The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2023-06-15 Architectural Review Board Agenda PacketARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD Regular Meeting Thursday, June 15, 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. 2.3200 Park Boulevard/340 Portage: Development Agreement [22PLN‐00287 and 22PLN‐ 00288]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval 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 Project also Includes a Development Agreement, Comprehensive Plan Amendment, and Vesting Tentative Map. Environmental Assessment: A Draft EIR for the 200 Portage Townhome Development Project was Circulated September 16, 2022 through November 15, 2022; the Final EIR was Made Available for Public Review on May 15, 2023. The Proposed Development Agreement is Evaluated as Alternative 3 in the Draft EIR. Zoning District: RM‐30 (Multi‐Family Residential) and GM (General Manufacturing). For More Information Contact the Project Planner, Claire Raybould at Claire.Raybould@Cityofpaloalto.org. 3.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI‐JUDICIAL. 180 El Camino Real [23PLN‐00009]: Architectural Review of a new storefront façade including new glazing and signage within Space #820B, Bldg. V (#v820B) for “Arhaus” at the Stanford Shopping Center. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from CEQA per Section 15301 (Existing Facilities). Zoning District: CC (Community Commercial). APPROVAL OF MINUTES 4.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for May 4, 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, June 15, 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. 2.3200 Park Boulevard/340 Portage: Development Agreement [22PLN‐00287 and 22PLN‐ 00288]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval 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 Project also Includes a Development Agreement, Comprehensive Plan Amendment, and Vesting Tentative Map. Environmental Assessment: A Draft EIR for the 200 Portage Townhome Development Project was Circulated September 16, 2022 through November 15, 2022; the Final EIR was Made Available for Public Review on May 15, 2023. The Proposed Development Agreement is Evaluated as Alternative 3 in the Draft EIR. Zoning District: RM‐30 (Multi‐Family Residential) and GM (General Manufacturing). For More Information Contact the Project Planner, Claire Raybould at Claire.Raybould@Cityofpaloalto.org. 3.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI‐JUDICIAL. 180 El Camino Real [23PLN‐00009]: Architectural Review of a new storefront façade including new glazing and signage within Space #820B, Bldg. V (#v820B) for “Arhaus” at the Stanford Shopping Center. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from CEQA per Section 15301 (Existing Facilities). Zoning District: CC (Community Commercial). APPROVAL OF MINUTES 4.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for May 4, 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, June 15, 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.2.3200 Park Boulevard/340 Portage: Development Agreement [22PLN‐00287 and 22PLN‐00288]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Planned CommunityZoning application to Allow Redevelopment of a 14.65‐acre site at 200‐404 PortageAvenue, 3040‐3250 Park Boulevard, 3201‐3225 Ash Street and 278 Lambert. The Projectalso Includes a Development Agreement, Comprehensive Plan Amendment, and VestingTentative Map. Environmental Assessment: A Draft EIR for the 200 Portage TownhomeDevelopment Project was Circulated September 16, 2022 through November 15, 2022;the Final EIR was Made Available for Public Review on May 15, 2023. The ProposedDevelopment Agreement is Evaluated as Alternative 3 in the Draft EIR. Zoning District:RM‐30 (Multi‐Family Residential) and GM (General Manufacturing). For More InformationContact the Project Planner, Claire Raybould at Claire.Raybould@Cityofpaloalto.org.3.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI‐JUDICIAL. 180 El Camino Real [23PLN‐00009]: ArchitecturalReview of a new storefront façade including new glazing and signage within Space#820B, Bldg. V (#v820B) for “Arhaus” at the Stanford Shopping Center. EnvironmentalAssessment: Exempt from CEQA per Section 15301 (Existing Facilities). Zoning District:CC (Community Commercial).APPROVAL OF MINUTES4.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for May 4, 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, June 15, 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.2.3200 Park Boulevard/340 Portage: Development Agreement [22PLN‐00287 and 22PLN‐00288]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Planned CommunityZoning application to Allow Redevelopment of a 14.65‐acre site at 200‐404 PortageAvenue, 3040‐3250 Park Boulevard, 3201‐3225 Ash Street and 278 Lambert. The Projectalso Includes a Development Agreement, Comprehensive Plan Amendment, and VestingTentative Map. Environmental Assessment: A Draft EIR for the 200 Portage TownhomeDevelopment Project was Circulated September 16, 2022 through November 15, 2022;the Final EIR was Made Available for Public Review on May 15, 2023. The ProposedDevelopment Agreement is Evaluated as Alternative 3 in the Draft EIR. Zoning District:RM‐30 (Multi‐Family Residential) and GM (General Manufacturing). For More InformationContact the Project Planner, Claire Raybould at Claire.Raybould@Cityofpaloalto.org.3.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI‐JUDICIAL. 180 El Camino Real [23PLN‐00009]: ArchitecturalReview of a new storefront façade including new glazing and signage within Space#820B, Bldg. V (#v820B) for “Arhaus” at the Stanford Shopping Center. EnvironmentalAssessment: Exempt from CEQA per Section 15301 (Existing Facilities). Zoning District:CC (Community Commercial).APPROVAL OF MINUTES4.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for May 4, 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: June 15, 2023 Report #: 2305-1566 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 Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 2.11, Chapter 12.04, Chapter 12.08, Chapter 12.09, Chapter 12.10, or Chapter 12.13 is not eligible for a request for hearing by any party, including the applicant. Item 1 Staff Report Packet Pg. 5 Item No. 1. Page 2 of 2 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 July 6, 2023 •800 San Antonio Road (1st formal) July 15, 2023 •NVCAP Second Study Session (TBD) Pending ARB Projects The following items are pending projects and will be heard by the ARB in the near future. The projects can be viewed via their project webpage at bit.ly/PApendingprojects or via Building Eye at bit.ly/PABuildingEye. Permit Type Submitted Permit # Project Mgr.Address Type Work Description Assigned Ad Hoc 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 __ Item 1 Attachment B Tentative Future Agenda and New Projects List Packet Pg. 8 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, ARB Recommended Approval 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. __ 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, Developmen t 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, ARB 6/15/23 – Development Agreement, Rezoning and Major Architectural Review application to allow the redevelopment of an approximately 4.86-acre portion of the site. Scope of work includes the partial demolition of an existing commercial building and construction of 91 or 74 new Townhome Condominiums. Zoning District: RM-30 (Multi-Family Residential) 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 5/4/23- 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 __ Item 1 Attachment B Tentative Future Agenda and New Projects List Packet Pg. 9 Site and Design 10/27/2022 22PLN- 00367 CHODGKI 2501 EMBARCAD ERO WY Public Utility – Water Filtration On hold pending discussions with Mountain View 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 (PF)(D). __ Minor Board 01/18/2023 23PLN- 00009 THARRIS ON 180 El Camino Commercial ARB 6/15/23 - 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/August ARB 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. Rosenberg, Hirsch Reported out 5/4 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: Pending. __ Major Architectural Review 1/04/2023 23PLN- 00058 CHODGKI 420 Acacia Residential- 16 units replacing surface parking lot Submitted 2/6/23; NOI sent 3/7/23, Tentative July/August 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. Rosenberg, Hirsch Reported out 5/4 Preliminary Architectural Review 4/11/2023 23PLN- 00058 CHODGKI 640 Waverley Mixed-use Submitted 4/11/23. Applicant requested delay in hearing to 6/15. Request for Preliminary Architectural Review to Allow the Demolition of an Existing Residential Item 1 Attachment B Tentative Future Agenda and New Projects List Packet Pg. 10 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). Potential Projects This list of items are pending or recently reviewed projects that have 1) gone to Council prescreening and would be reviewed by the ARB once a formal application is submitted and/or 2) have been reviewed by the ARB as a preliminary review and the City is waiting for a formal application. Permit Type Submitted Permit # Project Mgr.Address Type Work Description Assigned Ad-Hoc Prescreening Council 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 Rosenberg, Hirsch Reported out 5/4 Item 1 Attachment B Tentative Future Agenda and New Projects List Packet Pg. 11 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: Pending. Zoning District: PC-5116 (Planned Community). Baltay, Chen Reported out 6/1 Prescreening and Zone Change 2/1/2023 & 2/2/2023 23PLN- 00025 23PLN- 00027 AFRENC H 2901 MIDDLE FIELD 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 __ Council Pre- Screening 2/8/2023 23PLN- 00036 THARRIS ON 1237 SAN ANTONIO Public Utility Council Pre-Screening request by Valley Water to allow a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to update the land use of a portion of Area B of parcel #116-01-013 from Public Conservation Land to Major Institution/Special Facilities. The other portion of Area B is currently designated as a Major institution/Special Facilities and the proposed project also calls for the subdivision of Area B. Zoning District: PF(D). __ SB 330 Pre- Application 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. Thompson, Chen Preliminary Architectural Review 4/11/2023 23PLN- 00058 CHODGKI 640 Waverley Mixed-use ARB prelim hearing 6/15/23; waiting on formal application. Request for Preliminary Architectural Review to Allow the Demolition of __ Item 1 Attachment B Tentative Future Agenda and New Projects List Packet Pg. 12 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). Council Pre- Screening 5/2/2023 23PLN- 00105 EFOLEY 3265 El Camino Housing – 44 units Council Prescreening to rezone from CS to PHZ to develop a 5-story multi-family residential building with 44 housing units that would be 100% affordable for teachers Rosenberg, Thompson SB 330 Pre- Application 5/3/2023 23PLN- 00107 GSAULS 3997 Fabian Housing – up to 350 units SB 330 Pre-Application - Request for an 292 or 350 unit apartment development in an 8 story structure. Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: GM (General Manufacturing). Chen, Hirsch Council Pre- Screening 5/5/2023 23PLN- 00110 GSAULS 3000 El Camino Office Council prescreening to convert an existing 10,000 square foot movie theater into new office space. Zoning District: Planned Community (PC- 4637 and 2533). Baltay, Thompson Council Pre- Screening 5/5/2023 23PLN- 00100 GSAULS 260 Homer Office Council prescreening to amend a development agreement for 260 Homer that Currently Restricts the Amount of Space that One or More Commercial Office Tenants can Occupy at the Property. Zoning District: AMF (MUO). __ Item 1 Attachment B Tentative Future Agenda and New Projects List Packet Pg. 13 Item No. 2. Page 1 of 16 Architectural Review Board Staff Report From: Jonathan Lait, Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: June 15, 2023 Report #: 2305-1585 TITLE 3200 Park Boulevard/340 Portage: Development Agreement [22PLN-00287 and 22PLN-00288]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval 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 Project also Includes a Development Agreement, Comprehensive Plan Amendment, and Vesting Tentative Map. Environmental Assessment: A Draft EIR for the 200 Portage Townhome Development Project was Circulated September 16, 2022 through November 15, 2022; the Final EIR was Made Available for Public Review on May 15, 2023. The Proposed Development Agreement is Evaluated as Alternative 3 in the Draft EIR. Zoning District: RM-30 (Multi-Family Residential) and GM (General Manufacturing). For More Information Contact the Project Planner, Claire Raybould at Claire.Raybould@Cityofpaloalto.org. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s): 1. Consider the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and EIR Mitigation Measures in Attachment K. 2. Recommend approval of the Development Plan for the planned community rezoning based on the Architectural Review findings in Attachment B, subject to the Conditions of Approval in Attachment C, and recognizing that the development agreement, comprehensive plan amendment, and subdivision map are not subject to the ARB’s purview. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In Fall 2022, the Sobrato Organization, LLC (Sobrato) submitted a development application requesting a development agreement, rezoning, tentative map, and architectural review. The project is the redevelopment of the 14.65-acre site at 200-404 Portage Avenue, 3040-3250 Park Boulevard, 3201-3225 Ash Street and 278 Lambert. The project site is within the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP) boundary. The project includes: Item 2 Staff Report Packet Pg. 14 Item No. 2. Page 2 of 16 •the partial demolition of a commercial building (formerly Bayside Cannery) deemed eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources •the demolition of a building containing commercial recreation use at 3040 Park •the construction of (74) new townhome condominiums replacing approximately 84,000 square feet (sf) of the historic cannery building at 200-404 Portage Avenue •the construction of a two-level parking garage •the dedication of approximately 3.25 acres of Land to the City for Future Affordable Housing and Parkland Uses •the retention of existing research and development (R&D) uses in the remaining portion of the former cannery building •the retention of office use in the existing building at 3201-3225 Ash Street •the conversion of automotive use at 3250 Park Boulevard to R&D use •a comprehensive plan amendment and subdivision map exceptions (which staff determined were necessary during the course of reviewing the application). This report includes responses to key ARB comments made during the April 6, 2023 hearing. The project plans in Attachment K have been revised since the ARB last reviewed them to reflect feedback from staff and the Architectural Review Board (ARB) since the last hearing. A summary of the project description and the proposed rezoning is included in the applicant’s Development Program Statement (Attachment J). PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project consists of a Development Agreement between the Sobrato Organization and the City, rezoning of the site, comprehensive plan amendment, and tentative map. The project would allow for the redevelopment of 14.65 acres located at 200-404 Portage Avenue, 3040- 3250 Park Boulevard, 3201-3225 Ash Street & 278 Lambert Avenue, as shown in the Location Map in Attachment A. The project includes partial demolition (84,000 sf) of the former Bayside Canning Company building (a portion of which was more recently occupied by Fry’s Electronics). The existing building is eligible for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). The Development Agreement also includes: •Development of 74 market-rate townhomes in place of the removed portion •Retrofit and remodel of the remaining portions of the former cannery building, retaining the same approximate floor area of existing R&D uses in the building and, establishing a new retail tenant space with outdoor seating area •Construction of a parking garage behind the cannery •Merger and re-subdivision of the property into five parcels (remaining cannery, townhomes, Ash Building, Audi Building, and Below Market Rate (BMR)/parkland dedication parcel •Dedication of a ~3.25-acre BMR/parkland dedication parcel (including relocation of an existing above-ground powerline) Item 2 Staff Report Packet Pg. 15 Item No. 2. Page 3 of 16 •Retention of the existing office uses of the Ash Building (no building modifications) •Conversion of the Audi Building from existing automotive uses to R&D use (no building modifications) •A ten-year term during which the City may not modify the zoning or approved uses Attachment A includes a location map and Attachment J includes the Development Program Statement. Attachment K includes links to the project plans (Development Plan) and the Final EIR. The most recent draft Development Agreement is available on the project website, a link to which is provided in Attachment K. BACKGROUND On December 15, 2022 and January 19, 2023, the ARB held study sessions to provide feedback on the townhome design and modifications to the proposed cannery parcel (including modifications to the existing cannery building and the new parking garage), respectively. This was split into two study sessions in order to provide sufficient time for the ARB to discuss each of these major components and provide initial feedback. Minutes from these study sessions are available online.1,2 The ARB held a formal hearing to discuss the full scope of the project on April 6, 2023. Minutes from this study session can be found online.3 The Board’s comments and the applicant’s responses to those comments are summarized below. ARB Comments Applicant Responses Cannery Building Monitor Roof Frontage. Revise the frontage of the retail façade to eliminate the assymetric forms. Either bring up the façade on the east end consistent with the existing building or bring the form down above the second bay. The retail retains the existing two-story form at the office R&D entry, but has been modified. The revision simplifies the façade, respects the existing conditions, and maintains the existing mezzanine space and required egress stair. The retail addition was maintained at the single-story. This provides an identity for the space to attract a retail tenant and allows the addition of windows into the monitor roof area to improve the publics views into the space. 1 Minutes of the December 15, 2022 Architectural Review Board hearing are available online at: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/architectural- review-board/2022/arb-12.15.2022-minutes.pdf 2 Minutes of the January 19, 2023 Architectural Review Board hearing are available online at: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/architectural- review-board/2023/arb-1.19.2023-minutes.pdf 3 Minutes of the April 6, 2023 hearing are available online at: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/architectural- review-board/2023/arb-1.19.2023-minutes.pdf Item 2 Staff Report Packet Pg. 16 Item No. 2. Page 4 of 16 HVAC Design. Provide a schematic design for the HVAC. The ARB would like to understand the HVAC design in order to better understand how the HVAC units and ducting would intersect with the monitor roofs and the glazing. The mechanical engineer has developed a preliminary HVAC and duct layout for the Cannery building. The submittal includes a reflected ceiling plan with the proposed duct layout along with updated interior renderings that show the proposed galvanized spiral ducts. Parking Garage Palette. Revise the palette of the parking garage through color variation or possible materials. Consider bringing in the colors of the townhomes to the parking garage. The color palette on the garage has been revised to incorporate some of the color from the townhomes along with colors and materials in the cannery building. The design has also been refined to further breakdown the scale of the garage. The revised color palette helps engage the garage with the townhomes and livens the overall feel. Material Sample. Provide a material sample of the corrugated metal (current material sample was a flat metal rather than corrugated metal) Corrugated metal panel samples that reflect the three colors have been provided for the ARB to view during the hearing. Glass Color. Reconsider the blue coloration of the glass The glazing selection has been revised to a low tint, removing the previous strong blue hue. A one-inch insulated sample has been provided and will be available to boardmembers at the hearing. Monitor Roof Views. Improve the views of the monitor roof from the retail areas Per the guidelines provided by ARG, maintaining the interior volume and character of the monitor roof space is critical to the historic rehabilitation. Increasing the volume of the retail space would not conform with those guidelines and would negatively impact the historic integrity of the monitor roof. In order to address the ARB’s comment, a second angled skylight has been added in the retail area. This skylight doubles the provided area from the previous layout, providing additional views into the monitor roof while maintaining the viability of the 2,600 square foot retail space for a future tenant. Operable Windows. Provide operable windows in the monitor roof windows Sobrato worked with their mechanical engineer and historic consultant, ARG, to study the feasibility of operable windows in the monitor roof areas. Operable windows installed in the monitor roof would be required to be motorized due to the height. Item 2 Staff Report Packet Pg. 17 Item No. 2. Page 5 of 16 A motorized system would be incompatible with the replacement of the windows from a historical perspective. In addition, the mechanical engineer concluded that the installation of the operable windows would compromise the efficiency of the HVAC system, complicating compliance with Title 24 while maintaining an open floor plan. Subdividing the floor plan would not be consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. Finally, Sobrato is working to achieve a net zero building for 340 Portage. Due to the above noted inefficiency, operable windows would create further challenges for that sustainable goal. Townhomes Materials. Provide higher quality materials and better documentation of the materials in an updated material boards. In particular, the areas painted to look like wood should be a real wood material. Updated color and material boards have been submitted and will be available at the public hearing. This includes updated samples of the siding material along with stucco samples painted in the main body colors, consistent with the ARB’s request. The siding material has been revised to be a wood-look stained fiber cement siding. Rear and Side Elevations. All sides of the building should be given the same care. The ends of the buildings should be given more consideration to provide either more variation in color or materials, especially where these facades face Olive and the public park. The ends of the building have large areas of blank white wall at the moment. On the interior aisles (where garages face each other) more care should also be given to make these less monochromatic either through material or color improvements. The side and rear elevations have been revised to incorporate more of the front façade materials. The end elevations, particularly those facing Olive Avenue, have been revised to incorporate more varied materials and colors. Sunshades. Consider the addition of sunshades on the south facades with care given to how this is added so that it doesn't feel tacked on and is consistent with the language of the rest of the building The plans have been revised to add sun shading elements on the front facades that face South at the third-floor level. Meaningful sunshades have not been added at the second floor because those elements would conflict with fire department ladder access to third floor bedroom windows. We cannot add sun shading elements on the rear Item 2 Staff Report Packet Pg. 18 Item No. 2. Page 6 of 16 elevations (at the private streets accessing the garages) because those projecting elements would conflict with the private street width requirements. Paseos. widen both of the central paseos (north/south and east/west) by six feet Two options are proposed to widen the North/South paseo (Attachment L). One option widens the paseo by four feet and the second option widens the paseo by six feet. Both of these options require relief on the required width of the private streets that serve the townhome garages. Making the East/West paseo wider can only be accomplished by eliminating units or creating deeper units with tandem parking, which will make the North/South paseo narrower. The first option isn't economically viable, and the second compromises the primary paseo in order to widen the east west paseo, which Sobrato views as a minor circulation path in that the primary East/West circulation is provided on Streets A and B. Heat Island. Consider the heat island effect on the parking aisles and whether we can improve that through color choices or permeable paving if improved landscaping is not an option. The asphalt paving has been changed to a lighter color to reduce heat island effect at the private streets between buildings. See Sheet L-1.12. ANALYSIS Staff has analyzed the project in accordance with applicable plans, goals, policies, regulations and adopted guidelines, as discussed further below. Key comments from the board and the applicant’s response to those comments is summarized above. Staff’s analysis of the response is summarized below. Staff Analysis of Applicant’s Responses The applicant has modified the design or otherwise provided documentation (e.g. material boards) to address comments from the board since the April 6, 2023 hearing. The revised design improves the project’s consistency with goals, policies, and guidelines adopted by the City. Where changes were not made, information has been provided to explain why the project has not been redesigned to address the suggested modifications. Staff’s analysis of the applicant’s response to key comments is provided herein. Pedestrian Paseos The applicant has provided two options of how the ARB’s recommended change could be achieved for the North/South pedestrian paseo (Attachment L). Staff would prefer for the townhomes to be reduced in-lieu of the street width. However, the applicant shows how the Item 2 Staff Report Packet Pg. 19 Item No. 2. Page 7 of 16 garage sizes would need to be reduced in order to achieve this goal, resulting in a garage clearance that is less than the minimum standard required by the zoning code for vehicular parking. Upper levels would also be impacted and Sobrato feels that the bedrooms are already the minimum size necessary to be marketable. If recommended by the ARB, Council could further reduce the private street width to allow for a wider paseo. Staff agrees that this would be more desirable with respect to both providing for a better open space environment for residents and visitors and also reducing paving and the associated heat island effect. However, staff notes that the Planning and Transportation Commission expressed concerns about the reduction even as originally proposed (26 feet at upper levels and 32 feet at the ground level) and asked for more information about what other cities are requiring to help support the request if an exception was necessary. Ultimately, the Tentative Map and the associated exception to the map for the private street width is subject to the PTC and Council’s purview. Consistent with the PTC’s request, the City has been exploring what other nearby city’s requirements are for private street width. Several other cities have anywhere from 24 to 26 feet between building faces on upper levels (San Jose is an outlier requiring only 21 feet, as is Palo Alto requiring 32 feet). On the ground level, most cities in the region require around 28 to 30 feet. The widest paseo option proposed by Sobrato would provide 23 feet on upper levels and 29 feet on lower levels. Monitor Roof Frontage The project has not been revised to address the ARB’s comment to eliminate the asymmetric form by either bringing the single-story form over the retail up or bringing the two-story form over the second bay down. Although these revisions were not made, the applicant did simplify the forms along the southern façade. Specifically, the two-story form below the second bay of the monitor roof previously read as a separate form from the remaining southern façade of 340 Portage Avenue. The revisions have aligned these two forms both horizontally and vertically to read as one form, matching what exists today at the site. The applicant notes that maintaining this height over the second bay is necessary to allow for the required egress stair from the mezzanine level. The applicant also notes that the form above the retail space has not been raised up because the lower volume over this space helps to create a more distinct identity for the retail space and creates an opportunity to provide for views into the monitor roof from the exterior as well as the interior. Staff agrees that lowering the form above the retail space is appropriate to create views into the monitor roof from the exterior, provide more windows/light into the space, and because it avoids a transition from a two-story entrance to a single-story space (see discussion of monitor roof views for a summary of why the single-story retail is maintained). While staff feels that the design as provided is appropriate and, with the revisions, helps to simplify the forms across the entire façade, it seems like further study could be done to consider options that avoid the second story form on the second bay if desired by the ARB. Item 2 Staff Report Packet Pg. 20 Item No. 2. Page 8 of 16 HVAC Design The HVAC design, shown in renderings on sheets A3_1.0.13 through A3_1.0.15, seems appropriate and respects the visual form of the monitor roofs. Parking Garage Palette The parking garage design has been refined consistent with the ARB’s comments. Staff agrees that the revisions made through color variation help to further break down the scale of the garage. Monitor Roof Views Because the project results in a significant and unavoidable impact on the cannery building, which the City’s analysis concludes would render it ineligible for the California Register of Historic Resources, maintaining the interior volume and character of the monitor roof space is not necessarily required. However, Council, the ARB, and HRB have expressed an interest in retaining historic aspects of the site where feasible. As the applicant noted, increasing the volume of the retail space (i.e. by bringing the walls up to leave the retail space open to the monitor) would not conform with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. However, a second angled skylight has been added in the retail area, substantially increasing the ability to view the monitor roofs from the retail space while maintaining the viability of the 2,600 square foot retail space for a future tenant. Operable Windows The applicant did not make revisions based on the ARB’s request but did respond by providing details on additional considerations made and a summary as to why these changes were not implemented. Materials (Townhomes and Cannery) Updated color and material boards have been provided as requested by the ARB. The applicant has also provided larger samples of the corrugated metal in each of the colors (vs. the corrugated material without the actual corrugation) and a sample of the revised glass selection for the cannery building. Overall, the materials for both the cannery building and the townhomes are of high quality and are appropriate to their context. However, the ARB asked that any proposed wood-like materials on the townhomes be actual wood instead of painted to look like wood. The applicant is proposing a cement fiber that stained to look like wood, which is an improvement from the painted design previously proposed but is still not real wood. This material is proposed in-lieu of real wood due to its durability. Townhome Rear and Side Elevations The side and rear elevations have been revised to incorporate more of the front façade materials. The end elevations, particularly those facing Olive Avenue, have been revised to incorporate more varied materials and colors. Sunshades The provided sunshades, as shown on Sheets A1_2.7.0 and A1_2.7.1 make minor improvements in the direction requested by the ARB and mostly appear to fit within the Item 2 Staff Report Packet Pg. 21 Item No. 2. Page 9 of 16 language of the building (as opposed to appearing tacked on). Staff notes that options are somewhat limited with respect to the placement of these sunshades. That is because (1) they can’t be placed on southwestern-facing facades where they back up to private streets and (2) elements on the second-floor level would conflict with fire department ladder access to third- floor bedroom windows, as noted in the applicant’s response above. Even sunshades on the third floor are limited in how far they can extend out due to fire ladder access. Therefore, overall, while the change makes only small improvements to address the ARB’s comments, they do improve the project design consistent with the ARB’s comments. Heat Island Staff agrees that the proposed revision to provide a lighter asphalt paving color as shown on Sheet L-1.12 addresses the concern raised by the board members about heat islands and is an appropriate response given the limited options available (e.g. additional plantings) within the private street. In addition, if one of the options to widen the paseo by narrowing the streets is supported by the ARB and ultimately approved by Council, the reduction to the street width would further reduce the heat island effect. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans and Guidelines4 The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the majority of the 14.65-acre site is Multifamily Residential; a small portion of the property located at 3040 Park Boulevard has a land use designation of Light Industrial. Detailed information on proposed changes to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map is included in the December 15, 2022, January 19, 2023, and April 6, 2023 staff reports to the ARB.5,6 ,7 As discussed at these previous study sessions and hearing, in addition to these re-designations, because of the total land area being dedicated to the City (which significantly reduces the size of the existing cannery parcel) the non-residential gross floor area in the remaining building would exceed the 0.4:1 FAR. This threshold is stipulated not only in the CS Zone development standards but also noted in the description of the Service Commercial designation in the Comprehensive Plan. To address this, a Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment is proposed for the Service Commercial designation description. This modification is not subject to the ARB’s purview and will be considered by the Planning and Transportation Commission and Council. 4 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/landuse/compplan.asp 5 The staff report for this item from the December 15, 2022 ARB hearing is available online at: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/architectural- review-board/2022/arb-12.15.2022-3200-park.pdf 6 The staff report for this project from the January 19, 2023 ARB hearing is available online at: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/architectural- review-board/2023/arb-1.19-3200-park.pdf 7 The staff report for this item from the April 6, 2023 ARB hearing is available online at: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/architectural- review-board/2023/arb-4.06-3200-park.pdf Item 2 Staff Report Packet Pg. 22 Item No. 2. Page 10 of 16 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan8 As discussed in previous staff reports for this project, the project site is located within the boundaries of the proposed North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP). The City Council set goals and objectives in March 2018, and NVCAP working group meetings commenced in 2018. On November 14, 2022, City Council reviewed and endorsed the refined preferred alternative plan, which was slightly refined in January 2023. Since the last hearing on this project, the City published a Draft NVCAP. There are aspects of the proposed project that do not align with Council’s preferred plan as it relates to the Sobrato site (e.g. the removal of all Research and Development Uses at the site), however, other aspects do align (e.g. dedication of land for a proposed public park, and redevelopment of the site with medium-density mixed use). The proposed development agreement is a pipeline project that is not anticipated to align with every aspect of the proposed plan, which has not yet been adopted. The proposed NVCAP represents the City’s vision for the site but does not necessarily represent the property owner’s interests in all circumstances. Because the plan has not yet been adopted and the project is a pipeline project, the proposed development agreement was evaluated for consistency with the adopted goals and policies of the NVCAP, but not specific details of the plan. An analysis of the project’s consistency with key goals articulated for the NVCAP process is included in Attachment D. The development agreement aligns with the adopted goals of the NVCAP process even if it does not align with all aspects of the Draft NVCAP. Zoning Compliance9 Because the proposed Development Agreement includes the donation of a significant portion of the property to the City of Palo Alto, the remaining buildings (including the remaining cannery building, 3201 Ash Street Office building, and the Audi building on Park Boulevard), as well as the proposed townhome development, would not comply with certain aspects of the zoning ordinance. These include development standards such as FAR, lot coverage, and site open space, which are based on the size of the parcel, but also include standards such as setbacks, which are reduced in some cases based on the new location of parcel boundaries. The applicant is seeking, through the Development Agreement and Planned Community (PC) rezoning, permission to deviate from certain code standards, in a manner that is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. Staff’s detailed review of the existing and proposed cannery building parcel’s improvements’ consistency with applicable Zoning standards is included in Attachment E. To address any inconsistencies with the municipal code, the project would include rezoning all of these parcels, with the exception of the City dedication parcel, to a Planned Community zone district. Rezoning of the site is not subject to the ARB’s purview; however, the final Development Plan will inform the standards set forth in the proposed 8 The City published an initial Draft North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan in May 2023, which is available online: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/planning-amp-development-services/north-ventura- cap/230511_nvcap_completedraft.pdf 9 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: http://www.amlegal.com/codes/client/palo-alto_ca Item 2 Staff Report Packet Pg. 23 Item No. 2. Page 11 of 16 ordinance for the Planned Community zone district, which will require a recommendation from the PTC and Council approval. Context-Based Design Criteria The context-based design criteria do not apply to PC Zone Districts. However, the Planned Community rezoning process provides the City discretion with respect to approval of the development plan, including requiring consistency with these criteria to ensure high quality design and compliance with the ARB findings. Therefore, an analysis of the project’s consistency with the context-based design criteria that would normally apply to commercial and residential projects is provided in Attachment F. The analysis assesses the townhomes for conformance with the context-based design criteria for residential projects and assesses the remaining cannery building and parking structure addition for conformance with the context-based design criteria for commercial projects. Staff finds that the plans are consistent with the context-based design criteria as they relate to their respective uses. 380 Portage In the course of the City’s review, it came to staff’s attention that a portion of the rear area at 380 Portage was enclosed several years ago by Fry’s for storage use and continues to be used by the current tenant, Playground Global, in a similar manner. Additionally, some of the area under the rear canopy, and including the entrance to 380 Portage, includes seating areas. Because these areas are covered and used for storage and seating/tables for eating that are not open to the public they count toward floor area in accordance with the zoning code definition for floor area for non-residential uses. The total sf of these areas is approximately 10,000 sf. These areas were not initially accounted for in the figures provided for existing or proposed floor area. Although removing the canopy would resolve this, Council, the HRB and the public have expressed an interested in retaining the existing building wherever feasible; moreover, removal would not be practical under the existing lease. To address this, the applicable PC ordinance will include language to address these areas. Specifically, the PC ordinance for the Cannery will allow for the existing use of this space to continue (amenity area/storage), but stipulates that it may not be replaced in the event of future improvements or be used for any other use (e.g., expansion of the Research & Development use). Plants at the corner will be lowered to 3 feet to meet line-of-site requirements for vehicles. Multi-Modal Access & Circulation Multi-modal access and circulation are discussed in the April 6, 2023 staff report to the Architectural Review Board. The project plans have not changed with respect to circulation since the ARB last reviewed the plans. However, improvements to the bicycle path connections at both Park and Portage/Ash are still anticipated to be incorporated into the plan sets. Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee The City met with the Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC) on November 1, 2022 and February 7, 2023 to obtain feedback on the design of the Portage to Park connection. The current plans reflect a two-way bicycle connection that is buffered from the street by markings and grade-level vegetation. The City’s Office of Transportation is requesting additional revisions, consistent with the feedback from PABAC, to further improve the connections at each end as well as to improve bicycle and pedestrian safety. These most recent suggested revisions Item 2 Staff Report Packet Pg. 24 Item No. 2. Page 12 of 16 from Office to Transportation to the applicant were brought forth to PABAC on June 6, 2023 for input and received favorably. Therefore, these revisions will be incorporated into the plans that are ultimately presented to the PTC. Revisions include minor changes such as improved striping, signage, revisions to entering/exiting radius, and ADA compliant curbs at corners. The two-way proposed bicycle path aligns with the NVCAP proposal for Portage Avenue, which proposes improvements to provide better connections from the site to El Camino Real, possibly with protected/buffered bicycle lanes on the South side of the street. The protected bike lane provides a safer bike facility that connects to major transit stations, recreation facilities, and retail centers, improving the existing condition. Transportation Impact Analysis A summary of the findings of the Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) for the proposed Development Agreement was included in the April 6, 2023 ARB staff report. The TIA analyzed the project in accordance with both Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) for the purposes of CEQA as well as with the City’s Local Transportation Impacts policy adopted by the City Council. The complete Transportation Impact Analysis is included in Appendix H of the Draft EIR. A link to the EIR is included in Attachment K of this report. The project was found to have a less than significant impact with respect to VMT and did not conflict with Council’s adopted policies with respect to local transportation impacts. Parking The parking garage would replace existing at-grade parking on the east side of the cannery building as well as accommodate surface parking that would be removed on the City dedication parcel (adjacent Matadero Creek). Removal of the surface vehicular parking spaces adjacent to the creek will allow for that area to be used for a public park and a future affordable housing project. Additional parking is provided along Street B (south side of the cannery building) to serve the Ash office building, as well as the retail and R&D uses within the cannery building; along Street C (east of the cannery building), and on the cannery parcel to the east of the parking garage. Parking for the Townhomes is provided within private parking garages with two dedicated spaces for each unit. The applicant indicates that additional parking spaces will be provided along Streets A and B, for deliveries and A, B and C for guest parking. Short-term and long-term bicycle parking are also proposed both for the cannery building and the townhomes as shown in the plans in Attachment K. Historic The Historic Resources Board held a study session on January 12, 2023 to provide initial feedback on the project. The HRB subsequently held a public hearing on the proposed project on May 25, 2023 to make a formal recommendation to Council. A summary of the HRB’s key Item 2 Staff Report Packet Pg. 25 Item No. 2. Page 13 of 16 comments on the project during the study session and the response to those comments is summarized in the HRB staff report.10 The HRB in their motion, advised Council (7-0) to require additional measures to improve the HABS documentation and to evaluate the remaining cannery building following construction in order to assess its eligibility as a California Landmark, a Historical Point of Interest, the local register, and the National Register. Attached is the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards Analysis (Attachment G) and updated memorandum (Attachment H; which addresses the latest revisions) for the proposed redevelopment. The analysis discusses where the project is or is not consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s (SOI) Standards, including a look at how the new development would align with the cannery building and the treatment of the remaining building. As detailed in the analysis and the Environmental Impact Report, the building would no longer be eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources following the planned demolition of a portion of the cannery building. Therefore, regardless of the changes to the remaining cannery building, the project and modifications to the remaining building would not be consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. Public Art The Public Art Commission (PAC) held an initial meeting on January 19, 2023,11 as required in accordance with the public art process. The PAC discussed and made suggestions regarding the potential themes and locations for the artwork, encouraging the applicant to consider incorporating public art that would celebrate themes of cultural diversity and the unique history of the project site and its nearby community. On May 18, 2023, Sobrato and their art consultant, Jennifer Easton, presented an update on the art program for this site to the PAC. The PAC expressed support for the direction of the public art process and possible locations for public art for the cannery building (looking at areas around the retail space or on existing walls of 380 Portage). The artist selected for the project is Kyungmi Shin of Shin Gray Studio who has a strong portfolio of public art projects and a particular interest in examining the intersectionality of the historic and contemporary. Additionally, Sobrato conducted an interview with the granddaughter of Thomas Foon Chew to hear her thoughts and feedback on the public art process. Chew’s granddaughter has done extensive research about her grandfather, including the development of his canneries and the opportunities Chew provided for low income and immigrant families. It is anticipated that this research will help to inform the themes of the public art. The applicant anticipates returning to the PAC with a conceptual design around August 2023. 10 The staff report for this item from the May 25, 2023 Historic Resources Board hearing is available online: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/historic-resources- board/2023/hrb-5.25-3200-park.pdf 11 Staff report for January 19, 2023 hearing of the Public Art Commission is available online at: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/community-services/public-art-program/staff-reports-and- docs-for-pac/pac-staff-report-interim-review-for-3200-park-may-2023.pdf Item 2 Staff Report Packet Pg. 26 Item No. 2. Page 14 of 16 STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least ten days in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Daily Post on June 2, which is 12 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on May 31, which is 13 days in advance of the meeting. The Council study session on August 1, 2022, served as the prescreening meeting required for a proposed development agreement and legislative changes, including Planned Community rezoning and a Comprehensive Plan amendment, in accordance with PAMC Chapter 18.79. The session provided an opportunity for initial comments on the general development terms and public benefits. Councilmember comments from that study session were summarized in the December 15, 2022 staff report to the ARB for the study session on the townhome portion of the project. Minutes from the August 1, 2022 Council hearing can be found online.12 PTC comments from the November 30, 2022 study session were summarized in the December 15, 2022 ARB staff report.13 The comment period for the Draft EIR ended on November 15, 2022. In addition to comments received prior to and during the PTC hearing, the City received written comments from Valley Water, the Department of Toxic Substances Control, the property owner, and six individuals. Comments were also received verbally during the Planning and Transportation Commission Hearing on October 26, 2022. These comments and formal responses to all oral and written comments on the Draft EIR are provided in the Final EIR (Attachment K). Comments have also been received between January and June orally at HRB and ARB study sessions and hearings. These comments primarily focused on concerns about approving office on the site, concerns about the loss of the cannery building, and comments about the public process for this project. In addition, the City received the written comments in Attachment I during this time period. The commenters expressed concerns in particular about the Council’s approach to the Development Agreement, requested better noticing of the hearings, and requested more clarity on changes being made to the Development Agreement, as outlined in the attached comments. They also asked questions about the proposed bicycle path The required noticing has been completed at every step of this process. However, in response to these comments, staff has endeavored to improve its noticing of others that might have an interest as well, such as those that have expressed an interest in the NVCAP process. Staff has met in person with one of the concerned residents to talk through their comments. The Development Agreement is intended to be updated throughout the process and ultimately Council will be asked to make a decision on the Development Agreement in conjunction with its 12 Minutes of the August 1, 2022 Council hearing are available online at: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/City-Clerk/Citys-Meeting-Agendas/Meeting-Agendas-and-Minutes 13 The staff report for this item from the December 15, 2022 ARB hearing is available online at: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/architectural- review-board/2022/arb-12.15.2022-3200-park.pdf Item 2 Staff Report Packet Pg. 27 Item No. 2. Page 15 of 16 decision on the rezoning, development plan, and other discretionary actions associated with the project. One of the neighboring residents also called staff to express concern about how the site changes may affect flooding on his parcel. Staff and Sobrato’s civil engineer met with the resident to discuss his concerns. The civil engineer visited the site to reverify drainage patterns on and adjacent the site and the plans are currently being revised to ensure that the neighboring resident’s concern about runoff from his site, which has historically drained toward the project site, will be addressed. Any minor modifications to address this comment are not expected to result in visual changes to the site plan. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The City, acting as the lead agency in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), published a Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) on September 16, 2022, for the 200 Portage (91 unit) Townhome Project (State Clearinghouse No. 2021120444) which was circulated for a 60-day public comment period ending on November 15, 2022. The PTC held two study sessions during the circulation period to allow the opportunity for oral comment during the DEIR comment period. The Final EIR, which includes a formal response to all comments received on the Draft EIR during the circulation period is provided in Attachment K. Alternative 3 of the EIR evaluates the proposed redevelopment of the site in accordance with the Development Agreement. The Development Agreement, as well as the 200 Portage Avenue Townhome Project, would require the demolition of a portion of the cannery building. This has been identified as a significant and unavoidable impact and will require Council adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations. 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: Draft ARB Findings for Approval Attachment C: Conditions of Approval Attachment D: NVAP Key Goal Consistency Attachment E: Zoning Comparison Table Attachment F: Context based Design Criteria Consistency Attachment G: SOIS Analysis for Development Agreement Alternative Attachment H: Updated SOIS consistency Analysis Attachment I: Written Comments Attachment J: Development Program Statement Attachment K: Project Plans (Development Plan) and Environmental Documents Item 2 Staff Report Packet Pg. 28 Item No. 2. Page 16 of 16 AUTHOR/TITLE: Claire Raybould, Senior Planner Item 2 Staff Report Packet Pg. 29 24 10 4 24 24 24 24 2 FOR_MIXEDUSE_HOTEL_USES_3200_ECR_PAMC20_08_20 PARKING GARAGE 199.7' 149.7' 65.6' 149.7' 65.7' 199.7' 50.0' 199.7' 50.0' 199.7' 50.0' 199.7' 50.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 49.9' 150.0' 49.9' 150.0' 166.4' 32.5' 1.9' 108.2' 6.6' 270.2' 100.0' 149.8' 150.0' 149.8' 150.0' 100.0' 40.0' 149.7' 200.0' 150.0' 199.7' 10.0' 49.9' 150.0' 4 150.0' 49.9' 200.0' 200.0' 198.3' 100.0' 199.7' 98.9' 148.9' 71.4' 179.8' 75.8' 199.4' 98.2' 144.3' 58.1' 68.3' 90.0' 100.0' 40.0' 100.0' 50.0' 199.7' 276.0' 100.0' 242.1' 29.5' 54.7' 26.3' 49.9' 200.0' 200.0' 116.5' 55.4' 116.5' 55.4' 105.0' 25.0' 105.0' 25.0' 55.4' 116.5' 55.4' 116.5' 55.4' 116.5' 55.4' 116.5' 55.4' 116.5' 55.4' 116.5' 9.8' 69.0' 4.6' 45.4' 78.8' 50.0' 75.0'105.0' 75.0'105.0' 105.0' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 60.0' 120.0' 60.0' 90.0' 55.0' 120.0' 25.0' 47.1' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 25.0' 120.0' 25.0' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 44.0' 120.0' 44.0' 120.0' ' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 56.0' 120.0' 56.0' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 50.0' 45.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 28.8' 105.0' 28.8' 105.0' 25.0' 105.0' 25.0' 105.0' 78.8' 55.0' 78.8' 55.0' 50.0' 51.6' 3.4'.1'.1'.4' 49.5' 105.0' 50.0' 55.0' 120.0' 25.0' 47.1' 90.0' 90 120.0' 60.0' 120.0' 120.0' 60.0' 120.0' 50.0' ' 120.0' 55.0' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 50.0' 12 120.0' 120.0' 50.0' 47.1' 90.0' 80.0' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 40.0' 120.0' 40.0' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 45.0' 120.0' 45.0' 120.0' 120.0' 45.0' 120.0 120.0' 45.0' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 60.0' 120.0' 60.0' 120.0' 65.0' 120.0' 65.0' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 50.0' 60.0' 55.0' 30.0' 47.1' 25.0' 60.0' 55.0' 60.0' 55.0' 120.0' 52.0' 120.0' 52.0' 90.0' 47.1' 25.0' 120.0' 55.0' 120.0' 63.0' 120.0' 63.0' 50.0' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 115.7' 119.7' 115.7' 139.5' 50.0' 139.5' 50.0' 139.6' 50.0' 139.6' 50.0' 567.5' 754.2' 570.4' 755.8' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 66.9' 200.0' 66.9' 200.0' 233.0' 282.3' 116.5' 151.0' 143.4' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 55.4' 116.5' 55.4' 116.5' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 75.0'120.0' 75.0' 120.0' 75.0'120.0' 75.0' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 137.6' 158.7' 39.0' 88.7' 78.0' 7.3' 50.1' 94.5' 50.0' 98.9' 50.1' 98.9' 50.0' 103.2' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 98.6' 24.1' 67.5'105.0' 121.4' 105.0' 47.0' 105.0' 47.0' 105.0' 75.0'105.0' 75.0' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 53.0' 91.0' 54.7' 81.5' 85.9' 49.9' 81.5' 49.8' 90.2' 50.1' 85.9' 50.0' 94.5' 50.1' 90.2' 50.0' 80.2' 103.2' 79.9' 110.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 90.0' 44.8' 90.0' 44.8' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 90.0' 44.8' 90.0' 44.8' 90.0' 44.8' 90.0' 44.8' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 50.0' 134.5' 50.0' 134.5' 134.7' 115.6' 55.3' 65.0' 79.4' 60.3' 79.4' 52.7'95.9' 50.0' 95.9' 51.8' 109.3' 50.0' 109.3' 51.1' 119.7' 50.0' 119.3' 55.3' 105.6' 119.7 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.6' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 32.0' 17.5' 34.6' 97.9' 165.0' 137.0' 163.0' 138.8' 20.3' 19.0'17.0' 17.0' 101.7' 113.0' 50.0' 134.5' 50.0' 134.5'50.0' 134.5' 50.0' 134.5'50.0' 134.5' 50.0' 134.5'50.0' 134.5' 50.0' 134.5'60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 48.7' 134.5' 48.7' 134.5'48.8' 134.5' 48.8' 134.5'48.8' 134.5' 48.7' 134.5' 60.0' 269.0' 60.0' 269.0' 170.0' 67.3' 170.0' 67.3' 75.0' 134.5' 75.0' 134.5' 45.0' 134.5' 45.0' 134.5' 45.0' 134.5' 45.0' 134.5' 45.0' 134.5' 45.0' 134.5' 45.0' 134.5' 45.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5'134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 50.0' 134.5' 50.0' 134.5' 50.0' 134.5' 50.0' 134.5' 90.0' 67.8'90.0' 67.8' 90.0' 66.7'90.0' 66.7' 90.0' 44.8' 90.0' 44.8' 31.0' 134.5' 31.0' 134.5' 59.0' 134.5' 59.0' 134.5' 70.0' 134.5' 70.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 52.5' 134.5' 52.5' 134.5' 30.0' 134.5' 30.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 98 120.0' 29.6' 33.1' 50.0' 120 50.0' 50.0' 100.4' 50.0 52.3' 100.4' 54.0' 91.0' 52.5' 134.5' 52.5' 134.5' 52.5' 134.5' 52.5' 75.0' 134.5' 149.5' 75.0' 149.5' 12.0' 252.5' 142.5' 9.0' 281.1' 60.0' 134.5'0.0'45.0'134.5 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 45.0' 134.5' 45.0' 134.5' 45.0' 134.5' 45.0' 134.5' 30.0' 134.5' 30.0' 134.5'134.5' 30.0' 134.5'134.5' 70.0' 60.0' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5'45.0' 134.5' 45.0' 134.5' 45.0' 134.5' 45.0' 134.5' 35.0' 134.5' 35.0' 134.5' 35.0' 134.5' 35.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 65.0' 134.5' 65.0' 134.5' 65.0' 134.5' 65.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 90.0' 44.8' 90.0' 44.8' 90.0' 44.8' 90.0' 44.8' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5'134.5' 60.0' 60.0' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 70.0' 134.5' 70.0' 134.5' 70.0' 134.5' 6 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 70.0' 134.5' 70.0' 134.5' 50.0' 119.7' 65.7' 119.7' 65.6' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7'119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 47.9' 150.0' 9' 150.0' 95.7' 150.0' 200.0' 72.6' 200.0' 72.6' 134.7' 115.6' 134.7' 115.7' 134.7' 115.6' 134.7' 115.6' 134.7' 115.6' 134.7' 115.7' 28.8' 36.8' 498.2' 4.0' 60.0' 54.0' 105.0' 50.0' 221.4' 221.4' 6.2'10 76.4' 186.2' 186.2' 159.0' 159.0'159.0' 159.0' 98.0' 98.0'159.0'159.0'159.0' 159.0' 24.6' 24.6' 77.9' 77.9' 159.0' 159.0' 91.7' 91.7' 75.0'52.3' 170.0' 60.5' 134.5' 134.5' 48.8' 48.8' 67.9' 67.9' 90.0' 90.0'90.0' 90.0' 66.7' 66.7' 148.7' 51.0' 51.0' 148.7' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 150.0' 150.0' 99.8' 99.8' 199.7' 165.4 85.1 34.6 150.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 149.7' 149.7' 149.7' 115.7' 165.7' 100.0'50.0' 85.1 199.7' 149.7' 250.0' 151.5' 275.2' 14.4' 108.7' 108.7' 52.8' 52.8' 98.8' 67.2' 166.4' 166.4' 30.0' 30.0' 18.0' 18.0' 275.2' 185.2' 190.0' 275.0' 275.0' 275.0' 275.0' 275.0' 119.5' 119.5' 119.5' 119.5' 119.5' 119.5' 119.5' 119.5' 119.5' 119.5' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 250.0' 20.0' 20.0' 78.5'78.5' 5.8' 500 50.0' 120.0' 50.0' 90.0' 47.1' 25.0' 450.4' 263.1' 452.' 223.8' 223.8'292.1' 198.4'291.2' 370.9' 188.2' 427.3' 13.9' 56.2' 123.4' 164.9 199.7 109.85' 458.75' 239.70' 150.05' 129.85' 308.64' 129.85' 102.65' 129.85' 102.56 129.85' 205.99' 129.85' 206.05' 478.7' 109.8' 150.0' 21.8' 109.8' 19.8' 38.4' 38.4' 15.1' 15.1' 43.1' 47.3' 50.2' 133.3' 49.2' 49.2' 92.2'92.2' 116.5'116.5' 110.8' 78.3' 22.4' 35.9' 45.0'134.5' 60.0' 60.0' 134.5' 134.5 30.0' 134.5' 30.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5'134.5 60.0' 0.0' 3150 3170 3200 447 452- 460 448 418 440 434 420 429 439 379 3550 369 411 399 283 3159 411 435 3250425 435 3200 455 460 3200 3201 395 385 375 450 430 268 274 325 3421 284 3394 320 358 356 401 411 425 320 3290 300 280 271 261 251 231 221 211 201 210 220 230 241 231 221 3300211 291 3101 210 365 345 315 305 295 285 245 265 275 3040 3045 395 178 2822 2832 2840 2858 130 120 110 2800 2876 2886 2896 2906 2914 2920 2891 2831- 2835 2901- 2907 2893- 2899 231 3401 3395 3389 3389A 2931 2905 2904 2898 2 3381 2865 195 2619 2621 2631- 2639 2640 2666 2676 2690 2698 2704 2730 2746 180 190 2820 198189 2791 2643- 2651 2701 2705 2707 2709 2711 2715 287 2825 2830 2843 2859 2819 282 250 412 420 430 440 450 451 441 431 421 411 2904 456 470 2999 3128 3225 400 620 441 445 3250 286 7 286 9 277 7 265 3 - 266 1 252 3360 3215 3275 27 410 299 9 3348 3333 3201 3051 290 292 2687 3260 3265 3225 3239 3255 3295 455 3305 3337 3339 415 409 416 424 421 435 441 337-343 345-351 417 415 389 380 293 405 397 391 370 380 390 400 451 441 431 421 411 405 399 400 360 381 3420 350 3370 307 355 365 3395 281 3350 281 289 260 252 315 309 268 270 3275 3261 3251 220 230 336 340 370 380 3396 230 250 240 264 260 274 290 270 271 260 281 255 250 3371 3363 3357 3341 3350 3346 279 9 149 129 278 0 276 6 3197 272 5 - 2741 274 5 - 2757 277 3 - 2781 400408 179 281 7 282 9 281 1 284 5 288 8 287 6 286 0 287 5 289 5 286 1 284 4 288 9 3291 3241 282 1 - 2825 281 1 - 2815 287 7 - 2885 287 1 286 5 285 7 - 2863 284 1 - 2845 101-107 109-115 3410 253 253A275 242 2 260 9 - 261 1 259 2599 261 5 - 261 7 279 6 278 6 276 0 274 0 277 7 275 1 274 1 2741A 273 1 272 1 271 1 269 7 267 3 - 268 1 272127192717 271 0 268 9 2691 2693 2695 2830 461 3017 3001 412 200 2747 2785 2917 3127 3111 3333 440 3180 360 200 429 3390 3335 3360 3335 220 2858 3101 3160 278 419 FERNANDO AVENUE LAMBERT AVENUE EL CAMINO REAL ANSEN WAY EL DORA EL DORAD O AVENUE RAMONA STREET EMERSON STREET MARGARITA AV FERNANDO AVENUE LAMBERT AVENUE CHESTNUT AVENUE ASH STREET BIRCH STREET BIRCH STREET PARK BOULEVARD PARK BOULEVARD ALMA STREET ALMA STREET ACACIA AVENUE PORTAGE AVENUE OLIVE AVENUE ASH STREET ALMA STREET ORINDA STREET PAGE MILL RO AD PAGE MILL ROAD PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS BOARD PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS BOARD EL CAMINO REALEL CAMINO REAL RM-30 -2952 PF RM- PF RM-30 R-1 R-2 GM M-30 RM-20 CS CS ROLM GM GM GM (AD) CS (AD) CS John Boulware Park Park Blvd Substation Parcels merged for condos Aug 2016 This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Development Agreement Project Area 0' 293' Attachment A: Development Agreement Area (14.65 acres) CITY OF PALO ALTOI N C O R P O R A T E D CAL I F OR N I A P a l o A l t o T h e C i t y o f A P R I L 1 6 1 8 9 4 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto chodgki, 2022-09-30 12:29:30 (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) Item 2 Attachment A _Location Map Packet Pg. 30 ATTACHMENT B ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL 3200 Park Boulevard 22PLN-00287 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: With approval of the requested Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Planned Community Rezoning in accordance with the Development Agreement, the proposed project complies with the zoning code. The project complies with the context-based design criteria (as outlined under finding #2). 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 Multi-family Residential The project proposes to add a new public park and multi-family residential uses (74 townhomes and an affordable housing project) on the proposed City dedication parcel. These uses are consistent with the multi-family residential land use designation, which encourages high density residential uses within 0.5 miles of transit. As part of the negotiated Development Agreement, nonconforming uses within existing structures would be allowed to remain. The project includes a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Amendment to change the land use designation of three of the parcels to commercial services. This would align the existing uses with an appropriate underlying comprehensive plan land use designation that is consistent with the land use designation of surrounding areas. Land Use and Community Design Item 2 Attachment B-ARB Findings for Approval Packet Pg. 31 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- intensity development consistent with the open space character of the area. Retain undeveloped land northeast of Highway 101 as open space. The project is located on currently developed lands within the urban service area. 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. With approval of the Comprehensive Plan text Amendment and Land Use Map Amendment, the project will be consistent with the land use definitions in this element and Map L-6, identifying the site as multi-family residential land use for the city dedication parcel and townhome parcel and service commercial for the areas with existing commercial uses. 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 74 market rate units and dedicates land and funds to support a future affordable housing development on the City dedication parcel. 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 high quality, durable, corrugated metal, thick, quality glass, 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 includes dedication of a 3.25-acre parcel, one acre of which is anticipated to be used for an approximately 75-unit 10% affordable housing project. Item 2 Attachment B-ARB Findings for Approval Packet Pg. 32 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 greenery and relief spaces along pedestrian mews between buildings as well as dedicating land for a new public park adjacent Matadero Creek. New tree plantings and greenery (bioretention areas) are provided between the single-family residential uses and proposed structures. 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 townhome design provides and appropriate transition between single family residential and higher density residential development. 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 new stoops across the park frontage, connecting each of the park facing units tot eh street, providing a clear relationship to the street, Some units also face out onto Private Street A in order to create a sense of connection to the city dedication parcel in the anticipation that this will be redeveloped into a public park 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. The project includes retention of two existing single-story buildings, retention of a portion of the cannery building, and a new three-story townhome development. The proposed townhomes are an appropriate transition between single family residential uses and higher density multi-family housing. The townhomes and new parking garage meet or exceed the daylight plane requirements for the most restrictive abutting district (single-family residential). Item 2 Attachment B-ARB Findings for Approval Packet Pg. 33 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 meet or 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 removes one of the surface parking lots and consolidates much of the commercial parking toward the rear of the site in order to accommodate dedication of a parcel to the City for a public park. The proposed parking aligns with the existing ratios and is therefore anticipated to be sufficient to meet the demand. The townhome parcel has additional parking to support guests as well as parking for each unit in an area that would not be visible to the public. 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 includes a new dedicated two-way bicycle lane to align with the trail connections outlined in the 2012 Palo Alto Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan and improves existing conditions by adding bicycle spaces on the site. Policy T-5.1: All new development projects should manage parking demand generated by the project, without the use of on-street parking, consistent with the established parking regulations. As demonstrated parking demand decreases over time, parking requirements for new construction should The project provides required parking onsite. A TDM plan is required for the proposed office uses and is required to reduce trip generation by 30%. A draft of the TDM plan has been prepared and is still being reviewed by the City’s Transportation Division. Item 2 Attachment B-ARB Findings for Approval Packet Pg. 34 decrease. 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 includes the removal of some protected trees in a manner that is consistent with the tree protection ordinance and replaces all trees to be removed in accordance with the Tree technical manual’s requirements to ensure no net loss of canopy. protects existing trees over 15-inches. The project’s compliance with all code requirements is reflected in the landscape and T-1, 2, etc. sheets in the plan set. 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 near the El Camino Real corridor in close proximity (less than 0.5 miles) to high-quality transit (Cal Ave Caltrain and bus stops). 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 and a future park 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. Item 2 Attachment B-ARB Findings for Approval Packet Pg. 35 The project is consistent with Finding #2 because: The proposed project creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community by dedicating land for a new public park to help the City realize its vision to have a public open space in the North Ventura neighborhood adjacent to Matadero Creek, improving pedestrian and bicycle connections through the site, and creating pedestrian mews and seating areas outside the office space, retail area, and multi-family residential uses. The townhome units are well designed to provide for all modes of transportation and provide a desirable living space for future occupants. Although the project includes demolition of a historic resource deemed eligible for the California Register of Historic Resources, the project seeks to retain key character defining features that are recognizable (monitor roofs) and includes modifications to the building that help to convey the history of the site in a meaningful way that is publicly accessible, including through the creation of views from the retail space into the monitor roof, through the dedication of land for a public park across from the cannery building and townhomes, through the addition of an interpretive display that relays the history of the site and through the public art, which is anticipated to reflect the history of the site. The area consists of single-family residences along Olive Avenue and existing one-to-three story buildings with office and Research and Development uses. The proposed project would include three-story, multi-family residential townhomes and a single-story (two total levels with ground floor level) parking garage. The project transitions appropriately in scale from the low-density residential areas to mid-rise (three-level) townhome design, which is an appropriate transition. The parking garage and the residences would all be set back from lower density uses, comply with the daylight plane, and provide screening between these uses. Overall the project greatly enhances living conditions on the site, providing a desirable environment for future residents. The project is consistent with the context based-design criteria as detailed in Attachment F for both the new townhome development and the remaining cannery building/proposed parking garage. 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 design that is of high aesthetic quality and uses high quality materials that are durable. The proposed textures, including the standing seem metal are deferential to the historic cannery building, restoring and replacing this material, which is a character defining features of the site. Overall, many of the colors are neutral with pops of accent color and blues to help break up the massing and highlight and differentiate pedestrian entries. The project Item 2 Attachment B-ARB Findings for Approval Packet Pg. 36 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 in that it provides separated walkways as well as a separated two-way bicycle path with a public access easement across the project site. There is convenient and orderly vehicular access and the utilities across the site will be undergrounded. The pedestrian paseos serve as open space areas as well as providing orderly access through the site and lead into the open retail space as well as the future public park area. Trash pickup will continue to occur on site for both the commercial uses and the new townhomes and updates the site to meet the current code requirements. Finding #5: The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is appropriate to the site’s functions, and utilizes to the extent practical, regional indigenous drought resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat that can be appropriately maintained. The project is consistent with Finding #5 because: 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. The plantings along the pedestrian mews are designed to grow larger, providing both shade for southern facing frontages in time as well as providing privacy between residences across the pedestrian paseo. 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. 37 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, "3200 Park Boulevard, Palo Alto California City Submittal,” submitted to the City on May 20, 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 Development Agreement shall govern the terms of the project approval for this project. 6. LANDSCAPE PLAN. Plantings shall be installed in accordance with the approved plan set and shall be permanently maintained and replaced as necessary. 7. 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. 8.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 demonstrating 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 Item 2 Attachment C-Draft Conditions of Approval Packet Pg. 38 demonstrate a sufficient degree of sound attenuation to assure that the prescribed noise levels will not be exceeded. 9.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. 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. 11. FINAL INSPECTION. A Planning Division Final inspection will be required to determine substantial compliance with the approved plans prior to the scheduling of a Building Division final. Any revisions during the building process must be approved by Planning, including but not limited to; materials, landscaping and hard surface locations. Contact your Project Planner, Claire Raybould at Claire.Raybould@cityofpaloalto.org to schedule this inspection. 12. 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. 13. 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. 14. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), prepared for this project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality 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. 15. 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. PUBLIC WORKS ZERO WASTE 16. 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 Item 2 Attachment C-Draft Conditions of Approval Packet Pg. 39 longer than traditional demolition, it is important to plan ahead. For more information, visit www.cityofpaloalto.org/deconstruction. 17. 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. 18. 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. 19. TRASH SERVICE LOADING. On the plans submitted for building permit show a loading zone/signage that restricts parking on street A during trash services hours to ensure that cars do not block the service area. The applicant shall bear the cost for any curb painting and signage. 20. 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. 21. 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. 22. 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 plan 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 Item 2 Attachment C-Draft Conditions of Approval Packet Pg. 40 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 23. 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 24. OVERVIEW AND GUIDELINES FOR THE REVIEW OF SUBDIVISION PROJECTS: Developer shall familiarize themselves with the guidelines described in the November 2007 revision of the document titled “Overview and Guidelines for the Review of Subdivision Projects”. Particularly Section II (items 5 through 12) and Section V (items A through C). https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/planning-amp-development-services/file- migration/current-planning/forms-and-guidelines/overview-and-guidelines-for-the-review-of- subdivision-projects.pdf 25. SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT: The applicant shall execute a Subdivision Improvement Agreement and provide improvement securities (Bonds) for all proposed public improvements. THE AGREEMENT SHALL BE EXECUTED PRIOR TO MAP RECORDATION OR ISSUANCE OF ANY PERMITS FOR CONSTRUCTION, ONSITE AND OFFSITE. ADVISORY -- The applicant shall provide a detailed itemized stamped and signed engineer's estimate for all off-site public improvements which will be reviewed to determine the security amount. 26. PARCEL MAP/FINAL MAP: This project is subject to, and contingent upon the approval of a Final map and recordation of a Final Map. The submittal, approval and recordation of the Map shall be in accordance with the provisions of the California Subdivision Map Act and Palo Alto Municipal Code Title 21 Subdivision requirements. All existing and proposed property lines, easements, dedications shown on the tentative map are subject to City’s technical review and staff approval during the map process prior to issuance of any construction permits. 27. MAP THIRD-PARTY REVIEW: The City contracts with a third-party surveyor that will review and provide approval of the map’s technical correctness as the City Surveyor, as permitted by the Subdivision Map Act. The Public Works Department will forward a Scope & Fee Letter from the third-party surveyor and the applicant will be responsible for payment of the fee’s indicated therein, which is based on the complexity of the map. Item 2 Attachment C-Draft Conditions of Approval Packet Pg. 41 28. STREETWORK PERMIT: The applicant shall obtain a Streetwork Permit from the Department of Public Works for all public improvements. 29. GRADING AND EXCAVATION PERMIT: A Grading Permit is required per PAMC Chapter 16.28. The permit application and all applicable documents (see Section H of application) shall be submitted to Public Works Engineering. Add the following note: “THIS GRADING PERMIT WILL ONLY AUTHORIZE GENERAL GRADING AND INSTALLATION OF THE STORM DRAIN SYSTEM. OTHER BUILDING AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS ARE SHOWN FOR REFERENCE INFORMATION ONLY AND ARE SUBJECT TO SEPARATE BUILDING PERMIT APPROVAL.” 30. ROUGH GRADING: provide a Rough Grading Plan for the work proposed as part of the Grading and Excavation Permit application. The Rough Grading Plans shall including the following: pad elevation, elevator pit elevation, ground monitoring wells, limits of over excavation, stockpile area of material, overall earthwork volumes (cut and fill), temporary shoring for any existing facilities, ramps for access, crane locations (if any), tree protection measures, etc. 31. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER STATEMENT: The grading plans shall include the following statement signed and sealed by the Geotechnical Engineer of Record: “THIS PLAN HAS BEEN REVIEWED AND FOUND TO BE IN GENERAL CONFORMANCE WITH THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT”. 32. SWPPP: This proposed development will disturb more than one acre of land. Accordingly, the applicant shall apply for coverage under the State Water Resources Control Board’s (SWRCB) NPDES general permit for storm water discharge associated with construction activity. A Notice of Intent (NOI) shall be filed for this project with the SWRCB in order to obtain coverage under the permit. The General Permit requires the applicant to prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The applicant is required to submit two copies of the NOI and the draft SWPPP to the Public Works Department for review and approval prior to issuance of the building permit. The SWPPP should include both permanent, post-development project design features and temporary measures employed during construction. 33. 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. 34. 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. Item 2 Attachment C-Draft Conditions of Approval Packet Pg. 42 35. C.3 THIRD-PARTY CERTIFICATION: Applicant shall provide certification from a qualified third-party reviewer that the proposed permanent storm water pollution prevention measures comply with the requirements of Provision C.3 and Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.11. Submit the following: a. 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. 36. 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 issuance. 37. 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. 38. PAVEMENT RESTORATION: The applicant shall restore the pavement along the entire project frontage, curb-to-curb, by performing a 3.5” grind and overlay. The exact restoration limits will be determined once the resulting road condition is known following completion of heavy construction activities and utility lateral installations, at minimum the extent will be the project frontage. 39. EXISTING EASEMENTS: Provide documentation showing approval from the entities affected by the onsite easements to verify that the work within said easements is permitted. 40. PRIOR TO PUBLIC WORKS FINAL/ACCEPTANCE (STORM DRAIN LOGO): The applicant is required to paint “No Dumping/Flows to Matadero 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. 41. 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 Item 2 Attachment C-Draft Conditions of Approval Packet Pg. 43 42. TDM PROGRAM AND ANNUAL REPORTING REQUIREMENT: The applicant shall abide by the Final Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan, entitled “340 Portage Ave Research & Development Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDM)”, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Development Services. The TDM plan includes measures and programs to achieve a reduction in single-occupancy vehicle trips to the site by a minimum of 15%. The TDM plan includes an annual monitoring plan to document mode split and trips to the project site. The TDM annual report shall be submitted to the Chief Transportation Official. Monitoring and reporting requirements may be revised in the future if the minimum reduction is not achieved through the measures and programs initially implemented. Projects that do not achieve the required reduction may be subject to daily penalties as set forth in the City’s fee schedule. The owner or the future tenant shall provide free transit passes to all R&D employees as part of the TDM plan. WASTE-GAS-WATER UTILITIES PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF DEMOLITION PERMIT 43. 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 44. 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. 45. The applicant shall submit improvement plans for utility construction. The plans must 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. 46. 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.). 47. The applicant shall be responsible for installing and upgrading the existing utility mains and/or Item 2 Attachment C-Draft Conditions of Approval Packet Pg. 44 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. 48. 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. 49. 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 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. 50. 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. 51. 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. 52. Each parcel shall have its own water service and sewer lateral connection shown on the plans. 53. 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. 54. 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. 55. All utility installations shall be in accordance with the City of Palo Alto utility standards for water, gas, & wastewater. PUBLIC WORKS URBAN FORESTRY 56. 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 Item 2 Attachment C-Draft Conditions of Approval Packet Pg. 45 mandatory. (Insp. #1: applies to all projects; with tree preservation report: Insp. #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. 57. 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. 58. 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” 59. 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 Item 2 Attachment C-Draft Conditions of Approval Packet Pg. 46 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 60. 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. 61. 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. 62. 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. 63. 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. 64. 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 65. 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. Item 2 Attachment C-Draft Conditions of Approval Packet Pg. 47 BUILDING DIVISION 66. Building Permits submitted after 1/1/2023 shall comply to the 2022 Ca Building Standards Code as amended by the city of Palo Alto. 67. 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 68. All new buildings shall be all electric, no gas is allowed. 69. Submit a soil report and structural calculations as part of the building permit submittal. 70. Submit complete Mechanical, Electrical, and Plumbing design/plans and completed T24 documentation (calculations/forms) as part of the building permit submittal. Water Quality 71. All Bay Area Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit requirements shall be followed. Refer to the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program C.3 Handbook (download here: http://scvurppp-w2k.com/c3_handbook.shtml) for details. 72. Add these bullets as notes to building plans on Stormwater Treatment (C.3) Plan – a. For all C.3 features, vendor specifications regarding installation and maintenance should be followed and provided to city staff. Copies must be submitted to Pam Boyle Rodriguez at pamela.boylerodriguez@cityofpaloalto.org b. Staff from Stormwater Program (Watershed Protection Division) may be present during installation of stormwater treatment measures. Contact Pam Boyle Rodriguez, Stormwater Program Manager, at (650) 329-2421 before installation. Public Art 73. PUBLIC ART IN PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT. The project triggers the Public Art in Private Development ordinance, requiring that 1% of the estimated cost of construction be spent either on art on-site, or the payment of the equivalent funds to the Public Art Fund in-lieu of commissioning artwork on site. The applicant has submitted a public art application indicating a total public art value of $840,000. The applicant intends to commission art on site during phase one of the project in the amount of $420,000 and pay the final $420,000 as an in-lieu contribution to the Public Art Fund at the time they apply for that phase two building permit. The applicant must complete their final approval with the Public Art Commission prior to the issuance of a building permit. Item 2 Attachment C-Draft Conditions of Approval Packet Pg. 48 Attachment D: Consistency with North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan Goals North Ventura CAP Goals Development Agreement Alternative Housing and Land Use: Add to the City’s supply of multifamily housing, including market rate, affordable, “missing middle,” and senior housing in a walkable, mixed use, transit‐accessible neighborhood, with retail and commercial services and possibly start up space, open space, and possibly arts and entertainment uses. The project adds up to 149 units to the City’s housing supply including 74 market rate units as well as one acre and funding to support a 75-unit affordable housing project on the City dedication land. The project also provides 2.25 acres of open space adjacent Matadero Creek. Transit, Pedestrian and Bicycle Connections: Create and enhance well‐defined connections to transit, pedestrian, and bicycle facilities, including connections to the Caltrain station, Park Boulevard and El Camino Real. The project creates an enhanced bikeway connection between Park Boulevard and portage Avenue, consistent with the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan and Countywide Trail Plan. Connected Street Grid: Create a connected street grid, filling in sidewalk gaps and street connections to California Avenue, the Caltrain Station, and El Camino Real where appropriate. The project would provide a private street between Portage Avenue and Park Boulevard. However, a connection (parking lot) exist there today. The change may allow for vehicular traffic to cut through; however, cut through traffic is not anticipated given that there are other options already connecting El Camino Real and Park Boulevard that would be more convenient for surrounding uses. Community Facilities and Infrastructure: Carefully align and integrate development of new community facilities and infrastructure with private development, recognizing both the community’s needs and that such investments can increase the cost of housing. The project includes community facilities, including a public park and a retail/public space that will provide public access to view the monitor roofs. Balance of Community Interests: Balance community‐wide objectives with the interests of neighborhood residents and minimize displacement of existing residents and small businesses. The project replaces vacant retail space with housing and a small retail/public space for viewing the monitor roofs. It does not displace any small businesses. Although research and development uses were not encouraged to remain at this site in accordance with the NVCAP process, the retention of existing uses would allow for other community benefits identified throughout the process, including a public park and housing. Urban Design, Design Guidelines and Neighborhood Fabric: Develop human‐scale urban design strategies, and design guidelines that strengthen and support the neighborhood fabric. Infill development will respect the scale and character of the surrounding residential neighborhood. Include transition zones to surrounding neighborhoods. The project proposes to retain existing buildings (a portion of the cannery, Ash office building and Audi building) and to construct 35-foot tall townhomes. The proposed height and multi- family use aligns with existing surrounding R&D, retail-like and residential uses. Item 2 Attachment D-NVCAP Key Goal Consistency Packet Pg. 49 Sustainability and the Environment Protect and enhance the environment, while addressing the principles of sustainability. The new housing project building will be all electric and will comply with GB-1 plus Tier 2 requirements. Any modifications to the cannery that qualify as a substantial improvement would require upgrades to meet the new green building code. The applicant is looking to design, if feasible, a net zero cannery building in accordance with comments from the Council and commissioners. Item 2 Attachment D-NVCAP Key Goal Consistency Packet Pg. 50 ATTACHMENT E ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 22PLN-00287 (bold indicates non-compliance) Table 1: 200-Portage/3040-3200 Park Boulevard (Townhomes) COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.13 (RM-30 DISTRICT) Regulation Required Proposed Minimum/Maximum Site Area, Width and Depth 8,500 sf area, 70-foot width, 100-foot depth ~300 X ~590 (3.92 ac gross [170,755]; 2.447 ac net [106,591 sf]) Minimum Front Yard (Olive Avenue) (2) 20 feet 28 feet Rear Yard 10 feet 60 feet Interior Side Yard 6 feet 15 feet (adjacent residential) 43 feet to new property line between townhomes and cannery building Street Side Yard 16 feet 10 to 16 feet (10 at narrowest point) Max. Building Height 35 feet 32 foot, 10 inches Side Yard Daylight Plane 10 feet at interior side lot line then 45- degree angle Complies Rear Yard Daylight Plane 10 feet at rear setback line then 45- degree angle Complies Max. Site Coverage 40% (68,302)36% Max. Total Floor Area Ratio 0.6:1 (63,955 sf)1.49:1 (159,949 sf)* Minimum Site Open Space 30% (51,226 sf) 20% (34,663 sf) Minimum Usable Open Space 150 sf per unit (11,100 sf)177 sf/du min (12,131 sf) Minimum Common Open Space 75 sf per unit (5,550 sf)86 sf/du min (6,339 sf) Minimum Private Open Space 50 sf per unit (3,700 sf)92 sf/du min (6,792 sf) *Net lot area is used for the calculation of floor area and excludes the private streets and creek easements Table 1A: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking) for Multi-family Residential Type Required Proposed Vehicle Parking 2 spaces per unit, at least one covered 2x74 units=148 spaces required 148 spaces covered (2 each for 74 units) 37 uncovered spaces Total provided: 185 spaces Bicycle Parking 1 long term space per unit and 1 short term space per 10 units 74 long term spaces provided in private garages; Item 2 Attachment E-Zoning Comparison Table Packet Pg. 51 1 x 74 = 74 long-term spaces 0.1 x 74 = 7 short-term spaces 24 short term spaces Table 2: 340-404 Portage Avenue (Cannery Building) COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.16 (CS DISTRICT) Regulation Required Existing Proposed Minimum Site Area, width and depth 8,500 sf area, 70-foot width, 100 foot depth ~880 feet x ~640 feet ~539,035 sf (12.37 acres) ~590 feet X ~420 feet (irregular; 6.3 acres) Minimum Front Yard 0-10 feet to create an 8-12 foot effective sidewalk width (1), (2), (8) ~20 feet (Park Boulevard) None (Alley between Acacia and Portage)* Rear Yard None None (Alley between Acacia and Portage) ~15 feet (abutting new townhome parcel) Interior Side Yard None 10 to 25 feet (adjacent residences to new parking garage) 60 feet (south of Street B on south side of newly created parcel) Street Side Yard None Not applicable Not applicable Min. yard for lot lines abutting or opposite residential districts or residential PC districts 10 feet (2)32 feet 10.5 feet Build-to-lines 50% of frontage built to setback 33% of side street built to setback(7) None (Park Boulevard)Cannery building built to front setback (Alley between Acacia and Portage) Side street is not applicable Special Setback 24 feet – see Chapter 20.08 & zoning maps Not Applicable Not Applicable Max. Site Coverage None Unclear 49.7% Item 2 Attachment E-Zoning Comparison Table Packet Pg. 52 Max. Building Height 35 ft within 150 ft. of a residential district (other than an RM-40 or PC zone) abutting or located within 50 feet of the site ~35 feet; ten inches to top of existing monitor roofs; ~21 feet, two inches to top of existing main roof of cannery building 22 feet, 10 inches to top of stair tower 14 foot, six inches to top of railing around the parking garage ~No change to cannery building roof heights Max. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 0.4:1 (109,771 sf) 18.18.060(e) 0.47 (251,619 sf on a 539,035 sf parcel) 0.6:1 (164,656.8 sf)* Daylight Plane for lot lines abutting one or more residential zone districts other than an RM-40 or PC Zone None (6)complies Complies *Note: compliance would require modifications to existing historic cannery building. **Parking garage does not constitute floor area as parking is exempt from floor area in accordance with Chapter 18.04 of the municipal code. This number reflects existing cannery square footage but the ratio is based on dedication of a portion of the parcel to the City; therefore the resulting parcel would exceed the floor area ratio allowed under the zoning ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. Table 2A: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking) for Research and Development and Retail Type Required Proposed Vehicle Parking 1 space per 250 sf for R&D (x142,744 sf)= 570 spaces 1 space per 200 sf for retail (x2,600 sf)=13 spaces 2 loading spaces for (100,000-199,999 sf)= 2 spaces Total required: 583 spaces Total loading required: 2 spaces Parking garage:330 spaces Other uncovered spaces: 89 spaces Total spaces provided: 403 spaces Total loading provided: 2 spaces Bicycle Parking 1 space per 2,500 sf for R&D; 80% LT; 20% ST (x142,744 sf)=57 spaces (46 spaces LT; 10 spaces ST) 1 space per 2,000 sf for retail; 20% LT; 80% ST (x2600 sf)=1 ST space Total required: 57 Long term(LT); 11 Short term (ST) 49 spaces (37 existing; 12 new) Long term; 20 ST* *Building and R&D use is existing on the site, modifications bring the existing buildings more into conformance with the code Item 2 Attachment E-Zoning Comparison Table Packet Pg. 53 2 8 7 Attachment F: Context-Based Design Criteria Consistency 3200 Park Boulevard 22PLN-00287 Context-Based Design Criteria Consistency-Cannery Building Parcel Pursuant to PAMC 18.16.090(b), the following context-based design considerations and findings are applicable to this project. These context-based design criteria are intended to provide additional standards to be used in the design and evaluation of development in a commercial district. The purpose is to encourage development in a commercial district to be responsible to its context and compatibility with adjacent development as well as to promote the establishment of pedestrian oriented design. Complete code language for the commercial context-based design criteria can be found online at https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/paloalto/latest/paloalto_ca/0-0-0-78138. 1. Pedestrian and Bicycle Environment Project Consistency The design of new projects shall promote pedestrian walkability, a bicycle friendly environment, and connectivity through design elements This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project will provide new short-term and long-term bike racks to comply with the code. The project will be required to provide an enhanced bikeway connecting Park Boulevard to Portage Avenue, and will provide an opportunity, through dedication of land and funds, for the City to provide improved connections across Matadero Creek. There are pedestrian pathways throughout the site, providing connectivity across proposed parcels. Pedestrian connections to Acacia could be improved and discussions regarding this are ongoing and the design of the Park to Portage connection is also ongoing. However, overall the project is consistent with this criterion. 2. Street Building Facades Street facades shall be designed to provide a strong relationship with the sidewalk and the street (s), to create an environment that supports and encourages pedestrian activity through design elements On the cannery building site, the cannery building would be retained as-is on the west end and large portions of the southern façade closest to Ash Street/Portage Ave. A pedestrian mews would be provided between the parking garage and the existing cannery building to improve the pedestrian environment in this area. An access easement would be provided over Street B in order to accommodate an enhanced bicycle connection and public access to and from the park and future affordable housing project. Design changes to create a more inviting retail area are proposed. Overall the project is consistent with this criterion. 3. Massing and Setbacks Buildings shall be designed to minimize massing and conform to proper setbacks The cannery building height and massing would not increase as a result of the proposed project. The new parking garage is the minimum height necessary to provide replacement parking for the commercial uses while accommodating the future park. The new parking garage meets the setback and daylight plane requirements that would typically be required for an RM-30 Zone District. The daylight plane next to the R-1 is based on the R-1 zone Item 2 Attachment F-Context based design criteria Consistency Final Packet Pg. 54 2 8 7 district requirements and has been met. The revised plans lowered the parking garage even further by lowering the grade of the garage. This aligned the garage with the datum of the awnings rather than the height of the historic building. This reduced the scale of the new building, prioritizing the historic building. The project is consistent with this criterion. 4. Low Density Residential Transitions Where new projects are built abutting existing lower scale residential development, care shall be taken to respect the scale and privacy of neighboring properties The scale of the garage is the minimum necessary to replace the surface parking; improvements were made based on ARB and staff feedback to lower the garage and better respect the privacy of adjacent uses. A line-of-sight diagram has been provided to show how views between neighboring yards and the parking garage are screened. Tree removal along the property line was reassessed. A couple of additional mature trees will be retained. Overall trees along the property line that are mature are planned to be retained. The majority of the trees along the property line are either not mature or small trees that do not contribute to screening. Revised planting is planned to provide trees that provide better screening along the new property boundary to screen the parking garage. 5. Project Open Space Private and public open space shall be provided so that it is usable for the residents and visitors of the site There is no public or private open space requirement for the cannery building parcel. However, open space areas on the north side (between the cannery and parking garage) and at the southwest corner (adjacent the retail space) are provided. It is anticipated that areas on the north side would be utilized primarily by private employees. The area adjacent to the retail space is designed for public use. An interpretive display portraying important historical information about the site would be located within this outdoor area and/or within the retail space under the monitor roofs. The development agreement includes dedication of 2.25 acres for the purposes of a public park, which would provide additional public open space opportunities on site. 6. Parking Design Parking shall be accommodated but shall not be allowed to overwhelm the character of the project or detract from the pedestrian environment The existing parking is at-grade and revised parking will be both at grade and within a new parking garage. The parking garage is necessary to achieve the goal of providing a park, and possibly future naturalization of the creek in this area, while not creating parking impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. It is not located along a street frontage and is therefore desirable with respect to how the project looks from public streetscapes, especially with the intent that a public access connection from Park to Portage will be a desirable area for residents to access the public park and use as a connection across the Ventura neighborhood between Park and El Camino Real. 7. Large Multi-Acre Sites Large sites (over one acre) shall be designed so that street, block, and building patterns are consistent The surrounding neighborhood, with the exception of Olive Avenue, is commercial. The remaining portion of the Item 2 Attachment F-Context based design criteria Consistency Final Packet Pg. 55 2 8 7 with those of the surrounding neighborhood cannery building and the building at 3250 Park would not change. The small commercial building at 3040 Park (commercial recreation use) would be removed. The new parking garage on the cannery building parcel would be set back 23 feet from adjacent single-family residential parcels. The parking garage is designed to be well under the single-family residential daylight plane requirements (the most restrictive abutting zoning district). 8. Sustainability and Green Building Design Project design and materials to achieve sustainability and green building design should be incorporated into the project This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project is subject to the California Green Building Code (CalGreen, Tier 2) and includes a variety of sustainable elements. The project will be subject to the most recently adopted building code standards, including increased energy efficiency standards that became effective January 1, 2023. Context-Based Design Criteria Consistency-Townhomes Pursuant to PAMC 18.13.060(b), the following context-based design considerations and findings are applicable to the townhome parcel for the proposed project. These context-based design criteria are intended to provide additional standards to be used in the design and evaluation of development in a multi-family district. The purpose is to encourage development in a multi-family district to be responsible to its context and compatibility with adjacent development as well as to promote the establishment of pedestrian oriented design. The multi-family context-based design criteria can be found online at: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/paloalto/latest/paloalto_ca/0-0-0-77575 9. Massing and Building Facades Massing and building facades shall be designed to create a residential scale in keeping Palo Alto neighborhoods, and to provide a relationship with the street(s). The proposed townhome parcel will be zoned Planned Community; however, the project proposes to comply with most of the development standards set forth in the RM-30 zone district to ensure a natural transition from single-family residential to medium-density multi-family housing. The proposed height is 35’ consistent with the RM-30 zone district. The daylight plane is required to comply with that of the abutting R-1 requirements. Therefore, the project will comply with the side yard daylight plane (10 feet up and 45-degree angle from property line). The project is setback in compliance with the RM-30 requirements and provides screening and open space area between the townhomes and residential use. Although the project proposes increased floor area in comparison to the base zoning; however, this is reflective of the dedication of a substantial portion of the existing property’s land to the City for the purpose of a public park and future affordable housing. The project provides stoops for many of the units, particularly the units facing Park Boulevards. This is a desirable feature that does not wall off the building, creating a sense of place that connects directly to the street. This helps to create a quality, pedestrian-oriented transition from single-family detached to medium-density attached housing. Further improvements to the façade to provide better articulation and break up the design across the extensive frontage of the project on Park Boulevard would improve the design. The plans have been revised to provide more modulation in the roofline, improving the vertical articulation of the building. The revised plans also provide more horizontal articulation through the introduction of bays and changes in materials to help to break up the facades and provide a better pedestrian/human-scale connection at entrances. Overall the project, as revised, is consistent with this finding. 10. Low-Density Residential Transitions Where new projects are built abutting existing lower-scale residential development, care shall be taken to respect the Item 2 Attachment F-Context based design criteria Consistency Final Packet Pg. 56 2 8 7 scale and privacy of neighboring properties. The project is set back from the R-1 zone district and maintains the R-1 daylight plane where it abuts single-family uses. The style of development works well as a transition from single-family residential to medium-density residential use. A future affordable housing project designed as a single building would be anticipated on the City dedication parcel, providing for a denser use that provides a second unit type further from the single-family residences. 11. Project Open Space Private and public open space shall be provided so that it is usable for the residents and visitors of a site. The project complies with common, private and useable open space requirements through the use of paseos through the site. However, because of the significant dedication of land to the City for the purposes of a public park, it does not meet the minimum site open space requirements. However, the park presumably would provide a recreational area for residents, including additional play area for children for these 3-4 bedroom townhomes. Improvements were made to the pedestrian mews to create more privacy for residents and to provide a more greenery to improve the environment for residents. Sheet AR1.2.0 does not accurately show private open space areas versus landscape open space areas. Private balconies should be relabeled as private open space and should not be counted toward landscape space. If the area near the single-family residences cannot be used for common open space, more clarity as to why this cannot be achieved should be provided. It seems that providing more open area for children should be considered without impacting the use of this space to meet the bioretention requirements for the site. 12. Parking Design Parking needs shall be accommodated but shall not be allowed to overwhelm the character of the project or detract from the pedestrian environment. Parking is provided for each individual unit within the garage as part of the townhome style design. Guest parking is provided along the private streets that provide primary access to the site (Streets A, B, and C that form a U shape around the project) The parking does not overwhelm the character of the project or detract from the pedestrian environment. However, on the private street connecting Portage Avenue and park Boulevard. 13. Large (multi-acre) Sites Large (in excess of one acre) sites shall be designed so that street, block, and building patterns are consistent with those of the surrounding neighborhood. Generally, the type of unit development and design of individual doors accessing the street on Park Boulevard is encouraged. The street façade along Park Boulevard is commercial in nature; but care has been taken to consider the single-family residential uses on Olive Avenue in the design of the townhomes and their scale (through setbacks, daylight plane, and height). Improvements were made to improve the design of the side of the units, which are very visible from various streets and some from Olive Avenue and those residents. Some of the units were revised to bring entrances around to the side street and changes in materials and breaks have been provided to improve the end- designs of units. 14. Housing Variety and Units on Individual Lots Multifamily projects may include a variety of unit types such as small-lot detached units, attached row houses/townhouse, and cottage clusters in order to achieve variety and create transitions to adjacent existing development. The proposed project is a Development Agreement; therefore, the type of housing being provided aligns with the negotiated terms with the Council ad hoc committee, which was endorsed by Council. The project includes townhome style units on a 3.8 ac net lot area as well as a future affordable housing project on a one-acre parcel. The medium- density, townhome style, use on the townhome parcel is an appropriate type of housing for a transition from single- family residential to higher density residential/commercial areas. The future affordable housing project is anticipated to be a different type of design, likely a single structure with apartments on one acre. 15. Sustainability and Green Building Design Project design and materials to achieve sustainability and green building design shall be incorporated into the project. Green building design considers the environment during design and construction. Green building design aims for Item 2 Attachment F-Context based design criteria Consistency Final Packet Pg. 57 2 8 7 compatibility with the local environment: to protect, respect and benefit from it. In general, sustainable buildings are energy efficient, water conserving, durable and nontoxic, with high-quality spaces and high recycled content materials. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project is subject to the California Green Building Code (CalGreen, Tier 2) and includes a variety of sustainable elements. The project will be subject to the most recently adopted building code standards, including increased energy efficiency standards that became effective January 1, 2023. Item 2 Attachment F-Context based design criteria Consistency Final Packet Pg. 58 Rincon Consultants, Inc. 449 15th Street, Suite 303 Oakland, California 94612 5 1 0 834 4455 O F F I C E info@rinconconsultants.com ww w .rinconcons u ltan ts .com December 14, 2022 Project No: 21-11331 Claire Raybould, AICP, Senior Planner City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 via email: Claire.Raybould@cityofpaloalto.org Subject: Secretary of the Interior’s Standards Analysis Update – Revised 200 Portage Avenue Condominium Project, Palo Alto, California Dear Ms. Raybould: Rincon Consultants, Inc. (Rincon) was retained by the City of Palo Alto (City) to conduct a historical resources impacts analysis for a project at 3200 Park Boulevard, Palo Alto, California. The proposed project involves the demolition of a portion of the existing commercial building at 200 Portage Avenue, originally built for the Bayside Canning Company beginning in 1918. The property, inclusive of the warehouse building and related office building located at 3201-3225 Ash Street, was evaluated in a Historical Resources Evaluation (HRE) by Page & Turnbull on behalf of the City of Palo Alto in February 2019 and recommended eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) at the local level under Criterion 1 (Events) for its association with the canning industry in Santa Clara County. Therefore, the property is considered a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5(a) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. Rincon prepared a Historical Resources Assessment and Impacts Finding Memorandum for the proposed project in February 2022, and found that the proposed project, which included demolition of approximately 40 percent of the warehouse building would constitute material impairment to the historical resource, and would not meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (Standards). The memorandum further found that several elements of the treatment for the portion of the warehouse building proposed to be retained were inconsistent with the Standards due to the planned removal of distinctive and character-defining features that characterize the property (Attachment 1). Rincon’s February 2022 memorandum prepared for the purposes of the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the 200 Portage Avenue Townhome Project (which included a 91-unit townhome development) analyzed impacts of that proposed project on the identified historical resource. This memorandum analyzes the proposed Development Agreement alternative, which includes further modifications to the cannery building as well as the addition of a parking garage at the rear of the property. This assessment considers how the proposed modifications under the Development Agreement Alternative conforms to the Standards and provides recommendations, where appropriate, on how the modified design can more successfully adhere to the Standards.1 Methods for the current assessment included a review of Development Agreement project plans as well as a memorandum 1 Pursuant to Section 15064.5(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, projects that comply with the Standards are generally considered to mitigate impacts to historical resources to a less than significant level. E n v i r o n m e n t a l S c i e n t i s t s P l a n n e r s E n g i n e e r s Item 2 Attachment G-SOIS Analysis Development Agreement Alternative Packet Pg. 59 City of Palo Alto 200 Portage Condominium Project completed by the project applicant’s historic consultant, Architectural Resources Group (ARG) in July 2022, which provided guidelines for the treatment of the property intended to be incorporated into the Development Agreement for the property (Attachment 2). It also included review of a phasing plan the project applicant submitted to the city in December 2022 (Attachment 3). This review was also informed by guidance documents from National Park Service, including a series of documents published by the Technical Preservation Services division called “Interpreting the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation” (ITS). The Rincon team included Architectural Historian JulieAnn Murphy, who served as primary author of this memorandum. Senior Architectural Historian and Program Manager Steven Treffers and Principal Shannon Carmack provided oversight and assisted with the analysis. Ms. Murphy, Mr. Treffers, and Ms. Carmack meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards (PQS) for architectural history and history (26 CFR Part 61). Brief Project Description As described in the February 2022 memo, the project site encompasses approximately 14.27 acres across four parcels (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 132-38-071, 132-32-036, 132-32-042, and 132-32-043) that would be developed with 91 new condominium townhouse units and associated site improvements. To accommodate the proposed residential development, a portion of the historic warehouse building would be demolished. The portion of the warehouse building proposed to be retained would be updated for retail and Research and Development uses and updated to comply with the current building and green building codes, a requirement under state law and the City’s municipal code for substantial modification of a commercial building. Proposed improvements would include modifications to existing entries and windows, replacement of corrugated metal siding, new storefront windows and skylights, new canopy awnings at entries, and floorplan modifications at building’s southeast and northeast elevations for a new amenity space. The retained warehouse portion would be connected to a two-story parking garage addition at its north elevation. Brief Property Background and Chronology As described in the HRE prepared by Page & Turnbull, the oldest portions of the warehouse building were constructed in 1918 for the Bayside Canning Company, which was owned by Chinese immigrant and prominent canning mogul, Thomas Foon Chew. After Chew’s death, the cannery was subsequently purchased and operated for more than 20 years by the Sutter Packing Company, another fruit and vegetable cannery. The Sutter Packing Company significantly expanded the cannery building and its operations throughout the 1930s and 1940s as it prepared for and raced to meet the demands of World War II. The expansion projects included the construction of the extant office building at 3201-3225 Ash Street to the southeast of warehouse building. For a time, the cannery was the largest employer in the Mid-Peninsula, and when it closed in 1949, it was the largest employer in Palo Alto. The property had a number of owners following Sutter Packing Company including the following: Safeway (1946-1949); unknown (1949-1978); WSJ Properties (c. 1978-1998); Unknown (c.1998-2002); Robert Wheatley Properties (c. 2002-2010); and the Sobrato Organization (Present). A number of different tenants occupied the portion of the warehouse building proposed to be retained during the years following Sutter Packing’s closure including Basket Galleria, Inc., MaxiMart, and most recently Playground Global and Nauto. A portion of the building proposed to be retained as well as a portion of which would be demolished was last occupied by Fry’s Electronics. Page 2 Item 2 Attachment G-SOIS Analysis Development Agreement Alternative Packet Pg. 60 City of Palo Alto 200 Portage Condominium Project The period of significance of the property, including the warehouse building, begins in 1918, when canning operations began at the site under the Bayside Canning Company, and ends in 1949, when the Sutter Packing Company’s canning operations at the building ended. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards The Standards provide guidance on the preservation and protection of historic properties and make broad-brush recommendations for maintaining, repairing, and replacing historic materials, as well as designing new additions or making alterations. They cannot, in and of themselves, be used to make essential decisions about which features of a historic property should be saved and which might be changed. Rather, they provide philosophical consistency to the work.2 There are Standards for four distinct, but related, approaches to the treatment of historic properties: Preservation, Rehabilitation, Restoration, and Reconstruction. The Rehabilitation Standards are the appropriate treatment standards for this analysis because the proposed project involves the new use of a historic building. Furthermore, only Rehabilitation Standards allow alterations and the construction of new additions, if necessary for a historic building’s continued or new use.3 The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation state: 1. A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships. 2. The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided. 3. Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken. 4. Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved. 5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. 6. Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. 7. Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used. 2 Anne E. Grimmer and Kay D. Weeks, “The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings,” National Park Service, 2017, 3. 3 National Park Service, “The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties: Rehabilitation as a Treatment and Standards for Rehabilitation, https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/treatment- standards-rehabilitation.htm, access November 10, 2022. Page 3 Item 2 Attachment G-SOIS Analysis Development Agreement Alternative Packet Pg. 61 City of Palo Alto 200 Portage Condominium Project 8. Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. 9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment. 10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in a such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. Character-Defining Features The intent of the Standards is to provide for the long-term preservation of a property’s significance through the preservation of its historic materials and features. These historic materials and features are commonly referred to as character-defining features and are indispensable in a historic property’s ability to convey the reasons for its historical significance. The warehouse building at 200 Portage is significant for its association with the canning industry in Santa Clara County. As such, its character-defining features relate to its representation of its industrial canning history, and include the following, as identified in the HRE prepared by Page & Turnbull: ▪ ▪ Form and massing    Long, linear massing Composition of multiple smaller buildings Primarily one story, double-height volumes with taller central cannery section Varied roofs and structures    Prominent paired monitor roofs Arched roofs Visible gable roofs ▪ ▪ Exterior wall materials   Reinforced, board formed concrete Corrugated metal cladding Exterior cannery features    Concrete loading platforms Cooling porch at rear of building Exterior shed awnings with wood post-and-beam construction ▪ ▪ Fenestration    Wood frame windows Garage door openings Wire glass skylights over former warehouses Landscape features Preserved curved path of the removed railroad spur tracks, represented in the shape of parking lot pavement Page 4 Item 2 Attachment G-SOIS Analysis Development Agreement Alternative Packet Pg. 62 City of Palo Alto 200 Portage Condominium Project Channel of Matadero Creek ▪Interior features    Exposed wood truss ceilings Wood and concrete post and beam construction Concrete floors To ensure a proposed project’s compliance with the Standards, a historic property’s character-defining features should be preserved as part of the final design. In rehabilitation, historic building materials and character-defining features are protected and maintained as they are in the Preservation Standards. However, greater latitude is given in rehabilitation to replace extensively deteriorated, damaged, or missing features using the same or compatible substitute materials. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards Analysis The following presents an analysis of the proposed project’s modified design’s adherence to the applicable Rehabilitation Standards by proposed scope item. Proposed Demolition The Development Agreement Alternative proposes to demolish the eastern portion of the historic warehouse building, resulting in a loss of approximately 40 percent of the building, consistent with the 200 Portage Avenue (91 Unit) Townhome Project. As discussed in the February 2022 analysis, the demolition of the building would not be consistent with the Standards which recommends avoiding loss of historic materials through demolition and removal and encourages the retention of distinctive materials that characterize a property. The proposed demolition would cause a loss of several of the property’s character-defining features outlined above, including its form and massing and varied roof forms and structures. The modified design for the proposed project, similar to the Townhome Project, would still be inconsistent with Standard 1, 2, 5, and 6. Structural Retrofit In November 2022 the project applicant provided clarification to City staff that a portion of the building between the tenant space for Playground global and west of the monitor roofs may require further modifications than originally anticipated. The phasing plan reflects that this area would be rehabilitated. However, the applicant has indicated that the extant roof would require complete reconstruction, discussed in more detail below, to accommodate the weight of required solar panels and HVAC equipment upgrades. To allow for the upgrades, the applicant would install an interior support to stabilize the exterior walls while this work is completed. The exterior walls are corrugated metal, much of which has deteriorated over time. The applicant is proposing a salvage study to determine whether any of the exterior material could be retained, or whether replacement with like material is necessary. Ultimately, if the material must be replaced, these modifications may be more extensive than originally anticipated. Ultimately, these additional modifications necessary to accommodate structural upgrades, which could amount to demolition depending on how much of the exterior could actually be retained, and could potentially be inconsistent with Standard 2 and 6. Page 5 Item 2 Attachment G-SOIS Analysis Development Agreement Alternative Packet Pg. 63 City of Palo Alto 200 Portage Condominium Project New Storefronts, Entries and Canopies The proposed modified design includes new storefront entries at the north and south elevations. Storefront entries will be topped with flat, metal canopies at select locations on the north and south elevations. South Elevation Entries The building’s south elevation ground floor openings are proposed to be updated. Existing openings at the west end of the elevation will be retained, while all other existing openings are proposed to be removed. The HRE identified the south elevation as the primary, or most important, elevation. The central portion of this elevation’s bays are proposed to receive five fully glazed storefront systems, two of which will feature single-entry glazed doors. One of the character-defining features identified for the building were the garage doors at former loading bays, one of which is present on the south elevation. As described in the National Park Service’s guidance document ITS Number 16: New Infill for Historic Loading Door Openings, retaining loading doors in buildings such as warehouses and other industrial and manufacturing buildings is important for maintaining the historic character of these structures.4 The current modified design, which proposes to remove the former loading entry does not meet Standard 2, 5, 6, or 9. In order to fully meet the Standards, the design should be refined to retain the existing openings, inclusive of the intact roll-up doors. The final bays, below the monitor roof portion of the building are proposed to include two entries within a new amenity space that will be established by enclosing the area below the existing canopy at the west end of the elevation and include a one-story portion at the east end of the elevation. One portion of the proposed amenity space would extend for two stories, ending below the monitor roof portion of the building and feature a double-height storefront system and a paired door entry. It would extend to a one-story portion at the building’s corner and would feature a storefront system with a second, paired entry, and both would be clad in a new, corrugated exterior material. Rehabilitation of buildings allows for additions and alterations for new uses, but encourages preservation or minimal change to primary elevations, as provided in NPS Preservation Brief 14: New Exterior Additions to Historic Buildings: Preservation Concerns.5 When additions cannot be added to a secondary elevation, additions and alterations to primary elevations should be designed to be compatible with the historic building and should not become the primary focus. This can be achieved by being designed in the appropriate scale and should be visually distinguishable from the historic building. The alterations for the proposed new amenity space at the south elevation do not meet Standard 9. The proposed change materially alters the remaining historic elevation. The modified design should be revised to not include a substantial alteration to the primary elevation. It should not obscure the historic building proposed to be retained. Additionally, and as noted in the HRE, the building’s corrugated metal exterior is a character-defining feature. It is recommended that the proposed use of corrugated metal on the substantially altered portion of the building be revised to a different, compatible material to clearly distinguish the original historic building and the later modifications. 4 Kaaren R. Staveteig, National Park Service, Technical Preservation Services, ITS Number 2: New Infill for Historic Garage Openings, 1999. 5 Anne E. Grimmer and Kay D. Weeks, National Park Service, Preservation Brief 14: New Exterior Additions to Historic Buildings: Preservation Concerns, 2010. Page 6 Item 2 Attachment G-SOIS Analysis Development Agreement Alternative Packet Pg. 64 City of Palo Alto 200 Portage Condominium Project North Elevation Entries The north elevation’s ground floor openings will be updated for the proposed new use. The existing paired and single door below the monitor roof portion of the building will be removed. The remaining paired entries to the west of the monitor roof portion of the building will also be removed, while the single entry, final paired entry, and what appear to be existing storefronts at the southernmost portion of the building will be retained. New, fully glazed storefront systems with three entries will be installed in and area below monitor roofs at the first floor. The elevation will continue with three new storefront systems with full-height glazing at the first floor and a transom above. The final bay of the grouping will feature a central, paired entry. The proposed design for the remainder of the elevation appears to be retain the existing configuration. As described in NPS ITS Number 22: Adding New Entrances to Historic Buildings, in order to meet the Standards, new entrances should be simple in design, should not appear historic, should blend in with the historic façade, and should be modestly scaled.6 The proposed storefront entries below the monitor roof portions of the building would result in the removal of the corrugated exterior that characterizes the property. The installation of expanses of glazing in new openings would result in the loss of historic material and create visual access to the interior of the building that did not historically exist. The proposed openings do not meet Standard 2 or 9. In order to more successfully meet the Standards, proposed new entries at these locations should be reduced in scale, and be pulled in at least one structural bay from each end of the character-defining roofline in order to retain more of the historic materials the building’s spatial relationship. Similarly, the large full-length glazing proposed at the remainder of the elevation do not meet Standard 2 or 9 and should be reconfigured. Current site conditions not reflected in the most current plan set show that an existing loading door opening is present in portion of the elevation. As discussed above, existing garage doors were identified as one of the building’s character-defining features related to its historic use as a cannery. In order to adhere to the Standards more closely, the design should be updated to retain and reuse the existing framed opening instead of introducing three new openings. Canopies The proposed metal canopies at new entries are simple in design, consistent with building’s historic industrial character and generally meet the Standards. However, the proposed removal of existing character-defining shed awnings with post and beam construction does not meet Standard 2 or 5. Shed awnings should be retained instead of being replaced with new canopies. Where shed canopies are deteriorated beyond repair, they should be replaced in kind instead of receiving a new canopy design. New Window Openings To accommodate the new use, several new window openings are proposed for the warehouse building at the north, south, and east elevation. 6 Anne Grimmer, Technical Preservation Services, National Park Service, ITS Number 22: Adding New Entrances to Historic Buildings, 2001. Page 7 Item 2 Attachment G-SOIS Analysis Development Agreement Alternative Packet Pg. 65 City of Palo Alto 200 Portage Condominium Project North and South Elevations At the building’s north and south elevations, new windows are proposed at double-height portion of the warehouse, below the distinctive, character-defining monitor roofs. Windows at the north elevation will include a central, fixed widow, each flanked by fixed windows with sloped openings, following the shape of the roofline. Windows at the south elevation will mimic what is proposed at the north elevation on one bay and will include a double-height storefront glazing system at the adjacent bay. While rehabilitating historic buildings for new uses occasionally requires creating new window openings, the proposed location, design, and materials have to be consistent with the historic character of the building in order to meet the Standards. The windows proposed for the north and south elevations are not consistent with the building’s historic, industrial character. As explained in NPS ITS Number 14: New Openings in Secondary Elevations or Introducing New Windows in Blank Walls, introducing new windows must not make a strong architectural statement as to radically change the appearance of the building or overwhelm the composition of the historic façade.7 The scale, number, and placement of proposed windows makes a strong architectural statement that is incompatible with the historic character of the simple, industrial building and is therefore inconsistent with Standards 2, 5, and 9. Furthermore, the proposed new window openings at the north and south elevations, would introduce an embellishment to an otherwise simple façade that is not substantiated by historical evidence. Per guidance in NPS ITS Number 38: Alterations without Historical Basis, when there is no record of the historic appearance of a building, the rehabilitation should take into consideration its historic use and remaining evidence to design a compatible new or replacement feature.8 One available photograph from the building’s period of significance (1918-1949) was uncovered by Page & Turnbull during the preparation of the HRE. That photograph of what appears to be building’s south elevation shows that the building’s historic window configuration included a punched window opening below the monitor roof and some band windows below (Figure 1). The modified window design for the double-height portions of the north and south elevations does not meet Standards 2, 3, 5, 6, or 9 for the reasons described above. It is recommended that the north and south window configuration be updated to no longer include the fixed windows that follow the slope of the roofline. 7 Kaaren R. Staveteig, National Park Service, Technical Preservation Services, ITS Number 14: New Openings in Secondary Elevations or Introducing New Windows in Blank Walls, 2000. 8 National Park Service, Technical Preservation Services, ITS Number 38: Alterations Without Historical Basis, 2006. Page 8 Item 2 Attachment G-SOIS Analysis Development Agreement Alternative Packet Pg. 66 City of Palo Alto 200 Portage Condominium Project Figure 1 1940 Image of Sutter Packing Plant Source: Palo Alto Historical Association, Page & Turnbull HRE East Elevation Windows and Skylights The modified design includes a series of punched openings along the building’s east elevation, on an area of the building that is currently obscured by an adjacent addition. It also proposes to include new skylight openings along the east and west slopes of the monitor roof portion of the building. As described above, rehabilitating historic buildings for new uses may require inserting openings. Also, available historic documentation suggests that the east elevation likely had windows in the same location as generally proposed for the new windows. The proposed new window openings for the east elevation are, therefore, consistent with Standards 6 and 9. Similarly, the addition of skylights, proposed to be one structural bay from the building’s edge on each end is consistent with the Standards. Care should be taken, however, to choose a window that is slim in profile as to not detract from the distinctive roofline that characterizes this portion of the building. Existing Window Treatment The modified design plans indicate that windows at the building’s distinctive monitor roof will be replaced with new windows. In order to comply with Standards 2 and 5, original windows should be retained where condition allows. If windows are deteriorated beyond repair, they should be replaced with windows in kind. New windows should match the historic in configuration and profile and be manufactured in an appropriate replacement material. Existing Exterior Cladding Treatment The modified design plans indicate that the existing corrugated metal siding is proposed to be removed and replaced with new material where present. Similar to the replacement of existing windows, the historic exterior cladding material should be retained where condition allows in order to comply with Standards 2 and 5. If material is deteriorated beyond repair, it should be replaced with material in kind and should match the historic in color and composition. Page 9 Item 2 Attachment G-SOIS Analysis Development Agreement Alternative Packet Pg. 67 City of Palo Alto 200 Portage Condominium Project Rooflines One of the character-defining features identified for the building was the varied roofs and structures. The modified design proposes to significantly alter the roofline of the building adjacent to the monitor roof portion of the building and replace it with a flat roof. As explained in NPS Preservation Brief 17: Architectural Character: Identifying the Visual Aspects of Historic Buildings as an Aid to Preserving Their Character, changes to a roofline can damage the visual character of a building and alter a feature that is crucial to understanding the character of a building.9 It is understood that some of the proposed changes to the roofline are intended to meet code requirements, including the installation of solar panels. Guidance from NPS provides that solar panels can be accommodated on many existing roof forms, so long as they are not visible from the right of way.10 The proposed treatment is not consistent with Standard 2, 5, 6 and 9. The removal of the historic roofline will result in the loss of historic material and the alteration of an important physical features of the building. The proposed design should be revised to retain the varied rooflines. If structural updates are necessary to meet code requirements, the roof’s overall form should be retained and replaced in kind. Loading Platforms The building’s loading platforms along the north elevation, which appear to have been used as part of the cannery’s cooling platform, were identified in the HRE as a character-defining feature. The modified design proposes to remove a large portion of the platform and replace it with a new covered amenity area at grade between the building and a proposed parking garage. The proposed treatment is not consistent with Standard 2, 5, 6, and 9. The removal of the loading platform will result in the loss of historic material and an element of the building critical to understanding its historic use. The revised design should be updated to retain more of the loading platform, including the change in grade from the adjacent parking lot. New Construction In order to accommodate the proposed new residential use, several elements of new construction are proposed for the site, including the addition of 12 townhouse buildings along east edge of the site, adjacent to the historic building and a two-story parking garage addition adjacent to and connect to the historic building’s north elevation. Townhouse Buildings Proposed new townhouse buildings will be constructed along the east and northeast side of the historic building and will be arranged in a grouping of 12 buildings in a grid of private streets, providing access to each building. Townhouse buildings will be three stories with a ground floor garage and have a combination of painted stucco, fiber cement, and wood-look horizontal siding exteriors with variations 9 Lee H. Nelson, National Park Service, Preservation Brief 17: Architectural Character: Identifying the Visual Aspects of Historic Buildings as an Aid to Preserving Their Character. 10 National Park Service, “Solar Panels on Historic Properties, https://www.nps.gov/orgs/1739/solar-panels-on- historic-properties.htm, accessed November 2022. Page 10 Item 2 Attachment G-SOIS Analysis Development Agreement Alternative Packet Pg. 68 City of Palo Alto 200 Portage Condominium Project in design application between proposed buildings. They will feature alternating bays and have flat roofs. The addition of new construction within the boundaries of historic properties is possible, but needs to be built in a manner that protects the integrity of the historic building and the property’s setting, as provided for the in NPS’ Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Properties.11 In order to conform to the Standards, the new construction cannot alter the historic character of the property, and the historic function must be evident. The location of new construction should follow the setbacks of the historic building and avoid obscuring, damaging or destroying character-defining features of the building, and the massing size, scale, and features of new construction must be compatible with those of the historic building. The proposed townhouses are along the historic building’s secondary elevations and will not obscure or interfere with the building’s primary, or south, elevation. Furthermore, the distinctive monitor roof of the historic building will remain visible from the right of way. Though the buildings introduce a new, residential use, the proposed exterior materials and simple design for the townhouses is generally consistent with the historic character of the property. At three stories, the new townhouse buildings are less massive than the historic building are consistent with the double-height volume of the historic building. Finally, the historic building would remain if the townhouses were later removed. The proposed new townhouse construction is, therefore, generally consistent with Standard 9 and 10. Garage Addition The two-story parking garage addition is proposed for the historic building’s secondary, or north, elevation. It will be two stories and connect to the historic building with a wood pergola that will be affixed to the adjacent new canopy proposed for this portion of the building’s elevation, thereby creating a new outdoor amenity space at grade. The garage will have a concrete structure, horizontal cable railings at the second story, and be clad in corrugated metal at select locations. The proposed scale, location, and massing of the proposed garage is consistent with the Standards. It will not obscure the historic building’s primary elevation and generally proposes materials that are compatible with the historic building’s industrial character. As provided in Standard 9 and explained in NPS Preservation Brief 14: New Exterior Additions to Historic Buildings: Preservation Concerns, a new addition to a historic building should protect those visual qualities that made the building historic.12 As noted in the HRE, the building’s corrugated metal exterior is a character-defining feature. It is recommended that the proposed use of corrugated metal on the garage addition be revised to a different, compatible material to make it readily distinguishable from the historic building. The proposed new garage construction is consistent with Standard 9 and 10. 11 Grimmer and Weeks, 2017. 12 Grimmer and Weeks, 2010. Page 11 Item 2 Attachment G-SOIS Analysis Development Agreement Alternative Packet Pg. 69 City of Palo Alto 200 Portage Condominium Project Conclusions As detailed above, the proposed demolition of a large portion of the historic building is not consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. Similarly, several elements of the proposed new design include the removal of distinctive or character-defining features on the portion of the building proposed to be retained including the loading platforms, shed awnings with post and bean supports, varied roof forms, and garage door openings. In other instances, proposed alterations detract from the building’s historic industrial character, including the location and configuration of proposed storefronts, the introduction of new openings and entries, and changes to the proposed primary elevation. The proposed construction of the new garage and townhouse buildings are generally consistent with the Standards. Where project elements do not comply with the Standards, Rincon has provided recommendations as detailed above and in the attached table (Attachment 4). Although incorporation of these recommendations would bring the project more in compliance with the Standards, the proposed demolition would still result in the material impairment of the historic building and therefore a significant impact as defined in Section 15064.5(b) of the CEQA Guidelines. Should you have any questions or comments regarding this report, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned at 925-326-1159 or at jmuprhy@rinconconsultants.com. Sincerely, Rincon Consultants, Inc. JulieAnn Murphy, MSHP Architectural Historian Project Manager Steven Treffers, MHP Architectural Historian Program Manager Shannon Carmack Principal Attachments Attachment 1 Historical Resources Assessment and Impacts Findings, Rincon Consultants, Inc., February 2022 Attachment 2 Historic Design Guidelines Memorandum, Architectural Resources Group, July 2022 Attachment 3 Applicant Phasing Plan Attachment 4 Summary Table of Recommendations Page 12 Item 2 Attachment G-SOIS Analysis Development Agreement Alternative Packet Pg. 70 Attachment 1 Historical Resources Assessment and Impacts Findings E n v i r o n m e n t a l S c i e n t i s t s P l a n n e r s E n g i n e e r s Item 2 Attachment G-SOIS Analysis Development Agreement Alternative Packet Pg. 71 Rincon Consultants, Inc. 449 15th Street, Suite 303 Oakland, California 94612 5 1 0 834 4455 O F F I C E info@rinconconsultants.com ww w .rinconcons u ltan ts .com February 17, 2022 Project No. 21-11331 Claire Raybould, AICP, Senior Planner City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 via email: Claire.Raybould@cityofpaloalto.org Subject: Historical Resources Assessment and Impacts Findings 200 Portage Avenue Condominium Project, Palo Alto, California Dear Ms. Raybould: Rincon Consultants, Inc. (Rincon) was retained by the City of Palo Alto (City) to conduct a historical resources assessment and impacts finding for the proposed 200 Portage Avenue Condominium Project in Palo Alto, California. The proposed project would involve the demolition of a portion of the existing commercial building at 200 Portage Avenue and the commercial building at 3040 Park Boulevard, and the construction of 91 new condominium units distributed throughout 16 three-story buildings. The current assessment was prepared to support to compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and to identify potential project-related impacts to historical resources. A previous historical resources evaluation was prepared by Page & Turnbull in 2019 on behalf of the City, which concluded the former Bayside Canning Company canning/warehouse building (340 Portage Avenue)1 is eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) at the local level under Criterion 1 (Events) for its association with the history of the canning industry in Santa Clara County (Attachment 1). Therefore, the building is considered historical resources as defined in Section 15064.5(a) of the CEQA Guidelines.2 To supplement the 2019 analysis, Rincon has completed a cultural resources records search, a field survey and historical resources evaluation, a review of project plans, and preparation of this memorandum to present the results. The Rincon team included Architectural Historian JulieAnn Murphy, who conducted the site visit and served as primary author of this report, which addresses the potential impacts for the project and Architectural Historian James Williams who conducted additional archival research. Senior Architectural Historian and Program Manager Steven Treffers and Principal Shannon Carmack provided oversight and assisted with the analysis. Ms. Murphy, Mr. Williams, Mr. Treffers, and Ms. Carmack meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards (PQS) for architectural history and history. 1 There are 15 addresses associated with the property. The proposed project, including the area of proposed development uses the address 200 Portage Avenue. The historic resources evaluation refers to the site, including the former canning/warehouse building and the associated office building as 340 Portage Avenue. Herein and for consistency, the historic canning/warehouse building will be referred to 340 Portage Avenue. 2 Page & Turnbull, Historic Resource Evaluation for 340 Portage Avenue, Prepared for City of Palo Alto, February 26, 2019. Page 1 Item 2 Attachment G-SOIS Analysis Development Agreement Alternative Packet Pg. 72 Project Location and Description The project site encompasses approximately 14.27 acres across four parcels. The project site includes all of Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 132-38-071, 132-32-036, 132-32-042, and 132-32-043 in the City of Palo Alto. The project site is roughly bounded by Park Boulevard to the north, Christopher Circle and Ash Street to the south, residences to the west, and commercial uses to the east. The proposed townhome project would be located on the “area of proposed development” as indicated on Figure 1, which includes portion of the project site. The area of development encompasses approximately 4.86-acres and is generally bounded by Park Boulevard to the north, commercial development to the south, Olive Avenue and residences to the west, and Matadero Creek to the east. The area of development includes all of APNs 132-32-036, 132-38-01, and portions of APNs 132-32-042 and 132-32-043. The proposed project would involve a vesting tentative map to subdivide and merge portions of the four parcels into two parcels. On one of the new parcels (4.86 acres), the project would involve a condominium subdivision to create 91 new condominium units. The other parcel (9.41 acres) would include the remaining portions of the existing commercial building. The proposed townhome project would involve demolition of the portion of the existing commercial building at 200 Portage Avenue and the commercial building at 3040 Park Boulevard within the area of proposed development and construction of 91 new residential units within 16 three-story buildings (Figure 2). The proposed project would also involve improvements to an existing portion of the on-site, two-story commercial building at 340 Portage Avenue. The area of improvements for the existing commercial building is shown on Figure 3. The improvements would involve architectural changes to add new skylights, new gable windows, corrugated siding, and other architectural details (Figure 4, Figure 5, and Figure 6). 2 Item 2 Attachment G-SOIS Analysis Development Agreement Alternative Packet Pg. 73 Figure 1 Project Location 3 Item 2 Attachment G-SOIS Analysis Development Agreement Alternative Packet Pg. 74 Figure 2 Proposed Townhome Project Site Plan 4 Item 2 Attachment G-SOIS Analysis Development Agreement Alternative Packet Pg. 75 Figure 3 Work Area for Improvements to Existing Building 5 Item 2 Attachment G-SOIS Analysis Development Agreement Alternative Packet Pg. 76 Figure 4 Rendering of Proposed View Facing Northeast Figure 5 Proposed North Elevation Design 6 Item 2 Attachment G-SOIS Analysis Development Agreement Alternative Packet Pg. 77 Figure 6 Proposed South Elevation Design Methodology The following sections identify the steps taken to inform analysis of the proposed project and its potential impacts. As discussed above, a previous historical resources evaluation was prepared in 2019 by Page & Turnbull, which concluded that the former Bayside Canning Company canning/warehouse building at 340 Portage Avenue, which is in the current project site, is eligible for listing in the CRHR. That evaluation also confirmed an associated office building located at 3201-3225 Ash Street contributes to the significance of 340 Portage Avenue; however, this small office building is located outside the area of proposed development. The City, as the lead agency under CEQA, directed Rincon to rely on the previous historical resources eligibility findings to inform the impacts assessment presented below. In addition to these efforts, Rincon conducted background research, a site visit, and prepared a historical resources evaluation of another property within the area of proposed development at 3040 Park Boulevard, which had not been subject to previous evaluation. The project site also contains the concrete-lined Matadero Creek and two one-story office buildings on the east side of the creek at 3250 Park Boulevard and 278 Lambert Avenue. Because these two properties are less than 45 years of age, they do not meet the age threshold generally triggering the need for historical resources evaluation per the guidelines of the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) and they were not recorded as part of this study (OHP 1995). This portion of Matadero Creek was lined with concrete in 1994, does not meet the age threshold for evaluation and the proposed project does not include any direct alterations to the creek (WRA 2020). The proposed development is also consistent with the surrounding urban environment and would not negatively affect the existing setting. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated to occur to Matadero Creek and it was not recorded or evaluated as part of this study. Background Research The following documents were referenced to inform the history of the 200 Portage Avenue site and its historical significance and to ensure an understanding of the project. ▪Page & Turnbull, Inc. Historic Resource Evaluation for 340 Portage Avenue, prepared for the City of Palo Alto, February 26, 2019. 7 Item 2 Attachment G-SOIS Analysis Development Agreement Alternative Packet Pg. 78 ▪Page & Turnbull, Inc. Memo: NVCAP Windshield Survey and Preliminary Historic Resource Eligibility Analysis, April 11, 2019. ▪ ▪ ▪ KTGY Architecture and Planning. 200 Portage Avenue Townhomes, August 3, 2021. The Sobrato Organization. 200 Portage Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94306, June 16, 2021. Historic aerial photos accessed via University of California, Santa Barbara Map & Imagery Lab and NETRonline. ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ Historic topographic maps accessed via United States Geological Survey. Sanborn Fire Insurance Company Maps accessed digitally via Los Angeles Public Library. Historical newspaper articles and advertisements accessed online at newspapers.com. Historic permits, City of Palo Alto. Site Visit On September 15, 2021, Rincon Architectural Historian JulieAnn Murphy, MSHP conducted a site visit to the project site. The site visit included a detailed inspection of the buildings on the project site, which is approximately 14.27 acres and is comprised of four Santa Clara County Assessor’s parcels (132-38-071, 132-32-36, 132-32-42 and 132-32-43). The survey included a visual inspection of all built environment features of the former Bayside Canning Company to document any changes since its last evaluation and confirm that it retained integrity to for listing in the CRHR at the local level under Criterion 1 (Events) for its association with the history of the canning industry in Santa Clara County. Additionally, the site visit included the visual inspection of all other buildings within the project site including buildings, structures, and associated features to assess their overall condition and integrity and to identify and document any potential character-defining features. Ms. Murphy documented the field survey using field notes and digital photographs. To confirm the potential historical resources eligibility of the commercial building at 3040 Park Boulevard the building was recorded and evaluated for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), CRHR, and local listing on California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 forms, which is included in Attachment 2 and summarized below. Historical Resources Identification Findings As discussed above, the proposed project site contains four commercial buildings and a concrete-lined creek. Two of the commercial buildings at 3250 Park Boulevard and 278 Lambert Avenue are outside the area of proposed development and do not exceed 45 years of age. They therefore were exempted from further analysis. Similarly, Matadero Creek is also outside the area of proposed development and would not be directly or indirectly impacted by the project; it therefore was also exempted from further historical resources analysis. As previously described, the former canning/warehouse building at 340 Portage Avenue and the office building located at 3201-3225 Ash Street, were previously found eligible for listing in the CRHR at the local level under Criterion 1 (Events) for their association with the history of the canning industry in Santa Clara County and are considered historical resources for the purposes of CEQA. The property is within the proposed project site and are described in more detail below. The field survey and background research also identified one historic-era building, 3040 Park Boulevard, within the project boundary and the area of proposed development that was not previously evaluated and is proposed to be demolished under the project. 