Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2023-05-04 Architectural Review Board Agenda Packet
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD Regular Meeting Thursday, May 04, 2023 Council Chambers & Hybrid 8:30 AM Pursuant to AB 361 Palo Alto City Council meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with the option to attend by teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safety while still maintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose to participate from home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe and participate in the meeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged if attending in person. The meeting will be broadcast on Cable TV Channel 26, live on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen Media Center https://midpenmedia.org. Visit https://bit.ly/PApendingprojects to view project plans and details. Commissioner names, biographies, and archived agendas and reports are available at https://bit.ly/paloaltoARB. VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/96561891491) Meeting ID: 965 6189 1491 Phone: 1(669)900‐6833 PUBLIC COMMENTS Public comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or an amount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutes after the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance to arb@CityofPaloAlto.org and will be provided to the Council and available for inspection on the City’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you are referencing in your subject line. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson's presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. The Chair may limit Public Comments to thirty (30) minutes for all combined speakers. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak for Study Sessions and Action Items to two (2) minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers. PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted only by email to arb@CityofPaloAlto.org at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Once received, the Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. To uphold strong cybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storage devices are not accepted. CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL PUBLIC COMMENT Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS The Chair or Board majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management. CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS 1.Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2) Tentative Future Agenda Items and 3) Recently Submitted Projects ACTION ITEMS Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Ten (10) minutes, plus ten (10) minutes rebuttal. All others: Three (3) minutes per speaker. 2.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI‐JUDICIAL. 3001 El Camino Real [22PLN‐00229]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Major Architectural Review Application Allowing Demolition of Two Existing Retail Buildings to Construct a 129 Unit, 100% Affordable, Five‐story, Multi‐family Residential Rental 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 49,864 Square‐Foot lot Located at 3001‐3017 El Camino Real. Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Was Circulated for a 30‐day Public Review Beginning on February 13, 2023 and Ending on March 15, 2023 in Accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). A Final MND is available for review. Zoning District: CS (Service Commercial). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Claire Raybould at Claire.Raybould@cityofpaloalto.org. 3.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI‐JUDICIAL. 1020 East Meadow Circle [22PLN‐00165]: Recommendation on Applicant’s request for Approval of a Minor Board Level Architectural Review for site improvements to an existing commercial building. Improvements include changes to the building envelope, restriping for parking stalls, accessibility and HVAC upgrades, flood proofing, a new trash enclosure, a new raised utility yard, and new landscaping. Zoning District: ROLM. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the provisions of CEQA per Section 15301, 15303, and 15311 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 4.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for April 6, 2023 BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS AND AGENDAS Members of the public may not speak to the item(s). ADJOURNMENT PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email, teleconference, or by phone. 1. Written public comments may be submitted by email to arb@cityofpaloalto.org. 2. Spoken public comments using a computer will be accepted through the teleconference meeting. To address the Council, click on the link below to access a Zoom‐ based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully. You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in‐ browser. If using your browser, make sure you are using a current, up‐to‐date browser: Chrome 30 , Firefox 27 , Microsoft Edge 12 , Safari 7 . Certain functionality may be disabled in older browsers including Internet Explorer. You may be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify you that it is your turn to speak. When you wish to speak on an Agenda Item, click on “raise hand.” The Clerk will activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak. When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. A timer will be shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments. 3. Spoken public comments using a smart phone will be accepted through the teleconference meeting. To address the Council, download the Zoom application onto your phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter the Meeting ID below. Please follow the instructions B‐E above. 4. Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the Council. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted. CLICK HERE TO JOIN Meeting ID: 965 6189 1491 Phone: 1‐669‐900‐6833 Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329‐2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARDRegular MeetingThursday, May 04, 2023Council Chambers & Hybrid8:30 AMPursuant to AB 361 Palo Alto City Council meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with theoption to attend by teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safetywhile still maintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose toparticipate from home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe andparticipate in the meeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged ifattending in person. The meeting will be broadcast on Cable TV Channel 26, live onYouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen MediaCenter https://midpenmedia.org. Visit https://bit.ly/PApendingprojects to view project plansand details. Commissioner names, biographies, and archived agendas and reports are availableat https://bit.ly/paloaltoARB. VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/96561891491)Meeting ID: 965 6189 1491 Phone: 1(669)900‐6833PUBLIC COMMENTSPublic comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or anamount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutesafter the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance toarb@CityofPaloAlto.org and will be provided to the Council and available for inspection on theCity’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you are referencing in your subjectline.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified aspresent at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson's presentation will be allowed up tofifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking membersagree not to speak individually. The Chair may limit Public Comments to thirty (30) minutes forall combined speakers. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak for Study Sessions andAction Items to two (2) minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers. PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted only by email to arb@CityofPaloAlto.org at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Once received, the Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. To uphold strong cybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storage devices are not accepted. CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL PUBLIC COMMENT Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS The Chair or Board majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management. CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS 1.Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2) Tentative Future Agenda Items and 3) Recently Submitted Projects ACTION ITEMS Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Ten (10) minutes, plus ten (10) minutes rebuttal. All others: Three (3) minutes per speaker. 2.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI‐JUDICIAL. 3001 El Camino Real [22PLN‐00229]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Major Architectural Review Application Allowing Demolition of Two Existing Retail Buildings to Construct a 129 Unit, 100% Affordable, Five‐story, Multi‐family Residential Rental 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 49,864 Square‐Foot lot Located at 3001‐3017 El Camino Real. Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Was Circulated for a 30‐day Public Review Beginning on February 13, 2023 and Ending on March 15, 2023 in Accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). A Final MND is available for review. Zoning District: CS (Service Commercial). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Claire Raybould at Claire.Raybould@cityofpaloalto.org. 3.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI‐JUDICIAL. 1020 East Meadow Circle [22PLN‐00165]: Recommendation on Applicant’s request for Approval of a Minor Board Level Architectural Review for site improvements to an existing commercial building. Improvements include changes to the building envelope, restriping for parking stalls, accessibility and HVAC upgrades, flood proofing, a new trash enclosure, a new raised utility yard, and new landscaping. Zoning District: ROLM. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the provisions of CEQA per Section 15301, 15303, and 15311 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 4.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for April 6, 2023 BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS AND AGENDAS Members of the public may not speak to the item(s). ADJOURNMENT PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email, teleconference, or by phone. 1. Written public comments may be submitted by email to arb@cityofpaloalto.org. 2. Spoken public comments using a computer will be accepted through the teleconference meeting. To address the Council, click on the link below to access a Zoom‐ based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully. You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in‐ browser. If using your browser, make sure you are using a current, up‐to‐date browser: Chrome 30 , Firefox 27 , Microsoft Edge 12 , Safari 7 . Certain functionality may be disabled in older browsers including Internet Explorer. You may be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify you that it is your turn to speak. When you wish to speak on an Agenda Item, click on “raise hand.” The Clerk will activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak. When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. A timer will be shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments. 3. Spoken public comments using a smart phone will be accepted through the teleconference meeting. To address the Council, download the Zoom application onto your phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter the Meeting ID below. Please follow the instructions B‐E above. 4. Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the Council. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted. CLICK HERE TO JOIN Meeting ID: 965 6189 1491 Phone: 1‐669‐900‐6833 Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329‐2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARDRegular MeetingThursday, May 04, 2023Council Chambers & Hybrid8:30 AMPursuant to AB 361 Palo Alto City Council meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with theoption to attend by teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safetywhile still maintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose toparticipate from home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe andparticipate in the meeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged ifattending in person. The meeting will be broadcast on Cable TV Channel 26, live onYouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen MediaCenter https://midpenmedia.org. Visit https://bit.ly/PApendingprojects to view project plansand details. Commissioner names, biographies, and archived agendas and reports are availableat https://bit.ly/paloaltoARB. VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/96561891491)Meeting ID: 965 6189 1491 Phone: 1(669)900‐6833PUBLIC COMMENTSPublic comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or anamount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutesafter the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance toarb@CityofPaloAlto.org and will be provided to the Council and available for inspection on theCity’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you are referencing in your subjectline.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified aspresent at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson's presentation will be allowed up tofifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking membersagree not to speak individually. The Chair may limit Public Comments to thirty (30) minutes forall combined speakers. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak for Study Sessions andAction Items to two (2) minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers.PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted onlyby email to arb@CityofPaloAlto.org at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Once received, the Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. To uphold strongcybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storage devices are notaccepted.CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALLPUBLIC COMMENT Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker.AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONSThe Chair or Board majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management.CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS1.Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2) Tentative FutureAgenda Items and 3) Recently Submitted ProjectsACTION ITEMSPublic Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Ten (10) minutes, plus ten (10) minutes rebuttal. All others: Three(3) minutes per speaker.2.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI‐JUDICIAL. 3001 El Camino Real [22PLN‐00229]:Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Major Architectural ReviewApplication Allowing Demolition of Two Existing Retail Buildings to Construct a 129 Unit,100% Affordable, Five‐story, Multi‐family Residential Rental Development UtilizingAllowances and Concessions Provided in Accordance with State Density BonusRegulations. The Units Would be Deed Restricted to Serve Tenants Meeting 30%‐50% ofArea Median Income. The Project Would be Located on a 49,864 Square‐Foot lot Locatedat 3001‐3017 El Camino Real. Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study/MitigatedNegative Declaration Was Circulated for a 30‐day Public Review Beginning on February13, 2023 and Ending on March 15, 2023 in Accordance with the California EnvironmentalQuality Act (CEQA). A Final MND is available for review. Zoning District: CS (ServiceCommercial). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Claire Raybould atClaire.Raybould@cityofpaloalto.org.3.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI‐JUDICIAL. 1020 East Meadow Circle [22PLN‐00165]:Recommendation on Applicant’s request for Approval of a Minor Board LevelArchitectural Review for site improvements to an existing commercial building.Improvements include changes to the building envelope, restriping for parking stalls,accessibility and HVAC upgrades, flood proofing, a new trash enclosure, a new raisedutility yard, and new landscaping. Zoning District: ROLM. Environmental Assessment:Exempt from the provisions of CEQA per Section 15301, 15303, and 15311 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 4.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for April 6, 2023 BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS AND AGENDAS Members of the public may not speak to the item(s). ADJOURNMENT PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email, teleconference, or by phone. 1. Written public comments may be submitted by email to arb@cityofpaloalto.org. 2. Spoken public comments using a computer will be accepted through the teleconference meeting. To address the Council, click on the link below to access a Zoom‐ based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully. You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in‐ browser. If using your browser, make sure you are using a current, up‐to‐date browser: Chrome 30 , Firefox 27 , Microsoft Edge 12 , Safari 7 . Certain functionality may be disabled in older browsers including Internet Explorer. You may be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify you that it is your turn to speak. When you wish to speak on an Agenda Item, click on “raise hand.” The Clerk will activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak. When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. A timer will be shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments. 3. Spoken public comments using a smart phone will be accepted through the teleconference meeting. To address the Council, download the Zoom application onto your phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter the Meeting ID below. Please follow the instructions B‐E above. 4. Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the Council. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted. CLICK HERE TO JOIN Meeting ID: 965 6189 1491 Phone: 1‐669‐900‐6833 Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329‐2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARDRegular MeetingThursday, May 04, 2023Council Chambers & Hybrid8:30 AMPursuant to AB 361 Palo Alto City Council meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with theoption to attend by teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safetywhile still maintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose toparticipate from home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe andparticipate in the meeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged ifattending in person. The meeting will be broadcast on Cable TV Channel 26, live onYouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen MediaCenter https://midpenmedia.org. Visit https://bit.ly/PApendingprojects to view project plansand details. Commissioner names, biographies, and archived agendas and reports are availableat https://bit.ly/paloaltoARB. VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/96561891491)Meeting ID: 965 6189 1491 Phone: 1(669)900‐6833PUBLIC COMMENTSPublic comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or anamount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutesafter the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance toarb@CityofPaloAlto.org and will be provided to the Council and available for inspection on theCity’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you are referencing in your subjectline.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified aspresent at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson's presentation will be allowed up tofifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking membersagree not to speak individually. The Chair may limit Public Comments to thirty (30) minutes forall combined speakers. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak for Study Sessions andAction Items to two (2) minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers.PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted onlyby email to arb@CityofPaloAlto.org at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Once received, the Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. To uphold strongcybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storage devices are notaccepted.CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALLPUBLIC COMMENT Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker.AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONSThe Chair or Board majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management.CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS1.Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2) Tentative FutureAgenda Items and 3) Recently Submitted ProjectsACTION ITEMSPublic Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Ten (10) minutes, plus ten (10) minutes rebuttal. All others: Three(3) minutes per speaker.2.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI‐JUDICIAL. 3001 El Camino Real [22PLN‐00229]:Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Major Architectural ReviewApplication Allowing Demolition of Two Existing Retail Buildings to Construct a 129 Unit,100% Affordable, Five‐story, Multi‐family Residential Rental Development UtilizingAllowances and Concessions Provided in Accordance with State Density BonusRegulations. The Units Would be Deed Restricted to Serve Tenants Meeting 30%‐50% ofArea Median Income. The Project Would be Located on a 49,864 Square‐Foot lot Locatedat 3001‐3017 El Camino Real. Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study/MitigatedNegative Declaration Was Circulated for a 30‐day Public Review Beginning on February13, 2023 and Ending on March 15, 2023 in Accordance with the California EnvironmentalQuality Act (CEQA). A Final MND is available for review. Zoning District: CS (ServiceCommercial). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Claire Raybould atClaire.Raybould@cityofpaloalto.org.3.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI‐JUDICIAL. 1020 East Meadow Circle [22PLN‐00165]:Recommendation on Applicant’s request for Approval of a Minor Board LevelArchitectural Review for site improvements to an existing commercial building.Improvements include changes to the building envelope, restriping for parking stalls,accessibility and HVAC upgrades, flood proofing, a new trash enclosure, a new raisedutility yard, and new landscaping. Zoning District: ROLM. Environmental Assessment:Exempt from the provisions of CEQA per Section 15301, 15303, and 15311APPROVAL OF MINUTES4.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for April 6, 2023BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS ANDAGENDASMembers of the public may not speak to the item(s). ADJOURNMENT PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email, teleconference, or by phone. 1. Written public comments may be submitted by email to arb@cityofpaloalto.org. 2. Spoken public comments using a computer will be accepted through the teleconference meeting. To address the Council, click on the link below to access a Zoom‐ based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully. You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in‐ browser. If using your browser, make sure you are using a current, up‐to‐date browser: Chrome 30 , Firefox 27 , Microsoft Edge 12 , Safari 7 . Certain functionality may be disabled in older browsers including Internet Explorer. You may be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify you that it is your turn to speak. When you wish to speak on an Agenda Item, click on “raise hand.” The Clerk will activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak. When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. A timer will be shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments. 3. Spoken public comments using a smart phone will be accepted through the teleconference meeting. To address the Council, download the Zoom application onto your phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter the Meeting ID below. Please follow the instructions B‐E above. 4. Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the Council. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted. CLICK HERE TO JOIN Meeting ID: 965 6189 1491 Phone: 1‐669‐900‐6833 Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329‐2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service. Item No. 1. Page 1 of 2 Architectural Review Board Staff Report From: Jonathan Lait, Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: May 4, 2023 Report #: 2304-1314 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 Item 1 Staff Report Packet Pg. 5 Item No. 1. Page 2 of 2 Chapter 12.13 is not eligible for a request for hearing by any party, including the applicant. No action is required by the ARB for this item. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: 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 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, Rosenberg 4/6 – Rosenberg, Thompson 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 May 18, 2023 •123 Sherman Avenue (2nd formal) •SB 9 Objective Standards 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. AR Major - Board 6/16/21 21PLN- 00172 EFOLEY 123 SHERMAN AV Office ARB 1st formal 12/1/22, Tentative ARB 5/18/23 - 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. Item 1 Attachment B-Tentative Future Agenda and New Projects List Packet Pg. 8 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, 10/26 and 11/30; HRB hearing 1/12/23; ARB hearings 12/15/22, 1/19/23, 4/6/23, Tentative June 1, 2023 – 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) and GM (general manufacturing). Environmental Assessment: A Draft EIR was circulated on September 16, 2022 for a 60- day review period. AR Major - Board 06/16/2022 22PLN- 00201 CHODGKI 739 SUTTER AV Housing Prelim 11/18/21, NOI sent 7/15/22, Revised Plans submitted 4/3/23- 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 is subject to the current regulations in effect. 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). Site and Design 10/27/2022 22PLN- 00367 CHODGKI 2501 EMBARCADE RO WY Public Utility – Water Filtration On hold pending discussions with Menlo Park City Council on shared costs - 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 Item 1 Attachment B-Tentative Future Agenda and New Projects List Packet Pg. 9 (PF)(D). 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 1/19/2023 23PLN- 00010 EFOLEY 800-808 SAN ANTONIO RD Housing Tentative July PTC hearing date - 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 Submitted February 6, 2023; NOI sent March 7, 2023, Tentative July ARB 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. Preliminary Architectural Review 4/11/2023 23PLN- 00058 CHODGKI 640 Waverley Mixed-use Submitted 4/11/23. Applicant requested delay in hearing to June 15. Request for Preliminary Architectural Review to Allow the Demolition of an Existing Residential Home and Construction of a four-story, approximately 10,392 Square Foot mixed-use commercial/residential building with basement and a below-grade Residential parking. Environmental Assessment: Not a Project. The Formal Application Will be Subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review. Zoning District: CD-C(P) (Downtown Commercial). Item 1 Attachment B-Tentative Future 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. Prescreening for Zone Change 11/17/2022 22PLN- 00391 EFOLEY 4075 El Camino Way Residential - add 14 units to existing Will be scheduled for an August Council 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). Prescreening 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 Item 1 Attachment B-Tentative Future Agenda and New Projects List Packet Pg. 11 project also calls for the subdivision of Area B. Zoning District: PF(D). SB 330 Pre- Application 3/22/2023 23PLN- 00073 JGERHA RDT 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-Tentative Future Agenda and New Projects List Packet Pg. 12 Item No. 2. Page 1 of 13 Architectural Review Board Staff Report From: Jonathan Lait, Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: May 4, 2023 Report #: 2304-1309 TITLE PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 3001 El Camino Real [22PLN-00229]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Major Architectural Review Application Allowing Demolition of Two Existing Retail Buildings to Construct a 129 Unit, 100% Affordable, Five-story, Multi-family Residential Rental 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 49,864 Square-Foot lot Located at 3001-3017 El Camino Real. Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Was Circulated for a 30-day Public Review Beginning on February 13, 2023 and Ending on March 15, 2023 in Accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). A Final MND is available for review. Zoning District: CS (Service Commercial). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Claire Raybould at Claire.Raybould@cityofpaloalto.org RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s): 1. Consider the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (Attachment G); and 2. Recommend approval with conditions based on the findings in Attachment B and conditions of approval in Attachment C. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The proposed 100% affordable housing project, located on El Camino Real between Acacia Avenue and Olive Avenue, includes 129 residential rental units to be provided to very low income (30%-50% of Area Median Income) tenants on a 1.14-acre parcel. The project would replace two vacant structures (formerly Mike’s Bikes retail use totaling 9,000 sf) and a surface parking lot. The applicant filed a complaint pre-application in accordance with Senate Bill 330 on May 17, 2022. Therefore, the project analysis is based on the applicable objective standards in place at the time the SB 330 pre-application was submitted, which does not include the City’s new objective design standards (PAMC Chapter 18.24). Item 2 Staff Report Packet Pg. 13 Item No. 2. Page 2 of 13 The affordable project qualifies for up to four concessions, or changes to City standards, to accommodate the development. This is in accordance with the State Density Bonus allowances (California Government Code §65915) and Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 18.15. This project qualifies based on the percentage and income level restrictions on the provided units. Separately, the project is eligible for a height increase of up to 33 feet, unlimited density, and exemptions from parking requirements based on the site’s proximity to a major transit stop. The applicant has requested four concessions to allow for: • An increase in floor area ratio from 0.6:1 to 2.7:1; • An increase in lot coverage from 50% to 74%; • A reduced rear setback on Acacia Avenue from 10 feet to 5 feet; • Change in location of open space to allow some of the common usable open space to be provided on the second-floor podium. A stair feature at each end of the building would bring the buildings height to 66 feet, three inches, where between 68 and 83 feet is allowed under state density bonus law (68 feet within 150 feet of R-1 zoning and 83 feet beyond). Most of the new five-story building would be 60 feet above grade. A location map for the proposed project is included in Attachment A and the project plans are included in Attachment I. The City, acting as the lead agency in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), prepared an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the proposed project. The CEQA document was circulated for a 30-day public review beginning February 13, 2023. The comment period ended on March 15, 2023. The Draft MND, together with the response to comments and summary of changes to the Draft MND in Attachment H constitutes the Final MND. BACKGROUND On November 17, 2022 and March 2, 2023, the ARB reviewed the project. Minutes from the Board’s meetings are available online.1,2 The Board’s comments and the applicant’s response to those comments are summarized in the following table: ARBs Comments Applicant’s Response Building Circulation: Provide a direct internal connection with a more efficient internal circulation on all floors. Including: a) A laundry facility with a minimum of 200- foot horizontal linear connection to the corridor a) Laundry We have provided an internal connection to the Laundry Room on the Ground Level. The Laundry Room is about 390 feet away via the elevator for the most remote unit on a typical floor. We have intentionally located the Laundry Room adjacent to the Community Room with both facing the exterior Common Open Space as 1 Minutes of the November 17, 2023 ARB Hearing are available online at: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/4d4d951f-0e07-4993-b520- a567ffb1aa90/ARB-11.17-Approved-Minutes.pdf 2 Minutes of the March 2, 2023 ARB hearing are available online at: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Architectural-Review-Board- ARB/Current-ARB-Agendas-Minutes Item 2 Staff Report Packet Pg. 14 Item No. 2. Page 3 of 13 b) A trash room/shoot with a minimum of 200-foot horizontal linear connection to the corridor c) Direct connection to the vehicle parking d) Direct connection to the bicycle parking e) Direct connection to the fitness center we believe the Laundry Room should be connected to communal spaces. Residents can do their laundry while watching their children play outside or enjoy time with other residents in the common open space. We believe this helps build community and creates an active space that is about more than just laundry. b) Refuse Room The Resident Trash Room on a typical floor is about 380 feet away for the most remote unit. While we agree a centrally located Trash Room would provide greater convenience for residents, this would require the elimination of parking spaces on the ground level for the Trash Collection Room. While our project is not required to provide any parking, Charities' experience has shown that a certain ratio of parking spaces must be provided for residents to accommodate their needs. In addition, a centrally located trash room would be a greater maintenance and cost burden for Charities than a street side location given ZeroWaste's requirements for providing services, i.e. either by Charities having to manage the transport of the collection bins out of the Garage to the street edge or by having to eliminate even more parking spaces to accommodate the truck maneuvering clearance for direct access in the Garage. We also considered adding another trash room on the Acacia side of the building. However, given the reconfigured Stair 1 to meet code requirements and the Community Room relocation to front Acacia in response to the ARB's recommendations, the ground level does not have the space at the Acacia end to accommodate a second trash collection room, especially along the frontage. Furthermore, adding a second trash collection room would be a significant added cost burden for the project. c) Bicycle Room Our current design of having a direct external bike room connection which is adjacent to the lobby front door provides the best combination of convenience, ease of access, and security for residents. Providing a direct internal connection from the bike room to the interior building creates an undesirable security weak point for Item 2 Staff Report Packet Pg. 15 Item No. 2. Page 4 of 13 non-residents to enter the building. Therefore, the design has not been changed. d) Parking We are currently providing a direct internal connection to the garage area from the lobby. Residents can access the garage directly from the centrally located elevator banks. e) Fitness Center We believe outdoor public circulation in Palo Alto specifically is an engaging and pleasant way to access the amenity space. In response to the previous comments, we did shift the street level building mass back to provide an exterior circulation path, protected by the building overhang, directly from the lobby to the fitness center. We believe this exterior path enhances the design. Building Circulation: Provide a central building circulation that meets the code. Stair 1 has been reconfigured to comply with California Building Code for internal building circulation. Curbside Drop-off/Access: Provide drop off or curbside locations with access to the internal needs. The project has been redesigned to incorporate an entry door on Acacia Ave with a connection to the building lobby. A drop-off/loading area has been added on Acacia that connects to this door. Vehicular Access: Reconsider parking access from Olive or Acacia with a compelling report that demonstrates the best solution. An updated diagram summarizing the two options is provided in Attachment G. We studied access from Acacia initially and determined that parking access integrates better with future Palo Alto Transportation plans. Vehicular access has not been changed. El Camino Real Façade: Provide greater El Camino Real façade articulation by: Breaking up the left side of the façade, provide greater differentiation at the top of the building, reconsider the vertical of the windows on the ground floor, and provide greater visibility on to the street from El Camino Real facing uses. We have created more visibility into our community art / flex space along El Camino Real by adding windows to the facade. Again, we acknowledge that the El Camino Real Guidelines stipulates a building base, body, and roof or parapet edge and we believe our project accomplishes this successfully. Locate the Community room so it fronts a public right-of-way. We were able to reconfigure and improve the ground level plan to accommodate the community room along Acacia Avenue. Modify the white material to be less bright or white. We appreciate this comment and have selected white based on aesthetics. As this is not a code issue, we will keep the white material as part of the design. Verify that the use of corten and natural wood finishes will work within the budget of the project. These are the planned materials for the project and based on current construction pricing we can provide these materials. Item 2 Staff Report Packet Pg. 16 Item No. 2. Page 5 of 13 Provide greater privacy and greater façade articulation at the rear ground floor units, provide ground floor unit floor plans and sections We believe the current design mix of materials, i.e. concrete, metal, colored brick insets, and colored entry doors, along with the varied spacing between these elements create the desired level of facade articulation. Planting in planter boxes at each entry door patio and trees carefully coordinated with the overall landscaping will provide screening and privacy for the units. Our design intent for the Mews is for the space to be a unique, shared open space between a handful of residents rather than a set of separated, private units that share a pathway. We have provided ground level plans for the five (5) mews units and recognize the need to develop the section further. We appreciate the comment regarding the livability of these units with very high ceilings and would look to lower ceilings as needed or find opportunities for mezzanine-type spaces as we agree that the living spaces must feel comfortable, welcoming, and scaled appropriately. 