Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-04-06 Architectural Review Board Agenda PacketARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD Regular Meeting Thursday, April 06, 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 Board and available for inspection on the City’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you are referencing in your subject line. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson's presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. The Chair may limit Public Comments to thirty (30) minutes for all combined speakers. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak for Study Sessions and Action Items to two (2) minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers. PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted only by email to arb@CityofPaloAlto.org at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Once received, the Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. To uphold strong cybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storage devices are not accepted. CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL PUBLIC COMMENT  Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS The Chair or Board majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management. CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS 1.Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2) Tentative Future Agenda Items and 3) Recently Submitted Projects ACTION ITEMS Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Ten (10) minutes, plus ten (10) minutes rebuttal. All others: Three (3) minutes per speaker. 2.3200 Park Boulevard/200 Portage/340 Portage [22PLN‐00287 and 22PLN‐00288]: Consideration of a Planned Community Zoning application 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. The 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 Two‐Level Parking Garage, and Dedication of Approximately 3.25 acres of Land to the City for Future Affordable Housing and Parkland Uses. Existing R&D Uses Would Continue to Occupy the Remaining Cannery Building. 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. The Project also Includes a Development Agreement, Comprehensive Plan Amendment, and Vesting Tentative Map. Environmental Assessment: A Draft Environmental Impact Report 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. 3.Draft Architectural Review Board's (ARB) Annual Report and Draft Work Plan APPROVAL OF MINUTES Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 4.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for March 2, 2023 BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS AND AGENDAS Members of the public may not speak to the item(s). ADJOURNMENT AD HOC COMMITTEE 5.3300 El Camino Real [21PLN‐00028]: Ad‐Hoc Committee Review of Previously Approved Project to Review Architectural and Landscape Element Design Changes PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email, teleconference, or by phone. 1. Written public comments may be submitted by email to arb@cityofpaloalto.org. 2. Spoken public comments using a computer will be accepted through the teleconference meeting. To address the Board, click on the link below to access a Zoom‐ based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully. You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in‐ browser. If using your browser, make sure you are using a current, up‐to‐date browser: Chrome 30, Firefox 27, Microsoft Edge 12, Safari 7. Certain functionality may be disabled in older browsers including Internet Explorer. You may be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify you that it is your turn to speak. When you wish to speak on an Agenda Item, click on “raise hand.” The Clerk will activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak. When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. A timer will be shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments. 3. Spoken public comments using a smart phone will be accepted  through the teleconference meeting. To address the Board, download the Zoom application onto your phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter the Meeting ID below. Please follow the instructions above. 4. Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the Board. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted. CLICK HERE TO JOIN    Meeting ID: 965 6189 1491   Phone: 1‐669‐900‐6833  Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329‐2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARDRegular MeetingThursday, April 06, 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 Board and available for inspection on theCity’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you are referencing in your subjectline.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified aspresent at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson's presentation will be allowed up tofifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking membersagree not to speak individually. The Chair may limit Public Comments to thirty (30) minutes forall combined speakers. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak for Study Sessions andAction Items to two (2) minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers. PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted 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 PUBLIC COMMENT  Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS The Chair or Board majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management. CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS 1.Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2) Tentative Future Agenda Items and 3) Recently Submitted Projects ACTION ITEMS Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Ten (10) minutes, plus ten (10) minutes rebuttal. All others: Three (3) minutes per speaker. 2.3200 Park Boulevard/200 Portage/340 Portage [22PLN‐00287 and 22PLN‐00288]: Consideration of a Planned Community Zoning application 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. The 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 Two‐Level Parking Garage, and Dedication of Approximately 3.25 acres of Land to the City for Future Affordable Housing and Parkland Uses. Existing R&D Uses Would Continue to Occupy the Remaining Cannery Building. 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. The Project also Includes a Development Agreement, Comprehensive Plan Amendment, and Vesting Tentative Map. Environmental Assessment: A Draft Environmental Impact Report 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. 3.Draft Architectural Review Board's (ARB) Annual Report and Draft Work Plan APPROVAL OF MINUTES Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 4.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for March 2, 2023 BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS AND AGENDAS Members of the public may not speak to the item(s). ADJOURNMENT AD HOC COMMITTEE 5.3300 El Camino Real [21PLN‐00028]: Ad‐Hoc Committee Review of Previously Approved Project to Review Architectural and Landscape Element Design Changes PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email, teleconference, or by phone. 1. Written public comments may be submitted by email to arb@cityofpaloalto.org. 2. Spoken public comments using a computer will be accepted through the teleconference meeting. To address the Board, click on the link below to access a Zoom‐ based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully. You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in‐ browser. If using your browser, make sure you are using a current, up‐to‐date browser: Chrome 30, Firefox 27, Microsoft Edge 12, Safari 7. Certain functionality may be disabled in older browsers including Internet Explorer. You may be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify you that it is your turn to speak. When you wish to speak on an Agenda Item, click on “raise hand.” The Clerk will activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak. When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. A timer will be shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments. 3. Spoken public comments using a smart phone will be accepted  through the teleconference meeting. To address the Board, download the Zoom application onto your phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter the Meeting ID below. Please follow the instructions above. 4. Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the Board. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted. CLICK HERE TO JOIN    Meeting ID: 965 6189 1491   Phone: 1‐669‐900‐6833  Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329‐2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARDRegular MeetingThursday, April 06, 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 Board and available for inspection on theCity’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you are referencing in your subjectline.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified aspresent at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson's presentation will be allowed up tofifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking membersagree not to speak individually. The Chair may limit Public Comments to thirty (30) minutes forall combined speakers. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak for Study Sessions andAction Items to two (2) minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers.PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted onlyby email to arb@CityofPaloAlto.org at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Once received,the Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. To uphold strongcybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storage devices are notaccepted.CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALLPUBLIC COMMENT Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker.AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONSThe Chair or Board majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management.CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS1.Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2) Tentative FutureAgenda Items and 3) Recently Submitted ProjectsACTION ITEMSPublic Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Ten (10) minutes, plus ten (10) minutes rebuttal. All others: Three(3) minutes per speaker.2.3200 Park Boulevard/200 Portage/340 Portage [22PLN‐00287 and 22PLN‐00288]:Consideration of a Planned Community Zoning application to Allow Redevelopment of a14.65‐acre site at 200‐404 Portage Avenue, 3040‐3250 Park Boulevard, 3201‐3225 AshStreet and 278 Lambert. The Scope of Work Includes the Partial Demolition of an ExistingCommercial Building That has Been Deemed Eligible for the California Register as Wellas an Existing Building With a Commercial Recreation use at 3040 Park and Constructionof (74) new Townhome Condominiums, a Two‐Level Parking Garage, and Dedication ofApproximately 3.25 acres of Land to the City for Future Affordable Housing and ParklandUses. Existing R&D Uses Would Continue to Occupy the Remaining Cannery Building.The Existing Building at 3201‐3225 Ash Street Would Remain in Office use and anAutomotive use at 3250 Park Boulevard Would Convert to R&D use. The Project alsoIncludes a Development Agreement, Comprehensive Plan Amendment, and VestingTentative Map. Environmental Assessment: A Draft Environmental Impact Report for the200 Portage Townhome Development Project was Circulated on September 16, 2022 inAccordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The EIR CommentPeriod Ended on November 15, 2022. The Proposed Development Agreement is Evaluatedas Alternative 3 in the Draft EIR. Zoning District: RM‐30 (Multi‐Family Residential) andGM (General Manufacturing). For More Information Contact the Project Planner, ClaireRaybould at Claire.Raybould@Cityofpaloalto.org.3.Draft Architectural Review Board's (ARB) Annual Report and Draft Work Plan APPROVAL OF MINUTES Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 4.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for March 2, 2023 BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS AND AGENDAS Members of the public may not speak to the item(s). ADJOURNMENT AD HOC COMMITTEE 5.3300 El Camino Real [21PLN‐00028]: Ad‐Hoc Committee Review of Previously Approved Project to Review Architectural and Landscape Element Design Changes PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email, teleconference, or by phone. 1.Written public comments may be submitted by email to arb@cityofpaloalto.org. 2.Spoken public comments using a computer will be accepted through the teleconference meeting. To address the Board, click on the link below to access a Zoom‐ based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully. You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in‐ browser. If using your browser, make sure you are using a current, up‐to‐date browser: Chrome 30, Firefox 27, Microsoft Edge 12, Safari 7. Certain functionality may be disabled in older browsers including Internet Explorer. You may be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify you that it is your turn to speak. When you wish to speak on an Agenda Item, click on “raise hand.” The Clerk will activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak. When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. A timer will be shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments. 