 4-story building in the neighborhood. He showed views of the existing site and pictures of the other buildings in the neighborhood for context. Middlefield had a special setback of 24 feet, but the existing building on the site was only setback 10’9” and other buildings on the road also projected into the setback. He showed a site plan and explained that along Middlefield the sidewalk was proposed to be 14’ wide and the setback from the property line to the building was 12’, which was 24’ from the curb line to the face of the building on Middlefield. On Byron it would also be 24’ from the curb line to the face of the building. Along University there was a 14’ sidewalk and a 6’ setback. A level change was required by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for flood control. There were two gradual ramps that flanked both entrances for that purpose. A large oak tree on the neighboring property was preserved by the project and the landscape architect would explain that further for the ARB. He displayed the elevations from each street perspective and noted that the bright yellow on the rendering was a placeholder for public art which would function as a welcoming feature. The plane and material changes were made to be sensitive to the neighborhood. The underground parking had two levels with a ramp coming off of Middlefield. They placed the ramp as far from the intersection as possible. If the ramp were to come off Bryon it would endanger the oak tree, so it had to be placed on Middlefield. The parking ramp was a right in and right out design. The ground floor had an outdoor terrace and then there were two elevators for the residential units and one for the office coming up from the underground parking. The project contained a mixture of unit types and featured ins and outs. Each unit had a private balcony. The top floor was setback to respect the daylight plane and featured an outdoor rooftop area for the residents. He displayed the unit layouts and the outdoor deck plans. Most of the activity space on the roof happened on the University side, but everything was setback from the edge of the building. He showed the ARB context drawings of the building on University and again pointed out the public art. He continued quickly running through the renderings while pointing out the oak tree, the building articulation, and the daylight plane. He stated that he would turn the presentation over to the landscape architect. 6     Packet Pg. 134     Page 6 of 41 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/01/22 Paul Lettieri, The Guzzardo Partnership, stated that there would be low planters along the street frontages. The street trees deemed in poor condition would be replaced and others would be preserved. At the rear of the building the PTC was concerned about the oak tree, so they wanted to make sure the ARB understood the plan. The deck would be a wood deck on pedestals on top of the existing asphalt parking lot in order to minimize any disturbance to the tree. The current condition was not ideal, but there was consensus that trying to remove the asphalt might create more damage to the tree than leaving it. The planting areas on the deck were in pots and the asphalt would be completely covered by other materials. The drainage pattern would not change. He showed pictures of another tree the team worked on in Mountain View at 250 Bryant in 2012 and used it as an example to show the ARB the project team understood how to protect the oak. That oak was on the project site and in this project the oak is on a neighboring property. Currently the tree was growing in less than ideal condition and was still doing very well. Based on that they determined it was best to leave the retaining wall, asphalt, and ground in place. The fence would be replaced in kind. The planters on the roof deck were designed to create outdoor spaces with seating opportunities in two separate use areas. He showed pictures of the pavers, bicycle racks, fencing, lighting, decking material, and numerous plants. Currently they were 90% native plants in the plan, and they thought that would look great and have different color variations. Chair Hirsch advised the applicant that their presentation was running over. Mr. Lettieri said that they were happy to answer any questions. Chair Hirsch called for ARB questions. Boardmember Thompson asked if they wanted to take the public comment. Chair Hirsch thought they should take questions for staff. Boardmember Thompson indicated she had questions but would wait until after the public comment. Vice Chair Baltay also wanted to wait to hear from the public. Chair Hirsch said that they would call for the public comment. Ms. Dao said that the first speaker was Leigh Prince, and she was joining over Zoom. Four people donated their time to her. Ms. Gerhardt said that before Ms. Prince spoke she needed to confirm the people lending their time were present in the room or on Zoom. Ms. Dao stated that they were present in the chambers, but the speaker was on Zoom. Ms. Gerhardt thanked Ms. Dao. Leigh Prince explained she was a land use attorney appearing on behalf of The Hamilton, which was the senior community adjacent to the proposed project. Many of the residents were present in chambers for the hearing. The ARB was to consider whether the project’s design was consistent with the zoning, Comprehensive Plan, in harmony with adjacent uses, and if the design was beneficial for pedestrian and bicycle safety. She submitted a letter to the ARB that enumerated the ways the proposed project did not satisfy the findings. The ARB did have a say in density which was integral to the findings they needed to 6     Packet Pg. 135     Page 7 of 41 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/01/22 make to approve the findings. Density of the project’s magnitude was not consistent with the zoning or Comprehensive Plan as it was three to six times denser than the City planning documents allowed or than the draft Housing Element anticipated. The PC zoning required substantial public benefit and previous PC projects provided greater benefits for far less density. The Hamilton provided 19.4% affordable units and a $500,000 subsidy and resale fees to establish a fund to benefit seniors and senior services. The Hamilton was only 33 units per acre and the proposed project was 126 units per acre. Lytton Gardens was a fully affordable project providing housing for low to moderate income seniors. That public benefit was far greater than the proposed project. Due to the density the project was not desirable or in harmony with the adjacent uses. Increased setbacks would decrease the overall density. The required setbacks on Middlefield, Bryon, and University were not respected and the project requested unnecessary reductions that would impede the City’s ability to plan for necessary changes to the street, including those for multimodal improvements. When the other buildings were redeveloped they would be required to meet the setbacks, so they encouraged the ARB to require compliance with the setbacks. Increasing the setback of the building and related improvements like the decking near the oak tree would help reduce the density and intensity of the building while ensuring the preservation of a community asset. The applicant’s renderings showed the canopy of the oak growing over the deck and into the upper balconies. That meant there were impacts to the tree beyond development and into the future. The tree was critically important, and the ARB had received and would receive many comments about it. Reducing the height of the building was another way to reduce the density and intensity of the project. PC zoning allowed for flexibility but specifically provided in Section 1838150 that sites within 150’ of residential were subject to an additional height limitation of 35’. The project included heights up to 60’ so the Hamilton encouraged the ARB to look at reducing the overall height of the project. She noted that there were 2-story buildings nearby. The Hamilton was also concerned about noise from the roof deck and requested it be removed and the open space be placed elsewhere. Hamilton also requested they direct the applicant to eliminate the office space which was inconsistent with zoning, the Comprehensive Plan, and the neighborhood. Office space brought added traffic congestion which was of significant concern to the senior residents. The community also already had more than adequate office space, much of which was currently vacant. The space should be used as a medical office to serve the neighboring seniors. Finally, the Hamilton encouraged the project to be designed with the full number of parking spaces in order to avoid parking intrusion on the surrounding streets. In her experience TDMs were more difficult in residential uses. She asked the ARB to review the project with a thoughtful eye on intensity and density and the impact on the senior neighbors. Further, the applicant should pull the project back significantly and return with a redesigned project for further ARB review. Chair Hirsch asked if there were individual speakers. Ms. Dao stated that there was another group. Chair Hirsch asked how many people were represented. Ms. Dao announced that two people donated their time and the speaker would have 9 minutes. Christopher Reem: explained that he and his wife had been residents of the City for 51 years and spent the last 4 years living in The Hamilton. The Hamilton Board passed resolutions opposing the project as it was planned. The Hamilton was a senior facility for people 55 years and older with 36 units for a density 6     Packet Pg. 136     Page 8 of 41 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/01/22 of 33 units per acre, which was significantly less than the proposed project. He was pleased that everyone agreed that the oak tree needed protection. As it was approximately 50” in diameter it required a Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) of about 45’. The plans show a TPZ of only 30’ which went right to the building. As the parking structure went down two stories it would cut the roots of the tree at that point. Additionally, there would be construction and that might cut into the TPZ. Further, the limbs were as important as the roots, and they reached the proposed balconies and would therefore have to be trimmed. At that point he determined that there would only be 19’ of protection for the tree limbs. The project arborist admitted that there would need to be pruning and that a 17” limb would have to be cut off. Traffic would enter and exit the project from Middlefield with a suggestion for a right turn only exit. He asked how that would be enforced as people would want to turn left to go to University and other places. There would be traffic problems. He asked how long the construction would take and where the workers would park. He assumed that Byron would be shut down for several years during construction which would cause problems. The project admitted that it was required to have 105 parking spaces but only provided 82. They were credited with another 7 spaces under Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) aisles. He noted that one could not park on a credit so there was a deficit of 23 cars that would need to park in the neighborhood. Parking was already a problem in Downtown Palo Alto and would be made worse by the project. The latest iteration of the project included a “party deck” on the roof containing barbeques and a wall mounted TV. He assumed that the building would house mostly younger single people who liked to party. Fourteen of the Hamilton units faced the proposed project, and the parties and noise would transmit and annoy neighbors. The ARB knew better than the Hamilton residents the importance of setbacks, which the project really cut down. With respect to balconies the ones facing the Hamilton would be in the oak tree. He did not believe a tree in Mountain View that did not die justified the cutting back of the TPZ in this project. On University the balconies went right to the sidewalk and were not aesthetically pleasing and would be dangerous. He asked what would happen when something was dropped from a balcony and noted that they would be distracting as one walked down the sidewalk. Finally, the office space made no sense. Palo Alto needed to meet its housing numbers and the office simply created further demand for housing under the state law. He suggested it be removed and replaced with housing units. He thanked the ARB for its time and asked them to suggest the applicant make corrections to the project. Chair Hirsch asked if there were more speakers. Ms. Dao indicated that they had at least two more individual speakers. Ms. Gerhardt asked if the next speaker was with the applicant’s team. Ms. Dao said that she was. Ms. Gerhardt indicated that she was not allowed to speak during the public comment period. Dr. Shachi Bahl stated that she was part of the Palo Alto Dental Group. Ms. Gerhardt indicated that was allowed. Dr. Shachi Bahl said that she was speaking on behalf of the Palo Alto Dental Group. She thanked the ARB and said that she wanted to voice their strong support for the project. It made sense at the location and added much needed housing to the community. The project would not result in the closure of the dental 6     Packet Pg. 137     Page 9 of 41 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/01/22 practice. If approved the Palo Alto Dental Group pledged to relocate within the City of Palo Alto and already had a variety of relocation options. The project represented positive change for the community and was appropriately located with access to retail and public transit. Chair Hirsch asked if the facility was adjacent to the property. Dr. Bahl stated that they were on the property. Chair Hirsch thanked her and called for the next speaker. Ms. Dao stated that there was another speaker on Zoom. Xenia Hammer realized that Palo Alto needed additional housing but was very concerned about the project. The size and density needed to be significantly reduced as it exceeded the allowed zoned density. The setback issue concerned her as Middlefield had the setback to help the City improve traffic and pedestrian safety. Relaxing the setback constraints severely impeded the City’s ability to do that in the future. She was a pedestrian and cyclist and the safety on Middlefield was already precarious and needed to be improved. She further suggested that the project needed a drop off/pickup spot for the residents to further mitigate traffic impacts on University and Middlefield. Finally, she wanted to discuss the mix of units. She noted the project had 47 studio apartments and stated that Palo Alto needed housing for more than just single people. Chair Hirsch thanked the public speakers and confirmed there were no more. Ms. Dao indicated there were two public speakers present in chambers. Carolyn Tour: thanked the ARB for its time and explained that she was a 50+ year resident of Palo Alto that has lived at The Hamilton for the past 10 years. She enjoyed being able to walk Downtown and noted that the bus was not a particularly efficient means of travel for those without cars. She had tried to imagine what the project would be like. The studio apartments were not much larger than student housing but were a place of one’s home. Palo Alto urgently needed more housing in Palo Alto. Few people would call the proposed project family friendly or affordable. She asked what it would take to build affordable family friendly units. Before the City moved ahead with the project the community needed answers for the developer’s long list of concessions. She asked if the apartments would actually be at or near market rate. There were many questions about the affordability of the units built at El Camino and Page Mill and she assumed those questions would apply to the proposed project. She asked the Boardmembers to review that before they went on record about the project. She also asked if the oak tree would survive and noted it was important to many. For many Hamilton residents their exercise was a walk around the block every day. Cutting the setbacks affected those pedestrian’s quality of life and she voiced concern about seniors and bicyclists trying to cross Middlefield Road with increased traffic. Currently the area was called “Senior Corner” and it would be very different with people leaving their studios for the roof deck with their music. She thought it could be disruptive to the patients at the Webster House Nursing facility a block away and scoffed at the idea of a 10:30 curfew. She asked what public benefit the project brought. The EIR could examine low cost senior housing for the site as a project alternative. She thanked the ARB for its time. 6     Packet Pg. 138     Page 10 of 41 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/01/22 Carol Gilbert said that she was a member of the Board at the Hamilton and thanked the residents for attending and voicing their concerns. She learned the day before that there were petitions in the dental offices for the patients to sign. When the applicant states that they had signatures of people loving the building those were their patients and she questioned how ethical that was in a medical relationship. The ARB had purview over design review and architectural considerations. The location was considered the gateway to Downtown and tall buildings over narrow sidewalks flew in the face of aesthetic sensitivity. She asked them not to turn Downtown Palo Alto into Downtown San Jose. The project requested egregious variances to the normally required setbacks which would eliminate the possibility of widening Middlefield and improving the bicycle routes. The land was designated for 40 units per acre and the project was for 65 units. The City needed housing and that would be denser. Citizens understood that but the City needed to give consideration for the housing’s effect on the surrounding neighborhood. She asked facetiously why the project was only four stories and 65 units when it could be eight stories and 150 units. Currently the City needed 101 projects to get close to meeting its housing goals for the next decade. Then she stated that she wanted to seriously discuss parking as the proposed project left residents without places to park within the building. The lower income units particularly did not have available parking. She previously sent the ARB a letter with photographs of the neighborhood. One could not prevent residents from owning cars. Chair Hirsch stated that Ms. Gilbert was a minute over her allotted time. Ms. Gilbert said that she was told she would have six minutes. Chair Hirsch stated that it was three minutes per speaker and apologized for not announcing that at the beginning. The ARB always gave three minutes. He asked her to wind up her thoughts. Ms. Raybould said that the speaker could have six minutes if someone gave her time. Chair Hirsch asked if that was correct and then said that he would give her another two to three minutes. Ms. Gilbert said that there were no parking spaces on the University or Middlefield sides of the building and limited parking on Byron side which were fully parked most of the week. The nearest residential spaces available under the residential parking permits were a three to four minute walk. Hamilton residents were also extremely concerned about where the construction vehicles and equipment would be located during construction. She asked if they would be on the 660 property as there was no space on the adjacent streets. The residents and the ARB needed to see the construction plan. The planned office space was totally unneeded. The area was called “Senior Corners” for a reason. Seniors had a higher sensitivity to air pollution and a greater desire to walk around the neighborhood safely away from bicycle and traffic. The roof top deck included lounges, large screen TVs, and barbeques. She asked the ARB to imagine Monday Night Football parties and the impact to neighbors. She suggested the developer remove the TV and speakers from the plan and build the area as an enclosed solarium to mitigate the noise. Finally, she suggested that it be a garden respite for residents instead. With the heritage oak tree she suggested the ARB defer to the Palo Alto City Arborist. Designating the project as 20% affordable was a handful and only four units were planned for low income. She thought workforce housing applied to those that made 120% of the Palo Alto (interrupted) Chair Hirsch asked if she would wrap up. 6     Packet Pg. 139     Page 11 of 41 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/01/22 Ms. Gilbert said that the City may as well hang a sign welcoming young tech workers and telling elders and families to go elsewhere. Chair Hirsch thanked Ms. Gilbert and asked if there were further speakers. Ms. Dao indicated that concluded the public comment. Chair Hirsch asked the applicant to respond to the public comment. Ms. Raybould indicated that the applicant had the option but was not required to respond to the public comment. Chair Hirsch announced that the applicant passed on the opportunity. He called for Boardmember questions of staff and comments. Boardmember Thompson said that she had several questions of the applicant. She asked what the building type was. Amanda Borden [KSH Architecture]: indicated that it was a 3 A. Boardmember Thompson asked them to briefly go over how the parking stackers worked. Ms. Boden said that they looked at two different types of independent systems. In those systems cars did not have to be moved in order to get other cars out. There would be a pit with either a puzzle lift or double stackers. Boardmember Thompson confirmed that they had not made any decisions. Ms. Borden said that was correct. Boardmember Thompson asked what the color palette was inspired by. Mr. Korth said that they selected earth tones for the upper floors, clear glass, an off white, and a wood color window frame. Boardmember Thompson confirmed that the façade was almost entirely plaster. Mr. Korth agreed. Boardmember Thompson asked if they considered using other materials. Mr. Korth stated that they could but thought plaster was a nice material that did not require many joints and had a nice surface. They thought it was a good contrast to the balconies and windows which were smooth glass. Boardmember Thompson asked if the plaster would be heavily textured. Mr. Korth said that they were looking at a medium texture. The plaster provided a softer presence and that was why they thought it was appropriate. Boardmember Thompson confirmed that the plaster was an off white color. 6     Packet Pg. 140     Page 12 of 41 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/01/22 Mr. Korth said that it was. Vice Chair Baltay noted that the sample said painted metal panel and provided a paint sample. He asked if he was missing something. Mr. Korth explained that the balconies had a 1 foot band at the bottom for structure which would be clad in metal. Vice Chair Baltay asked if the ARB had a sample of the cement plaster finish. Mr. Korth apologized that they did not. Vice Chair Baltay confirmed that material made up the majority of the exterior of the building. Mr. Korth agreed that it did. Vice Chair Baltay stated that the building was in the flood zone and asked staff if was permissible to have elevators and mechanical equipment below the flood plane in the underground parking garage. He asked if they needed a special floodgate. Ms. Foley explained the Public Works Engineering Department reviewed the project and it would need a floodgate. She had no specific information about the elevators and parking stackers, but the project was reviewed. Vice Chair Baltay thought those were significant issues. Ms. Gerhardt said that it was normally the actual engines or motors that needed to be out of the waterways. There were unique solutions that needed to be handled. Vice Chair Baltay just wanted the issue flagged as important. Unit M was a corner unit on the ground floor. He asked if there was a bedroom with a full height window on the corner. He asked to see the floor plan on the screen. Boardmember Thompson said they could just show the ground floor and confirmed that Vice Chair Baltay was concerned about Unit M. Vice Chair Baltay said that he wanted A 2.1. Ms. Borden explained that was planned to be the onsite manager’s unit. Vice Chair Baltay asked if the bedroom window was floor to ceiling glass. Ms. Borden believed there was a planter in front of the window with a sill. There was a window, but it was not slab to ceiling. Vice Chair Baltay pointed to the Byron side and asked if there was a partition wall in the middle of the window. Ms. Borden said that was correct. They typically terminated partitions at mullions so the partition would not hit the glass. 