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 previous hearing is also included below. Overall, the plans have not changed substantially, but refinements to the design have been made to address concerns raised by staff and/or the ARB with respect to building code compliance, to safety, and to improve consistency with the City’s design guidelines, zoning, and goals and policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan when compared to the previous submittal. Building Circulation The project has not been redesigned to provide direct internal connections to the bicycle parking or the fitness center. Based on feedback from the Office of Transportation in previous design iterations, the project was redesigned to provide access to the bicycle room from the entry courtyard instead of from El Camino Real to increase the security of the room. While staff agrees that a direct internal connection versus an external connection could further improve the security of the room, the current design allows for easy access to/from the site for users while still improving the security by providing eyes on the bicycle room door from the main lobby entrance. Staff also understands that the applicant’s concerns regarding additional access points into the building creating other security concerns for residents. In addition, there is no objective standard that requires the long-term bicycle parking to be accessed internally. Item 2 Staff Report Packet Pg. 17 Item No. 2. Page 6 of 13 The access to the fitness room has not changed. While staff agrees that providing an internal connection would be better, there is no objective standard that requires this to be an internal connection. Some board members suggested removing a row of stacker parking spaces to accommodate this connection because there is no set parking requirement. However, a key concern of adjacent residents on Olive Avenue is the project’s potential impact to parking availability on their street. While the state does not require parking for 100% affordable housing projects near transit, the intent of this law is to reduce barriers to development while also allowing developers flexibility in determining the parking needs of their proposed development. Charities Housing has expressed its position that the parking ratio proposed is necessary, based on their past experiences, to satisfy the future tenants’ needs. Without substantial floor plan changes, reducing the number of parking spaces may improve the connection to the fitness center, but possibly at the expense of reducing the usability of the site for residents with vehicles and increasing impacts on existing residents in the surrounding area. The laundry facilities and trash rooms have not been relocated to provide a 200-foot horizontal linear connection to the corridor. The laundry room is located on the ground floor close to Acacia Avenue. The trash room is located on the ground floor close to Olive Avenue. While staff agrees that providing shorter pathways to these commonly used facilities would be more desirable, there is no objective standard that requires a specific distance from units to these on-site facilities. Board members suggested centrally locating the trash room to address this concern. However, centrally locating the trash room would either result in larger maintenance costs and staging of large bins in the public right-of-way regularly or removing parking spaces to allow for servicing from the garage. Therefore, this re-design to centrally locate the bins may marginally improve the usability for future residents, but would increase maintenance costs, and would not necessarily improve the area for existing residents. As Charities noted in their response, they also considered two trash rooms, one along each with side street with chutes from the floors above. However, this would limit other uses along these facades that provide better pedestrian-oriented design, such as providing a community room along Acacia Avenue, and two trash rooms was more costly to maintain. The project has been redesigned to meet building code requirements. By slightly revising the location and entrances to the southernmost stairwell, the distance between the stairwell doors and the elevator doors is 200 feet or less as required by California Building Code. Therefore, while the project has not been redesigned in most instances to address the ARB’s comments regarding building circulation, the project complies with the objective standards of the municipal code and staff believes that finding #4 relating to the functionality of the design and provisions for elements that support the building’s necessary operations have been met. Curbside drop-off/access To address concerns related to delivery/mail trucks double parking on El Camino Real, the project has been redesigned to provide an exterior access point from Acacia Avenue for deliveries and other drop-off/pick-up needs. The curb cut on Acacia would be painted to designate an area along this frontage as a loading zone, as required in the Office of Transportation conditions of Item 2 Staff Report Packet Pg. 18 Item No. 2. Page 7 of 13 approval. With this redesign, staff believes the findings for approval, particularly with respect to finding #4, can be met. Parking Access The applicant has not revised the location of the vehicular access. Additional information from the applicant (Attachment G) shows: the options for ingress and egress if access were provided from either Acacia or Olive Avenue, and a summary of the required turning movements under each scenario. No changes are planned for Olive Avenue, El Camino Real, or Acacia now or in the foreseeable future. Therefore, staff’s analysis is based on the current conditions. The NVCAP will propose to make Ash Street a one-way southbound street in order to eliminate cut-through traffic from El Camino Real to Page Mill Road avoiding the right turn on Page Mill/Oregon Expressway. The only affect this will have on the project is that residents that may leave the site to head eastbound on Oregon Expressway would head to Park instead of Ash. This would result in roughly one additional vehicle trip every five minutes during the peak hour that would travel the full length of Olive instead of turning on Ash Street. But it will also reduce existing cut-through traffic on this street. Under current and foreseeable future conditions, providing access from Olive Avenue would allow for northbound and southbound access to El Camino Real. A resident attempting to travel southbound on El Camino Real from Olive or Acacia would need to cross three lanes of traffic regardless of whether they do this to enter a turn pocket for a U-turn or turn left directly from Olive Avenue. As discussed in the previous staff report, the Office of Transportation has noted that either option could provide safe vehicular access to and from the site and it is not expected that either would result in a safety concern or an inconsistency with Council’s Local Transportation Policy. However, the analysis was completed based on the proposed project. If the applicant were to redesign the project based on this comment, the City would require a revised transportation analysis to evaluate the Acacia/El Camino Real intersection as well as the queueing in the turn pocket on El Camino Real, to confirm these assumptions and show compliance with Council’s policies related to local transportation impacts. In addition, a redesign of the ground floor would be required to accommodate this change to ensure that the required utility rooms and transformer remain in their current locations. The current design also provides a transition between this higher-density use and single-family residences through the addition of ground-floor residential units adjacent to the single-family residential along the interior side lot line. Flipping the design would move these units toward Acacia and result in a ground-floor common open area and community room/event space adjacent to the single-family residential uses. This would result in more outdoor activity occurring adjacent to single-family residential uses, which may be noisier and less desirable for the immediately adjacent neighbor than abutting residences. The second-floor open space is designed to provide landscaping along the perimeter of the railing to soften the massing of upper levels when viewed from adjacent single-family uses. If flipped, the proposed stairwell to the common open spaces would be the prominent feature located adjacent the single-family residential use. Item 2 Staff Report Packet Pg. 19 Item No. 2. Page 8 of 13 El Camino Real Façade Articulation The ARB asked the applicant to improve the El Camino Real façade by breaking up the left side of the façade, providing greater differentiation at the top of the building, reconsidering the verticality of the windows, and providing greater visibility onto the street from the El Camino Real facing uses. The ground floor of the façade has been revised to provide more visibility onto the street from the art/flex space onto El Camino Real. No revisions were made to the left side of the façade, to the vertical design of the windows, or to provide greater differentiation at the top of the building. While staff agrees with the ARB’s assessment that these changes could enhance the design of the project, there is no objective standard that would require further design changes beyond those provided. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the project even though not all of these suggestions were implemented. The ARB could consider objective conditions of approval, so long as they are not cost prohibitive, to make small improvements to the design for further consistency with the findings for approval. Community Room The community room has been redesigned to front Acacia, in order to provide a more pedestrian- friendly façade along that street frontage in accordance with the ARB’s recommendations. This change improves the design because the façade is less walled-off from that frontage and will provide views into the building to show evidence of habitation. Building Color The ARB expressed concerns about the paint choice and suggested that the applicant revise the paint choice to a less bright white. The applicant has not made this change. While staff agrees with the ARB’s recommendation, there is no objective standard related to this suggested revision. Therefore, although this change was not made, staff would still recommend approving the project. The ARB could consider adding a non-subjective condition of approval related to the paint choice if this is still a key concern and can be related back to a finding. Ground Floor Units The applicant has not made revisions as requested by the ARB. If desired, the ARB could consider conditions of approval to make minor modifications to the façade or entries to each unit in order to improve consistency with a specific finding. For example, raising the height of the window for the ground floor unit along Olive Avenue to provide greater privacy (the current window provides a full floor view into the living room) in compliance with Finding #2 for creating a desirable environment for residents. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans and Guidelines3 As discussed in the previous staff report, the proposed use of the site for a 100% affordable high- density multi-family residential project in a transit-oriented location is consistent with the Service Commercial land use designation. The project is also consistent with numerous goals and policies outlined in various Chapters of the Comprehensive Plan including the Housing Element. The 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. 20 Item No. 2. Page 9 of 13 proposed project is located on a Housing Inventory Site (HIS) which is currently allocated to provide a maximum yield of nine units and a realistic yield of seven units to the City’s housing inventory. However, because of the proposed consolidation of three parcels (only one of which was listed as an HIS), the applicant proposes 129 housing units. Proposed housing supports the Comprehensive Plan Goal of providing housing to support the City’s fair share of regional housing needs and the location of this housing within the proximity of job opportunities within the City (including the 10-story Palo Alto Square office complex and Stanford Research Park) is consistent with the City’s goal of improving the existing job/housing imbalance in Palo Alto. A consistency analysis with specific goals and policies outlined in the Comprehensive Plan is included in the findings in Attachment B. Based on the proposed uses within each land use designation, consistency with the housing element, and consistency with other policies and goals outlined in the Comprehensive Plan, staff finds the project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan The City began planning for the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan in 2018. Although this plan has not yet been adopted and therefore does not apply to the project, a summary of the project’s consistency with the stated goals of the plan was provided in the previous staff report. A draft plan has not yet been made available to determine the project’s consistency with the proposed plan. South El Camino Real and El Camino Real Design Guidelines The project site is located within the California-Ventura corridor area and is identified as a CalVentura strategic site in the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines. The guidelines note that development on El Camino Real frontage should accommodate pedestrian activity with attractive sidewalks and landscaping. New buildings should front El Camino Real with prominent facades and be clearly visible and easily accessible to pedestrians. In compliance with the Housing Accountability Act and State Density Bonus allowances, the project is primarily reviewed against objective standards. Many of the El Camino Real and South El Camino Real design guidelines standards are subjective. However, an analysis of the project’s consistency with these guidelines is included in the findings in Attachment F. The project has been redesigned to improve consistency with these guidelines. Although staff agrees with the ARB’s recommendations that further improvements could be made to better comply with the guideline to provide definition between the base, middle, and top (specifically between the middle and top) this guideline is not an objective standard. Staff finds that the project complies with the South El Camino Real and El Camino Real Design Guidelines, where objective standards are provided and, on balance, complies with these guidelines. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the project although further improvements were not made to improve compliance with Finding #1. Zoning Compliance A detailed review of the proposed project’s consistency with applicable zoning standards is provided in Attachment D. The proposed project complies with all applicable codes or is seeking, through the state density bonus allowances, permission to deviate from certain code standards. State Density Bonus Law Compliance Item 2 Staff Report Packet Pg. 21 Item No. 2. Page 10 of 13 A complete analysis of the project’s consistency with the state density bonus law requirements is provided in the previous staff reports for this project. In short, the project provides 100% of the units to very low income (30-50% of Area Median Income) except for the manager’s units. Therefore, the project is a qualifying project in accordance with California Government Code §65915(b)(1)(G) which includes projects that provide “One hundred percent of all units in the development, including total units and density bonus units, but exclusive of a manager’s unit or units, for lower-income households.” Accordingly, the project is eligible for four incentives or concessions. In addition, because the project is 100% affordable and located within one-half mile of a major transit stop (California Avenue Caltrain Station), separate from the concessions or waivers, the applicant is also eligible for a height increase of up to three additional stories, or 33 feet, unlimited density, and is not required to comply with a minimum parking requirement. The requested concessions, aside from the allowable increase in height, density, and reduced parking, are detailed further in the previous staff report and include: • Increases in floor area from 0.6 to 2.7 • Increases in lot coverage from 50% to 74%; • A reduced rear setback on Acacia Avenue from 10 feet to 5 feet; • Change in location of open space, some of the common usable open space to be provided on the second-floor podium. The four proposed concessions are necessary in order to reduce the per-unit cost of the proposed project, as detailed in Attachment H. Objective Standards The applicant submitted a compliant Senate Bill 330 pre-application on May 17, 2022. Therefore, the applicable requirements for this project are based on the objective standards and regulations in effect on May 17, 2022. The project is not subject to the more recently adopted objective design standards under Chapter 18.24, which became effective in July 2022. The project is subject to context-based design criteria and performance criteria to the extent that these requirements are objective. The project complies with the objective requirements of the performance criteria (Attachment F) and context-based design criteria (Attachment B). Multi-Modal Access Overall, affordable housing development located near transit (within 0.5 miles from Caltrain and 600-2,000 feet from several bus stops) and jobs allows future residents to access a greater share of destinations while reducing the need for single-occupancy vehicle trips. Consistent with the City’s requirements, a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan is required and must show how the project will achieve a 30% reduction in vehicle trips. The applicant is currently working on this plan and the conditions of approval in Attachment C require approval of this TDM plan prior to building permit issuance. Direct pedestrian connectivity from the public sidewalk is provided to the proposed residential use from all three streets (Olive, El Camino Real, and Acacia) with the project’s primary access provided from El Camino Real. Modifications to the sidewalk increase the walking surface. The project eliminates a curb cut along El Camino Real, an improvement for the potential future bicycle path proposed along this roadway. Overall, vehicular circulation eliminates existing Item 2 Staff Report Packet Pg. 22 Item No. 2. Page 11 of 13 entrances to the site from El Camino Real; creating a single entrance/exit onto Olive Avenue; which is more consistent with the El Camino Real design guidelines. As stated in the previous staff report, staff finds the project to be consistent with the City’s adopted Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan. Parking Board members recommended that the applicant explore changing the location of the vehicular access to Acacia Avenue in order to reduce traffic impacts to single-family residences along Olive Avenue. This recommendation aligns with comments from residents along Olive Avenue to move the ingress/egress in order to reduce potential parking impacts on their street. The applicant has not proposed a change to the ingress/egress for several reasons, as discussed above. An on-site space for delivery drivers/mail trucks has now been provided along Acacia and direct access from Acacia to the mail room is provided to address concerns about the mail truck or delivery drivers double parking on El Camino Real. With this change, the project complies with all of the City’s requirements with respect to site access. The project provides 103 vehicle parking spaces on site, including five ADA compliant spaces. Although this is 26 spaces fewer than the required parking in accordance with the Palo Alto Municipal Code, state law mandates that no minimum parking requirement be imposed on a 100% affordable housing project located within 0.5 miles of transit (California Government Code 65915(p)(3)). Therefore, the proposed project complies with the parking requirements. The proposed parking would be provided in five (5) different lift systems. The lift systems provided tandem, puzzle lift parking. Although each parking space is individually accessible (i.e. doesn’t require moving a car to access another) the parking spaces require driving through an empty space to the rear of the lift system. While this design has not yet been permitted for a project, staff has reviewed the system and believes it will provide timely parking given the five access points. A draft condition of approval requires the garage gate to be accessible without having to leave tenant vehicles, to ensure queueing across the sidewalk and into Olive Avenue does not occur. The project would promote increased bicycle usage by providing both short-term and long-term bicycle parking for residents and guests near entrances. The project includes 138 bicycle parking spaces within a ground-level bicycle parking room and 16 short-term bicycle parking spaces. This exceeds the 129 long-term and 13 short-term spaces required per PAMC Chapter 18.52. Therefore, the project exceeds the total required bicycle parking. The project, therefore, complies with all applicable requirements for vehicle and bicycle parking. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing to be published in a local paper and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least ten days in advance of a public hearing. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Palo Alto Weekly on April 21, 2023, which is 12 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on April 19, 2023 which is 14 days in advance of the meeting. Item 2 Staff Report Packet Pg. 23 Item No. 2. Page 12 of 13 As noted in the previous staff report, several residents located within the vicinity of the project site along Olive expressed some concerns with respect to the proposed project. These primarily focused on the potential impacts of the project to affect parking demand on Olive Avenue, noting that the street is already overburdened by parking demand. More specifically, the residents were concerned that because the ingress/egress is located on Olive, any spillover parking would affect Olive Avenue first. Residents suggested moving the ingress/egress to Acacia to address this concern. Written public comments, which include a formal response to these comments, are included in Attachment H. Written comments have been provided by a single commenter; however, the City met with four individual residents that live on Olive Avenue that expressed these comments. Additional comments received from Valley Transit Authority (VTA), Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health (SCCDEH), and during the March 2, 2023 ARB hearing on the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration are discussed below. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. Specifically, an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated for a 30-day public review beginning on February 13, 2023 and ending on March 15, 2023 in accordance with CEQA. The City received three written comments on the project from SCCDEH, VTA, and from one member of the public. The City also received verbal comments on the MND from a member of the board and one member of the public during the March 2, 2023 ARB hearing. Formal responses to comments and a summary of changes to the Draft MND are available in Attachment H. This response to comments together with the Draft MND constitutes the Final MND. A link to the Draft MND, all appendices, and this response to comments is also included in Attachment I. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS In addition to the recommended action, the Architectural Review Board may: 1. Approve the project with modified findings or conditions; 2. Continue the project to a date (un)certain; or 3. Recommend project denial based on revised findings. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Location Map Attachment B: Findings for Approval Attachment C: Conditions of Approval Attachment D: Zoning Consistency Analysis Attachment E: Applicant’s Response to Vehicular Access Attachment F: Responses to Comments and Changes to the Draft MND Attachment G: Project Plans and Environmental Analysis Attachment H: Responses to Comments on the Draft IS-MND Item 2 Staff Report Packet Pg. 24 Item No. 2. Page 13 of 13 Attachment I: Project Plans and Environmental Analysis AUTHOR/TITLE: Claire Raybould, AICP, Senior Planner Item 2 Staff Report Packet Pg. 25 EL_USES_3200_ECR_PAMC20_08_20 PARKING 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' 270.2' 100.0' 149.8' 150.0' 100.0' 40.0' 149.7' 199.7' 10.0' 198.3' 100.0' 199.7' 98.9' 148.9' 58.1' 90.0' 100.0' 40.0' 100.0' 50.0' 199.7' 276.0' 29.5' 54.7' 26.3' 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' 754.2' 570.4' 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' 39.0' 88.7' 78.0' 7.3' 134.7' 65.7' 134.7' 134.7' 115.6' 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' 34.7' 50.0' 134.7' 50.0' 134.7' 134.7' 50.0' 134.7' 50.0' 134.7' 50.0' 134.7'4.7' 50.0' 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' 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' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 47.9' 150.0' 47.9' 150.0' 95.7' 150.0' 95.7' 150.0' 95.7' 150.0' 200.0' 72.6' 200.0' 72.6' 134.7' 115.6' 134.7' 115.7' 134.7' 115.7' 134.7' 115.6' 134.7' 115.6' 134.7' 115.6' 134.7' 115.6' 134.7' 115.6' 134.7' 115.6' 134.7' 115.7' 134.7' 115.7' 134.7' 115.7' 159.0 91.7' 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' 275.2' 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' 370.9' 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' 83 3150 3170 3200 447 429 439 3159 411 435 3250425 435 3200 455 460 3200 3201 395 385 375 450 430 401 411 425 300 210 365 345 315 305 295 285 245 265 275 3040 411 420 430 440 450 412 420 430 440 450 451 441 431 421 411 2904 456 470 471 461 2999 3128 406 3225 441 445 3215 3275 3201 3051 3260 3265 3225 3239 3255 3295 455 3339 417 415 451 441 431 421 411 405 399 400 3275 3261 3251 220 230 336 340 370 380 400 402 404 408 2951 05 461 3017 3001 412 3127 3111 440 3180 360 200 429 3101 3160 278 419 LAMBERT AVENUE EL CAMINO REAL ACACIA AVENUE PORTAGE AVENUE OLIVE AVENUE PEPPER AVENUE ASH STREET PAG E MILL ROA D EL CAMINO REALEL CAMINO REAL PC-2952 RM-30R-1 CS ROLM CS GM This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Project Site 0'192' Attachment A:Project Site CITYOF PALO ALTOINCORPORATED CAL I F O R N I A P a l o A l t oT 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, 2022-10-28 12:47:26 (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) Item 2 Attachment A Location Map Packet Pg. 26 ATTACHMENT B ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL 3001 El Camino Real 22PLN-00229 The design and architecture of the proposed improvements, as conditioned, complies with the Findings for Architectural Review as required in Chapter 18.76 of the PAMC. Finding #1: The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant design guides. The project is consistent with Finding #1 because: The proposed project complies with the zoning code except where concessions and allowances are requested in accordance with state density bonus law. The project is subject to the context- based design criteria (as outlined under finding #2) as well as the South El Camino Real and El Camino Real design guidelines to the extent that these guidelines set forth objective standards as well as the performance criterion set forth in PAMC Section 18.23 (at the time the compliant pre-application was filed) provided in Attachments E and F of the staff report, respectively. The project is not located within a coordinated area plan area. The proposed project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, below is an analysis of the applicable goals and policies: Comp Plan Goals and Policies How project adheres or does not adhere to Comp Plan The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the site is Service Commercial The project replaces two vacant buildings that formerly housed a retail use (Mike’s Bikes) with 129 residential rental units deed restricted to very low income and within 0.5 miles of a major transit stop (Cal Ave Caltrain). This proposed multi-family use, is consistent with the service commercial land use designation, which encourages high density residential uses within 0.5 miles of transit Land Use and Community Design Policy L-1.2: Limit future urban development to currently developed lands within the urban service area. The boundary of the urban service area is otherwise known as the urban growth boundary. Retain undeveloped land west of Foothill Expressway and Junipero Serra as open space, with allowances made for very low- The project is located on currently development lands within the urban service area. Item 2 Attachment B-ARB Findings for Approval Packet Pg. 27 intensity development consistent with the open space character of the area. Retain undeveloped land northeast of Highway 101 as open space. Policy L-1.3: Infill development in the urban service area should be compatible with its surroundings and the overall scale and character of the city to ensure a compact, efficient development pattern. The project is an urban infill development proposal in the urban service area of the city. Policy L-1.5: Regulate land uses in Palo Alto according to the land use definitions in this Element and Map L-6. The project is consistent with the land use definitions in this element and Map L-6, which identify this site as service commercial. Policy L-1.6: Encourage land uses that address the needs of the community and manage change and development to benefit the community. The project provides 129 units (exclusive of manager’s units) to those with very low income (30-50% of AMI). The project seeks to addresses the housing crisis that the City Council has identified as a top priority, particularly targeting the deepest affordability levels. Policy L-1.11: Hold new development to the highest development standards in order to maintain Palo Alto’s livability and achieve the highest quality development with the least impacts The project utilizes high-quality material including corten, wood and stucco and the design is high quality, meeting the ARB findings for approval. Policy L-2.5: Support the creation of affordable housing units for middle to lower income level earners, such as City and school district employees, as feasible. The project is 100% affordable to very low income. Policy L-2.8: When considering infill redevelopment, work to minimize displacement of existing residents. The project replaces vacant retail with a multi- family residential use. No residents would be displaced as a result of this project. Policy L-2.11: Encourage new development and redevelopment to incorporate greenery and natural features such as green rooftops, pocket parks, plazas and rain gardens. The project includes a communal gathering spaces in the building recesses, including a courtyard at the front of the building and at the back of the building, facing the interior lot line. The project includes a second-floor open space area near single-family residential uses with upper level landscape setbacks to screen the area and reduce massing near the single-family residential use in addition to landscape open space at the ground level. Item 2 Attachment B-ARB Findings for Approval Packet Pg. 28 Policy L-3.1: Ensure that new or remodeled structures are compatible with the neighborhood and adjacent structures. Policy L-6.1: Promote high-quality design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces. Although the development is taller than adjacent single-story developments, the project complies with the single-family residential daylight plane requirements where adjacent to a single-family use. The project also includes greater setbacks to the main structure from the neighboring residences and includes large setbacks (~50 feet) on upper levels to provide space in-between. Landscaping is provided to buffer between uses. Policy L-3.4: Ensure that new multi-family buildings, entries and outdoor spaces are designed and arranged so that each development has a clear relationship to a public street. The project includes a large second floor open space areas that fronts a large courtyard entrance along El Camino Real providing an inviting entrance along this main frontage for residents and visitors that has a clear relationship with this public street. The entrance to ground floor residential uses along Olive Avenue enter into a landscaped pedestrian mews that provides privacy and serves as a buffer between the project and adjacent uses. Along Acacia Avenue, a community room fronts the street along with a pedestrian mews to provide a quality pedestrian connection with this frontage. Balconies on all frontages help to create a connection with this public ROW. Policy L-6.2: Use the Zoning Ordinance, design review process, design guidelines and Coordinated Area Plans to ensure high quality residential and commercial design and architectural compatibility. The project is consistent with the City’s Zoning Ordinance and, on balance, meets the City’s design guidelines and the ARB findings for approval. Policy L-6.7: Where possible, avoid abrupt changes in scale and density between residential and non-residential areas and between residential areas of different densities. To promote compatibility and gradual transitions between land uses, place zoning district boundaries at mid-block locations rather than along streets wherever possible. Although the project includes a five-story development adjacent single-story and two- story homes, the project complies with the setback and daylight plane requirements that would typically be required for a development on this site (matching or exceeding single- family residential requirements). At the rear of the building where the project abuts R-1 the project steps back substantially (~50 feet) at the second-floor level and above to provide additional space between the single-family residential uses. Development along El Camino Real is generally encouraged to be taller and Item 2 Attachment B-ARB Findings for Approval Packet Pg. 29 although existing uses are general one or two- story, projects can generally be 50 feet tall along this frontage. Across El Camino Real Palo Alto Square is a mixed-use planned community that is 8-stories tall. Policy L-6.8: Support existing regulations that preserve exposure to natural light for single- family residences The project complies with daylight plane and setbacks that would otherwise be required under the base zoning (and that exceed the single-family residential zone district requirements) where it abuts R-1 zoning. Policy L-9.2: Encourage development that creatively integrates parking into the project, including by locating it behind buildings or underground wherever possible, or by providing for shared use of parking areas. Encourage other alternatives to surface parking lots that minimize the amount of land devoted to parking while still maintaining safe streets, street trees, a vibrant local economy and sufficient parking to meet demand. The current site is primarily paved parking lot. The proposed project reduces curb cuts and provides the parking within a first-floor parking garage behind active uses along the EL Camino Real frontage. Policy L-9.3: Treat residential streets as both public ways and neighborhood amenities. Provide and maintain continuous sidewalks, healthy street trees, benches and other amenities that promote walking and “active” transportation. The project improves the street right-of-way through improved street planting and clear separation of the public sidewalk from the private property. The project increases the sidewalk along El Camino Real by providing a public easement to allow for a 12-foot effective sidewalk width. The clear walking path has been increased to 7’6” and additional planting on the interior yard and development that corresponds to the street provides a more inviting pedestrian environment. Policy T-1.17: Require new office, commercial and multi-family residential developments to provide improvements that improve bicycle and pedestrian connectivity as called for in the 2012 Palo Alto Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan. Policy T-1.19: Provide facilities that encourage and support bicycling and walking. The project does not include new bicycle lanes, but is designed to ensure that future improvements would not be prohibited, particularly along El Camino Real. Improved sidewalks and amenities (landscaping, short- term bike parking, etc.) are provided. Long- term bicycle parking is also provide with direct access from El Camino Real. Policy T-5.1: All new development projects should manage parking demand generated by the project, without the use of on-street parking, consistent with the established The project provides all its required parking onsite. A TDM plan is required for the proposed project and is required to reduce trip generation by 30%. The TDM plan is currently Item 2 Attachment B-ARB Findings for Approval Packet Pg. 30 parking regulations. As demonstrated parking demand decreases over time, parking requirements for new construction should decrease. being prepared. Policy N-2.10: Preserve and protect Regulated Trees, such as native oaks and other significant trees, on public and private property, including landscape trees approved as part of a development review process and consider strategies for expanding tree protection in Palo Alto. The project protects existing street trees. Any tree removed will be replaced pursuant to City requirements to ensure no net loss of canopy, as required by code. Program H2.1.2: Allow increased residential densities and mixed-use development only where adequate urban services and amenities, including roadway capacity, are available. The project is located within an urban area along the El Camino Real corridor in close proximity to high-quality transit. Goal H-2: Support the construction of housing near schools, transit, parks, shopping, employment and cultural institutions The project replaces existing vacant retail and paved parking with a new multi-family housing development in a transit-oriented location that is also near schools, shopping, and employment along El Camino Real and within the immediate vicinity of Stanford Research Park. The project has also been reviewed for conformance with the development standards in the zoning code and found to be in compliance with the intent and regulations contained therein. A comprehensive review of the project to applicable development standards is included in the administrative record (See Attachment B for a complete zoning consistency analysis). Finding #2: The project has a unified and coherent design, that: a. creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community, b. preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site and the historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant, c. is consistent with the context-based design criteria of the applicable zone district, d. provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations, e. enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent residential areas. The project is consistent with Finding #2 because: Item 2 Attachment B-ARB Findings for Approval Packet Pg. 31 The area is comprised of a mix of single-family residential and commercial development along El Camino Real and within the immediate vicinity. The project proposes to construct a building that is taller than the immediate surrounding developments, but within the allowable standards set forth under state density bonus law for projects dedicated to 100% low income or below (in this case very low income) and within 0.5 miles of transit. The project preserves existing mature trees along the street right-of-way and enhances the permeable, planted open space area on the site. The existing structures are not historic; they are in need of repair and have been vacant for more than five years. Although taller than nearby development, the project complies with daylight plane requirements along the interior lot line where the site abuts lower density residential use. The project is stepped back at the upper levels (second floor and above) to push massing away from the property line where it abuts an R-1 zoned property. Pursuant to PAMC 18.16.090, the following context-based design considerations and findings are applicable to this project. These context-based design criteria are intended to indicate relationships between the site's development to adjacent street types, surrounding land uses, and on-site or nearby natural features, such as creeks or trees. Effective transitions to these adjacent uses and features are strongly reinforced by Comprehensive Plan policies. The purpose is to encourage residential development in the commercial districts to be responsible to its context and compatible with adjacent development. 1. Pedestrian and Bicycle Environment The design of new projects shall promote pedestrian walkability, a bicycle-friendly environment, and connectivity through design elements The proposed project provides primary pedestrian and cyclist access via a courtyard on El Camino Real and pedestrian access options on both Olive Avenue and Acacia. Vehicular access is provided on the side street rather than El Camino Real. The project includes a long-term bicycle storage room along El Camino Real for cyclists and provides short-term bicycle parking in multiple locations. This is an improvement over the existing conditions, where no bicycle parking is provided. The sidewalks would be wider and activated through the building design (large windows and courtyard) to orient toward pedestrians. Improved landscape planting along the frontages would be provided. 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 The project is built to the required setbacks on El Camino Real and the side streets with ground floor setbacks to allow for pedestrian overhangs, wider sidewalks, and planting on the ground floor. The design includes large windows along the ground floor frontage to allow views. 3. Massing and Setbacks Buildings shall be designed to minimize massing and conform to proper setbacks The building complies with the required setbacks with the exception of the rear along Acacia, which has a 5-foot setback where a 10-foot setback. A concession under state density bonus allowances is requested to allow for this exceedance. The project provides setbacks adjacent to the single-family Item 2 Attachment B-ARB Findings for Approval Packet Pg. 32 residential uses of 50 feet at upper levels to respect the transition and provides landscaping on a second-floor open space area on the second level in order to reduce massing. Along the El Camino Real frontage, a courtyard is provided to help break up the massing along the façade. 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 project provides setbacks adjacent to the single-family residential uses of 50 feet at upper levels to respect the transition. It also provides landscaping on a second-floor open space area to set back the useable area from the balcony edge and to reduce massing. 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 Common open space is provided in a courtyard at the front of the building, in areas along the interior, adjacent lower-density uses, and in a second-floor open space area. Private open space is also provided for the units. 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 project provides parking within a parking garage but provides other spaces along the El Camino Real to activate the frontage including the ground floor lobby, residential services, a fitness center for residents, and bicycle parking facilities with secure access. The parking is not visible from the exterior and does not overwhelm the pedestrian environment. 7. Large Multi-acre sites Large sites (over one acre) shall be designed so that street, block, and building patterns are consistent with those of the surrounding neighborhood The project is located on a site that is 1.14 acres in size. The project abuts El Camino Real. High-density housing is encouraged along this corridor, which is close to jobs (Palo Alto Square and Stanford Research Park) as well as transit and other commercial uses (e.g. California Avenue commercial district). The project is taller than neighboring structures but respects the setbacks and daylight plane adjacent to the neighboring single-family residential uses along Olive (50-foot setback to upper floors). Although it is taller than other commercial uses on the corners of El Camino Real and Olive, the streets (Acacia and Olive) provide a natural setback between the buildings. 8. Sustainability and Green Building Design Project design and materials to achieve sustainability and green building design should be incorporated into the project The project will be all-electric and is required to comply with the green building mandatory plus tier 2 requirements under the green building code. This includes requirements such as all-electric, solar Item 2 Attachment B-ARB Findings for Approval Packet Pg. 33 power, and electric vehicle-ready stalls. All landscaping shall be required to meet the Model water efficiency landscape ordinance requirements. Finding #3: The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. The project is consistent with Finding #3 because: The project proposes a contemporary style that reflects the modular design along this stretch of Alma. The project uses materials such as stucco, wood siding, and bronzed aluminum to provide variation in materials. The proposed colors are neutral and are compatible with surrounding color schemes. The project incorporates landscaping and reduces paving in comparison to the existing condition at the site in order to enhance the appearance of the site, particularly along the street frontage. Finding #4: The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and providing for elements that support the building’s necessary operations (e.g. convenient vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.). The project is consistent with Finding #4 because: The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic to the site. The project provides short-term bicycle parking within the front courtyard as well as a couple spaces each along Acacia and Olive. A long-term bicycle parking room is also accessible from the front courtyard to provide ease of access to residents utilizing this room while allowing the entrance to be monitored by staff within the main lobby. The project also reduces curb cuts, improving the bicycling environment surrounding the site. The project provides a single point of vehicular access from Olive Avenue and can be easily accessed from Park Avenue or El Camino Real heading northbound or southbound. The project provides trash pickup from Olive avenue directly from a trash room and provides appropriate Waste-gas-water and electrical utilities rooms and connections on the site. Although providing shorter distances to the trash rooms and laundry room may be more desirable, the laundry room is located adjacent to common areas to encourage community building and the trash room is located in a manner that allows for proper refuse hauler pickup without the need to stage bins within the public right-of-way or remove units, parking, or other pedestrian-oriented amenity space along the Acacia frontage to accommodate servicing either from a central enclosure or a larger secondary enclosure for upper level residents. Although the project includes a concession for the location of open space, the required open space for the site is provided through ground floor and second floor common open areas. Finding #5: The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is appropriate to the site’s functions, and utilizes to the extent practical, regional Item 2 Attachment B-ARB Findings for Approval Packet Pg. 34 indigenous drought resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat that can be appropriately maintained. The project is consistent with Finding #5 because: The project will provide drought-tolerant planting, the majority of which were selected from a California native palette. The selected varieties of trees would provide appropriate habitat for wildlife as a part of a bigger neighborhood and community wide system. Additional landscaping is provided on the second-floor open space areas. Finding #6: The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning. The project is consistent with Finding #6 because: In accordance with the City’s Green Building Regulations, the project will satisfy the requirements for CALGreen Mandatory + Tier 2. This includes providing solar and being an all-electric building. Drought tolerant native planting would also help to reduce water use and the planting palette complies with the Model Water Efficiency Landscape Ordinance requirements. Item 2 Attachment B-ARB Findings for Approval Packet Pg. 35 ATTACHMENT C CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 3001 El Camino Real 22PLN-00229 ________________________________________________________________________ PLANNING DIVISION 1. CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS. Construction and development shall conform to the approved plans entitled, "3001-3017 El Camino Real Architectural Review Board, Major Project Submittal,” submitted to the City on April 7, 2023 on file with the Planning Department, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California except as modified by these conditions of approval. 