3.Spoken public comments using a smart phone will be accepted  through the teleconference meeting. To address the Board, download the Zoom application onto your phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter the Meeting ID below. Please follow the instructions above. 4.Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the Board. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted. CLICK HERE TO JOIN    Meeting ID: 965 6189 1491   Phone: 1‐669‐900‐6833  Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329‐2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARDRegular MeetingThursday, April 06, 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 Board and available for inspection on theCity’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you are referencing in your subjectline.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified aspresent at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson's presentation will be allowed up tofifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking membersagree not to speak individually. The Chair may limit Public Comments to thirty (30) minutes forall combined speakers. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak for Study Sessions andAction Items to two (2) minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers.PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted onlyby email to arb@CityofPaloAlto.org at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Once received,the Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. To uphold strongcybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storage devices are notaccepted.CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALLPUBLIC COMMENT Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker.AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONSThe Chair or Board majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management.CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS1.Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2) Tentative FutureAgenda Items and 3) Recently Submitted ProjectsACTION ITEMSPublic Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Ten (10) minutes, plus ten (10) minutes rebuttal. All others: Three(3) minutes per speaker.2.3200 Park Boulevard/200 Portage/340 Portage [22PLN‐00287 and 22PLN‐00288]:Consideration of a Planned Community Zoning application to Allow Redevelopment of a14.65‐acre site at 200‐404 Portage Avenue, 3040‐3250 Park Boulevard, 3201‐3225 AshStreet and 278 Lambert. The Scope of Work Includes the Partial Demolition of an ExistingCommercial Building That has Been Deemed Eligible for the California Register as Wellas an Existing Building With a Commercial Recreation use at 3040 Park and Constructionof (74) new Townhome Condominiums, a Two‐Level Parking Garage, and Dedication ofApproximately 3.25 acres of Land to the City for Future Affordable Housing and ParklandUses. Existing R&D Uses Would Continue to Occupy the Remaining Cannery Building.The Existing Building at 3201‐3225 Ash Street Would Remain in Office use and anAutomotive use at 3250 Park Boulevard Would Convert to R&D use. The Project alsoIncludes a Development Agreement, Comprehensive Plan Amendment, and VestingTentative Map. Environmental Assessment: A Draft Environmental Impact Report for the200 Portage Townhome Development Project was Circulated on September 16, 2022 inAccordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The EIR CommentPeriod Ended on November 15, 2022. The Proposed Development Agreement is Evaluatedas Alternative 3 in the Draft EIR. Zoning District: RM‐30 (Multi‐Family Residential) andGM (General Manufacturing). For More Information Contact the Project Planner, ClaireRaybould at Claire.Raybould@Cityofpaloalto.org.3.Draft Architectural Review Board's (ARB) Annual Report and Draft Work PlanAPPROVAL OF MINUTESPublic Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.4.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for March 2, 2023BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS ANDAGENDASMembers of the public may not speak to the item(s).ADJOURNMENTAD HOC COMMITTEE5.3300 El Camino Real [21PLN‐00028]: Ad‐Hoc Committee Review of Previously Approved Project to Review Architectural and Landscape Element Design Changes PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email, teleconference, or by phone. 1.Written public comments may be submitted by email to arb@cityofpaloalto.org. 2.Spoken public comments using a computer will be accepted through the teleconference meeting. To address the Board, click on the link below to access a Zoom‐ based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully. You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in‐ browser. If using your browser, make sure you are using a current, up‐to‐date browser: Chrome 30, Firefox 27, Microsoft Edge 12, Safari 7. Certain functionality may be disabled in older browsers including Internet Explorer. You may be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify you that it is your turn to speak. When you wish to speak on an Agenda Item, click on “raise hand.” The Clerk will activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak. When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. A timer will be shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments. 3.Spoken public comments using a smart phone will be accepted  through the teleconference meeting. To address the Board, download the Zoom application onto your phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter the Meeting ID below. Please follow the instructions above. 4.Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the Board. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted. CLICK HERE TO JOIN    Meeting ID: 965 6189 1491   Phone: 1‐669‐900‐6833  Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329‐2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service. Item No. 1. Page 1 of 2 Architectural Review Board Staff Report From: Jonathan Lait, Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: April 6, 2023 Report #: 2303-1178 TITLE Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2) Tentative Future Agenda Items and 3) Recently Submitted Projects RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) review and comment as appropriate. BACKGROUND The attached documents are provided for informational purposes. The Board may review and comment as it deems appropriate. If individual Board members anticipate being absent from a future meeting, it is requested that this be brought to staff’s attention when considering this item. The first attachment provides a meeting and attendance schedule for the current calendar year. Also included are subcommittee assignments, which are assigned by the ARB Chair as needed. The second attachment is a Tentative Future Agenda that provides a summary of upcoming projects or discussion items. The hearing dates for these items are subject to change. The attachment also has a list of pending ARB projects and potential projects. Approved projects can be found on the City’s Building Eye webpage at https://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning. Any party, including the applicant, may request a hearing by the ARB on the proposed director's decision(s) within the 10-day or 14-day appeal period by filing a written request with the planning division. There shall be no fee required for requesting such a hearing. However, there is a fee for appeals. Pursuant to 18.77.070(b)(5) any project relating to the installation of cabinets containing communications service equipment or facilities, pursuant to any service subject to Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 2.11, Chapter 12.04, Chapter 12.08, Chapter 12.09, Chapter 12.10, or Chapter 12.13 is not eligible for a request for hearing by any party, including the applicant. No action is required by the ARB for this item. Item 1 Staff Report Packet Pg. 5 Item No. 1. Page 2 of 2 ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: 2023 Meeting Schedule & Assignments Attachment B: Tentative Future Agenda and New Projects List AUTHOR/TITLE: ARB Liaison1 & Contact Information Claire Raybould, AICP, Senior Planner (650)329-2116 Claire.Raybould@Cityofpaloalto.org 1 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@CityofPaloAlto.org. Item 1 Staff Report Packet Pg. 6 Architectural Review Board 2023 Meeting Schedule & Assignments 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 Cancelled 2/16/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 3/02/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular Thompson 3/16/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 4/06/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular Chen 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 Thompson 7/06/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular Rosenberg 7/20/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular Hirsch 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 2/16 – Hirsch, Baltay 3/16 – Chen, Rosenburg July August September October November December Item 1 Attachment A-2023 Meeting Schedule & Assignments Packet Pg. 7 Palo Alto Architectural Review Board Tentative Future Agenda The following items are tentative and subject to change: Meeting Dates Topics April 20, 2023 •Annual Report/Council Work Plan (TBD) •Modifications to Objective Standards Related to Townhome Design •Chair and Vice Chair Elections May 4, 2023 •3001 El Camino Affordable Housing Project •180 El Camino Real-Façade Modifications for Arhaus at Stanford Shopping Center (TBD) •123 Sherman Avenue (TBD) Pending ARB Projects The following items are pending projects and will be heard by the ARB in the near future. The projects can be viewed via their project webpage at bit.ly/PApendingprojects or via Building Eye at bit.ly/PABuildingEye. Permit Type Submitted Permit # Project Mgr.Address Type Work Description 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 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. Item 1 Attachment B-Agenda and New Projects List Packet Pg. 8 AR Major - Board 6/16/21 21PLN- 00172 EFOLEY 123 SHERMAN AV Office ARB 1st formal 12/1/22, Tentative ARB 5/4/23 - 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 10/12/22, ARB hearings 12/15/22, 1/19/23 , 4/6/23 – 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. 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 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; 2nd formal hearing 3/2/23, Tentative ARB 5/4/23 - 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). Item 1 Attachment B-Agenda and New Projects List Packet Pg. 9 Site and Design 10/27/2022 22PLN- 00367 CHODGKI 2501 EMBARCADE RO WY Public Utility – Water Filtration Will be scheduled for early first hearing - 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 Will be scheduled for early first hearing - 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). Minor Board 01/18/2023 23PLN- 00009 THARRIS ON 180 El Camino Commercial Tentative ARB 5/4/23 - Request by Jason Smith of LandShark Development for a Minor Board Level Architectural Review to allow exterior improvements, including a new façade, new storefront glazing, new signage, and a complete interior remodel for Arhaus. Zoning District: CC. Zone Change 4/25/2022 22PLN- 00010 EFOLEY 800-808 SAN ANTONIO RD Housing Will be scheduled for early first hearing - Request for a zone change from CS to Planned Community (PHZ) for a 76-unit, 5-story residential building. 