6     Packet Pg. 141     Page 13 of 41 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/01/22 Vice Chair Baltay asked if they were confident that the elevations were correctly rendering that condition. Ms. Borden explained that at one point they had the office and residential uses on different sides, and they mirrored them. She believed the elevations and renderings were correct, but she would double check. Vice Chair Baltay specifically asked if the wider mullion was rendered that way because the wall terminated there. Ms. Borden did not believe the interior conditions were in the renderings. They were still working on the unit design, so the interior walls were not reflected in the renderings of the exterior. Vice Chair Baltay thanked her for the clarification. He asked staff if the elevator shafts and staircases were required to be within the height limit and asked if that was the case in Palo Alto. Ms. Foley stated that was correct. Vice Chair Baltay understood the project contained a request for additional height but wanted to understand how much extra they were talking about. He confirmed that on a 35’ building the elevator shaft could not go above that height. Ms. Foley said that was correct. Vice Chair Baltay requested clarification on the rules related to amplified sound and TVs outdoors in places like the roof deck. Ms. Foley stated that it needed to comply with the standard noise in PAMC 9.10. There was a standard daytime exception to 110 decibels but that was restricted to 8 or 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. Vice Chair Baltay asked if watching a football game or having a live music performance would be allowed on the roof deck. Ms. Foley said that it likely would not be. On other roof decks Downtown the City had placed limitations on amplified noise. Vice Chair Baltay confirmed there was nothing in the City ordinances prohibiting the noise and that the project would need conditions. Ms. Foley agreed that was correct. Vice Chair Baltay told Chair Hirsch that he wanted the applicant to come and explain why there were so many studio units planned. Otherwise he was done with his questions. Boardmember Chen asked staff if there was an arborist report for the project. Ms. Foley explained it was in the Plan Set on Sheets T2 and T3. Boardmember Chen said that typically the TPZ was 10 times the tree trunk size. she asked why this project was allowed in the TPZ. 6     Packet Pg. 142     Page 14 of 41 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/01/22 Ms. Raybould noted that there were no restrictions on construction within the TPZ. The TPZ was identified, and the arborist’s report outlined what measures needed to be taken for any work within the TPZ. Boardmember Chen noted that there were three street trees along University Avenue which were slated to be replaced. She asked the applicant for an explanation. Mr. Lettieri said that those trees were identified as being in poor condition by the arborist and were recommended to be replaced. Boardmember Chen asked if there was screening on the edge of the rooftop deck on the Hamilton side. Mr. Korth said that on Middlefield there was a 5’ parapet. Facing the Hamilton there was also a solid 5’ parapet. Additionally it was setback from the perimeter of the project by 10’. Boardmember Rosenberg had questions for staff. The property was going from a Planned Home Zone (PHZ) to a PC, and she wanted to know if that was proposed or approved. Ms. Foley explained it was currently zoned RM 20 and the rezoning was to PHZ or PC which were kind of synonyms. Currently there was a moratorium on PCs except for housing projects. Boardmember Rosenberg asked if the rezoning application had been made and where it was in the process. Ms. Foley said it was simultaneously happening with the architectural review. She displayed the process slide for the ARB. Ms. Raybould stated that the ARB reviewed PC zoning, so the application was for a PC rezoning. Part of that PC rezoning was the development plan. The ARB review was part of the process. The PTC did a prescreening first and then would hear the project again after the ARB but before Council. Boardmember Rosenberg asked what grounds the applicant needed to meet in order to qualify for the rezoning. Ms. Raybould noted that the ARB’s findings were the same findings that were relevant to the development of plan. The PTC and Council had additional findings they needed to make related to PC zoning specific to the public benefits and other things. Boardmember Rosenberg asked if the setback reductions were based on the 20% BMR housing. She asked if that was the only qualification for reducing the setbacks including the special setback on Middlefield. Ms. Raybould explained that the Council indicated it was willing to consider projects where the public benefit was increased affordability. Council had discretion to define that benefit based on the requests made by the applicant. Boardmember Rosenberg asked if the parking stackers qualified as tandem parking spaces or if they had a different designation. Ms. Foley indicated that they were not considered tandem so long as they were independently accessible. Boardmember Rosenberg asked the applicant how they planned to dig the basement. 6     Packet Pg. 143     Page 15 of 41 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/01/22 Ms. Borden believed a contractor was engaged to do a preliminary pre-construction review. The construction logistics plan had not been completed. The TPZ of 30’ assumed a 5’ shoring and foundation thickness. So there was 25’ of root protection. Boardmember Rosenberg asked if the applicant could confirm that they would not try to use an OSHA cut at that location because of the TPZ. Ms. Borden could not confirm that without speaking to the contractor. She apologized that it was not her area of expertise. Boardmember Rosenberg noted that the landscape architect stated that the existing asphalt would remain in place with a deck above. She requested clarification. Mr. Lettieri explained that they would put pedestals on the asphalt like one would do on a roof deck in order to not disturb the asphalt. The building was slightly raised for flooding reasons so there was room for the deck to go on the asphalt. Boardmember Rosenberg asked if it would benefit the tree to remove the asphalt and allow for natural percolation into the ground. Mr. Lettieri said that the benefit was arguable because removing the asphalt was a change in condition and that could be more of a problem for the tree. There was also a concern that removing the material could damage the tree. So to be cautious it was determined that they should leave it alone. Oaks did better when things did not change. The arborist report stated that it was preferable to not disturb the asphalt. Boardmember Rosenberg confirmed that the managers unit on the ground floor was not a model showroom and rather a habitable space. Ms. Borden indicated that was correct. Boardmember Rosenberg noted that she saw the bicycle rack location but no diagrams showing bicycle pathing or pedestrian walkways. With the concerns of the local seniors she indicated she wanted to see more focus on that. Ms. Borden confirmed that she was requesting a bicycle site circulation and said that they currently did not have one prepared. Boardmember Rosenberg thanked the applicant. Chair Hirsch had asked that Transportation be available to the ARB as he was concerned about the access to the building off of Middlefield and about traffic volume studies. He wanted to know if it was reasonable to have access to Middlefield. He asked staff if they could explain how the traffic worked related to the access of the building. Ms. Raybould said that Sylvia Star-Lack from the Transportation Division was present. Sylvia Star-Lack, Manager Transportation Planning, explained that the access on Middlefield was of concern to Office of Transportation staff because of how it might affect operations on Middlefield and 6     Packet Pg. 144     Page 16 of 41 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/01/22 University. She explained that she was filling in for another staff member and was unsure if they had done an operations analysis for the project yet. Office of Transportation staff preferred a driveway design off of Byron that avoided issues with the oak tree roots. That also eliminated the right in and right out situation. It appeared that access off of University and onto Byron provided space for drivers to turn left. The Hamilton’s main driveway was also on Byron so that already supported access to a major development. Chair Hirsch asked if there were counts on Middlefield at the access point. Traffic moving south on Middlefield was often backed up. Ms. Foley said that a Transportation Impact Analysis was being prepared as part of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) analysis but was still in draft form. Staff hoped to have it by the next ARB hearing. Chair Hirsch indicated that he would wait. There was a lot of discussion about the oak tree, so he asked if an arborist was available. Ms. Foley said that no staff arborist was on hand, but Urban Forestry indicated they would incorporate the recommendations from the arborist report into the Conditions of Approval for the project. Ms. Gerhardt said the project arborist was on call if there were questions and staff could get answers between hearings. Chair Hirsch asked what she meant by between hearings. Ms. Gerhardt stated that the project would have to return for a second hearing no matter what. If the ARB felt the applicant’s arborist did not help them sufficiently then they would speak to staff. Chair Hirsch thought there were many reasons why the arborist report needed to be carefully considered. Boardmember Thompson asked if there was currently an arborist on the Zoom. Ms. Gerhardt said the landscape architect was on the call. Chair Hirsch noticed that there was no cover above the stairwells leading to the garage and asked if they would be covered or not. Ms. Borden explained that the stairs were planned as exterior stairs without a volume above grade. They were under the perimeter canopy that wrapped the building. Chair Hirsch stated that concluded his questions. Vice Chair Baltay said that the Storm Management Plan said that there were stormwater retention areas near the wood deck. He asked if he was reading that correctly. Mr. Lettieri stated that there was no stormwater treatment near the tree. It was primarily along the street frontage and was shown by a texture in the landscape plan. Vice Chair Baltay confirmed that the round circles were potted plants. 6     Packet Pg. 145     Page 17 of 41 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/01/22 Mr. Lettieri agreed that was correct. He pointed out that it was difficult to see the texture but the area outside the manager’s unit had two stormwater planters and there were more along Middlefield which were recessed into the slab, so they were not tall above grade. Vice Chair Baltay thanked Mr. Letteri. He asked Chair Hirsch if the developer could explain why there were so many small units in the building as a point of understanding. Chair Hirsch thought that question was important. Lund Smith, [Smith Development] explained that as part of their exploration after the Council prescreening hearing they encouraged the smaller unit mix given the location. They hired a consultant to look at the project and came to the conclusion that with the Downtown location it would be more desirable to have studios and 1-bedroom units. They were flexible and open to other ideas. Boardmember Thompson asked him to state and spell his name for the record. Chair Hirsch called for further questions but heard none, so he returned the conversation to the ARB for comments. Boardmember Thompson thanked the applicant for the presentation and the public for its interest. Generally she supported the project but had caveats for the applicant to consider. Given that Middlefield was narrow it could use better bicycle and transportation improvements moving forward so she would support a taller building if the project respected the setbacks. Most of her comments related to the façade and building design. She found that plaster was a low quality material, and the ARB was required to find that the building was of high quality materials. The design intent to use earth tones was great and she encouraged the applicant to bring wood in as a material. The design needed to have a better relationship with nature. The proposed colors did not provide the contrast and texture the designer hoped for because they would appear very smooth. The façade lacked articulation and she suggested they punch in the windows for more relief. The façade lost coherence and so she encouraged another look at it. The ground level along University had a lot of small scale articulation. The ARB saw a lot of storefront ground level experiences and the applicant needed to decide what the experience would be in terms of articulation. She suggested more articulation on the planter and the guardrails, so the experience was not forgotten. Everyone wanted to save the oak tree so she requested they really look at what adding the deck would do. She understood there was a desire not to disturb the asphalt but questioned if the added deck would be a disturbance to the roots due to the weight. She understood the concerns about the driveway access on Middlefield and would be open to having other choices. How the stackers operated would affect the parking count and needed to be reviewed. She looked forward to the next iteration of the project. Vice Chair Baltay noted that he agreed with most of Boardmember Thompson’s comments. He credited the developer for pulling the building back from the oak tree but thought the vehicle entrance off Middlefield should be moved to Byron. Middlefield was already busy, the flood gate could be an issue, and people would definitely try to turn left so Byron was better. The project needed better service loading areas for things like rideshares and package delivery. Provisions had to be made for those services in order for the project to work. He questioned the location of the ground floor outdoor terrace. Placing it at the back by the trash pickup and parking garage separated it from the residences. He thought it would be nice to have near the tree if that was possible and stated that the building needed to relate to the open space, 6     Packet Pg. 146     Page 18 of 41 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/01/22 which currently felt like an afterthought. It was critical that the applicant work with staff to ensure that they could use parking lifts and stackers in the flood plain. Generally speaking, mechanical equipment was not allowed below the flood plain by law. With the massing he found that it lacked a coherent design parti. It lacked inspiration and visual logic as the breaks felt haphazard. There was no base/middle/top or roof eaves to tie into the neighborhood. The other projects in the neighborhood tied back to the residential nature of the neighborhood with the roof eaves. The project also did not have a dramatic form that would cause it to stand out as a special architectural feature. There were so many balconies on the project that they felt almost arbitrary and that did not help with the overall design. The first floor canopy helped to reduce the massing but was not a powerful architectural element and competed with the vertical elements of the design. Overall he thought it was an overloaded program with the number of units, the flood plane issues, and the oak tree. The façade looked like it had been massaged to the point where it did not have a strong sense of architectural quality. The ARB had to find that the building had a functional design and to that end he stated that it needed loading spaces and things like that. The bicycle parking also did not work, and he suggested 50% of the parking be at grade and close to the primary building access. The bicycle parking in the basement was challenging as riders would have to carry their bicycles up three stairs and then take an elevator to the parking garage. That was not likely to happen, and he feared there would be bicycles tied to streetlamps. The City had asked other projects to create a bicycle storage room of some kind and he suggested that they look into that. There were many issues with the unit layouts. He referred to Drawing A 5.1 and noted that he heard the unit designs were still in flux. Unit A1 had no daylight, Unit C1 had an oddly proportioned room, and there were other issues that he wanted to see addressed in the next iteration. It was disappointing that there were no interior common spaces, especially given the very small units. Some indoor common spaces were necessary in humane housing. Typically lounges would be at the end of the hall near the stairs or elevator. He commended the project for its balconies but noted that there was no privacy between them. The rooftop spaces shown in A 2.3 were next to each other in a way that lacked privacy. The project required more thought around the unit designs and privacy. The rooftop deck featured a long, linear design that appeared to be at the mercy of the mechanical engineers. He suggested they create a more cohesive space and insist the mechanical engineers work with the remaining room to make the building better. He supported having a roof deck and thought it was a good amenity but cautioned that the project needed to be respectful of neighbors. He shared Boardmember Thompson’s thoughts on the materials and colors and stated there was a lack of richness and depth. He gave the cedar shingles of Lytton Gardens or the detailed Mediterranean design of the Hamilton as examples of architecture that followed the Palo Alto ideas of residential architecture. He requested richer materials with more textures and colors that expressed what the materials were. He suggested that they look to the oak tree for inspiration with the materials. Finally, he requested to see a rending from the corner of University and Byron. Boardmember Chen thanked everyone for attending the hearing. She was generally supportive of the project and liked the rooftop garden and how the building stepped down toward the single story buildings behind the project. The applicant could consider several improvements such as relocating the garage entrance so as to not cause further congestion on Middlefield. She suggested they also add a short term parking/loading/delivery space. It was necessary to provide that since there would be 65 units on the property. She appreciated the common and private open space for the residents but encouraged them to reconsider if all the units needed canopies, especially those units near the tree canopy and above the 6     Packet Pg. 147     Page 19 of 41 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/01/22 ramps near the entrance. With the setbacks she felt the one on Byron was acceptable, but along Middlefield she did not believe there was strong support for a reduced setback. Although the proposed setback was similar to the current condition it was not appropriate for a 4-story building to be that close to the road. Boardmember Rosenberg thanked the applicant for the project and the local residents for coming to voice their concerns. she supported the comments of her fellow Boardmembers but was more pessimistic about the project which felt inherently flawed. The project was situated between two senior neighborhoods while trying to be active and lively near University Avenue and the balance was not met. Calling the area a gateway to Downtown with the visual form of the building felt borrowed. It was not an office building, but it was not a residential building. she encouraged them to move forward with housing, retail, and medical offices, but the project fell short. The materials were lackluster. The forms and balconies were either underthought or borrowed from somewhere else. The traffic would be a big issue and required more thought which would fundamentally change the design of the building. There was no ground to reduce the setback on Middlefield so significantly as it was a major throughfare. The other buildings on the street might not meet the 24’ setback but were not 10’ from the setback so she had a hard time supporting that especially with potential future bicycle improvements and street widening. She repeated that she did not find a significant reason for the setback to be granted. Generally the height was not a problem and was consistent with the neighborhood. Another Boardmember mentioned that they would support a height increase if the building maintained a bigger setback on Middlefield and she agreed with that. The roof deck on University was a beautiful feature. She understood the neighbor’s concerns but felt the University side was appropriate for its placement. The fact that the deck was linear did not bother her as it is surrounded by the mechanical. The manager’s suite on the ground floor was less than optimal as it was a very active corner and living space would not work well there. The number of studios and the size of the units made the project feel like a dorm and situating a dorm between two senior facilities was out of place. Palo Alto needed housing and she wanted to encourage that, but the thoughtfulness surrounding the housing was lacking. The orientation of some units and the lack of light in others needed improvement. Placing the vehicular entrance on Byron rather than Middlefield was a better idea, but she wondered if it could be located off of University. She understood that with the oak tree there were many constraints on the site and that she was asking for a lot but thought the design team was competent and she was excited to see their solutions. For the next iteration of the project she asked to see the pedestrian and bicycle pathing, a digging plan for the area around the oak tree, and better material samples. She stressed that the building would be very visible, and the materials were extremely important. Finally, she requested a reassessment of the traffic design and how it would function. Chair Hirsch commented that his colleagues had done a great job. With respect to materiality he mentioned that fiber cement had detail, a variety of color, texture, and brought the scale of a building down. Those things were missing in the current project. Boardmember Thompson mentioned that the project lacked form and he agreed. The project team needed to think in terms of massing and the relationship. He appreciated the idea of having lounges on the upper floors and suggested that could be incorporated into the building design. The majority of the ARB voiced support for Byron as the vehicular access point. The site was not big enough for the proposed project which was an issue. Despite the fact that there were outs and ins the project was really just a big box that filled the entire site. Middlefield had traffic and that would presumably increase as the City built more housing so he thought it was a mistake 6     Packet Pg. 148     Page 20 of 41 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/01/22 to place the building’s entry where a bicycle path could go in the future. He did not believe the current scheme worked due to the high traffic area. The ground floor rear terrace under the oak tree would require daily cleaning and would not be a great place to spend time. He was also concerned about proportion and noted that the office was large but there was no bicycle access to the public area. In a large project bicycle storage needed access to the street, so he suggested using some office space as bicycle storage. Alternatively, the bicycle storage could be on the other side and part of the office could be used for the entry lobby or mail room. the ground floor was not appropriately planned, especially for bicyclists. The horizontal piece covering the stairwells probably did not provide the necessary weather cover and it was not a great idea to have open stairs to a cellar. Just creating a horizontal line at that point was an