2. BUILDING PERMIT. Apply for a building permit and meet any and all conditions of the Planning, Fire, Public Works, and Building Departments. 3. BUILDING PERMIT PLAN SET. A copy of this cover letter and conditions of approval shall be printed on the second page of the plans submitted for building permit. 4. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS. All modifications to the approved project shall be submitted for review and approval prior to construction. If during the Building Permit review and construction phase, the project is modified by the applicant, it is the responsibility of the applicant to contact the Planning Division/project planner directly to obtain approval of the project modification. It is the applicant’s responsibility to highlight any proposed changes to the project and to bring it to the project planner’s attention. 5. ENTITLEMENT EXPIRATION. The project approval shall be valid for a period of two years from the date of issuance of the entitlement. If within such two years period, the proposed use of the site or the construction of buildings has not commenced, the Planning entitlement shall expire. Application for a one-year extension of this entitlement may be made prior to expiration. 6. AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENT. All units with the exception of the managers units shall be deed - restricted and made available to individuals making 30-50% of the area median income (AMI). A BMR Agreement in a form acceptable to the City Attorney for the deed restricted units shall be executed and recorded prior to building permit issuance. 7. LANDSCAPE PLAN. Plantings shall be installed in accordance with the approved plan set and shall be permanently maintained and replaced as necessary. 8. NOISE THRESHOLDS ON RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. All noise producing equipment shall be located outside of required setbacks. In accordance with PAMC Section 9.10.030, No person shall produce, suffer or allow to be produced by any machine, animal or device, or any combination of same, on residential property, a noise level more than six dB above the local ambient at any point outside of the property plane. Item 2 Attachment C-Draft Conditions of Approval Packet Pg. 36 9. LIGHTING. Between the hours of 10:00pm-6:00am (normal cessation of business hours), lighting within the building or on the property shall be reduced to its minimum necessary to facilitate security, in order to minimize light glare at night. 10. OPEN AIR LOUDSPEAKERS (AMPLIFIED MUSIC). Amplified music shall be prohibited in second floor open space areas. 11. NOISE REPORT AT BUILDING STAGE. At the time of building permit issuance for new construction or for installation of any such interior or exterior mechanical equipment, the applicant shall submit an acoustical analysis by an acoustical engineer demonstratin g projected compliance with the Noise Ordinance. The analysis shall be based on acoustical readings, equipment specifications and any proposed sound reduction measures, such as equipment enclosures or insulation, which demonstrate a sufficient degree of sound attenuation to assure that the prescribed noise levels will not be exceeded. 12. ACACIA ACCESS. The access door from Acacia shall remain unlocked to provide access to the main lobby throughout the day for both delivery truck drivers and to allow for convenient access to guests or residents using the proposed short-term bicycle parking along Acacia. 13. NOISE REPORT PRIOR TO INSPECTION. Where the acoustical analysis projected noise levels at or within 5 dB less than the Noise Ordinance limits, the applicant shall demonstrate the installed equipment complies with the anticipated noise levels and the Noise Ordinance prior to final Planning inspection approval. 14. FINAL INSPECTION. A Planning Division Final inspection will be required to determine substantial compliance with the approved plans prior to the scheduling of a Building Division final. Any revisions during the building process must be approved by Planning, including but n ot limited to; materials, landscaping and hard surface locations. Contact your Project Planner, Claire Raybould at Claire.Raybould@cityofpaloalto.org to schedule this inspection. 15. INDEMNITY. To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City for its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice. 16. SIGN APPROVAL NEEDED. No signs are approved at this time. All signs shall conform to the requirements of Title 16.20 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (Sign Code) and shall be subject to approval by the Director of Planning. Item 2 Attachment C-Draft Conditions of Approval Packet Pg. 37 17. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), prepared for this project in compliance with the California Environmental Quali ty Act (CEQA), shall be incorporated by reference as conditions of approval. The applicant shall comply with all specified mitigation measures in the timelines outlined in the project’s MMRP. 18. CALIFORNIA-OLIVE-EMERSON (COE) PLUME AREA. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall retain a qualified environmental consultant, California Professional Geologist (PG) or California Professional Engineer (PE) to assess site conditions to determine both the nature and extent of contamination. If contamination at the site exceeds the most current environmental screening levels (ESLs) identified by the SFBRWQCB, the applicant shall retain a qualified environmental consultant, California PG or California PE to prepare and submit a Site Management and Cont ingency Plan (SMCP) to either the DTSC, RWQCB, or the SCCDEH for approval. The SMCP shall include details regarding the pending development and evaluate remediation and/or mitigation to address any environmental risk identified in the site assessment. The applicant shall agree to and implement all recommendations of the reviewing regulatory agency approving the SMCP in order to reduce the exposure of future occupants to contaminants that exceed the applicable screening levels. If the reviewing agency requires that a sub-slab vapor intrusion barrier system or similar be installed, the Vapor Intrusion Mitigations (VIMs) shall be documented in the building permit plan set prior to issuance of the building permit. Post construction indoor air monitoring shall be conducted for any VIMS systems and shall comply with the specific recommendations set forth by the regulatory agency approving the SMCP. 19. WELLS. Based on information provided by Valley Water, two wells may be located on the project site. In accordance with the mitigation measures, these wells shall either be protected in place or properly destroyed in accordance with Valley Water requirements and permits. Prior to issuance of a demolition or building permit, the applicant shall show how the project will comply with this requirement either by showing the wells as being protected in place or by showing compliance with valley water requirements for well destruction. 20. REFUSE. All trash areas shall be effectively screened from view and covered and maintained in an orderly state to prevent water from entering into the garbage container. No outdoor storage is allowed/permitted unless designated on the approved plan set. Trash areas shall be maintained in a manner to discourage illegal dumping. 21. PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT. The applicant shall include an offer of dedication for a public access easement for the additional dimension of sidewalk between the property line and back of walk and/or building edge that meets the 12-foot required effective sidewalk width as shown on the plans. Plot and label the Public Access Easement on the plans submitted for building permit. The applicant's engineer shall file the necessary documents and pay the applicable fees to dedicate the easement to the City and shall record the easement with the County Clerk Recorder following the City’s acceptance of the easement prior to occupancy. 22. PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT. The applicant shall dedicate a public utilities easement for facilities Item 2 Attachment C-Draft Conditions of Approval Packet Pg. 38 installed on private property that require an easement for maintenance purposes. The applicant's engineer shall file the necessary documents and pay the applicable fees to dedicate the easement to the City and shall record the easement with the County Clerk Recorder following the City’s acceptance of the easement prior to occupancy. PUBLIC WORKS ZERO WASTE 23. REQUIRED DECONSTRUCTION. In conformance with PAMC 5.24, deconstruction and source separation are required for all residential and commercial projects where structures (other than a garage or ADU) are being completely removed, demolition is no longer allowed. Deconstruction takes longer than traditional demolition, it is important to plan ahead. For more information, visit www.cityofpaloalto.org/deconstruction. 24. SALVAGE SURVEY FOR REUSE. A Salvage Survey is required for deconstruction permit applications. The survey shall be conducted by a City approved reuse vendor. The survey submittal shall include an itemized list of materials that are salvageable for reuse from the project. The applicant shall source separate and deliver materials for reuse. Certification is required indicating that all materials identified in the survey are properly salvaged. Contact The ReUse People to schedule this FREE survey by phone (888) 588-9490 or e-mail info@thereusepeople.org. More information can be found at www.TheReusePeople.org. Please upload a completed copy to the deconstruction permit. 25. SOURCE SEPARATION FOR RECYCLING. The applicant shall source separate deconstruction materials into specific categories for recycling. Additional staging areas for source separated materials will need to be considered. All materials shall be delivered to one of the City approved materials recovery facilities listed in Green Halo, all records shall be uploaded to www.greenhalosystems.com. 26. TRASH SERVICE LOADING. On the plans submitted for building permit show a loading zone/signage that restricts parking on Olive in front of the curb cut for the trash rollout during refuse service hours to ensure that cars do not block the service area. The applicant shall bear the cost for curb painting and signage. 27. TRASH SERVICING. On the plans submitted for building permit revise the layout of the main trash collection room to provide 36 inches between each of the metal bins. No stacking of bins and carts will be allowed, each bin and cart must be equally and easily accessible. The service aisle used to maneuver the bins and carts must be 1.5 times the width of the largest bin. The plans submitted for building permit shall also note that GreenWaste will not be servicing the refuse enclosure for the first-floor residents and that a maximum of 4 – 96gal carts will be brought to the main trash collection room for service. There shall be 6 inches between each of the carts. 28. TRASH ENCLOSURES. The trash enclosure rooms shall comply with the trash enclosure area guidelines requirements. Any changes to the trash room at building permit shall ensure compliance with the requirements. If a hose bib is installed, additional requirements may apply. Item 2 Attachment C-Draft Conditions of Approval Packet Pg. 39 29. REFUSE SEPARATION AND COLOR-CODING. Cut sheets for the color-coded internal and external containers, related color-coded millwork, and colored signage must be included in the building plans prior to receiving approval from zero waste. Containers, signage and millwork shall comply with Palo Alto Municipal Code 5.20.108. The three refuse containers shall include recycle (blue container), compost (green container), and garbage (black container). Applicant shall present on the pl an the locations and quantity of both (any) internal and external refuse containers, it’s millwork, along with the signage. This requirement applies to any external or internal refuse containers located in common areas such as lobby, community room, open space, and etc. except for restrooms, copy area, and mother’s room. Millwork to store the color-coded refuse containers must have a minimum of four inches in height, wrapping around the full width of the millwork. Signage must be color coded with photos or illustrations of commonly discarded items. Restrooms must have a green compost container for paper towels and an optional black landfill container if applicable. Mail area must have either a recycle and trash bin only, or all three refuse receptacles (green compost, blue recycle, and black landfill container). Gym must minimally have a blue recycle container and black landfill container. Please refer to PAMC 5.20.108 and the Internal Container Guide. Examples of appropriate signage can be found in the Managing Zero Waste at Your Business Guide. Electronic copies of these signage can be found on the Zero Waste Palo Alto’s website, https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Public-Works/Zero-Waste/What-Goes- Where/Toolkit#section-2 and hard copies can be requested from the waste hauler, Greenwaste of Palo Alto, (650) 493-4894. PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING 30. PUBLIC WORKS APPLICATIONS, FORMS, AND DOCUMENTS. Applicant shall be advised that most forms, applications, and informational documents related to Public Works Engineering conditions can be found at the following link: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Public-Works/Engineering-Services/Forms-and- Permits 31. STREETWORK PERMIT. The applicant shall obtain a Streetwork Permit from the Department of Public Works for all public improvements. 32. GRADING AND EXCAVATION PERMIT. A Grading Permit is required per PAMC Chapter 16.28. The permit application and all applicable documents (see Section H of application) shall be submitted to Public Works Engineering. 33. ADVISORY. A grading permit only authorizes grading and storm drain improvements, therefore, the following note shall be included on each grading permit plan sheet: “THIS GRADING PE RMIT WILL ONLY AUTHORIZE GENERAL GRADING AND INSTALLATION OF THE STORM DRAIN SYSTEM. OTHER BUILDING AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS ARE SHOWN FOR REFERENCE INFORMATION ONLY AND ARE SUBJECT TO SEPARATE BUILDING PERMIT APPROVAL.” 34. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER STATEMENT. The grading plans shall include the following statement signed and sealed by the Geotechnical Engineer of Record: “THIS PLAN HAS BEEN REVIEWED AND Item 2 Attachment C-Draft Conditions of Approval Packet Pg. 40 FOUND TO BE IN GENERAL CONFORMANCE WITH THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT”. 35. ENCROACHMENT PERMIT. Prior to any work in the public right-of-way, the applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Public Works Department for any work that encroaches onto the City right-of-way. 36. LOGISTICS PLAN. A construction logistics plan shall be provided addressing all impacts to the public including, at a minimum: work hours, noticing of affected businesses, bus stop relocations, construction signage, dust control, noise control, storm water pollution prevention, job trailer, contractors’ parking, truck routes, staging, concrete pours, crane lifts, scaffolding, materials storage, pedestrian safety, and traffic control. All truck routes shall conform to the City of Palo Alto’s Trucks and Truck Route Ordinance, Chapter 10.48, and the route map. NOTE: Some items/tasks on the logistics plan may require an encroachment permit. 37. STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION. All improvement plan sets shall include the “Pollution Prevention – It’s Part of the Plan” sheet. 38. C.3 THIRD-PARTY CERTIFICATION. Applicant shall provide certification from a qualified third-party reviewer that the proposed permanent storm water pollution prevention measures comply with the requirements of Provision C.3 and Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.11. 39. Submit the following: a. Stamped and signed C.3 data form (September 2019 version) from SCVURPPP. https://scvurppp.org/wp- content/uploads/2019/10/SCVURPPP_C3_Data_Form_September2019_fillable_final_9- 24-19.pdf b. Final stamped and signed letter confirming which documents were reviewed and that the project complies with Provision C.3 and PAMC 16.11. 40. C.3 STORMWATER AGREEMENT. The applicant shall enter into a Stormwater Maintenance Agreement with the City to guarantee the ongoing maintenance of the permanent storm water pollution prevention measures. The City will inspect the treatment measures yearly and charge an inspection fee. The agreement shall be executed by the applicant team prior to building permit approval. NOTE: Any revisions to the C.3 stormwater pollution prevention measures that are necessary to facilitate installation of said measures will be addressed in the agreement and the accompanying exhibits, executed by the City, and recorded with the County. 41. C.3 FINAL THIRD-PARTY CERTIFICATION PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY. Within 45 days of the installation of the required storm water treatment measures and prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit for the building, the third-party reviewer shall submit to the City a certification verifying that all the permanent storm water pollution prevention measures were installed in accordance with the approved plans. Item 2 Attachment C-Draft Conditions of Approval Packet Pg. 41 42. PAVEMENT RESTORATION. The applicant shall restore sections of pavement along Olive Avenue and Acacia Avenue by performing a 3.5” grind and overlay in order to address the damage inflicted onto the road by the project. The exact restoration limits will be determined once the resulting road condition is known following completion of heavy construction activities, utility lateral installations, and curb & gutter construction. The extents that are subject to restoration are the project frontages, curb-to-curb. 43. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA. The project will be creating or replacing 500 square feet or more of impervious surface. Accordingly, the applicant shall provide calculat ions of the existing and proposed impervious surface areas with the building permit application. The Impervious Area Worksheet for Land Developments form and instructions are available at the Development Center or on our website. To determine the impervious surface area that is being disturbed, provide the quantity on the site plan. 44. PRIOR TO PUBLIC WORKS FINAL/ACCEPTANCE (STORM DRAIN LOGO). The applicant is required to paint “No Dumping/Flows to Creek” in blue on a white background adjacent to all onsite storm drain inlets. The name of the creek to which the proposed development drains can be obtained from Public Works Engineering. Stencils of the logo are available from the Public Works Environmental Compliance Division, which may be contacted at (650) 329-2598. Include the instruction to paint the logos on the construction grading and drainage plan. 45. PRIOR TO PUBLIC WORKS FINAL/ACCEPTANCE (RECORD DRAWINGS). At the conclusion of the project applicant shall provide digital as-built/record drawings of all improvements constructed in the public right-of-way or easements in which the City owns an interest. OFFICE OF TRANSPORTATION 46. MECHANICAL LIFT PARKING. Up to 98 required parking spaces may be provided in a puzzle parking system. At least 5 entry points/machines shall be provided to ensure queuing of cars is kept to a minimum. The parking garage entry gate shall be connected to remote control to allow drivers to operate from their vehicles in order to avoid blocking/queueing over public right-of-way. 47. TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT PLAN. The applicant shall prepare a TDM plan for review and approval by the Chief Transportation Official (CTO) or his designee prior to the issuance of building permits. The TDM plan shall include measures and strategies to achieve the goal of reducing single-occupancy peak hour vehicle trips to the project site by a minimum of 30% in conformance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The TDM plan shall include an annual monitoring plan to document mode split and trips to the project site. 48. LOADING. The applicant shall be responsible for converting two on -street parking spaces on Acacia into the loading area. The loading area shall be marked with yellow curb paint and a MUTCD compliance loading area sign. The applicant shall submit the site plan with the building permit application for the Office of Transportation approval. Item 2 Attachment C-Draft Conditions of Approval Packet Pg. 42 WASTE-GAS-WATER UTILITIES PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF DEMOLITION PERMIT 49. The applicant shall submit a request to disconnect utility services and remove meters. The utilities demo is to be processed within 10 working days after receipt of the request. The demolition permit will be issued by the building inspection division after all utility services and/or meters have been disconnected and removed. FOR BUILDING PERMIT 50. The applicant shall submit a completed water-gas-wastewater service connection application - load sheet for the City of Palo Alto Utilities. The applicant must provide all the information requested for utility service demands (water in fixture units/g.p.m., fire in g.p.m., and sewer in fixture units/g.p.d.). The applicant shall provide the new loads and the combined/total loads. Show on the plans by adding a text note: THIS IS AN “ALL-ELECTRIC” BUILDING PROJECT NO NEW GAS SERVICE OR GAS HOOKUPS WILL BE INSTALLED. 51. The applicant shall submit improvement plans for utility construction. The plans mu st show the size and location of all underground utilities within the development and the public right of way including meters, backflow preventers, fire service requirements, sewer mains, sewer cleanouts, sewer lift stations, and any other required utilities. Plans for new wastewater laterals and mains need to include new wastewater pipe profiles showing existing potentially conflicting utilities, especially storm drain pipes, and electric and communication duct banks. Existing duct banks need to be daylighted by potholing to the bottom of the duct bank to verify the cross section prior to plan approval and starting lateral installation. Plans for new storm drain mains and laterals need to include profiles showing existing potential conflicts with sewer, water, and gas. 52. The applicant must show on the site plan the existence of any auxiliary water supply, (i.e. water well, gray water, recycled water, rain catchment, water storage tank, etc.). 53. The applicant shall be responsible for installing and upgrading the existing utility mains and/or services, laterals as necessary to handle anticipated peak loads. This responsibility includes all costs associated with the design and construction for the installation/upgrade of the utility mains and/or services/laterals. 54. An approved reduced pressure principle assembly (RPPA backflow preventer device) is required for all existing and new water connections from Palo Alto Utilities to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. The RPPA shall be installed on the owner's property and directly behind the water meter within 5 feet of the property line. RPPA’s for domestic service shall be lead free. Show the location of the RPPA on the plans. 55. An approved reduced pressure detector assembly (RPDA backflow preventer device, STD. WD -12A or STD. WD-12B) is required for all existing and new fire water connections from Palo Alto Utilities Item 2 Attachment C-Draft Conditions of Approval Packet Pg. 43 to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. The RPDA shall be installed on the owner's property and directly behind the City’s fire service, within 5’ (feet) of the property line or City Right of Way. 56. All backflow preventer devices shall be approved by the WGW engineering division. Inspection by the city inspector is required for the supply pipe between the meter and the assembly. 57. The applicant shall pay the capacity fees and connection fees associated with new utility service/s or added demand on existing services. The approved relocation of services, meters, hydrants, or other facilities will be performed at the cost of the person/entity requesting the relocation. 58. A new water service line installation for fire system usage is required. Show the location of the new water service on the plans. The applicant shall provide the engineering department with a copy of the plans for the fire system including all fire department's requirements. 59. Each parcel shall have its own water service and sewer lateral connection shown on the plans. 60. A new sewer lateral is required, and a profile of the sewer lateral is required showing any possible conflicts with electric/communications duct banks or other utilities. 61. All existing water, and gas. and wastewater services/laterals that will not be reused shall be abandoned at the main per the latest WGW utilities standards. 62. Utility vaults, transformers, utility cabinets, concrete bases, or other structures cannot be placed over existing water, gas, or wastewater mains/services. Maintain 1’ horizontal clear separation from the vault/cabinet/concrete base to existing utilities as found in the field. If there is a conflict with existing utilities, Cabinets/vaults/bases shall be relocated from the plan location as needed to meet field conditions. Trees may not be planted within 10 feet of existing water, gas, and wastewater mains/laterals/water services/or meters. New water or wastewater services/laterals/meters may not be installed within 10’ of existing trees. Maintain 10’ between new trees and new water and wastewater services/laterals/meters. 63. The applicant shall provide to the WGW Utility Engineering department a copy of the plans for the fire system including all fire department's requirements prior to the actual service installation. 64. A capacity study for water and wastewater report prepared by the developer’s licensed Engineer shall be submitted to the City of Palo Alto Utilities Engineering Department. The applicant's engineer shall submit flow calculations and system capacity study showing that the on-site and off- site water and sanitary sewer mains and services will provide the domestic, irrigation, fire flows, and wastewater capacity needed to service the development and adjacent properties during anticipated peak flow demands. Field testing may be required to determine current flows and water pressures on the existing water main. Calculations must be signed and stamped by a registered civil engineer. Item 2 Attachment C-Draft Conditions of Approval Packet Pg. 44 65. The applicant is required to perform, at his/her expense, a flow monitoring study of the existing sewer main to determine the remaining capacity. The report must include existing peak flows or depth of flow based on a minimum monitoring period of seven continuous days or as determined by the senior wastewater engineer. The study shall meet the requirements and the approval of the WGW engineering section. No downstream overloading of the existing sewer main will be permitted. 66. All utility installations shall be in accordance with the City of Palo Alto utility standards for water, gas, & wastewater. ELECTRIC UTILITIES 67. GO 95 CLEARANCE. Clearances around the existing electric utility pole and overhead electric lines must be maintained per General Order 95 requirements. Show compliance with General Order 95 clearance requirements on the plans submitted for building permit. 68. UTILITIES. A Utilities Plan is required as part of an electrical utility application. If a utility pole along Acacia is planned for removal, illustrate undergrounding plans and plans to restore service laterals. PUBLIC WORKS URBAN FORESTRY 69. PLAN SET REQUIREMENTS. The final Plans submitted for building permit shall include a. SHEET T-1, BUILDING PERMIT. The building permit plan set will include the City’s full -sized, Sheet T-1 (Tree Protection-it's Part of the Plan!), available on the Development Center website at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/31783 . The Applicant shall complete and sign the Tree Disclosure Statement and recognize the Project Arborist Tree Activity Inspection Schedule. Monthly reporting to Urban Forestry/Contractor is mandatory. (Insp. #1: applies to all projects; with tree preservation report: In sp. #2-6 applies; with landscape plan: Insp. #7 applies.) b. The Tree Preservation Report (TPR). All sheets of the Applicant’s TPR approved by the City for full implementation by Contractor, ArborResources, Inc., shall be printed on numbered Sheet T-1 (T-2, T-3, etc) and added to the sheet index. 70. PLANS--SHOW PROTECTIVE TREE FENCING. The Plan Set (esp. site, demolition, grading & drainage, foundation, irrigation, tree disposition, utility sheets, etc.) must delineate/show Type I or Type II fencing around each Regulated Trees, using a bold dashed line enclosing the Tree Protection Zone as shown on Standard Dwg. #605, Sheet T-1, and the City Tree Technical Manual, Section 6.35-Site Plans; or using the Project Arborist’s unique diagram for each Tree Protection Zone enclosure. Item 2 Attachment C-Draft Conditions of Approval Packet Pg. 45 71. SITE PLAN REQUIREMENTS. Plans with Public Trees shall show (a) Type II street tree fencing enclosing the entire parkway strip or, (b) Type I protection to the outer branch dripline (for rolled curb & sidewalk or no-sidewalk situations.) a. Add Site Plan Notes. i. Note #1. Apply to the site plan stating, "All tree protection and inspection schedule measures, design recommendations, watering and construction scheduling shall be implemented in full by owner and contractor, as stated on Sheet T-1, in the Tree Protection Report and the approved plans”. ii. Note #2. All civil plans, grading plans, irrigation plans, site plans and utility plans and relevant sheets shall add a note applying to the trees to be protected, including neighboring trees stating: "Regulated Tree--before working in this area contact the Project Site Arborist at 650-654-3351 "; iii. Note #3. Utility (sanitary sewer/gas/water/backflow/electric/storm drain) plan sheets shall include the following note: “Utility trenching shall not occur within the TPZ of the protected tree. Contractor shall be responsible for ensuring that no trenching occurs within the TPZ of the protected tree by contractors, City crews or final landscape workers. See sheet T-1 for instructions.” iv. Note #4. “Basement or foundation plan. Soils Report and Excavation for basement construction within the TPZ of a protected tree shall specify a vertical cut (stitch piers may be necessary) in order to avoid over-excavating into the tree root zone. Any variance from this procedure requires Urban Forestry approval, please call (650) 496-5953.” v. Note #5. “Pruning Restrictions. No pruning or clearance cutting of branches is permitted on City trees. Contractor shall obtain a Public Tree Permit from Urban Forestry (650-496-5953) for any work on Public Trees” 72. TREE PROTECTION VERIFICATION. Prior to demolition, grading or building permit issuance, a written verification from the contractor that the required protective fencing is in place shall be submitted to the Building Inspections Division. The fencing shall contain required warning sign and remain in place until final inspection of the project. DURING CONSTRUCTION 73. EXCAVATION RESTRICTIONS APPLY (TTM, Sec. 2.20 C & D). Any approved grading, digging or trenching beneath a tree canopy shall be performed using ‘air -spade’ method as a preference, with manual hand shovel as a backup. For utility trenching, including sewer line, roots exposed with diameter of 1.5 inches and greater shall remain intact and not be damaged. If directional boring method is used to tunnel beneath roots, then Table 2 -1, Trenching and Tunneling Distance, shall be printed on the final plans to be implemented by Contractor. 74. PLAN CHANGES. Revisions and/or changes to plans before or during construction shall be reviewed and responded to by the (a) project site arborist, ArborResources, (650-496-5953, or (b) landscape architect with written letter of acceptance before submitting the revision to the Building Department for review by Planning, PW or Urban Forestry. Item 2 Attachment C-Draft Conditions of Approval Packet Pg. 46 75. TREE PROTECTION COMPLIANCE. The owner and contractor shall implement all protection and inspection schedule measures, design recommendations and construction scheduling as stated in the TPR & Sheet T-1, and is subject to code compliance action pursuant to PAMC 8.10.080. The required protective fencing shall remain in place until final landscaping and inspection of the project. Project arborist approval must be obtained and documented in the monthly activity report sent to the City. The mandatory Contractor and Arborist Monthly Tree Activity Report shall be sent monthly to the City (pwps@cityofpaloalto.org) beginning with the initial verification approval, using the template in the Tree Technical Manual, Addendum 11. 76. TREE DAMAGE. Tree Damage, Injury Mitigation and Inspections apply to Contractor. Reporting, injury mitigation measures and arborist inspection schedule (1-5) apply pursuant to TTM, Section 2.20-2.30. Contractor shall be responsible for the repair or replacement of any publicly owned or protected trees that are damaged during the course of construction, pursuant to Title 8 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, and city Tree Technical Manual, Section 2.25. 77. GENERAL. The following general tree preservation measures apply to all trees to be retained: No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment shall be permitted within the tree enclosure area. The ground under and around the tree canopy area shall not be altered. Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. POST CONSTRUCTION 78. MAINTENANCE. All landscape and trees shall be maintained, watered, fertilized, and pruned according to Best Management Practices-Pruning (ANSI A300-2008 or current version) and the City Tree Technical Manual, Section 5.00. Any vegetation that dies shall be replaced or failed automatic irrigation repaired by the current property owner within 30 days of discovery. BUILDING DIVISION 79. Building Permits submitted after 1/1/2023 shall comply to the 2022 Ca Building Standards Code as amended by the city of Palo Alto. 80. Illustrate CALGREEN compliance in accordance to the 2022 CALGREEN as amended by the city of Palo Alto. Additional information can be found at this link: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Development- Services/Green-Building/Compliance 81. All new buildings shall be all electric, no gas is allowed. 82. In the plans submitted for building permit clearly show the following for building code analysis : a. Life Safety/Exit Access code diagram (G603, G604) shall be verified at time of building permit. Item 2 Attachment C-Draft Conditions of Approval Packet Pg. 47 b. Pedestrian walkway (3104, CBC). At building permit please illustrate compliance with these sections and subsections applicable to this project on Sheet G604 or a subsequent sheet. c. Court shall comply to 1205.3, CBC. Illustrate at time of building permit. d. Sound transmission shall comply to CBC 1206 for common interior walls, partitions, floor/ceiling between units. e. Show the fire separation distance: to interior lot line; to centerline of the street, and to an imaginary line between two buildings on the property. The distance shall be measured at right angles from the face of the wall. CBC section 202 f. Provide a complete analysis for protected and unprotected exterior wall openings per CBC section 705.8 & Equation 7-2. Openings are not allowed when the fire separation distance is less or equal to 3’. 705.8, CBC. 83. On the plans submitted for building permit clearly show the following items related to e xiting: a. Exiting shall be provided for each story/level/building. Please include a room-to-room exit analysis and clearly define the exit elements (exit access, exit, and exit discharge) to the public way. CBC 1003.1. b. Level 2 exiting plan (Sheet G603) from the common open spaces shall be reviewed for life safety and accessibility provisions. c. Accessible means of egress per CBC 1009 shall be defined. d. Egress balconies to comply Section 1021, CBC if this exit element is used. Detail plans on Sheet G604 to show compliance with all requirements. e. Stair 1 and stair 3 are interior stairways and shall comply with CBC 1023 and other code provisions. 84. On the plans submitted for building permit the f unding source shall be declared on the project plan front sheet. In addition to multifamily accessibility requirement per 11A, CBC, illustrate compliance with public housing requirements per section 11B-233, CBC. 85. On the plans submitted for building permit updated Sheet G002 to show the total EV parking counts. Parking (EV and regular accessible spaces, van, etc.) shall comply to CBC 11A, 11B, and CALGreen as amended by City of Palo Alto. 86. Submit a soil report and structural calculations as part of the building permit submittal. 87. Submit complete Mechanical, Electrical, and Plumbing design/plans and completed T24 documentation (calculations/forms) as part of the building permit submittal. 88. In buildings four or more stories above grade plane, one stairway shall extend to the roof surface unless the roof has a slope steeper than four units vertical in 12 units horizontal (33- percent slope). CBC 1011.12. See exception. 89. Outdoor developed areas provided shall comply with 11B-246, CBC. Show compliance on Sheet L003 and for similar areas. Item 2 Attachment C-Draft Conditions of Approval Packet Pg. 48 90. Community room and shared amenities shall be accessible (CBC 11B-228) on the 1st floor shall be accessible on an accessible route to entry and exit, parking, bathrooms, elevator, etc. Item 2 Attachment C-Draft Conditions of Approval Packet Pg. 49 MITIGATION MONITORING + REPORTING PROGRAM PROJECT NAME 3001 El Camino Real Affordable Housing Project APPLICATION NUMBER 22PLN-00229 APPLICANT Charities Housing 1400 Parkmoor Avenue, Suite 190 San Jose, California 95126 DATE April 21, 2023 The Draft Initial Study - Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS-MND) for the 3001 El Camino Real Affordable Housing Project identify mitigation measures that will be implemented to reduce the impacts associated with the project. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was amended in 1989 to add Section 21081.6, which requires a public agency to adopt a monitoring and reporting program for assessing and ensuring compliance with any required mitigation measures applied to proposed development. As stated in sectio n 21081.6(a)(1) of the Public Resources Code, “... the public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes made to the project or conditions of project approval, adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the envir onment.” Section 21081.6 also provides general guidelines for implementing mitigation monitoring programs and indicates that specific reporting and/or monitoring requirements, to be enforced during project implementation, shall be defined as part of adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration. The mitigation monitoring table lists those mitigation measures that would be included as conditions of approval for the project. To ensure that the mitigation measures are properly implemented, a monitoring program has been devised which identifies the timing and responsibility for monitoring each measure. Item 2 Attachment C-Draft Conditions of Approval Packet Pg. 50 City of Palo Alto ⬧ Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program P a g e | 2 Mitigation Measure Number Mitigation Measure Text Responsible for Implementation Timing of Compliance Oversight of Implementation BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES BIO-1: Nesting Bird Protection Construction of the project and any other site disturbing activities that would involve vegetation or tree removal shall be prohibited during the general avian nesting season (February 1 – August 31), if feasible. If nesting season avoidance is not feasible, the applicant shall retain a qualified biologist, as approved by the City of Palo Alto, to conduct a preconstruction nesting bird survey to determine the presence/absence, location, and activity status of any active nests on or adjacent to the project site. The extent of the survey buffer area surrounding the site shall be established by the qualified biologist to ensure that direct and indirect effects to nesting birds are avoided. To avoid the destruction of active nests and to protect the reproductive success of birds protected by the MBTA and CFGC, nesting bird surveys shall be performed not more than 14 days prior to scheduled vegetation clearance and structure demolition. In the event that active nests are discovered, a suitable buffer (typically a minimum buffer of 50 feet for passerines and a minimum buffer of 250 feet for raptors) shall be established around such active nests and no construction shall be allowed within the buffer areas until a qualified biologist has determined that the nest is no longer active (i.e., the nestlings have fledged and are no longer reliant on the nest). No ground disturbing activities shall occur within this buffer until the qualified biologist has confirmed that breeding/nesting is completed, and the young have fledged the nest. Nesting bird surveys are not required for construction activities occurring between August 31 and February 1. Applicant or designee/ Construction contractor Prior to and during construction CPA Planning Department BIO-2: Tree Preservation and Protection Plan To avoid disturbance and injury to on-site trees, the recommendations for tree preservation in the Arborist Report dated March 18, 2022 or any subsequent report prepared by a qualified Arborist that has been reviewed and approved by the City’s arborist and that is equally as protective to the trees, shall be implemented. These recommendations include, but are not limited to, tree protection fencing to the extent of construction around City trees on El Camino Real and Olive Avenue, no grading encroachments closer than 6 inches to the tree trunk diameter, and periodic inspections by the Site Arborist during construction activities. CULTURAL RESOURCES CR-1: Unanticipated Discovery of Cultural or Tribal Cultural Resources. In the unlikely event that archaeological resources are unexpectedly encountered during ground-disturbing activities, work in the immediate area should be halted and an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for archeology (National Applicant or designee/ Construction contractor During construction CPA Planning Department Item 2 Attachment C-Draft Conditions of Approval Packet Pg. 51 City of Palo Alto ⬧ Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program P a g e | 3 Mitigation Measure Number Mitigation Measure Text Responsible for Implementation Timing of Compliance Oversight of Implementation Park Service 1983) should be contacted immediately to evaluate the find. If the find is Native American in origin, then a Native American representative should also be contacted to participate in the evaluation of the find. The qualified archaeologist, and, if applicable, the Native American representative, shall examine the find and make appropriate recommendations regarding additional work necessary to evaluate the significance of the find and the appropriate treatment of the resource. All cultural resources identified shall be evaluated for CRHR eligibility and local listing. Additional work may be necessary to evaluate the resource for inclusion in the CRHR or local listing. Recommendations could include, but are not limited to, invasive or non-invasive testing, sampling, laboratory analysis, preservation in place, or data recovery. A report of findings documenting any data recovered during monitoring shall be prepared by a qualified archaeologist and submitted to the Director of Planning. If the discovery is determined to be Native American in nature locally affiliated Native American tribes shall be invited to consult regarding the appropriate treatment of any Native American resources identified during project construction, including but not limited to a representative from Tamien Nation. CR-2: Human Remains Recovery Procedures If human remains are unearthed, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to the origin and disposition pursuant to the Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. If the remains are determined to be of Native American descent, the coroner has 24 hours to notify the Native American Heritage Commission. Applicant or designee/ Construction contractor During construction CPA Planning Department GEOLOGY AND SOILS GEO-1: Unanticipated Discovery of Paleontological Resources Prior to the start of construction, a Qualified Professional Paleontologist (as defined by SVP [2010]) or their designee shall conduct a paleontological Worker Environmental Awareness Program training for construction personnel regarding the appearance of fossils and the procedures for notifying paleontological staff should fossils be discovered by construction staff. In the event a fossil is discovered during construction of the project, excavation within 50 feet of the find shall be temporarily halted or delayed until the discovery is examined by a Qualified Professional Paleontologist. The project applicant shall include a standard inadvertent discovery clause in every construction contract to inform contractors of this requirement. If the find is determined to be significant, the applicant shall retain a Qualified Professional Paleontologist to direct all mitigation measures related to Applicant or designee Prior to construction and during construction CPA Planning Department Item 2 Attachment C-Draft Conditions of Approval Packet Pg. 52 City of Palo Alto ⬧ Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program P a g e | 4 Mitigation Measure Number Mitigation Measure Text Responsible for Implementation Timing of Compliance Oversight of Implementation paleontological resources. The Qualified Professional Paleontologist shall design and carry out a data recovery plan consistent with the SVP (2010) standards. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS HAZ-1: SCCDEH Regulatory Agency Submittal. The project applicant shall continue to utilize Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health (SCCDEH) Case #2018-14s for agency oversight of assessment and remediation of the project site through completion of building demolition, subsurface demolition, and construction. Prior to commencement of demolition and construction/grading activities at the project site, the project applicant shall submit the following documents to the SCCDEH project manager of the open Cleanup Program Site case: Current development plan and any modifications to the development plan All environmental documents completed for the project Following demolition and construction grading activities, all future environmental documents completed for the project Subsurface soil, soil vapor, groundwater investigations, and/or other remediation reports, if required by SCCDEH after submittal of above required documents, shall be conducted in accordance with a sampling plan that shall be reviewed and approved by SCCDEH. SCCDEH may require approval of the final Site Management Plan (SMP) required by Mitigation Measure HAZ-2, below, prior to issuance of any required building or grading permits. The project applicant shall comply with SCCDEH requirements, conduct further investigations as required, and submit the results to SCCDEH. SCCDEH may determine that San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFBRWQCB) or Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) may be best suited to perform the cleanup oversight agency duties for the assessment and/or remediation of the Project. Should the cleanup oversight agency be transferred from SCCDEH to SFBRWQCB or DTSC, this and other mitigation measures will still apply. If groundwater wells or soil vapor monitoring probes are identified during demolition, subsurface demolition, or construction at the project site, they will be abandoned per Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) specifications. Abandonment activities will be documented in a letter report submitted to SCVWD within 60 days of the completion of abandonment activities. Applicant or designee Prior to issuance of grading permit CPA Planning Department Item 2 Attachment C-Draft Conditions of Approval Packet Pg. 53 City of Palo Alto ⬧ Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program P a g e | 5 Mitigation Measure Number Mitigation Measure Text Responsible for Implementation Timing of Compliance Oversight of Implementation The SCCDEH closure and oversight agency’s (SCCDEH, SFBRWQCB, or DTSC) approval documents shall be delivered to and reviewed by the project applicant. The project applicant shall furnish copies of the completed reports and approval documents, including the final SMP or equivalent document required by Mitigation Measure HAZ-2, to the City Planning Department prior to issuance of grading permits. HAZ-2: Site Management Plan As described in Mitigation Measure HAZ-1, prior to commencement of demolition and construction/grading activities at the project site, the project applicant shall retain a qualified environmental consultant (PG or PE) to prepare a SMP for the project site. Where groundwater impacts are identified during implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1, a groundwater management section shall be added to the SMP. The SMP shall address: 1. On-site handling and management of impacted soils or other impacted wastes (e.g., stained soil, and soil or groundwater with solvent or chemical odors) if such soils or impacted wastes are encountered, and 2. Specific actions to reduce hazards to construction workers and offsite receptors during the construction phase. The plan must establish remedial measures and soil management practices to ensure construction worker safety, the health of future workers and visitors, and the off-site migration of contaminants from the project. These measures and practices shall include, but are not limited to: Stockpile management including stormwater pollution prevention and the installation of best management practices (BMPs) Soil sampling procedures for imported fill material (in accordance with DTSC’s 2001 Information Advisory Clean Imported Fill Material) Proper disposal procedures of contaminated materials Investigation procedures for encountering known and unexpected odorous or visually stained soils, other indications of hydrocarbon piping or equipment, and/or debris during ground-disturbing activities Monitoring and reporting A health and safety plan for contractors working at the project site that addresses the safety and health hazards of each phase of site Applicant or designee Prior to issuance of grading permit CPA Planning Department Item 2 Attachment C-Draft Conditions of Approval Packet Pg. 54 City of Palo Alto ⬧ Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program P a g e | 6 Mitigation Measure Number Mitigation Measure Text Responsible for Implementation Timing of Compliance Oversight of Implementation construction activities with the requirements and procedures for employee protection The health and safety plan shall outline proper soil handling procedures and health and safety requirements to minimize worker and public exposure to hazardous materials during construction The project applicant shall implement the SMP during demolition, grading, and construction at the project site. SCCDEH shall review and approve the SMP prior to construction (demolition and grading) activities at the project site. The City shall review the SMP prior to issuance of grading permits. NOISE NOI-1: Construction Vibration For any activities within 25 feet of off-site sensitive receivers, static rollers, or similar alternative construction equipment that is demonstrated to have vibratory levels below the level of significance of 0.2 in/sec PPV shall be used in lieu of vibratory rollers. The applicant shall designate a disturbance coordinator who shall be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The noise disturbance coordinator shall determine the cause of the noise complaint and shall require that reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem. A telephone number for the disturbance coordinator shall be conspicuously posted at the construction site. Applicant or designee/ Construction contractor During construction CPA Planning Department Item 2 Attachment C-Draft Conditions of Approval Packet Pg. 55 ATTACHMENT D ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 3001 El Camino Real, 22PLN-00229 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.16 (CS DISTRICT) Mixed Use and Residential Development Standards Regulation Required State Density Bonus Proposed Minimum Site Area, width and depth None 49,864 sf (No Change) Minimum Front Yard (Olive Avenue) 0-10 feet to create an 8-12 foot effective sidewalk width (1), (2), (7) 5-foot building setback; 8 ft effective sidewalk width (curb to back of sidewalk) Rear Yard (Acacia Street)10 feet for residential; none for commercial Concession #3 5 feet Interior Side Yard None 10 feet (second floor) 40 feet, 9 inches (floors 3-5) Street Side Yard (El Camino Real) None except that a 12-foot effective sidewalk width is required on El Camino Real 5 feet at ground level to create a 12-foot effective sidewalk width; balconies above extent to property line Min. yard for lot lines abutting or opposite residential districts or residential PC districts 10 feet (2)10 feet Build-to-lines 50% of frontage built to setback 33% of the side street built to setback (1) 100% on Olive and Acacia 78% on El Camino Real Max. Site Coverage 50%Concession #2 74% Minimum Landscape/Open Space Coverage 30% (14,959 sf)53% (26,509 sf) Usable Open Space (Private and/or Common) 150 sq ft per unit (2) (19,350 sf) Concession #4 100 sf per unit (12,307 sf [does not count second floor open areas]) Max. Building Height 50 feet or 35 ft within 150 ft. of a residential district (other than an RM-40 or PC zone) (5) California Government Code (§65915[f][3][d][ii]) allows 33 feet taller than local code = 68 feet within 150 feet of R-1 zoning and 83 feet beyond. 66 feet, 3 inches to top of each stairwell. Majority of building is 60 feet Item 2 Attachment D-Zoning Consistency Analysis Packet Pg. 56 Daylight Plane for lot lines abutting one or more residential zone districts other than an RM-40 or PC Zone 10 feet at property line; 45-degree angle along interior side yard property line abutting R-1 Complies Residential Density Sites on El Camino Real have no maximum(3) Proposed density is 113 DU/AC Max. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 0.6:1 residential (29,918 sf) Concession #1 2.74: 1 (136,945) Minimum Mixed-use Ground Floor Commercial FAR 1,500 sf of retail(6)(10)Not Applicable, exclusive residential uses allowed on Housing Inventory Sites (1) Twenty-five-foot driveway access permitted regardless of frontage; the build-to requirement does not apply to the CC district. (2) Required usable open space: (1) may be any combination of private and common open spaces; (2) does not need to be located on the ground (but rooftop gardens are not included as open space except as provided below); (3) minimum private open space dimension six feet; and (4) minimum common open space dimension twelve feet. For CN and CS sites on El Camino Real and CC(2) sites that do not abut a single- or two-family residential use or zoning district, rooftop gardens may qualify as usable open space and may count as up to 60% of the required usable open space for the residential component of a project. In order to qualify as usable open space, the rooftop garden shall meet the requirements set forth in Section 18.40.230. (3) Residential density shall be computed based on the total site area, irrespective of the percent of the site devoted to commercial use. (4) For CN sites on El Camino Real, height may increase to a maximum of 40 feet, and the FAR may increase to a maximum of 1.0:1 (0.5:1 for nonresidential, 0.5:1 for residential). (5) Distance shall be measured from the property line of the subject site. 150-foot measurement may be reduced to 50 feet at minimum, subject to approval by the Planning Director, upon recommendation by the Architectural Review Board pursuant to criteria set forth in Chapter 18.76. (6) Ground floor commercial uses generally include retail, personal services, hotels, and eating and drinking establishments. Office uses may be included only to the extent they are permitted in ground floor regulations. (7) A 12-foot sidewalk width is required along El Camino Real frontage. (8) In the CC(2) zone and on CN and CS zoned sites on El Camino Real, there shall be no minimum mixed-use ground floor commercial FAR for a residential project, except to the extent that the retail preservation requirements of Section 18.40.180 or the retail shopping (R) combining district (Chapter 18.30(A)) applies. (9) Residential densities up to 20 units/acre are allowed on CN zoned housing inventory sites identified in the Housing Element. Other CN zoned sites not located on El Camino Real are subject to a maximum residential density of up to 15 units/acre. (10) In the CC(2) zone and on CN and CS zoned sites on El Camino Real, there shall be no minimum mixed use ground floor commercial FAR for a residential project, except to the extent that the retail preservation requirements of Section 18.40.180 or the retail shopping (R) combining district (Chapter 18.30(A)) applies. Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) for Residential Uses Regulation Required State Density Bonus Proposed Vehicle Parking PAMC: 194 spaces under CS zoning; 97 spaces with AH combining district Per California Government Code 65915(p)(3): None required 103 spaces Bicycle Parking 1 long-term space per unit; 1 short-term space per 10 units = 129 long-term; 13 short term 138 long-term spaces; 14 short-term spaces Loading Space None required None Item 2 Attachment D-Zoning Consistency Analysis Packet Pg. 57 Attachment E Performance Criteria 18.23 3001 El Camino Real Avenue 22PLN-00229 These performance criteria are intended to provide additional standards to be used in the design and evaluation of developments in the multi-family, commercial, and industrial zones. The purpose is to balance the needs of the uses within these zones with the need to minimize impacts on surrounding neighborhoods and businesses. The criteria are intended to make new developments and major architectural review projects compatible with nearby residential and business areas and to enhance the desirability of the proposed developments for the site residents and users, and abutting neighbors and businesses. Assure that development provides adequate and accessible interior areas or exterior enclosures for the storage of trash and recyclable materials in appropriate containers, and that trash disposal and recycling areas are located as far from abutting residences as is reasonably possible. The project includes a trash enclosure within the building. The facilities are fully enclosed and not in clear sight of any public right-of- way or neighbors. To minimize the visual impacts of lighting on abutting or nearby residential sites and from adjacent roadways. The proposed exterior lighting is sufficient to provide safe circulation and is directed downward to reduce glare and impacts to neighboring uses. The purpose is to restrict retail or service commercial businesses abutting (either directly or across the street) or within 50 feet of residentially zoned properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones, with operations or activities between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. Operations subject to this code may include, but are not limited to, deliveries, parking lot and sidewalk cleaning, and/or clean up or set up operations, but does not include garbage pick-up. The project does not include any commercial uses. Privacy of abutting residential properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones (residential properties) should be protected by screening from public view all mechanical equipment and service areas. Landscaping should be used to integrate a project design into the surrounding neighborhood, and to provide privacy screening between properties where appropriate. The project is adjacent to residential uses and provides landscape screening at the ground and upper levels between the project and the adjacent single-family residential use. 18.23.020 Trash Disposal and Recycling Project Consistency 18.23.030 Lighting 18.23.040 Late Night Uses and Activities 18.23.050 Visual, Screening and Landscaping Item 2 Attachment E- Performance Criteria Packet Pg. 58 The requirements and guidelines regarding noise and vibration impacts are intended to protect residentially zoned properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones (residential properties) from excessive and unnecessary noises and/or vibrations from any sources in abutting industrial or commercially zoned properties. Design of new projects should reduce noise from parking, loading, and refuse storage areas and from heating, ventilation, air conditioning apparatus, and other machinery on nearby residential properties. New equipment, whether mounted on the exterior of the building or located interior to a building, which requires only a building permit, shall also be subject to these requirements. The parking is located within a parking garage on the ground level. Access to the garage is set back substantially from the adjacent residential use. HVAC will be located on the rooftop over 50 feet from the adjacent residential uses and therefore is not anticipated to impact nearby uses. The project shall comply with PAMC 9.12; no amplified noise sources would be allowed in the open space areas of the site. The visual impact of parking shall be minimized on adjacent residentially zoned properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones. The project’s parking is located on the ground floor within an interior parking garage and therefore complies with this requirement. The guidelines regarding site access impacts are intended to minimize conflicts between residential vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle users and more intensive traffic associated with commercial and industrial districts, and to facilitate pedestrian and bicycle connections through and adjacent to the project site. The site circulation facilitates easy access for all modes of transportation. The project includes short-term and long-term bike parking. The project moves the existing curb cut for vehicular access along Olive further away from the existing single- family residential use. The requirements for air quality are intended to buffer residential uses from potential sources of odor and/or toxic air contaminants. No proposed uses on the project site would produce odor or toxic air. Future uses are required to comply with these performance standards. In accordance with Titles 15 and 17 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, minimize the potential hazards of any use on a development site that will entail the storage, use, or handling of hazardous materials (including hazardous wastes) on-site in excess of the exempt quantities prescribed in Health and Safety Code Division 20, Chapter 6.95, and Title 15 of this code. This is not applicable to the proposed residential use. 18.23.060 Noise and Vibration Project Consistency 18.23.070 Parking 18.23.080 Vehicular, Pedestrian and Bicycle Site Access 18.23.090 Air Quality 18.23.100 Hazardous Materials Item 2 Attachment E- Performance Criteria Packet Pg. 59 Attachment F South El Camino Real Design Guidelines Address/File #: 3001 El Camino Real [22PLN-00229] This checklist provides a summary of the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines in conjunction with the 1979 Council-adopted El Camino Real Design Guidelines, and the proposed project's consistency. Guiding Principles Proposed Project 1 Within a pedestrian node (California Av., Barron-Ventura, or Triangle at El Camino Way) The project is not located within a pedestrian node. The project is located within the Cal-Ventura corridor. 2 A 12' sidewalk (curb face to building) with trees, planters, and seating The project provides a 12’ sidewalk from the curb to the back of the sidewalk/building along El Camino Real and 8’ between the curb and back of the sidewalk on Olive Avenue (front of the parcel). Mature trees are preserved, and improvement such as windows with views in and a courtyard area with seating and landscaping is proposed. 3 Built with the front wall (building face) located at the back of the sidewalk The project complies 4 Outdoor seating and dining, where appropriate The project does not include any commercial uses but includes seating within the courtyard along El Camino Real. 5 A minimum height of 25 feet (2 and 3-story building) to reinforce the street's importance The project is 5 stories along El Camino Real and reinforces the street’s importance. 6 An entry or entries facing El Camino Real, so the building is oriented to the street The building is oriented toward El Camino Real 7 On a street comer, incorporate special features to highlight building The proposed project, with the revisions, highlights the building and provides and appropriate presence along El Camino Real and at prominent corners at Acacia/El Camino Real and Olive/El Camino Real through variations in height and materials. 8 Facades that animate the street: doors and windows, arcades, awnings, balconies, stairs The project includes doors and windows, as well as balconies, to animate the street along El Camino Real 9 Flat roofs and parapets to create a cohesive streetscape The project includes flat roofs to create a cohesive streetscape 10 Facades that have clearly expressed bases, bodies, and roofs or parapets The project provides differences in materials to differentiate between the base and middle. Improvements could be made to better define the middle and top; however this requirement is not objective. Item 2 Attachment F-South El camino real design guidelines Packet Pg. 60 11 Scale and presence proportional to the scale and importance of El Camino Real The project has a scale and presence that is proportional to El Camino Real 12 Adjacent to a residential neighborhood, variations in scale, articulation, setbacks The project includes substantial setbacks for upper floors from the adjacent residential uses and utilizes second floor open space to reduce massing adjacent lower density uses. Recessed areas help to break up the long façade along El Camino Real and the interior side lot line paralleling El Camino. Site Planning and Landscape Design Concepts Node Area projects: 15 At least 75% of the building face is at ECR setback line/build-to-line 16 On a comer, the building occupies 50% of side street frontage The project is not located within a node. Corridor Area projects (Cal Ventura, Hotel Area): 18 At least 50% of the building face is at ECR setback line/build-to-line 19 On a comer, the building occupies 33% of side street frontage The project is within the Cal Ventura Corridor and complies with these build-to lines. Increased setbacks: (more than the build-to-line) 21 An increased setback that does not exceed 20 feet of the property frontage length The project does not include an increased setback. 22 Public amenities (wider sidewalk, outdoor seating or dining)The project includes outdoor seating in a recessed courtyard along the frontage and wider sidewalks along El Camino Real. Curb cuts and parking lots 24 A minimized curb cut width The project has a single curb cut along a side street. The curb cut is the minimal width necessary to provide ingress/egress. 25 An extension of sidewalk material and width across driveways The sidewalk extends across the driveway access. 26 Sharing driveway with adjoining property The driveway is not shared but this would not be appropriate given the adjacent single-family residential use. 27 Using alley access or side street access to parking lot The project provides side street access on Olive Avenue, consistent with the existing access to the site but further from the existing single-family residential use. 28 Parking lot no more than 50% of ECR frontage, no more than 120' None of the parking is provided along the frontage. Usable Open Space Amenities 30 Attractive and functional plazas, seating, and activity areas are located at the entrances The project includes recessed plaza/courtyard areas on the ground floor Item 2 Attachment F-South El camino real design guidelines Packet Pg. 61 along El Camino Real and to set back the building and add greenery near the single- family residential uses. Additional common open space is provided along the interior side yard lot line. Open space areas include play areas for children, landscaping, seating, etc. 31 Seating, tables, canopies and covered trellises The project does not include canopies or covered trellises in the open space areas but does provide overhangs on the ground floor and outdoor benches and landscaping in courtyards, including along El Camino Real at the entrance to the building 32 Careful treatment of property edges and spaces between buildings The project includes landscaping/open space between Landscape and Hardscape 33 Extensive planting and the use of other landscape amenities to create “outdoor rooms” The project includes landscaped areas, including useable common open space, on the ground floor and second-floor levels. Landscaping is used to screen outdoor areas from adjacent uses to maintain privacy. Site Lighting 34 Emphasize pedestrian path and safety, minimize glare The project provides lighting that is designed to provide safe circulation while reducing glare and any overspill. 35 Use a variety of fixtures that are integrated into building/landscape design The lighting is integrated into the building and landscape. Alleys 37 Windows and doors oriented toward alley 38 Service facilities screened with enclosures 39 Durable, attractive garage doors, entry doors, windows 40 Lighting directed to not impact adjacent properties Not applicable (no alley proposed) Building Design Concepts 42 An articulated base, body, and roof/parapet The materials create a natural base and middle but further improvements could be made to better differentiate between the middle and top. 43 Expressed structural bays The project includes a courtyard on the ground floor along the El Camino Real frontage. 44 Facades parallel to the right of ways The facades parallel the right-of-way 45 Exceptions to front or side daylight plane requirements No exceptions are requested. The daylight plane requirements apply to the interior side yard property line (paralleling El Item 2 Attachment F-South El camino real design guidelines Packet Pg. 62 Camino Real). The project complies with the requirement by setting the upper floors back from the single-family residential uses. 46 Design consistency on all facades The project is properly designed on all four facades. 47 An articulated facade rather than a merely decorative or false front The project includes courtyards on both the frontage along El Camino Real and the interior side yard paralleling El Camino Real to break up the building. Material changes, changes in elevation, and balconies provide further articulation of the façade on all four sides. 48 ADA features as an integral part of building design The project is ADA-compliant and ADA- compliant features are incorporated into the building design. 49 Recessed entry arcades The project includes a recessed courtyard at the entry of the building to provide a gathering space and to break up the frontage along El Camino Real. Awnings 51 Spaces to gather or retreat The first floor of the building is set back on all streets, providing an overhang for shelter from the elements and allowing for wider sidewalks and landscaping while still enforcing the frontage 52 Habitable space in front of parking The project includes more active uses, such as a gym, leasing office, and bicycle parking along the frontage, and sets the parking toward the rear, away from El Camino Real. Windows 54 Inset or trim on windows The project insets the windows from the stucco providing the appearance of a window trim . Improvements could be considered to provide more of a trim to the windows to provide depth and articulation in accordance with the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines. 55 Display windows The project does not include commercial uses. Therefore, display windows are not provided. 56 Transparent doors and windows along at least 75% of ground floor ECR facades Windows on the ground floor are transparent 57 Transparent windows along at least 50% of upper-level ECR facades Windows on the upper floors of the façade, as well as most of the ground floor are transparent Item 2 Attachment F-South El camino real design guidelines Packet Pg. 63 Rooflines 59 Prominent cornices and rooflines The roofline/top could be better differentiated from the middle to provide a more clear roofline. 60 A flat roof and/or a roof form reflecting facade articulation The project provides a flat roof 61 Parapet hides rooftop mechanical equipment The parapets hide rooftop mechanical equipment as shown in the line-of-sight diagrams Materials 63 Durable, high-quality materials to convey integrity, permanence and durability The project provides high quality materials and an appropriate mix of materials. The project utilizes concrete for portions of the project, a material that conveys durability and permanence and corten for highlighted features. 64 Materials integral to facade and structure, not arbitrarily applied The materials are integral to the façade and structure and are not arbitrarily applied. Signage 66 Sign colors are limited as set forth in the 1979 El Camino Real Design Guidelines 67 Sign area limited to 2/3 of the maximum sign area per PAMC (1979 ECRDG) 68 Integrated into building façade 69 Individually formed letters (no sign cabinets) 70 Window sign coverage no greater than 20% maximum 71 No new pole signs 72 Monument signage only when no feasibility for wall signs on the building 73 Wall wash lighting or halo lighting ("reverse pan channel letters")/backlighting of signs 74 Colors that coordinate with building colors (no florescent or very bright colors) The project does not include any proposed signage at this time. Therefore, these sign guidelines are not relevant to the proposed project. Item 2 Attachment F-South El camino real design guidelines Packet Pg. 64 BUMPBUMP BUMP BUMP Figure Title Figure 1 BUMP BUMP BUMP BUMP Figure Title Figure 1 BUMP BUMP BUMP BUMP Figure Title Figure 1 Ol i v e A v e Or e g o n E x p y Pe p p e r A v Ac a c i a A v e Po r t a g e A v e Ha n s e n W a y Pa g e M i l l R d W El Camino RealW El Camino Real W El Camino RealW El Camino Real AshStAshSt ·82 ·82 Short Weaving Distance 100 Alternative U-turn location with longer weaving distance Short Weaving Distance 100 Alternative U-turn location with longer weaving distance Acacia Ave Access: • Right in / right out only • Requires residents to make u-turns on El Camino Real • Weaving distance to Olive Ave u-turn is very short & push u-turns to Page Mill Rd • Residents could use Olive Ave to access Cal Ave businesses or by-pass Page Mill Rd / El Camino Real intersection Acacia Avenue Site Access Travel Patterns Figure 1a N:\Projects\_SJ23_Projects\SJ23_2218_3001_ECR_TDM\Graphics\ADOBE\3001_ECR_Site_Access_Figures.ai Project Site (3001 El Camino Real) 0 0.05 0.1 Miles Item 2 Attachment G- Applicants Response to Vehicular Access Packet Pg. 65 BUMP BUMP BUMP BUMP Figure Title Figure 1 To Ash St Access via Ash St & Olive AveTo Ash St Access via Ash St & Olive Ave Olive Ave Access: • Full access at El Camino Real –no u-turns required • Residents could travel to & from California Ave businesses w/o using El Camino Real • Residents could use Olive Ave & Ash St to avoid Page Mill Rd/El Camino Real intersection • Residents could use Ash St & Olive Ave to access site & avoid unprotected le -turn on El Camino Real Ol i v e A v e Or e g o n E x p y Pe p p e r A v Ac a c i a A v e Po r t a g e A v e Ha n s e n W a y Pa g e M i l l R d W El Camino RealW El Camino Real W El Camino RealW El Camino Real AshStAshSt 0 0.05 0.1 Miles Olive Avenue Site Access Travel Patterns Figure 1b N:\Projects\_SJ23_Projects\SJ23_2218_3001_ECR_TDM\Graphics\ADOBE\3001_ECR_Site_Access_Figures.ai Project Site (3001 El Camino Real) Item 2 Attachment G- Applicants Response to Vehicular Access Packet Pg. 66 Palo Alto Fire Station 2 (Mayfield) Sta n f o r d A v e Alma St Alma St Pag e M i l l R d Park Blvd Birch St W El Camino Real S C a l i f o r n i a A v e W El Camino Real Hanover St Loma Verde Ave Han s e n W a y Oliv e A v e Por t a g e A v e Lam b e r t A v e ·82 ·82 ·82 Palo AltoSquare Community Sports Fields Stanford University California AveCaltrain Station Ca l i f o r n i a A v e B u s i n e s s D i s t r i c t High Activity Areas Near Project Site Project Site (3001 El Camino Real) Figure 2 0 0.1 0.2 Miles High Activity Areas Near Project Site Figure 2 N:\Projects\_SJ23_Projects\SJ23_2218_3001_ECR_TDM\Graphics\ADOBE\3001_ECR_Site_Access_Figures.ai Project Site (3001 El Camino Real) Item 2 Attachment G- Applicants Response to Vehicular Access Packet Pg. 67 3001 El Camino Real Affordable Housing Project Responses to Comments on the Draft Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration SCH# 2023020309 prepared by City of Palo Alto Planning and Community Environment Department 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94301 Contact: Claire Raybould, AICP, Senior Planner prepared with the assistance of Rincon Consultants, Inc. 449 15th Street, Suite 303 Oakland, California 94612 April 2023 Item 2 Attachment H-Responses to Comments on the Draft IS-MND Packet Pg. 68 3001 El Camino Real Affordable Housing Project Responses to Comments on the Draft Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration SCH# 2023020309 prepared by City of Palo Alto Planning and Community Environment Department 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94301 Contact: Claire Raybould, AICP, Senior Planner prepared with the assistance of Rincon Consultants, Inc. 449 15th Street, Suite 303 Oakland, California 94612 April 2023 Item 2 Attachment H-Responses to Comments on the Draft IS-MND Packet Pg. 69 Table of Contents Responses to Comments on the Draft IS-MND i Table of Contents 1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................1 1.1 Purpose of the Response to Comments on the Draft IS-MND ...........................................1 1.2 Environmental Review Process ...........................................................................................1 1.3 Document Organization ......................................................................................................1 2 Comments and Responses ..............................................................................................................2 3 Public Hearing Comments and Responses ...................................................................................13 3.1 Architectural Review Board Hearing – March 2, 2023 ......................................................13 4 Revisions to the Draft IS-MND ......................................................................................................14 Item 2 Attachment H-Responses to Comments on the Draft IS-MND Packet Pg. 70 City of Palo Alto 3001 El Camino Real Affordable Housing Project ii This page intentionally left blank. Item 2 Attachment H-Responses to Comments on the Draft IS-MND Packet Pg. 71 City of Palo Alto 3001 El Camino Real Affordable Housing Project Responses to Comments on the Draft IS-MND 1 Introduction 1.1 Purpose of the Response to Comments on the Draft IS-MND This document contains responses to comments received on the Draft Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration (Draft IS-MND) prepared for the proposed 3001 El Camino Real Affordable Housing (proposed project). The Draft IS-MND identifies the likely environmental consequences associated with development of the proposed project and recommends mitigation measures to reduce potentially significant impacts. This document, together with the Draft IS-MND, constitutes the Final IS-MND for the proposed project. 1.2 Environmental Review Process Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), lead agencies are required to consult with public agencies having jurisdiction over a proposed project and to provide the general public with an opportunity to comment on the Draft IS-MND. The Draft IS-MND and Notice of Intent to Adopt (NOI) were circulated for a 30-day public review period that began on February 13, 2023 and ended on March 15, 2023. The NOI was posted with the County Clerk, sent to the State Clearinghouse, mailed to State and local agencies, published in the local newspaper (the Post), and mailed to nearby addresses. The City of Palo Alto received three comment letters on the Draft IS-MND. Copies of written comments received during the comment period are included in Chapter 2 of this document. 1.3 Document Organization This document consists of the following chapters: Chapter 1: Introduction. This chapter discusses the purpose and organization of this response to comments document and summarizes the environmental review process for the project. Chapter 2: Written Comments and Responses. This chapter contains reproductions of all comment letters received on the Draft IS-MND. A written response for each CEQA-related written comment received during the public review period is provided. Each response is keyed to the corresponding comment. Chapter 3: Public Hearing Comments and Responses. This chapter contains a summary of comments raised during the public hearing held on the Draft IS-MND (Architectural Review Board Hearing on March 2, 2023). A written response to CEQA-related comments received at the hearings is provided. Chapter 4: Revisions to the Draft IS-MND. Changes to the Draft IS-MND that have been made in response to the comments received or to otherwise provide clarity are contained in this chapter. 1 Item 2 Attachment H-Responses to Comments on the Draft IS-MND Packet Pg. 72 City of Palo Alto 3001 El Camino Real Affordable Housing Project Responses to Comments on the Draft IS-MND 2 Comments and Responses This chapter includes written comments received during the circulation of the Draft IS-MND prepared for the 3001 El Camino Real Affordable Housing Project, and responses to those comments. The Draft IS-MND was circulated for a public review period that began on February 13, 2023 and ended on March 15, 2023. The City of Palo Alto received three comment letters on the Draft IS- MND. The commenters and the page number on which each commenter’s letter appear are listed below. Letter No. and Commenter Page No. 1 Sandra Lockhart 3 2 Travis L. Flora, Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health 9 3 Lola Torney, Transportation Planner III, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 11 The comment letters and responses follow. The comment letters have been numbered sequentially and each separate issue raised by the commenter, if more than one, has been assigned a number. The responses to each comment identify first the number of the comment letter, and then the number assigned to each issue (Response 1.1, for example, indicates that the response is for the first issue raised in comment Letter 1). During the Draft IS-MND review period, the City solicited written public and agency comments on the Draft IS-MND pursuant to CEQA as well as verbal comments at the Architectural Review Board public hearing on March 2, 2023. Responses to environmental issues raised at these hearings are included in Chapter 3 following the written comments and responses. In some cases, specific changes to the text of the Draft IS-MND have been made in response to comments received. In no case do these revisions result in a greater number of impacts or impacts of a substantially greater severity than those set forth in the Draft IS-MND. Where revisions to the main text are called for, the page and paragraph are set forth, followed by the appropriate revision. Added text is indicated with underlined and deleted text is indicated with strikeout. Page numbers correspond to the page numbers of the Draft IS-MND. 2 Item 2 Attachment H-Responses to Comments on the Draft IS-MND Packet Pg. 73 2/26/23 Notes - for/from Mitigated Negative Declaration TO: Claire Raybould Public hearing March 2 at the Architectual Review Board, 8:30 am, Grnd Floor oc City Center Submit written comments before Mar 15 5:00 pm Mail to Claire Raybould 250 Hamilton Ave 5th Floor, Palo Alto, 94301 Initial Study 6. Comprehensive Plan Designation: The zoned area is Service Commercial. This zoning served Palo Alto for many many years. Then the businesses were slowly forced out. Now we need to go to Mountain View or Redwood City to accomplish what these businesses provided. Putting in multiple family housing increases the number of people into this area without businesses to support those people and to say that service commercial is not appropriate is not fair. It’s time to think outside the box. As it stands, where, then, is pedestrian oriented shopping areas? Why doesn’t this project provide some of that for the 400 people who will be living there? This project is introducing too many people to our R-1 zoned neighborhood. The density is 113 units per acre. None of the projects shown to us on paper, by this developer, comes close to that density. I also see a huge play area and a community room (Metropolitan Apartments) adjacent to the play area. The Metropolitan Apts has a density of 36 units per acre while 3001 El Camino has 129 proposed units on acreage of 1.14 with an insufficient amount of outdoor space for children. . Comment: Too many people in this limited space. No service infrastructure such as a deli, a little grocery store, coffee shop, small restaurant, a boutique. The plan is to get rid of what is nearby now with even more multi family development. There is NONE of this (service infrastructure) in the plan. Too many people, not enough services commercial to help those people live in place. No common sense. Increased height – this allows for more people and less services. No. 8 The project involves a Density Bonus; under the State’s density bonus program it “provides” for reduced parking. Olive Ave is intended for over flow parking from the provided parking on the building site. This is a major disaster for Olive Ave. We are already providing parking for the business at the foot of Olive Ave. It is not every day but when everybody is onsite at that building – we counted 98 cars one day, they are parking on Olive. Suggestion: Assign a color code to Olive and Pepper, not to include El Camino, for permit parking. El Camino can have its own color code. Figure 5: Set back of 5’ is pathetic and a safety hazard at the corner of Olive and El Camino. This is not enough open space to see on-coming traffic on El Camino traveling north when coming out of Olive now. The proposed building is squared off on that corner. This is not an improvement. This is a dangerous situation. An open court would greatly improve the visibility and bring a pleasant ambiance to the building. Common open space at s/w of site. This is a poor amount of space for the number of children likely to be living in this building (by their count it is 69). Once again this project is depending on sources outside their building site to accommodate its needs. I am told there will be a second floor community Comment Letter 1 1 2 3 4 5 3 Item 2 Attachment H-Responses to Comments on the Draft IS-MND Packet Pg. 74 space. This is not fair to the children to take over the adult space for their play needs. Where now is the adult community seating space being relegated to. If Charities Housing cut back on the density of this building then some service commercial, more child appropriate spaces, more parking within their own building, and a set back to make a more safe crossing of El Camino Real at Olive could be done. But for the sake of numbers, the State and this developer are willing to sacrifice safety, good health in the instance of the children, and inconvenience to neighbors. This doesn’t make good sense. I have commented on the possibility of the ingress/egress being on Acacia Street rather than Olive Avenue. I have also commented on cars coming out of Acacia St. turning right, going 100 feet to the left turn lane (already there) then making a U-turn at Olive or at the light at Page Mill will accomplish going in a southerly direction. We on Olive Avenue wish to slow down and eliminate additional traffic using Olive Ave as a commuter cut off to Page Mill Rd. How to do this? Possibilities are: 1) Turn the building 180 degrees. 