16 of the units would be provided at below market rate, 4 of which would be to low income and 7 of which would be to very low income. The building is designed as a 5-story building with four levels of wood framing over a concrete podium superstructure, with two levels of subterranean parking. Project went to a Council prescreening on 8/15. Minor Architectural Review 1/24/2023 23PLN- 00015 GSAULS 3200 EL CAMINO REAL Hotel In discussions with applicant regarding parking requirements, may remain staff level - Minor Architectural Review approval to remove one level of underground parking at the previously approved Parmani Hotel (18PLN-00045; Record of Land Use Action 2019-06). No proposed changes to the approved hotel design, but the entire hotel likely needs to be re-approved. The request proposes to reduce the number of approved parking spaces from 106 parking spaces to 63 parking spaces. Zoning District: CS. Environmental Assessment: Pending. Major Architectural Review 1/04/2023 23PLN- 00058 CHODGKI 420 Acacia Residential- 16 units replacing surface parking lot Will be scheduled for early first hearing - Request for Major Architectural Review 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. The SB 330 pre-application was deemed compliant on February 2, 2023. Item 1 Attachment B-Agenda and New Projects List Packet Pg. 10 Potential Projects This list of items are pending or recently reviewed projects that have 1) gone to Council prescreening and would be reviewed by the ARB once a formal application is submitted and/or 2) have been reviewed by the ARB as a preliminary review and the City is waiting for a formal application. Permit Type Submitted Permit # Project Mgr.Address Type Work Description Prescreening Council 06/13/2022 22PLN- 00198 EFOLEY 70 Encina AV Housing – 20 units 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. Prescreening Council 07/07/2022 22PLN- 00227 GSAULS 3400 EL CAMINO REAL Housing – 382 units Heard by Council on 9/19/22, waiting for formal application - Prescreening for a Planned Housing Zone (PHZ) to build 382 residential rental units comprised of 44 studios, 243 one-bedroom, 86 two-bedroom and 9 three-bedroom units in two buildings. Zoning: CS, CS(H), RM-20. Preliminary AR 12/20/2022 22PLN- 00406 GSAULS 3600 Middlefield Public Facility Heard by ARB on 2/16, waiting for formal application - Request for Preliminary Architectural Review to replace Palo Alto Fire Station 4. The proposed building will be a 7,800 square foot, LEED Silver, single-story structure replacing the existing single-story fire station. SB 330 Pre- Application 1/10/2023 23PLN- 00003 GSAULS 3150 El Camino Real Housing - 380 units SB 330 Pre-Application for 3128, 3150, and 3160 El Camino Real to replace two existing commercial buildings on-site and construct a 380 unit Multi-family Residential Rental Development with 10% Below Market Rate. The project includes a 456,347 square foot apartment building with a 171,433 square foot garage that extends to 84 feet in height. The project includes Requested Concessions and Waivers in Accordance with the State Density Bonus. Council Pre- Screening and Zone Change 2/1/2023 & 2/2/2023 23PLN- 00025 23PLN- 00027 AFRENC H 2901 MIDDLEFIEL D Housing – one unit Council Pre-Screening and Zone Change to consider an amendment to the PC-2343 to amend the development plan to consolidate parking and to extract 700 Ellsworth from PC district and rezone it to R-1. Zoning District: PC-2343. Environmental Assessment: Not a Project (no formal action required). Council Pre- Screening 2/8/2023 23PLN- 00036 THARRIS ON 1237 SAN ANTONIO Public Utility Council Pre-Screening request by Valley Water to allow a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to update the land use of a portion of Area B of parcel #116-01-013 from Public Conservation Land to Major Institution/Special Facilities. The other portion of Area B is currently designated as a Major institution/Special Facilities and the proposed project also calls for the subdivision of Area B. Zoning District: PF(D). SB 330 Pre- Application 300 Lambert Housing – 45 units SB 330 Pre-Application - Request for a proposed 5-story housing development project utilizing Builder's Remedy. The project includes 45 residential units and two floors of below grade parking (85 spaces) in a 3:1 FAR building. Nine units will be designated as BMR/Low Income Units. Two parcels 280 and 300 Lambert Ave, previously used as automotive repair facilities, would be merged. Zoning District: CS. Item 1 Attachment B-Agenda and New Projects List Packet Pg. 11 Item No. 2. Page 1 of 19 Architectural Review Board Staff Report From: Jonathan Lait, Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: April 6, 2023 Report #: 2303-1175 TITLE 3200 Park Boulevard/200 Portage/340 Portage [22PLN-00287 and 22PLN-00288]: Consideration of a Planned Community Zoning application 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. The 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 Two-Level Parking Garage, and Dedication of Approximately 3.25 acres of Land to the City for Future Affordable Housing and Parkland Uses. Existing R&D Uses Would Continue to Occupy the Remaining Cannery Building. 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. The Project also Includes a Development Agreement, Comprehensive Plan Amendment, and Vesting Tentative Map. Environmental Assessment: A Draft Environmental Impact Report 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 Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s): 1. Consider and provide feedback on the proposed Development Plan for the Planned Community Zoning applications at 3200 Park Boulevard, including modifications to the existing cannery building and construction of the new parking garage and townhomes and continue to a date uncertain. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In Fall 2022, the Sobrato Organization, LLC (Sobrato) submitted an application for a development agreement, planned community rezoning, and tentative map, associated with the redevelopment of the 14.65-acre site at 200-404 Portage Avenue, 3040-3250 Park Item 2 Staff Report Packet Pg. 12 Item No. 2. Page 2 of 19 Boulevard, 3201-3225 Ash Street and 278 Lambert. 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; •Retention and remodel of the remaining portion of the cannery building; •Construction of a new parking garage on the north side of the cannery building to replace surface parking adjacent Matadero Creek •Dedication of a 3.25-acre parcel to the city for the purposes of a 2.25-acre public park and a one-acre site for affordable housing. The plans presented to the ARB for this hearing are still under review and refinements to the design are anticipated to meet code requirements based on comments from plan reviewers in various City departments. Staff recommends that the ARB review the changes to the project based on the feedback from the December 15, 2022 and January 19, 2023 study sessions, provide feedback on the revised design, and continue to a date uncertain. 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 On December 15, 2022 the ARB held a study session to provide input specific to the townhome design. On January 19, 2023, following review from the HRB, the ARB held a study session to provide input specific to the remaining cannery building design. Minutes from these study sessions can be found online.1,2 The Board’s comments and the applicant’s responses to those comments are summarized below. The staff reports for these study sessions also provide further 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. ARB Comments Applicant’s Response Site Planning. The ARB asked the applicant to consider different site planning layouts including a design that oriented the townhomes diagonally and a design that considered direct street connections to Park Boulevard and a mix of townhome and condominium complex design The proposed design is consistent with what was discussed and agreed to with the ad hoc committee. This design takes as much of the original site design from the SB 330 package which maximized the unit density for this type of product on the site while preserving the portions of the canary building that were of highest importance to the ad hoc committee. 1 Minutes from the December 15, 2022 Architectural Review Board hearing: 2 Minutes from the January 19, 2023 Architectural Review Board hearing: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/architectural- review-board/2023/arb-01-19-23-approved-minutes.pdf Item 2 Staff Report Packet Pg. 13 Item No. 2. Page 3 of 19 Townhome Building Elevations. ARB members commented that there is insufficient variety between individual building massing. Board members noted that the massing on all of the buildings is identical and that changing the color palette was not sufficient to provide the required variety between buildings per the contextual design guidelines. They asked for more variety of height, projections, and entry doors, noting that the project needed both horizontal and vertical articulation. They further suggested a greater use of eaves, window bays, porches, and entries to break up the massing and provide visual interest. Specifically, more elements that defined entries, broke down the massing, and signaled human habitation. The townhome design has been refined and includes two new architectural styles for the buildings, providing three distinct designs mixed across the site. The facades have been designed to incorporate different massing for the bay elements, different materials, varied roof lines, and different entry conditions to ensure greater architectural variety and pedestrian scale visual interest. Materials. At least one board member acknowledged that the colors and material of the project are a nod to the neighboring building across Park Boulevard (3101 Park Boulevard), but noted that this was not necessarily an appropriate contextual response as that building is not consistent with the colors and materials of the rest of the neighborhood. Boardmembers encouraged the applicant to look around the neighborhood more and to reconsider the colors and materials accordingly. The townhome design has been refined and includes two new architectural styles for the buildings. The new styles incorporate different massing for the bay elements, different materials, varied roof lines, and different entry conditions to ensure greater architectural variety and pedestrian scale visual interest. Trash Service and Design. Because the dead-end aisles cannot be serviced, the ARB noted that the trash service plan for residents on the north side of the complex (on cul-de-sac aisles) needs refinement to ensure that trash can be properly serviced. At Buildings 1-4, where we have dead end drive aisles, a trash enclosure has been added to serve those buildings. A concierge service will pick up waste at each townhouse and deliver it to the trash enclosure. The concierge service will bring the bins out to a designated staging area (at the intersection of Street A and Street G) on the designated trash pickup day and then return the bins to the enclosure. Tree Planting and Removal. The ARB asked the applicant to consider whether more protected trees can be retained, particularly any redwood trees that are planned for removal. The ARB also asked the applicant to consider planting more native species to meet the ARB findings. In particular, they asked the applicant to revise the focal tree in the paseo, which was proposed to be a magnolia tree. The site was reviewed to see if there were any additional opportunities to retain or transplant existing trees. Trees #1-2 and 104 were able to be retained and Trees #3 and 41 (the latter of which is protected) will be transplanted in the final design. Unfortunately, the Redwood trees in question cannot be retained as they occur directly in the footprints of Buildings 2, 3 and 4. See Sheets L-6.1-3 for more information. A full planting plan has been provided, see Sheets L-2.1- 3. Native quantification of trees and shrubs can be Item 2 Staff Report Packet Pg. 14 Item No. 2. Page 4 of 19 found as part of the plant palette on the right sidebar – 81% native shrub planting and 67% native tree planting. The central tree at the townhome paseo has been updated to Hymenosporum flavum – Sweetshade, see Sheet L-2.3. Bicycle Parking. Show all short-term and long- term bicycle parking. No short-term bicycle parking is shown. The project plans have been revised to show all short-term and long-term bicycle parking for the proposed cannery building as well as the new townhomes as shown on sheet L-1.7. In addition, on sheet A3-1.0.0 the 37 long term spaces located in 380 Portage are noted. Delivery/Pick-Up Designated Parking. Consider making one or more of the parking spaces adjacent the townhomes a designated space for drop-off/pick-up, food service, etc. One stall on Street A and one stall on Street B will be designated as loading/unloading only. Pedestrian Paseo. Consider making the paseo wider to improve privacy and allow more space between the buildings. There is no room on the site to move the buildings to widen the paseo; therefore, no change has been made. Pedestrian circulation was modified to provide larger planting areas for trees. Larger scale evergreen trees are provided in between units facing each other for additional privacy. See Sheets L-1.5, L-2.1-3. These changes will provide both more privacy and a more lush paseo environment. Monitor Roof Scale. Several board members expressed concern that the monitor roofs on the demolition plan/historic photos and construction plans/renderings did not seem to align with respect to scale, the width seeming much greater in the renderings and construction plans. Board members asked that the architect revisit and ensure the scales were correct. The existing building has been laser scanned to develop an accurate base file. All plans, sections, elevations, and renderings have been updated to reflect the updated information and correct scale. Structural Information. Board members asked how the addition of the glass affected the structural integrity of the walls. They asked for additional information on what reinforcements were planned for the building, particularly to support the additional glass, and specifically where the structural engineer was recommending additional interior framing. As shown in the included plans we have located the proposed brace frame required to bring the structure up to code and life safety requirements. The structural reinforcements will also support the proposed