insufficient transfer between the ground floor and the upper part of the building. There needed to be a separation of materials or a cantilever of the whole structure from the ground floor. Many things could be addressed by taking another look at the form of the building, creating the entry off Byron, and massing the building appropriately. The forms required differentiation and did not need to be one long form with 100 balconies on it. The balconies were necessary because the tiny apartments needed more open space. That was not a sufficient reason to create balconies. He spent most of his career working on supportive housing and some of the units in the project were smaller than those. The kitchens were very small and therefore there would be many food deliveries to the building. The roof deck was a great thing and would have beautiful views but should be accompanied by lounges on each floor. The rest of the ARB addressed the materiality. The building currently had no articulation and that needed to be changed. With the oak tree he would defer to the arborist, but it needed protection and distance from the project. It could be used as a form giving piece that the architect could consider. He was not as concerned about the traffic as the neighbors and admitted that the construction would probably utilize Byron Street during construction. He hoped the project team would take the next step and provide something that was more exciting. The area was very important, and the benefit of the project needed to be considered. Per the Council the benefit was the affordable units, but the ARB needed to see a really great building and he hoped the team would take advantage of that opportunity. Vice Chair Baltay recalled that during the premeeting with staff the ARB was asked to provide guidance about how much bicycle parking should be located proximate to the building’s entrance versus in the basement. He asked if the Chair wanted to try and get consensus from the Board on the issue. He suggested that 50% of the required parking should be located close to the main entrance at the ground level. Chair Hirsch asked about the code requirements. Ms. Gerhardt stated that Ms. Foley shared the code requirement on the screen. In underground garages only long term bicycle parking was allowed. Those facilities needed to be located near elevators and stairways. Street level parking was encouraged and so the ARB could put parameters on the project as suggested by Vice Chair Baltay. Transportation staff were also available on the call. Chair Hirsch asked to hear from Ms. Star-Lack. Ms. Star-Lack said that one thing that needed to be considered was that people had all different sizes of bicycles. In the future staff wanted to adjust the code requirements to acknowledge that. In this project they noticed that if people did not want to or could not use the elevator to move their large box bike they 6     Packet Pg. 149     Page 21 of 41 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/01/22 would have to use a very steep ramp. Things like that impacted bicycle usage and needed to be managed. Based on that she really appreciated the ARB’s comments. Chair Hirsch did not believe that they needed a Motion on the matter. Vice Chair Baltay remembered that Ms. Gerhardt had asked for guidance. Bicycle parking came up on almost every project so he thought the ARB should be upfront about what it wanted. He asked Ms. Gerhardt if that was correct. Ms. Gerhardt said that everyone involved appreciated clarity. Chair Hirsch asked if they wanted to include lounges on each floor. Vice Chair Baltay indicated that he just wanted to know if the Boardmembers agreed that some percentage of bicycle parking should be located on the ground floor proximate to the entrance of the building. All that was needed was a statement from each Boardmember. Chair Hirsch said that he and Vice Chair Baltay had already expressed their opinions and polled the rest of the ARB. Boardmember Chen clarified that they were talking about the short term bicycle storage and not both long and short term. Chair Hirsch thought that they were talking about both long term and short term and that the short term was not answered sufficiently. Ms. Gerhardt stated that short term bicycle parking would always be at the ground level and near the main entrance. It was the longer term parking that had more deviation, so she asked the ARB to focus on that. Chair Hirsch called for a straw poll and whether everyone agreed about the short term parking. Boardmember Thompson said that the short term parking was Class 2, which were the rings on the ground without cover. Long term parking was Class 1, which had weather protection and security. Chair Hirsch suggested that if they put the parking indoors near a ramp that could then be long term parking by definition. Boardmember Thompson said that was correct and that she thought that was considered Class 1 parking. It was on Sheet A 2.P1. Chair Hirsch agreed. He explained that they were discussing putting the long term parking where it was more accessible to the street. He asked if everyone agreed that was a good idea. Boardmember Chen said it was difficult for her to fully support the idea because if only a portion of the spaces were on the street level she wondered who would occupy them. Boardmember Rosenberg agreed. She asked if there was a method for daily bicycle commuters to get preferential treatment for those spaces or if there would be a lottery system. There were many questions that went into the functionality and running of the building that was possibly beyond the ARB’s purview. 6     Packet Pg. 150     Page 22 of 41 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/01/22 In theory she hated that the bicycle parking was in the basement. There were daily bicycle commuters and going in and out of the basement every day was an inconvenience. She also cautioned against the over customization of bicycle storage spaces. She understood that some people had box bikes, but the architect could not be required to account for every choice a tenant made. It was nice to think about but to make the architect consider it seemed excessive. Boardmember Thompson explained that she had been a bicycle commuter for over 12 years. Over the years the bicycle got bigger and heavier because that made it more useful for things like grocery shopping. Because of that experience she was jaded with bicycle parking locations. They were often forgotten spaces. She advocated that 100% of the bicycle parking should be on the ground level next to the entrance. She thought that would be used, unlike an area that was difficult to get to where it would not be used. The ARB wanted to encourage use. 50% was a nice number, but she would take anything. She repeated that she preferred 100% if others would support that. She also encouraged more space for larger bicycles. The riders that used Caltrain had serious equipment that required space. Bicycle parking regulations were out of date and the future needed to be considered in City design. Chair Hirsch thought it was an important issue but not the only issue that the ARB had discussed. He cautioned that the bicycle parking conversation might not be as significant as the amount of time it was discussed suggested. He agreed with Boardmember Thompson that methods of mobility were changing daily so bicycle parking had to be dealt with. the ARB wanted to see a proper solution, so he asked the applicant to think about it. He suggested that they wrap up the item. MOTION: Vice Chair Baltay moved, seconded by Boardmember Chen, to continue the project to a date uncertain subject to the comments made. VOTE: 5-0-0-0 Chair Hirsch thanked the applicant and the community and stated that the ARB would take a break. The ARB took a break 3. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 123 Sherman [21PLN-00172]: Consideration of a Major Architectural Review Application to Allow Demolition of Four Existing Buildings and 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. Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration is Being Prepared in Accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Zoning District: CC (2)(R). For More Information Contact the Project Planner, Emily Foley, at Emily.Foley@cityofpaloalto.org. Chair Hirsch introduced the item and called for the staff report. Vice Chair Baltay reminded Chair Hirsch that the ARB needed to make disclosures. Chair Hirsch called for the disclosures. Vice Chair Baltay disclosed that he visited the site earlier in the week and met with Mr. Dan Baca, the maintenance manager for the apartment condominium to the rear. Mr. Baca took him to the 3rd floor of his building where they could look over the project site. From that vantage point it was clear that there 6     Packet Pg. 151     Page 23 of 41 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/01/22 was not a large impact from the building on the condominiums at the railroad. Secondly, Mr. Baca believed that the water table was about 15 feet below ground based on his experience with the building next door. Boardmember Chen disclosed that she visited the site earlier in the week. Boardmember Thompson indicated she had nothing to disclose. Chair Hirsch disclosed that he visited the site but had not met anyone there. Boardmember Rosenberg disclosed that she also visited the site and had kept to herself. Ms. Foley introduced herself and explained that the applicant team for the project was the same as for the prior item. The project included demolition of two existing office buildings and one existing vacant single family residence. The proposed project included 4,123 sf of retail on the ground floor and 8,330 sf of office space, about 35,000 sf of which was new office space, plus approximately 1,600 sf of amenity space. The project had frontages on Park Boulevard, Sherman, and Grant Avenue. It wrapped the 2555 Park Boulevard office building and was within ½ mile to the California Avenue Caltrain Station. There were condominiums on three sides of the project and was close to the new Public Safety Building. The project had a prescreening application in 2021 but that was withdrawn before it went to Council. At that point it included a residential component and was approximately 50’ tall, which was not supported by neighbors or the City. The applicant withdrew that application and returned with the current project. The office building application was fully code compliant. She displayed the site plan and explained that in addition to retail there was also ground floor vehicular and bicycle parking in addition to the two levels of below grade parking. The setback on the interior rear side of the project was increased from the current state. The project proposed a 10 foot setback to where the excavation for the parking began and a 20 foot setback to the building footprint. The second and third floors were office spaces and featured exterior terrace areas as amenity spaces. She showed the elevations and explained that landscape screening was proposed along the interior side. Proposed materials included perforated and solid metal and glass. The next rendering showed the existing condos along the rear interior side and how the massing of the proposed building related to them. The Grant Avenue and Sherman Avenue frontages were shown as were the proposed heights. The proposed height of 35’ complied with the zoning as did the elevator and mechanical screening which reached 47’ as there was a 15’ allowance in the zoning for mechanical screening. Key considerations included the annual office limit, parking and circulation, and neighborhood privacy. The City had an annual office limit on new office space that could be added in any given Fiscal Year (FY). No office space had been built in the 2022-2023 FY and there was also 42,000 sf remaining from 2021-2022. The project proposed approximately 35,000 sf so there was adequate allowance for the office. The proposed parking included a 20% parking space reduction with 35% TDM plan. The TDM plan was currently under review by the Transportation Department. There was a total of 127 parking spaces proposed, both at grade and in the underground garage. The bicycle parking included 16 short term outdoor spaces and 24 long term spaces at the street level bicycle enclosure room. The project provided 1 off-street loading space with access off of Grant Avenue, which was opposite of the main driveway on Sherman. She displayed renderings showing the context around the project and photographs of neighboring properties. There were two residences that mainly looked out over Sherman but would have views towards the project site. One image also showed four Redwood trees which were protected in the project. The majority of the windows at the condos to the rear of the project faced interior to their site 6     Packet Pg. 152     Page 24 of 41 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/01/22 and not at the proposed project. Staff recommended that the ARB provide comments and then continue the project to a date uncertain. A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was being prepared for the project and was not yet completed or reviewed. The applicant was present with a presentation. Chair Hirsch called for the applicant’s presentation. Lund Smith, [Smith Development], stated that his firm had worked on both projects since before COVID and found it humorous that they were heard at the same ARB meeting. He thanked the ARB for its patience. With 123 Sherman it was an iterative process even though this was the first ARB hearing. They were pleased with the conversations with the neighbors and the changes to the project and landscaping. The changes were largely made in response to conversations with the neighbors. They opened discussions with the neighbors in 2021 and met with them several times in 2022 including an official community meeting. The conversations were productive, and the project was better for them. He repeated that the project was fully complaint and turned the presentation over to the architect. Ted Korth, KSH Architects, confirmed that he had 10 minutes and stated that there were many drawings to show the ARB. Chair Hirsch stated that he had 9 minutes left. Mr. Korth displayed a rendering from the corner of Park Boulevard and Sherman with a list of changes made based on neighborhood meetings. There had been a total of 3 neighborhood meetings with the third being only the day before. The building was cut back to preserve the redwood trees. He showed slides of the existing site, the current adjacent uses, the views of the project from existing buildings, an aerial view of the project with notated windows, a diagram of the setbacks, a diagram of the trees indicating which would be removed and which would be saved, the existing trash service areas, a rendering with the proposed curb cuts, a diagram of the existing on street parking sites, and the ground floor setback requirements. The building was setback on Grant and Sherman beyond the setback requirements and was setback along Park Boulevard similar to the neighboring building. He showed the setbacks for the 2nd and 3rd floors. There was a terrace in the middle of the Sherman Avenue elevation and terraces with an interior setback in the middle between the existing office building and the project. The 3rd floor featured a terrace on Grant and an outdoor deck on Sherman. The neighbors were very concerned about the trash pickup so he displayed a diagram illustrating how the garbage truck would navigate the site. Trash pickup occurred within the site and not on the street. He displayed a diagram of the proposed curb cuts and explained that increased the parking on street by one spot. He showed an arial view and pointed out the yellow outlined windows which represented the neighbors that could view the project. The project was designed with the intent to be sensitive to those views. The next diagram was the view from Caltrain and showed how the building stepped back to meet the setbacks and the breaks between the residential buildings. The window line was cut in half so that there would be less exposure to the gaps between the buildings. The next aerial diagram displayed how the building was cutback, showed the protected redwood trees, and showed the tree cover design. He noted that the landscape architect could describe that design in detail. The building was 35’ high and the adjacent office building on Park Boulevard was 37’ high. The building had a horizontal expression which they thought would accentuate the fact that the building was low and not a vertical composition. The view along Sherman showed how the building was broken into three segments. The railing used to be glass and was 3’6” high 6     Packet Pg. 153     Page 25 of 41 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/01/22 but had been increased to 4’6” high and changed to a stenciled metal. The gray panels were stenciled metal and would be opaque to provide privacy. He showed a view along Grant with the existing trees and the gap between the buildings. Finally, he displayed a rendering of the proposed project from above and handed the presentation over to his colleague. Morgan Burke, The Guzzardo Partnership, explained his firm were the landscape architects. Privacy along the backside of the building was paramount to the project. They planned to provide a vegetative screen. An initial design idea was to use bamboo due to the tight spatial constraints. The redwoods would be retained. He showed a time lapse elevation with the bamboo at installation height and at year 3. By year 3 the bamboo would reach the full height of the building and provide a full screen. One of the neighborhood comments was about using native species instead of bamboo and Catalina Ironwood was a tree that would fit with a tight upright canopy. He showed another timelapse with the trees at installation and at year 10. The Catalina Ironwood was a slower grower than the bamboo but could achieve the screening over time. Mr. Korth stated that the presentation was almost done. They met with neighbors the prior day and talked about the trees. One person liked the bamboo, and two others preferred the Ironwood. The neighbors were great and very active and involved. They made probably about 15 changes to the project based on neighborhood input and the neighbors were very appreciative of that during the meeting. He thanked the ARB for its time. Chair Hirsch thanked the applicant. Ms. Raybould asked if Chair Hirsch wanted to take the public comment. Chair Hirsch asked if there were any public comments. Ms. Dao stated that there was a member of the public on Zoom and another in the chambers. Each speaker received three minutes. David Huber, Palo Alto resident, explained he lived in a complex between California, Park, and Sherman. His unit overlooked the project area. In general, the prior development that proposed a mix of housing and commercial and he was very supportive of the housing component. The development was very large and loomed over the area, so it received pushback. Philosophically it seemed like an area that was appropriate for high density housing since it was surrounded on three sides by housing and was a block from transit, grocery stores, and other amenities. He understood that was not a topic for the ARB but wanted to make his thoughts known. Related to the proposed development he was concerned that a lot of attention was paid to Phase II of the development which was the all residential part that ran along the train tracks and would be immediately adjacent to the project. It did not appear there was a lot of thought given to the impact on the neighbors directly across the street on Sherman. There were 5 units directly overlooking the project and the way they were configured they had both bedroom and living window views of the project. It would be the main portion of his view from his unit. The development would have a significant impact on both sightline and daylight plane. He appreciated the applicant gave thought to what was going on to the rear, but he thought the ARB needed to give more consideration to the impact on the units on the Sherman side. He understood that the units were on the commercial side of their development, but the residential units on the 3rd and 4th floor needed to have their views and privacy 6     Packet Pg. 154     Page 26 of 41 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/01/22 considered. There was no mention of street trees or other screening to keep people from looking into their units. He asked the ARB to take his thoughts into account and thanked them for their time. Patience Young, Palo Alto resident, referenced the final slide shown of the backside view from Grant Avenue and pointed out the transformer box. The architects told the neighbors that the specifications for the transformers came from the City. She asked how neighbors could be assured that the noise or hum from the transformer would be mitigated since people lived nearby. Additionally, the neighbors applauded the architect for making many changes at their request. One such change was placing the trash pickup location inside the building. by doing that they moved a parking space further into Grant Avenue. People at that end of the community were concerned about sufficient turnaround space for deliveries and such. She suggested that the parking space may not be well situated for that purpose and thanked the ARB for its time. Chair Hirsch thanked the public speakers and asked if there were any more. Ms. Dao indicated that concluded the list of public speakers. Chair Hirsch called for ARB questions of the staff or applicant. Boardmember Thompson asked if there was a visible soffit on the street level. She asked if it was the white material. Mr. Korth explained it was currently planned as white outdoor sheetrock cement board. Boardmember Thompson clarified that it was a white metal panel facia which turned to white cement board. Mr. Korth stated that it would turn in and then after the turn would be a reveal and then a smooth plaster ceiling. Boardmember Thompson asked what color the perforated metal elements would be. Mr. Korth said they were thinking about a warm gray color. Boardmember Thompson pointed to a spot on the material board and confirmed that was the color. Mr. Korth said she was correct and explained they did a similar panel on another project in a different color with a laser cut stencil to create an abstraction of foliage. It gave a nice shadowy effect. There would most likely be two layers with a gap in between. It added depth and detail, and they thought it would be a nice thing. Boardmember Thompson requested he repeat the address of the project with that detailing. Mr. Korth said it was at 520 Almanor Boulevard. Boardmember Thompson clarified that the design intent for the metal panel would be similar with two layers. 