2) Put a barrier across half the street between 461 Olive and project building to deter traffic going in an easterly on Olive (and not to block the driveway at Verizon on the other side of the street). 3) Make Ash St. a one-way street going from Page Mill Rd to Olive Ave. We on the south side of Olive Ave want to emphasize that ground water run off is properly drained into culverts. We were heavily impacted when the parking lot in back of Fry’s was constructed and on the next heavy rain we were all flooded in our back yards. This drainage cannot be taken lightly and must be engineered properly. Very sincerely, Sandra Lockhart Peter Lockhart 405 Olive Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94306 salockhart405@Yahoo.com 5, cont 6 7 8 4 Item 2 Attachment H-Responses to Comments on the Draft IS-MND Packet Pg. 75 City of Palo Alto 3001 El Camino Real Affordable Housing Project Responses to Comments on the Draft IS-MND Letter 1 COMMENTER: Sandra Lockhart DATE: February 26, 2023 Response 1.1 The commenter states that the project site is zoned Service Commercial and suggests that there is a lack of businesses in the area. The commenter states an opinion that the project is not appropriate for the Service Commercial zone and that the project should provide pedestrian-oriented shopping for the 400 new residents. These comments do not refer to or pertain to the analysis or conclusions of the Draft IS-MND. As discussed in Section 11, Land Use and Planning, of the IS-MND, pursuant to PAMC Chapter 18.16, multi-family residential use is a permitted land use in the Service Commercial district and the project is consistent with requirements of the Service Commercial district. Additionally, since the project site is located in close proximity to a transit center (California Avenue Caltrain Station), multi-family housing, particularly higher density housing, is allowed and encouraged in this location under the Service Commercial Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation. El Camino Real is a commercial corridor with a mix of uses including residential, retail, commercial, and office uses, and future residents would be able to utilize these services and businesses. Although the commenter’s opinions regarding land uses at the site are noted, no changes to the IS-MND are required as a result of this comment. Response 1.2 The commenter states an opinion that the project would introduce too many people to the R-1 zoned neighborhood and that the density of the proposed project is much higher than other projects. The commenter suggests that there is insufficient play space for children, that there are not enough services or business for current residents, and that the requested height increase would allow for too many people in the area with not enough service infrastructure. These comments do not refer to or pertain to the analysis or conclusions of the Draft IS-MND. The proposed project site is located in the Service Commercial zone where multi-family residential development is permitted. Since the proposed project would include 100 percent affordable housing to very-low-income households, the project is eligible for four incentives and concessions. Specifically, the project applicant is requesting concessions for Floor Area Ratio (FAR), setbacks, site coverage and usable open space. The proposed project is also located in a Transit Priority Area, and therefore, separate from the concessions or waivers, the applicant is also eligible for a height increase of up to three additional stories, or 33 feet; unlimited density (Section 65915[f][3][d][ii]); and non-compliance with a minimum parking requirement (Section 65915[p][3]). Additionally, there is no density requirement for residential development along El Camino Real. As discussed in Section 15, Public Services, of the IS-MND, the proposed project would not require the need for construction or substantial alteration of fire or police protection facilities, schools, or other public facilities such as water, wastewater, or stormwater facilities. In addition, as discussed in Section 16, Recreation, of the IS-MND, current parks and recreational facilities would be able to accommodate the increase in residents from the proposed project. Therefore, impacts to public services and recreation would be less than significant. No changes to the IS-MND are required as a result of this comment. 5 Item 2 Attachment H-Responses to Comments on the Draft IS-MND Packet Pg. 76 City of Palo Alto 3001 El Camino Real Affordable Housing Project Responses to Comments on the Draft IS-MND Response 1.3 The commenter expresses an opinion that there are not enough street parking spaces in the neighborhood, and that the proposed project would worsen street parking on Olive Avenue. The commenter recommends assigning a color code to Olive Avenue, Pepper Avenue, and El Camino Real for permit parking. These comments do not refer to or pertain to the analysis or conclusions of the Draft IS-MND. The proposed project would provide 103 parking spaces including five ADA compliant spaces. Although this is 26 spaces fewer than the required parking in accordance with the PAMC, as discussed in Section 11, Land Use and Planning, of the IS-MND, the proposed project is located within 0.5 miles of a major transit stop and therefore is not required to comply with a minimum parking requirement (Government Code Section 65915[p][3]). Additionally, parking supply and demand is not required to be analyzed under CEQA and is no longer listed in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G as a topic to be analyzed. No changes to the IS-MND are required as a result of this comment. Nevertheless, the municipal code sets forth a process for residents to initiate a residential preferential parking (RPP) district for their neighborhood. The process for forming an RPP District for a neighborhood through neighborhood petition is set forth in PAMC Section 10.50.050. The commenter may consider initiation of this process for the North Ventura neighborhood. Response 1.4 The commenter states an opinion that a setback of 5 feet at the corner of Olive Avenue and El Camino Real would be a safety hazard as there is not enough open space to see on-coming traffic on El Camino Real traveling north when existing Olive Avenue. These comments do not refer to the analysis or conclusions of the Draft IS-MND. As discussed in Section 11, Land Use and Planning, of the IS-MND, the proposed project is eligible for four incentives or concessions including modifications to setbacks. The applicant has requested a concession to allow for a reduced rear setback on Acacia Avenue from 10 feet to 5 feet on floors two through five, whereas the ground floor level would have an 8-foot setback. The ground floor of Olive Avenue would have a setback of 20 feet and El Camino Real would have an effective sidewalk width of 12 feet. Therefore, the project is set back much further than five feet from the property line at ground floor levels where line of site for vehicles, pedestrians, or bicyclists could otherwise be obstructed. It should also be noted that the existing on-site buildings have a smaller setback from the corner of Olive Avenue and El Camino Real compared to the proposed development; therefore, the project would improve the existing condition with respect to building setbacks as it relates to visibility to on-coming traffic traveling North on El Camino Real. Additionally, as discussed in Section 17, Transportation, of the IS-MND, the Transportation Analysis prepared by W-Trans found that sight distances along Olive Avenue at the project driveway would be adequate and would not increase hazards. According to the Transportation Analysis, the recommended sight distances for driveway approaches are based on stopping sight distance and use the approach travel speed as the basis for determining the recommended sight distance. Based on the posted speed limit of 25 miles per hour, the minimum stopping sight distance required is 150 feet. A review in the field shows that sight distances at the proposed project driveway on Olive Avenue exceed 150 feet and therefore are adequate. No changes to the IS-MND are required as a result of this comment. 6 Item 2 Attachment H-Responses to Comments on the Draft IS-MND Packet Pg. 77 City of Palo Alto 3001 El Camino Real Affordable Housing Project Responses to Comments on the Draft IS-MND Response 1.5 The commenter expresses an opinion that the project would not include enough open space to accommodate the number of children likely to be residing in the building. These comments do not refer to the analysis or conclusions of the Draft IS-MND. As discussed in Section 11, Land Use and Planning, of the IS-MND, the proposed project is eligible for four incentives or concessions, including a reduction in usable open space. The applicant has requested a concession to allow for a change in the location of open space to allow for some of the common usable open space to be provided on the second-floor podium. The project would include communal gathering spaces in the building recesses, including a courtyard at the front of the building and at the back of the building. The project would also include a second-floor open space area at the second floor near single family residential uses. Open space areas include play areas for children, landscaping, and seating. Usable open space, when including both the ground floor and the second floor open spaces areas, would exceed City requirements. No changes to the IS-MND are required as a result of this comment. Response 1.6 The commenter expresses an opinion that the proposed project should reduce building density, add more services and child appropriate spaces, as well as add more parking and a larger setback. These comments do not refer to the analysis or conclusions of the Draft IS-MND. Please refer to responses 1.2, 1.4, and 1.5. No changes to the IS-MND are required as a result of this comment. Response 1.7 The commenter recommends slowing down and eliminating additional traffic using Olive Avenue as a commuter cut off to Page Mill Road by turning the proposed building by 180 degrees (in order to provide vehicular access to the site from Acacia); putting a barrier across half the street between 461 Olive Avenue and the project building; and making Ash Street a one-way street going from Page Mill Road to Olive Avenue. The proposed project generates trips associated with the proposed use, some of which may turn right out of the site to head eastbound on Olive Avenue to access Oregon Expressway. Based on trip distribution patterns, the number of trips that were assumed to travel eastbound instead of northbound, southbound, or westbound from the project site did not trigger analysis of the Ash Street/Olive Avenue or Park Boulevard/Olive Avenue intersections for analysis of consistency with the City’s Local Transportation Analysis Policy. The Local Transportation Analysis (LTA) prepared by W-Trans is provided in Appendix A of the Draft IS-MND. These trips are not considered cut-through traffic. The project does not generate new cut-through traffic for commuters traveling from El Camino Real to Page Mill Road regardless of whether vehicular access is provided on Olive Avenue or Acacia Avenue. The comment is referring an existing condition. The City is currently proposing making Ash Street a one-way street going from Page Mill Road to Olive Avenue as part of the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP) in order to address this existing concern regarding cut- through traffic. The City further notes that in accordance with California Public Resources Code section 21099(b)(2) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, “a project’s effect on automobile delay shall not constitute a significant environmental impact.” Therefore, even though the project did not conflict with the City’s LTA policy, inconsistency with the City’s LTA Policy would not constitute an impact under 7 Item 2 Attachment H-Responses to Comments on the Draft IS-MND Packet Pg. 78 City of Palo Alto 3001 El Camino Real Affordable Housing Project Responses to Comments on the Draft IS-MND CEQA. Therefore, although the commenter’s opinions in this regard are noted, no changes to the IS- MND for the proposed project are required as a result of this comment. Response 1.8 The commenter expresses an opinion that drainage for the project must be engineered properly and that groundwater runoff is properly drained into culverts. As discussed in Section 10, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the IS-MND, the project site is largely paved, and the proposed development would not introduce new paved areas to the extent that the rate or amount of surface runoff would substantially increase. The project site is connected to an existing stormwater drainage system located in the City of Palo Alto Matadero Creek Watershed. Stormwater runoff in the project area is currently flowing directly to Matadero Creek and eventually to the San Francisco Bay. The amount and direction of runoff would not substantially change due to the proposed project. The existing site contains 47,218 square feet of impervious surfaces and the project would decrease total impervious surfaces to 41,321 square feet, thereby reducing the amount of stormwater runoff. Additionally, the proposed project would be required to comply with the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program’s C.3 requirements and would be designed to include three biotreatment ponds totaling 45,425 square feet, impervious rooftop space that directs runoff to the bio-swale, and impervious pavement draining to the bio-swale. Compliance with the municipal stormwater requirements would ensure that the project is engineered properly with respect to stormwater runoff. No changes to the IS-MND are required as a result of this comment. 8 Item 2 Attachment H-Responses to Comments on the Draft IS-MND Packet Pg. 79 From: Flora, Travis <travis.flora@deh.sccgov.org> Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 4:02 PM To: Raybould, Claire <Claire.Raybould@CityofPaloAlto.org> Subject: RE: Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration 3001 El Camino Real CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi Claire, I took a brief look at the IS/MND file, and on document p.84/pdf p.89, the last paragraph of HAZ-1 states, “The SCCDEH closure and approval documents shall be delivered to and reviewed by the project applicant. The project applicant shall furnish copies of the completed reports and approval documents to the City Planning Department prior to issuance of grading permits.” My comment is that this paragraph reads to me like a DEH case closure letter might be required to be submitted to the City prior to issuance of grading permits, which is unlikely to occur. That paragraph includes two separate statements, so maybe they aren’t necessarily related, but because they are back- to-back in the same paragraph, it could be interpreted that way. Regards, Travis L. Flora (408) 918-3486 NOTICE: This email message and/or its attachments may contain information that is confidential or restricted. It is intended only for the individuals named as recipients in the message. If you are NOT an authorized recipient, you are prohibited from using, delivering, distributing, printing, copying, or disclosing the message or content to others and must delete the message from your computer. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by return email. Please consider the environment before printing this email. Comment Letter 2 1 9 Item 2 Attachment H-Responses to Comments on the Draft IS-MND Packet Pg. 80 City of Palo Alto 3001 El Camino Real Affordable Housing Project Responses to Comments on the Draft IS-MND Letter 2 COMMENTER: Travis L. Flora, Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health DATE: February 14, 2023 Response 2.1 The commenter comments on Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 of the IS-MND (Page 84), and states that the following paragraph reads as if a DEH case closure letter might be required to be submitted to the City prior to issuance of grading permits. The commenter states that this is unlikely to occur. “The SCCDEH closure and approval documents shall be delivered to and reviewed by the project applicant. The project applicant shall furnish copies of the completed reports and approval documents to the City Planning Department prior to issuance of grading permits.” The commenter recommends revising the paragraph to reduce confusion regarding requiring a DEH case closure letter. In response to this comment, Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 has been revised. The revisions are listed in Chapter 4 of this document. 10 Item 2 Attachment H-Responses to Comments on the Draft IS-MND Packet Pg. 81 March 15, 2023 City of Palo Alto, 250 Hamilton Avenue, 5thFloor Palo Alto, CA 94301 Attn: Claire Raybould By Email: claire.raybould@cityofpaloalto.org Dear Claire, VTA appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the 3001 El Camino Real Affordable Housing Project. VTA has reviewed the document and has the following comments: Pedestrian Access VTA appreciates that the proposed building orientation faces El Camino Real towards where VTA offers bus service and is near our bus stops. The project should be amended to provide wider sidewalks along El Camino Real. The proposed five feet width is not sufficient given the level of pedestrian activity along El Camino Real, especially given the number of new units proposed for this project. Bicycle Access VTA applauds the addition of a substantial bicycle parking room on site. VTA recommends the access to the bike room be removed from public access and instead allow the room to be accessed through a more secure space such as the lobby. This will reduce the risk of theft. Thank you again for the opportunity to review this project. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 408-321-5830 or lola.torney@vta.org. Sincerely, Lola Torney Transportation Planner III PA1703 Comment Letter 3 1 2 11 Item 2 Attachment H-Responses to Comments on the Draft IS-MND Packet Pg. 82 City of Palo Alto 3001 El Camino Real Affordable Housing Project Responses to Comments on the Draft IS-MND Letter 3 COMMENTER: Lola Torney, Transportation Planner III, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority DATE: March 15, 2023 Response 3.1 The commenter recommends that wider sidewalks should be provided along El Camino Real, and suggests that the proposed five-foot width is not sufficient given the level of pedestrian activity along El Camino Real. The proposed project would provide a 12-foot effective sidewalk width in areas without planter strips. In areas where existing street planting is retained to improve the pedestrian experience, 7 feet, 6 inches of clear pedestrian access and 4 feet and 6 inches of planter strip width would be provided. This complies with the City’s required 12-foot effective sidewalk width requirements along El Camino Real. No changes to the IS-MND are required as a result of this comment. Response 3.2 The commenter recommends that access to the proposed bicycle parking room should be removed from public access in order to reduce the risk of theft, and instead the project should allow the bicycle parking room to be accessed through a more secure space such as the lobby. The location of the bicycle parking room has been changed from the corner of El Camino Real and Olive Avenue to exit out to the proposed entry courtyard. This would ensure higher security since the bicycle parking room would be removed from public access and the bicycle room access would be visible from the lobby. No changes to the IS-MND are required as a result of this comment. 12 Item 2 Attachment H-Responses to Comments on the Draft IS-MND Packet Pg. 83 City of Palo Alto 3001 El Camino Real Affordable Housing Project Responses to Comments on the Draft IS-MND 3 Public Hearing Comments and Responses Verbal comments received at the Architectural Review Board hearing on March 2, 2023, are summarized below. The comment summaries are derived from the minutes provided on this webpage: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Planning-Development- Services/Architectural-Review-Board-ARB/Current-ARB-Agendas-Minutes. 3.1 Architectural Review Board Hearing – March 2, 2023 Response PTC-1 Peter Baltay stated an opinion that Mitigation Measure BIO-1 is an unnecessary burden on the applicant and not a realistic concern; Mitigation Measure BIO-2 is already covered by the City’s Tree Protection Ordinance; and Mitigation Measure GEO-1 is an overreach and unnecessary. As discussed in Section 4, Biological Resources, of the IS-MND, the proposed project would remove seven trees on the property which may support nesting birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Therefore, Mitigation Measure BIO-1 is required to protect nesting birds. Although the proposed project would be required to comply with the City’s Tree Preservation and Management Ordinance, the Arborist Report prepared by David L. Babby on September 23, 2022 found that construction activities could result in injuries to trees including mechanical injuries to trunks, roots, and branches. The Arborist Report included recommendations in order to ensure the safety and protection of trees off-site, which are included as part of Mitigation Measure BIO-2 and would reduce impacts to trees to a less than significant level. As discussed in Section 7, Geology and Soils, of the IS-MND, Quaternary older alluvium late Pleistocene in age underlies the southern portion of the project site. Pleistocene alluvial sediments have produced significant paleontological resources throughout California, and therefore Quaternary older alluvium has high paleontological sensitivity. Excavation in areas mapped as Quaternary older alluvium could result in significant impacts to paleontological resources, therefore, Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would be required in order to provide for the recovery, identification, and curation of previously unrecovered fossils, which would ensure that potential impacts to paleontological resources are reduced to a less than significant level. Response PTC-2 Sandra Lockhart stated an opinion that the high density of the building does not keep with Palo Alto values and would change the whole look of Palo Alto. She also states that the future children residing in the buildings would not have enough play area. The commenter further asserts that the project would result in an unsafe traffic situation, and expresses her concern regarding flooding. Please refer to responses 1.1 through 1.8. 13 Item 2 Attachment H-Responses to Comments on the Draft IS-MND Packet Pg. 84 City of Palo Alto 3001 El Camino Real Affordable Housing Project Responses to Comments on the Draft IS-MND 4 Revisions to the Draft IS-MND Chapter 4 presents specific changes to the text of the Draft IS-MND that are being made in response to comments received or to make corrections. In no case do these revisions result in a greater number of impacts or impacts of a substantially greater severity than those set forth in the Draft IS- MND. Where revisions to the main text are called for, the page and paragraph are set forth, followed by the appropriate revision. Added text is indicated with underlined and deleted text is indicated with strikeout. Page numbers correspond to the page numbers of the Draft IS-MND. The following revision has been made to Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 on Page 84 in Section 9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the Draft IS-MND: HAZ-1 SCCDEH Regulatory Agency Submittal. The project applicant shall continue to utilize Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health (SCCDEH) Case #2018-14s for agency oversight of assessment and remediation of the project site through completion of building demolition, subsurface demolition, and construction. Prior to commencement of demolition and construction/grading activities at the project site, the project applicant shall submit the following documents to the SCCDEH project manager of the open Cleanup Program Site case: Current development plan and any modifications to the development plan All environmental documents completed for the project Following demolition and construction grading activities, all future environmental documents completed for the project Subsurface soil, soil vapor, groundwater investigations, and/or other remediation reports, if required by SCCDEH after submittal of above required documents, shall be conducted in accordance with a sampling plan that shall be reviewed and approved by SCCDEH. SCCDEH may require approval of the final Site Management Plan (SMP) required by Mitigation Measure HAZ-2, below, prior to issuance of any required building or grading permits. The project applicant shall comply with SCCDEH requirements, conduct further investigations as required, and submit the results to SCCDEH. SCCDEH may determine that San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFBRWQCB) or Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) may be best suited to perform the cleanup oversight agency duties for the assessment and/or remediation of the Project. Should the cleanup oversight agency be transferred from SCCDEH to SFBRWQCB or DTSC, this and other mitigation measures will still apply. If groundwater wells or soil vapor monitoring probes are identified during demolition, subsurface demolition, or construction at the project site, they will be abandoned or relocated per Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) specifications. Abandonment activities will be documented in a letter report submitted to SCVWD within 60 days of the completion of abandonment activities. 14 Item 2 Attachment H-Responses to Comments on the Draft IS-MND Packet Pg. 85 City of Palo Alto 3001 El Camino Real Affordable Housing Project Responses to Comments on the Draft IS-MND The SCCDEH closure and oversight agency’s (SCCDEH, SFBRWQCB, or DTSC) approval documents shall be delivered to and reviewed by the project applicant. The project applicant shall furnish copies of the completed reports and approval documents, including the final SMP or equivalent document required by Mitigation Measure HAZ-2, to the City Planning Department prior to issuance of grading permits. 15 Item 2 Attachment H-Responses to Comments on the Draft IS-MND Packet Pg. 86 City of Palo Alto 3001 El Camino Real Affordable Housing Project Responses to Comments on the Draft IS-MND This page intentionally left blank. 16 Item 2 Attachment H-Responses to Comments on the Draft IS-MND Packet Pg. 87 If you need assistance reviewing the above documents, please contact the Project Planner or call the Planner-on-Duty at 650-617-3117 or email planner@cityofpaloalto.org Attachment I Project Plans In order to reduce paper consumption, a limited number of hard copy project plans are provided to Board members for their review. The same plans are available to the public, at all hours of the day, via the following online resources. Environmental Document An Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project. In accordance with CEQA Guideline Section 15073, this document was available for a minimum 30-day circulation period beginning February 13, 2023 and ending on March 15, 2023. A formal response to comments is provided in Attachment E of the staff report and online at the link below. Directions to review Project plans and environmental documents online: 1. Go to: bit.ly/PApendingprojects 2. Scroll down to find “3001/3017 El Camino Real” and click the address link 3. On this project-specific webpage you will find a link to the project plans and other important information Direct Link to Project Webpage: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/News-Articles/Planning-and-Development-Services/30013017-El- Camino-Real Item 2 Attachment I-project Plans and Environmental Analysis Packet Pg. 88 Item No. 3. Page 1 of 6 Architectural Review Board Staff Report From: Jonathan Lait, Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: May 4, 2023 Report #: 2304-1303 TITLE PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 1020 East Meadow Circle [22PLN-00165]: Recommendation on Applicant’s request for Approval of a Minor Board Level Architectural Review for site improvements to an existing commercial building. Improvements include changes to the building envelope, restriping for parking stalls, accessibility and HVAC upgrades, flood proofing, a new trash enclosure, a new raised utility yard, and new landscaping. Zoning District: ROLM. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the provisions of CEQA per Section 15301, 15303, and 15311. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s): 1. Recommend approval of the proposed project to the Director of Planning and Development Services based on ARB findings in Attachment F and subject to the conditions of approval in Attachment G. REPORT SUMMARY The applicant, Google, requests approval of an Architectural Review application to modify an existing 37,136-square-foot (sf) one-story office building and for various site improvements including a new cooling structure and screening. Staff finds that the project is consistent with the ARB findings for approval. Staff would like the ARB’s input on this project given it is visible from Highway 101 and the City’s new bike bridge. However, staff believes the new additions are screened in a high-quality manner and therefore recommends approval of the proposed project. A location map is included in Attachment A and the project plans are included in Attachment H. BACKGROUND Project Information Owner:Google Inc. Architect:DGA Representative:Eric Sze Legal Counsel:N/A Property Information Address:1020 East Meadow Circle Item 3 Staff Report Packet Pg. 89 Item No. 3. Page 2 of 6 Neighborhood:Palo Verde Lot Dimensions & Area:197 ft wide x 385 ft long; 114,488 sf lot size Housing Inventory Site:Not Applicable Located w/in a Plume:Not Applicable Protected/Heritage Trees:32 protected trees are proposed for removal; Historic Resource(s):Not Applicable Existing Improvement(s):37,029 sf building; one story; 18’-6”; built 1975 Existing Land Use(s):Office R&D Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North: ROLM; Office R&D West: ROLM; Office R&D East: Public Facility (Highway 101) South: ROLM/PF; Multi-Family House/City Sub-station Aerial View of Property: Source: Google Maps Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans Zoning Designation:ROLM Comp. Plan Designation:RO (Research/Office Park) Context-Based Design Criteria:N/A Downtown Urban N/A Item 3 Staff Report Packet Pg. 90 Item No. 3. Page 3 of 6 Design Guide: South of Forest Avenue Coordinated Area Plan:Not Applicable Baylands Master Plan:Not Applicable El Camino Real Design Guidelines (1976 / 2002):Not Applicable Proximity to Residential Uses or Districts (150'):Yes; Echelon Townhome development adjacent to the site Located w/in the Airport Influence Area:N/A Prior City Reviews & Action City Council:None PTC:None HRB:None ARB:94ARB-179 – Site improvements at entry canopy, employee outdoor patio, parking lot; Project Description The project includes the following site improvements: restriping for parking stalls, accessibility improvements, flood proofing, the addition of a new CMU trash enclosure, a raised utility yard, and new landscaping at the street frontage. The project also includes building modifications, including upgrading the exterior envelope with new glazing, upgrading all HVAC systems, and infilling existing wall openings. The existing building’s square footage will remain the same. The proposal would remove the triangular canopy at the front of the building and pull back the existing roof screen to collect equipment at the rear of the site. The proposal will also remove most existing glazing on the sides of the building and infill them with concrete that is painted to match the existing building. At entries to the building, flood panel support jambs will be installed to allow panels to be placed around the building to protect it from flooding during storm events. These panels will not be in place at any other time. The building will be repainted Kelly Moore Stormy Sky Grey and White Water with accent strips of Patriot Blue which is a similar color scheme to the current building. The applicant is proposing a large utility yard at the rear of the site with a 16-foot-tall cooling tower behind a new 20-foot-tall screen. The mechanical screen will be a perforated metal panel system with a custom tree and reed design to soften the height/massing of the screen wall from West Bayshore Road and the 101 Freeway. The cooling tower itself is akin to a larger HVAC system that will be an all-electric option used to cool the data center placed inside the building. Requested Entitlements, Findings and Purview: The following discretionary applications are being requested: •Architectural Review – Major (AR): The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC 18.77.070. AR applications are reviewed by the ARB and recommendations are forwarded to the Planning & Community Environment Director for Item 3 Staff Report Packet Pg. 91 Item No. 3. Page 4 of 6 action within five business days of the Board’s recommendation. Action by the Director is appealable to the City Council if filed within 14 days of the decision. AR projects are evaluated against specific findings. All findings must be made in the affirmative to approve the project. Failure to make any finding requires project redesign or denial. The findings to approve an AR application are provided in Attachment F. ANALYSIS1 Neighborhood Setting and Character The subject site is mostly surrounded by one-story office uses along East Meadow Circle as well as the Echelon townhomes and Palo Alto Electric Substation to the South of the site. To the east of the project site is the 101Freeway and the Palo Alto Baylands. Zoning Compliance2 Staff performed a detailed review of the proposed project’s consistency with applicable zoning standards. A summary table is provided in Attachment D. The proposed project complies with all applicable codes in a manner that is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance for the Research, Office, and Limited Manufacturing (ROLM) zone district. While the cooling tower creates a large footprint on the site, staff does not consider it to be a “building” as defined in PAMC 18.04.030(a)(22) such that it does not support or shelter any use or occupancy on site. As a result, the cooling tower would not contribute towards lot coverage or floor area as defined in PAMC 18.04.030(a)(65) or PAMC 18.04.030(a)(86). Staff finds that the screening will sufficiently obscure the equipment from view. Performance Criteria Staff performed a detailed review of the proposed project’s consistency with the City’s performance criteria in PAMC 18.40, 18.42, and 18.54. A summary table is provided in Attachment D. With the proposed design, the applicant is modifying the site design and layout to meet the City’s disposal waste, lighting, screening, and vehicle and bicycle parking requirements. The applicant’s lighting plan considers the adjacent Adobe Creek wildlife such that the proposed lighting will not exceed the existing ambient conditions on site. The modifications will also introduce additional screening elements to limit noise and visual impacts from the site at adjacent properties. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans, and Guidelines3 1 The information provided in this section is based on analysis prepared by the report author prior to the public hearing. The Architectural Review Board in its review of the administrative record and based on public testimony may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to make alternative findings. A change to the findings may result in a final action that is different from the staff recommended action in this report. 2 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: http://www.amlegal.com/codes/client/palo-alto_ca 3 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/landuse/compplan.asp Item 3 Staff Report Packet Pg. 92 Item No. 3. Page 5 of 6 ARB Finding #1 requires the design to be consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the project site is Research/Office Park, which allows for commercial office, educational institutions, and childcare facility uses among many others. On balance, the project is consistent with the policies in the Comprehensive Plan and therefore fulfills the goals of the Plan as well. A detailed review of the project’s consistency with the Comprehensive Plan is provided in Attachment F. Multi-Modal Access & Parking Access to the site will continue to be provided by two driveways located along East Meadow Circle. The applicant is proposing to reduce the number of parking stalls on the site from 144 to 133 in order to increase parking lot shading through landscaping as well as to provide space for a new trash enclosure. Based on the size of the building, only 124 vehicle spaces are required. Therefore, the site will continue to exceed the City’s parking requirements while also bringing the site into conformance with the City’s parking lot landscaping requirements. The applicant is proposing 10 long term bicycle parking spaces near the utility yard at the rear of the site as well as three short term bike parking spaces at the front entrance to the building, bringing the site into conformance with the City’s current bike parking standards. Consistency with Application Findings Staff has prepared a detailed review of the proposed project’s consistency with the Findings for approval. The draft findings for approval are provided in Attachment F. Staff finds that the proposed project meets all applicable findings for Architectural Review approval. In short, although the project removes several trees, the project brings the site into conformance with the landscaped parking shading requirements (50% shading) using native species as shown on Sheets L3.0 and L4.0 and brings the site into conformance with the bicycle parking requirements. It improves the overall appearance of the building with new paint and other exterior changes that slightly modernizes the existing design. Although the new cooling tower would be visible from Highway 101, the proposed screening would interrupt views of the equipment in a visually appealing manner. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The subject project was assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City’s environmental regulations. The project is exempt from CEQA in accordance with the Class 1 (existing facilities), Class 3 (new small projects), and Class 11 (modifications to existing commercial properties) exemptions because the project includes minor modifications to an existing building and site that do not increase the overall floor area. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION, OUTREACH & COMMENTS The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing to be published in a local paper and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least ten days in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Daily Item 3 Staff Report Packet Pg. 93 Item No. 3. Page 6 of 6 Post on April 21, 2023, which is 13 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on April 19, 2023, which is 15 days in advance of the meeting. Public Comments As of the writing of this report, no project-related, public comments were received. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS In addition to the recommended action, the Architectural Review Board may: 1. Approve the project with modified findings or conditions 2. Continue the project to a date (un)certain, or 3. Recommend project denial based on revised findings. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A - Location Map Attachment B - Applicant's Project Description Attachment C - Noise Study Attachment D - Zoning Analysis Table Attachment E - Performance Criteria Attachment F - ARB Findings Attachment G - Draft Conditions of Approval Attachment H - Project Plans AUTHOR/TITLE: Garrett Sauls, Planner Item 3 Staff Report Packet Pg. 94 MFG perty CPA Utilities_Engineering OFFICES OFFICES BATTERY_ LAB OFFICE OFFICES private 238.1' 125.9' 156.2'30.4' 49.9' 17.1' 153.2' 0' 145.0' 65.0' 145.0' 65.0' 100.0' 65 100.0' 70.0' 100.0' 126.7' 135.0' 53.2'153.7' 256.2' 195.7' 170.9' 48.0' 177.4' 238.6' 602.2' 171.7' 26.0' 470.1' 44.4'100.3' 5'8' 117.9' 20.6' 74.0' 114.1' 140.6' 10 85.7' 37.6' 135.5' 283.4' 31.3'231.1' 285.0' 32.3' 218.7' 63.2' 50.3' 285.0' 94.1' 106.8' 295.5' 212.0' 295.5' 61.4' 112 . 