windows. Grade Separation between Cannery and Parking Garage. Encouraged leaving the surface parking lot down at grade rather than bringing it up to reduce impacts from height/daylight plane perspective and allow for retention of grade separation at the rear of the cannery. The grade separation for the historic loading docks is identified as a character defining feature of the The plans have been revised to maintain the existing loading dock elevation adjacent the cannery and to lower the parking garage to match the existing grade of the surface parking lot. The change provides separation from the parking and amenity space, reduces the overall impact of the required parking structure, and Item 2 Staff Report Packet Pg. 15 Item No. 2. Page 5 of 19 cannery building as it helps to convey the historic use of the building. maintains the historic context of the previous loading dock. Parking Garage. Some board members stated that the parking structure seemed too long and repetitive of the historic cannery building. They asked the applicant to consider making the parking garage smaller. At least one board member wanted to better understand why below-grade parking wasn't being explored. Boardmembers also asked to maintain a 20-foot separation between neighboring residential properties and the garage, to preserve as many trees as possible, and to incorporate more greenery into the parking garage. As noted above, the grade of the parking structure has been lowered to maintain the current loading dock condition at the cannery building. This adjustment provided the opportunity to drop the height of the parking structure by approximately 2'-5", reducing the impact to the adjacent residential neighbors. In addition, Sobrato is rebuilding the existing CMU wall along the property line to provide privacy for the single-family residential properties on Olive. In the area between the parking structure and the property line (approximately 20 feet) we added a significant number of trees to further screen the garage. The combination of lowering the parking structure, landscaping, and the CMU wall provide significant screening of the structure from the neighbors. The garage elevation A3_2.2.0 in the submittal reflects the screening of the garage along its length. Cannery Interior. Several board members expressed concern about how the interior of the cannery relates to the exterior and how it can be made useful without adding lightwells, monitor roofs, skylights, etc. to better bring light into the space, particularly at the center bay of the building. In particular, boardmembers wanted a floor plan to better understand how the retail and R&D entrances on the south side of the façade related to the interior design and mezzanine space. It was unclear how the asymmetrical box heights at the entrance related to the interior design. They also asked for consideration of operable windows and noted that the open warehouse design is inefficient with respect to energy usage. Floor plans for the space were requested. As shown in the updated submittal, skylights are being added in the roof of the non-monitor area of the building which will provide additional natural light to the interior. Floor plans have been provided and show the proposed restroom, required brace frames, and stairs for the mezzanine. The interior space will be open to attract an R&D tenant who will develop their own interior space layout. In coordination with ARG (historic architect) we understand that the spatial relationships within the cannery building are of primary importance to the historic context of the building. It is therefore Sobrato’s intent to maintain the spatial integrity in any future tenant improvement. Retail. The ARB felt that retail space is not really integrated into the existing building design with respect to the light monitors and providing visibility to the monitor roofs. They noted that just cutting a small hole in the ceiling was not enough. We have worked to integrate the retail space within the structure to the extent possible. The inclusion of retail space is per a request from the Council ad hoc with the bulk of the space to be R&D office. We have increased the size of the skylight to the extent feasible to maximize the views into the monitor roof areas. The size and location of the skylight is also responding to a future retail tenant and potential back-of-house requirements. Item 2 Staff Report Packet Pg. 16 Item No. 2. Page 6 of 19 ANALYSIS Staff has analyzed the project in accordance with applicable plans, goals, policies, regulations and adopted guidelines, as discussed further below. Staff’s analysis of the applicant’s response to key comments from the board during the study session, both of which are summarized in the table above, is also included. Overall the project has been redesigned to be more consistent with the City’s design guidelines, zoning, and goals and policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan when compared to the previous submittal, particularly with respect to massing and materials along the façade as well as internal circulation on the site. However, these revised plans are still being reviewed by various City departments for consistency with the Municipal Code and other relevant standards and regulations. Staff Analysis of Applicant’s Responses Although the applicant has not modified the design to address all comments from board members, the revised design includes modifications to address the ARB’s feedback and improve the project’s consistency with goals, policies, and guidelines adopted by the City. Where changes were not made, information has been provided to explain why the project has not been redesigned to address the suggested modifications. Staff’s analysis of the applicant’s response to key comments is provided herein. Site Planning As noted in the applicant’s response, the proposed project reflects the conceptual plan presented to the Council ad hoc committee, the key aspects of which were approved by the full Council. Following the formal application, this plan was also approved by the Planning and Transportation Commission, allowing this conceptual plan to move forward to the ARB. Staff cannot comment on a diagonal layout without a conceptual plan to review. However, staff notes several code compliance issues with the proposed conceptual design presented by one board member during the December 15, 2023 hearing, which is included for reference in Attachment C. These include, but are not limited to: •The conceptual design encouraged a mix of unit types and included a 4- to 5-story building, which presumably would be 40-50 feet in height, adjacent single-family residential uses, then steps down to the three-story townhomes. Under the current zoning of RM-30, this proposal would exceed the 35-foot height allowance. Under the proposed Planned Community (PC) zoning this would also exceed the allowances set forth in 18.38.150, which limit the height of buildings in a PC Zone District to 35 feet within 150 feet of R-1 zoning. In a previous Council study session, Council expressed that they would not be likely to support exceptions to this height allowance when adjacent to R-1 zoning. In addition, the context-based design criteria encourage transitions in scale from lower to higher density. The proposed project transitions from single-family (low) to three-story townhome (medium) and then to a future higher density affordable housing project on the City dedication parcel. The conceptual design transitions from low to high and then back to medium density housing which staff believes is less consistent with the context-based design criteria than the proposed project. Item 2 Staff Report Packet Pg. 17 Item No. 2. Page 7 of 19 •The conceptual design does not appear to respect the required setbacks that would apply to PC zoning adjacent to single-family residential uses (or that would apply to the current Rm-30 zoning). •the conceptual design includes five curb cuts (three more than what currently exists) along Park Boulevard. The City’s Office of Transportation would not support this increase in vehicular/bicycle conflict points along Park Boulevard. This street is a high- use bicycle connection within the City and any improvements to this street should look to maintain or reduce curb cuts rather than introduce new curb cuts. Townhome Building Design The revised design provides more variation between the buildings by presenting three unique townhome building designs. It includes more variation in height along Park and articulates the façade through changes in materials and building step-backs, both to provide a more defined base, middle, and top and to create entrances that have a pedestrian scale. The entrances are highlighted through bays, the addition of raised stoops along park and some of the interior pathways, and material changes. The façade improvements help to break up the massing and provide more visual interest as suggested by board members. Improvements to the planting plan also complement the revised entries. Overall, the plans are responsive to the ARB’s recommendations. Staff notes that in order to achieve this change in height, the revised design includes buildings with a height of 37.5 feet at peak points of the roofline. The Planned Community Zone District Ordinance will reflect this proposed development plan. The 35-foot height limit within 150 feet of single family uses, consistent with the requirements set forth in 18.38.150 for Planned Community zone districts, is maintained. Materials The proposed materials have been revised based on the ARB’s comments both to better reflect the project’s surroundings and to address comments requesting more variety in the materials between the buildings. The materials appear to relate better to the surrounding environment. References to the color and material placement on the facades is provided starting on Sheet A1_2.7.0 of the plan set and revised materials boards have been provided. The proposed revisions appear to be responsive to the ARB’s comments. Trash Service and Design The revised plan for service of dead-end aisles is still being reviewed by zero waste and the City’s contractor, Greenwaste, to ensure that the revised proposal complies with the applicable standards and regulations for proper service. However, based on planning staff’s initial review, the addition of the trash enclosure and staging for the consolidated bins appears to comply with the applicable requirements. Consistent with the original plan, all units that are not located on dead-end aisles will be serviced along the private streets. The 26-foot proposed street widths for two of the interior private streets is sufficient to accommodate trash service. Signage to restrict parking during the pick-up hours will need to be required as part of the plans or as a condition of approval of the project. Item 2 Staff Report Packet Pg. 18 Item No. 2. Page 8 of 19 Several board members also noted that the materials for the commercial trash enclosure along Street B seemed out of place. The project plans have been revised to include updated materials for the enclosure that align with adjacent buildings on site, consistent with the ARB’s suggestions. Staff notes that the commercial trash enclosure has not been moved. Because this enclosure serves both the 3201 Ash Street Building as well as the remaining cannery, the applicant has stated that moving the enclosure to the north side of the building is not feasible. Staff and the applicant agree that placing it in front of the retail space is also undesirable. Staff would still recommend moving this enclosure closer to the Ash/portage connection so that it is not directly across from the proposed future affordable housing project. Bicycle parking Long-term bicycle parking for the townhome project was shown in the previous plan set (within private garages). Short-term bicycle parking for the townhome project and both short-term and long-term bicycle parking required for the cannery building are now shown on the revised site plan. The location and design of the bicycle parking is still being reviewed by the City’s Office of Transportation. The project provides the required short-term and long-term bicycle parking for the new townhomes and exceeds the required short-term bicycle parking for the cannery building uses, including the new retail use. The project does not meet the required long-term bicycle parking requirement of 57 spaces for the cannery building. However, the cannery building and R&D uses exist on the site, therefore the project brings the site more into conformance with the code. The addition of a bike storage room could be considered for the interior space to bring the site into conformance as part of this project. Tree Removal and Planting The applicant has made some revisions to the plans to retain three trees that were previously planned for removal including two larger silver dollar gums near the northwest corner of the proposed parking garage and Tree 104, a 23” cannery island pine near the entrance to the proposed street B near Park Boulevard. In addition, the applicant responded that trees #3 (11” valley oak) and #41 (15” coast live oak) will