8 Item 2 Attachment G-SOIS Analysis Development Agreement Alternative Packet Pg. 79 Figure 7 Site Map 3040 Park Boulevard The field survey of the project site identified one historic-era building within the project area that was not formerly evaluated. The building, 3040 Park Boulevard, is a one-story former auto garage building in the North Ventura neighborhood of Palo Alto, constructed in 1964. A full architectural description and additional historical information is presented in the attached DPR forms (Attachment 2). Physical Description The subject property consists of a one-story commercial building exhibiting no discernible architectural style. It is rectangular in plan, sits on a concrete foundation, and is capped with a flat roof with composition cladding. Its exterior consists alternately of stuccoed and bare structural concrete-block walls. Entrances are located on the north and east elevations and are accessed via two large vehicle entries with metal roll-up garage doors on the east and a standard-size wood-panel on the north. Windows are nonoriginal fixed multi-pane vinyl sashes. A non-original gabled open-frame shelter is attached to the south elevation. The building is in good condition with no notable alterations other than the replacement windows and south-elevation shelter (Figure 8). 9 Item 2 Attachment G-SOIS Analysis Development Agreement Alternative Packet Pg. 80 Figure 8 South Elevation of 3040 Park Boulevard, View North Site Development The subject property was constructed as an auto service shop in 1964. Historical topographic maps and aerial photographs show that by the late 1940s, the property was an undeveloped piece of land situated between Park Boulevard and the corner of a railroad wye crossed, a location that defined the parcel’s roughly triangular shape. The surrounding area was largely developed for industrial and residential uses, though several lots were not built out until the 1950s and 1960s (NETROnline 1948; 1956; 1958; 1960). The subject address’ earliest documentation, a newspaper advertisement published in 1965, identifies the property as Stan Tordeson General Tire, a dealer Gurley-Lord Tire Company automotive products. At the time, Stan Trodeson operated two such shops, the other located at 895 Emerson St. in Palo Alto (San Francisco Examiner 5/10/1965). Newspaper advertisements from 1966 indicate that Trodeson no longer owned the subject property by that time but continued to operate the Emerson Street location and had also opened an American Motors dealership at 623 Alma Street, Palo Alto (San Francisco Examiner 7/8/1966 and 11/7/1966). In addition to being a local business owner, Trodeson was involved in other business and civic ventures, including the founding of the members-only PALO Club and the construction of a Little League baseball diamond in Los Altos that was eventually named in his honor (San Francisco Examiner 12/7/1963). The subject property has been subject to few changes. The railroad wye tracing the property’s east and west boundaries was removed by 1987 (NETROnline 1982; 1987). Historical aerial photographs taken between 1965 and 2002 depict an apparent ancillary building just southeast of the subject building, 10 Item 2 Attachment G-SOIS Analysis Development Agreement Alternative Packet Pg. 81 which was removed circa 2004 (UCSB 1965; NETROnline 2002; 2004). Circa 2015, wall-mounted signage reading “PARK AUTOMOTIVE” was removed from the building and by 2017 was replaced with lettering reading “Functional Lifestyles,” signaling the property’s conversion from an automotive services shop to a commercial fitness center. Vinyl-sash replacement windows were installed around this time as part of the building’s conversion (Google Maps 2014; 2015; 2016; 2017). The gabled shelter was constructed adjacent to the south elevation circa 2019 and the wall-mounted signage replaced with the existing signage circa 2020.The subject property continues to operate as the Functional Lifestyles fitness center. Background research, including a review of historical newspapers, city directories, and other sources, did not identify any additional information of consequence regarding the property or its former owners or occupants. Previous Evaluations In 2019, Page & Turnbull identified the subject property in a windshield survey as part of the Preliminary Findings of Historic Resource Eligibility in the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan project, a planning area identified by the City of Palo Alto that is bounded by Page Mill Road, El Camino Real, Lambert Avenue, and the Caltrain tracks. Although not formally recorded and evaluated, the property was subject to preliminary research and recommended ineligible for listing in the NRHP and CRHR based on this evidence. It was also found not to be part of any historic district. Historical Resources Evaluation The property at 3040 Park Boulevard is not eligible for listing in the NRHP, CRHR, or as City of Palo Alto Historic Structure. The property was constructed in the 1960s as part of Palo Alto’s post-World War II-era population boom. However, it was one of many numerous buildings constructed during this period to help serve a growing population and research for this evaluation did not find the property is singularly important in the context of Palo Alto’s postwar growth or in the context any other event significant to the history of the city, region, state, or nation. As such, the property is recommended ineligible under NRHP Criterion A and CRHR Criterion 1. The person most closely associated with the property is Stan Troedson, a successful businessman and active community member. Although Troedson enjoyed some success in commerce and civic affairs, there is no evidence that his endeavors in these areas constitute significant contributions to the history of the city, region, state, or nation. Archival research also found no evidence that any subsequent owner or occupant of the property made historically significant contributions. Therefore, the property is recommended ineligible under NRHP Criterion B and CRHR Criterion 2. Architecturally, the property is a commercial building bearing no discernible architectural style. It does not embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or possess high artistic values. Although archival research did not identify the building’s designer, its simple, functionalistic design would not exemplify the work of any master architect. Therefore, the property is recommended ineligible for listing under NRHP Criterion C and CRHR Criterion 3. A review of available evidence and records search results did not indicate that the property may yield important information about prehistory or history. The property is therefore recommended ineligible for listing under NRHP Criterion D and CRHR Criterion 4. The property is also not recommended eligible as a contributor to any existing or potential historic districts. 11 Item 2 Attachment G-SOIS Analysis Development Agreement Alternative Packet Pg. 82 Based on the above reasoning, the property is also recommended ineligible designation locally as a Historic Structure. It is not identified with the lives of historic people or with important events in the city, state or nation (Criterion 1); is not particularly representative of an architectural style or way of life important to the city, state or nation (Criterion 2); is not an example of a type of building which was once common, but is now rare (Criterion 3); and is not connected with a business or use which was once common, but is now rare (Criterion 4). In addition, research conducted for this study did not find that the building’s architect or building itself was important (Criterion 5). Finally, the property does not possess elements demonstrating outstanding attention to architectural design, detail, materials or craftsmanship (Criterion 6). 340 Portage Avenue Physical Description The former cannery/warehouse building at 340 Portage Avenue is the result of an accretion of additions for use as a packing and warehouse facility and is comprised of approximately 10 sections that are attached to one another, with some earlier additions having been completely enveloped in later additions. The parcel also includes a c. 1930s former office building at the southeast corner of the of the site at 3201-3225 Ash Avenue. Since that time, the former cannery/warehouse facility served a number of commercial uses and is presently partially vacant. The former office building has been leased by other businesses. The buildings are in good condition. Figure 9 South Elevation of the former canning/warehouse building at 340 Portage Avenue 12 Item 2 Attachment G-SOIS Analysis Development Agreement Alternative Packet Pg. 83 Figure 10 Primary Elevation of the former office building at 3201-3225 Ash Avenue Site Development As outlined in the historical resources evaluation prepared by Page & Turnbull, the site was largely undeveloped prior to the first decades of the twentieth century. It was first developed in April 1918 by Thomas Foon Chew, a Chinese immigrant and owner of the Bayside Canning Company in Alviso. Chew planned to, according to articles published in the local Daily Palo Alto newspaper, build a second canning plant on the site and construction began in June of that year. By the following year Chew was expanding his operations and added nineteen houses for workers south of the cannery, and a large warehouse was added. To the south of the preparing facility, there was a loading platform and small syrup room. Four small outbuildings, including a restroom and office, were located to the southeast of these buildings. A scale was situated along Portage Avenue, and an in-ground oil tank was located alongside the railroad spur. A separate one-story dwelling and small outbuilding were located to the north of the cannery, facing Third Street. Over the next several decades, the canning complex continued to expand. Records of historic building permits at the Palo Alto Historical Association reveal that in 1929, the Sutter Packing Company, which by then operated the cannery although it continued to be owned by Thomas Foon Chew, had received a permit to build another warehouse on the site at 310 Portage Avenue. A permit to build yet another cannery building, this time at 300 Portage Avenue, was issued in 1937. Just three years later in 1940, the Sutter Packing Company received another permit on a warehouse expansion at 380 Portage Avenue; however, newspaper articles show that construction work at the site was much more extensive. In June 1940, The Palo Alto Times reported that the company was planning on improvements to the canning plant that would result in 50,000 square feet of additional storage and increase the plant’s capacity 25 to 30 percent. The cannery continued to grow as production ramped up in response to World War II. In 1942, Sutter Packing Company was issued a permit to build a warehouse at 300 Portage Avenue. This building is likely the southernmost portion of the existing building that extends across Ash Street over the site of the last row of employee cabins. In 1945, additional improvements took place at the cannery. Work included: ▪Building a 42.5 x 70-foot jam and jelly housing facility; 13 Item 2 Attachment G-SOIS Analysis Development Agreement Alternative Packet Pg. 84 ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ Converting a loading platform into an office building and laboratory near Second Street; Constructing of a shed over the loading platform near Third Street; Adding a one-story office building on Portage Avenue near First Street; and Repairing the roof. In spite of decades of nearly constant activity and expansion of the operations at the cannery site, Sutter Packing Company went into decline after World War II and finally closed its doors in 1949. A portion the larger cannery complex on Lambert Avenue was initially leased to Coca-Cola to function as a bottling plant, but records do not confirm Coca-Cola’s presence at the subject property. By the 1960s, the former cannery had been subdivided into several smaller spaces, which were leased to a variety of tenants. In 1964, the Southern Pacific Railroad removed its spur tracks from the site. The same year, a portion of the building was occupied by Maximart, a large commercial store that sold home goods and appliances. By 1978, Maximart had moved out, and the site was under the ownership of WSP Properties. Since that time, the buildings have been leased for a number of commercial uses, including a Fry’s Electronics which occupied a portion of the warehouse space until closing in 2019. Historical Resources Evaluation 340 Portage Avenue and the associated office building were previously recorded and evaluated for historic significance for the City of Palo Alto by Page & Turnbull, Inc. and found eligible for listing in the CRHR. The site’s significance was described in the Page & Turnbull evaluation as follows: 340 Portage Avenue and the associated former office building to the southeast appear to be individually significant under Criterion 1 in association with historical events important to the history of Palo Alto. Agricultural industries, including fruit and vegetable canning, were once the dominant industries in Santa Clara County. The oldest portions of the cannery building, itself, were constructed in 1918 for the Bayside Canning Company, which was owned by Chinese immigrant and prominent canning mogul, Thomas Foon Chew. Under Chew, the Bayside Canning Company rose to become the third largest fruit and vegetable cannery in the world in the 1920s, behind only Libby and Del Monte. After Chew’s death, the cannery was subsequently purchased and operated for more than twenty years by the Sutter Packing Company, another fruit and vegetable cannery. The Sutter Packing Company significantly expanded the cannery building and its operations throughout the 1930s and 1940s as it prepared for and raced to meet the demands of World War II. The expansion projects included the construction of the extant office building at 3201-3225 Ash Street to the southeast of cannery building at 340 Portage Avenue. For a time, the cannery was the largest employer in the Mid Peninsula, and when it closed in 1949, it was the largest employer in Palo Alto. The trajectory of canning operations at the plant —which began in the early twentieth century, peaked in the 1920s, increased production to meet the demands of World War II, and then quickly declined as residential development and new industries began to replace agricultural industries in the postwar period— corresponds closely to the broad pattern of the history of the canning industry in Santa Clara County. The building is a rare surviving example of Palo Alto’s and Santa Clara County’s agricultural past. As a result, the building at 340 Portage Avenue does appear to be individually significant at the local level under Criterion 1. The period of significance under this criterion begins in 1918, when canning operations began at the site under the Bayside Canning Company, and ends in 1949, when the Sutter Packing Company’s canning operations at the building ended. 14 Item 2 Attachment G-SOIS Analysis Development Agreement Alternative Packet Pg. 85 Character-Defining Features Analysis Page & Turnbull, Inc., in their historic resource evaluation, also assessed the character-defining features of 340 Portage Avenue, which are those physical features which collectively convey the significance of the property and is tied to its association with the history of canning in Santa Clara County (CRHR Criterion 1). The character-defining features therefore relate to its history as an operating canning facility and warehouse and are presented in Table 1. Table 1 Character-Defining Features – 340 Portage Form and Massing (long, linear massing; composition of multiple smaller buildings; primarily one-story, double- height volumes with taller central cannery section) Varied roof forms and structures (prominent paired monitor roofs; arched roofs; visible gabled roofs) Exterior wall materials (reinforced board-form concrete; corrugated metal cladding) Exterior cannery features (concrete loading platforms; cooling porch at rear of building; exterior shed awnings with wood post-and-beam construction) 15 Item 2 Attachment G-SOIS Analysis Development Agreement Alternative Packet Pg. 86 Fenestration (wood frame windows; garage door openings; wire glass skylights over former warehouses) Landscape features (preserved path of removed railroad track, represented in the shape of the parking lot pavement and following the channel of Matadero Creek) Interior Features (exposed wood truss ceiling; wood and concrete post-and-beam construction) Photo Source: Page & Turnbull, 2019 Rincon Consultants, Inc., 2021 16 Item 2 Attachment G-SOIS Analysis Development Agreement Alternative Packet Pg. 87 Project Impacts As detailed above in the historical resources identification findings, the project site contains four commercial buildings and a concrete-lined creek. The existing buildings at the southeast corner of the site, 3250 Park Boulevard and 278 Lambert Avenue, have not reached and age of eligibility and, therefore, do not qualify as historical resources for the purposes of CEQA. Furthermore, both buildings are outside of the area of proposed development. Matadero Creek is also outside the area of proposed development. Furthermore, it was lined with concrete in 1994 and has not reached the age of eligibility to qualify as a historical resource. As detailed above, 3040 Park Boulevard is recommended ineligible for listing in the NRHP, CRHR, or local designation. As such, it does not qualify as a historical resource and its demolition would not result in a significant adverse impact as defined by Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. 340 Portage Avenue and the associated office building with a listed address of 3201-3225 Ash Avenue have been found eligible for listing in the CRHR under Criterion 1 for significant associations with the canning industry in Santa Clara County; as such the property is considered a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5(a) of the CEQA Guidelines. To support the development of 91 new residential units within 16 three-story buildings, the project includes the demolition of the eastern portion of the existing warehouse building. In addition, the project would rehabilitate small portion of the building just east of the centerline of the former cannery/warehouse building. The remaining portions of the former cannery/warehouse building, as well as the associated office building 3201-3225 Ash Avenue are outside the area of proposed development and are not otherwise included in the proposed project actions. Pursuant to Section 10564.5(b) of the CEQA guidelines a project may result in substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource if it causes physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired. Material impairment is defined as demolition or alteration “in an adverse manner [of] those characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion in, or eligibility for inclusion in, the [CRHR].”3 Additional guidance on assessing impacts to historical resources is defined in Section 15064.5(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, states that impacts to historical resources are generally considered mitigated to a less than significant level when they meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (Secretary’s Standards) (Attachment 3). The Secretary’s Standards establish professional standards and provide guidance on the preservation and protection of historic properties. The intent of the Secretary’s Standards is to provide for the long-term preservation of a property’s significance through the preservation of its historic materials and features. These historic materials and features are commonly referred to as character-defining features and are indispensable in a historic property’s ability to convey the reasons for its historical significance. The Bayside Canning Company’s character-defining features were assessed by Page & Turnbull in their historic resource evaluation, as outlined above. To ensure a proposed project’s compliance with the Secretary’s Standards, a historic property’s character-defining features should therefore be identified and preserved as part of the final design. In consideration of impacts to the 340 Portage Avenue property, the most substantial impact would occur through the demolition of 89,639 square-feet of the eastern portion of the Bayside Canning Company canning/warehouse building, constituting a loss of approximately 40 percent of the building. The proposed demolition would result in the removal of distinctive materials, the loss of several 3 CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5[b][2][A]. 17 Item 2 Attachment G-SOIS Analysis Development Agreement Alternative Packet Pg. 88 character-defining features, and would, therefore constitute material impairment to the historical resource. The proposed demolition would be in an adverse manner of those characteristics of the historical resource that convey its historical significance and justify its eligibility for listing in the CRHR. Additionally, the proposed treatment of the building would not be consistent with the Secretary’s Standards which recommends avoiding loss of historic materials through demolition and removal and encourages the retention of distinctive materials that characterize a property. The proposed would cause a loss of several of the the property’s character-defining features outlined above, including its form and masing and varied roof forms and structures through the proposed demolition. Additionally, the treatment proposed for the portion of the building that is to remain and be rehabilitated for continued use also does not meet the Standards. That Standards provide that the removal of distinctive materials should be avoided, alterations should not destroy historic materials, and that deteriorated features should be repaired or replaced in kind, where necessary. The proposed project includes the removal of distinctive materials like the character-defining exterior cannery features such as the loading platforms and cooling porches. The proposed changes to the building’s fenestration, most notably the addition of new window openings and the alterations to the entrances on the north and south elevations also do not meet the Standards. The addition of the proposed aluminum canopies above the entries and the proposed addition to the warehouse’s south elevation are not compatible with the warehouse’s historic character and would obscure historic materials that characterize the property and is, therefore, inconsistent with the Standards. Additionally, the proposed bisection of the canning/warehouse building would result in unknown and undefined treatment of a substantial portion of the building. The unidentified treatment of the remaining portion of the warehouse building could result in additional material impairment. Furthermore, the proposed demolition of the portion of the building included in project site would impair the building’s physical characteristics that convey the property’s historical significance such that the historic resource would not retain sufficient integrity for listing. The goals of rehabilitation are to make possible the compatible new use of a historic property while preserving those portions or features that convey its historical, cultural, or architectural values. The project, as proposed, would result in material impairment to the resource and would not preserve the building’s historical value. The proposed project would result in substantial changes to the historic canning/warehouse building and would destroy distinctive materials, features, and spatial relationships that define its historic character. The partial demolition of the building and the proposed exterior updates would result in the removal of distinctive building materials. Finally, the proposed new additions and adjacent construction are proposed in a manner that requires the demolition of part of the historic building. If the proposed new construction were removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic building and its environment would be impaired and would not, therefore, meet the Standards. The proposed partial redevelopment of the warehouse building fails to meet the Standards for the reasons outlined above. The project as proposed would result in significant impact to a historical resource for the purposes of CEQA. Recommendations To inform the alternatives analysis for CEQA compliance and identify measures to mitigate potential impacts, Rincon has provided the following recommendations. In order to meet the Standards, thereby avoiding a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, the project would have to be redesigned to avoid subdivision of the historic resources on separate parcels as well as the partial demolition of the historic resource at 340 Portage 18 Item 2 Attachment G-SOIS Analysis Development Agreement Alternative Packet Pg. 89 Avenue. The buildings could be rehabilitated for a new use that would require minimal change to their distinctive features. For a successful rehabilitation, the design would have to retain the building’s character-defining features, as previously outlined. The project may also be revised to mitigate the substantial adverse change. Mitigation of significant impacts must lessen or eliminate the physical impact the project will have on the historical resource. Mitigation could be accomplished through the redesign of the project to eliminate the proposed partial demolition of the historic resource while accommodating the proposed development on the portion of the site that is not currently occupied by buildings. Alternatively, the project could proceed largely as designed to retain more of the warehouse building’s character-defining features to continue to convey its historic context, in part. Revisions could include design updates that would more closely align with the Standards. The revised design could avoid the addition proposed for the south elevation and instead of introducing new storefront entries, reuse historic entries. It would also be more successful in aligning with the Standards if it retained the loading platforms and cooling porches instead of continuing the building elevations to grade and introducing aluminum canopies. The building would further comply with the Standards through avoiding adding aluminum frame windows in favor of wood or wood clad construction in the historic fenestration. The recommended changes, however, would not mitigate the impacts below a level of significance. Another mitigation option is to carryout Historic American Building Survey (HABS) level documentation of the site. HABS documentation could include archival copies of historical building plans, if available and photos of all the buildings and site. Similar to the scope outlined above, site documentation would not mitigate the impacts below a level of significance. The proposed project could be designed to include a permanent, high-quality on-site interpretive display in a publicly-accessible location, preferably near or within a portion of the retained warehouse building. The display could focus on the property’s history, particularly the agricultural past of Santa Clara County and the canning operations of Bayside Canning Company. The interpretive display should be prepared by a professional exhibit designer and historian; historic information contained in Page & Turnbull’s HRE can serve as the basis for the interpretive display. The goal of the interpretive display would be to educate the public about the property’s historic themes and associations within broader cultural contexts. The interpretive design could incorporate elements of public art. The recommended mitigation, however, would not mitigate the impacts below a level of significance. Conclusions The field survey and archival research conducted for this study identified three properties over 45 years of age within the project area, the former Bayside Canning Company canning/warehouse building at 340 Portage Avenue, its associated office building at 3201-3225 Ash Street (APN 132-38-071), and a commercial building at 3040 Park Boulevard (APN 132-32-036). The project site also contains the concrete-lined Matadero Creek and two one-story office buildings on the east side of the creek at 3250 Park Boulevard and 278 Lambert Avenue, all of which were determined to not meet the age threshold generally triggering the need for historical resources evaluation were not recorded as part of this study. The two other parcels included in the project do not contain buildings (APNs 132-32-042 and 132-32- 043). In 2019, the canning/warehouse building and its associated office building were determined eligible for listing in the CRHR at the local level under Criterion 1 (Events) for its association with the history of the canning industry in Santa Clara County. Therefore, the buildings are considered historical 19 Item 2 Attachment G-SOIS Analysis Development Agreement Alternative Packet Pg. 90 resources as defined in Section 15064.5(a) of the CEQA Guidelines.4 As a part of this study, the building at 3040 Park Boulevard was evaluated for its potential historic significance and found to be ineligible for listing and is not considered a historical resource for the purposes of CEQA. The proposed project involves the subdivision and merger of four existing parcels into two parcels – one for the development of 91 townhomes and a remainder lot that is not part of the proposed development. Work proposed on the project parcel includes the partial demolition of the canning/warehouse building and updates to the remaining portion of the building for use as common space. As detailed above, this impacts analysis finds that the project would result in the material impairment to a historical resource and result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of a resource. Furthermore, it does not comply with the Secretary’s Standards and as proposed and would result in a significant impact to a historical resource for the purposes of CEQA. The recommendations above provide guidance for the project to meet the Standards thereby reducing the impacts to less than significant levels. Alternatively, it provides a suite of mitigation measures that would mitigate the project’s impacts to the historic resources, but would not mitigate said impacts to below a level of significance. Should you have any questions or comments regarding this report, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned at 925-326-1159 or at jmuprhy@rinconconsultants.com. Sincerely, Rincon Consultants, Inc. JulieAnn Murphy, MSHP Architectural Historian Shannon Carmack Principal/Senior Architectural Historian Steven Treffers, M.H.P. Senior Architectural Historian References California Office of Historic Preservation 1995 Instructions for Recording Historical Resources, March. KTGY Architecture and Planning 2021 200 Portage Avenue Townhomes, August 3. 4 Page & Turnbull, Inc. Historic Resource Evaluation for 340 Portage Avenue, prepared for the City of Palo Alto, February 26, 2019. 20 Item 2 Attachment G-SOIS Analysis Development Agreement Alternative Packet Pg. 91 Page & Turnbull 2019 Historic Resource Evaluation for 340 Portage Avenue, prepared for the City of Palo Alto, February 26. 2019 Memo: NVCAP Windshield Survey and Preliminary Historic Resource Eligibility Analysis, April 11. The Sobrato Organization 2021 200 Portage Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94306, June 16. WRA Environmental Consultants 2020 Matadero Creek Renaturalization: Conceptual Alternative Analysis. Prepared for the City of Palo Alto, September. Attachments Attachment 1 Page & TurnbullHistoric Resource Evaluation for 340 Portage Avenue Attachment 1 DPR Forms for 3040 Park Boulevard Attachment 2 Secretary of the Interior’s Standards 21 Item 2 Attachment G-SOIS Analysis Development Agreement Alternative Packet Pg. 92 Attachment 2 Historic Design Guidelines Memorandum E n v i r o n m e n t a l S c i e n t i s t s P l a n n e r s E n g i n e e r s Item 2 Attachment G-SOIS Analysis Development Agreement Alternative Packet Pg. 93 HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES 340 Portage Avenue, Palo Alto Revised, July 2022 Introduction At the request of the Sobrato Organization, Architectural Resources Group (ARG) has prepared the following guidelines regarding the future treatment of the property at 340 Portage Avenue in Palo Alto, California. As documented in the Historic Resource Evaluation (HRE) that the City of Palo Alto had completed for the property in April 2019, 340 Portage Avenue is considered historically significant as the former home of the Bayside Canning Company and Sutter Canning Company, an association that extended from the original 1918 construction of portions of the property until Sutter’s departure in 1949. The property was not found to be architecturally significant. The purpose of the guidelines is to foster rehabilitation and redevelopment of the site in a manner that retains the property’s identified historic character and is in keeping with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. The guidelines are intended to ultimately be incorporated into the Development Agreement (DA) associated with the property. To complete these guidelines, ARG conducted a site visit of the property on March 9, 2022 to note and photograph current features and conditions. ARG also met with representatives of the Sobrato Organization and project architect Architectural Technologies (ARC TEC) to gain a sense of the future redevelopment of the site, the design of which is still under development. The drawings and renderings that illustrate the guidelines were taken from materials that ARC TEC submitted to ARG in June 2022. Sutter Packing Plant, 1940, looking northwest (Palo Alto Historical Society, 022‐050). Item 2 Attachment G-SOIS Analysis Development Agreement Alternative Packet Pg. 94 340 Portage Avenue, Palo Alto Historic Design Guidelines Architectural Resources Group Revised, July 2022 Preliminary project rendering, south and east façades (ARC TEC, “340 Portage Avenue,” July 26, 2022). Preliminary project rendering, east and north façades (ARC TEC, “340 Portage Avenue,” July 26, 2022). 2 Item 2 Attachment G-SOIS Analysis Development Agreement Alternative Packet Pg. 95 340 Portage Avenue, Palo Alto Historic Design Guidelines Architectural Resources Group Revised, July 2022 Project Summary The subject building extends southwesterly from Park Boulevard in the North Venture Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP) area of Palo Alto. ARG’s understanding is that the future redevelopment of the property will generally consist of the following components:   200 Portage Avenue: The portion of the building closest to Park Boulevard will be removed, exposing the east elevation of the 340 Portage Avenue portion of the building. 340 Portage Avenue: The monitor roofed bays at the building’s east end will be retained and rehabilitated; the portion of the building to the west of those bays will be rebuilt within the existing footprint. 380 Portage Avenue: The westernmost portion of the building, which is clad in board formed concrete and features bow truss roofs, is included in the current project site but currently includes no proposed exterior improvements.   3201-3225 Ash Street: No exterior improvements are proposed to this portion of the property. New construction: Approximately 74 townhomes will be added to the eastern half of the project site, along Park Boulevard in place of 200 Portage Avenue and the parking lot to the north. These historic design guidelines focus on the exterior treatment of the 340 Portage Avenue portion of the site, with special attention to the monitor roofed bays at the building’s eastern end, which are the most visually prominent historic features on the site. Character‐defining Features A character‐defining feature is an aspect of a building’s design, construction, or detail that is representative of the building’s function, type, or architectural style.1 Generally, character-defining features include specific building systems, architectural ornament, construction details, massing, materials, craftsmanship, site characteristics and landscaping within the period of significance. An understanding of a building’s character-defining features is a crucial step in developing a rehabilitation plan that is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties by incorporating an appropriate level of restoration, rehabilitation, maintenance, and protection. In April 2019, the City of Palo Alto commissioned Page & Turnbull to complete a Historic Resource Evaluation (HRE) for 340 Portage Avenue that identified the following character-defining features for the property: Form and massing o o o Long, linear massing Composition of multiple smaller buildings Primarily one-story, double-height volumes with taller central cannery section Varied roof forms and structures o o o Prominent paired monitor roofs Arched roofs Visible gabled roofs Exterior wall materials 1 Nelson, Lee H. Architectural Character: Identifying the Visual Aspects of Historic Buildings As an Aid to Preserving Their Character. Washington, D.C: Technical Preservation Services, National Park Service, U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 1988, 1. 3 Item 2 Attachment G-SOIS Analysis Development Agreement Alternative Packet Pg. 96 340 Portage Avenue, Palo Alto Historic Design Guidelines Architectural Resources Group Revised, July 2022 o o Reinforced, board formed concrete Corrugated metal cladding     Exterior cannery features o o o Concrete loading platforms Cooling porch at rear of building Exterior shed awnings with wood post-and-beam construction Fenestration o o o Wood frame windows Garage door openings Wire glass skylights over former warehouses Landscape Features o Preserved curved path of the removed railroad spur tracks, represented in shape of parking lot pavement Channel of Matadero Creeko Interior features o o o Exposed wood truss ceilings Wood and concrete post and beam construction Concrete floors Careful consideration of these identified features informed the development of the following historic design guidelines. 4 Item 2 Attachment G-SOIS Analysis Development Agreement Alternative Packet Pg. 97 340 Portage Avenue, Palo Alto Historic Design Guidelines Architectural Resources Group Revised, July 2022 Historic Design Guidelines In general, the approach to rehabilitating 340 Portage Avenue should maintain the building’s character- defining features to the extent feasible in maintaining and continuing the property’s office and research and development (R&D) uses. The following guidelines address specific aspects of the project design. Height and Bulk The building’s long, linear massing should be maintained. On the south elevation, new construction should remain at or below the top of the existing parapet height. On the north elevation, where a new slightly higher parapet is proposed, both the new parapet and any new construction should remain below the height of the outermost edge of the monitor roofs. Continuous lot frontage along the north and south elevations should generally be maintained, with possible small-scale deviations to accommodate slightly recessed or projecting entry bays. 5 Item 2 Attachment G-SOIS Analysis Development Agreement Alternative Packet Pg. 98 340 Portage Avenue, Palo Alto Historic Design Guidelines Architectural Resources Group Revised, July 2022 Roof Forms The monitor roof forms should be maintained. Other roofs should remain invisible behind the parapet walls along the north and south elevations. New rooftop mechanical units should be kept below the parapet line where feasible. Where infeasible, rooftop mechanical units should situated toward the center of building footprint in order to minimize visibility from the public right-of-way. The bow truss roof forms in the western half of the building should be retained. Cladding The following wall cladding materials are encouraged as being compatible with the historic character of the existing building: metal panels, corrugated metal (painted or unpainted), and metal screens. In addition, board formed concrete is appropriate at the westernmost portion of the building, which is currently clad in board formed concrete. The following wall cladding materials are discouraged: wood, masonry, and ceramic tile. 6 Item 2 Attachment G-SOIS Analysis Development Agreement Alternative Packet Pg. 99 340 Portage Avenue, Palo Alto Historic Design Guidelines Architectural Resources Group Revised, July 2022 Fenestration A window condition assessment should be completed to identify the location and condition of extant (1) wire glass skylights and (2) clerestory monitor windows in the monitor roof portion of the building. This assessment should be completed with the assistance of one or more professionals meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards in Historic Architecture. Historic windows and skylights should be repaired if feasible. If the extant clerestory monitor windows are too deteriorated to repair, or occupy less than half of the extant window openings, new windows that are similar in scale, profile and appearance of the original windows should be installed. Wood or metal/aluminum windows that mimic the thickness and muntin pattern of the historic wood windows is encouraged; use of vinyl windows is discouraged. New fenestration elsewhere on the building (including the east elevation and the areas on the north and south elevations immediately below the monitor roofs) should be metal or aluminum windows with simple surrounds, befitting the industrial history of the property. Entries and Canopies New entries should consist of simple aluminum storefront assemblies with full-height sidelights. The entry to the retail space on the south elevation should be similar in design to entries elsewhere in the building. 