9' 532.5' 15.0' 358.7' 76.1' 215.0' 183.4' 228.3' 376.8' 31.5' 207.9' 384.3' 206.1' 250.2' 167.8' 76.1'137.5 159.5' 90.0' 50.0' 116.4' 219.9' 206.1' 50.0' 90.0' 50.0' 90.0' 193.0' 82.6' 144.7' 14.1' 256.2' 159.9' 67.4' 337.3' 65.1' 77.2' 95.8' 96.9' 106.8' 220.1' 183.3' 28.4'158.0' 332.3' 223.7' 115.6' 94.2' 26.9' 225.8' 214.6' 201.1' 215.4' 36.0' 181.3' 194.0' 201.1' 236.0' 156.1' 31.1' 54.7' 166.7' 106.8' 96.9' 291.6' 240.3' 46.7' 220.8' 389.7' 14.0' 181.5' 478.6' 130.4' 384.3' 74.9' 162.5 ' 242.0' 215.0' 76.1' 58.2' 46.5' 211.5' 179.0' 242.0' 20.8' 197.2' 385.2' 218.7' 82.6' 216.0' 293.4'279.3' 304.5' 203.3' 34.5' 146.1' 293.4' 304.5' 408.0' 127.9' 385.2' 286.9' 389.7' 156.1' 255.5' 214.6' 215.0' 47.1' 90.6' 98.9' 335.5' 478.6' 118.9' 264.2'264.2' 139.8' 30.2' 196.8' 196.8' 118.9' 170.0' 809.4' 228.6' 228.6' 616.4' 109.9' 581.0' 115.1' 58.0' 34.8' 464.2' 109.9' 280.0' 238.1' 338.7' 419.2' 925 3 914 3776 1036 1015 1085 1035 1025 3500 3510 1047 935 933 932- 936 931 935 933 931 932- 936 3800- 3812 3727- 3735 3732- 3740 3717- 3731 3700- 3714 1002- 1010 935 933 931 932 934 936 1125 1127 1129 1130 1128 1126 1124 1122 3751 3749 3747 3745 3743 3741 3702 3704 3731 3758 3760 3762 3764 3766 3768 3770 3757 3759 3761 3763 3765 3767 3769 1136 1103 1105 1107 1109 1111 1113 1115 3775 1102 3717 3756 3755 1134 11331120 1119 3718 937 1152 1157 7 3683 3689 909 1198 935 10961086 3784 1000 1007 3750 3780 3788 1020 1040 3512 3520 3600 3530 1005 1003 3803 3921 3850 1001 3814- 3818 3716- 3724 3701- 3715 1001- 1007 1101 1121 1123 3706 3708 3710 3712 3714 3720 3722 3724 3726 3728 3730 3732 3719 3721 3723 3725 3727 3729 1138 1140 1142 1144 1135 1137 1139 1141 1143 1104 1106 1108 1110 1112 1114 1116 940 3700 3739 1101 3905 S FABIAN WAY EAST MEADOW CIRCLE EAST BAYSHORE ROAD FABIAN WAY BAYSHORE FREEWAY BAYSHORE FREEWAY FABIAN WAY E FREEWAY AYSHORE FREEWAY T BAYSHORE ROAD BAYSHORE FREEWAYWEST BAYSHORE ROAD BAYSHORE FREEWAY ELWELL COURT ST MEADOW DRIVE EAST BAYSHORE ROAD BAYSHORE FREEWAY BAYSHORE FREEWAY EAST MEADOW DRIVE QUAIL DR QUAIL DR PALOMA DR HERON WY EGRET LNPLOVER LN SANDPIPER LN MALLARD LN CURLEW LN FEATHER LN KLAMATH LN PALOMA DR TRINITY LN STANISLAUS LN TUOLUMNE LN Barron Creek Adobe Creek Substation Adobe Creek Pump Station This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Project Site Current Features 0' 156' 1020 East Meadow Circle CITY OF PALO ALTOINCORPORATED CAL I F ORN I A P a l o A l t o T h e C i t y o f AP R I L 1 6 1 8 9 4 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto gsauls, 2023-04-20 07:42:02 (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) Item 3 Attachment A - Location Map Packet Pg. 95 April 14, 2022 City of Palo Alto Planning Department 1020 East Meadow Circle Architectural Review Board – Minor Project Project Description: In compliance with the California Building Code, an updated accessible route is being proposed to connect the building entrance to the public street. At the rear lobby are reconfigured accessible parking spaces for the building. The rear parking area is being reconfigured to allow for new cooling tower yard, electrical yard, and provision of new electric vehicle charging stalls. This involves curb and gutter, landscaping, elevated equipment pads and paving work. The site is getting an overall landscaping refresh. At the rear of the building, an emergency generator that is elevated above the BFE is being proposed in the parking lot where the trash enclosure is currently located. At the rear of the building, the existing trash area will be relocated to accommodate three 4 yard bins and provide accessible route. This enclosure will an integrally colored concrete block wall to six feet tall and be covered with a corrugated metal roof. The windows are being removed and the bottom sill raised above the design flood elevation in preparation for a dry flood mitigation of the building. Windows at data center labs will be completely infilled for security and dry flood mitigation. A parapet extension is being added to upgrade the roof drainage slopes and mitigate existing ponding issues. Various doors are being infilled for safety and a new rollup door is being added to the rear. Daniel L. Markey, AIA C31572 Item 3 Attachment B - Applicant's Project Description Packet Pg. 96 ❖ • • • ❖ • • • • • • Item 3 Attachment C - Noise Study Packet Pg. 97 Item 3 Attachment C - Noise Study Packet Pg. 98 ❖ Item 3 Attachment C - Noise Study Packet Pg. 99 Item 3 Attachment C - Noise Study Packet Pg. 100 ❖ Item 3 Attachment C - Noise Study Packet Pg. 101 ATTACHMENT D ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 1020 East Meadow Circle, 22PLN-00165 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.20 (ROLM DISTRICT) Regulation Required Existing Proposed Minimum Site Area, width and depth 1 acre, 100 feet, and 150 feet 2.62 acres 2.62 acres Minimum Front Yard (2) 20 feet 64 feet 64 feet Rear Yard 20 feet 120 60 to 120 feet Interior/Street Side Yard 20 feet ≈43 feet ≈43 feet Special Setback N/A N/A N/A Max. Site Coverage 30% (34,346 sf)32% (37,029 sf) Legal, non-conforming 32% (37,029 sf) Legal, non-conforming Max. Total Floor Area Ratio 40% (45,795 sf)32% (37,029 sf)32% (37,029 sf) Max. Building Height 35 ft or 25 ft when located within 40 ft of residentially zoned property (4,5) 15 ft 6 in 15 ft. 6 in. (25 ft measured to top of mechanical enclosure Daylight Plane N/A N/A N/A Employee Showers 2 required for new square footage between 20,000 and 49,999 sf 1 1 shower (4) See subsection 18.20.040(e) below for exceptions to height and floor area limitations in the ROLM and RP zoning districts. (5) Residential zones include R-1, R-2, RE, RMD, RM-20, RM-30, RM-40 and residential Planned Community (PC) zones. Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) for Profession/General Office Uses* Type Required Existing Proposed Vehicle Parking 1/300 sf of gross floor area for a total of 124 parking spaces 144 133 Bicycle Parking 1/3,000 sf (80% long term and 20% short term) equals 13 spaces 2 LT; 2 ST 13 (10 long term, 3 short term) Loading Space 1 loading spaces for 10,000 – 99,999 sf None None * On-site employee amenity space is exempted from the parking requirements Item 3 Attachment D - Zoning Analysis Table Packet Pg. 102 Attachment E Performance Criteria - 18.40, 18.42 and 18.54 1020 East Meadow Circle 22PLN-00165 Performance criteria are intended to provide additional standards to be used in the design and evaluation of developments in the multi-family, commercial, and industrial zones. The purpose is to balance the needs of the uses within these zones with the need to minimize impacts to surrounding neighborhoods and businesses. The criteria are intended to make new developments and major architectural review projects compatible with nearby residential and business areas, and to enhance the desirability of the proposed developments for the site residents and users, and for abutting neighbors and businesses. 18.40.240 Trash Disposal and Recycling Project Consistency Assure that development provides adequate and accessible interior areas or exterior enclosures for the storage of trash and recyclable materials in appropriate containers, and that trash disposal and recycling areas are located as far from abutting residences as is reasonably possible. A new trash enclosure is proposed at the rear of the site. The trash enclosure will have three, four-yard bins for trash, recycling, and compost. This conforms with the requirements in PAMC 5.20 and 18.40.240. 18.40.250 Lighting Project Consistency To minimize the visual impacts of lighting on abutting or nearby residential sites and from adjacent roadways. The Echelon townhome complex abuts this property as well as Adobe Creek which are both sensitive users near the site. Sheet 101 identifies the parking lot light schedule for the site and provides a photometric scale of the light intensity anticipated at each property line. On all sides, the foot candle will not exceed 0.5 at the property line which conforms with the requirements under 18.40.250. 18.42.040 Late Night Uses and Activities Project Consistency The purpose is to restrict retail or service commercial businesses abutting (either directly or across the street) or within 50 feet of residentially zoned properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones, with operations or activities between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. Operations subject to this code may include, but are not limited to, deliveries, parking lot and sidewalk cleaning, and/or clean up or set up operations, but does not include garbage pick up. The site is a commercial business but there are no anticipated or proposed late night uses for the site. The building is an office use that will primarily have activity during normal business hours. 18.40.260 Visual, Screening and Landscaping Project Consistency Privacy of abutting residential properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones (residential properties) should be protected by screening from public view all mechanical equipment and service areas. Landscaping should be used to integrate a project design into the surrounding neighborhood, and to provide privacy screening between properties where appropriate. The landscape plans seek to replace trees on site in accordance with Tree Technical Manual and No Net Loss of Canopy policies. When mature, these new trees will provide screening for the site between the adjacent office building and residences at the Echelon property. The applicant also proposes to screen all mechanical equipment as shown on the elevation drawings. 18.42.190 Noise and Vibration Project Consistency The requirements and guidelines regarding noise and vibration impacts are intended to protect residentially zoned properties or properties with existing PAMC 9.10 identifies that any noise produced on site must be compliant at adjacent property lines. The applicant has provided a noise study under Item 3 Attachment E - Performance Criteria Packet Pg. 103 residential uses located within nonresidential zones (residential properties) from excessive and unnecessary noises and/or vibrations from any sources in abutting industrial or commercially zoned properties. Design of new projects should reduce noise from parking, loading, and refuse storage areas and from heating, ventilation, air conditioning apparatus, and other machinery on nearby residential properties. New equipment, whether mounted on the exterior of the building or located interior to a building, which requires only a building permit, shall also be subject to these requirements. Attachment C that evaluates how the proposed HVAC system and cooling tower will meet the City’s noise requirements at each property line. 18.54.020(a) Parking Project Consistency The visual impact of parking shall be minimized on adjacent residentially zoned properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones. All parking for the site is proposed in a traditional parking lot design. The applicant will be introducing additional tree landscaping on the site which will help to screen the facility from view to its adjacent neighbors. 18.54.050(c) Vehicular, Pedestrian and Bicycle Site Access Project Consistency The guidelines regarding site access impacts are intended to minimize conflicts between residential vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle uses and more intensive traffic associated with commercial and industrial districts, and to facilitate pedestrian and bicycle connections through and adjacent to the project site. There are two existing driveways on site that will be maintained with the proposed design. The proposed layout of the site reduces the number of parking spaces proposed and introduces additional bike parking which will encourage those modes of travel to and from the site. 18.40.270 Air Quality Project Consistency The requirements for air quality are intended to buffer residential uses from potential sources of odor and/or toxic air contaminants. There are no odor or toxic air contaminants proposed on site. 18.42.200 Hazardous Materials Project Consistency In accordance with Titles 15 and 17 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, minimize the potential hazards of any use on a development site that will entail the storage, use or handling of hazardous materials (including hazardous wastes) on-site in excess of the exempt quantities prescribed in Health and Safety Code Division 20, Chapter 6.95, and Title 15 of this code. The applicant is not proposing to store any hazardous materials or waste on site that exceed the requirements in this section. Item 3 Attachment E - Performance Criteria Packet Pg. 104 ATTACHMENT F ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL In order for the ARB to make a future recommendation of approval, the project must comply with the following Findings for Architectural Review as required in Chapter 18.76.020 of the PAMC. Finding #1: The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant design guides. The project is consistent with Finding #1 because: The project is in conformance with the following Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies: Comprehensive Plan Goal/Policy Consistency Policy L-3.1: Ensure that new or remodeled structures are compatible with the neighborhood and adjacent structures. The proposal seeks to retain the existing building and modify the parking lot layout to eliminate excess parking stalls and include additional trees. The existing building will be repainted to improve its appearance and the existing rooftop mechanical enclosure will be reduced and pushed to the rear of the building to reduce visual massing from the street and residential units next door. The proposed design will be consistent with the surrounding office building designs along East Meadow Circle. Policy N-2.1 Recognize the importance of the urban forest as a vital part of the city’s natural and green infrastructure network that contributes to public health, resiliency, habitat values, appreciation of natural systems and an attractive visual character which must be protected and enhanced. The applicant has proposed to remove 32 trees located in the parking lot to the site and replace 30 trees on site and pay an in-lieu fee for the remaining 60 trees. With the proposed site plans the site will meet the City’s 50% parking lot shading requirements. The in-lieu fees will support tree plantings off site in the City where they may provide a greater impact at reducing heat island effects and achieving the City’s canopy coverage goals. Policy T-1.16 Promote personal transportation vehicles an alternative to cars (e.g. bicycles, skateboards, roller blades) to The proposal includes additional long-term and short-term bike parking options for the tenants of the building. This will encourage non-vehicle based options of travel to the site Item 3 Attachment F - ARB Findings Packet Pg. 105 Comprehensive Plan Goal/Policy Consistency get to work, school, shopping, recreational facilities and transit stops. by tenants of the building. The project has been evaluated for consistency with the Zoning Code, and the project meets all applicable development standards. The project is consistent with the Performance Criteria of 18.40 and 18.42, respectively. Finding #2: The project has a unified and coherent design, that: a. creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community, b. preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site and the historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant, c. is consistent with the context-based design criteria of the applicable zone district, d. provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations, e. enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent residential areas. The project is consistent with Finding #2 because: The design of the project is well ordered and provides a coherent plan that is readily understood in the office building context of East Meadow Circle. The removal of the triangular canopy at the front brings the building in line with itself and the fresh color of paint proposed will bring new life to the structure. The removal of the existing roof screen and placement of new equipment closer to the rear of the building will reduce the massing of the building from the street along East Meadow Circle and the neighboring residential properties. Finding #3: The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. The project is consistent with Finding #3 because: The design of the building will remain mostly intact including where existing glazing will be removed and filled in with materials/colors to match the existing design. The overall site design will be modified to include additional landscaping and tree planting to satisfy the City’s canopy coverage requirements in the parking lot. The proposed roof screen colors will match the white color of the building and the perforated metal panel cooling tower screen references the proximity of the site to the Baylands in an appropriate manner. Finding #4: The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and providing for elements that support the building’s necessary operations (e.g. Item 3 Attachment F - ARB Findings Packet Pg. 106 convenient vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.). The project is consistent with Finding #4 because: The design is appropriate to the function of the project in that the removal of existing parking will allow for additional landscaping and tree planting to occur within the parking lot to satisfy the City’s canopy coverage requirements. The two existing driveways on both sides of the property will remain with the new design. The applicant is also incorporating additional long- term and short-term bike parking facilities that will encourage their staff to use different modes of travel to get to the site. Repainting the building will refresh its visual aesthetics from the street while removing the triangular canopy at the front will realign the front façade of the building. Placing the utility yard in a central location at the rear of the site, and placing it behind a screen, will ensure easy access to all the equipment when maintenance is needed while also screen the less visually interesting equipment from view. Finding #5: The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is appropriate to the site’s functions, and utilizes to the extent practical, regional indigenous drought resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat that can be appropriately maintained. The project is consistent with Finding #5 because: The plant material is suitable and adaptable to the site, capable of being properly maintained, and is of a majority native and drought-resistant to reduce consumption of water in its installation and maintenance. The landscaping plan supplements the City’s tree canopy with additional plantings off site through in-lieu fees; the site currently exceeds the 50% canopy coverage. As the site is in a developed portion of East Meadow Circle, it is not considered prime habitat. Finding #6: The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning. The project is consistent with Finding #6 because: The applicant will be required to follow the City’s Cal Green Checklist to ensure conformance with applicable requirements regarding green building techniques. The site’s existing tree canopy exceeds the City’s 50% shading requirements which significantly reduces the “heat island effect” associated with surface parking and new groundcover plantings would consist of a variety of native and drought tolerant species. The proposed cooling tower is an all-electric piece of mechanical equipment which helps to further the City’s electrification goals. Item 3 Attachment F - ARB Findings Packet Pg. 107 2 4 7 ATTACHMENT E DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1020 E. Meadow Circle 22PLN-00165 PLANNING DIVISION 1. CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS. Construction and development shall conform to the approved plans entitled, “1020 EAST MEADOW CIRCLE” dated April 4, 2023 on file with the Planning Department, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California except as modified by these conditions of approval. 2. BUILDING PERMIT. Apply for a building permit and meet any and all conditions of approval included in this document. 3. BUILDING PERMIT PLAN SET. The ARB approval letter including all Department conditions of approval for the project shall be printed on the plans submitted for building permit. 4. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: All modifications to the approved project shall be submitted for review and approval prior to construction. If during the Building Permit review and construction phase, the project is modified by the applicant, it is the responsibility of the applicant to contact the Planning Division/project planner directly to obtain approval of the project modification. It is the applicant’s responsibility to highlight any proposed changes to the project and to bring it to the project planner’s attention. 5. TREE REPLACEMENT IN-LIEU FEES. The tree replacement in-lieu fee of $32,500 shall be paid prior to building permit issuance. See Condition #32. 6. PROJECT ARBORIST. The property owner shall retain a certified arborist to ensure the project conforms to all Planning and Urban Forestry conditions related to landscaping/trees, as shown in the approved plan set. 7. TREE PROTECTION FENCING. Tree protection fencing shall be required to protect trees that are to remain during construction. 8. LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE. All landscape material shall be well maintained and replaced if the plant material dies or if the irrigation equipment fails. Planters shall not drain onto sidewalk, ground, or public right of ways. 9. PROJECT EXPIRATION. The project approval shall automatically expire after two years from the original date of approval if, within such two year period, the proposed use of the site or the construction of buildings has not commenced pursuant to and in accordance with the provisions of the permit or approval. Application for a one-year extension of this entitlement may be made prior to the expiration. (PAMC 18.77.090(a)) 10. LIGHTING. Between the hours of 10:00pm-6:00am (normal cessation of business hours), lighting within the building or on the property shall be reduced to its minimum necessary to facilitate security, in order to minimize light glare at night. Item 3 Attachment G - Draft Conditions of Approval Packet Pg. 108 2 4 7 11. INDEMNITY: To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City for its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice. 12. FINAL INSPECTION: A Planning Division Final inspection will be required to determine substantial compliance with the approved plans prior to the scheduling of a Building Division final. Any revisions during the building process must be approved by Planning, including but not limited to; materials, landscaping and hard surface locations. Contact your Project Planner, Garrett Sauls at Garrett.Sauls@CityofPaloalto.org to schedule this inspection. PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING 13. Place the plan insert “Requirements for Dry Floodproofed Non-Residential and Mixed-Use Buildings in the Special Flood Hazard Area” on the cover sheet. The plan insert can be obtained at the following link: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/public- works/engineeringservices/webpages/forms-and-permits/plan-insert-for-dry-floodproofed-non- residential-and-mixed-use-buildings.pdf 14. Provide a note on the Site Plan and Grading and Drainage Plan that includes the FIRM panel number, flood zone designation, BFE elevation and the North American Vertical Datum (NAVD). You may access project specific information on Public Works Stormwater website. See Flood Zone Lookup under the attached link. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/stormwater/floodzones.asp 15. The building’s walls must be “substantially impermeable to the passage of water.” FEMA has adopted the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) definition of substantially impermeable from the COE publication “Flood Proofing Regulations.” This document states that a substantially impermeable wall “shall not permit the accumulation of more than 4 inches of water depth during a 24-hour period if there were no devices provided for its removal. However, sump pumps shall be required to control this seepage.” Flood resistant materials, described in Technical Bulletin 2, “Flood-Resistant Materials Requirements,” must be used in all areas where such seepage is likely to occur. 16. The building’s utilities and sanitary facilities, including heating, air conditioning, electrical, water supply, and sanitary sewage services, must be located above the BFE+1’, completely enclosed within the building’s watertight walls, or made watertight and capable of resisting damage during flood conditions. 17. PUBLIC WORKS STANDARD CONDITIONS: The City’s full-sized Standard Conditions sheet must be included in the plan set. The conditions noted on the sheet shall be adhered to for the full project duration until completion. Copies are available on the Public Works website: Item 3 Attachment G - Draft Conditions of Approval Packet Pg. 109 2 4 7 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=67175.06&BlobID=66261 18. STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION: The City's full-sized "Pollution Prevention - It's Part of the Plan" sheet must be included in the plan set. The sheet is available here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2732 19. STREET TREES: Show all existing street trees in the public right-of-way. Any removal, relocation or planting of street trees; or excavation, trenching or pavement within 10 feet of street trees must be approved by Public Works' arborist (phone: 650-496-5953). This approval shall appear on the plans. Show construction protection of the trees per City requirements. 20. TRASH ENCLOSURE: If a drain is proposed in the trash enclosure, it must drain to the sanitary sewer. PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE 21. Submit draft Flood Emergency Operation Plan for review prior to Public Works Building Permit approval. 22. Submit draft Flood Proofing Inspection and Maintenance Plan for review prior to Public Works Building Permit approval. PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT FINAL 23. Submit final Flood Emergency Operation Plan (described in FEMA Technical Bulletin 3-93) to Public Works Engineering prior to Public Works final inspection. 24. Submit final Flood Proofing Inspection & Maintenance Plan (described in FEMA Technical Bulletin 3-93) to Public Works Engineering prior to Public Works final inspection. 25. Prior to Public Works final inspection, owner shall sign and record an agreement stating that the Flood Emergency Operation Plan and the Flood Proofing Inspection and Maintenance Plan will be followed for the life of the structure and that the agreement shall be transferred to all subsequent owners. 26. Prior to Public Works final inspection, this Project shall file a Floodproofing Certificate for Non- Residential Structures (FEMA Form 086-0-34: https://www.fema.gov/media- library/assets/documents/2748) with all applicable authorities. The Floodproofing Certificate shall include the Flood Emergency Operation Plan and the Flood Proofing Inspection & Maintenance Plan. BUILDING A building permit is required. Submit the following plans at building permit. 27. Complete architectural plans. 28. Complete MEP plans, including the new data center. Item 3 Attachment G - Draft Conditions of Approval Packet Pg. 110 2 4 7 29. Complete structural design for new mechanical and electrical equipment. 30. Applicable T24 for new mechanical units, cooling tower, lighting, envelop, etc. 31. Submit full accessible site and interior plans. URBAN FORESTRY 32. Applicant proposes to remove 32 trees. The applicant is proposing to install 10 24-inch box trees and 20 36-inch box trees on site and pay in-lieu fees to cover the remaining trees not to be planted on site. These in-lieu fees are assessed at $32,500. These fees shall be paid prior to building permit issuance. 33. TREE PROTECTION COMPLIANCE. The owner and contractor shall implement all protection and inspection schedule measures, design recommendations and construction scheduling as stated in the TPR & Sheet T-1, and is subject to code compliance action pursuant to PAMC 8.10.080. The required protective fencing shall remain in place until final landscaping and inspection of the project. Project arborist approval must be obtained and documented in the monthly activity report sent to the City. The mandatory Contractor and Arborist Monthly Tree Activity Report shall be sent monthly to the City (pwps@cityofpaloalto.org) beginning with the initial verification approval, using the template in the Tree Technical Manual, Addendum 11. 34. PLAN CHANGES. Revisions and/or changes to plans before or during construction shall be reviewed and responded to by the (a) project site arborist, or (b) landscape architect with written letter of acceptance before submitting the revision to the Building Department for review by Planning, PW or Urban Forestry. 35. TREE DAMAGE. Tree Damage, Injury Mitigation and Inspections apply to Contractor. Reporting, injury mitigation measures and arborist inspection schedule (1-5) apply pursuant to TTM, Section 2.202.30. Contractor shall be responsible for the repair or replacement of any publicly owned or protected trees that are damaged during the course of construction, pursuant to Title 8 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, and city Tree Technical Manual, Section 2.25. 36. GENERAL. The following general tree preservation measures apply to all trees to be retained: No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment shall be permitted within the tree enclosure area. The ground under and around the tree canopy area shall not be altered. Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. 37. BUILDING PERMIT SUBMITTAL- PROJECT ARBORIST CERTIFICATION LETTER. Prior to submittal for staff review, attach a Project Arborist Certification Letter that he/she has; (a) reviewed the entire building permit plan set submittal and, (b) affirm that ongoing Contractor/Project Arborist site monitoring inspections and reporting have been arranged with the contractor or owner (see Sheet T-1) and, (c) understands that design revisions (site or plan changes) within a TPZ will be routed to Project Arborist/Contractor for review prior to approval from City. Item 3 Attachment G - Draft Conditions of Approval Packet Pg. 111 2 4 7 38. TREE PROTECTION VERIFICATION. Prior to any site work verification from the contractor that the required protective fencing is in place shall be submitted to the Urban Forestry Section. The fencing shall contain required warning sign and remain in place until final inspection of the project. 39. PLAN SET REQUIREMENTS. The final Plans submitted for building permit shall include the following information and notes on relevant plan sheets: a. SHEET T-1, BUILDING PERMIT. The building permit plan set will include the City’s full-sized, Sheet T-1 (Tree Protection-it's Part of the Plan!), available on the Development Center website at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/31783. The Applicant shall complete and sign the Tree Disclosure Statement and recognize the Project Arborist Tree Activity Inspection Schedule. Monthly reporting to Urban Forestry/Contractor is mandatory. (Insp. #1: applies to all projects; with tree preservation report: Insp. #1-7 applies) b. The Tree Preservation Report (TPR). All sheets of the Applicant’s TPR approved by the City for full implementation by Contractor, shall be printed on numbered Sheet T-1 (T-2, T-3, etc.) and added to the sheet index. c. Plans to show protective tree fencing. The Plan Set (esp. site, demolition, grading & drainage, foundation, irrigation, tree disposition, utility sheets, etc.) must delineate/show the correct configuration of Type I, Type II or Type III fencing around each Regulated Tree, using a bold dashed line enclosing the Tree Protection Zone (Standard Dwg. #605, Sheet T- 1; City Tree Technical Manual, Section 6.35-Site Plans); or by using the Project Arborist’s unique diagram for each Tree Protection Zone enclosure. Item 3 Attachment G - Draft Conditions of Approval Packet Pg. 112 Attachment H Project Plans Project plans are only available to the public online. Hardcopies of the plans have been provided to Board members. Directions to review Project plans online: 1. Go to: bit.ly/PApendingprojects 2. Scroll down to find “1020 East Meadow Circle” and click the address link 3. On this project specific webpage you will find a link to the project plans and other important information Direct Link to Project Webpage: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/News-Articles/Planning-and-Development-Services/1020-East- Meadow-Circle Item 3 Attachment H - Project Plans Packet Pg. 113 Item No. 4. Page 1 of 1 Architectural Review Board Staff Report From: Jonathan Lait, Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: May 4, 2023 Report #: 2304-1335 TITLE Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for April 6, 2023 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) adopt the attached meeting minutes. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Minutes of April 6, 2023 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 4 Staff Report Packet Pg. 114 Page 1 of 33 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 04/6/23 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD DRAFT MINUTES: April 6, 2023 Council Chamber & Zoom 8:30 AM Call to Order / Roll Call The Architectural Review Board (ARB) of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in Council Chambers and virtual teleconference at 8:30 a.m. Present: Chair David Hirsch, Vice Chair Peter Baltay, Boardmember Kendra Rosenberg, Boardmember Osma Thompson Absent: Boardmember Yingxi Chen Oral Communications Veronica Dao, Administrative Associate III, stated there were none. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Senior Planner and ARB Liaison Claire Raybould reported there were no Agenda changes, additions, or deletions. City Official Reports 1. Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2) Tentative Future Agenda items and 3) Recently Submitted Projects Ms. Raybould displayed the ARB meeting schedule and reported an SB330 pre-application project was submitted for 300 Lambert as a 45-unit housing project and was the only new item since the prior hearing on March 16, 2023. Jodie Gerhardt, Manager of Current planning explained she rearranged the tables on the project list to reflect both pending projects on file and potential projects that are expected to be brought before the Architectural Review Board (ARB). The potential projects are speculative SB 330 projects, which freeze the standards without receipt of a formal application, or they have had a pre-screening before City Council. Ms. Raybould reported some revisions to the schedule of upcoming meetings. The Agenda for the April 20, 2023 meeting currently has the Study Session for modifications to the objective standards related to townhome design and the Study Session for the SB 9 Objective Standards, and the Chair and Vice Chair Elections. Item 3 on the current Agenda before the ARB is the Council Work Plan, which can also be continued to the April 20 meeting if needed. Chair Hirsch stated he and Boardmember Chen have prepared a presentation during their pre-meeting review for the modifications to the objective standards for townhomes and requested that be added to Item 4 Attachment A Draft Minutes of April 6 2023 Packet Pg. 115 Page 2 of 33 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 04/6/23 the Agenda to be heard before the item. They have also discussed the general objective standards. That information has not yet been organized for formal ARB discussions and Chair Hirsch inquired about the possibility of having a pre-meeting with staff before the item is heard in a formal meeting. Ms. Raybould replied they would include that on the standard Monday scheduled ARB pre-meeting prior to April 20, 2023 and explained the April 20 Agenda Item for the Objective Standards will be a study session and not an item that requires action, and the Work Plan will show this will be an ongoing item over the next year. Chair Hirsch thanked Ms. Gerhardt for separating the list as it makes it easier to determine which projects would benefit from an ad-hoc pre-screening review. It is a very useful tool to help focus on what is coming down the line. Ms. Raybould reported the plans for the 420 Acacia project that the ad-hoc review used were the SB 330 pre-application plans and not the formal project plans and apologized for the mix-up on what was printed for the website. It would be helpful if the ad-hoc could provide a list of the items they felt were missing if they are prepared for that. Chair Hirsch stated he and Boardmember Rosenberg were the Boardmembers on the ad-hoc for 420 Acacia and apologized in advance because he did not completely live up to the promise that they would only comment on the sufficiency of the drawing sets. The ad-hoc has had discussions with the Attorney regarding not jeopardizing the ARB’s position prior to a public hearing. There is a risk of the ad-hoc having to recuse themselves from hearings and given the ARB size, which could pose an issue for a well-rounded hearing process. There were some specific concerns about the internal circulation of the 420 Acacia project that he hopes will be addressed prior to the formal hearing. Ms. Raybould had some great suggestions. Boardmember Thompson inquired what specifically was being discussed. Chair Hirsch explained he was talking about the ad-hoc committee review for the 420 Acacia project that had been discussed at the prior meeting. Boardmember Thompson inquired if that was an appropriate conversation for the current Agenda. Ms. Gerhardt explained there is an ad-hoc committee that is made up of Chair Hirsch and Boardmember Rosenberg that reviews pending ARB projects from the list provided in the packet and the intent of the ad-hoc is to review the information before it comes to the ARB for a formal review, to ensure all the material needed is included. The current discussion is the report out of the ad-hoc committee to staff so they can inform the applicant. Boardmember Thompson stated she understood that information was to be provided to staff and not to the full Board. Chair Hirsch explained that was his current purpose, to find out what to do with the information they have thus far. Item 4 Attachment A Draft Minutes of April 6 2023 Packet Pg. 116 Page 3 of 33 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 04/6/23 Ms. Raybould stated a quick bulleted summary of the ad-hoc findings provided in an email is the format that would be most helpful to staff. The hope would then be for staff to report the information on the next Agenda for discussion of how to best handle that information. Chair Hirsch differs in opinion for the same reason Boardmember Thompson asked her question. The ARB needs to come to a consensus on how the ad-hoc handles the review, how the information is presented to staff and what the procedure would be for the ad-hoc, to ensure continuity from each ad-hoc review. He stated that Ms. Raybould’s suggestion was a good one and used a description of interior circulation as an example. It gets dangerous bringing that information before the Board prior to a formal hearing and it would be better if the information from the ad-hoc reviews is presented to the planning department staff only, as a suggestion to help the applicant with providing more information to the ARB during the project hearing. Vice Chair Baltay suggested the conversation for this topic might be better suited for the final Agenda item of Boardmember Questions, Comments or Announcements, since there are members of the public waiting to provide public comment on the Action Items part of the Agenda. Chair Hirsch stated he is good either way, he was only trying to respond to Ms. Raybould’s request. Ms. Raybould stated she agreed with Vice Chair Baltay and that made perfect sense. Boardmember Thompson stated that was why she was confused, because the item being discussed wasn’t on the Agenda. Chair Hirsch continued to the next Agenda item. Action Items 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). Please contact the Project Planner, Claire Raybould at Claire.Raybould@Cityofpaloalto.org for more information. Item 4 Attachment A Draft Minutes of April 6 2023 Packet Pg. 117 Page 4 of 33 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 04/6/23 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. Vice Chair Baltay disclosed he visited the site during the prior week. Boardmember Rosenberg stated she had nothing to disclose. Boardmember Thompson stated she had nothing to disclose. Chair Hirsch stated he had nothing to disclose. Ms. Raybould provided the executive summary and presentation for the project at 3200 Park Boulevard and explained the project has a number of addresses which include 200 Portage, 3200 Park, and 340 Portage and in Fall 2022, the Sobrato Organization, LLC (Sobrato) applied 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 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. Included in the Staff report is the Historical Review. Ms. Raybould provided background information of the numerous input reviews and hearings that began in June 2022, which include City Council, Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC), Historic Resources Board (HRB), Palo Alto Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC) and the ARB. On December 15, 2022, the ARB held a study session to provide input specific to 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. The Board’s comments and the applicant’s responses to those comments are summarized in the staff report, in addition to the staff reports for the study sessions which provides further background information about the proposed Development Item 4 Attachment A Draft Minutes of April 6 2023 Packet Pg. 118 Page 5 of 33 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 04/6/23 Agreement including the Comprehensive Plan amendment, Planned Community rezoning, Tentative Map and Final Map, HRB review. Previous Council, PTC, and HRB comments and motions related to the project are included in the staff report. All discretionary actions are being processed concurrently in accordance with the Planning Community (PC) ordinance process. The project is planned to return to the HRB on May 11, with a tentative plan to return to the ARB for a second hearing in May. Staff then plan to have formal PTC and Council hearings between June and August. The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) findings included Significant and unavoidable impact on a Historic Resource identified for the proposed project and all build alternatives. Mitigation measures were identified to reduce impacts on these resources to a less than significant level to include biological resources, hazardous materials, noise, and traffic/transportation. Ms. Raybould provided a review summary of key comments from the ARB for the Cannery portion of the project and provided images of the revisions in design based on those comments, and some of the changes made which include retaining the loading dock elevation based on feedback from the HRB and lowering the existing grade of the new parking garage by about 2-feet, which now keeps it in line with the first-floor mezzanine elevation of the Cannery building. The trash enclosure material was changed to better align with the main building, the Monitor roof scale was assessed and revised accordingly, and the applicant has provided basic floor plans for the interior of the building to better help understand how it will affect the exterior. Ms. Raybould went on to provide a review summary of key comments from the ARB for the townhome portion of the project and provided images of the revisions in design based on those comments which includes more variation between the buildings by presenting three unique townhome building designs, 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. Trash service removal for dead end units has been resolved to the satisfaction of zero waste. Improvements to the planting plan also complement the revised entries. Overall, the plans are responsive to the ARB’s recommendations. Staff noted that in order to achieve the 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 is maintained for consistency with the requirements set forth in 18.38.150 for Planned Community zone districts. Changes to the width and height of the pedestrian mews were not made, however, the revisions to the planting plan do improve the paseo design. It was 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. The central tree at the townhome paseo has been updated to Hymenosporum flavum (Sweet shade), which is an evergreen tree. An increase in trees between units was made for more privacy. A materials board was supplied for the changes in façade material. Chair Hirsch opened up Board questions of staff. Boardmember Thompson stated she was interested in hearing from the applicant before asking questions. Chair Hirsch opened the floor to the applicant. Item 4 Attachment A Draft Minutes of April 6 2023 Packet Pg. 119 Page 6 of 33 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 04/6/23 Applicant Evan Sockalosky, with Arc Tec, stated he is joined by architect David Burton from KTGY, Morgan Burke with the Guzzardo Partnership, Matt Davis with Architectural Resources Group, and Robert Tersini with Sobrato who are all available to answer questions. Matt Davis, a Historian Principal with Architectural Resources Group (ARG), explained in 2022 the Sobrato Organization solicited ARG to develop a series of preservation design guidelines on the Cannery portion of the project. Due to the age and type of the building, Sobrato was aware that bringing the building up to current code would require significant changes to the building and wanted to further understand the parameters required with respect to the historic