6     Packet Pg. 155     Page 27 of 41 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/01/22 Mr. Korth explained that the one they would see was on a parking structure and was part of the public art for the program. This would not be the same, but that project would give the ARB an idea of the depth that was possible. There would be a second layer. Boardmember Thompson asked if the foliage abstraction was done with circles. Mr. Korth stated it was a random and irregular pattern so that it was not geometric. It was a more natural texture. Boardmember Thompson heard that for the façade facing Caltrain there was a privacy element that indicated rhythm, but for the other façades she asked about the design intent behind the rhythm of the panels. Mr. Korth said the idea was to define the floors and have a sense of movement at the upper levels. That way they would not have a rigid rectangular pattern. It was to add some softness or movement to the façade. Boardmember Thompson confirmed that there was nothing else that was external that they were responding to on the other three façades and that the intention was to feel random. Mr. Korth said that was correct. Boardmember Thompson inquired about the color for the loading dock screen. Mr. Korth said it was green. He did not know if it was on the material board. Boardmember Thompson pointed to a color on the board and asked if that was the one. Mr. Korth directed her to the color in the lower corner. However, he noted that they needed to get larger panels in the colors and look at them in a mockup. They always built a mockup and invited people to see it. He thought it was very hard to do on a small scale and color needed a lot of attention and full size samples to comprehend. Boardmember Thompson said that the ARB had received larger samples in the past. She asked if it was a powder coat metal finish. Mr. Korth indicated that it was. Boardmember Thompson asked if the intent was to match the other green walls. Mr. Korth said that the building next door on Park and Grant had a green wall concealing their parking. They introduced a living green wall adjacent to the lobby on their project. There was a section of the same green color perforated panel to the right of the lobby. That was the area between their building and the adjacent office building and was visible in the rendering. That green was a backdrop for landscaping as there would be a planter in front of it. He offered to show the drawing again. Boardmember Thompson asked him to please do that. Mr. Korth pulled up the drawing and illustrated where the green wall and areas were. The area beneath the overhang was planned as a manicured living green wall. 6     Packet Pg. 156     Page 28 of 41 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/01/22 Boardmember Thompson confirmed which was the living green wall and which was the perforated metal screen with no planting on it. Mr. Korth said that the planting was in front of the metal screen. Boardmember Thompson asked if it would climb the walls. Mr. Korth said that it could climb the walls. Boardmember Thompson asked for the planting intent. Mr. Burke said that it was low shrub planting to continue the character from the neighboring property. However, they could grow something on the wall. Currently it was foreground planting in front of the building. Boardmember Thompson said that their answers were very helpful and thanked the applicant. Vice Chair Baltay wanted to follow up with some of Boardmember Thompson’s thoughts. He asked if the loading dock entrance off of Grant Avenue had a living wall treatment on the door. Boardmember Thompson thought that was the metal panel. She asked if it was the same green metal as the ground level. Mr. Korth indicated it was. Vice Chair Baltay asked what it was. Mr. Korth said it would be a sandwich of a stenciled panel at the front with holes in a regular pattern. It was the same idea for the gray panels on the upper floors. Then there would be an air gap with a solid panel behind it. That gave depth. They displayed inspiration images for the gray panels. He explained they could not plant on Grant because the first two panels were an operable door that would open to service the trash or for loading. He stated that the details were not resolved yet. Vice Chair Baltay asked if the design intent was to mimic the appearance of a living wall. Mr. Korth explained the idea was an abstraction of planting. The project on Alma they did was a similar example of the idea. It was not a literal interpretation but more of an abstraction like a tree with foliage. Boardmember Thompson asked if the inspiration images were a different pattern. Mr. Korth said that they would develop the pattern themselves. The images were inspiration. The panel was almost artistic in a way. Boardmember Thompson asked if they had a material selected for the solid panel that would sit behind the perforated metal. Mr. Korth explained that it would be the same color but would be set back a couple inches to provide the sense of depth. It could be a contrasting color to emphasize the pattern in the foreground. Boardmember Thompson stated that the idea was not 100% defined. 6     Packet Pg. 157     Page 29 of 41 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/01/22 Mr. Korth agreed that was true. Boardmember Rosenberg asked if the applicant had a geotechnical report for the site. She also wanted to know about a piezometer study or hydrology study of the water table and its limits. Mr. Smith stated that they did a thorough analysis of the depth of the water table and a geotechnical report. they were confident they could go down to the level they proposed in the underground parking garage. They needed to cooperate with Public Works to pump the water out but were confident it could be accomplished. Boardmember Rosenberg said that she was happy the bicycle storage was on the ground floor. She asked for clarification about the walls around the fitness space. Ms. Borden explained that in a parking garage they would have a plaster finish on the walls. Within the fitness space there would probably be some glazing to provide more natural light. They did not define the design of the space yet, it was more about the program of having long term bicycle storage and the fitness and shower amenities. Boardmember Rosenberg noted that the HVAC screen was 12’ tall. She asked if that was accurate. Ms. Borden said that it was and that represented the worst case scenario. They did that to help define the massing and not have to return for additional height. The mechanical engineer developed three different schemes and the one submitted reflected the worst case scenario of the equipment plus a pad height for screening. Boardmember Thompson had a clarification question on the screen. Boardmember Rosenberg stated that she should ask it. Boardmember Thompson asked if they had an HVAC screen material and color selected. Boardmember Rosenberg was also interested in the answer to those questions. Ms. Borden said the HVAC screen was typically a lighter gray or a medium gray which could kind of disappear. She said that the color might be similar to the top middle color on the board although it might be lighter. They would propose a cement plaster for the equipment screening. Boardmember Rosenberg thought a lot hinged on the perforated metal panels. She understood that it was still in flux and that the applicant would return with more refinement on the panel. She asked if they knew the height of the front building that was not their property. [Someone in the room off microphone] said it was 37’. Boardmember Rosenberg asked if the terrace was at the second floor level. She wanted to understand the shading and shadow effect on the interior courtyard terrace. Mr. Korth explained that the terrace on Grant was on the third level and the terrace internal on the inbound corner was on the second level. 6     Packet Pg. 158     Page 30 of 41 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/01/22 Boardmember Rosenberg confirmed that the internal terrace would have two stories above it on three or four sides. Mr. Korth said it had two sides from the project building and one side from the neighbor’s building. The terrace would be in shadow at some point, but there were people that preferred the shade. Boardmember Rosenberg thanked him for the clarification. Boardmember Chen requested clarification on the floor to ceiling height in the retail on the ground floor. Ms. Borden said they were currently proposing floor to ceiling glass for the retail. Boardmember Chen asked for the ceiling height. Ms. Borden apologized for the misunderstanding. The floor to floor there was 10’6” and they hoped to get a 9’ to the sofit. They hoped to maintain a 9’ ceiling but might have to step it down to 8’ inside depending on the structural scheme. Boardmember Chen asked for an explanation of why the trash loading was on Grant while all the trash rooms were on the Sherman side. Ms. Borden explained the last round they had staging and loading of the trash on Sherman. The enclosures were as close as they could get so they could stage on the curb. There was discussion about relocating those and they were open to feedback. It was mostly about how to lay out the program for the garage. Boardmember Chen asked about the exterior elevation along Park Boulevard and if there was designated signage on the third floor as shown in the elevation. Ms. Borden said that they had placeholder future tenant locations. She thought that had been requested by Planning. They identified in the Planning submittal the approximate areas that would be allowed. The locations were a placeholder and would be developed within a master sign program. Boardmember Chen thanked the applicant. Chair Hirsch thought he saw a note about the location of the plume and asked if it was in the plume. Ms. Foley stated that it was in the California-Olive Emerson (COE) Plume. Chair Hirsch asked how the building was protected from the plume. Mr. Smith explained they were working with an environmental consultant and were in process with the County. they were voluntarily cleaning up and mitigating the impacts while digging the parking garage. There were many things that could be done including soil and vapor barriers. The County would be involved in the decisions. They were very aware of the challenges presented by the plume. Chair Hirsch asked what kind of retail was intended for the location. Mr. Smith wanted to engage with the neighborhood about the type of retail it wanted. That was part of the 2021 conversation, and they were still open to ideas. It was a unique location and probably not a great location for it. Truthfully they did not want the retail, but it was part of the zoning. They wanted it to be a vibrant and cool spot. 6     Packet Pg. 159     Page 31 of 41 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/01/22 Ms. Foley clarified that the project was in the retail zoning overlay CC (2)(R). Chair Hirsch stated that required them to have commercial. Ms. Foley stated that they were required to have ground floor retail. Chair Hirsch asked if the neighbors to the rear of the building were on board with the planting and privacy. He asked how that worked. Ms. Borden did not think it was fair to speak on behalf of the residents. Chair Hirsch noted that they were not present. Ms. Borden explained they met the day before and it was productive and helpful. A predominant number were more interested in the native species planting, but they also admitted that they were not the direct neighbors adjacent to the property line that would be the most impacted. The neighbor that was directly on the property line favored the bamboo potentially because it grew faster. That was still under discussion, and they wanted the ARB feedback. The team planned to incorporate things they learned at the latest neighborhood meeting in the plan. The discussion was ongoing. Boardmember Rosenberg asked if the bamboo was running or clumping. Mr. Burke stated that it was clumping. Boardmember Thompson asked if it was a Type 1 concrete building and received indication that it was [note – no one came to the microphone]. Chair Hirsch concluded the question section of the discussion. Ms. Borden returned to the podium and explained that there would be a concrete slab, but the building would either be concrete framed or steel framed. It would be a Type 1B building probably. Chair Hirsch called for ARB comments. Vice Chair Baltay wanted to comment on all the neighborhood questions about why this was not going to be a residential building. All the feedback from the community indicated that they wanted it to be housing and it would be a fine site for housing, but it was zoned commercial, and the ARB did not have the ability to change the zoning. The applicant bought the land and was developing it as zoned. The site layout was good and logical. The pedestrian corner at Sherman and Park was wonderful. Having an additional entrance on Grant was great. The project had a minimal impact on the residential buildings behind it and nearby. It was stepped back such that they got more privacy and he thought that was better. He was previously concerned about window impacts, but he did not see that and thought the neighbors were marginally impacted. He suggested they focus on Sherman after the parking garage entrance. There was a unit with an outdoor patio, and they were removing a tree. That area warranted additional landscaping to be a privacy buffer. The overall massing of the building was good, but he was concerned about the long roof eave line without variation. That could be better, and he pointed to the neighboring building for inspiration. He cited Drawing R1B and asked the ARB to review it. He thought it would be better if it had more variation. Since the whole building was treated that way it became too monotonous. He directed the ARB to Drawing A3.1B which reinforced his point. Similar to the last project with the same architect 6     Packet Pg. 160     Page 32 of 41 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/01/22 he thought the materials could be a little richer as they over relied on painted metal panels. The cornice details on Sheet A810 Detail 3 were two painted aluminum pieces. He recommended a soffit that was a different material, such as wood. He requested more detail in the future on the metal screening panel at the parking garage entrance. The panels on Park ought to be actual landscaping. The panel idea was more appropriate on a movable door and landscaping was more successful. The landscaping was successful on the adjacent building. When the ARB heard that project it discussed the pedestrian experience, and the landscaping was successful because of it. He repeated that they were relying too heavily on the metal panels in the façade and indicated he would like more variation. He wanted more expression on the materials and less focus on their color. Overall he could support the project and thought it would be an attractive building. Boardmember Rosenberg thanked the applicant for their presentation and time. She thought that being an architect was difficult and the hearing was a perfect example of that. One project was housing and people disliked that and then the second was a housing project and the public did not want that, so it was changed to office and now people wanted housing. She agreed with Vice Chair Baltay that the area was zoned for commercial, and the project was an office building located close to public transportation. The ARB loved housing and wanted it near public transportation they also needed offices to be near transportation too. If all the offices were far from public transportation then it was not very useful. The building was nice and well thought out. She appreciated the traffic flow, and the curb cuts were clever and well laid out. The corner exposure with the tucked in moment at the ground floor was inviting. With the aesthetics and materials she thought the metal panels needed more thought. She had worked on projects with metal panels where the buildings really relied on the laser cut portioning. It could be very successful, but she wanted more thought around why the panels were where they were and why they were shaped. She was excited to see the concept of the dual panel more planned out and detailed. The project was a great idea that she wanted to see thoughtfully executed. The retail was great, and she understood it was a difficult location, but it would probably service the neighborhood and office building itself. the north corner stairwell popped out toward the residences and had a blank wall with open ends. She asked that they ensure that big wall was pretty. That was the closest element of the building to the residences, so it needed some thought. The setbacks were nicely done, and she preferred the native tree species to the bamboo. Finally, the rear façade fell a little flat. She understood it was not that visible, but it was very long and uninterrupted. She requested more variation and texture there to break it up. She read through all the public letters which were provided to the ARB in their packets. One letter stood out to her, and she wanted to put her thoughts on record about it. There was an accusation made that the staff was either mistaken in some information they presented or that they were outright lying. She thought that was troubling as the staff diligently worked hard at their jobs. She wanted to state her support for the staff and their work. Boardmember Chen thanked the applicant for the application. She was in favor of the project and appreciated how it opened the street corner. She also liked the green wall and the landscape design. There were some improvements they could consider to make the building better. On the side elevations they could reconsider solid wall locations or screening options to provide better privacy for the neighbors. An 8’ ceiling was pretty low for ground floor retail, especially for the size of the space. It might also be low for the fitness center, so she hoped they would reconsider the height of the ground floor. With the bicycle parking it was always preferred to have it near the door but thought that area might be more useful for 6     Packet Pg. 161     Page 33 of 41 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/01/22 the retail to use as an outdoor display. Therefore, she suggested they reconsider the street bicycle storage space. With the materiality she agreed with her colleagues and requested they add richness to the materials. Specifically, the yellow and white banding could use more depth and detail. Boardmember Thompson thanked the applicant for the presentation and the members of the public for their comments. She agreed with most of what was said by her colleagues and indicated that she might be harder on some things than they were. She initially wondered why the site was not used for housing and she reminded the ARB that they had another project that was not zoned for housing where they pushed for housing but acquiesced to the zoning that was there. This site was great for housing and the project could contain a level of office and then housing above it. They could also look at future proofing the building in case more housing could be added later if the zoning and height requirements changed. The current design of the building was a great base for something to go above it. She understood that they had been though a long process, but she encouraged them not to give up on housing. She struggled with this project and the last one with the sustainability story. Office buildings used a lot of energy, and the building did not appear to have operable windows, which she encouraged. She also might encourage mass timber. Concrete was not as sustainable and mass timber would add warmth and richness. A10.1 showed conceptual imagery of wood, but that did not come through in the design. If that was the design intent the execution did not follow through. She encouraged them to consider a Type 4 building moving forward. With the massing she agreed with Vice Chair Baltay that the elevations appeared relentless. They had a long, steady, unchanging form. There were ways that could be mitigated with fins, shading, elements that protruded, or outside spaces for the office tenants that looked onto Park. Those could be used to modulate the façade. The parapet could also use more modulation and visual interest. It was too plain especially compared to neighboring buildings which included things that added to pedestrian interest. The retail location was not in the correct location. It needed to go up against Park. The office entrance could be on Sherman, but the retail would be hidden there. It needed to come to the front in order to be successful. She agreed with Boardmember Chen that retail needed to have 14’ minimum to the ceiling in order to feel good. She stated that she very much wanted to push the applicant to consider those points. Additionally, she encouraged them not to make it a curtain wall retail façade. She suggested they add something to create character on the street. The ARB was seeing a lot of glass curtain walls and the future could not look like that everywhere on the ground floor. The green walls were amazing, but she was disappointed to hear that the one on Park Street was not actually a green wall. Accordingly, she encouraged that be a real green wall to the extent possible. She understood the perforated metal screen at the back being not really green. The metal screen panel did a lot of the heavy lifting, but she was a fan of the idea. In theory it sounded nice, and she wanted to see it and what it could do to modulate the façade in multiple planes. She was a fan of the wood soffit suggestion. There were a lot of cold colors in the palette and that did not seem to be in the design intent. She stated that she would support the project if the ARB saw some of the suggested changes. There were opportunities to be explored and ideas that needed to grow. Chair Hirsch generally supported the massing of the building and thought it addressed each street pretty well. The Sherman façade was good. He thought the retail was in a difficult location. The green walls and repeating of the neighbor’s landscaping was appreciated. He liked the idea of the privacy issue being addressed by the perforated metal elements. With respect to the length of the wall he suggested that they look at it in plan view. Like Boardmember Thompson said they could create a more interesting corner 6     Packet Pg. 162     Page 34 of 41 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/01/22 up above if they created a small balcony. That was the major corner of the building and what could be done with it was exciting. He took issue with the fussy yellow band detail. That needed more work as it was not a strong element. The rear elevation was functional and the patterning with the perforated metal elements broke it up. He appreciated the interior courtyards and the little balconies. The zoning forced them into retail which was kind of unfortunate. If they put it in the corner they would lose their wonderful entry idea and the green wall. He understood that they wanted the office entry there. He also agreed with Boardmember Chen that the first floor ceiling height did not work. He did not know how to answer that with the building’s height limitations, but the retail really needed a 14’ ceiling to be reasonable. Other than those comments and the few others made by his colleagues he thought the building would be very successful. Overall they did an excellent job in planning how the offices would be used, taking care of the parking, and dealing with the neighbors. Many of the ARB’s comments were applicable and he hoped they would use them to improve the project. Vice Chair Baltay wanted to go on record that the ground floor was too low. They needed a taller ceiling height in order for the retail to be successful. They needed to take that height from the office ceilings because there were more than 10’ tall office ceilings. Boardmember Thompson said that she had another comment on the façade. she had a bit of a gripe with curtain walls but encouraged the design team to consider sculptural elements of solid on the wall. That would add more to the façade other than curtain walls. She did not know if the ARB would agree with that. She heard that she and Chair Hirsch disagreed on the location of the retail. That was something the ARB needed to weigh in on so that the applicant did not receive conflicting feedback. Chair Hirsch called a straw poll. Boardmember Thompson confirmed it was on the location of the retail. Chair Hirsch said that was correct. Vice Chair Baltay asked if they could have staff comment before they answered. He understood the City Council said the space had to be retail, but he did not believe anyone thought retail would work there. Boardmember Thompson said that was not true. Boardmember Rosenberg also disagreed. She thought it could be successful there, but she supported Boardmember Thompson’s comment. The corner was successful, and she did not want to change it, but the retail being near the front façade would make a difference. Chair Hirsch asked staff how much retail was required. Ms. Foley explained that the retail shopping combining district allowed only retail or retail like commercial developments on the ground floor. So the current proposal included the lobby for access to the upper floors and then retail space and parking. Boardmember Thompson stated that there was a pizza place and a French restaurant down the street. There was reason to have retail and commercial in the corridor. 