7 Item 2 Attachment G-SOIS Analysis Development Agreement Alternative Packet Pg. 100 340 Portage Avenue, Palo Alto Historic Design Guidelines Architectural Resources Group Revised, July 2022 Canopies at the north and south elevations should be thin and metal-clad, either cantilevered out from the building or supported from above by tension cables or from below by simple metal brackets. Retaining portions of the existing shed awnings with post-and-beam construction should be considered. Interior New interior construction should be configured in such a manner that the original volume of the roof monitor portion of the building is still conveyed; wholly subdividing that portion of the building into smaller spaces or introducing intermediate floors should be avoided. At the new retail space on the south elevation, interior skylights should be incorporated to afford views of the historic monitor roofs. Lighting conditions in the retail space and at the monitor roofs should be investigated to ensure the visibility of the roof elements through the skylights. 8 Item 2 Attachment G-SOIS Analysis Development Agreement Alternative Packet Pg. 101 340 Portage Avenue, Palo Alto Historic Design Guidelines Architectural Resources Group Revised, July 2022 Public Exhibit The site should incorporate a publicly accessible display featuring historic photos of the property and a description of its historical significance arrayed onto as many as four panels. The content of the panels could be adapted from the recently completed HRE. This display panel, which should be composed of durable materials, should be developed with the assistance of one or more professionals meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards in Architectural History or History and experienced in creating such historical exhibits. For ease of installation and maintenance, we recommend the display panel(s) be located inside the retail space at the south end of the monitor roof portion of the building. This could be supplemented by a commemorative plaque, placed on the building exterior, that indicates the property is the former home of the Bayside Caning Company and Sutter Canning Company. 9 Item 2 Attachment G-SOIS Analysis Development Agreement Alternative Packet Pg. 102 Attachment 3 Applicant Phasing Plan E n v i r o n m e n t a l S c i e n t i s t s P l a n n e r s E n g i n e e r s Item 2 Attachment G-SOIS Analysis Development Agreement Alternative Packet Pg. 103 Attachment 4 Summary Table of Recommendations E n v i r o n m e n t a l S c i e n t i s t s P l a n n e r s E n g i n e e r s Item 2 Attachment G-SOIS Analysis Development Agreement Alternative Packet Pg. 104 Description Area of DemolitionDemolish Existing Building Electrical Equipment to be Removed Electrical Equipment to Remain Existing Building to Remain R20 per Palo Alto Power Structural Retrofit EX BUILDING TOBE DEMOLISHED Temporary Building TRANSFORMER TOREMAIN FORCONSTRUCTIONPURPOSES.NEW CMU FENCE TOMATCH EXISTING EX TRANSFORMER TO BERELOCATED; ALLPLAYGROUND GLOBALELECTRICAL LOAD TO BESERVED HERE EX TRANSFORMERTO REMAIN ONTEMPORARY BASIS REMOVE EXTRANSFORMERREMOVE EXTRANSFORMER E E E EEEEEPHASE A PERMITS:E E E E1. PALO ALTO POWER FOR R20WORK INTERNALLY REROUTEELECTRICAL TO BOTHCABINETS 2. ENCROACHMENT PERMIT FROMPUBLIC WORKS 50'-0" EXISTING BUILDINGTO REMAIN3. BUILDING PERMIT FOR NEWELECTRIC SERVICE FORPLAYGROUND GLOBAL (380Portage) STURCTURALRETROFIT FOREXISTING BUILDINGTO REMAIN PERMANENTLY EXISTING BUILDINGTO REMAIN ONTEMPORARY BASIS 4. DEMOLITION PERMIT FORPARKING LOT AND BUILDING TOBE REMOVED (INCLUDING PARKBUILDING)5. 340 PORTAGE BUILDING PERMITWARM SHELL & STRUCTURALRETROFIT OF BUILDING TOREMAIN (ORANGE) E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EE6. TEMP POWER PERMIT FORCONSTRUCTION7. RECONSTUCTION OF CMUFENCE AT PROPERTY LINE NOV 2022 NM MC ---- Item 2 Attachment G-SOIS Analysis Development Agreement Alternative Packet Pg. 105 Description Electrical Equipment to Remain Existing Building to Remain Garage Limits R20 per Palo Alto Power (completed) Temporary BuildingProposed Storm Drain MainProposed Sewer Main Proposed Water Main TRANSFORMER TOREMAIN FORCONSTRUCTIONPURPOSES. CONSTRUCTGARAGE EX TRANSFORMERTO REMAIN ONTEMPORARY BASISBUILDING PERMIT FORNEW GARAGEPREVIOUSLY RELOCATED CONSTRUCTIONTRANSFORMER; ALLPLAYGROUND GLOBALELECTRICAL LOAD TO BESERVED HERE EE INSTALL MAINLINEUTILITIESPHASE B PERMITS:1. BUILDING PERMIT - GARAGE2. ENCROACHMENT PERMITSFOR UTILITY CONNECTIONS EXISTING BUILDINGTO REMAINPERMANENTLY 340 PORTAGE EXISTING BUILDINGTO REMAIN ONTEMPORARY BASIS E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EE INSTALL MAINLINEUTILITIES NOV 2022 NM MC ---- Item 2 Attachment G-SOIS Analysis Development Agreement Alternative Packet Pg. 106 DescriptionElectrical Equipment to Remain Existing Building to Remain New Electrical Equipment Temporary Building TI for 340 PortageProposed Storm Drain Main Proposed Sewer Main Proposed Water Main TRANSFORMER TOREMAIN FORCONSTRUCTIONPURPOSES. EX TRANSFORMERTO REMAIN ONTEMPORARY BASIS FEED NEWTRANSFORMERFROM PARK EE PHASE C PERMITS:1. GRADING PERMIT FOR SITEWORK EXISTING BUILDINGTO REMAIN2. TI FOR 340 PORTAGE TI FOR 340PORTAGE EXISTING BUILDINGTO REMAIN ON PERMANENTLY TEMPORARY BASIS 26' WIDE AISLE ANDSITE WORK E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE E BUILD OUT DRIVE AISLEAND ALL FINSIHED E SURFACE ELEMNTS. NOV 2022 NM MC ---- Item 2 Attachment G-SOIS Analysis Development Agreement Alternative Packet Pg. 107 DescriptionElectrical Equipment to be Removed Limits of DemolitionProposed Storm Drain Main Proposed Sewer Main Proposed Water Main REMOVE TEMPORARYTRANSFORMERS EE PHASE D PERMITS:1. DEMOLITION PERMIT FORTEMP BUILDING DEMOLISHTEMPORARYBUILDING 2. UTILITY CONNECTIONS TO340 PORTAGE EXISTING BUILDINGTO REMAINPERMANENTLY3. GRADING PERMIT FOR TEMPBUILDING TO BEDEMOLISHED CONNECT TO PREVIOUSLYINSTALLED MAINS WITHINPORTAGE AVE P.U.E.4. UPON CERTIFICATE OFOCCUPANCY FOR THEGARAGE AND TCO FOR 340PORTAGE, RECORD FINALMAP & MAKE ALL REQUIREDDEDICATIONS E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EE NOV 2022 NM MC ---- Item 2 Attachment G-SOIS Analysis Development Agreement Alternative Packet Pg. 108 DescriptionR20 per Palo Alto PowerProposed Storm Drain Main Proposed Sewer Main Proposed Water Main EE PHASE E PERMITS:1. TOWNHOME PERMITS &CONSTRUCTION E E E E E E E E E EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE E EE NOV 2022 NM MC ---- Item 2 Attachment G-SOIS Analysis Development Agreement Alternative Packet Pg. 109 Table 1 Summary Table of RecommendationsDesign Element SOIS Analysis RecommendationsProposed Demolition Does not meet Standard 1,2, 5, and 6 To conform with the Standards, the proposed design should beupdated to retain the portions of the historic building proposedfor demolition.Structural Retrofit Potential to not meetStandard 2 and 6. In order to conform with the Standards, care should be taken toretain historic materials.New Storefronts,Entries, and CanopiesSouth Elevation Entries Does not meet Standard 2,5, 6, or 9 The extant former loading door, identified as a character-definingfeature should be retained.New entries at the proposed amenity space addition should berevised to not overwhelm the historic portion of the building tobe retained. The proposed use of corrugated metal on theproposed amenity space should be updated to a different,compatible material to clearly distinguish the original historicbuilding and the proposed alteration. North Elevation Entries Does not meet Standard 2or 9 The proposed new entries should be reduced in scale, and bepulled in at least one structural bay from each end of thecharacter-defining roofline in order to retain more of the buildingmaterials and the building’s spatial relationship. The existing loading door should be retained and reused insteadof introducing new entries in the same general location.Canopies Meets the Standards atnew entriesDoes not meet Standard 2or 5 The proposed removal of existing character-defining shedawnings should be retained instead of being replaced with newcanopies.New Window OpeningsNorth and SouthElevations Does not meet Standard 2,3, 5, 6, or 9 It is recommended that the north and south windowconfiguration be updated to no longer include the fixed windowsthat follow the slope of the roofline.East Elevation andSkylights Meets the Standards Meets the Standards No recommendationIn order to comply with Standards 2 and 5, original windowsshould be retained where condition allows. If windows aredeteriorated beyond repair, they should be replaced withwindows in kind. New windows should match the historic inconfiguration and profile and be manufactured in an appropriatereplacement material. Existing WindowTreatment Existing ExteriorCladding Material Meets the Standards In order to comply with Standards 2 and 5, cladding materialshould be retained where condition allows. If it is deterioratedbeyond repair, it should be replaced with material in kind andmatch the historic material in color and composition. Rooflines Does not meet Standard 2,5, 6, and 9 The proposed design should be revised to retain the variedrooflines. If structural updates are necessary to meet coderequirements, the roof’s overall form should be retained andreplaced in kind. The revised design should be updated to retain more of theloading platform, including the change in grade from the adjacentparking lot. Loading Platforms Does not meet Standard 2,5, 6, and 9 E n v i r o n m e n t a l S c i e n t i s t s P l a n n e r s E n g i n e e r s Item 2 Attachment G-SOIS Analysis Development Agreement Alternative Packet Pg. 110 City of Palo Alto200 Portage Condominium Project New Construction Townhouses No recommendations Meet the Standards Meets the Standards It is recommended that the proposed use of corrugated metal onthe garage addition be revised to a different, compatible materialto make it readily distinguishable from the historic building Garage Addition Page 18 Item 2 Attachment G-SOIS Analysis Development Agreement Alternative Packet Pg. 111 Rincon Consultants, Inc. 449 15th Street, Suite 303 Oakland, California 94612 510-834-4455 www.rinconcons ultan ts.com May 15, 2023 Project No: 21-11331 Claire Raybould, AICP, Senior Planner City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94301 Via email: Claire.Reybould@cityofpaloalto.org Subject: Secretary of the Interior’s Standards Analysis Update 200 Portage Avenue Condominium Project, Palo Alto, California Dear Ms. Raybould: Rincon Consultants, Inc. (Rincon) was retained by the City of Palo Alto (City) to conduct a historical resources impact analysis update for the project at 200 Portage Avenue, Palo Alto, California. Rincon previously prepared a Historical Resources Assessment and Impacts Finding Memorandum for the proposed project in February 2022. That analysis found the proposed project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact to historical resources, due to the demolition of approximately 40 percent of the existing warehouse building, which qualifies as a historical resource under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The project was found to be inconsistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (Standards) due to the demolition and removal of distinctive and character-defining features that characterize the property. Pursuant to Section 15064.5(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, projects which comply with the Standards are generally found to mitigate historical resource impacts to a less than significant level. Rincon prepared a second memorandum in December 2022 analyzing the design from the proposed Development Agreement Alternative (Alternative 3 in the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the proposed project) and found that several elements, in addition to the proposed demolition of a large portion of the warehouse building, did not meet the Standards. For instance, several elements of the proposed new design included the removal of distinctive or character-defining features or proposed alterations that would detract from the building’s historic industrial character. Rincon provided recommendations for treatment that would bring the project more in compliance with the Standards. This memorandum analyses the revised design prepared by the project applicant for the Development Agreement Alternative and considers how the proposed modifications conform to the Standards, including changes to the proposed window design and treatment of the site’s existing grade change. Methods for the current assessment included review of the Historical Resources Evaluation (HRE) prepared by Page & Turnbull in February 2019, which established the basis for the property’s historical significance and Item 2 Attachment H-SOI Standards Analysis Updated Memorandum Packet Pg. 112 City of Palo Alto 200 Portage Avenue Condominium Project 2 its character-defining features and a review of revised Development Agreement Alternative project plans, prepared May 2, 2023. The Rincon team included Architectural Historian JulieAnn Murphy, who served as primary author of this memorandum. Cultural Resources Director Steven Treffers and Principal Shannon Carmack provided oversight and assisted with the analysis. Ms. Murphy, Mr. Treffers, and Ms. Carmack meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards (PQS) for architectural history and history (26 CFR Part 61). Item 2 Attachment H-SOI Standards Analysis Updated Memorandum Packet Pg. 113 City of Palo Alto 200 Portage Avenue Condominium Project www.rinconcons ultan ts.com Secretary of the Interior’s Standards Analysis The following table outlines recommendations provided in the December 2022 memorandum with a review of response in the revised proposed plans. Design Element December 2022 SOIS Analysis December 2022 Recommendations Proposed Revision Updated SOIS Analysis Proposed Demolition Does not meet Standard 1, 2, 5, and 6 To conform with the Standards, the proposed design should be updated to retain the portions of the historic building proposed for demolition. Unchanged Does not meet Standard 1, 2, 5, and 6 Structural Retrofit Potential to not meet Standard 2 and 6. In order to conform with the Standards, care should be taken to retain historic materials. Unchanged Potential to not meet Standard 2 and 6. New Storefronts, Entries, and Canopies South Elevation Entries1 Does not meet Standard 2, 5, 6, or 9 The extant former loading door, identified as a character-defining feature should be retained. New entries at the proposed amenity space addition should be revised to not overwhelm the historic portion of the building to be retained. The proposed use of corrugated metal on the proposed amenity space should be updated to a different, compatible material to clearly distinguish the original historic building and the proposed alteration. Unchanged Entries have been revised, but remain largely the same as previously proposed. Proposed use of corrugated metal also remains the same. Does not meet Standard 2, 5, 6, or 9 1 Note that updated plans have implemented a different cardinal reference than in previous plan sets. What was formerly referred to as the south elevation, for example, is now called the east elevation and so forth. Item 2 Attachment H-SOI Standards Analysis Updated Memorandum Packet Pg. 114 City of Palo Alto 200 Portage Avenue Condominium Project 4 Design Element December 2022 SOIS Analysis December 2022 Recommendations Proposed Revision Updated SOIS Analysis North Elevation Entries Does not meet Standard 2 or 9 The proposed new entries should be reduced in scale, and be pulled in at least one structural bay from each end of the character-defining roofline in order to retain more of the building materials and the building’s spatial relationship. The existing loading door should be retained and reused instead of introducing new entries in the same general location. Unchanged Unchanged Does not meet Standard 2 or 9 Canopies Meets the Standards at new entries Does not meet Standard 2 or 5 The proposed removal of existing character- defining shed awnings should be retained instead of being replaced with new canopies. Unchanged Meets the Standards at new entries Does not meet Standard 2 or 5 New Window Openings North and South Elevations Does not meet Standard 2, 3, 5, 6, or 9 It is recommended that the north and south window configuration be updated to no longer include the fixed windows that follow the slope of the roofline. Though new openings are proposed, window configuration has been updated and more closely aligns with the configuration of existing historic windows. Does not meet Standard 2, 3, 5, 6, or 9 East Elevation and Skylights Meets the Standards No recommendation NA Meets the Standards Existing Window Treatment Meets the Standards In order to comply with Standards 2 and 5, original windows should be retained where condition allows. If windows are deteriorated beyond repair, they should be replaced with windows in kind. New windows should match the historic in configuration and profile and be manufactured in an appropriate replacement material. NA Meets the Standards Item 2 Attachment H-SOI Standards Analysis Updated Memorandum Packet Pg. 115 City of Palo Alto 200 Portage Avenue Condominium Project 5 Design Element December 2022 SOIS Analysis December 2022 Recommendations Proposed Revision Updated SOIS Analysis Existing Exterior Cladding Material Meets the Standards In order to comply with Standards 2 and 5, cladding material should be retained where condition allows. If it is deteriorated beyond repair, it should be replaced with material in kind and match the historic material in color and composition. NA Meets the Standards Rooflines Does not meet Standard 2, 5, 6, and 9 The proposed design should be revised to retain the varied rooflines. If structural updates are necessary to meet code requirements, the roof’s overall form should be retained and replaced in kind. Unchanged Does not meet Standard 2, 5, 6, and 9 Loading Platforms Does not meet Standard 2, 5, 6, and 9 The revised design should be updated to retain more of the loading platform, including the change in grade from the adjacent parking lot. The revised design has been updated to retain the existing grade change from the adjacent parking lot, but existing loading platforms are still proposed to be removed. Does not meet Standard 2, 5, 6, and 9 New Construction Townhouses Meet the Standards No recommendations NA Meet the Standards Garage Addition Meets the Standards It is recommended that the proposed use of corrugated metal on the garage addition be revised to a different, compatible material to make it readily distinguishable from the historic building Unchanged Meets the Standards NA = not applicable Item 2 Attachment H-SOI Standards Analysis Updated Memorandum Packet Pg. 116 City of Palo Alto 200 Portage Avenue Condominium Project www.rinconcons ultan ts.com Conclusions As detailed in previous memoranda, the proposed demolition of a large portion of the historic building is not consistent with the Standards. Similarly, several elements of the current design, as revised, still include the removal of distinctive or character-defining features on the portion of the building proposed to be retained, including the shed awnings, varied roof forms, and garage door openings. The grade change to the existing loading platforms is proposed to be retained, but the existing platforms are still proposed to be removed. Proposed alterations that detract from the building’s historic industrial character have been revised, including the slanted windows previously proposed on the north and south elevations. However, there are still elements in the revised design that detract from the building’s historical character, including the location and configuration of proposed storefronts and the introduction of new openings and entries. The proposed demolition under the revised plans would still result in the material impairment of the historic building and therefore a significant impact as defined in Section 15064.5(b) of the CEQA Guidelines. Should you have any questions or comments regarding this report, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned at 925-326-1159 or at jmuprhy@rinconconsultants.com. Sincerely, Rincon Consultants, Inc. JulieAnn Murphy, MSHP Architectural Historian Project Manager Steven Treffers, MHP Architectural Historian Program Manager Shannon Carmack Principal Item 2 Attachment H-SOI Standards Analysis Updated Memorandum Packet Pg. 117 Dear City Council Members, Board Members, Commissioners, Mr . Lait, and Ms. Raybould: Given that this development i s one of largest in decades, we believe it is vital that the City Council, Board and Commission members, and City staff address critical problems with the project previously identified with the 3200 Park Boulevard/200 Portage (Fry's site). Some problems that the community pointed out before persist while new ones have emerged, causing us even greater concern. In general, the project: • was negotiated behind closed doors including economic considerations and site planning • destroys a major historic resource important to our cultural, business, and industrial legacies • is largely inconsistent with the NVCAP goals • fails to provide a realistic timeframe and funding plan for the affordable housing • is plagued by a lack of publicly available information • is plagued by a lack of timely notification • is plagued by irregular review processes including proceeding without benefit of DEIR comments and alternatives analysis We ask that the City please: A. Halt any further hearings/meetings on this project until the response to public comments to the DEIR is released. B. Update the project website to include all pertinent documents, including the development agreement with any changes to the development agreement clearly shown. C. Make sure that communications on this and all projects are duly noticed well in advance of the meeting to all interested parties, including those with 600 feet of a proposal as well as those who have signed up for notifications. D. Make sure that the address is consistent throughout the process. E. Address our concerns about the Secretary of Interior’s standards being ignored/avoided with regard to the historic significance of the building and its preservation F. Cease commingling staff and applicant analyses in the future to avoid work boundary issues and the confusion as to the origin of staff recommendations, To support our concerns and justify our requests, we offer the following details. Specifically: 1) The DEIR comment responses are not available. Five months have elapsed since the DEIR comments were submitted . CEQA requires consideration of reasonable alternatives to reduce or eliminate identified impacts, of which there are several. Staff has informed us that they are working on the responses, but City meetings about the project continue even though the DEIR identified significant impacts that we believe have not been addressed according to CEQA requirements. The board and commission meetings proceeding without the DEIR responses is counterproductive and highly irregular . At the last meeting of the Architectural Review Board, members were asked to revie w the proposals without the benefit of response to the Item 2 Attachment I_Written Comments Received Packet Pg. 118 public comments to the DEIR. We object to the ARB being denied this crucial information . We ask that no further comments or action by any board or commission take place until they and the public see the response to the DEIR. We further ask that recent comments and action by the ARB be reconsidered in light of the upcoming DEIR responses. 2) Procedural Review Irregularities The HRB recommends to the ARB. However, the ARB has been asked to comment on the satisfaction of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards absent HRB comments stated in motion form, a breach of prescribed protocols. The ARB is not facile with the Standards, which are the purview and expertise of the HRB. Additionally, adequate time needs to be provided between an HRB and ARB meeting so minutes can be prepared for ARB members and the public to understand what has been recommended . 3) The negotiations were held in private . The public has no access to any studies that may or may not have been provided to the Council in conducting the negotiations. For instance, what are the near-term and long-term financial benefits of the Agreement to both the City (the public) and Sobrato? Was an economic study conducted to investigate the viability of a larger amount of retail at the site, or to consider the likely success or failure of such a small (2600 sq. ft) retail space? What study was conducted to determine reuse possibilities for the Cannery Building? What advice was sought that might have led to a better site plan and circulation plan? The public deserves to see those reports and at a minimum to know what studies were provided. 4) The site planning was also done in closed session without public input, withou t advisory Board and Commission input. Why were the affordable housing units not included in the market rate units as is required by City code? Not planning where the affordable units will go or providing details as to mass, scale, and number of units, etc. while asking the ARB to consider other elements of the project makes no sense. There should be visuals showing the entire project. 5) Locating the affordable housing project directly in front of the Cannery presents another significant impact. Situating the affordable housing is in direct conflict with the Secretary of State standards based on what can be read into the proposed site plan and stated intentions . This impact, as we see it, has not been addressed and has been ignored by h aving no responses to the DEIR. 6) Notifications are not being sent in a ccordance with City standards Those within a 600’ radius may or may not be receiving notifications of meetings, but other interested parties, NVCAP Working Group members, and stake holders are not being notified. The notification for the ARB meeting was sent out in the middle of the afternoon on a Wednesday, the day before the 8:30 am meeting on the next day. Notifications should be sent as soon as the meeting date is established along with a link to the staff report once available. In recent correspondence with staff, staff acknowledged this was a concern . How does staff propose to solve the delays in notification? We suggest that no topic be discussed until the notification criteria have been met. The planning department seems short-staffed, and we hope the Council will be addressing this soon . 7) Project notifications and website need to clearly identify the project’s location Item 2 Attachment I_Written Comments Received Packet Pg. 119 The address most commonly known to the public, such as 200 Portage needs to be included in any notifications for the public to be adequately informed . Some notifications have listed a series of addresses that were never used before to identify the project and that bear no relevance to many if not most interested people. Because the DEIR was not noticed to stakeholders and neighbors under a meaningful and relevant description/address, and because the DEIR was posted generally using unfamiliar addresses, the existence of the DEIR was not discovered until well into the comment period. 8) An applicant’s analysis should not be mingled with the City’s analysis . In the staff report for the prior ARB meeting, both the City’s and the Applicant’s analyses of whether the project satisfies the Secretary of Interior’s Standards were in the same attachment. At a glance, the document appeared to be a product of City staff only . One had to read carefully to distinguish when one analysis ended and the other began. 9) Development scenarios for the Fry’s site put forward by the NVCAP Working Group specifically recommended housing over commercial, and yet the current proposal still emphasizes commercial/office over housing and community serving retail. The preferences of the working group, community members who donated months of service are patently being ignored. 10) The Development Agreement (DA) and other relevant documents are not readily available on the project webpage. Please make all significant and relevant materials available . Public input is stymied because we don't know what the project comprises. Shouldn’t the DA be posted to inform the public? While we understand the applicant is making changes to the DA, we believe the public should have access to the original and amended DA which we believe should be provided as a redline version. The optics are very poor here. Even if obfuscation is not the intent, obfuscation is the result. • If the DA is being changed, how? If the DA is being revised, is what the ARB reviewed consistent with the original or revised DA? • Has Sobrato revised the agreement? If so, by what authority can Sobrato revise the DA without meeting again with Council? Shouldn’t additional discussion be public? Do they respond to the earlier ARB members’ comments that were critical of the site plan? Since those comments, it appears that the ARB purview does not include site planning or circulation or desire to see the Cannery building and its history respected. • Without access to the DA, we the public have no idea how much latitude there is for broader consideration including alternatives that would meet the Secretary of Interior’s standards. If Sobrato is making changes, there must be some latitude but neither the public nor reviewing bodies have been provided with what that latitude might be . Ought not broader considerations beyond what is being presented to the ARB and HRB be studied? Again, the EIR identified impacts. Alternatives that avoid and/or mitigate those impacts to less than significant are required. • If one of the goals of the Draft Agreement is, as was indicated in the initial roll out of the project on Aug 1, 2022, to avoid a lawsuit by helping the applicant achieve a given number of market units, then please acknowledge that fact and let th e land use planning happen in public in accordance with our laws and processes . Why the churn to keep documents and processes hidden? Ultimately, transparency will result in a faster process and yield satisfactory outcomes because the public will have been included. The public will insist anyway, so why not be as transparent as possible? Item 2 Attachment I_Written Comments Received Packet Pg. 120 • The August 1, 2022, Council meeting announcing the Sobrato agreement made some commitments in the presentation slides. Presumably, those statements were consistent with the negotiated terms. Please confirm. For example, it was said during the meeting that the “remnant” Cannery building (that portion remaining after the proposed demolition of 40% would be rehabilitated consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. This is backward. The Secretary of Interior’s standards need to be applied when the historic resource is still intact . The loss of the historically significant Cannery has been consistently underplayed and has never been addressed head on. The Cannery qualifies for historic protection . Why have alternatives that preserve this historic resource been denied a hearing with the HRB and the ARB? Even the commitment to applying the Secretary of Interior’s Standards to the “remnant” building are not being held to as the ARB was even asked if they should be applied given the Cannery would no longer be eligible for the CA Register. 11) The review process is following a piecemeal path The project is being presented to ARB with one or two aspects of the entire proposal being considered at a time, leading to a lack of comprehensive site planning, with no cohesive end product. Please explain why this is the way the review is being put forward . And again, the ARB is being asked to perform the duties of the HRB by commenting on the Secretary of Interior’s compatibility requirements and/or impacts (although not referred to as such) of the housing with/on the Cannery building. 12) Was the PC zoning a stipulation in the Development Agreement (and negotiations)? • Given PCs offer little assurance to the community, how the property might evolve in the future upon expiration of the DA is unknown and will not be known . • We understand that the duration of the Development Agreement is only 10 years . Are there any circumstances under which the DA could be extended? What was the basis for such a short period? What governs the development after the end of 10 years? • By comparison, SOFA’s redevelopment was also complex yet provided clear zoning, development and design standards and guidelines that would govern the future during and beyond the Development Agreement. Will this current DA be adequate to address the future of the site post DA expiration? It appears unlikely, as there are no development or design standards set forth for the ARB to use in reviewing the PC housing development, PC affordable housing development or the commercial/office components of the project. If they exist in the current version of DA, surely, they should be made available for current review . We are concerned, based on what has been presented so far, that there will be little or no provision in the DA to guide the future . The SOFA Plan avoided the PC by creating specific zoning and standards particular to the area and properties. Such measures are not being attempted here even for the few parcels, and the result seems a vague, uncertain future . And we question whether better-informed site planning might avoid non-conformances that have led to application of the PC site-wide. Finally, on page 17 and other places of the draft agreement we found, Section 10.7 is mentioned, i.e., “Owner’s obligations under this Section 10.7 shall survive expiration or earlier termination of this Development Agreement.” 10.7 does not appear to exist, yet it governs some of the terms of the agreement with regard to expiration . Maybe this has already been corrected . https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas- Item 2 Attachment I_Written Comments Received Packet Pg. 121 minutes/planning-and-transportation-commission/2022/2022-10-11-wip-draft-da-ptc-clean- copy.pdf We hope that you will receive these comments in the manner in which they are intended . We support comprehensive, transparent planning that serves the City and the residents, that satisfies the developer, and that follows already clear and defined processes and adheres to established standards. Thank you. Sincerely, Sheri Furman Becky Sanders Co-Chairs, Palo Alto Neighborhoods Item 2 Attachment I_Written Comments Received Packet Pg. 122 200 Park Boulevard Project - Planned Community Rezoning Development Program Statement Because The Sobrato Organization ("Sobrato" or the "Owner") is donating significant acreage to the City, its Parcels 1, 3, 4, and 5 will no longer comply with existing City zoning standards, including for example with regard to open space, lot size, and floor area ratio. The City is also interested in restricting the uses of Parcels 1, 3, 4, and 5 to a greater extent than is possible with the use of existing base zoning districts. Accordingly, the following provides Sobrato's Development Program Statement in support of its request for four separate Planned Community Districts that would apply to Parcels 1, 3, 4, and 5 of the 200 Park Boulevard Project. Please see the enclosed Project Description for further information regarding the Project. We understand that the City separately proposes to redesignate the dedication parcel (Parcel 2) to PF. Necessity and Support for Findings Regarding Planned Community District •Parcel 1: Because Sobrato is donating significant acreage to the City, Parcel 1 will no longer comply with existing City zoning standards. Further, approval of Planned Community zoning for Parcel 1 would allow for greater flexibility and excellence in design, and allow the City to restrict use to townhome development. A Comprehensive Plan Amendment would also be processed for Parcel 1, to redesignate the small portion of the site that is currently designated Light Industrial to Multiple Family Residential, consistent with the remainder of the site which is already designated Multiple Family Residential. The Multiple Family Residential designation is consistent with the uses and development standards proposed for the Parcel 1 Planned Community district. •Parcel 3: Because Sobrato is donating significant acreage to the City, Parcel 3 will no longer comply with existing City zoning standards. Approval of Planned Community zoning for Parcel 3 will also allow retail use in the Cannery Building and allow the City to restrict the remainder of its use to R&D, as existing commercial zones all allow greater flexibility. A Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Service Commercial Designation would also be processed for Parcel 3, along with a minor text amendment for the designation, which would make the Parcel 3 Planned Community district consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. •Parcel 4: Because Sobrato is donating significant acreage to the City, Parcel 4 will no longer comply with existing City zoning standards. Further, approval of Planned Community zoning for Parcel 4 will allow the City to restrict use to office, as existing commercial zones all allow great flexibility. A Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Service Commercial Designation would also be processed for Parcel 4, along with a minor text amendment for the designation, which would make the Parcel 4 Planned Community district consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. •Parcel 5: Because Sobrato is donating significant acreage to the City, Parcel 5 will no longer comply with existing City zoning standards. Further, approval of Planned Community zoning for Parcel 5 will allow the City to restrict use to R&D use, as existing commercial zones all allow great flexibility. A Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Item 2 Attachment J- Development Program Statement Packet Pg. 123 2 #177083191_v3 Service Commercial Designation would also be processed for Parcel 5, along with a minor text amendment for the designation, which would make the Parcel 5 Planned Community district consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Permitted Uses in Each District •Parcel 1: Restricted to 74 townhomes and all associated improvements including landscaping, parking, and circulation elements. Development would consist of the following, and sales prices would be market rate: •Parcel 3: Restricted to R&D use and up to 2,600 square feet of retail use, and all associated improvements including landscaping, a 2-story parking garage, and circulation elements •Parcel 4: Restricted to office use •Parcel 5: Restricted to R&D use Development Plan Please see the enclosed plan set submitted for the Project's Major Architectural Review as well as its Planned Community Rezoning, which satisfies the requirements for a Development Plan contained in Palo Alto Zoning Code Section 18.38.090. Development Schedule With regard to Parcels 4 and 5, the Project does not propose any development, and the sole change at this time is associated with the uses permitted within the existing structures. The uses noted above would be permitted as of the effective date of the Project's Development Agreement, subject to all applicable provisions of the Development Agreement. With regard to Parcels 1 and 3, development will occur as described in the Phasing Plan contained in the Project's Development Agreement. The first phase (beginning with the submission of applications for permits) will commence within 90 days of the Development Agreement's effective date, with remaining phases progressing as specified in the Phasing Plan. The townhomes will be constructed at the time dictated by the market, and subject to further applicable provisions of the Development Agreement regarding the length of its term and the City's remedies in the event of non-construction. Please see the Development Agreement for further details. Item 2 Attachment J- Development Program Statement Packet Pg. 124 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 K Project Plans In order to reduce paper consumption, a limited number of hard copy project plans are provided to Boardmembers for their review. The same plans are available to the public, at all hours of the day, via the following online resources. Environmental Document An Environmental Impact Report has been prepared for the 200 Portage Avenue Townhome Project in accordance with the authority and criteria of the California Environmental Quality Act. The 3200 Park Boulevard Development Agreement was evaluated as Alternative 3 in the Draft EIR. This document was made available for a 60-day circulation period beginning September 16, 2022 and ending on November 15, 2022. Directions to review Project plans and environmental documents online: 1. Go to: bit.ly/PApendingprojects 2. Scroll down to find “200 Portage Avenue” or “3200 Park Boulevard” and click the address link 3. On these webpages you will find a link to the project plans for the 200 Portage Avenue Townhome Project and the 3200 Park Boulevard Development Agreement Alternative accordingly. As well as other important information Direct Link to 200 Portage Avenue Townhome Project Webpage: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/News-Articles/Planning-and-Development-Services/200-Portage- Avenue Direct link to the 3200 Park Boulevard Development Agreement Alternative Webpage: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/News-Articles/Planning-and-Development-Services/3200-Park- Boulevard Item 2 Attachment K- Architectural Plans and Environmental Documents Packet Pg. 125 MAY 09, 2023 Item 2 Attachment L-Paseo Exhibits Packet Pg. 126 21'-0" 16'-0" W.H. Parking Space20-0" x 20'-0" Clr.RequiredGarage20-5" x 20'-1"Parking Space10-0" x 40'-0" Clr.Required T T T Bath 38'-0" x 5'-0"W.H. ENTRYUPUP Bedroom 310'-4" x 10'-6" 21'-0"ENTRY Architecture + PlanningThe Leamington Building1814 Franklin StreetSuite 400Oakland, CA 94612510.272.2910 EX-23200 PARK BOULEVARD CITY REVIEW PASEO EXHIBITPALO ALTO, CA # 2020-0771 MAY 09, 2023ktgy.com Item 2 Attachment L-Paseo Exhibits Packet Pg. 127 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: June 15, 2023 Report #: 2304-1329 TITLE PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 180 El Camino Real [23PLN-00009]: Architectural Review of a new storefront façade including new glazing and signage within Space #820B, Bldg. V (#v820B) for “Arhaus” at the Stanford Shopping Center. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from CEQA per Section 15301 (Existing Facilities). Zoning District: CC (Community Commercial). RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s): 1. Recommend approval of the proposed project to the Director of Planning and Development Services based on the findings in Attachment B and subject to the conditions of approval in Attachment C. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The proposed project is exterior and interior improvements to an existing retail space for a new retail tenant, Arhaus, at the Stanford Shopping Center. Arhaus would replace the former American Girl Doll store in Space #820B, Building V. The Master Tenant Façade and Sign Program (MTFSP) for the Stanford Shopping Center requires an Architectural Review of exterior changes to tenant spaces facing a public right-of-way. BACKGROUND Project Information Owner: The Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior University Architect: Finn Wijatno Architects Representative: Jason Smith – Land Shark Development Legal Counsel: N/A Property Information Address:180 El Camino Real Neighborhood:Stanford Shopping Center Lot Dimensions & Area:Various; 52.8 Acres Item 3 Staff Report Packet Pg. 128 Item No. 3. Page 2 of 6 Housing Inventory Site:Not Applicable Located w/in a Plume:Not Applicable Protected/Heritage Trees: Various throughout the site, none will be removed with this project Historic Resource(s):Not Applicable Existing Improvement(s):1,361,751 sf; 1 to 3 stories; 37’ height max. Existing Land Use(s):Retail, Personal Service, General/Professional Offices, and Commercial Recreation Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North: (Caltrain and parkland) PF West: (Multi-Family Housing) CC(L)/PF(D) East: (Medical Offices and Supportive Services) HD South: (Retail) CC Aerial View of Property: Source: Google Maps Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans Zoning Designation:Community Commercial (CC) Comp. Plan Designation:Regional/Community Commercial Context-Based Design Criteria:Yes, applicable Downtown Urban Design Guide:Not Applicable South of Forest Avenue Coordinated Area Plan:Not Applicable Item 3 Staff Report Packet Pg. 129 Item No. 3. Page 3 of 6 Baylands Master Plan:Not Applicable El Camino Real Design Guidelines (1976 / 2002): Yes, 1976 Guidelines Proximity to Residential Uses or Districts (150'):Not Applicable Located w/in the Airport Influence Area:Not Applicable Prior City Reviews & Action City Council:None PTC:None HRB:None ARB:None Project Description The applicant request approval of a Minor Board Level Architectural Review application to allow for an exterior tenant improvement, which includes a new storefront façade, storefront glazing and new signage for “Arhaus” (Space #820B, Building V – formally “American Girl”), a new retail tenant at the Stanford Shopping Center. Requested Entitlements, Findings and Purview: The following discretionary application(s) are being requested: •Architectural Review – Minor (AR): The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC 18.77.070. AR applications are reviewed by the ARB and recommendations are forwarded to the Planning & Development Services Director for action within five business days of the Board’s recommendation. Action by the Director is appealable to the City Council if the appeal is 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 single finding requires project redesign or denial. The findings to approve an AR application are provided in Attachment B. ANALYSIS Neighborhood Setting and Character The project is located within the Stanford Shopping Center on the western portion of the site, just off Sand Hill Road. The Stanford Shopping Center is defined within the Municipal Code as all properties zoned CC and bounded by El Camino Real, Sand Hill Road, Quarry Road, and Vineyard Lane. The Stanford Shopping Center has an open-air pedestrian environment defined by a mixture of retail, dining, professional and general business offices, and personal service uses. The project space is a street-facing tenant space within Building V of the Stanford Shopping Center. The façade length is over 35 feet and faces Sand Hill Road. Therefore, the Architectural Review application is reviewed by the ARB. Item 3 Staff Report Packet Pg. 130 Item No. 3. Page 4 of 6 Façade Changes The facades present to Starbucks, Zero&, Brighton, and the California Pizza Kitchen, as well as to the parking field located off Sand Hill Road. The existing stucco plaster façade has three colors: tan, white, and a rosy pink. The existing landscaping includes potted plants, planter boxes, and trees lining the adjacent pedestrian paseo and sidewalks surrounding the tenant space. There are existing wall signs and canopy signs on the facades of the building and the existing façade design extends the full height of the building, consistent with the MTFSP design standards. The new storefront design features a contemporary façade design primarily inclusive of metals and brick with specialty aluminum panel, glass, and fiber concrete accents in darker tones. The upper and lower portions of each façade include a steel rainscreen panel system, anodized aluminum curtainwall, metal coping, and aged Belgium brick. The proposed façade design will extend the full height of the building, maintaining consistency with the MTFSP design standards. The project’s design and materials appear cohesive and consistent with those found within the Shopping Center and will update a corner entry to the interior of the Shopping Center. Signage The proposed signage includes wall signs and a blade sign. Each wall sign will read “Arhaus.” The wall signs consist of 3/16-inch thick, cut-out acrylic letters that will be lit by rear LED lighting. Both the primary and secondary façades will have white copy on the acrylic letters. The blade sign would also be illuminated with LED lighting and include an aluminum backer and acrylic lettering. The Master Tenant Façade & Sign Program (MTFSP 15PLN-00040) sets forth the sign limitations for the Stanford Shopping Center. As shown in the plan set, the primary wall sign would be limited to 24” maximum heights, which the current design meets. Additionally, the proposed blade sign meets the maximum dimension for blades at 24” x 15”. Attachment C summarizes the project’s consistency with all applicable requirements for sign size and location. Consistency with Application Findings The project is consistent with the required findings as shown in Attachment B. The project will renovate an existing tenant space that will strengthen the Stanford Shopping Center position as a premier regional shopping center with distinctive businesses and an open, appealing pedestrian environment. The improvements contribute to the exclusive retail, dining, and personal service experience of the Stanford Shopping Center. Zoning Compliance1 The Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.16.060(e)(3) states that the maximum floor area for the Stanford Shopping Center is limited to 1,412,362 square feet. The proposed project would not change the building envelope, nor would it add any outdoor uses. A draft spreadsheet of all Stanford Shopping Center building areas is provided on Sheet G102.2 of the plan set (and an updated sheet will be available at the hearing). No site plan changes will occur and therefore, no changes are proposed to the access, circulation, and parking facilities. The proposed project 1 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: http://www.amlegal.com/codes/client/palo-alto_ca Item 3 Staff Report Packet Pg. 131 Item No. 3. Page 5 of 6 complies with all applicable codes within the Zoning Ordinance. Attachment D provides a summary table of the zoning compliance information for this project. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans and Guidelines2 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan includes Goals, Policies, and Programs that guide the physical form of the City. The Comprehensive Plan provides the basis for the City’s development regulations used by City staff to regulate building and development and make recommendations on projects. Architectural Review Finding #1 requires designs to be consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the Stanford Shopping Center as a regional center with a land use designation of Community Commercial. The project is consistent with the policies in the Comprehensive Plan and; therefore; fulfills the goals of the Plan. Attachment B provides a detailed review of the project’s consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. Multi-Modal Access & Parking The project site has multi-modal access and parking facilities, with amenities for pedestrians, bicyclists, private automobiles, and public transit (VTA, Caltrain, and SAMTRANS). The existing buildings within the site are surrounded by surface level parking lots with two multi-level parking structures located at the southern portion of the site along Quarry Road. The Landlord recently installed approximately 76 short-term bicycle parking stalls at the Stanford Shopping Center. 20 of those spaces will fulfill bicycle parking requirements from previous ARB approvals and six spaces will be used for Arhaus. Fifty excess short-term bicycle parking spaces remain at the center. Throughout the site, pedestrian amenities include outdoor seating areas, planters, fountains, interactive maps, pedestrian-level lighting, and public art. 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. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Daily Post on June 2, 2023, which is 13 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on May 31, 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. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. Specifically, the project is categorically exempt from the provision of CEQA in accordance with the Class 1 (Existing Facilities) exemption (CEQA Guidelines 2 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/landuse/compplan.asp Item 3 Staff Report Packet Pg. 132 Item No. 3. Page 6 of 6 Section 15301) because the scope of work that is limited to exterior alterations to the façade of an existing building. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS In addition to the recommended action, the Architectural Review Board may: 1. Approve the project with modified findings or conditions; 2. Continue the project to a date (un)certain; or 3. Recommend project denial based on revised findings. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Location Map Attachment B: Draft Findings for Approval Attachment C: Draft Conditions of Approval Attachment D: Zoning Comparison Table Attachment E: Project Plans AUTHOR/TITLE: Tamara Harrison, Consulting Senior Planner Tamara.Harrison@mbakerintl.com Item 3 Staff Report Packet Pg. 133 24 24 24 25 24 24 7 7 7 7 7 24 25 24 University Avenue _Train Station Sheraton Palo Alto American_Red Cross Fire_Station # 1 Arboretum Children's Center Rescue_Air GARAGE Tower_Well Lytton Square Senior Center Everett Manor Quarry_Substation A_Research_Institute PAMF Lytton Gardens Senior Residence Building JRH Building AA ELECTIONEER COURT Building BB Building CC Building DD Building D THE GARDEN WALK The PlazaBloomingdales Building V SAND HILL WALK Building H THE PAVILION Building E Building F LADY ELLEN PL Building K Macy's Building N THE PLAZA Building M Building W P F Chang's Bank of_America Wilkes -_ Bashford Bldg P Parking Structure Sand Hill Station The Westin Hotel Gym Lot R Parking Garage City of Palo Alto Comerica Bank Pizza My Heart Peninsula_Creamery Mac's Smokeshop Wasson Building Center________Skilled Nursing Living Building C 13-190Neuroscience_Health Center 13-040CENTER FOR ACADEMIC MEDICINE Everett House Nordstrom's Crate & Barrel_______The Container_Store Building ONeiman-Marcus Building L AZMOOR PLACE 90-925 n Pediatric_Ambulatory Care Center 90-935R Old_Winery 13-019 PSYCHIATRY_ACADEMIC &_CLINIC BLDG. Hoover Pavilion Garage Fleming's Prime_Steakhouse_& Wine Bar 13-045CAM Parking Garage Entrance 74.0' 74.0' 54.0' 54.0' 37.5' 37.5' 36.7' 36.7' 64.0' 64.0' 112.5' 49.7' 112.5' 49.7' 76.0' 94.5' 26.0' 87.4'54.1' 161.5' 175.0' 75.0' 112.5' 100.0' 12.5' 125.0' 112.5' 225.0' 100.0' 125.0' 112.5' 75.0' 112.5' 75.0' 112.5' 100.0' 75.0'100.0' 75.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 90.0' 25.0' 90.0' 25.0' 90.0' 50.0' 90.0' 50.0'90.0' 50.0' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 100.0' 112.5' 100.0' 112.5' 25.0'12.5'25.3' 112.5' 50.3' 100.0' 50.0' 112.5' 25.0'12.5'25.0' 125.0' 125.0' 225.0' 99.5' 27.7' .5' 72.3' 25.0' 125.0' 44.0' 25.0' 25.0' 72.3' .5' 27.7'50.5' 99.6' 48.9' 81.0' 48.9' 57.5' 25.0' 125.0' 50.0' 125.0' 50.0' 125.0' 50.0' 125.0' 50.0' 148.0' 100.0' 160.0' 88.0' 17.0' 100.0' 75.0'100.0' 75.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 95.0' 20.5'5.0' 79.5' 90.0' 23.0' 193.0' 112.5' 193.0' 112.5' 100.0' 225.0' 100.0' 225.0' 100.0' 75.0'100.0' 75.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0'52.1' 44.1' 28.3' 25.0' 31.3'25.0' 68.7' 50.0' 100.0' 25.0' 100.0' 25.0' 68.7' 25.0'31.3' 50.0' 50.0' 100.0' 28.3' 44.1' 105.0' 50.0' 225.0' 93.0' 12.5' 37.5' 112.5'130.5' 125.0' 143.0' 112.5' 50.0' 12.5' 93.0' 100.0' 125.0' 100.0'125.0' 100.0' 125.0' 25.0' 125.0' 25.0' 125.0' 25.0' 125.0' 25.0' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 25.0' 90.0' 12.5'16.8' 101.2' 25.0' 101.3' 16.8'12.5' 112.5' 25.0' 112.5' 25.0' 112.5' 15.0' 112.5' 15.0' 112.5' 25.0' 112.5' 25.0' 112.5' 100.0' 25.0' 100.0' 25.0' 46.0' 100.0' 100.0 100.0' 50.0 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 150.0' 100.0' 150.0' 100.0' 100.0' 85.0'100.0' 85.0' 175.0' 112.5' 50.0' 37.5' 25.0' 25.0' 100.0' 50.0' 55.0' 125.0' 55.0' 125.0'38.0' 75.0' 50.0' 37.5'50.0' 12.5' 38.0' 125.0' 37.5' 112.5' 37.5' 112.5' 37.5' 112.5' 37.5' 112.5' 93.0' 50.0' 93.0' 50.0' 93.0' 62.5'93.0' 62.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 100.0' 112.5' 25.0' 112.5'125.0' 225.0' 93.0' 62.5'93.0' 62.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 37.5' 112.5' 37.5' 112.5' 93.0' 162.5' 93.0' 162.5' 12.5'25.0' 112.5' 75.0' 100.0' 50.0' 43.0' 100.0' 43.0' 100.0' 50.0' 75.0' 50.0' 75.0' 45.0' 112.5' 45.0' 112.5'30.0' 112.5' 30.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 25.0' 100.0' 25.0' 100.0' 75.0'100.0' 75.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 50.0' 102.2' 50.0' 102.2' 50.0' 97.5' 50.0' 97.5' 193.0' 105.0' 193.0' 105.0'40.1' .6'1.0'10.5'33.8'7.7' 35.6' 4.0' 6.4'4.8' 27.0'11.5' 75.0' 100.0' 25.0' 100.0' 22.8' 50.0' 4.7' 50.0' 17.5' 41.5' 72.2' 35.0' 112.5' 35.0' 112.5' 75.0' 37.5' 75.0' 37.5' 75.0' 37.5' 75.0' 37.5' 75.0' 37.5' 75.0' 37.5' 162.5' 220.0' 162.5' 220.0'26.0' 101.0' 31.5' 68.2' 5.5' 32.8' 33.8' 32.8' 5.5' 68.2' 27.5' 68.2' .8'32.8' 25.0' 32.8' .8' 68.2' 29.5' 68.2' 3.7' 32.8' 33.8' 32.8' 3.7' 68.2' 27.5' 68.3' 2.7'32.7'32.7' 2.7' 68.3' 31.5' 94.5' 10.2'22.3' 31.5' 101.0' 26.0' 32.8' 5.5' 68.2' 27.5' 68.2' 5.5' 32.8'33.8' 32.8' .8' 68.3' 29.5' 68.3' .8' 32.8'25.0' 32.7' 3.7' 68.2' 72.0' 29.7' 72.0' 29.7' 72.0' 31.9' 72.0' 31.9' 47.8' 51.6' 70.2' 173.3' 64.0' 63.0' 54.0' 162.0' 37.5' 112.5' 37.5' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 75.0' 112.5' 75.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 75.0' 112.5' 75.0' 112.5' 65.0' 112.5' 15.0'18.5' 50.0' 131.0' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 94.0' 50.0' 94.0' 218 15.0'7.0' 150.0' 7.0' 25.0'7.0' 125.0' 100.0'100.0' 12.5' 50.0' 112.5' 278.0' 220.0'278.0' 220.0' 50.0' 30.8' .6'10.5'1.0'.6' 40.1' 37.8' 33.2' 30.8'33.2' 30.8' 46.8' 27.0' 4.8' 6.4'4.0' 35.6' 23.2' 30.0' 100.0' 30.0' 100.0'50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 35.0' 100.0' 35.0'200.0' 110.0' 49.3' 100.0' 70.0'100.0' 70.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0'100.0' 25.0' 100.0' 25.0' 100.0' 75.0'100.0' 75.0' 95.0' 50.0' 25.0' 25 200.0' 110.0' 200.0' 110.0' 190.0' 50.0' 190.0' 50.0' 100.0' 2.5'16.0' 47.5' 116.0' 50.0'50.0' 190.0' 50.0' 190.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 50.0' 190.0' 34.0' 87.5' 16.0' 102.5' 75.0' 40.0' 75.0' 40.0' 75.0' 66.0'75.0' 66.0' 50.0' 106.0' 50.0' 106.0' 75.0' 106.0' 75.0' 106.0' 50.0' 106.0' 50.0' 106.0' 50.0' 106.0' 50.0' 106.0'50.0' 68.6' 50.0' 68.6 50.0' 106.0' 50.0' 106.0' 50.0' 106.0' 50.0' 106.0' 50.0' 106.0' 50.0' 106.0' 50.0' 106.0' 50.0' 106.0' 50.0' 106.0' 50.0' 106.0' 45.0' 106.0' 45.0' 106.0' 30.0' 106.0' 30.0' 106.0' 25.0' 106.0' 25.0' 106.0' 50.0' 106.0' 50.0' 106.0' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5'50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5'50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5'50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 125.0' 50.0' 125.0' 50.0' 125.0' 50.0' 125.0' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5'50.0' 32.5' 5.0' 80.0' 45.0' 112.5' 5.0' 80.0' 5.0' 80.0' 130.0' 36.9' 130.0' 36.9' 130.0' 75.6' 130.0' 75.6' 64.0' 37.5'64.0' 37.5' 50.0' 75.0' 50.0' 75.0'36.0' 112.5' 50.0' 75.0' 14.0' 37.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 150.0' 100.0' 50.0' 12.5' 100.0' 112.5' 50.0' 106.0' 50.0' 106.0' 68.0' 47.6'68.0' 47.6' 64.0' 32.3' 64.0' 32.3' 64.0' 32.3' 64.0' 32.3' 64.0' 32.3' 64.0' 32.3' 40.0' 116.0' 40.0' 116.0' 72.0' 30.3' 72.0' 30.3' 72.0' 32.5' 72.0' 32.5' 72.0' 32.5' 72.0' 32.5' 72.0' 32.5' 72.0' 32.5' 72.0' 32.5' 72.0' 32.5' 31.5' 68.2' 2.7' 32.8'22.3' 10.2' 94.5' 27.5' 68.2' 3.7' 32.7'33.8' 32.8' 2.7' 68.2' 70.2' 51.6'70.2' 51.6' 54.0' 63.0' 54.0' 63.0' 25.0' 55.0' 25.0' 55.0' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 45.0' 112.5' 45.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 93.0' 50.0' 93.0' 50.0' 93.0' 75.0'93.0' 75.0'150.0' 112.5' 110.0' 90.0'110.0' 90.0' 55.0' 10.0'5.0' 100.0' 50.0' 110.0' 33.0' 100.0' 33.0' 100.0'160.0' 110.0' 10.0' 28.0'10.0' 19.2' 34.4' 35.8' 105.6' 193.0' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 68.0' 55.0'68.0' 55.0' 58.2' 50.0'58.2' 50.0' 68.0' 54.4'68.0' 54.4' 126.1' 43.0' 126.1' 43.0' 43.0' 79.0' 43.0' 79.0' 43.0' 33.5'43.0' 33.5' 93. 1055 200.0' 100.0' 200.0' 100.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0 57.0'57.0' 43.0' 100.0' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 35.0' 150.0' 35.0' 150.0' 40.0' 150.0' 40.0' 150.0' 37.5' 150.0' 37.5' 150.0' 143.0' 100.0' 43.0' 50.0'67.0' 50.0' 33.0' 100.0' 43.0' 50.0'43.0' 50.0' 110.0' 50.0' 110.0' 50.0' 37.5' 100.0' 33.0' 100.0' 110.0' 50.0' 193.0' 100.0' 12.5' 150.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 200.0' 5.6' 35.8' 34.4'35.8'10.0' 200.0' 50.0'200.0' 50.0' 200.0' 50.0'200.0' 50.0' 200.0' 50.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 64.0' 32.3' 64.0' 32.3' 64.0' 34.4' 64.0' 34.4' 65.0' 0' 150.0' 100.0' 75.0' 190.0' 75.0' 190.0' 6 140.0' 60.0' 140.0' 50.0' 190.0' 50.0' 190.0' 190.0' 50.0' 190.0'50.0' 190.0' 190.0' 50.0' 190.0' 50.0' 190.0' 50.0' 190.0' 50.0' 190.0' 50.0' 190.0' 50.0' 190.0' 50.0' 190.0' 50.0' 190.0' 50.0' 190.0' 50.0' 190.0' 50.0' 190.0' 50.0' 40.0' 116.0' 40.0' 116.0' 40.0' 116.0' 40.0' 116.0' 40.0' 116.0' 40.0' 116.0' 65.0' 0' 65.0' 0' 65.0' 0' 65.0' 0' 65.0' 0' 65.0' 0' 65.0' 0' 65.0' 0' 65.0' 0' 65.0' 0'.0' 50.0' 81.4'1 50.0'112.5' 37.5' 112 37.5' 11 22 50.0'70.0' 30.0' 73.0' 30.0' 73.0' 0 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 200.0' 100.0' 200.0' 100.0' 200.0' 100.0' 200.0' 100.0' 200.0' 100.0' 200.0' 100.0' 200.0' 100.0' 200.0' 100.0' 200.0' 100.0' 200.0' 100.0' 200.0' 100.0' 200.0' 100.0' 200.0' 100.0' 200.0' 100.0' 200.0' 100.0' 200.0' 100.0' 200.0' 100.0' 200.0' 100.0' 200.0' 100.0' 200.0' 100.0' 200.0' 100.0' 200.0' 100.0' 200.0' 100.0' 200.0' 100.0' 200.0' 100.0' 200.0' 100.0' 200.0' 100.0' 200.0' 100.0' 200.0' 100.0' 200.0' 100.0' 200.0' 100.0' 200.0' 100.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 65.8' 5.4' 55.9' 71.5' 107.9' 150.0' 542.81' 542.81' 542.81' 542.81' 542.81' 542.81' 542.81' 542.81' 542.81' 542.81' 542.81' 542.81' 542.81' 542.81' 542.81' 542.81' 542.81' 542.81' 542.81' 542.81' 542.81' 542.81' 542.81' 107 760.5' 76.0' 819.5' 77.3' 97.6' 39.0' 671.1' 657.0' 593.6' 188.0' 333.6' 370.0' 372.1' 357.8' 31.4'34.6' 41.2' 358.5' 370.0' 156.2' 136.5' 347.5' 655.8' 114.4' 333.6' 576.4' 372.1' 655.8' 403.7' 38.0' 136.5' 156.2' 118.8' 30.0' 235.9' 568.3' 21.1' 25.8' 49.1' 612.6' 71.8' 519.0' 588.3' 51.3' 79.0' 30.0' 69.9' 31.6' 70.0' 31.6' 54.3'30.0' 27.7' 74.5' 39.2' 486.4' 32.9' 122.4' 5.3' 977.6' 144.5' 410.6' 135.6' 136.5' 626.5' 137.1' 148.3' 147.7' 114.0' 37.8' 64.0' 136.5' 135.6' 66.4' 55.8' 40.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 514.7' 149.8' 55.0'14.4'10.2' 41.8' 19.3' 15.5'13.2'17.3' 133.6' 436.5' 42.4' 49.6' 338.1' 64.5' 73.8' 14.4'.0'.2'6.8'.8'.9'.0'1.3'.8'.9'.8'.7'.8'1.1'12.1'9.8'17.2'23.9' 177.8' 66.1' 24.2' 566.5' 45.7' 7.0' 329.0' 135.0' 336.8' 143.1' 60.0' 602.1' 229.8'43.9' 124.5' 68.1'195.1'77.2' 204.2' 118.8' 52.0' 65.5' 129.5' 39.0' 97.6' 156.3' 137.1' 121.9' 30.0' 118.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 45.0' 114.5' 45.0' 114.5' 25.0' 6.0' 25.0' 99.4' 50.0' 95.4' 60.0' 171.5' 60.0' 171.5' 171.5' 44.8' 171.5' 44.7' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 89.8' 111.5' 89.7' 111.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 100.0' 112.5' 100.0' 112.5' 75.0' 112.5' 75.0' 112.5'275.0' 77.1' 147.0' 35.4' 128.0' 112.5' 35.4' 147.0' 35.4' 147.0' 75.0' 37.5' 75.0' 37.5' 75.0' 75.0'75.0' 75.0' 150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5' 785.2' 56.2' 202.6' 10.9'10.0' 10.0'11.9' 84.5' 336.8' 143.1' 329.0' 135.0' 84.5' 21.4'10.8'10.6' 124.9' 112.0' 25.2' 31.7' 17.7' 9.6' 9.2' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5' 89.7' 60.0'89.7' 60.0' 125.0' 54.0' 125.0' 54.0' 125.0' 54.0' 125.0' 54.0' 66.5' 54.0' 66.5' 54.0' 150.2' 54.0' 150.0' 54.0' 37.5' 75.0' 37.5' 75.0'37.5' 75.0' 37.5' 75.0' 75.0' 37.5' 75.0' 37.5' 75.0' 37.5' 75.0' 37.5' 37.5' 75.0' 37.5' 75.0' 69.5' 108.0' 69.5' 108.0' 69.5' 108.0' 69.5' 108.0' 69.5' 108.0' 69.5' 108.0' 69.5' 108.0' 69.5' 108.0' 69.5' 108.0' 69.5' 108.0' 69.5' 108.0' 69.5' 108.0' 69.5' 108.0' 69.5' 108.0' 6.0' 139.5' 48.7' 164.5' 42.7' 25.0' 48.7' 164.5' 48.7' 164.5' 48.7' 164.5' 48.7' 164.5' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 65.0' 100.0' 65.0' 100.0' 85.0' 150.0' 85.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0'100.0' 150.0' 100.0' 150.0' 198.6' 106.5' 235.2' 100.0' 135.2' 53.2' 153.4' 50.0' 50.0' 153.4' 50.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 98.6' 150.0' 120.0' 128.7' 26.3' 48.7' 112.5' .3' 52.0'49.2' 164.5' 45.0' 112.5' 54.0'44.3' 54.0' .3' 112.5' 50.0' 52.5' 2.0' 60.0' 48.0' 112.5' 37.5' 75.0' 39.5' 60.0' 2.0' 15.0' 98.6' 150.0' 120.0' 128.7' 26.3' 98.6' 150.0' 120.0' 128.7' 26.3' 98.6' 150.0' 120.0' 128.7' 26.3' 98.6' 150.0' 120.0' 128.7' 26.3' 98.6' 150.0' 120.0' 128.7' 26.3' 98.6' 150.0' 120.0' 128.7' 26.3' 98.6' 150.0' 120.0' 128.7' 26.3' 98.6' 150.0' 120.0' 128.7' 26.3' 98.6' 150.0' 120.0' 128.7' 26.3' 55.0' 114.5' 50.4' 114.6' 350.0' 250.0' 350.0' 250.0' 250.0' 100.0' 250.0' 100.0' 65.0' 50.0'65.0' 50.0' 150.0' 150.0' 50.0' 50.0' 106.0' 50.0' 106.0' 50.0' 106.0' 50.0' 106.0' 50.0' 106.0' 50.0' 106.0' 150.0' 100.0' 150.0' 100.0' 150.0' 100.0' 150.0' 100.0' 150.0' 100.0' 150.0' 100.0' 34.6' 35.6' 161.6' 26.1' 14.6' 19.6' 40.3' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 100.0' 112.5' 75.0' 112.5' 125.0' 31.1' 129.5' 30.0' 77.6' 77.6' 93.2' 93.2' 100.0'100.0' 100.0' 45.0' 90.0' 14.3' 34.0' 18.0'18.0' 18.0'18.0' 18.0'18.0'18.0'18.0' 18.0' 18.0' 18.0' 75.0' 55.0' 25.0' 55.0' 25.0' 112.5'125.0' 112.5' 75.0' 55.0' 25.0' 55.0' 25.0' 112.5'125.0' 112.5' 75.0' 55.0' 25.0' 55.0' 25.0' 112.5'125.0' 112.5' 75.0' 55.0' 25.0' 55.0' 25.0' 112.5'125.0' 112.5' 75.0' 55.0' 25.0' 55.0' 25.0' 112.5'125.0' 112.5' 75.0' 55.0' 25.0' 55.0' 25.0' 112.5'125.0' 112.5' 75.0' 55.0' 25.0' 55.0' 25.0' 112.5'125.0' 112.5' 18.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0'58.0' 58.0' 50.0' 54.5' 189.0' 67.0' 64.7' 147.7' 147.1' 115.0 115.0' 147.7'397.4' 356.5' 154.8' 30.0' 157.5' 192.0' 644.0' 222.9' 8' 228.4' 226.4' 220.4' 116.2' 142.6' 238.3' 169.5' 12.5' 164.1' 109.3' 519.0' 71.8' 612.6' 49.1' 25.8' 21.1' 568.3'198.0' 198.0' 242.3' 134.0'133.8' 392.1 373.9' 176.0' 176.0' 182.3' 256.9' 136 610 116-122 150 535 529 525 542 516 140 102 116 164 158156 101 440 444 436 432 427 425 117 119 180 508 500 170 172 174 542 544 411 425 429 185 165 181 412 250 420 245 171- 169 441- 445 270 250 251 485 255 271 281 271 281 252 270 240-248 202- 216 223- 229 209 215 247-259 240 232230 311-317 347 265 272-278 418 319 321- 341 328 330 325 330 332 1&2 330 1-3 324 326 316 318 373- 377 361 313 334 333 325 326 321 335 379 310 332 378 -390 360 - 1A - 1C 360 - 2A - 2C 360 - 3A - 3C 360 - 4A - 4C 360 - 5A - 5C 360 - 6A 8 805 700 600 730 130 312 318 324 317 301 186 192 323 329 151 325 329 334 131 129 202 158 180 165 147 143 125 149 101 150 170172 165 167 169 171 252 247 244 250 177 220 261 251- 257 205 245 231 225 213 205 170 210- 216 246 129 160 116 112 180 - 180A 171 219 197 208 210 212 216 220 281 400 335 328 330 345 230 302 306 308 312 316 301 50 120 207 345 200 398 539 115 550 321 461 650 9989 87 320 322 346 115 264 430 211 213 401 440 691 755 202 262 201 303 401 403 254 401 91 40 575 301 146 217 510 127 502 504 506 455 301 25 192 124 163 145 566556 167 528 151 115 125 135 514 575 530- 534 536 540 552 177 156 59 541- 547 205 201 203 451449 209 219 221 233 235 450 460 470 442 444 420 430 435- 439 346344 333 335 342 344 431 460 450 530 220 220 B 222 240 259- 267 5 520-526 228226 234 238 244242 210- 216 228- 234 251 344 326 340 400 420 332330 314 305 300- 310 401 366 369 335 319 301 315 307- 311 303301 229 336 308 310 312 316 318 311 331 315 319 317 347-367 1 369-379 31 404 313 325 327 333 385 155 600 623 675 49 41 711 100 625 395 520 217 222 148 171 421 101 301 235 258 212 163 115 291 247 131 141 145 150 210 201 207 164 101- 119 121 123 129 139 235 251249 172 206 234 240 183 251 270 241- 247 215- 237 124 124A 132 144 152 147 221- 243 275 220 219 235 262 202 245 254 252 250 151 159 203 215 221 313-317 318 220- 224 238 09 188 190 251- 293 180 202 206 275 539 201 27 168 408 412 303 305 307 309 95 445 324 211 315 200 280-290 150 162 164 132 127 180 528 336 227 255 167 351 451 551 415 12 103 548 423 323 471 117 218 398 119121 120 101 470 215 401 355 365 111 121 213 100 143 379 453 215 211 331 San Francisquito Creek PC-1992 OR PC- 3266 HD CN PC- 4182 PF CS PC-4465 CS CD-C (P) PC-4612 CC PF CC RM-30 PF RM-30 PC-4063 PC-3 PF CD-C (P) PC-4374 PF PF PF CD-N (P) PF PC-3111 PF PC-4262 PC-4243 RM-20 RMD(NP) PC-3429 CD-N (P) CD-C (P) CD-C (P)P PC-4611 CC(L) PC-4053 RMD(NP) PF PC-2049 PC-3102 RM-30 PC-4339 RM-30 RM-30 PC CD-C(GF)(P) PC-5158 PF(D) El Camino Park El Camino Park Lot A LotF Lot O Lot P Lot C Lot K Cogswell Plaza L Lot K Lytton Plaza Stanford Shopping Center El Palo Alto Park Bryant / Lytto Parking Garage Tract No. 5447 El Palo Alto Park Tim ARBORETUM GROVE Lot S Lot N Lot R Lot Q Cogswell Plaza 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 0'508' Attachment A: Location Map CITYOF PALO ALTOI N C O R P O R A T E D CAL I F OR N I A P a l o A l t o T h e C i t y o f A P R I L 1 6 1 8 9 4 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto chodgki, 2022-08-04 15:02:21 (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) Project Location Item 3 Attachment A-Location Map Packet Pg. 134 1 8 2 4 ATTACHMENT B ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL 180 El Camino Real 23PLN-00009 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 would need to be found in conformance with the following Comprehensive Plan 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 Regional Commercial. The project continues the Regional Commercial land use. Land Use and Community Design Element POLICY L-4.9: Maintain Stanford Shopping Center as one of the Bay Area’s premiere regional shopping centers. Promote bicycle and pedestrian use and encourage any new development at the Center to occur through infill. The proposed project would modify the exterior storefront of one (1) existing retail tenant space and replace it with a new retail tenant. The proposed modifications to the exterior of the storefront are cohesive and consistent with designs found throughout the center and would further enhance the Sand Hill Road entry into the shopping center, helping to maintain the center’s regional significance. 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 proposal has been reviewed against the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, the PAMC, the Stanford Shopping Center Master Tenant Façade and Sign Program as well as applicable design guidelines to determine consistency with all regulations and standards. Proposed materials and colors have also been reviewed for consistency with Palo Alto’s design quality standards. Item 3 Attachment B - Draft Findings for Approval Packet Pg. 135 1 8 2 4 The proposal has been found to be consistent with standards and will result in a high-quality development. As previously mentioned, the proposal will replace an existing retail tenant with another retail tenant and proposes to modify the exterior façade of the tenant space and no new areas of the overall site would be disturbed; thereby, lessening potential impacts from the project. Program L-2.4.2: Allow housing at Stanford Shopping Center, provided that adequate parking and vibrant retail is maintained and no reduction of retail square footage results from the new housing. Not applicable as housing is not a part of this proposal. Policy L-2.9: Facilitate reuse of existing buildings.The proposed project would modify the exterior façade of an existing retail tenant space and replace it with a new retail tenant. Existing buildings would be used, and no new buildings are proposed. 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 proposal includes a built-in planter that will help frame a prominent corner of the entry area into the space. The planter will include drought tolerant plants and will hand watered every one to two weeks. In addition, the planter will contain a reservoir that will act as an irrigation system by watering the plant’s roots in between each hand watering. Lastly, the Stanford Shopping Center includes multiple landscaped areas throughout the center inclusive of a variety of tress and planters just outside of the subject tenant space. Policy L-4.1: Encourage the upgrading and revitalization of selected Centers in a manner that is compatible with the character of surrounding neighborhoods, without loss of retail and existing small, local businesses. The proposed project would upgrade an existing tenant space within the Stanford Shopping Center and is cohesive and compatible with existing designs found throughout the center. This location was previously a retail tenant and will remain a retail tenant; therefore, no loss of retail would occur. Policy L-4.4: Ensure all Regional Centers and The existing and proposed front facades Item 3 Attachment B - Draft Findings for Approval Packet Pg. 136 1 8 2 4 Multi-Neighborhood Centers provide centrally located gathering spaces that create a sense of identity and encourage economic revitalization. Encourage public amenities such as benches, street trees, kiosks, restrooms and public art. includes covered patio type areas along the entries into the space. One corner of the building includes a proposed landscape planter that will frame the entry and create a small gathering space. In addition, the Stanford Shopping Center provides multiple gathering spaces and public amenities located throughout the center that are available for use, including a number of planter walls, landscaping a seating just outside of the subject tenant space. Program L-4.2.3: Explore and potentially support new, creative and innovative retail in Palo Alto. The proposed project would replace an existing retail tenant by adding a new retail tenant to the Stanford Shopping Center and will provide additional variety to patrons of the center. Policy B-6.3: Work with appropriate stakeholders, leaseholders, and Stanford University to ensure that the Stanford Shopping Center is sustained as a distinctive, economically competitive and high quality regional shopping center. GOAL L-6: Well-designed Buildings that Create Coherent Development Patterns and Enhance City Streets and Public Spaces. The proposed project has also been reviewed by Stanford University and Simon Mall Management in order to ensure consistency with the Master Tenant Façade and Sign Program as well as ensure consistency with the existing Shopping Center. The project design has been found to be consistent with the Master Program standards and cohesive with the overall Shopping Center. The design of the proposed façade is cohesive with existing facades within the Stanford Shopping Center. Improvements have not been proposed to any City Streets or public spaces within the Shopping Center as a result of this project; however, the improved façade will be more aesthetically pleasing to those entering the Shopping Center from Sand Hill Road and for those patrons using the public spaces located near the tenant space. Policy L-5: Maintain the scale and character of the City. Avoid land uses that are overwhelming and unacceptable due their size and scale. The proposal is located within the Stanford Shopping Center which has previously be found to maintain the scale and character of Item 3 Attachment B - Draft Findings for Approval Packet Pg. 137 1 8 2 4 the City. The proposed use is a retail tenant that will replace an existing retail tenant; therefore, the proposed land use will not be overwhelming and unacceptable due to the size and scale of the operation. The project would be required to be consistent with the zoning requirements and the Master Façade and Sign program for the Stanford Shopping Center. 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. Pursuant to PAMC 18.16.090(b), the following context-based design considerations and findings are applicable to this project. These context-based design criteria are intended to provide additional standards to be used in the design and evaluation of development in a commercial district. The purpose is to encourage development in a commercial district to be responsible to its context and compatibility with adjacent development as well as to promote the establishment of pedestrian oriented design. 1. Pedestrian and Bicycle Environment Project Consistency The design of new projects shall promote pedestrian walkability, a bicycle friendly environment, and connectivity through design elements An existing pedestrian walkway is located adjacent to the subject tenant space and will not be removed as a result of this project. The project will add another landscape planter at the corner of the building which will further enhance the existing pedestrian space for patrons to the center. Furthermore, the area surrounding the tenant space includes existing bike racks and bike lockers that are located along the main façade of the tenant space. 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 projects proposed a new façade includes a well designed mixture of colors and materials that would enliven the pedestrian entry for this portion of the Shopping Center. The proposed Item 3 Attachment B - Draft Findings for Approval Packet Pg. 138 1 8 2 4 new façade would be pushed back 8’3 from its existing location; thereby, widening the space along the primary façade and encouraging additional pedestrian activity by providing larger walkways and patio type areas. The proposed planter at the entry area would further enhance the pedestrian activity for the center as it will provide an additional gathering space for this area of the center. 3. Massing and Setbacks Buildings shall be designed to minimize massing and conform to proper setbacks The proposed project will increase the existing building setback for the subject tenant space as the façade will be pushed back by 8’3. Setbacks will remain consistent with PAMC required standards. The massing of the building will remain as is. 4. Low Density Residential Transitions Where new projects are built abutting existing lower scale residential development, care shall be taken to respect the scale and privacy of neighboring properties This finding does not apply. 5. Project Open Space Private and public open space shall be provided so that it is usable for the residents and visitors of the site This finding does not apply. 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 proposed project will reduce the overall gross floor area of the tenant space and thereby reducing the overall number of required parking for the shopping center by one parking space. The center is currently over parked based on the code requirements for the Shopping Center and will remain as such as a result of this proposal. None of the proposed changes modify the overall size and shape of the existing parking facilities (parking lots and garages), resulting in no impacts to the character of site or the pedestrian environment. 7. Large Multi-Acre Sites Large sites (over one acre) shall be designed so that street, block, and building patterns are consistent with those of the surrounding neighborhood This finding does not apply 8. Sustainability and Green Building Item 3 Attachment B - Draft Findings for Approval Packet Pg. 139 1 8 2 4 Design Project design and materials to achieve sustainability and green building design should be incorporated into the project The project will utilize energy efficient LED lighting and will include new plants that are low water usage. The project will also conform to Green Building Energy codes for commercial businesses. 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 proposed façade design is utilizing high-quality exterior materials and finishes that are balanced in the design. The proposed fiber cement panels, steel rainscreen panel system, aluminum curtain wall and aluminum composite with brick accents complement the existing adjacent tenant spaces ad storefronts in this area of the center. The color palette consists of varying tones of blacks and greys with the rainscreen panels consisting if a rust/bronze color. Signage will include acrylic lettering for both wall signs and the blade sign. In addition, the blade sign will contain an aluminum backer and all signage will be lit using white LEDs, providing a high- end appearance that is aesthetically pleasing and typical of the Shopping Center. 