character of the building. Based on the review by the HRB, the ARG developed guidelines in six categories which include height and bulk, roof forms, cladding, fenestration, entries and canopies, and interior of the building. Maintaining the height of the monitor building was a key factor. Mr. Sockalosky stated Ms. Raybould did a great job of explaining most of the changes that were made based on the comments of the ARB and mentioned they updated the accuracy of the monitor building, refined Cannery building design in coordination with ARG guidelines and reinforced importance of interior spatial relationship and historic structural elements; he showed photos of the revisions in previous versus current format to the ARB. They refined glazing into the open space. The angled windows have been removed and all the panes of glass have been reduced, which is much more historically accurate. The change in materials for the entrance to the retail portion of the building and accurate elevations show the corrugated metal on the exterior of the building is more like for like to the monitor building. The lowering of grade for the parking garage reduces the height of the original proposal by approximately 17.5% in relation to the neighboring residential area, which reduces the impacts of the lot. Morgan Burke, Guzzardo Partnership, highlighted photos in changes made to the landscaping around the building and in the pedestrian mews. The change in the loading dock grade was used to take advantage of refining the entry sequence leading into the office space of the building. There are now monument stairs and raised planters and wood bench seating. The active use area stayed the same, however with the change in grade of the parking garage, there are now retaining walls which provide more of a separation between the two areas. The bike parking was scattered around the parking garage previously and has now been joined in one area closer to the entrance of the building. Mr. Sockalosky continued with the revisions made to the interior plan sets of the building and again showed imaged of before the revisions as compared to after the revisions. The skylight increased in size for better viewing of the monitor area space. The updated design includes modifications to bring the building up to code on structural energy and light safety issues while maintaining functional use of the retail area. Brace framing is still being coordinated for structural upgrades within the open areas. They are also still working through the entry way from the open space of the building to the mezzanine. The glazing and increasing the skylight has helped highlight the open areas of the building. A drawing was shown of the interior layout and the brace frame locations, retail layout with the skylight, and conceptual skylight layout. Final locations of proposed additional skylights are being worked on in conjunction with the roof footing motaics. David Burton, architect with KTGY, showed townhome revisions compared to previous drawings and explained they really took to heart the previous comments of the ARB. They added a scheme of design Item 4 Attachment A Draft Minutes of April 6 2023 Packet Pg. 120 Page 7 of 33 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 04/6/23 and tried to build different parapets for each building, two of the styles now have more of an a- symmetrical base to help differentiate them more. Each building now has a unique way of meeting the ground to give each building a different look and feel at the pedestrian level. Each building has different expressions at the entries points. Different materials have been used in each style to make the styles more distinct. They purposely chose materials in color and styles that could be used in each to create harmony in the overall diversity. Chair Hirsch opened the hearing up for Public Comment. Karen Holman expressed concern that she didn’t find out about the meeting until the night before and heard similar complaints from other interested parties. She felt the City could do better with their notification processes. Ms. Holman acknowledged the attempts made in the revisions and apologized in advance for not having the time to review all of the details of the changes. The August 2022 City Council meeting displayed a slide in writing stating the modifications to the Cannery building would align with the Secretary of Interior (SOI) standards. One of the goals of the NVCAP was preservation of the Cannery building and it is no longer able to register with the California Historical registry due to over 40% of the building being removed. If the remnant building does not employ the Secretary of Interior standards, it is equal to a complete demolition of the Cannery building. The staff report did not indicate such. What is being presented has not been vetted by staff for code compliant, and code compliance is in question because everything is being presented as Planned Community (PC). There are no development standards for PC zone. What is being presented is inappropriate for CS zoning and the code change being proposed has no maximum listed. The project could have significant impact on future zoning changes. One of the reason for the PC is the lot division. Ms. Holman referenced South of Forest Area (SOFA) 1 caps regarding land use change in designations. This as well as other ways could be utilized by dividing the smaller lots. Lissy Bland stated raising her hand was an accident. She is a Ventura resident who is listening to the meeting as an interested party. Art Liberman, PABAC liaison, thanked Ms. Raybould for bringing the project before PABAC and suggested she return due to a number of questions that were raised by PABAC members after the meeting in regard to the Bicycle Plan connection between Park and El Camino. The proposal for a two-way cycle track that ends at a private road and Portage leaves members of PABAC concerned about safety. There needs to be more information regarding the circulation plan for the proposed project as he did not see a traffic plan included in the packet. Additionally, the traffic TDM study that was included in the staff report contains a number of errors in terms of amenities and bicycle plan in the area. He hoped there would be further discussion on that topic. Veronica Dao, Administrative Associate III, reported there were no more public speakers. Chair Hirsch asked the applicant if they wished to respond to public comments. Matt Davis, Historian Principal with Architectural Resources Group (ARG), responded to public comment on behalf of the applicant by stating for those concerned about the treatment of the building is not in keeping with the Secretary of Interior standards, he encouraged they reevaluate the Historic Resource evaluation that Paige and Turnbull completed, it describes the character defining features of the building which was reviewed and confirmed in conjunction with their own site assessment. If the list were to be Item 4 Attachment A Draft Minutes of April 6 2023 Packet Pg. 121 Page 8 of 33 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 04/6/23 reviewed item by item, other than a few exceptions on window repairs, the character defining features of the Cannery building are being retained to the extent feasible. He is not able to conclude by looking at the plans that they’re not being kept within the standards of the Secretary of Interior. It has been Sobrato’s main focus to keep the remaining portion of the building as much in accordance with the Secretary standards as it’s current problems and flimsy construction will allow. Chair Hirsch opened the floor to Board questions of staff. Boardmember Rosenberg inquired if there had been anything different with the neighborhood communication process for this project’s series of meetings as compared to all other ARB projects. Ms. Raybould stated the standard is to send notices to a 600-foot radius and it was done for this project as well. Boardmember Rosenberg inquired how far in advance are those notices sent out. Ms. Raybould reported they are usually sent out about 12 days in advance, the date the notifications were sent for this meeting is stated in the staff report. Ms. Raybould did notice that the notices for the current hearing were not sent out to interested parties who had expressed interest in the NVCAP, so she sent those additional notices via email on April 5. She will endeavor to improve those additional communications by sending them out at the same time as the 600-feet notices, particularly in cases when staff are requesting formal recommendations on a project. Boardmember Rosenberg inquired if these additional interested parties expressed an interest in the project. Ms. Raybould clarified they had expressed an interest in the NVCAP in general, and presumably would also have an interest in this project. Vice Chair Baltay asked if people involved in NVCAP only received notices one day ahead of the meeting. Ms. Raybould stated that was correct. Vice Chair Baltay inquired if there is a requirement for a 10-day leeway. Ms. Raybould replied there is no requirement. Boardmember Thompson stated she had many questions for staff and the applicant and asked if she could do them all together; and asked the applicant if they were able to confirm if 40% of the Cannery was being demolished and if 40% of the building is demolished, does it lose Historic status. Ms. Raybould stated that is the conclusion of the environmental impact report and the City standard looks at a project as a whole, and not in percentage of the structure. The demolition of that portion of the building is inconsistent with the Secretary of Interior standards and impacts the eligibility of this building to be a Historic Resource under the California Register. Based on Council, ARB and the HRB feedback, and community members, there is still an interest in trying to retain the character features which remain on the building and minimize impacts of the rest. The monitor roof is the main character that was shown to have an interest in retaining. Ultimately, the City was interested enough to do an analysis for informational Item 4 Attachment A Draft Minutes of April 6 2023 Packet Pg. 122 Page 9 of 33 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 04/6/23 purposes to gauge how consistent the changes to what’s left of the building would be with the SOI standards. Boardmember Thompson clarified that there’s an interest in keeping the building in compliance with SOI standards, however due to the amount of the building that is demolished, it is not. Ms. Raybould stated that was correct. Boardmember Thompson inquired if the applicant had looked at not demolishing so much of the building. Ms. Raybould stated the townhomes could not be built if the building was not demolished. It would be a different project. Chair Hirsch inquired if the building were retained, would it truly pass as a historic building as it currently stands. Ms. Raybould stated the building as it currently is could potentially be eligible for historic status, however it has not actually been placed on the register. Boardmember Rosenberg inquired if everything the applicant is doing to retain the character of the Cannery is voluntary. Ms. Raybould replied it is voluntary, however it was a stated desire of City Council. Boardmember Rosenberg asked if demolishing more than 40% of the building is a problem for the City, is it a problem for how it is being renovated. Ms. Raybould stated what it means is it will no longer be eligible for SOI standards, so City Council would have to make overriding considerations of the project in order to approve the proposed project. Vice Chair Baltay referenced Drawing Sheet A31.0.7 and inquired from Mr. Davis if this were really the original monitor building, would the changes being proposed for the two monitor structures on the roof line be compatible with the SOI standards if it were a stand alone building. Mr. Davis replied their stance is that it would be, however the demolition itself pushes them into a different category. It’s not just any 40% of the building, it’s the portion extending to the east which is in fact an addition that was not part of the original building. The portion being removed is not as old as the portion being retained, with the exception of the board form concrete which is even newer. Thought was given to which portion of the building made most sense to demolish in order to building the housing project. Vice Chair Baltay stated his concern isn’t with the 40%, it is with the end façades of the monitor buildings have new window treatments that are strikingly different than the original façade. Would that be considered acceptable under the SOI standards? Mr. Davis responded yes because the standards aren’t that prescriptive. Boardmember Thompson stated there appears to be protruding box forms for the retail portion on the façade and inquired if that would be consistent with historic standards. Item 4 Attachment A Draft Minutes of April 6 2023 Packet Pg. 123 Page 10 of 33 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 04/6/23 Mr. Davis stated that when you do SOI analysis, the calculus is between existing and proposed. There has always been a lower-level portion that protrudes from the monitor roofs as original conditions of the building. The question is whether or not the proposed bulb outs are sufficiently in keeping with that historic condition to be compatible, and not compromise the historic character of the building. One could argue that they are sufficiently compatible, given the simplicity of the treatments and the fact that the bulb outs do not introduce radically new shapes or massing. Under Standard 9, both compatibility and differentiation at the same time. Both are necessary under Standard 9. Boardmember Thompson asked if the bulb outs are consistent with what was there previously. Mr. Davis responded they are not. Ms. Raybould stated it is unclear if the bulb out area that exists today across the second-floor level occurred during the period of significance, or when it was added. Vice Chair Baltay stated he was incorrect in saying the window mullions were not in line with the original windows, as he sees from the photos of the original building that the patterns where previously rectangular and inquired if it is known what the original mullion patterns were. Mr. Davis responded the original window mullions are still in place. Vice Chair Baltay asked if the intention was to match those. Mr. Davis stated it was. Boardmember Thompson inquired about the bicycle path in the area that was mentioned and asked if it could be pointed out. Ms. Raybould stated it connects Park to Portage and is on a portion of the City dedication parcel as well as the applicant’s townhome and Cannery parcels and Mr. Sockalosky showed the site plan slide for reference, and stated it is still under development. Boardmember Rosenberg stated Sheet L-1.1 seems to have an image that goes from left to right. Boardmember Thompson inquired if it is known what is on the other side of the bike path. Ms. Raybould stated it will be the City dedication parcel. The Ash office building sits at the western end which will remain, the rest will be the park land and affordable housing project property. Vice Chair Baltay inquired if the dashed line is the proposed property line. Ms. Raybould answered it is. Vice Chair Baltay asked if the bike path is on the City future park land. Ms. Raybould stated a portion of the bike path will be on the future City park land. Vice Chair Baltay stated it appears as if most of it is. Ms. Raybould answered that it is just north of the green area on Sheet L1.1. Item 4 Attachment A Draft Minutes of April 6 2023 Packet Pg. 124 Page 11 of 33 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 04/6/23 Vice Chair Baltay inquired if it is acceptable to the City that the bike path is on the park land and not their property. Ms. Raybould responded that staff explored several options for that and in order to address numerous issues raised, they felt it was acceptable to propose a portion of their property and a portion of their property. Vice Chair Baltay inquired what was included in the original City’s ad-hoc agreement. Ms. Raybould stated there was no agreement related to that. It was identified as an impact for consistency for the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan as part of the EIR. There is a requirement to provide a connection. The connection has to be a minimum of sharrows, which is identified in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan. Staff explored options that looked at sharrows. The concern from the transportation division was that the parking options would pack up into the sharrows space, and with all the parking along that street, staff didn’t feel that was a safe connection. They looked at options that included a bike path on each side instead of sharrows, but parking was still an issue. Back-end parking was also reviewed but decided that a more protected bicycle connection would be having a portion on their property and a portion on the City’s property, which would allow them to still retain the parking and meet the C-3 requirements while also having a quality connection. ARB or Council may choose otherwise, or propose alternative options, but that was the option that moved forward as what seemed like the most appropriate option. Boardmember Thompson commented that on the north side there is a lower plane that will step up to the entrance, she was unable to locate an accessible entrance and requested someone point that out on the site plan. Mr. Burke showed a curb ramp leading to a ramp that directs them to a ramp at the front door. On the back side there is a curb ramp that immediately to the right has a switch back ramp that leads to the upper level for that door as well. Boardmember Thompson referenced the retail front façade and questioned if changes had been made since the most recent study session. Mr. Burke stated the landscape had not changed. Boardmember Thompson clarified she was interested if the bulb outs had changed. Mr. Sockalosky stated it had changed and brought up the original drawings to show a comparison. The massing did not change, however in coordination with ARG the window treatments changed significantly, on the two-story portion it had previously be a much more a-symmetrical layout and symmetry was encouraged by the over all design as well as refining the window treatment to utilize smaller panes of glass which corresponds more appropriately with the architectural character. Boardmember Thompson questioned if the G-1 glass on the material board for the Cannery was designed with the intent to look more blue and not clear. Mr. Sockalosky replied that the challenge with single-paned glazing samples is that they do not glaze accurately with the one-inch system, however the slightly blue tint was intended which helps with the Item 4 Attachment A Draft Minutes of April 6 2023 Packet Pg. 125 Page 12 of 33 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 04/6/23 energy efficiency. If there are concerns about that, they will take those into account with any further renditions. Boardmember Thompson commented that the material marked M-3 seems to be the predominant material on the Cannery and questioned if there is a reflectivity that’s known to be associated with it. Mr. Sockalosky stated there is not a significant reflectivity to it, it’s a prefinished corrugated metal material. Boardmember Thompson inquired if the windows in Cannery are operable. Mr. Sockalosky stated they looked into that and from a mechanical standpoint they felt operational windows would not function well with the future use of Research and Development (R&D) office building and they coordinated with Mr. David on that. He felt that was not a significant impact to go with the standard fixed windows. Boardmember Thompson asked how the building is ventilated. Mr. Sockalosky explained the HVAC units are on the western portion of the building which feed into the space and across side feeding into the monitor roof as much as possible. It is still in development at this stage, however, that is the intent. Boardmember Thompson confirmed there would be no significant impact to the roofline. Mr. Sockalosky stated not at all. Vice Chair Baltay followed up on the ventilation and commented that means there would be fairly large air ducts within the monitor roof forms. Mr. Sockalosky stated right now they are not going to have it in the roof area, they will be bringing it in across from underneath the mezzanine and potentially projecting across against the wall above the retail and side feed it from the mezzanine side. Some supplements may be added against the east wall to side feed into the monitor rooms. Due to the spacious openness of the monitor building they are working to make sure it is an innocuous as possible while still providing the proper mechanical system and air flow. Vice Chair Baltay requested clarification that there are no intentions of adding mechanical systems anywhere along the slope line of the monitor building roofline. Mr. Sockalosky stated that was correct. Boardmember Rosenberg noticed the interior ceiling insulation material appears to be black in appearance and inquired why that color was chosen and what the specific material will be. Mr. Sockalosky stated that the paper-back insulation is commonly a black system to cut down on any glare. It disappears from the roof structure while still allowing the structure to be exposed. They felt it was appropriate for an open space and for contrast with some of the wood. Boardmember Rosenberg clarified the intention was to emphasize some of the existing pearl ends and roof structure. Item 4 Attachment A Draft Minutes of April 6 2023 Packet Pg. 126 Page 13 of 33 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 04/6/23 Mr. Sockalosky stated absolutely. Boardmember Rosenberg stated some of the existing images on the interior of the building show that some of the cross members are blue in appearance and requested clarification on the material and how they intend to get them back to an all-wood look. Mr. Sockalosky explained it is all wood, which is one of the defining features of the structure. ARG stated that the coloring was not a historic feature of it, so to get them back to as close to natural wood as possible, they will use a gentle sandblast to remove the 50’s paint. Boardmember Rosenberg inquired how they planned to carefully sandblast that and is a contingency plan in place should that structure be damaged through the course of sandblasting. Mr. Sockalosky stated before they get to the point of the actual treatment, they will work in coordination with ARG to ensure the means and methods that will be used are appropriate and gentle enough for the structure. The means will be studied prior to execution. That would include tests on other areas. Boardmember Rosenberg stated the mezzanine area appears to have one staircase and asked if there is an elevator in place or secondary staircase. Mr. Sockalosky stated there are two staircases. There is no elevator proposed due to code restrictions not requiring one for the amount of space that is there. Boardmember Rosenberg confirmed the location of the two staircases. Chair Hirsch inquired about the function of the mezzanine. Mr. Sockalosky explained that is all for future R&D office tenants. They do not have the exact layout for how that will be used at this time. The restroom core is on the first level. The second level is an open mezzanine intended for a future tenant to outfit. Maintaining the openness of the space will be critical both on the first level and the two-story space and above the mezzanine. Chair Hirsch referenced Drawing A3 1.0.12 it is shown with an area of a sheetrock type wall and areas that are open and clarified those areas have yet been determined as to what that will be. Mr. Sockalosky stated that was correct and even on the interior on the renderings that partial wall is more of an existing structural condition that is currently shown as sheet rocked over, however, in coordination with elevation and ARG on how that will be treated, the future build out will be a tenant decision of what goes in those spaces. Chair Hirsch referenced the same drawing, and requested someone point out Vice Chair Baltay’s question of where the duct system would be within that space. Mr. Sockalosky explained the intent is to side feed the ductwork to come for the western portion of the building, underneath the mezzanine and side feed from that portion out into the space. And referenced a photo of the interior of the building for visual clarification. If supplements are needed based on the volume requirements, they will run across the lid of the retail space at the other end of the planned south end of the building feeding above and behind the skylight as needed, with a side registered duct below the level of the windows and the trusses to allow an outfeed from that side. Item 4 Attachment A Draft Minutes of April 6 2023 Packet Pg. 127 Page 14 of 33 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 04/6/23 Chair Hirsch clarified that on the end wall of the building the ducts would be behind the columns. Mr. Sockalosky stated that was correct. It is a narrow wall that has sheet rock over the existing structural columns and the ductwork would be surreptitious behind the columns. Chair Hirsch inquired if the interior of the structures are diagrammatic sketches or the kind of structure that would replace the existing structures or what’s there currently. Mr. Sockalosky stated the photos reflect what is currently existing, and one of the defining features and showed another photo of the existing interior. Regarding accuracy of the drawings, following the ARB’s prior comments, the interior of the building was totally laser scanned for accurate renderings of the existing structures. Chair Hirsch clarified that the tenants would be responsible for lighting their own spaces. Mr. Sockalosky replied that was correct. The development of the lighting at this stage will be very general for the open space, but development lighting would be tenant specific. The ARB could set guidelines for future lighting requirements after development of the spaces. Chair Hirsch referenced drawing A3-1.0.12 and inquired about the vertical members on the column line that ends three quarters of the way up and if they had been added to the building or useful and asked what those elements entail. Mr. Sockalosky explained those were structural reinforcements that were added at a later date. They are currently going through full evaluation with their structural engineer, and as of now they believe those are critical for the reinforcement of the structure that should not be removed. Chair Hirsch referenced the exterior metal panels and asked what metal panel is used on the housing as related to what’s on the exterior of the Cannery. Boardmember Thompson inquired if they were moving to the housing, Chair Hirsch stated not yet, he was just curious if the material on the Cannery is the same material on the housing. Mr. Burton stated the intention is that would be a vertical tongue in groove wood siding, they didn’t believe the corrugated metal would be appropriate for residential use, but they wanted to use something with a similar vertical shadow pattern. Vice Chair Baltay inquired if the mezzanine that is shown an existing feature of the current building. Mr. Sockalosky replied yes, it is an existing mezzanine that they are maintaining. Vice Chair Baltay asked staff what would happen if a future tenant wanted to add a mezzanine of their own. Ms. Raybould answered they would not be allowed to do that because the planned community zoning would restrict the floor area of the site. They would need Council approval to amend the PC to add that floor area. Boardmember Thompson began her housing questions with the materials of the third building and asked if there is a material board available. Item 4 Attachment A Draft Minutes of April 6 2023 Packet Pg. 128 Page 15 of 33 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 04/6/23 Robert Tersini, Sobrato Developer, stated two new material boards were submitted that related to the two new designs and there should have been a third one that was one of the original boards that was submitted. Ms. Raybould apologized and stated she forgot to bring down the original material board from the previous meeting and confirmed that staff does have that. Boardmember Thompson commented it’s unclear which parts of the façade are getting the textured stucco versus the smooth stucco and inquired if one of the elevations could be used to clarify those and explain the design intent between the textured and smooth. Mr. Tersini explained that as a general rule, the overall stucco would be the fine sand texture. The smooth would be on frames around windows and things of that nature. The intent would be to maintain the defined crisp forms. Boardmember Thompson asked if the applicant was able to give the percentage of the façade that will be stucco. Mr. Tersini stated that he would have to do calculations to find that number, and the elevations include which parts are stucco and which parts are other materials. Boardmember Thompson commented she inquired due to their objective standards stating a specific limit of stucco on a façade and requested the length of the longest façade of the building. Mr. Tersini stated it is a seven-unit building, the length would be somewhere between 140 and 150 feet. Each unit is approximately 21’ wide. Boardmember Thompson inquired about the parking aisle between the townhomes and what is being utilized to reduce the heat island effect in those areas. Mr. Burke replied there are planting areas in between the garages with vegetation. Another option to examine is using decorative paving that lines the drive aisle, with a higher solar reflectance (SR) ratings. Mr. Tersini stated that the City requires the drive aisle itself be maintained clear and open to the sky. Boardmember Thompson asked why that requirement is in place. Ms. Raybould replied it is due to it being a private street. It’s also an access for trash and fire trucks. Boardmember Thompson asked if trees are not allowed in the area. Ms. Raybould stated that trees are allowed, but there is a 26’ area that must be maintained clear along those aisles. Boardmember Thompson requested clarification of if the 26’ ceiling could not have a canopy on it encroaching the full 26 feet. Ms. Raybould explained there’s no buildings so on the ground floor it’s actually 32’ feet across, where they have the trees, will be partially under the overhang of the building. There’s a 26-foot clearance Item 4 Attachment A Draft Minutes of April 6 2023 Packet Pg. 129 Page 16 of 33 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 04/6/23 between the second floors of the building. That needs to be maintained clear. Foliage would be okay, if it were obstructive, it could be trimmed. A shading device would not be recommended. Boardmember Thompson asked if those planting strips have enough space for a tree. Mr. Burke responded that it was not enough space for a traditional canopy tree due to it being immediately adjacent to the building. They want to be respectful of the plants and trees that are put in the space. Anything columnar in species would become a maintenance concern in the future. Boardmember Thompson requested the applicant pull up the tree protection plan and inform the ARB of any additional trees that were saved between the prior meeting and current meeting. Mr. Burke showed the tree protection plan and pointed on screen to which trees were being preserved and stated the trees along Park Boulevard were always going to be retained. One of the changes was a tree that was going to be encroached by the parking structure and they were able to save. Boardmember Thompson inquired if the building footprint was changed to allow the trees to be saved. Mr. Burke stated they did a better job studying the ones that they could save as it relates to the townhomes. Vice Chair Baltay requested the changes in planting that was done along Olive on the northside of the townhomes and inquired what the planting plan is in place of the trees that will be removed. Mr. Burke shared landscape elevations and stated that entire area is designated to be stormwater treatment for the townhome space. Those trees are not protected according to Palo Alto standards and many of them are not of good quality. The area will be infilled with as much native planting as possible that is stormwater complaint. A tree will also be planted in the basin to try to capture some of the canopy they will be losing. Vice Chair Baltay asked if they had a profile selected for the horizontal fiber cement siding on the townhome. Mr. Tersini stated it is a standard lapse siding with either a four or seven-inch exposure to it. Vice Chair Baltay clarified by standard he means that it will be a 7/16 x 4 -6” strip that gets lapped onto itself. Mr. Tersini answered yes. Boardmember Rosenberg referenced material pallet C and stated the fiber cement horizontal siding on the Packet Page A1_2.7.2 and asked if those three painted cement fiber elements shown will have a wood look to it, on the material board they look like a swatch of paint. Mr. Tersini stated it will be a smooth painted siding. There won’t be the color variation that’s shown on the board. Boardmember Thompson inquired about the style A townhomes regarding the previous mention of a sawtooth style with a kind of nod to the skylights as a design intent element and if there was an iteration where they did include skylights for those townhomes. Item 4 Attachment A Draft Minutes of April 6 2023 Packet Pg. 130 Page 17 of 33 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 04/6/23 Mr. Tersini stated no, they had not included skylights for those townhomes. Externally skylights can be a liability issue for the builders. Boardmember Thompson inquired about a clear story. Mr. Tersini stated those elements would have to be taller based on the sloping of the roof to get clear story windows in the units. There is also a requirement now to reserve space on the rooftops for solar panels. Chair Hirsch referenced A1-2.4.2 and requested clarification on what was happening and where in respect to the two-story protruding definition with a deep shadow projecting out. That form is carried through to the areas indicated in grey. Mr. Tersini explained that everything that is grey is on the same plane and there’s a darker type of eyebrow above the windows on the second floor which projects a bit to provide some sort of sun screening to the unit windows and provide shadow and depth to the elevation. Ladder access is required to the third floor by the fire department. Chair Hirsch stated that’s a bit contradictive as the top piece shown and the joint isn’t in line with the deep shadow. Mr. Tersini asked if he was talking about the third level. Ms. Raybould stated he’s talking about the third level setback from the bays. Chair Hirsch stated he was actually asking about the shape of the piece below it. It looks like there’s a deep shadow in the window line and at the end panel. Mr. Tersini answered below the window would be a deep sill and is setback. The windows above the second floor are extended out a bit with a frame, to provide more living space. The frame provides the shadow lines. Chair Hirsch asked if the textured wood area to the left of that structure lined up with the outside. Mr. Tersini replied that it would be setback from the stucco so there would be a change in plane there as well. Chair Hirsch requested clarification that there would be a side element that could be seen from the window. Mr. Tersini stated there is a couple of inches of setback in those locations. Chair Hirsch commented it doesn’t read on the smaller drawings, and one element above the window line projecting. Mr. Tersini stated it would project out six, eight or ten inches, they are limited in how far they can extend those out for emergency access to the above third level. Chair Hirsch noted there is a step up to access the lower floor and parking is at a lower level. Item 4 Attachment A Draft Minutes of April 6 2023 Packet Pg. 131 Page 18 of 33 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 04/6/23 Mr. Tersini clarified the parking is at the same level. From the street up to the building pad there’s about a foot in change but the building itself is level with some slope for drainage. Chair Hirsch inquired if some of the units would then step back down within the units. Mr. Tersini stated some of the units are flush which are accessible units, and some of the units are based on what is needed for grading on the site to drain water. That will all get worked out in the construction drawings. More calculations will be needed. Chair Hirsch inquired about the flushing of the frames around the windows. Mr. Tersini responded that it would depend upon the conditions but where the windows are in the wood- look siding, there is a fiber cement trim that will provide about a two-inch shadow line. The windows that are in stucco will be recessed, when possible, and when not possible there will be a smooth stucco trim so the windows are not flushed with the stucco. Boardmember Thompson inquired about the profile of the standing seam metal wall panel on the upper third floor. Mr. Tersini stated the panels are sixteen inches wide and the standing seams are about an inch and a half in depth. It’s a standard panel. Chair Hirsch inquired if it turns the corner at the street face. Mr. Tersini stated he would have to look at the elevation, and stated at the corner they did turn it around the corner. Vice Chair Baltay noticed on the very last sheet and on other sheets show the proposed public utility easements for the townhome section of the project and stated it looks like everything surround the building are easements and the exceptions are made for the building themselves. Within those easements, Vice Chair Baltay inquired about the restrictions against planting trees, specifically along the northside of the townhomes facing Olive Street across the way. Ms. Raybould requested clarification of which sheet Vice Chair Baltay was viewing. Vice Chair Baltay stated on the very last page in the packet, however there was also one in the landscape plan, possible C8.0 is the same diagram as the last page. It seemed to him they had the entire area as public utility easements with specific all outs for the buildings. Vice Chair Baltay commented to the staff that it’s important to have the ability to have plantings around the buildings and he would hate to see that precluded. Ms. Raybould stated the easements are slightly setback which shows the drive aisle where they identified the private street so there is the area where they have plantings that are adjacent to the driveway of the area. There are public easements that run through the main private street “B” from Portage to Park and that has many of the main utility connections. Vice Chair Baltay stated he was concerned more with the north side of the site, the zig-zag step where the property line is. Item 4 Attachment A Draft Minutes of April 6 2023 Packet Pg. 132 Page 19 of 33 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 04/6/23 Boardmember Rosenberg commented she compared that to L-3.2 the conflict was pretty obvious. Vice Chair Baltay said he’d like to see if they can have plants in that area. Ms. Raybould stated that staff would explore that area more to return with a clearer answer, and she believed there are also underground powerlines in that area. It doesn’t prevent them from planting trees along the property line, as many of the other areas are intended to be C-3 storm water area and won’t have trees planted. Chair Hirsch commented that separate from this portion of the project there is a major access street “A” into the parking lot and there have been transportation studies for the movement of traffic. Various townhomes all access that street and inquired if the private streets are two-way. Mr. Tersini stated they are all two-way streets. Ms. Raybould confirmed that to be true. Chair Hirsch requested more information on which units enter and egress on private Street “A”, and which units enter and egress from Private Street “B”. Ms. Raybould stated the units can enter and egress either way, but tenants will go to the side that would be the least path of travel, and private streets “A” and “B” connect and are two-way streets. Chair Hirsch inquired if the traffic study addressed the schemes of morning and evening rush hours and if there will be conflict. Ms. Raybould stated the traffic analysis concluded that there would be no safety concerns with the proposed design and made assumptions based on the traffic consultant’s and ARB approvals of what the distribution path of travel that would occur varied by number of units and what the units general path of travel would be. Chair Hirsch asked if the traffic study could be referenced. Ms. Raybould stated that it’s provided in the EIR and was discussed in the staff report. Chair Hirsch stated in terms of parking locations and garbage collection, the private streets of “E” and “D” and inquired if the garbage truck would travel up one side to return down the other. Ms. Raybould stated that was also her understanding. There is access through from streets “E” and “D” for the trash trucks. THE ARB RECESSED FOR A 10 MINUTE BREAK Chair Hirsch opened the meeting to Boardmember comments for the Cannery portion of the project. Boardmember Rosenberg commented that she felt the response to prior Board comments was intentional, thoughtful, and appropriate. She is concerned with potential future problems with the HVAC layout, and she would like the blue glass to be reconsidered. Overall, she is impressed with the revisions to the windows, specifically with the end façades, the interior wood structures and the thoughtfulness moving forward with those. The retail space still feels small and does not feel that given the size of the Item 4 Attachment A Draft Minutes of April 6 2023 Packet Pg. 133 Page 20 of 33 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 04/6/23 space it should be inhabited by one company, which isn’t within the purview of the ARB, however, it is her opinion. More public access to the beauty of the space would have been nice. She sincerely appreciated the dropping of the parking structure and felt it was an elegant solution for that area. The landscaping in that space was very nice and she appreciated incorporating the higher and lower areas. She’s looking forward to seeing the project return. Vice Chair Baltay, in general, shared Boardmember Rosenberg’s sentiment, and commented that Private Street A on the site plan, from Park will be a major pathway for many of the consumers of the retail space due to it being a short cut from the 101 via Paige Mill Road. It’s not really the ARB’s purview, however, he believes there is a potential for traffic problems between the residents of the townhomes and the people working in the office building. It would be a benefit to address those challenges now versus later. Related to the massing on the building, he would like to see the monitor building kept as historically accurate as possible and to where it does meet the SOI standards as defined by Palo Alto’s HRB. The questions regarding the color of the glass, size of the mullions, and size of the windows should be looked at through a historic lens for consideration of what’s appropriate for that building. He likes what’s been presented on paper, however he would like to see the glass clear. More so, he’d like the building to be treated historically. He understood that the building no longer meets historic standards when 40% has been removed, but at the same time the monitor building could still be treated as such. Another concern is that the corrugated metal is too shiny, the glass is too blue and the mullion patterns on the windows are too different. He’s concerned about the bulb-out on the south side of the monitor building and believes all of it should be a second story or not there at all. The images reflect that the original building did not have that space and it looks better from an architectural