6     Packet Pg. 163     Page 35 of 41 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/01/22 Ms. Raybould noted that additional housing would be coming at 231 Grant. That project had just over 100 units. Vice Chair Baltay asked for a definition of “retail like.” Ms. Foley said that there was a list, but it was mainly eating, drinking, and service oriented commercial. Ms. Raybould explained that some commercial recreation type uses were in the category as were personal services like salons. Vice Chair Baltay thought there were salons in the adjacent building towards California. If they wanted to make it a food service he asked if there were additional parking requirements. Ms. Raybould stated that eating and drinking had higher requirements. There was a food/retail under the retail allowances they could have a service with limited seating like an ice cream shop or some coffee shops. Vice Chair Baltay thought if they switched the office lobby and the retail they could keep both the interesting entrance and move the retail closer to the street. He did not want to lose the nice corner treatment. Boardmember Thompson agreed. Vice Chair Baltay thought they could then reconfigure the stairs to get more frontage. All that was good, but he doubted it would be vibrant retail when California Avenue could not fill the storefronts. Boardmember Chen supported the idea to relocate the retail to face a major street while keeping the corner open. Boardmember Thompson thought that it sounded like the majority wanted that. Chair Hirsch wanted to clarify Boardmember Chen’s thoughts. He asked if the corner would stay as an open plaza. Boardmember Chen said that was correct. Chair Hirsch said that they would then move the office elevators. Boardmember Chen said that she would just switch the office lobby and the retail. Ms. Raybould confirmed there was an interest in switching the retail to front Park versus the office. Boardmember Thompson asked her to repeat the question. Ms. Raybould asked if there was any interest in having the retail front Park. Boardmember Thompson said that everyone liked the plaza on the corner. If the retail were tucked back on Sherman it would not be as successful as it would be on Park. 6     Packet Pg. 164     Page 36 of 41 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/01/22 Boardmember Rosenberg clarified that the ARB was simply asking to flip flop the orientation. The sizing of the lobby and retail were appropriate. She asked if the ARB agreed with that and received nonverbal confirmation. She asked if the applicant had a question. Boardmember Thompson asked if the applicant was allowed to speak. Chair Hirsch said that the ARB was discussing a major change and asked the applicant if that was possible. Mr. Smith stated that they could study it. Retail was possible but that was a major change that could really impact the project. He repeated that they were happy to study it. The ceiling heights and lobby location had a huge impact on the office. Boardmember Thompson thought that the ARB was looking out for the project’s best interest. Chair Hirsch saw that as well and thought the suggestion came very naturally from all Boardmembers. They wanted the retail to succeed as well as the entire building. Vice Chair Baltay cautioned the applicant not to underestimate the ARB’s comments. Some retail needed to be there per the City Council and the whole town. To succeed it needed to be closer to the street, have a taller ceiling, and allow for more parking to make it a food service. The applicant knew food service would be the thing that would succeed. If they did not have the parking then that would not work either so now was the time to solve the problem. He cited Protégé restaurant as an example of how difficult it was to figure out later. Chair Hirsch thought the applicant followed directions well. Overall it was a successful project, and the retail was possibly the most difficult part. The height did not work for retail. Lund Smith said that they looked at the issue a fair amount already. They could explore changing the locations but could not go lower on the office ceiling heights without compromising the ability to lease the office space. They had to keep the 35’ height limit. They could look at creative HVAC and keeping the ceiling as open as possible in the retail space, but they could not go into the office height. Ms. Gerhardt suggested the ARB review Sheet A3.3. That provided a section through the building and showed the first floor was 10’6” while the office floors were 11’9”. Those were floor to floor measurements, so the actual floor took away from the size. Boardmember Thompson noted that on Sheet A4.0B it showed the floor to ceiling heights. She asked Chair Hirsch if she could suggest another straw poll. Chair Hirsch said that he was still looking at the floor to floor which was 10’6”. He acknowledged Boardmember Thompson. Boardmember Thompson said that it was a more conceptual idea. She asked if they wanted to encourage the applicant to explore something. In their area they saw a lot of office buildings that were curtain wall on slab that were articulated as such on the façade. She had encouraged the applicant to consider exploring a solid expression that was not all curtain wall and wanted to know how the Board felt. Vice Chair Baltay thought it would benefit the project by reducing the monotony of the façade. 6     Packet Pg. 165     Page 37 of 41 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/01/22 Boardmember Chen agreed. Chair Hirsch agreed to the extent that the privacy panel could be moved in and out in some way for depth. Vice Chair Baltay thought Boardmember Thompson meant that they should do something different. Boardmember Thompson knew the team was a fan of plaster and there were cool things that could only be done with plaster. The existing building was kind of sculptural and something cool could happen if they encouraged the applicant to explore doing something that was not a curtain wall or metal panel system but a designed wall that created something on the façade. Chair Hirsch said that they could think about that. Ms. Raybould asked if the ARB wanted to hear a summary of what staff took down. Chair Hirsch asked her to go ahead. Ms. Raybould stated that staff heard an interest in the following: adding depth and detail to the materials, having more details and thought behind the design intent with the metal panels, requesting consideration of green walls similar to the neighboring building, look into increasing the ground floor retail floor to ceiling height, consider locating the retail along Park rather than Sherman, consider elements that provide more modulation to the long steady façade, place additional attention on articulation to the rear façade, consider a warmer color palette, consider designs that could accommodate housing above in the future, and consider sculptural elements for the solid wall rather than curtain wall. She asked if there were additions. Vice Chair Baltay heard several Boardmembers requested a warmer color palette not just “at least one.” Boardmember Thompson asked if she had mentioned retail. Ms. Raybould indicated she had. Boardmember Thompson apologized for missing it. Chair Hirsch indicated that staff had summarized the ARB’s thoughts. MOTION: B Thompson moved, seconded by Vice Chair Baltay, to continue the item to a date uncertain. VOTE: 5-0-0-0 Approval of Minutes 4. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for October 20, 2022 Chair Hirsch asked if Boardmembers had read the minutes for October 20, 2022. Boardmember Rosenberg indicated that on Package Page 114 she was unhappy with the wording that she did not understand the legalities. She indicated that it was more that she was not familiar with the legalities involved and requested staff make that adjustment. Ms. Gerhardt confirmed the placement and wording Boardmember Rosenberg was requesting. 6     Packet Pg. 166     Page 38 of 41 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/01/22 Vice Chair Baltay recalled that was what Boardmember Rosenberg had meant. He then directed staff to Page 99 and stated that the name was Louis Kahn. Ms. Gerhardt requested the spelling again. Vice Chair Baltay said it was Louis Kahn. He was an architect that deserved their respect. MOTION: Vice Chair Baltay moved, seconded by Chair Hirsch, to approve the meeting minutes for October 20, 2022, as amended. VOTE: 5-0-0-0 5. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for November 3, 2022 MOTION: Boardmember Rosenberg moved, seconded by Vice Chair Baltay, to approve the meeting minutes for November 3, 2022, as presented. VOTE: 5-0-0-0 Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcements Chair Hirsch suggested that they move the next item as it would take 10 to 15 minutes. Vice Chair Baltay thought that they should continue. Boardmember Thompson said that was up to the Chair. Chair Hirsch stated that he was prepared to move forward. Vice Chair Baltay was in favor of hearing the item. Chair Hirsch asked staff to get the slideshow ready. He explained that he and Boardmember Chen had changed courses. They began looking at the Objective Standards and then a townhouse project came along so they shifted focus to that. They took many photos of projects both in Palo Alto and nearby. The first slide displayed the projects they reviewed in Palo Alto and their locations. A few of the projects were slab structures with housing on top of parking while the rest were on the ground. The next slide displayed the projects they reviewed in the Bay Area and their locations. They studied the projects under 8 categories: neighborhood context, community circulation, building typology, landscape/open space, privacy, rhythm and pattern, materiality, and operation services. He showed a project that he described as being of historic context in an industrial area that used materials and context to fit into the neighborhood. He showed the Landsby project and noted the corner detail and the fact that there were very small street trees. Boardmember Chen stated that the project was new and was on two major streets. 6     Packet Pg. 167     Page 39 of 41 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/01/22 Chair Hirsch showed the Arbor Real project and noted that the corner was very setback and the project appeared as a single building although it was several. The project had significant trees. In this case the site was very large and included many different aspects of housing such as different prototypes. Boardmember Chen indicated that the next slide was another picture of the Landsby. Vice Chair Baltay asked if they were townhomes. Chair Hirsch said that was a good question as that part of the project looked very dense. Boardmember Thompson was not sure that the project on San Antonio was a townhome. Boardmember Rosenberg confirmed that the building on the right in the picture was townhomes, but she was unsure about the building on the left. Chair Hirsch said that they would go back and make sure that they had the project in the correct category. He pointed out the street trees and noted that they were a strong issue. The next slide discussed different choices related to the hierarchy of effectiveness on street treatments whether it was a major street or minor street. He noted that it related to height, roof lines, and rules about corner units and buildings. Corner unit buildings ought to have different treatments than mid-block units. The next slide continued to describe the corner issues. With community circulation they found different protypes related to vehicle access/parking and pedestrian/bicycle paths. The next slide showed the JCC podium scheme for part of the project. The interior was quite different from the exterior. It had a parking entry that affected pretty much everything and would likely be too expensive to build for most developers. The next slide showed a cul-de-sac scheme that was interesting as it was paved differently and had minor trees which were an issue in terms of shading. The length of the cul-de-sac was also significant, and he thought they needed to limit them and discuss how long the series of buildings were allowed to be. The next slide showed an aerial view of the same project which faced El Camino Real. The townhome on the opposite side of the street was also a cul-de-sac project but it had two means of entry. The next slide showed Livermore which was a large development with a number of prototypes. The slide showed the cul-de-sac type and an area for a strictly pedestrian zone. The next slide showed the setbacks for the houses on Arbor Real which were separated from one another and had front yard space with private entries and street edges consistently planted with trees. The next slide was an example of slab type construction with units along the top. That provided for landscaping which created interest and openness. He then showed an aerial view of the same project and noted that it provided guest parking for residents. It did a good job of providing privacy and was limited in the length of the clusters. One building was longer than the next and that difference was significant. The parking helped mitigate the impact to the public street area. Boardmember Chen stated that the next slide was another aerial view of Arbor Real and was still about guest parking. 6     Packet Pg. 168     Page 40 of 41 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/01/22 Chair Hirsch noted that it was on the street guest parking which was good for guests and deliveries. The more street parking the better the project would be. He showed a slide of text and stated that he did not want to go into the text and asked to continue viewing the photographs. Ms. Gerhardt apologized for the speed of the computer. Chair Hirsch explained that there were many possibilities related to building typologies. He showed the site plan for Arbor Real and explained that there were four different types of housing in the project. Those types worked well together and created a very successful aesthetic. There was tremendous variety in the project and many trees. Cul-de-sac parking schemes were used throughout the project, except for the units shown in red. The next slide was a site plan of Sterling Court in the Bayshore/Loma Verde area. It had two way circulation and at least three different housing types. He asked Boardmember Chen what the slide illustrated. Boardmember Chen explained it was related to typology. Chair Hirsch thought it would be interesting to review the sales documents on the individual houses, which sold very quickly. The next slide showed the idea of three typologies on the Bayshore project. In order to fit in guest parking there was a small slab. The entryways were maximized in order to get to all the houses within the development. He questioned how they should determine how many prototypes were necessary for the size of a property. A larger property could have several different prototypes whereas a smaller property could only afford two prototypes. When the ARB next discussed the issue it needed to make some decisions. For landscape/open space he showed a slide of the Arbor Real project’s activity space. There was also a swimming pool and community building at the center of the project. In Alma Village they took a picture of the area behind the grocery outlet in front of the detached houses. The public area opened to a commercial area which allowed for late night guest parking and the streetscape also provided parking. The passageways between were beautiful and the ARB needed to consider the treatment of passageways. If they were large enough to allow for planting a lot could be done. He suggested a 12’ wide passageway with a 4’ and 4’ landscaping on either side with houses behind. He showed a shared open space at JCC and instructed staff to skip the text slides. He stated that the next photo was of Arbor Real on the opposite side of the cul-de-sac parking. The buildings could have been a little further apart and the landscaping could have been improved. The areas were left without activity so there were problems there that the ARB needed to deal with. Boardmember Chen noted that the ARB would probably prefer staggered windows instead of the large windows facing each other as these slides were related to privacy. Chair Hirsch showed a slide of a large deck that handled privacy appropriately. Boardmember Chen noted that the slide showed the front yard at Arbor Real. Chair Hirsch said that the JCC housing had about a 20’ backyard or less. The space was nice, but people lost privacy since the windows faced each other. 6     Packet Pg. 169     Page 41 of 41 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/01/22 Vice Chair Baltay stated that they were done. Chair Hirsch agreed that they would have to end. Boardmember Rosenberg asked if the slide deck could be emailed to the Boardmembers for review. Chair Hirsch stated that was acceptable and they would do so. In summary, he thought that they had presented the topics the ARB needed to discuss related to townhomes. They also needed to review the examples to determine what parts of the projects made sense for Palo Alto. He confirmed that the December 15th hearing included Fry’s. Ms. Raybould explained that on December 15th there would be a discussion scheduled on the topic separate from Fry’s. Chair Hirsch confirmed that Ms. Raybould meant they would have a discussion on the townhome standards. Ms. Raybould asked if that was what Chair Hirsch had asked her about. Chair Hirsch asked when Fry’s would be heard. Ms. Raybould said that was also on December 15th. Chair Hirsch suggested that the ARB continue the conversation following Fry’s. Ms. Raybould agreed. Chair Hirsch indicated that was the plan. Vice Chair Baltay thanked Chair Hirsch and Boardmember Chen and noted that he would be “spinning” thinking about it. Adjournment Chair Hirsch adjourned the meeting. 6     Packet Pg. 170     Item No. 7. Page 1 of 1 Architectural Review Board Staff Report From: Jonathan Lait, Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: January 19, 2023 TITLE Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for November 17, 2022 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) adopt the attached meeting minutes. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Minutes of November 17, 2022 AUTHOR/TITLE: Veronica Dao, Administrative Associate 7     Packet Pg. 171     Page 1 of 27 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 11/17/22 2 9 0 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD DRAFT MINUTES: November 17, 2022 Council Chamber & Zoom 8:30 AM Call to Order / Roll Call The Architectural Review Board (ARB) of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in Council Chambers and virtual teleconference at 8:30 a.m. Present: Chair David Hirsch, Vice Chair Peter Baltay, Boardmember Osma Thompson (via Zoom), Boardmember Kendra Rosenberg, Boardmember Yingxi Chen Absent: None Oral Communications Veronica Dao, Administrative Associate III, stated there were none. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Claire Raybould, Senior Planner, explained that staff planned to ask for a continuation on 123 Sherman to a date certain of December 1, 2022. The ARB would meet on December 1st and the 15th. December 1st would hear 660 University and 123 Sherman. December 15th would have a study session on 200 Portage. City Official Reports 1. Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2) Tentative Future Agenda items and 3) Recently Submitted Projects Jodie Gerhardt, Manager of Current Planning, thanked Ms. Raybould for speaking for her in Agenda Changes, Additions, and Deletions. The ARB had the list of future projects, and she was happy to answer any questions on them. Chair Hirsch congratulated staff on the updates to the pipeline list. Vice Chair Baltay requested that staff explain the review schedule for the Fry’s site at 200 Portage. He understood that it would be a split review. Ms. Raybould explained that given the size of the property they thought it was appropriate to do a study session on the townhomes and a separate session on the cannery. that would also allow time for the Historic Resources Board (HRB) to provide input on the remaining cannery building before the ARB held a study session. Vice Chair Baltay asked when the reviews would take place. 7     Packet Pg. 172     Page 2 of 27 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 11/17/22 2 9 0 Ms. Raybould explained that the townhome portion of the site would come forward on December 15th. The study session for the cannery would be January 19th. Vice Chair Baltay asked how the feedback from the HRB would be integrated on the cannery portion of the project. Ms. Raybould said that the goal was to get feedback from the HRB on how to treat the remaining building. the development agreement for the proposed project was a significant and unavoidable impact on a historic resource. It would lose its integrity and not be eligible for the California Register following the demolition for the townhome project. However, they still wanted to treat the remainder of the building consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. The HRB would explain how they could still provide an educational opportunity to the public with the remains of the building. Vice Chair Baltay asked if the HRB’s review was in advance of the ARB’s meeting on the 19th. Ms. Raybould said that it would be. Vice Chair Baltay asked when they would look at it. Ms. Raybould hoped to go before the HRB on the 12th. The staff report would be out before the feedback, so staff would give an oral presentation to the ARB on the HRB feedback. The 19th was just a study session, the project would return to the ARB for a formal review. Chair Hirsch inquired about the remainder of the site. Ms. Raybould asked if he was inquiring about the City portion of the property. Chair Hirsch explained there were 3.25 acres that were in negotiation with the Council. Ms. Raybould explained that the development agreement did not include development on that site. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) document analyzed a 1 acre affordable housing project that could go there, but any future project would have its own design phase and would come to the ARB. The other 2.25 acres would be designated as a park and would go through a public process with a park improvement ordinance. They are looking into improvements for the park including the naturalization of the creek bank and that was being considered as part of the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP). Chair Hirsch commented that everything should be integrated into a conceptual design as a single piece of property. Action Items 2. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 3001 El Camino Real [22PLN-00229]: Consideration of a Major Architectural Review to Allow Demolition of Two Existing Retail Buildings 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. Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration is Being Prepared in 7     Packet Pg. 173     Page 3 of 27 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 11/17/22 2 9 0 Accordance With the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Zoning District: CS (Service Commercial). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Claire Raybould at Claire.Raybould@cityofpaloalto.org Chair Hirsch introduced the project and called for the staff report. Ms. Gerhardt reminded Chair Hirsch to call for disclosures. Vice Chair Baltay disclosed that he visited the site. Boardmember Rosenberg disclosed that she visited the site. Boardmember Chen disclosed that she visited the site. Chair Hirsch stated that he visited the site but had not met with anyone. Boardmember Thompson indicated that she was out of town but was familiar with the area. Ms. Gerhardt stated that she had sent an email to the ARB earlier in the morning regarding the project and wanted to summarize it for the public. The project was 100% affordable and used the latest State density bonus laws. The applicant was allowed up to four concessions. The application was also under SB 330, so the regulations were frozen on May 17th which was prior to the Objective Standards being implemented. Therefore, the project did not need to adhere to the new Objective Design Standards only to the original Context Based Design Standards. The standards could not downzone the property in any way. The ARB and City could impose objective conditions that did not downzone. Ms. Raybould stated that 3001 El Camino Real was located near the Fry’s site between Olive and Acacia. There were single family residential uses to the rear of the site, a vacant surface parking lot along Acacia, and other commercial uses along Acacia. The applicant proposed demolishing the building that used to house Mike’s Bikes and constructing a 5-story residential rental building with 129 very low income units. The project was subject to SB 300. The preapplication was filed on May 17, 2022, so the development standards in effect at that time were applicable to the project. The project was also subject to a 5 hearing limitation. The parcel was 1.14 acres. Under the State Density Bonus there were additional allowances for 100% affordable projects to anything lower than “low income”. She repeated that the project was for very low income. The project was eligible for unlimited density, but that was inapplicable due to the El Camino location anyway. They were eligible for a 33 foot height increase from the base zoning. The areas within 150 feet of the single family residential zoning were allowed to be 35 feet and other areas were allowed to be 50 feet. The applicant proposed 59 feet where 62 to 83 feet were allowed. There was no parking requirement for the project as it was located within proximity to a major transit stop, but they were providing 103 spaces anyway. The plans indicated 106 spaces, but staff noted that the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) spaces were not compliant and therefore the applicant planned to make an adjustment. The applicant proposed four concessions, the first was for a 5 foot setback along Acacia where 10 feet was required. They were providing more space on the ground floor; it was only the upper floors that projected to 5 feet. The other concessions were related to lot coverage, gross floor area, and open space requirements. The Code does not allow something to count toward useable open space if its dimensions were less than 6 feet and it was private. Some of the units had 5 foot dimensions and so they did not count under the code. The code also did not allow usable open space to count if it were on the 2nd 7     Packet Pg. 174     Page 4 of 27 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 11/17/22 2 9 0 floor. Based on that the applicant requested an open space concession as they were providing an area for residents. Key considerations related to the project were that it was subject to the Housing Accountability Act and Senate Bill (SB) 330. Staff sought feedback from the ARB on the overall design and consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning Code, and applicable Objective Standards. Staff further recommended they provide public feedback and continue the item to a date uncertain. The continuation was necessary as the environmental analysis was not yet complete. The environmental documents needed to be released to the public prior to a formal recommendation. She indicated that she was prepared to answer questions and that the applicant had a presentation. Chair Hirsch called for questions of staff. Vice Chair Baltay asked if the 5 foot balconies and open space on the second floor were included if the project would comply with the open space requirements. Ms. Raybould believed it would. Boardmember Rosenberg asked which frontage was considered the front of the property and was technically supposed have a 10 foot setback. Ms. Raybould stated that the shortest side that permitted vehicular access was the front of the lot. Olive Avenue was the front of the lot per code and Acacia Avenue was the rear of the lot. Boardmember Rosenberg confirmed that Acacia Avenue should have the 10 foot setback and asked if the 5 foot front setback was standard. Ms. Raybould explained the front setback should be 0 to 10 feet to provide an effective sidewalk width of 8 feet. Boardmember Thompson said that she had questions of the applicant so would wait until after their presentation. Vice Chair Baltay asked if the front setback determination was subject to the Director’s judgement as well. Ms. Raybould did not believe so. The code was clear about the front setback and the definition of “front”. Vice Chair Baltay confirmed that there was no language included like “as approved by the Director”. Ms. Raybould said there was not. Ms. Gerhardt stated that anything could be interpreted by the Director, but the code was clear. The El Camino Real Guidelines also discussed having a larger sidewalk along El Camino. Vice Chair Baltay explained that he was asking because logically El Camino was the front of the site. That would not require the applicant to use a concession and they then might be allowed to use it for something else. Boardmember Thompson noted that the Code stated that the open space on the second floor was not permitted, but if it were on other floors it would be. She requested clarification and asked if staff knew the intent behind the code. 7     Packet Pg. 175     Page 5 of 27 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 11/17/22 2 9 0 Ms. Raybould stated she was not clear on how the code was interpreted or where that idea came from, but it’s outlined in PAMC Section 18.40.23but if the open space was above the 2nd floor or on the ground floor it would count. The intent may have been to discourage 2nd floor open space, but she was not sure. Chair Hirsch asked if that item could be considered an exception that the Director could give the applicant. Ms. Raybould said it was not; it would have to be either a variance, a Design Enhancement Exception (DEE), or a concession. The applicant requested it as a concession. Chair Hirsch asked if staff got involved with the planning of the building from the inside out or if they exclusively look at it from the outside in as a zoning package. Ms. Raybould thought they tried to look at everything in the design. The exterior was the main focus, but the ARB findings spoke to circulation and how the project worked. Therefore, staff also viewed it from that perspective. Chair Hirsch invited the applicant to make a presentation. Christian Poncetta, Project Manager at Charities Housing, shared his screen with the ARB and indicated that he would provide an overview of Charities Housing and then ask Will Bloomer who would present the project. Charities Housing is a mission driven non-profit developer operating from Santa Clara County. The mission is to develop, own, and manage quality affordable homes for low income individuals and families. Chair Hirsch requested that he spell his name for the record. Mr. Poncetta did so and continued explaining the history of Charities Housing, which was founded in 1993 and received 501(c)3 status in 1996. He displayed a map of its projects and stated that they had built 1,428 homes over 28 properties. They actively manage the properties and maintain an on site staff unit at each location. The property management team is trained in Fair Housing compliance monitoring and tenant relations. Charities Housing had two active construction projects running with a total of 229 homes. Those should open in 2023. There were just over 1,000 homes in the development pipeline. He then showed pictures of completed communities for the ARB’s reference. They also provide counseling, skill building classes, finance management and social events for residents. He indicated that he was happy to answer questions following Mr. Bloomer’s presentation. Will Bloomer, Project Architect with David Baker Architects, thanked Ms. Raybould for putting the site in context. One of the site’s strengths was its access to public transportation, so he displayed a slide showing the transit stops near the site. He then showed photos of the current site conditions as well as of the former building. The zone was Service Commercial, and a lot line adjustment went through the City, so the property was a combination of Lot 56 and Lot 55. He repeated that they were looking for Density Bonus under SB 330; the project was 100% affordable family housing and was within a half mile of a major transit stop. It qualified for an additional 33 feet of height, unlimited density, and four concessions. They were requesting concessions on the Floor Area Ratio (FAR), on reducing the rear setback on Acacia Avenue, on exceeding the lot coverage from 50% to 74%, and on the required open space. The project had a total of 129 homes including a mix of 3 bedrooms, 2 bedrooms, 1 bedroom, and studios. The building was five stories, 59 feet tall, 100% affordable targeting 30% to 50% Area Median Income (AMI) and was 7     Packet Pg. 176     Page 6 of 27 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 11/17/22 2 9 0 just under 137,000 square feet. They would provide parking for 103 cars, mostly through the use of puzzle lifts and 152 bicycle spaces. The form of the building was a unique S shape, and he displayed an aerial rendering and a site plan. David Baker Architects and Charities Housing were committed to the sustainability of the site and were attempting to take advantage of solar orientation with solar photovoltaics (PV) on the roof and landscaping to manage water. He displayed the ground floor plan and noted how the parking was hidden and wrapped by amenities. The courtyard was between the property management and the lobby area. There was a community room and gathering area which connected to the open space and children's playground. There was a pedestrian mews and desirable units along the rear. He highlighted the second floor common open space that the project would provide. Formwork was the landscape architect, and the area would be an amenity for the units. He also pointed out that many units had balconies. The materials were used to break up the building and reduce its visual mass. Fiber cement was very durable, and they emphasized the massing on El Camino Real with a thin brick. The project also featured perforated metal balconies and sunshades, wood slat screens by the stairs, and a concrete and storefront ground floor. He showed renderings and asked them to note the different textures and the courtyards. The El Camino/Acacia edge was important, and he displayed the rendering. The wood stair screen would be a “lantern” for the community. The ground floor was open and would create an active frontage around the entire project. The El Camino Real Elevation included several amenities along its length and the building complied with the daylight plane on Acacia Avenue and the setback allowed a lot of space for landscaping and the common rear courtyard. It was also the mews access to the unique units. He showed a rendering of the El Camino entry plaza and explained they wanted it to be welcoming. He noted the materiality and explained that property management would be on one side with the lobby on the other. The Olive frontage rendering was displayed and included the garage entry. The rear property line view was shown with the second floor open space visible for the length of the building. Chair Hirsch apologized for interrupting and explained that the applicant was nearing its 10 minute time limit. He noted that he had forgotten to mention the time limit and requested Mr. Bloomer conclude his comments shortly. Mr. Bloomer indicated that he only had one slide left. He showed the Olive Elevation and then the view of the project to the south. They wanted to create a building that felt at home in the neighborhood and had vegetation that tied in with the residential areas. The building mass was broken up at the courtyards. They were happy to answer questions. Chair Hirsch thanked the applicant and called for the public comment. Ms. Dao indicated that there were none. Boardmember Thompson asked the applicant if there was a fence on the Acacia side in between the courtyard connected to the community room. Mr. Bloomer stated that there was a fence with access gates on either end to give access to the pedestrian mews. Boardmember Thompson asked if they considered an E shaped building versus an S shaped building for the massing. 7     Packet Pg. 177     Page 7 of 27 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 11/17/22 2 9 0 Mr. Bloomer explained several forms were looked at, but they liked the S shape best for its ability to break down the mass and provide varied courtyards. At least one iteration had an E shape. Boardmember Thompson asked if there was a reason why the 5 foot balconies could not be 6 foot balconies. Mr. Bloomer stated that in order to try and maximize the envelope it was done. All the balconies on the inside edge were 6 feet. The outer balconies along the edge were 5 feet due to the setback. The only reason the space did not count was because of the 5 foot depth. Boardmember Thompson asked if that was because they wanted to keep the floor area in the unit. Mr. Bloomer said that in order to make things work every foot counted. Ms. Raybould noted that the balconies could extend into a setback but not over the property line. The balconies were to the property line at 5 feet. Boardmember Thompson stated that she understood. She asked if the CP1 material was a white or a light grey. Mr. Bloomer said that the final selection was not made but the color would be a white. Boardmember Thompson inquired about the color of the WWI thin brick. Mr. Bloomer explained they planned to do a mix of a few brick colors to create a variety. Currently it was several different blacks in the rendering. Boardmember Thompson confirmed the design intent was to have several different shades of brick. Mr. Bloomer said it was. Boardmember Thompson confirmed the shading perf panel was a Corten color. Mr. Bloomer said it was a Corten rusting steel. Boardmember Thompson asked why they placed the service areas on Olive and Acacia rather than on the north side of the building. Mr. Bloomer explained that between the front entry and the garage they did not want to make the location feel “lesser”, so they placed it where it was to create four strong elevations. Boardmember Thompson asked if units were explored on Olive and Acacia. Mr. Bloomer said there was not enough depth. Boardmember Chen asked about the floor to ceiling height of the ground floor units. Mr. Bloomer believed that was 13 feet. Those would be some of the tallest units. Boardmember Chen asked if the unit was elevated from the ground. 7     Packet Pg. 178     Page 8 of 27 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 11/17/22 2 9 0 Mr. Bloomer said that they would essentially be the ground floor, possibly with a step up. The tenants would get a wonderful tall space. Boardmember Chen asked where the short term biking storage was held. Mr. Bloomer stated that some were in the entry courtyard, a few spots were along Olive Avenue, and some were along El Camino Real. Boardmember Chen asked if the ground floor services would be available to the public. Mr. Bloomer said it was a residential use and they were residential amenities. They were still considering what would go there, but a fitness amenity was possible. Boardmember Chen asked about the thin brick material and where it stopped after it wrapped the corner. Mr. Bloomer utilized a floor plan and pointed out where the material would wrap. Boardmember Chen asked for the distance from the transformer to the building. Mr. Bloomer pointed out where it was and explained they wanted to utilize landscape screening to make it easily accessible but not prominent. Boardmember Rosenberg asked why the main vehicular assess was placed on Olive rather than Acacia. Mr. Bloomer was not sure if there was a fundamental reason why one was chosen over the other. Boardmember Rosenberg noted that there appeared to be a pedestrian entrance near the garage. Mr. Bloomer confirmed that was correct. Boardmember Rosenberg asked if that was the only interior/exterior access to the parking. Mr. Bloomer noted that there was space next to the driving aisle that could be used to enter and exit as well. The entrance points were determined by the parking stackers and their placement. Boardmember Rosenberg assumed it would not be feasible to let out to the community open space as that would impact parking. Mr. Bloomer noted they had to control circulation and space. Having access that the onsite management was well aware of was important. Boardmember Rosenberg confirmed there was no designation for the residential service spaces yet but inquired what they could be. Mr. Bloomer mentioned a multipurpose room and then said that there was discussion about a room for charities. Mr. Poncetta said that they typically had an onsite service provider so some space might be used as the service office space. Boardmember Rosenberg said that it was currently unclear but would be directly related to the building and not a café or similar. 7     Packet Pg. 179     Page 9 of 27 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 11/17/22 2 9 0 Mr. Poncetta agreed that was correct. Boardmember Rosenberg asked about the back façade and the units there. She heard they would be low to the ground with a possible step up. She asked for a better idea of the articulation and noted that in the rendering they were behind a fence. Currently it looked like a big swath of concrete color. Mr. Bloomer said that they loved textured concrete and thought it would be a positive for the community with the weathered steel. That ran the entire length of the back area. There was a Corten awning over each door. The articulation was a sense of each unit though the placement of windows and doors was to be determined. They had done this on a few other projects and these units were loved for their really high ceilings. Boardmember Rosenberg confirmed there was no material or color change unit to unit. It would be textured concrete the whole way down. Mr. Bloomer explained that was the current design intent. Boardmember Rosenberg pointed to the staircase from the 2nd floor common space and asked if it was the only access point from the ground level to the common space. Mr. Bloomer said that stairway was not public, it was a requirement by the Fire Department for ladders. Currently it was not a public stairway. One would have to go through the building using the stairs or the elevator to get to the second floor space. They wanted to control access to the building. Ms. Raybould had a note about why the vehicular access was on Olive rather than Acacia. That was because the vehicular access on Olive allowed for left hand and right hand turns at El Camino. Acacia only allowed one to go northbound on El Camino and one could only access the site if they were coming from the southbound direction. The former mixed-use project also designed the site with access on Olive. Vice Chair Baltay said it was interesting to hear the applicant’s thought process behind the design. He asked the applicant to explain the access and circulation control needs relative to the unique needs of the 100% affordable housing building. was there anything particular about the building that required different or specific access or circulation controls. Mr. Bloomer asked if Mr. Poncetta wanted to take the question. Mr. Poncetta explained that they liked residents to enter through the main entrance where they had a security guard or front desk person monitoring the traffic. Based on that they wanted residents to enter through the courtyard. That was the main control for circulation. He asked if Kathy Robinson wanted to answer the question. Kathy Robinson, Director of Development for Charities Housing, believed that Mr. Poncetta responded accurately. Affordable housing was a little different from market rate housing in that they wanted to provide a very safe and secure environment. That was done by having residents and guests flow through an entry point. It was as much to keep the residents safe as anything and was efficient. 7     Packet Pg. 180     Page 10 of 27 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 11/17/22 2 9 0 Mr. Bloomer explained that part of the design intent was to give the front desk and property management full eyes on the plaza. They would use landscaping to funnel people to a single entry point. Landscaping then became an amenity for the entry experience. Vice Chair Baltay requested to see floor plans for the ground floor apartments. He asked if he was missing unit layouts in the package. Mr. Bloomer said that the unit plans were only a starting point for discussion but indicated they could provide them. Vice Chair Baltay found that one of the 2nd floor open spaces was about 35 feet wide and the other was 40 feet wide. The building walls appeared to be about 44 feet high. He asked if those numbers were accurate. Mr. Bloomer thought that they sounded about right. Vice Chair Baltay asked if they knew how the 2nd floor areas would work with the stormwater control. Mr. Bloomer said a member of the team looked at the roof’s square footage and how it would be accounted. They would need to provide another diagram of how the water would be treated. The civil team did have a diagram prepared. The water would also have to be collected from the podium and brought to the ground. Vice Chair Baltay said he was skeptical about the plans because some depth of soil was required and on a podium that was a critical issue. With the fiber cement panels he asked if they were custom made or who the manufacturer was. He also inquired about a cost analysis of the materials. To follow up he stated that he assumed they were on a tight construction budget. Mr. Bloomer said that was true. Fiber cement was something that they got good pricing on, but currently things were changing rapidly. Lately it was more expensive, but it was generally a go to economical choice. They were studying premium materials in the right spaces. Vice Chair Baltay said that on one of his projects he received pricing on perforated metal panels and had been a little shocked. The fiber cement was an important element and he wanted to ensure it was thought through. He thought it sounded like the project was still in the design intent phase and asked if that was correct. Mr. Bloomer confirmed that was where they currently were. He knew that Ms. Robinson was searching for a general contractor. With the balconies they placed the weathering steel on a lot of projects, but lately all cost assumptions were useless. Depending on the materials used they would still utilize the same strategies to break up the mass. Costs were tough and they would be cost constrained. Vice Chair Baltay thanked him for the candid answers. Chair Hirsch said that wrapped up the questions. Boardmember Thompson indicated that she had another one. Chair Hirsch suggested she ask it. 7     Packet Pg. 181     Page 11 of 27 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 11/17/22 2 9 0 Boardmember Thompson asked if they had done the Corten shading elements on a prior project. Mr. Bloomer said they had on several projects. Boardmember Thompson asked if it was done on a white façade. Mr. Bloomer indicated they had. Boardmember Thompson inquired about the possibility of staining. Mr. Bloomer said that it could be pre-stained, which would go a long way to avoiding the issues. Boardmember Thompson asked if it stopped the runoff from staining the façade. Mr. Bloomer said that the vast majority of staining would happen at the beginning. He could provide a list of projects where it was done. Chair Hirsch confirmed that concluded the questions and brought the conversation back to the ARB. He thanked the applicant for the presentation. In New York his firm focused on supportive housing, so he was thrilled by the project. He was also pleased that Charities Housing had come to Palo Alto, which he did not have the opportunity to work with in New York. He praised the charity and its long history of providing supportive housing. He was pleased to hear the City Council discuss adjacent sites in the NVCAP neighborhood. The Planning Director proposed and the Council accepted that the City should consider taller buildings, potentially 6-stories, and credited the ARB as proposing the increase. He did not recall a specific mention of the height increase, but was pleased that context, neighborhood scale, and studies of pedestrian eyelevel impact would be included. He thought the ARB critique of projects must begin where the architect began; by understanding how the program worked. It was critical that the ARB was aware of all that since under new state regulations there was limited time in which the ARB could comment. The architect for the project was one of the best supportive housing architects in the country. Their scheme for 3001 El Camino reduces the bulk of the building to a more manageable massing proportion. However, there were some major unacceptable flaws. The elevators were located at the dead end of the southwest corner of the S. the linear length of the corridor to the