be transplanted. This is not reflected in the current plans. If this is proposed as suggested in the responses, this will need to be revised in the plan set prior to approval. The ARB asked for consideration, in particular, for retaining more redwood trees. The applicant has stated that, upon further review, no additional redwood trees can be preserved because the redwoods planned for removal are directly within the building footprint of the townhomes. However, the revised plans provide further information in accordance with the new tree preservation ordinance requirements to show the valuation of protected trees to be removed and to assess the impact on costs to design around these trees. This assessment is required in accordance with the new Tree Protection Ordinance to justify removal. Urban Forestry is still reviewing this valuation; however, based on the information provided in the plan set, the requirements of the new ordinance have been met to allow for the proposed tree removals. As has always been required, replacement of the tree canopy is required for all trees over 4 inches that are removed. The applicant has also provided the calculations of tree canopy removed and the planned replacement to show compliance with this requirement. Item 2 Staff Report Packet Pg. 19 Item No. 2. Page 9 of 19 The previous plan set did not include a full planting plan. The revised plan set includes a full planting plan on Sheets L-2.1-3. The complete palette provides 81% native shrub planting and 67% native tree planting as noted in the applicant’s response. Overall the revised plans include minor additional tree preservation. The plans are still being reviewed by Urban Forestry for final approval; however, tree removals and replacement planting appears to conform with the requirements of the updated tree ordinance. The revised planting plan provides primarily native species, consistent with the ARB findings. Pedestrian Paseo No changes were made to widen the paseo in response to the ARB’s comments. However, the revisions to the planting plan do improve the paseo design. The paseo design has been revised to slightly offset the pathway entrances to units across the paseo and larger planting areas have been provided to support the larger scale evergreen trees between units. These changes do help to improve privacy between units. The central tree at the townhome paseo has been updated to Hymenosporum flavum (Sweetshade), an evergreen tree in response to the ARB’s comments. Overall, although the applicant has not widen the paseo as requested, but the revisions do improve the paseo design. Monitor roof Scale and Structural Information As noted in the applicant’s response, the applicant laser scanned the existing building to develop an accurate base file and all plans, sections, elevations, and renderings have been updated to reflect the updated information and correct scale consistent with the ARB’s comments. Grade Separation Between Cannery and Parking Garage Consistent with recommendations in the City’s Historic Architect’s analysis and based on ARB comments, the plans have been revised to maintain the existing loading dock elevation adjacent the cannery, lowering the parking garage to match the existing grade of the surface parking lot. The change provides separation from the parking and amenity space and reduces the overall impact of the parking structure. An updated analysis of the revised project’s Secretary of the Interior’s standards is being prepared. Staff anticipates that the proposed change will improve compliance with the standards; however, the conclusion of the EIR, which identify demolition of a portion of the building to be a significant and unavoidable impact are not expected to change. Parking Garage The proposed modifications lower the parking garage so that the new development adjacent the cannery building is more consistent with the datum of the trellis/awnings in-between. The parking garage was revised to be set back approximately 23 feet along the property line where it abuts single family residences as shown on Sheet A0.1.2, consistent with at least one board member’s recommendation to provide 20 feet at all points between the structure and the property line. Many of the existing trees along the rear property line are very small trees and are proposed to be replaced with larger trees that can provide better screening. The applicant reassessed mature trees and determined that two additional mature trees between the parking Item 2 Staff Report Packet Pg. 20 Item No. 2. Page 10 of 19 garage and property line could be retained. Additional climbing vines have been incorporated into the parking garage façade. It would be more desirable if trees could be planted on the second level to provide shading for the parking garage. However, the addition of trees would result in fewer parking spaces. Residents in the vicinity have specifically raised concerns about lack of parking in and around their neighborhood and the Council ad hoc and property owner have has expressed a shared interest in maintaining the existing parking ratio on site at minimum to provide adequate parking for the commercial uses. Cannery Interior The applicant provides a basic floor plan for the interior on Sheet A3_2.1.6. Renderings of the interior space on the northern end (behind the new retail) are provided. As noted in the applicant response, the openness of the interior relates to its historic use as a cannery. Modifications that break up the space would not be consistent with the historic context of the building. Therefore, changes to break up the spaces were not proposed. The applicant has not made changes to include operable windows. An explanation of why this was not incorporated was not provided. Retail The applicant has revised the design to provide a larger view of the monitor roofs, improving the design. This view still doesn’t seem to be integrated well into the design to provide meaningful public access/viewing of this feature. Staff does not have suggestions of how this design can be improved and would appreciate the ARB’s feedback on how the views of the monitor roof might be better integrated into the design if there are still concerns regarding the proposed plans. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans and Guidelines3 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 and January 19, 2023 staff reports to the ARB and is reflected in Attachment C. As discussed on January 19, 2023, in addition to these re-designations, because of the total land area being dedicated to the City (which significantly reduces the size of the existing cannery parcel), the 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): 3 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/landuse/compplan.asp Item 2 Staff Report Packet Pg. 21 Item No. 2. Page 11 of 19 “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, or amendment to an existing PC Zone, would be a legislative action requiring a recommendation from the PTC and ARB as well as Council approval. 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 As discussed in previous staff reports for this project, the project site is located within the boundaries of the proposed North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP). The City Council set goals and objectives in March 2018, and NVCAP working group meetings commenced in 2018. On November 14, 2022, City Council reviewed and endorsed the refined preferred alternative plan.4 An analysis of the project’s consistency with key goals articulated for the NVCAP process is included in Attachment D. 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 Compliance5 4 Minutes of the November 14, 2022 Council hearing are available online at: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/City-Clerk/Citys-Meeting-Agendas/Meeting-Agendas-and-Minutes 5 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: http://www.amlegal.com/codes/client/palo-alto_ca Item 2 Staff Report Packet Pg. 22 Item No. 2. Page 12 of 19 Because the proposed Development Agreement includes the donation of a significant portion of the property to the City of Palo Alto, the remaining buildings (including the remaining cannery building, 3201 Ash Street Office building, and the Audi building on Park Boulevard, 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 E. To address any inconsistencies with the municipal code, the project would include rezoning all of these parcels, with the exception of the City dedication 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, which will require a recommendation from the PTC and Council approval. Context-Based Design Criteria The context-based design criteria do not apply to PC Zone Districts. However, the Planned Community rezoning process provides the City discretion with respect to approval of the development plan and any proposed development should be required to comply with these criteria to ensure high quality design and compliance with the ARB findings. Therefore, an analysis of the project’s consistency with the context-based design criteria that would normally apply to commercial and residential projects is provided in Attachment F. The analysis assesses the townhomes for conformance with the context-based design criteria for residential projects and assesses the remaining cannery building and parking structure addition for conformance with the context-based design criteria for commercial projects. 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. In the previous plans, the parking garage was 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 complied with the daylight plane requirements. At the ARB’s request, the proposed structure has been redesigned to provide a 23-foot setback adjacent the single-family residential parcels. A line-of-site diagram has been provided, per staff’s request, to views between the second level of the garage and single-family residences. Some additional mature trees have been retained. The previous plans did not clearly show the existing mature trees within the small sliver parcel between the existing parking lot and single- family residences. Most of the mature trees between these uses were within this sliver parcel whereas the trees along the existing wall are small, ornamental trees. The plans have now been revised to show retention of most of those trees. Where small ornamental trees are removed, Item 2 Staff Report Packet Pg. 23 Item No. 2. Page 13 of 19 evergreen trees that have the potential to grow taller and provide better screening between the parking garage and neighboring residences is proposed. A lighting plan for the parking garage has also been provided and shows how lighting would be designed to reduce impacts on neighboring residences. Overall, the plans as revised are consistent with the context-based design criteria as they relate to their respective uses. Multi-Modal Access & Circulation The proposed project includes four points of vehicular ingress/egress to the site, two from Park Boulevard, one from Portage Avenue/Ash Street, and one from 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 as well as 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 420 Acacia Avenue (where Acacia Avenue meets Ash Street) but can also be accessed via Park Boulevard across the townhome parcel. Sobrato is required to provide an enhanced bicycle connection between Park Boulevard and Portage/Ash for consistency with the Palo Alto Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan (BPTP) as well as the Countywide Trails Plans. This connection is proposed as part of the Development Agreement. An enhanced bicycle connection requires, at minimum, sharrows. 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. Based on discussions between the City and Sobrato, the proposed plans reflect a two-way bicycle connection that is buffered from the street by markings and grade-level vegetation. Staff is still evaluating how to best connect the bike path at both Park Boulevard and Ash/Portage based on feedback from the Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee provided on February 7, 2023 and anticipates some refinements as part of the final plan sets. Considerations may include high visibility markings and raised bike crossings. Staff anticipates that this will align with the NVCAP proposal for Portage Avenue, which will propose a future bicycle boulevard between the site and El Camino Real, possibly with protected/buffered bicycle lanes on the South side of the street. 