perspective without it. One option might be to continue the retail space all the way down which would create one continuous façade. That would also better preserve the original form of the gable ends of the roof. Vice Chair Baltay is bothered by the retail space as it relates to the interior of the monitor structure. The flat roof with a skylight looking up is a dubious scheme of trying to show the public was there and very likely to get lost as some tenant moves in. The retail space should go full to the height of the monitor building. The east end of the parking lot faces the townhomes and needs better landscaping or more detail in design. The lighting on the third floor of the parking garage wasn’t detailed, he would like to see what will be used and how it will affect the neighbors across Olive. With those two big changes to the Cannery building, he would be able to support the project. Chair Hirsch commented that it’s hard to understand why Private street A doesn’t continue into the parking lot, there would be an easier connection there if one of the townhomes were moved to the other side. He’s doubtful of the circulation of Street A as described by the transportation staff and agrees there will be future conflicts. Speed bumps won’t solve those problems even though the resolve to those challenges isn’t obvious. The improvements to the docks were appropriate, however he agrees with the comments of Vice Chair Baltay regarding the south side of the building. The HVAC plans still need a lot of work, and he doesn’t understand why they wouldn’t want float ducts within the space, which is how it’s done on the opposite end of the building and is generally standard in buildings of this nature. He believes the intent from the beginning was to keep the building as historically in character as possible and they’ve come even closer to doing that. He is more concerned with the general site planning, which goes back to the commitment that has been made by the City Council. The parking plan as a whole has never been solved and the Cannery parking on the other side of the red line is an unfortunate mistake because it Item 4 Attachment A Draft Minutes of April 6 2023 Packet Pg. 134 Page 21 of 33 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 04/6/23 effects the entire scheme of the townhomes. It’s unfortunate that wasn’t addressed early on in the project, and perhaps had it been, there could have been a different type of housing scheme. As far as the Cannery building itself is concerned, he believes it’s quite a success. Boardmember Thompson agrees the glass is too blue and perhaps next time the project returns, a more complete material board will be available that will show the glazing unit and the profile of the corrugated metal. Her concern is that being corrugated, it may be too shiny and it’s hard to tell with the single sample that is matte. The blue glass is going to affect the interior view looking out, everything will be seen as blue. She would also like to see more renderings of the southern retail side. There was only one included and she’d like to see the space from various angles. She shares Vice Chair Baltay concern about the bulb-out boxes. The different height of the boxes is distracting. They did a fun forced perspective with the paint on the monitor and you still get the essence of the curves even with the obstruction, however none of the design work appears to be paying homage to the buildings. Boardmember Thompson maintained her views from the prior meeting that it’s not very contextual, it’s not respectful to the historical nature of the building and she is disappointed changes weren’t made. She feels the pallet is too grey considering the parking area also has a grey treatment, a good option might be tying in some of the residential color pallet for the parking garage treatment. The foliage alone isn’t going to make the parking area look less dismal. The HVAC ventilation is a concern because it will affect how the building looks. It’s a bare bones building and maintains operable windows would still be a good option. The future tenant may thank them for allowing thermal comfort without having to pay for it. The duct work will have aesthetic impacts on the interior of the building and recommends the next time the project returns, the applicant has someone on hand who can explain the HVAC plans. Ms. Raybould suggested giving the applicant a chance to ask questions if needed. Vice Chair Baltay summarized items the Board was in consensus with. Three board members were not happy with the forms of the bulb outs on the south side and asked Boardmember Rosenberg if she had a position. Boardmember Rosenberg stated she was a bit more neutral; it is less offensive to her because it already existed. She would, however, support her colleagues in that it should be a single form or a single-story structure. Boardmember Thompson stated it is not already existing and showed Boardmember Rosenberg a photo. Boardmember Rosenberg commented she’s not sure if that changes her opinion, however she still supports her colleagues opinion if they felt it should be brought down to a single level. Vice Chair Baltay stated he supports Boardmember Thompson’s comments that there should be ventilation in the monitor structure and inquired Chair Hirsch and Boardmember Rosenberg’s opinion. Boardmember Rosenberg stated she supports the idea of operable windows. Vice Chair Baltay commented he was trying to summarize a list of items the Board had consensus on. Boardmember Thompson commented she thought she was the only one who brought up the pallet of the parking garage. Item 4 Attachment A Draft Minutes of April 6 2023 Packet Pg. 135 Page 22 of 33 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 04/6/23 Boardmember Rosenberg stated she was completely on board with that. Since Vice Chair Baltay brought up the fact that it faces the townhomes, it was a great idea to try to tie the pallet of the townhomes over to that structure. Vice Chair Baltay stated he supported that. Chair Hirsch commented he would like to see some of the colors of the main building more so than the colors of the townhomes specifically and that he remembered there being more colors in the previous meeting than what was being shown now. Regarding the massing, Vice Chair Baltay commented he believed there was consensus that they all wanted to see more information on the materials being presented. Boardmember Rosenberg stated specifically she would like to see a better sample of the corrugated metal. Chair Hirsch stated everyone agreed that the blue glass was not appropriate. Boardmember Rosenberg commented that seeing the fenestration and proportion of the mullions will be important, particularly since the windows are a huge element of the façade. The Boardmembers moved on to the townhome portion of the project. Boardmember Rosenberg believed the plans of the townhomes is a big step forward. Breaking up the buildings has been a huge improvement. The variation of the heights of the first level to the second level on Types A versus B versus C feels much more interesting and more elegant. Her concern is she’s not a big fan of how flat everything is. The renderings on the sheets that show styles A, B, and C show a wood look and that variation in color is very flat and disheartening. She encouraged the applicant to look for something a bit more high end in quality of material. Each material separately is fine but put all together it's flat with flat with flat and makes the whole building fall flat and encouraged the use of a more natural material whether that be actual wood, or a wood look metal panel, something with more variation in texture. The metal being proposed is one element that brings that in and encouraged them to do same with the fiber cement. The angle’s of the ceiling height are interesting, and she likes how they treated the entrances differently. The garage façades probably need a little more attention. Boardmember Rosenberg is concerned with the texture of the stucco on the material board. It feels as if it’s on the cheaper side, and reiterated Vice Chair Baltay’s comments about the percentage of stucco to make sure the project doesn’t go overboard with stucco. Regarding the site layout, Streets A and B may be used as thorough fares. Just like traffic will use the Ash Street to enter from the El Camino side, people will use Street A and B to access the parking structure from Park and encouraged the developer to figure out a way to discourage people from using Streets A and B as thorough fares. Going down Street B and D, and less specifically E and F, she would encourage the use of speed bumps or raised platforms for the pedestrians. A secondary look at where the residents will be crossing from the parking structure would be beneficial. The landscape is nicely done, she likes to see lots of plantings, lots of trees and lots of shading and privacy between the residences. The bike path on the property line left her concerned about who would maintain it, what would happen if there’s a future dispute. If the bike path is going to straddle the property line, something needs to be in place prior to building the project with regards to who will be responsible for Item 4 Attachment A Draft Minutes of April 6 2023 Packet Pg. 136 Page 23 of 33 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 04/6/23 maintenance and care of the bike path. The bike parking seems sparce. They did a good job at the Cannery building for bike pathing and parking, the townhouses could use more consideration for additional bike parking. Vice Chair Baltay shared Boardmember Rosenberg’s opinions with regards to the massing of the townhomes. It could use more detail and refinement, particularly the parallel lap siding, which could be a heavier profile. The standing seam metal point that Boardmember Rosenberg shared was a good one and he’s like to see more consideration given towards that. He is concerned about the elevations facing across Olive. There are four buildings on the north façade that can be seen as you come down the street because it’s a sloped street. Building B4 on Sheet A1 2.4.1 has a fairly large façade that’s a stucco finish, which would end up being one blank wall. Each building has the same issue. He doesn’t believe it needs to be redesigned, but he would like the color to be toned down or more thought to what that finish will be. In response to Boardmember Thompson’s comments about the heat island effects, it would be nice to see a paving pattern plan. The private streets could be done in a material that radiates less heat, and it would look better. It would be nice to see what their proposal would be for that. He would like to see more privacy inducive landscape on the northside of the townhomes where they face Olive. He’s doubly concerned when he hears it’s a storm-water system and then the plans show it’s all a public utilities easement, it makes him think there won’t be any large trees in that area, particularly when there are already trees in that location. If they aren’t healthy, maybe propose replacing them rather than removing them. Removing them has a negative impact on the community. On building #1 facing Olive, in one drawing it appears private, then on Sheet A1-2.1.0 in the lower left drawing, the windows on the second and third levels look directly into the folks across the way and into their backyards. Residential use standards in Palo Alto do not allow that. On the third level, the floor plan could be flipped so that the closet is on that side and the larger windows would face west, and the three smaller windows in the living room could be raised up to improve privacy; it would be a small change that goes a long way for the neighbors. When you have the buildings across from each other on the paseo, if you were to mirror one of the floor plans, you wouldn’t have doors opposite from each other, which is generally a nice variation and while it may be more architectural work, there wouldn’t be any construction difference in the cost. The massing is much improved and appreciates the effort put into it overall. He suggested on Buildings 4, 9 and 11, seen best on Sheet A1-2.4.1, this building is the least successful on the modulations and it could be improved by taking the setback thin pieces of the building between the decorative elements and lower it down another foot, which gives it a little more up and down effect. The drawing above it shows that on one side, it should be on both sides. It’s just a parapet wall so it would be a fairly straightforward change. The big issue he’d like to address is the comments regarding the site planning. He feels that the ARB should respect the City Council ad-hoc’s decision on this. He’s gone back to the records and looked at the negotiations over the past ten years in some detail, and his conclusion in the end was that this was the compromise the City Council and the City want. This is the site plan they agreed to; and he believes they did it intentionally. He's not comfortable with the ARB looking to push for different changes in site planning at this point. It’s a done deal and Vice Chair Baltay thinks it’s hurtful to the process to push that any further. It’s not the best site plan that could have been done, but he believes there was a compromise that took place that’s quite extensive and the City was very pleased to receive a free park with additional land for housing, a solution so that this project could move forward, and to avoid a lawsuit. It’s not appropriate for the ARB to keep pushing without consideration of all the other elements that were Item 4 Attachment A Draft Minutes of April 6 2023 Packet Pg. 137 Page 24 of 33 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 04/6/23 involved. An example could be he felt more of the Cannery could have been used for more retail space and as it turns out, the ad-hoc committee felt the same way and they fought hard for it. There were other reasons in the negotiation process that they decided not to continue pushing for that, and instead got the park. He would like to see this project move forward. With that, Vice Chair Baltay stated there is one site change that could be made and should be made, and that’s the width of the paseo. There’s a public paseo in the middle of the project and it’s too narrow. It could be made wider if they made private Street C a little narrower. As a Board, he’d like to see them agree that at a minimum, it should be as wide as it is tall, which would be adding about six feet. They could make that change without dramatically changing the site plan of the project. Chair Hirsch commented he felt from the beginning that they have a very long linear repetition of housing typology and the project with a paseo is missing it’s general usage which would make it a community use facility that’s found in better townhome projects. Relative to how decisions are made here in Palo Alto, he feels the process could have included some negotiations from the Council. It’s not the applicants problem, it’s a problem with making deals with a developer. It’s difficult to come to an end result where you have this particular scheme because it was the best they could do, with the amount of land for seventy—four townhomes. An example would be had the red line been closer to the Cannery building and that parking was moved elsewhere, perhaps at the other end of the building, it would have allowed some extra property that would have significantly improved the paseo, and the paseo could have been used for other uses common to areas that are common to the whole community. It would have then become kind of a center piece for this community. He agrees with Vice Chair Baltay that at this point there won’t be many changes to the streets to make the paseo wider, and that in itself is unfortunate. The typology of the housing, he’s not quite pleased with yet. The improvements of changing the access to the doors and changing the street access and entry elevation is a grand improvement. When he looked at A1 2.0.2 and sees the same thing they saw in the beginning, he likes that the end had an important change in elevation and he’s not so intrigued that they wouldn’t try that in the whole block, and mid-block on A1 2.4.1 still bothers him in the sense that more variation could happen. All of the houses are the same with the same number of bedrooms so there are no tandem parking type houses or alterations. More variation within each housing block would make the residences feel more personal to the people who buy them. In terms of street access, it doesn’t do any good to have the bend at the end, if they did 6 homes on one end and put the other six on the other end, it would have better alignment and the traffic flow would be improved. Site planning would have been better if they had more land, but there are other ways to make the traffic circulation better. Tandem parking on some of the units in the middle might also help. That would increase the space between the buildings, and it would increase the air to the project. The more you can increase the paseo to make it more significant in general use, the better this project will be. When you have townhomes entirely in a project such as this, you miss the diversity within a community that has a greater mixture of typologies. If a portion of this project had been a podium type of scheme and a portion had been townhomes, there would be a better mix of population and more appropriate as a neighborhood. Boardmember Thompson thanked the applicants and agreed with much of what her other Boardmembers had to say. She appreciates the effort to diversify the townhome architecture and liked styles A and B. Style C feels like a little bit of a Frankenstein thing where it has something going on at the top and something very different at the bottom. Her recommendation for what does work is on Sheet A1-2.7.2 Item 4 Attachment A Draft Minutes of April 6 2023 Packet Pg. 138 Page 25 of 33 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 04/6/23 where you can see the profile on the side with a ribbon on the upper level that’s modulating in section and that party is really successful. It could have variation in color and having that terminate the way that that tectonic terminates might make it feel less abrupt. In general, she liked the color pallet except on the backside on the same page, it’s very monochromatic. A lot of the façades will be facing the south, but it’s also going to be facing other people with balconies and it’s going to look dismal. Particularly the parking aisles. It would be great if there were a way to make those streets feel less isolated. She appreciated Boardmember Rosenberg’s mention of the wood material. She thought it was wood, it didn’t occur to her that it was paint. Biophilia is so important, we need to have warmth and we need to want to look at it. There needs to be variation across that material. The wood colors look great, just make them wood. People have big veranda style balconies on the back, they’ll want to look at something biophilic, and something with warmth. These are 360 buildings, there’s not really a front or a back, with the limited foliage, those are going to be the most visible façades. The trees are lovely on the front side, you can’t ignore the backside. Boardmember Thompson agrees with Vice Chair Baltay about the side elevations as well, only he stated he didn’t want you to redesign it, she would like it redesigned. She believes it’s quite plain, particularly for building B, and consideration should be given to the side façades. More treatment should be given to the façades that are going to get more sun exposure. Particularly since it’s more of a modular based design. She encourages them to find a modular where they can insert sunshades for the sides that are getting a lot of sun exposure. That would also provide greater variation without adding a lot of cost or design changes. They are in a similar style in the sense that they are this modern contemporary style. Similar to her comment on the Cannery, the material boards would be better if the colors were on the samples themselves. Textured stucco looks very different from a flat white sample of stucco. It’s hard to determine actual color of a material prior to seeing the color on a sanded finish. Boardmember Thompson requested at the next meeting the materials have the appropriate colors on the finished sample of materials. Wood samples or something similar of nature would also be nice to see. A rainscreen panel might be a good option; they have a lot of variation, and they last. She agrees with Boardmember Rosenberg about the flatness, not just in color but in the material variations as well. The punched openings don’t seem enough, and the changes in material don’t actually change plane and only a trim is added. She appreciates Vice Chair Baltay’s comments regarding the site planning. Like the rest she is disappointed that it didn’t change, however she believes he’s right, they do need to move forward. She agrees with widening the paseo if possible. Boardmember Thompson encouraged more thought into the heat-island effect that will happen on the parking aisles, something without a blinding effect. In general, she appreciated adding more trees, but the number of trees being demolished is quite high. At the last meeting there were some suggestions on how some of those trees could be saved and she doesn’t believe any of those trees discussed were saved. She pushed one more time to request the applicant take a look at saving more of the trees, as some of the added trees look like they would fall into the paseo. Boardmember Rosenberg stated she heard three Boardmembers mention widening the paseo. In theory she liked the idea, however, she has concerns it will force all of the six building chunks to the left. That top left building is already impacted by the daylight plane in a notable way. They showed iterations where they canted the roof line to follow the daylight plane. The applicant is likely going to find it too expensive to move them all by six feet. They would have to lose an entire unit. The secondary concern in widening the paseo, if Street C is turned into a one-way street, it affects the circulation of vehicles trying to move Item 4 Attachment A Draft Minutes of April 6 2023 Packet Pg. 139 Page 26 of 33 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 04/6/23 around the building. That will force them down Streets A and B in a way that is not wanted. She urged the Board to discuss that a bit before they make it a formal request of the applicant. Boardmember Thompson clarified she was talking about the Plan East-West paseo. Boardmember Rosenberg stated if they widen the North-South paseo, it will take moving all those homes to the left. Ms. Gerhardt stated she believed the Boardmembers were talking about two different paseos and asked Vice Chair Baltay to clarify which paseo he was talking about. Vice Chair Baltay he was referring to the paseo that runs parallel to Street C, which is North-South, the longest and widest one, and he believes they could widen the part that’s between Streets A and B without effecting the daylight plane issue. The impact would be on Street C or the parking along Street C. To respond to Boardmember Rosenberg’s comment’s, he believes Street C would not be used by the commercial building, more the townhomes and one way circulation wouldn’t have that much of an affect but would leave it to the applicant to figure how they capture six feet. Traffic leaving the parking structure could still go both ways and his thought is they want to encourage traffic towards El Camino as much as possible. Making the street narrower is good in that way. The paseo at the proposed width just doesn’t work. When there are houses at the same grade level claiming their public space in front of them, it will end up being a zigzag pathway through the trees, with no public function. Just a few more feet would give them more options for landscaping and possibly a bench or two. His intent isn’t to make it an absolute, however strongly encourage the applicant to revisit that if possible. Chair Hirsch supports that wherever they can find the extra footage to make it work, and explained he wasn’t talking about moving all the units by six feet, only taking one unit, and shifting it to the opposite side. Boardmember Rosenberg clarified they are talking about two different elements, which would cause reason for a whole different conversation. Then Boardmember Thompson’s point of the second East-West paseo is too narrow brings in a completely different challenge. Boardmember Rosenberg inquired if the dimension of the North-South paseo was known. Ms. Raybould replied that the paseo is twenty feet, and the height of the buildings are 37.5’ at their highest point. Boardmember Rosenberg stated if they really wanted it one to one, the paseo would have to be increased by seventeen feet. Vice Chair Baltay stated he scaled twenty-two feet in the plans. He thought they were closer to twenty- eight feet but that wasn’t the case. He believes if they can get six feet of width on the paseo that would be sufficient. Ideally, he’s like the ARB to give them direction on what to do with both paseos. He’s hard pressed in believing they can’t capture an additional six feet over a space that’s over several hundred feet between parking, landscaping, building designs and firewalls. His opinion is the applicant is pushing back because they don’t want to go back to the drawing board. It comes down to the quality of life of the people who will be living there and widening the paseos would make a big difference. Item 4 Attachment A Draft Minutes of April 6 2023 Packet Pg. 140 Page 27 of 33 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 04/6/23 Boardmember Thompson agreed and stated she would support that. Ms. Raybould stated that is something they could explore further. The changes would affect a few different aspects and she would need to get feedback from zero waste and green waste who provide trash pick up to better understand how changes to the street widths and turning radius might affect their vehicles. In addition, to fire to understand their minimum widths for the emergency vehicle access. Some discussions took place with the applicant in possibly increasing the width of the paseo by getting rid of the additional parallel parking that’s not required parking. The applicant stated they wanted to try to have some additional parking along different areas to near each unit, that would have to be explored. On Sheet A0.1.2 the minimum street width per Title 21 of the code is supposed to be 32’, the applicant is requesting a map with exceptions for the streets for the two aisles that go down the center, Street E and Street D, G and F, to be 26’ across in width. Currently they are maintaining 32” for Street A, B, and C. If you look again at A0.1.2, it shows where the private streets are, shifting that would reduce the street width on Street C. That is something the Planning Commission and the Council would have to agree to as part of a map width exception. Chair Hirsch inquired if this considers the possibility that Street C could be a one-way street. Ms. Raybould answered she believes there still needs to be a twenty-two foot back up width for those parking spaces on the Cannery site. There could be a one-way street but there would still have to be 22’. Vice Chair Baltay stated the plans right now show the width at 26’. If they could make it 22’, that’s four of the six feet. Ms. Raybould added that would be in the car park. Vice Chair Baltay stated changing the parking to angled parking would shift the dividing line in between the two parcels. Ms. Raybould stated there is parallel parking on the right side as well. Vice Chair Baltay stated they also have a 7.5’ landscaping buffer and a 4.5’ sidewalk. A couple of feet could be captured in way. Ms. Gerhardt stated they are hearing that six additional feet is being requested in the North to South paseo and inquired if there was consensus from the rest of the Board on that and if so, they should leave it to the applicant to find the additional feet. Vice Chair Baltay stated he would like to ask the applicant to find six feet for both paseos. Boardmember Thompson stated yes, she supported that. Chair Hirsch stated he also supports that. Boardmember Rosenberg stated she also supports that. Chair Hirsch commented that the other request was asking them to shift Private Street A. Vice Chair Baltay stated he does not support that request as it would cause issues with trash pick up and would be too costly of a change to make in design. Item 4 Attachment A Draft Minutes of April 6 2023 Packet Pg. 141 Page 28 of 33 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 04/6/23 Boardmember Rosenberg stated that she would argue that people tend to go faster on a straight thorough fare versus having it curved in some fashion. There will be a lot of pedestrians in that area, making that left turn will cause people to slow down versus making it a straight shot in and out. It makes it safer for the transition between traffic, parking structure to habitable living space. Chair Hirsch stated he’s okay with that if there is consensus. Moving on to massing, Boardmember Thompson stated she heard two comments about adding a wood element. Vice Chair Baltay stated he supported that. He would like to see greater variation and higher quality of the massing materials, and he would like to see better documentation of what it is. Chair Hirsch stated he’s not on board with that. In terms of the design of the buildings themselves, some of them are better than others, he doesn’t see a good relationship between the base of buildings when the tops are so different. He’s not happy with the design of the units themselves. Vice Chair Baltay commented that Boardmember Thompson mentioned sunshades and modulation and he supported that completely. It’s an easy thing to do. It would also fix what Chair Hirsch doesn’t like. Chair Hirsch agreed. Boardmember Rosenberg believes there’s some really nice geometric lines with the angles and the saw- tooths at the top and maybe the sunshade can be evocative of that geometry. Her concern would be them slapping on open trellises and cautioned the language should be very thoughtful. Chair Hirsch agrees there are different ways of modulating the sun on the inside of the building. Larger volumes are not a bad idea if they are very well done in manner. His concern is the lack of variation. Vice Chair Baltay believed they could modulate the height in some of the townhomes façade. Boardmember Rosenberg agrees completely particularly on Style A1-2.7.0. The first chunk is modulated down and the rest is not; she believes that first modulation is very successful. Style B is the most repetitive of the styles. Style C has quite a bit of variation, possibly too much. Boardmember Thompson felt Style C was too different styles stacked on top of each other, and encouraged the applicant to take the top half of the folded ribbon aspect and use that tectonic all the way down and have it terminate the way that tectonic terminates as best the applicant sees. She likes the wood tones in Style C so she wouldn’t ask the applicant to remove that. Vice Chair Baltay also believed style C was interesting architecture and he liked the profile of the roof form and the way they rotated it the ends. The grey metal and the wood, assuming that will be some kind of real wood, is pretty strong. And agrees Boardmember Thompson’s comments are good too, and it would make it stronger by taking it all the way down, and Chair Hirsch indicated is the integration of the upper and the lower pieces he didn’t care for. He supports asking the architect to consider pushing it further by following the language that’s used on the upper portion of the building. Boardmember Rosenberg believes the white portion on the left of the upper image is doing that, where it’s coming all the way down and it’s breaking the façade to some extent. The little white pieces in between Item 4 Attachment A Draft Minutes of April 6 2023 Packet Pg. 142 Page 29 of 33 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 04/6/23 do the same thing. She also stated she feels like she’s constantly having to flip between the three pages constantly, she would like to see all three elements together because that’s what will be seen as people walk down the street. Yes, B alone is repetitive, but once you put it together across from Style C, it’s going to have a lot more variation and the three styles are working together. They aren’t identical, they’re not overly repetitive. She likes that A has this sort of chunk at the bottom and a two-story element up above and that B seems to be floating somewhat, and everything is on the second floor, and then Style C is different, and the chunk is at the bottom with the ribbon up above. By having that difference in façades from upper to lower and then left to right, it’s helpful overall to break this up. She doesn’t appreciate houses that are identical from building to building. That was the ARB’s original issue in that the three styles were too similar. Boardmember Thompson agrees with everything Boardmember Rosenberg said and thinks her issue is, in looking at 2.7.2, the white plane at the back is doing it’s thing as the base and the ribbon comes out, her issue is there’s a third thing that’s nothing like the other two, that is just chopping the ribbon off. If feels like three different elements on one façade, and the way the ribbon terminates doesn’t feel natural in the way a tectonic ribbon would terminate. She likes the top-heavy/middle-heavy/bottom-heavy aspect of the buildings together. She feels the applicant could revisit the façade with the ribbon and make adjustments, so it doesn’t feel pieced together but rather flowing between all the elements, or between planes. Vice Chair Baltay is concerned that the Boardmembers need to be more specific when requesting a change in tectonic of the form otherwise it leaves room for the applicant to return and say they weren’t specific in what they wanted to see. He doesn’t support what Boardmember Thompson is saying. Boardmember Thompson stated she’s uncomfortable suggesting a design, as that should be left up to the architect. Chair Hirsch feels the complication of having so many different materials on the fronts adds to the complexity of it and they should look at the façades and find a way to unify them in a way that’s not creating a total repetition each time. He’s seen it done, but a possible alternative could be to have a change in unit type within the structure. It allows for different variation within the cluster. Boardmember Thompson suggested the Board weigh in on requesting the applicant to add an additional unit floor plan. Chair Hirsch commented that it’s a way of looking at the project and identifying that the people who occupy them will occupy different sized houses and it creates a variation from the inside out. Vice Chair Baltay fully supports what Chair Hirsch is saying. It would be better if they did that, however, City Council wanted three- and four-bedroom family townhomes on the site. That’s what they agreed to do. That’s what they negotiated; the record is clear. That’s what is being proposed, and he doesn’t feel they can keep asking the applicant to continue going back to the drawing board on that. He agrees, the town would be better if there were a bigger variety of housing elements, greater economic drive, and greater diversity. Item 4 Attachment A Draft Minutes of April 6 2023 Packet Pg. 143 Page 30 of 33 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 04/6/23 Chair Hirsch stated in looking at requesting the paseo to be wider, creating a variety in floor plan would give them the opportunity to take care of the paseo issue at the same time. Vice Chair Baltay commented he would support them doing that, he just didn’t feel he could support demanding they do that. Boardmember Rosenberg commented if this was supposed to be mixed-use, that is something that should and would have been addressed a long time ago. Chair Hirsch stated it’s too late for that. Boardmember Rosenberg stated in terms of tandem parking versus side-by-side parking, that goes back to them requiring tandem parking, and that making it more difficult to sell the units. That’s placing significant financial impact on the developer in a way that she’s not sure they can justify. It is also beyond their scope. Boardmember Thompson agrees with Boardmember Rosenberg and Vice Chair Baltay on that. Vice Chair Baltay apologized and stated it’s not that he doesn’t agree with Chair Hirsch, but he really wants to see the project built. Chair Hirsch stated he agrees that all of the ARB would like to see the project get built. Ms. Gerhardt stated she’s impressed with the stamina of the Board with this project and inquired if they were ready for the summary of consensus. Boardmember Thompson stated there are two more items she wanted to try to get consensus on. On A1- 2.4.1, Vice Chair Baltay and she both made a comment about the side elevation B and similarly the elevation along Olive requesting the applicant to reconsider the design on that side, particularly the elevation that faces the park. Vice Chair Baltay stated he can support asking the applicant to reconsider the design of the end façades of all the units, with the eye towards making them more attractive, and more continuous with the rest of the buildings and less aggressively visible from Park Avenue and the future park, meaning less of a bright white wall. Boardmember Rosenberg stated she could support that. Chair Hirsch stated he’s fine with that. Boardmember Thompson stated her last item was lessening the heat-island effect on the parking access lanes. Chair Hirsch stated he thought that was addressed on the paving. Vice Chair Baltay asked Boardmember Thompson if she means more than understanding more of the material that will be laid, as they made it pretty clear they don’t have a lot of options on landscaping. Boardmember Thompson replied that it could be just paving. Item 4 Attachment A Draft Minutes of April 6 2023 Packet Pg. 144 Page 31 of 33 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 04/6/23 Vice Chair Baltay stated it would be an improvement if they could just get them to tell the ARB what the material will be and they could then push to make it nicer or more reflective, or more permeable. Boardmember Rosenberg added in looking at the LOI, what the color choice of the paving would be as well. Boardmember Thompson stated they don’t have paving samples included and they could ask for that for next time. Vice Chair Baltay stated that’s part of the request as a whole when asking for more of the samples of what’s being used and in the finished state of how they will look with the colors that have been chosen, to include material specifications. Boardmember Thompson added that in tandem with that, there was the façade elevations along those streets and how those could be quite visible and less monochromatic in their treatment on Sheet A1-2.7.2, the backside of Style C. Boardmember Rosenberg stated it would be fair to ask that the ARB receives better views of all of the end elements, possibly even a streetscape elevation from each of the Streets and the views for the ends of the buildings side by side, from both directions. Vice Chair Baltay stated if they extend their comments about using a higher quality of materials, to include all four sides of the buildings, that will help eliminate the flatness of the material on the end sides. Boardmember Rosenberg commented she would like to see additional shots of the elevations of all the buildings together as they would be seen from the street, similar to Sheet A1-2.0.1, but with better visual of just the ends of the townhomes. The sheet could have a little more attention and thought put into it. Vice Chair Baltay stated he would like to see better landscaping on the side that faces Olive street. Boardmember Rosenberg and Boardmember Thompson both agreed with that. Ms. Raybould recapped the ARB consensus with concerns and comments as followed for the Cannery: •Consensus was that it seemed it would be better to have a single form from the single-story structure above the retail area, not as a-symmetrical in design. •There should be more consideration of proper ventilation into the monitor structure and the ARB would like to see schematic drawings of the HVAC design with respect to the monitor area and the glazing, and the operable ventilation window. •The pallet of the parking garage should consider bringing more colors of the townhomes into the garage structure to mix up that pallet more. •An interest in seeing a corrugation sample, noting that there’s a distinct difference between having something flat versus corrugated. •Reconsideration of the blue coloration of the glass •Seeing fenestration proportions of mullions so that samples received since it’s a huge element of the façade. Item 4 Attachment A Draft Minutes of April 6 2023 Packet Pg. 145 Page 32 of 33 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 04/6/23 Ms. Raybould recapped the ARB consensus with concerns and comments as followed for the townhomes: •There should be greater variation of materials for higher quality of materials, in particular better documentation of those materials and how those relate to replace some of the existing stucco. •There should be some wood feature to help bring in warmth. •Consider the addition of sunshades on the south façade units and they should not be added on, rather pulled through the language of the building design with respect to the geometric lines. •Improve the design of the pedestrian mews to increase the width in both directions to six feet on both the north to south and east to west paseos. •Consider the façade elevations on all sides of the building, including the parking façades, as they relate to the façades that can be seen from Olive Avenue and from the future public park area for higher quality material and more textuality. •Consider the heat island effect on the access aisles and if anything can be done to improve that through color choices of paving or permeable pavers. MOTION: Vice Chair Baltay moved, seconded by Boardmember Thompson, that the project be continued to a date uncertain subjective to the comments Ms. Raybould outlined. VOTE: 4-0-0-1 (Boardmember Chen absent) 3. Draft Architectural Review Board's (ARB) Annual Report and Draft Work Plan Ms. Raybould stated the Work Plan could be pushed to the next meeting. Boardmember Rosenberg requested the Chair consider Item 3 be pushed to the following meeting on account of time. MOTION: Boardmember Rosenberg motioned, seconded by Vice Chair Baltay, to move Agenda Item #3 to a meeting date certain of April 20, 2023. VOTE: 4-0-0-1 (Boardmember Chen absent) Approval of Minutes 4. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for March 2, 2023. Vice Chair Baltay commented that on Packet Page 150, and Packet Page 154, both places refer to the building having connections to bicycle parking, vehicle parking and fitness center; the Board’s intention was to have a direct internal connection. The motion states there should be an internal connection and items D E and F should also include the word internal. Additionally, Line-Item G should be Corten Steel. Item 4 Attachment A Draft Minutes of April 6 2023 Packet Pg. 146 Page 33 of 33 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 04/6/23 Boardmember Rosenberg requested clarification on direct connection. Vice Chair Baltay stated it was included in the motion so it should only be changed on Packet Page 154. Boardmember Rosenberg restated the change should be in items D, E, and F to include direct internal connection. Boardmember Thompson abstained due to her being absent for that meeting. MOTION: Vice Chair Baltay moved, seconded by Boardmember Rosenberg, to approve the meeting minutes for March 6, 2023, as amended. VOTE: 3-0-1-1 (Boardmember Chen absent, Boardmember Thompson abstained) Boardmember Questions, Comments or Announcements Vice Chair Baltay requested the discussion regarding the ad-hoc committees be deferred to the next meeting. Adjournment Chair Hirsch adjourned the meeting. Item 4 Attachment A Draft Minutes of April 6 2023 Packet Pg. 147