furthest 3 bedroom units was about 400 feet. He thought that was too long and included too many obstacles. It would be more logical to place the elevator core in the middle of the S where it was equidistant from both building extremes. He thought it was reasonable to request the relocation of the elevator under ARB Finding #2. If the elevator was moved to the center there would be freedom to allow more variety in the massing. The site was bordered by Olive, a mixed-use district with low office structures and residences. Acacia bordered a commercial building. there was no presently available master plan or circulation diagram for the neighboring sites in the Fry’s boundary which limits the ARB’s ability to comment. He believed Acacia would be a major vehicle entry point to the Fry’s parking lots when the rest of NVACP was built. The proposed building from the Olive view would overwhelm the neighborhood. He requested a street elevation from Olive Street that showed the comparative nature to the street. The design violated Finding #2 by not providing a harmonious transition in scale, mass, and character to the adjacent parcels and land use designations. He believed they should reduce the mass on Olive to respect the neighborhood and provide a higher elevation on Acacia where the height was not problematic. That meant a taller building which would be allowed under new State regulations and by the City for supportive housing projects. He was confident that the Council 7     Packet Pg. 182     Page 12 of 27 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 11/17/22 2 9 0 would approve that approach as well. The ARB should return the study of the massing to the architect. Additionally he suggested they consider flipping the garage entry to Acacia and moving the ground residents from the rear yard to face Olive in order to reinforce the residential scale of the street. That would change the circulation but there would ultimately be circulation issues around the site anyway. He asked if there was a study of the transit requirements of the site and noted that he did not think that one was completed. The present ground floor uses were a “grab bag” of the kind of uses required for proper functioning supportive housing community but were disconnected from the building’s circulation. The bicycle storage should be closer to the entry and there was not enough thought given to the access and circulation. It was sacrilegious to locate some of the things on the ground floor. The third or fourth floor featured great views and it might be more interesting to have some of those facilities there. Overall there was not enough thought given to the relationship of the uses within the building and things were uncoordinated. He questioned which side should be the front of the building and which should be the back and noted the applicant needed to recognize that it was a mixed-use community of residences, and the neighborhood should be offered a way to participate in the building. he understood it was important to have control over tenants in a supportive housing building, so he understood the control point. They needed to recognize that they would have large families as tenants, and they should not have to walk as far to the elevators. The code requires a commercial space at a prominent ground floor corner. He thought that might not be possible here even though the idea seemed sensible. He wondered if an eating establishment would be possible and pointed to a nearby establishment as a model. The restaurant could be used as a sort of job training place for residents like Ada’s Café. He repeated that he was concerned about a program that did not seem to work, circulation that did not work, massing that did not work relative to the neighborhood, and thought Acacia would be a better access point. Boardmember Rosenberg said that her thoughts were not as composed as Chair Hirsch. She both agreed and disagreed with him on several points. She found the project respectful of the neighbors. She initially thought Acacia would be a better vehicular access point but understood that being able to go both northbound and southbound on El Camino was enticing. Based on that she could be convinced that Olive made sense. Second, she appreciated the neighborhood mews and residential units on the backside. Having those along Olive might be better and it might also be better to step the building back and respect the daylight plane so the existing residential homes would not be as impacted. She appreciated that moment and respect. That said, she thought the Olive side was large in mass. There would be 4 stories of residential tenants looking into the backyard of the small single family homes on Olive. Reducing the mass on that side of the building and increasing it on the Acacia side was an intriguing idea and was worth exploring. The building could serve as a transition between the lower profile residential neighborhood and something that could be much larger. She noted that the Fry’s site was around the corner and would be redeveloped. The project could serve as part of the major transition between low impact residential and higher density. The project was thoughtful, and she liked the S shape but questioned the amount of sun to some sides. She wanted to see more interior/exterior circulation, specifically through the courtyard. There were security concerns but there was not enough access. A staircase from the entry courtyard to the 2nd floor open space would be beautiful and secure with a key card entry. If the elevator was not going to be centrally located then the project needed two elevators. The long walk was unacceptable and needed to be addressed. With the materiality the Corten steel was pricey but beautiful. There were concerns about it staining a white material so in the next iteration she wanted to see a 7     Packet Pg. 183     Page 13 of 27 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 11/17/22 2 9 0 potential alternative. She stressed that she was not making a material change request, she just wanted to understand the back up plan. Additionally, the next package should include all the floor plans for the ARB’s information. Specifically, she wanted to see if the ground floor units were more unique. Currently the residential ground floor felt flat and would benefit from further articulation. That was a design choice, so she did not want to require anything related to that. Overall the project was well thought out and she was impressed by the first draft. She thanked the applicant for the presentation. Boardmember Chen thanked the applicant for the application. She really liked the architect firm and their work in the area. The four concessions requested were reasonable for the project and its location. She agreed with the other Boardmembers about the functionality and location of the elevators and related to the upper floor trash room. They would function better in a central location. With the garage entrance she thought Olive was the preferred option since one could turn both ways onto El Camino. That was reasonable and would function better than Acacia. She recommended they keep the existing mature trees along the backyard since they provided good canopies and screening for the single family neighbors. The landscape designer could create a walkway that worked with the existing trees. On the front elevation she wanted to see more of a landscape design plan. currently with the material selection the pedestrian level was too harsh as it was all concrete or glass. She hoped landscaping or other materials could soften that façade. Boardmember Thompson thanked the applicant for the application and stated that she was excited to see the project. The ARB wanted to make the project as successful as possible. She also agreed with and would defer to several things that had already been mentioned. She had a project close to the architect’s project on Gough and Fulton and that had a similar façade. She explained that the façades were walls with shading devices and in her opinion that was not good enough. The building was quite hash and would fall flat if the shading devices did not work out. She saw the Fulton project under construction without the shading devices and it looked rough. She was also concerned about the Corten and requested they consider using something different to avoid the staining issue. Originally she thought the Corten was wood and perhaps that would be a good idea, but she was unsure about how that would work with the budget. She agreed with Boardmember Chen that the ground floor was mostly concrete and glass. Another project they reviewed showed a completely glass first level and she did not want the future to be walking alongside nothing but glass walls. The ground level experience needed to be better, and she offered several ideas to enhance the experience and relate the ground level to the mass above. The floating parti was used on the architect’s other projects and they wanted something different in Palo Alto. She appreciated the idea of moving some of the amenities to another floor in order to change the massing. A flex space on the ground level for tenants was a good idea and could be used as a community pop up to generate income. Olive made sense for the vehicular access, especially if Acacia would have increased traffic related to Fry’s. she enjoyed the daylight allowed in the corridors. In general the materials were doing the heavy lifting since the form was minimal. She pushed the team to add more detail and smaller scale design moves to bring the project to life. The E shape allowed for more sunlight and broke the massing up more along El Camino. In closing there was a lot of work to be done, but she was generally supportive of the project. Boardmember Rosenberg commented on the mews potentially looking sparse and she shared that concern. The architecture was brutalist and that was successful when paired with a great landscape plan, which was currently missing. She further suggested moving some of the residential from the north side to 7     Packet Pg. 184     Page 14 of 27 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 11/17/22 2 9 0 the Acacia and Olive sides to activate the street frontages. The side of the lot facing the existing residential should hold things that did not need street access. Vice Chair Baltay agreed with his colleagues, particularly Chair Hirsch’s thoughts on the overall massing and site planning. One of his biggest questions was whether the S shape was working correctly. It worked to some degree, but not for circulation. They had set up a situation where they needed two elevators and access on either end. That was a fundamental building layout issue that required more thought. He further agreed with Boardmember Thompson regarding the massing of the building. it was a big box because it was nothing but stacked housing. Putting the fitness center on top gave them a reason to modify the façade. currently it looked like a large housing project in the city, but Palo Alto was different so that did not fit in any contextual sense. The concrete façade mentioned by Boardmember Rosenberg along the ground level was kind of scary. Having no breaks in the concrete wall was not humane housing. Housing had differentiation and uniqueness. He appreciated the idea on the street but carrying it around the back did not work. Boardmember Chen’s comment about the driveway being on Olive was perhaps correct for the current site plan, but the whole area would be developed dramatically and change. Acacia could get a two way turn to El Camino at some point. To hinge the project on the Olive access was not justifiable. It made more sense to place the residential units on the residential side to reduce the impact to the R-1 neighborhood. He also agreed with Boardmember Chen’s thoughts on a softer pedestrian feeling. The entry courtyard was well thought out and had a lot of character from a pedestrian standpoint. He did not see that on the rest of the building. The windows were too monotonous and regularly sized. The bedroom windows were tall and vertical, which might not be preferable on El Camino and the common space windows were quite small. They could do a better job with the windows and further break up the façade. That was something Boardmember Thompson referred to as “small scale architectural moves” and those small things would make the project better. He noted that the ARB was required to review the project under the current codes and standards. the building did not meet ARB Finding #4, which required functionality. If he could not get to the fitness center without exiting the building it would not be functional. The elevator placement was not functional. Those were not subjective findings, and it was fair to hold the applicant to an objective requirement. The same thing applied to the contextual standards. Standard 18.16.090 Number 2B requires roof eaves and articulation at the top of the building, but the project had nothing done to articulate the roof or top of the building. again, that was an objective observation. Contextual Standard 18.16.090 Number 3 A, B, C, and D reference the building massing and again that objectively did not work as the building was a white box on top of a raised podium. The ARB was required to be very careful and objective when asking the applicant to make changes, but it was clear that the project did not currently meet the objective standards. He repeated that they should consider flipping the building to bring the circulation off of Acacia with additional housing on the other side. The elevator needed to be central to the building circulation pattern or an additional elevator was necessary. Chair Hirsch congratulated the ARB on its all encompassing look at the building. he thought that their comments provided the applicant with an understanding of the scope of work the ARB expected. The ARB was very enthusiastic about the building being built in Palo Alto and being 100% affordable. Many people in the Ventura area asked for affordable housing and this project was the answer. He hoped that the applicant would take the ARB’s advice and not disregard it as they could under State law. Personally he thought Acacia would be a service road for the project. Acacia had been discussed previously and the light had been requested so he hoped that when the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) looked at 7     Packet Pg. 185     Page 15 of 27 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 11/17/22 2 9 0 the project they would focus on that issue. He repeated that the Council was open to the applicants developing the massing and raising the building another floor or two. That would change the scale of the building and the variety of the massing. The ground floor needed a complete landscape idea. He noted that he did not want to summarize everyone’s comments and said that he did not think they needed a Motion. Ms. Gerhardt said that they needed a Motion to continue the item to a date uncertain. It would also be good to ask if the applicant had questions so that everyone was on the same page. Chair Hirsch agreed and asked the applicant if they had questions related to the ARB comments. Mr. Bloomer said that he did not have questions but wanted to study the comments. They appreciated the ARB’s time and review. Ms. Gerhardt thanked the applicant and stated that she would provide a summary. She heard circulation concerns related to the elevator, the fitness center, and the vehicular entrance. Staff need to return to the ARB with more background on the vehicular access because the Transportation Department would have an opinion. The ARB had concerns about the massing of the building and whether it had pedestrian scale details. There was conversation about a scary blank rear wall and the ground floor design. With the materials the Corten was questioned. She asked if she missed anything. Vice Chair Baltay thought Ms. Gerhardt had underplayed the concept of having more public or community or commercial space along the street. Several Boardmembers asked if they could explore those possibilities. Ms. Gerhardt said that she would add potential commercial space on the ground floor but noted there was no code requirement for it. She also heard something about a potential flex space on the ground floor. Boardmember Thompson clarified that the comment was about ground floor activation with community or commercial activity and bringing some residences to Olive and Acacia. Ms. Gerhardt thanked the ARB. Vice Chair Baltay mentioned that Chair Hirsch suggested that the applicant look into making parts of the building taller and parts shorter. That was something the ARB agreed was a possibility. Boardmember Thompson said that it was related to the roofline comment as well. Vice Chair Baltay thought he was the only one that mentioned base/middle/top. Boardmember Thompson said that she was going to mention it as well. Vice Chair Baltay stated that he was happy to leave it with “small scale design moments.” Chair Hirsch made a strong comment about varying the height and that was something the ARB agreed with. Boardmember Thompson notified the applicant that the South El Camino Guidelines required the ARB to make a finding that there was a base, a middle, and a top for the design. 7     Packet Pg. 186     Page 16 of 27 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 11/17/22 2 9 0 Chair Hirsch said that the ARB had differences related to base/middle/top. El Camino was in a different era and Palo Alto needed to relook at those guidelines since El Camino was an ever changing part of the City. It would change even more radically over the next few years. The project did not have much of a “top” but there ought to be some flexibility. He did not believe that they needed to create a special top to the building since the façade was so long. Boardmember Thompson did not want to preclude anything as the designer might come up with a solution that was good. Ms. Gerhardt said that there were a variety of opinions about the topic on the ARB. The El Camino Guidelines were what they were, and the architect needed to convince the ARB that there was a base/middle/top. Chair Hirsch said that was Ms. Gerhardt’s opinion. Ms. Gerhardt explained that there were many definitions of base/middle/top, so it was the applicant's job to make the argument. Vice Chair Baltay said that objectively a top was a top. Either a person was wearing a hat or not. Ms. Gerhardt noted that there were small and big hats and different color hats. Vice Chair Baltay stated that there was currently no hat. Ms. Gerhardt reminded the ARB that they needed a Motion to continue. MOTION: Boardmember Thompson moved, seconded by Vice Chair Baltay, to continue the project to a date uncertain. VOTE: 5-0-0-0 Boardmember Rosenberg stated that she thought the ARB was excited to see the project again. Chair Hirsch agreed. Ms. Robinson and Mr. Bloomer thanked the ARB. The ARB took a break PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 123 Sherman [21PLN-00172]: Recommendation on Applicant's Request for a Major Architectural Review Application 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. Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration is Being Prepared in Accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Zoning District: CC (2)(R). For More Information Contact the Project Planner, Emily Foley, at Emily.Foley@cityofpaloalto.org. Ms. Raybould suggested Chair Hirsch introduce the item and noted that staff wanted the item continued to a date certain of December 1st. Chair Hirsch introduced the item and called for a Motion to continue the project to December 1st. 7     Packet Pg. 187     Page 17 of 27 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 11/17/22 2 9 0 MOTION: Vice Chair Baltay moved, seconded by Boardmember Rosenberg, to continue the item to a date certain of December 1, 2022. VOTE: 5-0-0-0 3. Discussion Regarding Amending ARB Bylaws to Address Meeting Attendance in 2023 Chair Hirsch introduced the item and called for the staff report. Ms. Gerhardt said that the discussion was about virtual hearings and the ARB Bylaws. Beginning January 2023 there were changes to the Brown Act. There would be additional limited exceptions to the typically teleconferencing requirements which did not rely on a statewide emergency. The teleconference was initially allowed because of the pandemic, but AB 2449 stated that Boardmembers may participate remotely without making their location available to the public only when a just cause or emergency situation was present. There still needed to be a quorum of the Board meeting in a single location. The exception may not be used by a member for more than 3 consecutive months or more than 20% of the regular meetings in a calendar year. City Council and other Boards decided to use 3 hearings as the limiter and the ARB could also choose to do that. The PTC met and Chief Planning Official Amy French was present to report on their discussion. The PTC made a small change stating that Boardmembers could attend remotely to the extent permitted by state law. She suggested that if the ARB decided to do that it could write some procedures down outside of the Bylaws. The City would hold Brown Act training on December 13, 2022. The discussion could be tabled until after the training if the Board preferred. Chair Hirsch asked how many Boardmembers could be remote for a particular meeting. Ms. Gerhardt explained that a quorum of the Board had to meet in a single location. A quorum for the ARB was three members. Boardmember Thompson said that 3 hearings were much less than what was permitted by state law. That was lower than 3 months or 20%. Amy French, Chief Planning Official, explained that each Board and Commission was different and met on different dates and frequency. The option was three consecutive months or 20%. The PTC opted for a very simple expression of the law. She explained that Boardmembers were only allowed three meetings where they did not disclose their location. Boardmember Thompson asked if it was three meetings or the 20% or three months. Ms. Gerhardt said that 20% for the ARB was 4 meetings. Ms. French clarified that it was 4 meetings without announcing a remote physical location. Ms. Gerhardt further clarified that 4.8 meetings was 20%, but since meetings were sometimes canceled she rounded down. Boardmember Thompson confirmed that four meetings were 2 consecutive months. Ms. Gerhardt agreed. Ms. French noted that cancellations might change things. 7     Packet Pg. 188     Page 18 of 27 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 11/17/22 2 9 0 Vice Chair Baltay asked Chair Hirsch if Ms. French could summarize the PTC discussion. Ms. French explained that the PTC did the math like Boardmember Thompson, and it got complex. To make things simple they decided to use the language “to the extent state law allows”. The ARB could decide as a Board to be more restrictive than state law, but that was not advised. The PTC also discussed how the members felt about being masked and unmasked since two current members always attended remotely due to the lack of masks at the dais. That was not agendized but did affect member attendance. Vice Chair Baltay asked if a member had to cite a reason not to attend in person. Ms. French said that a health reason could be an illness. The concern about getting ill was part of the PTC discussion. Members did not have to publish that they were not attending due to illness for the three or four times they attended remotely without publishing their location. Vice Chair Baltay saw that childcare, care of a family member, being ill or having a public meeting was included, but saw nothing about a personal or private work related reason. He asked if they needed to certify or even have those reasons to miss a meeting. Ms. French said that specific questions could go to the City Attorney. Vice Chair Baltay said that he had asked Ms. French a specific question. Ms. Gerhardt read from the law that emergency circumstances meant a physical or family medical emergency that prevented a member from attending. Just cause meant childcare, adult care, a contagious illness, a need related to a physical or mental disability, and travel while on official business of the legislative body. It did not discuss work travel. Vice Chair Baltay confirmed that if they would enact state law that would need to be followed. Ms. Gerhardt said that was correct for the 3 or 4 meetings where Boardmembers did not disclose their location. If a Boardmember traveled for work but provided their location that was a possibility. Vice Chair Baltay asked if the ARB could add their own reasons, such as work related reasons, to not attend in person. He asked if that could be added. Ms. Gerhardt did not believe they could add to State law. Boardmember Thompson confirmed that Vice Chair Baltay was speaking about the ARB Bylaws. Ms. Gerhardt said that the difference was whether they would provide their location or not. If they did not give their location then there needed to be an emergency or just cause. If one provided their location then they could appear remotely for business travel. Ms. French stated that the ARB could decide what they felt was reasonable for appearing remotely with announced locations. Boardmember Rosenberg clarified that the key point was whether or not Boardmembers disclosed their location. She asked how far ahead of time a Boardmember had to announce their location and if the request needed to be formal in writing. 