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 and does not appear to connect through the parking garage into the pedestrian mews. Staff will continue discussing options for this connection with the property owner. Pedestrian connections are provided throughout the townhome site and across Street B to connect the retail space into the future Park. Item 2 Staff Report Packet Pg. 24 Item No. 2. Page 14 of 19 Transportation Impact Analysis The City prepared a Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) for the proposed 200 Portage Townhome Project (91-units) as well as the proposed Development Agreement. The TIA analyzed the project in accordance with both Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) for the purposes of CEQA as well as with the City’s Local Transportation Impacts policy adopted by the City Council. The Council adopted a policy to evaluate circulation as well as level of service at intersections. The complete Transportation Impact Analysis is included in Appendix H of the Draft EIR. A link to the Draft EIR is included in Attachment J of this report. Vehicle Miles Traveled The criteria used by the City of Palo Alto state that each component of a project should be evaluated independently for mixed-use projects consisting of multiple land uses. The Palo Alto VMT Criteria states: • Projects located within a half-mile walkshed around high-quality transit corridors that do not exceed City parking requirements can be presumed to cause a less-than- significant VMT impact. • Local-serving retail projects comprised of less than 10,000 square feet can be presumed to cause a less-than-significant VMT impact. • Residential projects may indicate a significant transportation impact if the proposed project VMT exceeds 15 percent below the existing County home-based VMT per resident. • Office (or employment-based) projects which exceed 15 percent below the existing regional home-based work VMT per employee may indicate a significant transportation impact. The project is located within one half-mile of high-quality transit corridors and the project does not exceed the parking requirements. Therefore, the Development Agreement Alternative would normally be screened out as a project with a less than significant impact. However, for comparison with the proposed 91-unit townhome project, and because the parking was not known at the time the analysis began, the City evaluated each use individually. The proposed development Agreement includes an on-site 2,600 square foot retail space which is smaller than the 10,000 square foot threshold adopted by the City VMT criteria. Based on guidance from the OPR Technical Advisory and Palo Alto’s adopted criteria, local-serving retail such as this can generally be presumed to have a less-than-significant impact on VMT. These types of uses will primarily draw users and customers from a relatively small geographic area that will lead to short-distance trips and trips that are linked to other destinations. The total demand for retail in a region also tends to hold steady; adding new local-serving retail typically shifts trips away from another retailer rather than adding entirely new trips to the region. According to the Santa Clara Countywide VMT Evaluation Tool (Version 2), the countywide Item 2 Staff Report Packet Pg. 25 Item No. 2. Page 15 of 19 household VMT per capita is 13.33 miles. Based on the Palo Alto VMT Criteria, a project generating a VMT that is 15 percent or more below this value, or 11.33 miles per capita, would have a less-than-significant VMT impact. The evaluation tool estimates that this project would have a projected VMT rate of 4.89 miles per capita. Because this per capita VMT rate is below the significance threshold of 11.33 miles, the residential portion of the project alternative would be considered to have a less-than-significant VMT impact. The Countywide VMT Evaluation Tool also estimates that the countywide average VMT per worker is 16.64 miles. Per City VMT Criteria, a project generating a VMT that is less than 15 percent of this value, or 14.14 miles per worker, would have a less-than-significant VMT impact. The evaluation tool estimates that this project would have a projected VMT rate of 15.56 miles per worker. A Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program includes measures which can reduce the need for vehicle travel by employees of the proposed project. A TDM program capable of reducing vehicle trips by 15 percent is proposed in the Development Agreement between the City and the project applicant. Successful implementation of the project’s proposed TDM program would be expected to reduce VMT and would result in the project alternative having a less-than-significant VMT impact for its employment-based uses, 13.23 VMT. The proposed TDM Plan is included in Attachment G. Local Transportation Analysis The Development Agreement alternative is expected to generate an average of 43 net-new vehicle trips during the a.m. peak hour and 51 trips during the p.m. peak hour. This represents an increase of three and four trips during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours, respectively, when compared to the 200 Portage Avenue Townhome project. Because the proposed project alternative is expected to generate a similar number of peak-hour vehicle trips compared to the base project, staff did not perform a separate intersection analysis for the project alternative condition. The TIA concludes that the results would be nearly identical to those from the base project and any differences would be nominal. The Local Transportation Analysis concludes that the study intersections would continue operating at the same levels of service with or without the addition of project-generated traffic. At the intersections of El Camino Real/Olive Avenue and El Camino Real/Lambert Avenue, the westbound approaches would operate at LOS F during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours regardless of whether project-related vehicle trips are included. The intersection of El Camino Real/Olive Avenue would have volumes that satisfy the peak hour volume warrant under the Cumulative plus Project condition for the p.m. peak hour with the project and the intersection of El Camino Real/Lambert Avenue would also satisfy this warrant with both the a.m. and p.m. peak hour volumes with or without the project. The City does not have a threshold of significance for unsignalized intersections already operating at LOS F prior to the addition of project trips. It is suggested that unsignalized intersections that satisfy a peak hour traffic signal warrant and operate at LOS F be included in the City of Palo Alto’s list of intersections that are considered for traffic signal installation. The City identifies its own criteria for ranking and prioritization, including other signal warrants and Item 2 Staff Report Packet Pg. 26 Item No. 2. Page 16 of 19 crash history when considering the need and timing for traffic signal installation. It should also be noted that because these intersections affect Caltrans right-of-way, Caltrans signalization of these intersections would fall under Caltrans’ jurisdiction. Similar to the City, Caltrans has additional considerations with respect to ranking and prioritization before it would consider signalization of an intersection. The City is exploring the potential for future signalization of this intersection with Caltrans as part of the NVCAP process. In accordance with PAMC Section 16.45, the applicant is required to pay a Transportation Impact Fee for new PM peak hour trips associated with the proposed project. Parking 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 vehicular parking spaces adjacent to the creek will allow for that area to be used for a public park and a future affordable housing project. Additional parking is provided along Street B (south side of the cannery building) to serve the Ash office building, as well as the retail and R&D uses within the cannery building; along Street C (east of the cannery building), and on the cannery parcel to the east of the parking garage. Parking for the Townhomes is provided within private parking garages with two dedicated spaces for each unit. The applicant indicates that additional parking spaces will be provided along Streets A and B for guest parking and deliveries. These are not shown on the plan set. Therefore, if proposed, revised plans would need to reflect this proposal prior to approval. Short-term and long-term bicycle parking are also proposed both for the cannery building and the townhomes as shown in the revised plans. Historic The HRB report for the January 12, 2023 hearing as well as the attached Secretary of the Interior’s Standards Analysis (Attachment H) 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, councilmembers, the HRB, and the ARB 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 and ARB for feedback on where improvements could be made to improve consistency with the SOI standards while still providing high quality design that is appropriate for the proposed use of the space. 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 Item 2 Staff Report Packet Pg. 27 Item No. 2. Page 17 of 19 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. 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. This analysis is on-going and staff anticipates that this analysis will be complete within the next month. The ARB recommended reducing the changes to the remaining building and noted, in particular, that priority should be given to maintaining the monitor roofs and the loading docks. The revised plans reduce changes to the south side of the building in particular to address the comment related to the loading docks. The monitor roofs are still planned to be retained in the revised design. Staff’s architectural consultant will evaluate the revised design and update the previous report to reflect the proposed changes. Staff anticipates that the revised design is more consistent with the SOI standards; however, the it is not expected that the conclusions of the EIR would change. Public Art 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 held a public meeting on January 19, 2023 to provide initial input to the applicant on the public art themes, location, etc. that should be considered. With this feedback Sobrato hired an art consultant and is in the process of selecting an artist for the proposed public art. 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. Sobrato is currently working with Mr. Foon Chew’s grandaughter and their art consultant to identify some initial desired concepts and select the artist. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT Notice of a hearing for this project was published in the Daily Post on March 24, 2023, which is 12 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on March 21, 2023, which is 15 days in advance of the meeting. As noted in previous staff reports, 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 D. 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 Item 2 Staff Report Packet Pg. 28 Item No. 2. Page 18 of 19 public benefits. Councilmember comments from that study session were summarized in the December 15, 2022 staff report to the ARB for the study session on the townhome portion of the project. Minutes from the August 1, 2022 Council hearing can be found online.6 The Planning Commission held two study sessions in October and November 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. Public comments periods and comments received as part of the environmental review process are discussed below. 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. 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 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 I. Responses to all oral and written comments on the Draft EIR will be formally responded to in the Final EIR. 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 6 Minutes from the August 1, 2022 Council hearing can be found online at: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/City-Clerk/Citys-Meeting-Agendas/Meeting-Agendas-and-Minutes Item 2 Staff Report Packet Pg. 29 Item No. 2. Page 19 of 19 Attachment A: Location Map Attachment B: Development Program Statement Attachment C: Land Use Map Amendments Attachment D: NVCAP Key Goal Consistency Attachment E: Zoning Consistency Analysis Attachment E: Context based design criteria consistency Attachment F: Context-Based Design Criteria Attachment G: TDM Attachment H: SOI Standards Consistency Analysis Attachment I: Written Comments on the Project Attachment J: Architectural Plans and Environmental Documents AUTHOR/TITLE: Claire Raybould, AICP, Senior Planner Item 2 Staff Report Packet Pg. 30 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) CITYOF 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) Item 2 Attachment A _Location Map Packet Pg. 31 200 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 Item 2 Attachment B- Development Program Statement Packet Pg. 32 2 #177083191_v3 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. Item 2 Attachment B- Development Program Statement Packet Pg. 33 *Not Yet Adopted* Resolution No. ____ Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map by Changing the Land Use Designation for 340/380 Portage Avenue, 3201-3225 Ash Street, and 3250 Park Boulevard from “Multi-family Residential” (MF) to “Service Commercial” (CS); changing the land use designation for 3040 Park from “Light Industrial” (LI) to “Multi-family Residential” (MF); changing the land use designation of the newly created City dedication parcel area from MF and CS to Major Institution/Special Facilities (MISP); and amending the Comprehensive Plan Land Use and Design Element Text to amend the description of the commercial services land use designation. R E C I T A L S A. Although the cannery building at 380/340 Portage; the Ash building at 3201-3225 Ash Street, and the Audi building at 3250 Park Boulevard have historically and currently occupied the space with non-residential uses they currently have a Multi-family Residential Land Use Designation. B. In order to better align the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map with the past, present, and future uses of the site as set forth in the Development Agreement, Sobrato desires to amend the Land Use Designation of these parcels to Service Commercial. C. In order to better align the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map with the future use of the site as set forth in the Development Agreement, the Sobrato desires to amend the land use designation of the parcel at 3040 Portage to a Multi-family Residential. D. In order to better align the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map with the future use of the site for a park and affordable housing as set forth in the Development Agreement, the City desires to amend the Land Use Designation of the City dedication parcel to “Major Institution Special Facilities” (MISP). E. The creation of new parcels in order to dedicate a significant portion of land to the City would cause the existing improvements at 380/340 Portage; 3201-32235 Ash; and 3250 Park Boulevard to exceed the 0.4 floor area ratio identified in the Service Commercial land use designation description in the Land Use and Community Design Element. F. In order to align the Service Commercial land use designation description, the Comprehensive Plan Land Use and Community Design Element would be amended as set forth below in Section 4. G. Whereas the Planning and Transportation Commission, after a duly noticed public hearing on _________, 2023, recommended that the City Council amend the Land Use Map of the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan as set forth below. Item 2 Attachment C- Comprehensive Plan Amendment Packet Pg. 34 H. Whereas the City Council considered said recommendation after a duly noticed public hearing held on ___________, 2023 and now desires to amend the Land Use Map and Comprehensive Plan Land Use and Design Element as set forth below. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto RESOLVES as follows: SECTION 1. The City Council finds that the public interest, health, safety and welfare of Palo Alto and the surrounding region would be furthered by an amendment of the Land Use Map of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan as well as a Text Amendment to the Land Use and Community Design Element as set forth in Section 2. SECTION 2. The proposed Land Use Map amendment and Land Use and Community Design Text Amendments is consistent with the following goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan: Policy L-1.1: Maintain and prioritize Palo Alto’s varied residential neighborhoods while sustaining the vitality of its commercial areas and public facilities. The proposed amendments would allow for implementation of the development agreement, which provides additional housing types within the area (market rate townhomes and a future affordable housing project); maintains the existing commercial uses; and provides for new public facilities (a 2.25- acre public park). Policy L-1.3: Infill development in the urban service area should be compatible with its surroundings and the overall scale and character of the city to ensure a compact, efficient development pattern. The proposed amendments would allow for implementation of the development agreement, which provides a mix of new housing, a public park, and retention of commercial uses within existing single-story buildings. Policy L-1.4: Commit to creating an inventory of below market rate housing for purchase and rental. Work with neighbors, neighborhood associations, property owners and developers to identify barriers to infill development of below market rate and more affordable market rate housing and to remove these barriers, as appropriate. Work with these same stakeholders to identify sites and facilitate opportunities for below market rate housing and housing that is affordable. The proposed amendments would allow for implementation of the development agreement. Although the development agreement does not proposed construction of affordable housing units; the project dedicates 1-acre of land and $4 million in funds to support the development of an affordable housing project, removing barriers to providing additional below market rate units. Policy L-1.5: Regulate land uses in Palo Alto according to the land use definitions in this Element and Map L-6 The proposed amendments ensure compliance with this policy and modify the land use map to align with past, current, and future uses of the site in order to address current inconsistencies between the map and existing uses and to facilitate housing and a public park as the future use on a portion of the site Policy L-1.6: Encourage land uses that address the needs of the community and manage change and development to benefit the community. The proposed amendments provide a plan for the site that takes into consideration the needs of the community for additional housing and parkland; while providing a solution that the property owner is amenable to. Item 2 Attachment C- Comprehensive Plan Amendment Packet Pg. 35 Policy L-2.2: Enhance connections between commercial and mixed-use centers and the surrounding residential neighborhoods by promoting walkable and bikeable connections and a diverse range of retail and services that caters to the daily needs of residents. The amendments allow for implementation of the development agreement. The development agreement would provide public access and an enhanced bikeway from Park Boulevard to Portage Avenue, consistent with the Countywide Trails Plan and the City of Palo Alto Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan. Policy L-2.3: As a key component of a diverse, inclusive community, allow and encourage a mix of housing types and sizes, integrated into neighborhoods and designed for greater affordability, particularly smaller housing types, such as studios, co-housing, cottages, clustered housing, accessory dwelling units and senior housing The project provides a mix of housing types including townhome units as well as the land and funds toward development of affordable housing. Policy L-2.6: Create opportunities for new mixed-use development consisting of housing and retail. The land use map amendments would allow for a mix of uses across this site including existing commercial uses, proposed housing, and a public park. Policy L-2.9: Facilitate reuse of existing buildings. Although other alternatives may include retention of more of the building, the proposed amendments would facilitate implementation of the development agreement, which includes retention of the Ash and Audi buildings as well as a portion of the cannery building. Policy L-8.1: Facilitate creation of new parkland to serve Palo Alto's residential neighborhoods, as consistent with the Parks, Trails, Open Space and Recreation Master Plan. Policy N-1.2: Maintain a network of parks and urban forest from the urban center to the foothills and Baylands that provide ecological benefits and access to nature for all residents Policy N-1.10: Support regional and sub- regional efforts to acquire, develop, operate, and maintain a seamless open space system, including habitat linkages and trail connections extending north-south and east- west from Skyline Ridge to San Francisco Bay. Policy N-1.11: Work with Stanford University, Santa Clara County, SCVWD and regional organizations to create multi-use trail connections between urban areas and open space, including creeks and rights-of-way, while ensuring that the natural environment is protected. The land use map amendments would allow for implementation of the development agreement, which would include dedication of 2.25 acres of new parkland to the City of Palo Alto. Although no improvements are currently proposed on the city dedication parcel, an additional $1 in funding would be provided to the City to facilitate improvements along Matadero Creek, which may include naturalization of the creek bank and/or pedestrian or bicycle pathways connecting to Lambert and new improvements at Boulware Park. Item 2 Attachment C- Comprehensive Plan Amendment Packet Pg. 36 SECTION 3. The City Council hereby amends the Land Use Map of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan by changing the designation of the areas depicted in "Exhibit A" by changing the Land Use Designation for 340/380 Portage Avenue, 3201-3225 Ash Street, and 3250 Park Boulevard from “Multi-family Residential” (MF) to “Service Commercial” (CS); changing the land use designation for 3040 Park from “Light Industrial” (LI) to “Multi-family Residential” (MF); and changing the land use designation of the newly created City dedication parcel area from MF and CS to Major Institution/Special Facilities (MISP). "Exhibit A" is attached to this resolution and incorporated into it by this reference and as shown in the Vesting Tentative Map dated _________and approved by Council on ____________. SECTION 4. The City Council hereby amends the Service Commercial land use description in the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Land Use and Community Design Element to read as follows: “Service Commercial: 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.” SECTION 5. In conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the environmental impacts of this Resolution were evaluated in an Environmental Impact Report for the 200 Portage Townhome Project (EIR) (SCH# 2021120444), which the Council considered and adopted, together with the related Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP) on________, 2023. The EIR concluded, and the Council finds consistent therewith, that the proposed project, as part of the whole of the action in conjunction with this resolution, would have a have a significant effect on a historic resource. Therefore, overriding considerations have been adopted. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: __________________________ _____________________________ City Clerk Mayor ____________________________________________________ APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: Item 2 Attachment C- Comprehensive Plan Amendment Packet Pg. 37 Assistant City Attorney City Manager Exhibit A: Existing and Proposed Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designations Item 2 Attachment C- Comprehensive Plan Amendment Packet Pg. 38 Item 2 Attachment C- Comprehensive Plan Amendment Packet Pg. 39 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. Item 2 Attachment D-NVCAP Key Goal Consistency Packet Pg. 40 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. Item 2 Attachment D-NVCAP Key Goal Consistency Packet Pg. 41 ATTACHMENT E ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 22PLN-00287 (bold indicates non-compliance) Table 1: 200-Portage/3040-3200 Park Boulevard (Townhomes) COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.13 (RM-30 DISTRICT) Regulation Required Proposed Minimum/Maximum Site Area, Width and Depth 8,500 sf area, 70-foot width, 100-foot depth ~300 X ~590 (3.92 ac gross [170,755]; 2.447 ac net [106,591 sf]) Minimum Front Yard (Olive Avenue) (2) 20 feet 28 feet Rear Yard 10 feet 60 feet Interior Side Yard 6 feet 15 feet (adjacent residential) 43 feet to new property line between townhomes and cannery building Street Side Yard 16 feet 10 to 16 feet (10 at narrowest point) Max. Building Height 35 feet 32 foot, 10 inches Side Yard Daylight Plane 10 feet at interior side lot line then 45- degree angle Complies Rear Yard Daylight Plane 10 feet at rear setback line then 45- degree angle Complies Max. Site Coverage 40% (68,302)36% Max. Total Floor Area Ratio 0.6:1 (63,955 sf)1.49:1 (159,949 sf)* Minimum Site Open Space 30% (51,226 sf) 20% (34,663 sf) Minimum Usable Open Space 150 sf per unit (11,100 sf)177 sf/du min (12,131 sf) Minimum Common Open Space 75 sf per unit (5,550 sf)86 sf/du min (6,339 sf) Minimum Private Open Space 50 sf per unit (3,700 sf)92 sf/du min (6,792 sf) *Net lot area is used for the calculation of floor area and excludes the private streets and creek easements Table 1A: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking) for Multi-family Residential Type Required Proposed Vehicle Parking 2 spaces per unit, at least one covered 2x74 units=148 spaces required 148 spaces covered (2 each for 74 units) 37 uncovered spaces Total provided: 185 spaces Bicycle Parking 1 long term space per unit and 1 short term space per 10 units 74 long term spaces provided in private garages; private garages; Item 2 Attachment E-Zoning Consistency Analysis Packet Pg. 42 1 x 74 = 74 long-term spaces 0.1 x 74 = 7 short-term spaces 8 short term spaces Table 2: 340-404 Portage Avenue (Cannery Building) COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.16 (CS DISTRICT) Regulation Required Existing Proposed Minimum Site Area, width and depth 8,500 sf area, 70-foot width, 100 foot depth ~880 feet x ~640 feet ~539,035 sf (12.37 acres) ~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) ~20 feet (Park Boulevard) None (Alley between Acacia and Portage)* Rear Yard None None (Alley between Acacia and Portage) ~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 Not applicable Min. yard for lot lines abutting or opposite residential districts or residential PC districts 10 feet (2)32 feet 10.5 feet Build-to-lines 50% of frontage built to setback 33% of side street built to setback(7) None (Park Boulevard)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 Not Applicable Max. Site Coverage None Unclear 49.7% Item 2 Attachment E-Zoning Consistency Analysis Packet Pg. 43 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 ~35 feet; ten inches to top of existing monitor roofs; ~21 feet, two inches to top of existing main roof of cannery building 22 feet, 10 inches to top of stair tower 14 foot, six inches to top of railing around the parking garage ~No change to cannery building roof heights Max. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 0.4:1 (109,771 sf) 18.18.060(e) 0.47 (251,619 sf on a 539,035 sf parcel) 0.6:1 (164,656.8 sf)* Daylight Plane for lot lines abutting one or more residential zone districts other than an RM-40 or PC Zone None (6)complies 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 2A: 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; 10 LT* *Building and R&D use is existing on the site, modifications bring the existing buildings more into conformance with the code Item 2 Attachment E-Zoning Consistency Analysis Packet Pg. 44 2 8 7 Attachment F: Context-Based Design Criteria Consistency 3200 Park Boulevard 22PLN-00287 Context-Based Design Criteria Consistency-Cannery Building Parcel 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. Complete code language for the commercial context-based design criteria can be found online at https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/paloalto/latest/paloalto_ca/0-0-0-78138. 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. Pedestrian connections to Acacia could be improved and discussions regarding this are ongoing and the design of the Park to Portage connection is also ongoing. However, overall the project is consistent with this criterion. 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. Overall the project is consistent with this criterion. 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-30 Zone District. The daylight plane next to the R-1 is based on the R-1 zone Item 2 Attachment F-Context based design criteria consistency Packet Pg. 45 2 8 7 district requirements and has been met. The revised plans lowered the parking garage even further by lowering the grade of the garage. This aligned the garage with the datum of the awnings rather than the height of the historic building. This reduced the scale of the new building, prioritizing the historic building. The project is consistent with this criterion. 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 The scale of the garage is the minimum necessary to replace the surface parking; improvements were made based on ARB and staff feedback to lower the garage and better respect the privacy of adjacent uses. A line-of-sight diagram has been provided to show how views between neighboring yards and the parking garage are screened. Tree removal along the property line was reassessed. A couple of additional mature trees will be retained. Overall trees along the property line that are mature are planned to be retained. The majority of the trees along the property line are either not mature or small trees that do not contribute to screening. Revised planting is planned to provide trees that provide better screening along the new property boundary to screen the parking garage. 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 is designed for public use. 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 parking garage is necessary 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. It is not located along a street frontage and is therefore desirable with respect to how the project looks from public streetscapes, especially with the intent that a public access connection from Park to Portage will be a desirable area for residents to access the public park and use as a connection across the Ventura neighborhood between Park and El Camino Real. 7. Large Multi-Acre Sites Large sites (over one acre) shall be designed so that street, block, and building patterns are consistent The surrounding neighborhood, with the exception of Olive Avenue, is commercial. The remaining portion of the Item 2 Attachment F-Context based design criteria consistency Packet Pg. 46 2 8 7 with those of the surrounding neighborhood 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 23 feet from adjacent single-family residential parcels. The parking garage is designed to be well under the single-family residential daylight plane requirements (the most restrictive abutting zoning district). 8. Sustainability and Green Building Design Project design and materials to achieve sustainability and green building design should be incorporated into the project This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project is subject to the California Green Building Code (CalGreen, Tier 2) and includes a variety of sustainable elements. The project will be subject to the most recently adopted building code standards, including increased energy efficiency standards that became effective January 1, 2023. Context-Based Design Criteria Consistency-Townhomes Pursuant to PAMC 18.13.060(b), the following context-based design considerations and findings are applicable to the townhome parcel for the proposed project. These context-based design criteria are intended to provide additional standards to be used in the design and evaluation of development in a multi-family district. The purpose is to encourage development in a multi-family district to be responsible to its context and compatibility with adjacent development as well as to promote the establishment of pedestrian oriented design. The multi-family context-based design criteria can be found online at: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/paloalto/latest/paloalto_ca/0-0-0-77575 9. Massing and Building Facades Massing and building facades shall be designed to create a residential scale in keeping Palo Alto neighborhoods, and to provide a relationship with the street(s). The proposed townhome parcel will be zoned Planned Community; however, the project proposes to comply with most of the development standards set forth in the RM-30 zone district to ensure a natural transition from single-family residential to medium-density multi-family housing. The proposed height is 35’ consistent with the RM-30 zone district. The daylight plane is required to comply with that of the abutting R-1 requirements. Therefore, the project will comply with the side yard daylight plane (10 feet up and 45-degree angle from property line). The project is setback in compliance with the RM-30 requirements and provides screening and open space area between the townhomes and residential use. Although the project proposes increased floor area in comparison to the base zoning; however, this is reflective of the dedication of a substantial portion of the existing property’s land to the City for the purpose of a public park and future affordable housing. The project provides stoops for many of the units, particularly the units facing Park Boulevards. This is a desirable feature that does not wall off the building, creating a sense of place that connects directly to the street. This helps to create a quality, pedestrian-oriented transition from single-family detached to medium-density attached housing. Further improvements to the façade to provide better articulation and break up the design across the extensive frontage of the project on Park Boulevard would improve the design. The plans have been revised to provide more modulation in the roofline, improving the vertical articulation of the building. The revised plans also provide more horizontal articulation through the introduction of bays and changes in materials to help to break up the facades and provide a better pedestrian/human-scale connection at entrances. Overall the project, as revised, is consistent with this finding. 10. Low-Density Residential Transitions Where new projects are built abutting existing lower-scale residential development, care shall be taken to respect the Item 2 Attachment F-Context based design criteria consistency Packet Pg. 47 2 8 7 scale and privacy of neighboring properties. The project is set back from the R-1 zone district and maintains the R-1 daylight plane where it abuts single-family uses. The style of development works well as a transition from single-family residential to medium-density residential use. A future affordable housing project designed as a single building would be anticipated on the City dedication parcel, providing for a denser use that provides a second unit type further from the single-family residences. 11. Project Open Space Private and public open space shall be provided so that it is usable for the residents and visitors of a site. The project complies with common, private and useable open space requirements through the use of paseos through the site. However, because of the significant dedication of land to the City for the purposes of a public park, it does not meet the minimum site open space requirements. However, the park presumably would provide a recreational area for residents, including additional play area for children for these 3-4 bedroom townhomes. Improvements were made to the pedestrian mews to create more privacy for residents and to provide a more greenery to improve the environment for residents. Sheet AR1.2.0 does not accurately show private open space areas versus landscape open space areas. Private balconies should be relabeled as private open space and should not be counted toward landscape space. If the area near the single-family residences cannot be used for common open space, more clarity as to why this cannot be achieved should be provided. It seems that providing more open area for children should be considered without impacting the use of this space to meet the bioretention requirements for the site. 12. 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. Parking is provided for each individual unit within the garage as part of the townhome style design. Guest parking is provided along the private streets that provide primary access to the site (Streets A, B, and C that form a U shape around the project) The parking does not overwhelm the character of the project or detract from the pedestrian environment. However, on the private street connecting Portage Avenue and park Boulevard. 13. 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. Generally, the type of unit development and design of individual doors accessing the street on Park Boulevard is encouraged. The street façade along Park Boulevard is commercial in nature; but care has been taken to consider the single-family residential uses on Olive Avenue in the design of the townhomes and their scale (through setbacks, daylight plane, and height). Improvements were made to improve the design of the side of the units, which are very visible from various streets and some from Olive Avenue and those residents. Some of the units were revised to bring entrances around to the side street and changes in materials and breaks have been provided to improve the end- designs of units. 14. Housing Variety and Units on Individual Lots Multifamily projects may include a variety of unit types such as small-lot detached units, attached row houses/townhouse, and cottage clusters in order to achieve variety and create transitions to adjacent existing development. The proposed project is a Development Agreement; therefore, the type of housing being provided aligns with the negotiated terms with the Council ad hoc committee, which was endorsed by Council. The project includes townhome style units on a 3.8 ac net lot area as well as a future affordable housing project on a one-acre parcel. The medium- density, townhome style, use on the townhome parcel is an appropriate type of housing for a transition from single- family residential to higher density residential/commercial areas. The future affordable housing project is anticipated to be a different type of design, likely a single structure with apartments on one acre. 15. Sustainability and Green Building Design Project design and materials to achieve sustainability and green building design shall be incorporated into the project. Green building design considers the environment during design and construction. Green building design aims for Item 2 Attachment F-Context based design criteria consistency Packet Pg. 48 2 8 7 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. 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 became effective January 1, 2023. Item 2 Attachment F-Context based design criteria consistency Packet Pg. 49 340 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 Item 2 Attachment G-TDM Plan Packet Pg. 50 340 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 Item 2 Attachment G-TDM Plan Packet Pg. 51