7     Packet Pg. 189     Page 19 of 27 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 11/17/22 2 9 0 Ms. French stated that changes to the Agenda needed to post 72 hours in advance. Staff needed the information prior to that by email. Then Boardmembers had to post the Agenda on their door or wherever they were working. Boardmember Rosenberg asked if the packet would have to be mailed to wherever the Boardmember was and then physically posted on the door. Ms. French said that they could bypass the physical packet and take it online. Boardmember Rosenberg confirmed that the physical posting on the door needed to happen. She explained that she thought that any time they could get more people reviewing a project the better. Therefore, it needed to be as easy as possible for Boardmembers to attend remotely should they have to. If it was easier to skip a meeting that was not a good thing. Ms. French stated that it was key to make sure that there would always be a quorum in the room. That was necessary as was the advance notice. If there was not enough notice it was better to simply miss the meeting. Boardmember Thompson asked about extenuating circumstances such as flat tires and Caltrain running behind, such as she experienced that morning. Boardmember Rosenberg agreed that was a good point. The goal was to have Boardmembers present and working on a project. She asked if they could add lack of transportation and short notice into the Bylaws. If the laws were so restrictive Boardmember Thompson would not have been able to attend and give thoughts on the projects. Ms. French said that it was a small board and every member mattered. She thought they could frame the emergency that way and that they also could explore the issue in the December training session. Ms. Gerhardt noted that the definition of emergency circumstances said, “a physical or family medical emergency”. A physical emergency could include inability to attend in person, but that would have to be clarified by the City Attorney. Currently they were still under a State of Emergency and the discussion was about regulations that would be enacted in January. She thought they needed to discuss what would happen if a member could not come. Boardmember Rosenberg wanted clarity. She asked if Boardmember Thompson could not make it due to a flat tire and train issues then did she need to provide 72 hours’ notice or was that one of her 3 to 4 undisclosed location virtual situations. It was important to be clear about when the 72 hours was required and when it was not and when disclosure of location was required and when it was not. Ms. French stated that the 72 hours was required for staff to post the Agenda online and for the Boardmembers to post at their previous known non-emergency location. Ms. Gerhardt explained that there were four options available for 2023. Boardmembers could show up in chambers in person, they could provide their location at least 72 hours in advance, they could attend virtually in an emergency for 3 or 4 hearings, or they could miss the meeting. Boardmember Rosenberg thanked staff for those clarifications. 7     Packet Pg. 190     Page 20 of 27 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 11/17/22 2 9 0 Boardmember Thompson stated that her situation did not happen often although Caltrain had been unreliable that week. She asked if the ARB could make provisions to go beyond 4 meetings if necessary. There was no way she could have posted her location as she planned to attend in person until the train did not arrive. Ms. Gerhardt said that under the new regulation members would have to be judicious about using those 3 to 4 hearings. Boardmember Rosenberg repeated the first two of the four options: 1) providing one’s location with a 72 hour minimum advanced notice, and 2) 3 to 4 meetings where no location is provided. She asked if both were capped at 3 to 4 meetings or if that only applied to the second option. Ms. Gerhardt believed those issues were separate. Boardmember Rosenberg confirmed that there were a certain number of meetings that could be missed entirely, up to two or three. Ms. Gerhardt did not think they had a number for that but at some point the Council would not look favorably on reappointing a Boardmember with many absences. Boardmember Rosenberg thought that having 3 to 4 meetings which could be attended remotely and 2 to 3 meetings which one could not attend offered a lot of flexibility and covered a large portion of the year. She thought it was generous enough that they could make it work. Boardmember Thompson confirmed there was no limit on remote appearances with 72 hours’ notice. Ms. French confirmed that there was no limit by State law, but the ARB could come up with its own rules. Boardmember Thompson repeated that State law did not limit it. Ms. French confirmed that was correct. Vice Chair Baltay explained that the ARB was unique as they were practicing professionals holding meetings during work hours. That was a significant sacrifice and it had been difficult getting good architects in town to serve on the ARB. Providing some flexibility so people could work from their offices some of the time was something that should be considered. However, he believed in person contribution was better and was a higher quality way of meeting. Based on that he suggested a cap on 3 virtual meetings over the course of the year. That was plenty to allow for emergencies or work deadlines. He thought 7 was too many. “Emergency” could be personally defined and therefore a work related private emergency was acceptable as well; however, there would be an absolute cap on remote attendance at 3 no matter what. Boardmember Thompson asked if he would be opposed to 4 meetings. Chair Hirsch agreed that in person meetings were critical but thought that 7 total meetings was not unreasonable for a calendar year. Boardmember Chen said that she had no comments. 7     Packet Pg. 191     Page 21 of 27 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 11/17/22 2 9 0 Vice Chair Baltay asked staff if they could add to the Bylaws “per State law” with a caveat that one could choose not to attend with the 72 hours’ notice a certain number of times. Ms. French explained that State law did not say how many meetings that Boardmembers could miss. The State law was just for the 3 to 4 remote meetings where the location was not disclosed. Vice Chair Baltay thought that the State law indicated it needed to be an emergency circumstance and it defined what that was. He asked if they modified it to be a personal circumstance. Boardmember Thompson thought it said, “as approved by the Board.” She thought it could be a circumstance that was approved by the Board. Ms. French said that if it was an emergency work circumstance she thought that might work. Boardmember Thompson said that if the Board approved that as acceptable or transportation difficulties as acceptable then that would work with the State law. Ms. Gerhardt agreed that an emergency situation could be a physical item. If one could not catch a plane home or similar that would be an emergency. Vice Chair Baltay said that he was more referring to a large work situation. Ms. Gerhardt stated that was not in conformance with State law. Boardmember Thompson asked if the ARB voted for it to be included if that would be acceptable since it said, “as approved by the Board.” Vice Chair Baltay noted that was not the State law. Ms. Gerhardt explained that in order to not provide a location the situation needed to be an emergency. Vice Chair Baltay said that he was advocating for it to accommodate individual choice up to a maximum of 3 or 4 times. Ms. Gerhardt reminded them that if they provided their location within 72 hours they could work remotely. Vice Chair Baltay said that as a practicing professional he was not going to know 72 hours ahead of time and place a sign on his door. He noted that it was a volunteer position already and that was a lot to ask. Ms. Gerhardt said that staff was sympathetic, but the ARB needed to be in conformance with State law. Vice Chair Baltay suggested the ARB request staff go to the City Attorney and see if his idea were possible. A Boardmember would be allowed to participate remotely a maximum of 3 times. Ms. French said that they could continue the discussion. Boardmember Thompson and Boardmember Rosenberg both noted that 20% was 4. Vice Chair Baltay was worried about a COVID flare up that could cause canceled meetings and get the ARB in trouble under State law. 7     Packet Pg. 192     Page 22 of 27 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 11/17/22 2 9 0 Boardmember Rosenberg pointed out that when a meeting was canceled it had no effect on the count. Ms. French agreed. Vice Chair Baltay said that 20% of a smaller number was a smaller number. He asked how many meetings were held in 2020. Boardmember Rosenberg stated that was a different timeline. Ms. Gerhardt noted that development was down during the pandemic, which caused several meetings to be canceled. Ms. French suggested the ARB consider continuing the item until after the December training and noted that the Historic Resources Board (HRB) had done just that. Vice Chair Baltay left that to the Chair’s discretion and indicated that he had made his view clear. Boardmember Rosenberg was interested in going to the training and revisiting the item. Boardmember Thompson said that she was also open to that. Chair Hirsch agreed. Ms. Gerhardt noted there was a December 15th ARB meeting. She asked if they wanted to hear it then or in January. Chair Hirsch thought it could be deferred to January. Ms. Gerhardt noted that the January 5th meeting was normally canceled. Boardmember Rosenberg said that it would be January 19th. Ms. Gerhardt said that was correct. Vice Chair Baltay asked if the ARB wanted to ask staff to investigate with the City Attorney whether it was possible to do what he had asked. Ms. Gerhardt said that they would look into it. Vice Chair Baltay thought the training would be negative about that, but he wanted to hear the City Attorney’s thoughts. Boardmember Thompson was supportive of that. MOTION: Vice Chair Baltay moved, seconded by Boardmember Thompson, to continue the item to a date certain of January 19, 2023, and to request staff obtain a legal opinion on whether Boardmembers could miss a certain number of meetings with no cause without notification. VOTE: 5-0-0-0 Study Session 7     Packet Pg. 193     Page 23 of 27 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 11/17/22 2 9 0 4. Ad Hoc Committee Report: Objective Standards for Townhomes Chair Hirsch explained that he and Boardmember Chen had met the past several months to look at the Objective Standards and in the last month they specifically looked at townhomes. The Sobrato project made that matter more urgent. They photographed a number of Palo Alto and California townhome projects and now they planned to put a PowerPoint together for the rest of the ARB. They expect to [audio skip 3:04:13] … had to be based on an objective analysis based on the Code for all the variety of Townhome projects. That did not exist in the current Objective Standards. They needed to look at the contextual portion of the zoning, which he believed staff had sent him the prior evening. There was an urgency related to the matter as the Fry’s site would come before the ARB in the near future. The townhomes might be a unique area in the Objective Standards since there were unique things about them as developments. He listed a number of items and explained that he and Boardmember Chen had discussed all of them and planned to bring them back to the ARB for discussion. He requested the Boardmembers be patient while they prepared the PowerPoint. Boardmember Rosenberg appreciated the work Chair Hirsch and Boardmember Chen put into the matter. She asked if a puzzle lift like the one in the earlier project qualified as tandem parking. There would be technology like that in the future that would need to be evaluated. Chair Hirsch thought it would be too expensive for most developers. Boardmember Rosenberg said it was food for thought. Ms. Gerhardt explained the City had regulations about lift systems. For residential units and offices where people could get used to the systems they were allowed. They were not allowed for retail situations. When allowed the City required an entry point that anyone could access so there was no juggling of vehicles. The lift system itself was expected to do the juggling. Developers had proposed tandem lift systems and the City did not allow that. Chair Hirsch did not know that they had run across a townhome project that had common parking spaces. It was possible that could happen in a very large project so that also needed to be looked at. Ms. Gerhardt stated tandem parking was allowed for the same unit. Related to the Context Based Design Standards the Council kept the original Context Based Design Standards. That meant that if a housing development project wanted the streamlined system then they used PAMC Section 18.24 (objective standards) anything else used the original Context Based Design Standards. In developing the Objective Design Standards they relied on the Context Based so they should be fairly equivalent. The Objective Design Standards project was very large, so it was good to review it and refine it. The 200 Portage townhomes were on file as an SB 330 project, so the regulations were frozen in time. That project could not be affected by future code changes. More townhome projects were forthcoming, so it was important to move forward with the changes. Vice Chair Baltay thought it would be good to add a definition of a townhome project. Also he thought the ARB had missed the opportunity to discuss the particular type of townhome in the Objective Standards. It was important and the City would have more projects sooner than it thought so there was urgency in the matter. He understood that Council wanted the ARB to return with periodic revisions to 7     Packet Pg. 194     Page 24 of 27 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 11/17/22 2 9 0 the Objective Standards as a whole but there was no set schedule. He asked if staff could put together a calendar of the process or ask the Council if that was the direction. Everyone needed to be on the same page. With the subcommittee he voiced disappointment that the discussion had been postponed once and they were still not ready. He suggested they pick a date for the presentation and move forward and suggested January 19, 2023. Boardmember Chen stated they discussed showing examples in order to give the ARB an idea of what happened around town. In the past few years there had really not been a townhouse project in town. There were projects developed about 10 years ago with ARB input that were quality designs. Because of that they wanted to do research around town and the greater area. Then they thought they would have two meetings; the first to show the examples and the second to discuss the process. Chair Hirsch thought they could have the PowerPoint presentation on January 19, 2023. Boardmember Chen said that if they were just showing images they could do it in December. Then people could think about the issues over the holidays. Ms. Gerhardt stated there was only one item on December 15th so that might be a good time for discussion. With regard to Council direction she would speak to the Director and look back at the Workplan. The main issue was how much staff time it would take. She thanked the ad hoc for their work. Boardmember Chen asked Ms. Gerhardt when she needed the items for the December 15th hearing. Ms. Gerhardt said that the staff report needed to be done a few weeks in advance. The presentation was needed the day before. Chair Hirsch stated that they would commit to making the PowerPoint presentation on December 15th. Boardmember Thompson commented that there were two typologies related to townhomes. One was freestanding and the other was similar to a base of a multifamily project. As they looked through the Objective Standards it would be good to incorporate that typology. Item 4 on Packet Page 67 discussed having at least two colors and two basic materials, which may or may not make sense with the second typology. She noted that she would like to see pictures in order to understand where that came from. One of the main concerns the ARB had with a past project was that townhomes were successful when there were eyes on the streets. Having that be part of the design intent was a good idea and should be encouraged. Chair Hirsch stated that they would work toward December 15th. There might be problems with the Sobrato project. It had a paseo in the middle (interrupted) Ms. Gerhardt cautioned the ARB that the project was not agendized but would be heard on the 15th. Chair Hirsch said he was speaking in general terms. Ms. Gerhardt explained they could discuss good aspects of a townhouse project in general. There were limited regulations which could be applied to the Sobrato townhomes. That was a SB 330 project, and the regulations were frozen. On the 15th the ARB would hear a rundown of the project. It had a development 7     Packet Pg. 195     Page 25 of 27 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 11/17/22 2 9 0 agreement worked out by Council. Any questions about the project or large concerns could be emailed to staff ahead of time so that they could be prepared for the discussion. Chair Hirsch said that it was difficult as they had not discussed it. Ms. Gerhardt stated that was the intent of the 15th. Currently Boardmembers were doing their individual homework and anything they wanted staff to have an answer for would be helpful to know ahead of time. Chair Hirsh asked how they would deal with that. Boardmember Rosenberg looked forward to the presentation on the 15th. After that they would be better able to discuss the details. Looking at projects that had been built versus those unbuilt were very different conversations. Chair Hirsch said that the conversation would be the same day they reviewed the project. Ms. Gerhardt offered to change the order of the agenda. As long as the townhome discussion was kept general it could be held first. Chair Hirsch asked if they could move the project to the following meeting. Ms. Gerhardt indicated they could not as the project was on a schedule under a Development Agreement with an April 2023 deadline. Vice Chair Baltay asked if they could receive the ad hoc committee report on December 1st instead of the 15th. Boardmember Thompson asked why they had to rush the ad hoc committee before the project. Ms. Gerhardt said there was a December 1st hearing. Vice Chair Baltay answered Boardmember Thompson that there was no formal link whatsoever. Future projects had to be evaluated under the current Objective Standards. Therefore, everything they discussed was in the future. He thought Chair Hirsch had things that the ad hoc discussed that he thought would help in the evaluation in a general sense. Boardmember Thompson thought that would come out in Chair Hirsch and Boardmember Chen’s comments in the course of a regular meeting. Vice Chair Baltay agreed but explained they wanted to make a large presentation of images which would not be appropriate during an individual project. He repeated that it should be done December 1st. Boardmember Rosenberg thought it felt as though the ARB was tying two things together that should not and maybe could not be tied together. The project was under SB 330 and the ARB could not formally hold the project to new standards that it seemed some Boardmembers wanted others to think about. That felt questionable timing wise. She stressed that they needed to maintain neutrality but stated she was interested in looking at the ad hoc committee’s presentation. 7     Packet Pg. 196     Page 26 of 27 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 11/17/22 2 9 0 Boardmember Thompson agreed with Boardmember Rosenberg and did not understand the rush. She suggested the ad hoc committee take their time and not rush the presentation. The ARB was good at reviewing projects, and she did not see the point of having to have the presentation beforehand. Vice Chair Baltay suggested January instead. Boardmember Thompson wanted to defer to the ad hoc committee’s needs. Boardmember Chen thought the December meeting would be a good introduction to their discoveries. They planned to introduce the ARB to their findings and trigger a discussion and feedback. She thought it could be possible to show the pictures at the next meeting. Ms. Gerhardt thought the Boardmembers were making good points and reinforcing what she stated. The Portage project standards were frozen in time. It was not truly an SB 330 project. The timeline was more about the development agreement put together by Council. The effect was the same either way. If they wanted to have the discussion on December 15th they could hear the townhomes first and the ad hoc committee second since they were two separate things. If was also acceptable to staff if the presentation were made in January. Chair Hirsch stated that they would work towards the presentation in December. Boardmember Chen asked if it was possible to do it on December 1st. Ms. Gerhardt said that agenda had 660 University and 123 Sherman. Both projects were fairly large, but they could add a third item. Boardmember Rosenberg reminded them that the ad hoc committee could determine how long the presentation was. Boardmember Thompson asked if December 1st would go past 2:00 p.m. Boardmember Rosenberg indicated that she would not attend in person on December 1st and could not attend at all on December 15th. Based on that she preferred December 1st. She apologized for the inconvenience. Boardmember Thompson wanted Boardmember Rosenberg to be able to be involved. Chair Hirsch asked if they needed a Motion. Ms. Gerhardt said they did not, and that staff would agendize it for December 1st. Boardmember Rosenberg suggested that they understand the meeting would be longer. Ms. Gerhardt noted they needed to end by 2:00 p.m. so people could pick up their children and things. Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcements Ms. Gerhardt announced that Ms. Raybould would take over as ARB liaison. She noted that she held the position for the past 8 years, thanked the ARB, and said she had enjoyed her time as liaison. She also 7     Packet Pg. 197     Page 27 of 27 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 11/17/22 2 9 0 announced a change in support staff. Ms. Dao was promoted, had a title change, and would assist with the ARB. Medina Klicheva had not left the City and Ms. Gerhardt and she would back up the new ARB staff. Chair Hirsch thanked Ms. Gerhardt and said that she would be missed. He then welcomed Ms. Raybould. Boardmember Thompson asked if this had been Ms. Gerhardt’s last meeting. Ms. Gerhardt indicated that it was but that she was still working for the City and would attend hearings until Ms. Raybould was up to speed. Even after that she might attend hearings to answer questions as needed. Boardmember Rosenberg welcomed Ms. Raybould and congratulated her and Ms. Dao on their promotions. She thanked Ms. Gerhardt and Medina Klicheva. Boardmember Thompson announced that she and Vice Chair Baltay planned to attend a California Avenue focus group later in the evening. Adjournment Chair Hirsch adjourned the meeting. 7     Packet Pg. 198