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 subject building is existing, and the project does not propose any modifications to the Shopping Center’s roadways. The project will enhance the width of the sidewalk along the primary façade as the façade will be pushed back by 8’3; therefore, the existing circulation improvements will remain in place and be enhanced. The signage is well placed and consistent with the MTFS program signage regulations providing signage that is in scale with both pedestrians and automobiles entering the Shopping Center from Sand Hill Road. The white, acrylic channel lettering with LED lighting located on the façades of the building provides great contrast and are easily visible to visitors of the Shopping Center. 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. A variety of landscaping exists in the area surrounding the subject tenant space including trees, planter pots and walls. The project will add an additional planter with drought tolerant grass-like landscaping that will frame a corner at the entry into the tenant space. Sidewalks along the tenant façades will maintain a minimum width of 8 feet free and clear with the addition of the new landscape planter. In addition, existing mall planters and trees located along the adjacent Item 3 Attachment B - Draft Findings for Approval Packet Pg. 140 1 8 2 4 parking fields will remain and will add to the overall landscaped area of the tenant space. 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 proposed project includes materials that consist of brick, metals, fiber cement, and glazing, many of which are readily recyclable. The project is also subject to the local energy and recycling codes. The proposed signs are illuminated and made of durable long-lasting materials and are subject to the green building energy regulations. Furthermore, updated landscaping complies with State and City of Palo Alto Model Water Efficiency Landscape Ordianance (MWELO) requirements. Plants specified are rated as low to moderate water requirements and a self- containing irrigation system will be installed. Item 3 Attachment B - Draft Findings for Approval Packet Pg. 141 ATTACHMENT C CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 180 El Camino Real 23PLN-00009 ________________________________________________________________________ PLANNING DIVISION 1. CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS. Construction and development shall conform to the approved plans entitled, "Arhaus,” uploaded to the Palo Alto Online Permitting Services Citizen Portal on May 2, 2023, on file with the Planning & Development Services 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 and Zero Waste Departments. 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. USE AND OCCUPANCY PERMIT. A valid Use and Occupancy permit issued by the Building Department is required for the “Arhaus” retail operation. The operator shall ensure the building’s permitted occupancy is not exceeded at any time. 5. 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. 6. PROJECT EXPIRATION. The project approval shall be valid for a period of two years from the original date of approval. Application for a one-year extension of this entitlement may be made prior to expiration. 7. INDEMNITY: To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City for its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice. 8. 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 Item 3 Attachment C - Draft Conditions of Approval Packet Pg. 142 during the building process must be approved by Planning, including but not limited to; materials, landscaping and hard surface locations. Contact the Planner-on-Duty at Planner@cityofpaloalto.org to schedule this inspection. ZERO WASTE 9. Please confirm that the site will be using Stanford Mall's refuse service and does not need GreenWaste to provide refuse service. Please confirm if the nearby refuse enclosure has enough capacity for Arhaus' waste. 10. Please add a compost bin in the water fountain area. 11. If the applicant chooses to use full body stainless steel refuse bins for all three commodity, recycle, compost, and landfill; then the applicant must either provide signage on both the body of the bin and on the walls of each bin location, or color code the openings or tops of the bins (blue for recycle, green for compost, and black for landfill) with signage on the bin. 12. Please provide larger copies of the custom signs, so we can ensure the signs meet the City of Palo Alto’s Zero Waste program requirements. From initially looking at the small signs, we would require the sign for each commodity to be labeled as “Recycle,” “Compost,” and “Landfill.” Item 3 Attachment C - Draft Conditions of Approval Packet Pg. 143 1 8 2 3 ATTACHMENT D ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 180 El Camino Real (Building V - Space #820B), 23PLN-00009 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.16 (CC DISTRICT) Exclusively Non-residential Development Standards Regulation Required Existing Proposed Minimum Site Area, width and depth No Requirement 52.8 Acres No Change Minimum Front Yard 0-10 feet to create an 8–12-foot effective sidewalk width (1), (2), (8) Varied No Change Rear Yard No Requirement N/A No Change Interior Side Yard No Requirement N/A No Change Street Side Yard No Requirement Varied No Change Min. yard for lot lines abutting or opposite residential districts or residential PC districts 10 feet (2)N/A Not Applicable Build-to-lines 50% of frontage built to setback; 33% of side street built to setback (7) N/A No Change Special Setback 24 feet – see Chapter 20.08 & zoning maps Varied No Change Max. Site Coverage No Requirement N/A Not Applicable Max. Building Height 50 feet (4)Varied 42 feet Max. Floor Area Ratio (FAR)N/A (9)~1,361,751 net sf No Change Daylight Plane for lot lines abutting one or more residential zone districts other than an RM-40 or PC Zone None (6) (1) No parking or loading space, whether required or optional, shall be located in the first 10 feet adjoining the street property line of any required yard. (2) Any minimum front, street side, or interior yard shall be planted and maintained as a landscaped screen excluding areas required for access to the site. A solid wall or fence between 5 and 8 feet in height shall be constructed along any common interior lot line. (4) As measured to the peak of the roof or the top of a parapet; penthouses and equipment enclosures may exceed this height limit by a maximum of five feet, but shall be limited to an area equal to no more than ten percent of the site area and shall not intrude into the daylight plane. (6) The initial height and slope shall be identical to those of the most restrictive residential zone abutting the site line in question. (7) 25 foot driveway access permitted regardless of frontage, build-to requirement does not apply to CC district. (8) A 12 foot sidewalk width is required along El Camino Real frontage (9) Stanford Shopping Center shall not be permitted to add more than 80,000 square feet of floor area to the total amount of floor area of the shopping center existing as of June 14, 1996, 1,332,362 square feet, for a total square footage not to exceed 1,412,362. Any hotel or mixed use development for the Stanford Shopping Center shall only be included if approved as part of a Development Agreement for the site. Item 3 Attachment D - CC Zoning Comparison Table Packet Pg. 144 1 8 2 3 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.16 (CC(2) DISTRICT) continued Exclusively Non-residential Development Standards Topic Requirement Proposed Hours of Operation (18.16.040 (b)) Businesses with activities any time between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. shall be required to obtain a conditional use permit. The director may apply conditions of approval as are deemed necessary to assure compatibility with the surrounding uses. Not Applicable. Project does not include late night hours. Outdoor Sales and Storage (18.16.040 (h)) Except in shopping centers, all permitted office and commercial activities shall be conducted within a building, except for: (i) Incidental sales and display of plant materials and garden supplies occupying no more than 2,000 square feet of exterior sales and display area, (ii) Outdoor eating areas operated incidental to permitted eating and drinking services or intensive retail uses, (iii) Farmers’ markets that have obtained a conditional use permit, and (iv) Recycling centers that have obtained a conditional use permit. Stanford Shopping Center is a “shopping center” as defined in Title 18, therefore this regulation does not apply. Recycling Storage (18.16.040 (i)) All new development, including approved modifications that add thirty percent or more floor area to existing uses, shall provide adequate and accessible interior areas or exterior enclosures for the storage of recyclable materials in appropriate containers. The design, construction and accessibility of recycling areas and enclosures shall be subject to approval by the architectural review board, in accordance with design guidelines adopted by that board and approved by the city council pursuant to Section 18.76.020. The proposed project is not adding square footage and adequate recycling storage is provided within the larger shopping center. Employee Showers (18.16.040 (j)) Employee shower facilities shall be provided for any new building constructed or for any addition to or enlargement of any existing building as specified in Table 6 of 18.16.040(j)) Not Applicable. Proposed project is renovation of an existing building. Office Use Restrictions (18.16.050) Total floor area of permitted office uses on a lot shall not exceed 25% of the lot area, provided a lot is permitted between 2,500 and 5,000 sf of office use. The maximum size may be increased with a CUP issued by the Director. Not Applicable. Proposed project is a retail use. 18.16.080 Performance Standards. All development in the CC district shall comply with the performance criteria outlined in Chapter 18.23 of the Zoning Ordinance, including all mixed use development 18.16.090 Context-Based Design Criteria. As further described in a separate attachment, development in a commercial district shall be responsible to its context and compatible with adjacent development, and shall promote the establishment of pedestrian oriented design. Item 3 Attachment D - CC Zoning Comparison Table Packet Pg. 145 1 8 2 3 Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) for Retail Services* Type Required Existing Proposed Vehicle Parking 1/275 sf of gross floor area for a total of 5,216 parking spaces 5,256 spaces No change Bicycle Parking 1/2,750 sf (40% long term and 60% short term) equals 523 spaces for the site overall. 410 spaces (97 long term, 313 short) Landlord recently installed 76 short term bike parking spaces at the center. 20 of those spaces will satisfy requirements for previous approvals and 6 spaces will be used for Arhaus. 50 excess spaces remain. Loading Space 29 loading spaces ~25 loading spaces No change * On-site employee amenity space is exempted from the parking requirements Table 3: Stanford Shopping Center Master Sign Program Sign Types, Number, and Locations Sign Requirement Number Maximum Size Location Primary sign (wall sign) Required 1 Maximum height 24” and otherwise proportional to logo characteristics; Stacked signs not to exceed 36” in height; no sign closer to 24” from demising wall or building corner. Primary façade (southwest elevation) Banner or blade sign (Projecting sign) Required 1 Banner: 24” projection x 60” height Primary façade (southwest elevation) Canopy or Awning Sign (optional)1 Maximum height is 9” and otherwise proportional to logo characteristics None proposed Super-graphic (optional)Not limited None None proposed Secondary sign or Emblem (optional)1 where applicable Secondary sign: Maximum height 18” and otherwise proportional to logo characteristics Emblem: Maximum height is 24” in any direction. Secondary façade (southeast elevation) Advertising graphics and signs (optional)Not limited None None proposed Digital images and digital signage (optional)Not limited 42” measured diagonally None proposed *Maximum Allowable Sign Area for Wall Signs. Wall signs and sign area are defined in PAMC 16.20.010. Canopy and awning signs erected parallel to a building face are also considered wall signs. The maximum total allowable sign area of a single wall sign or the combined total maximum allowable area of multiple wall signs per building face shall be consistent with the sign area limits outlined in PAMC 16.20 Table 3. Staff level architectural review is required for any sign at the shopping center exterior that requires approval of an exception to these sign area limits. Logos are considered wall signs and can be utilized as a primary wall sign or can be a component of a primary wall sign. Logos shall not exceed the maximum height of a stacked sign, which is 36-inches. Logos shall be included in calculations of maximum wall sign area limits. Item 3 Attachment D - CC Zoning Comparison Table Packet Pg. 146 1 8 2 3 Item 3 Attachment D - CC Zoning Comparison Table Packet Pg. 147 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 1 8 2 2 Project Plans In order to reduce paper consumption, a limited number of hard copy project plans are provided to Board members for their review. The same plans are available to the public, at all hours of the day, via the following online resources. Directions to review Project plans online: 1. Go to: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Current- Planning/Projects 2. Scroll down to find “180 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/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Current-Planning/Projects/180- El-Camino-Real-Arhaus Materials Boards: For closer examination, the material boards will be brought to chambers during the ARB hearing. Item 3 Attachment E - Project Plans Packet Pg. 148 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: June 15, 2023 Report #: 2305-1586 TITLE Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for May 4, 2023 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) adopt the attached meeting minutes. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Minutes of May 4, 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. 149 Page 1 of 12 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 05/4/23 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD DRAFT MINUTES: May 4, 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 Peter Baltay, Vice Chair Kendra Rosenberg, Boardmember David Hirsch, Boardmember Yingxi Chen Absent: Boardmember Osma Thompson Oral Communications None Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Senior Planner and ARB Liaison Claire Raybould indicated 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 reported there were no major new projects submitted. They had hoped Waverly would be heard but the architect was out of town. The May 18 agenda includes 123 Sherman Avenue for a second formal hearing for a recommendation and the SB 9 Objective Standards which were continued to a date certain. Chair Baltay inquired from Ad-hoc committee regarding the large housing project on El Camino. Ms. Raybould replied there was one at 3150 El Camino. Chair Baltay stated that was the project with Vice Chair Rosenberg and Boardmember Hirsch as the Ad- hoc committee. Boardmember Hirsch reported that they looked at the project and had some communication with the developer and recommended that the Board take a closer look at interior issues of circulation when the project is officially brought forth, relative to the entry to the building as well as the parking of the building, and the delivery areas. Chair Baltay asked if there was anything to report from any other Ad-hoc committees. Item 4 Attachment A Minutes of May 4, 2023 Packet Pg. 150 Page 2 of 12 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 05/4/23 Ms. Raybould stated the same Ad-hoc subcommittee also looked at 420 Acacia and the 800 San Antonio project. Vice Chair Rosenberg replied there was nothing major to report on those two items. Chair Baltay requested a subcommittee be considered for two upcoming potential projects. One at 4075 El Camino Way and 300 Lambert. He assigned himself and Boardmember Chen to 4075 El Camino Way and Boardmembers Thompson and Chen to the subcommittee for 300 Lambert. Manager of Current Planning Jodie Gerhardt commented that 300 Lambert is only an SB 330 project at this point, the plan set will be fairly thin. Action Items 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. Chair Baltay asked for Boardmember disclosures. Boardmember Hirsch stated he had no disclosures. Vice Chair Rosenberg stated she visited the site. Chair Baltay stated he visited the site. Boardmember Chen stated she had no disclosures. Chair Baltay requested a pause. Ms. Raybould provided the staff report for 3001 El Camino Real which is located in the North Ventura neighborhood at Page Mill Road and El Camino Real. This is the third hearing before the ARB and Ms. Raybould gave a quick overview of the project, which includes the demolition of 9,100 square feet (sf) of vacant retail space to construct a five-story, exclusively residential rental building with 129 units affordable to very low income (30-50% of area median income) tenants. It is an SB 330 project that sits on 1.14-acre parcel (49,658 sf) lot. A pre-application for SB 330 was filed in May of 2022 which froze their development standards in accordance with SB 330. The project is proposing to use State Density Bonus allowances meant for low and very low income near transit. They are eligible for unlimited density, a 33- foot increase in height from base zoning (59 feet proposed; 68-83 feet allowed), and no parking (103 Item 4 Attachment A Minutes of May 4, 2023 Packet Pg. 151 Page 3 of 12 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 05/4/23 spaces are proposed). The four concessions include a rear setback on Acacia to provide a 5-foot balcony on the rear, the building would be setback over 10 feet, lot coverage, gross floor area, and open space requirements. Some of the key comments that came up at the prior hearing were vehicular access to the site; internal circulation to fitness room, parking garage and bicycle room; reducing the length of connection to the laundry and trash collection, and concern regarding building code compliance. The applicant has provided an onsite pathway to the fitness center, however, still does not have an internal connection. The bike parking empties into the courtyard. This is a redesign from the original proposal from El Camino. Staff believe that is an improvement, however it still does not have an internal connection. The trash collection has been revised so there are now two rooms, a room with bins by the maintenance room which would have to be moved for collection service to the room on the ground floor. They have not provided two separate collection areas or a central trash collection area. There are some concerns with a central trash collection room, it would need to be serviced from the street and it has to be 25 feet from the street. Providing a central location would be a concern from that prospective. The project would have to be designed to allow a 22’ overhead entrance for a trash collection truck or it would be servicing on El Camino, which staff had expressed previously would be a safety concern for delivery drivers and trash tracks. In order for there to be a trash location on each side of the building would require usage of real estate on Acacia and Olive frontage, in addition to each room above for the trash shoots. The applicants expressed a concern in doing that because it would take away from the community room on the exterior. The applicants ensured the building is now code compliant. The design was amended to ensure there is enough distance between the elevator and stairwell. The applicant added an entry door on Acacia as well as a drop-off/loading zone on the Acacia side, which addressed the safety concerns from the Office of Transportation related to delivery truck drivers double parking on El Camino. There were ARB comments regarding the El Camino facing façade requesting more definition between the top, middle and bottom floors, with more visibility onto the street from El Camino Real, request to reconsider the vertical windows on the ground floor, break up the left side of the façade, and reconsider the white material to be less white/bright. The applicants did not make changes to provide more definition between the top middle and bottom floors, they feel they have provided enough definition between the floors. Staff believes there could be more improvements, however they have met all of the objective standard requirements. They provided additional windows, particularly in the art-flex room between the fitness center and bike room, which allows more outdoor visibility on the El Camino Real side of the building. They have not made changes to reconsider the vertical windows on the ground floor or break up the left side of the façade. The white color has also not changed. The community room has been relocated to face Acacia. The ARB was interested in having more visibility onto the street frontage rather than the laundry room. The applicant has not made changes to provide more articulation for privacy on the rear ground floor units, they did provide ground floor unit plans, but not sections. Ms. Raybould read the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) as a reminder of State regulations regarding the City’s authority for applications to build very low, low- and moderate-income housing. Senate Bill (SB) 330 freezes development standards and they were frozen for this project as of May of 2022, before the 18.24 objective standards applied. Therefore, this project is not subject to the newer objective standards. A Mitigated Negative Declaration circulated for review on February 13, 2023 and close3d on March 15, 2023. Formal responses to comments were included in Attachment H of the staff report. The City received comments from Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health (SCCDEH), Valley Transit Authority (VTA), one member of the public, Item 4 Attachment A Minutes of May 4, 2023 Packet Pg. 152 Page 4 of 12 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 05/4/23 and the board on the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). Staff recommends the ARB consider the MND and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP); and recommend approval with conditions based on the findings and conditions of approval. Applicant Kathy Robinson, Director of Development for Charities Housing, thanked staff for assisting them with the project and the ARB for their consideration and introduced Will Bloomer from David Baker Architects. Mr. Bloomer provided the staff presentation summarizing the changes made that Ms. Raybould outlined in the staff’s presentation which included the location of the community room, the connection through to Acacia, the second lobby for the mail room, the relocation of the stairwell for better upper floors circulation, and the setback massing on the roofline due to the addition of the second lobby. Joe Head provided information on traffic circulation data gathered for analysis regarding peak travel times and parking facilities provided and noted they would be willing to enter into a Traffic District Plan that would restrict the residents of the project from parking in front of neighbor homes except during overnight hours and on weekends, should the parking garage not be sufficient for the residents. Chair Baltay opened the meeting for public comments. PUBLIC COMMENTS Yugen Lockhart provided public comment as a resident on Olive Avenue, and expressed frustration over the potential parking and traffic impacts the project will have and stated that Charities Housing has been interacting with the neighbors which has been appreciated. Staff also provided public outreach regarding traffic abatement ideas. He appreciates the ARB’s efforts in making sure the project has the least impact possible on neighbors. The existing neighbors are not objecting to higher density, they just don’t want to feel overwhelmed by the higher density. Rebecca Sanders, a Ventura resident, provided public comment and agreed with some of Mr. Lockhart’s comments. It’s great that the public outreach has been done by both Charities Housing and the staff, it would be nice if someone could advocate from City Hall for the existing neighbors. She believes that the applicant has not yet made any concessions based on feedback from the public outreach that has been done and expressed serious concern for potential parking issues. Her hope is that the ARB will stress the changes that need to be made to preserve Acacia and Olive from becoming like a street in Los Angeles. She expressed concern regarding privacy issues from sightlines from the project and collective impacts from all of the higher density projects proposed for Palo Alto which currently stands at over 1,500-units. Chair Baltay closed the meeting to Public Comments. Vice Chair Rosenberg inquired about the design decision that is adhering the applicant to that specific white color on the façade. Mr. Bloomer responded they are trying to use fiber-cement in a way that provide a lot of variation, it’s not an objective standard change that the applicant feels is necessary to change at this time, however they are willing to continue having that discussion. Item 4 Attachment A Minutes of May 4, 2023 Packet Pg. 153 Page 5 of 12 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 05/4/23 Vice Chair Rosenberg explained that the ARB was pretty specific in their prior comments regarding the white color chosen and felt like that could have been an easy accommodation to achieve. Ms. Robinson replied that Charities Housing believes the aesthetics of the building are really attractive, it uses a variety of colors and textures and materials that work well together. Often when a project starts with a blank white canvas, it enhances the variety and interest. They are willing to continue having internal conversations about possibly tweaking the color slightly, however they appreciate the current aesthetics of the building as it is. Vice Chair Rosenberg requested the specific name of the white and the LRV that is associated with it. Mr. Bloomer stated he would have to check on the specific LRV number. Manager of Current Planning Jodie Gerhardt provided the materials board. Vice Chair Rosenberg commented that getting the specific name of the white coloring and the LRV number would be incredibly helpful. Boardmember Chen inquired about the new arts and craft space and if it will be open to the public. Ms. Robinson replied that is currently designated as flex space with the hope that it can become an arts and craft space that will be open to the residents and the community. Boardmember Chen asked if the laundry room is now smaller than what was shown in the previous design. Mr. Bloomer answered they relocated the laundry room, which previously had a small lounge portion. With the relocation of the room, the lounge space is now part of the community room. Both the laundry room and the community room have wonderful views of the rear community yard. The number of machines in the laundry facility remained the same as previously presented. Boardmember Chen inquired if the loading zone on Acacia is a true loading zone and not blocking one lane of the street when needed. Mr. Bloomer responded that it is now a true loading zone. It is currently now in the civil drawings. Boardmember Chen requested clarification of any separation between the public sidewalk and the private passage to the fitness center. Mr. Bloomer explained that there is no separation, and they liked the idea that it would be open, however it is covered above by the building. They plan to work with landscaping architects to make sure the space is well defined. Boardmember Chen asked about the front façade glazing in the drawings is an actual reflection of what the glazing will be in the final design of the building. Mr. Bloomer explained that what the current design shows is a type of store front system that may have a spandrel panel with the electrical system overhead. If there were a spandrel panel it would not have glazing. The opportunity provides the type of store front look that they prefer. Item 4 Attachment A Minutes of May 4, 2023 Packet Pg. 154 Page 6 of 12 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 05/4/23 Boardmember Chen asked if the same were true in the rear elevation. If a spandrel panel were used it would not have glazing where the panels are located. Mr. Bloomer believed the rear is fully glazed. There is a band of brick on the elevation and that is more for the aesthetic and to break up the rear muse and would not provide mechanical use. Boardmember Chen asked what the material of the outdoor staircase that is used for fire access leading to the second-floor open space. Mr. Bloom stated he thought it was planned as a steel staircase; he would have to get back to the board with that. It may possibly have a concrete base. It becomes a bridge over, and their hope is to create another design element with it’s construction. Boardmember Chen noted the space under the stairwell is open and wondered what the support would look like. Mr. Bloom responded that their intent is for it to be open and frame the space to create a design element for the back community room. Boardmember Hirsch stated he had no questions for the applicant. Chair Baltay suggested rather than the Board go through the project again in detail, they should provide, as a Board, the conditions the building would need in order to meet their standards. Some of the previous suggestions had not been made, rather than arguing with the applicant, the ARB considered providing a list of the changes the project would need to achieve ARB approval. The consensus of the Board agreed and Chair Baltay provided a list of five changes for the Board to discuss as recommended conditions of approval to include: Internal Circulation – •a trash collection area on each floor within 200 feet of every apartment •an internal connection between the fitness and art space down on the street Vice Chair Rosenberg commented that if trash access is not provided within a reasonable length, people will leave their trash outside their doors. That will lead to a build up of undesirable community space. It is a big ask, however, the potential impact of not having the chutes available could be dire and potentially a health risk. Boardmember Hirsch commented that projects with this high density generally have a trash shoot near the elevator and given the change in elevator to meet code regulations, it would seem natural that would be a good location to add trash collection chutes. The trash in the building could then be moved to the trash pick up room. Boardmember Chen recalled at the last hearing the ARB listed three items they wanted within two hundred feet of each unit, trash, stairwell, and laundry. Currently only the staircase meets the 200’ distance standard. It is critical for the desirability of the property to include the trash and laundry facility within that standard as well. Item 4 Attachment A Minutes of May 4, 2023 Packet Pg. 155 Page 7 of 12 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 05/4/23 Chair Baltay responded that he provided what he felt was code regulation for the trash being within 200’ of each unit and he had left out the laundry facilities because the code that was referenced was design specifically for trash as he was attempting to provide the minimum they would require for approval. Boardmember Hirsch stated he believed there could be a compromise on the laundry room in that they have a central laundry as it relates to the outdoor space which isn’t unreasonable. It would be convenient to have one on every floor, central to the building, but having it central with the outdoor space and community room isn’t a bad compromise. Ms. Gerhardt stated that while everyone is aware that under SB 330 the measures have been frozen, and they froze prior to Chapter 18.24 going into place, staff will need to discuss the code sections with the director and with the City attorney to ensure that they agree that the conditions are objective enough to enforce. Chair Baltay stated the next condition to consider: Provide greater consideration to the El Camino Real and Acacia Street facing façades by: •Using a greater variety of window sizes and alignments •Creating a cornice parapet eave or other element to differentiate the top of the building. Boardmember Hirsch stated he thought they were all concerned about the massing of the front of the building. If there was more flexibility in the design, it could eliminate some of the white massing. Vice Chair Rosenberg commented that the building elevation should have variation in depth. The large white facing façade does not have variation or depth. Reorganizing floor plans is one way to do that and using variation in materiality is another way, which is quite successfully done on the other half of the building. Ms. Gerhardt commented that A and B of item two needs to be more objective if possible. Boardmember Hirsch suggested that item C could reduce the massing of the El Camino façade by introducing recesses, and the back of the building has a gap which could house a unit. A gap in the front façade could break up the front façade massing. Chair Baltay suggested stating the ARB would like the left portion of the El Camino façade to have variation of at least two feet in depth. He does not support relocating front units, as his biggest concern is the windows are not big enough. Vice Chair Rosenberg commented that an introduction of new material could be beneficial in the white area and could provide the appearance of more depth and the resolve could be just as simple as that. Boardmember Hirsch commented that with that change in item A, there wouldn’t be a need for his third proposed item. Chair Baltay continued with the third item: •The left front white space face on the El Camino facing building, Creating a cornice parapet eave or other element to differentiate the top of the building. Item 4 Attachment A Minutes of May 4, 2023 Packet Pg. 156 Page 8 of 12 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 05/4/23 Vice Chair Rosenberg stated that finding the LRV value of the white should be easy to find. And changing the color to a not-so-white could lower the LRV to less than 82%. Chair Baltay listed the fourth item: Provide greater privacy to the rear floor ground units by: •Ensure units on the ground floor are elevated 12 – 18 inches above ground, or •Reconfiguring the three-bedroom end units to avoid at grade bedrooms with windows fronting directly onto sidewalks or public outdoor space, or •Provide a landscaped area of shrubs and trees as a buffer between the buildings and adjacent sidewalk or outdoor space. Vice Chair Rosenberg commented that the interior two-facing bedrooms have the capacity for a landscape buffer on the muse pathway. Ms. Raybould asked the applicant if all the units were intended to be Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant. Mr. Bloomer stated there aren’t any stairs and they would be ADA accessible. Chair Baltay stated he believed a 12” rise in the building could be accomplished. Chair Baltay and Vice Chair Rosenberg commented that if the first-floor units were 17’ high there would be room within that space to raise the ground floor without raising the entire building. Boardmember Chen providing the units were ADA compliant, raising the ground floor units 12 to 18” would make a big difference in privacy to the neighbors. Boardmember Hirsch was good with the privacy suggestions. Chair Baltay continued with the last item: Regarding the ribbed concrete finish on the rear residential unit façade: •Bring it back to the 35% surface area and provide greater window variation in size and configuration and material selection. Chair Baltay commented that this is not an objective standard that the applicant is obligated to follow, however it is a standard that was established for the town and is a fair request. Vice Chair Rosenberg said this was an item she would be fine with it our without it. Chair Baltay stated the one thing he left off was their request for a traffic study to see if the building would be better off facing Acacia rather than El Camino and he was satisfied with the applicants explanation of why they did not consider that change. Boardmember Hirsch agreed. Item 4 Attachment A Minutes of May 4, 2023 Packet Pg. 157 Page 9 of 12 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 05/4/23 MOTION: Chair Baltay moved, Vice Chair Rosenberg seconded that the ARB recommend approval of the project subject to the conditions listed. Chair Baltay asked the applicant if they had any current response to the conditions the ARB listed in their motion. Ms. Robinson commented that the discussion was very helpful in letting the applicant know what their requests were, specifically the white LRV value. They will take the comments to heart and see how they can accommodate them into their final design. Chair Baltay requested a roll call vote. VOTE: 4-0-0-1 (Boardmember Thompson absent) Boardmember Hirsch commented that he appreciated Chair Baltay direction in which they handled that item. The ARB took a 12-minute break. The meeting continued with all ARB Boardmembers present. 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 of the 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 153113. Review and Adoption of the Revised Architectural Review Board By-Laws to Address Meeting Attendance in 2023 Chair Baltay introduced the item and requested Board disclosures. Boardmember Hirsch stated he visited the site. Vice Chair Rosenberg commented she had nothing to disclose. Boardmember Chen disclosed she also visited the site. Chair Baltay stated that he visited the site. Senior Planner Garret Sauls provided the staff presentation for the modifications of the existing building which include painting the building, installing new raised utility yard in the rear of the site along West Bayshore Road, incorporating a new trash enclosure, flood proofing the mechanical screen, incorporating additional native landscaping to satisfy the 50% shading requirements, and restriping of the parking stalls. There are 32 proposed tree removals on site with thirty being planted to accommodate those removals. In addition, the applicant will be required to pay an in-lieu fee of $32,000 for off-site tree planting. The Item 4 Attachment A Minutes of May 4, 2023 Packet Pg. 158 Page 10 of 12 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 05/4/23 applicant provided a noise study as an attachment to the staff report to identify how the introduction of the rooftop mechanical equipment and utility yard will both comply with the City’s noise ordinance. The new lighting scheme will not exceed the 0.5-foot candle at all property lines including near Adobe Creek and Echelon homes. Mr. Sauls provided drawings of the proposed plans along with paint color for the repainting of the building. Part of the material board includes the mechanical screen which includes trees within the design to screen the view of the equipment. The trash enclosure will be CMU material at the base of the walls with a roof to prevent drainage from within the enclosures. The roof will include solar. Landscaping information included the trees that will be used for the native tree replacements on the site. Alex Avellone with Google provided the applicant presentation with Therese Hazelroth and Dan Markey. This building is one of eleven buildings they own and operate on the Google Campus. Six of them have been renovated and occupied over the last couple of years. Two buildings, along with this building are currently in the permitting process for renovation. Most of the buildings are concrete. The applicant showed maps of the project site. They will do a full seismic upgrade on the building and also in need of being flood proofed. A cool roof will be added to the building; the utility structure will have towers that will be energy efficient with chemical free towers and will be locally sourced. New glass windows will be added, new ADA parking and removal of drive isle obstruction. Chair Baltay inquired of public comments and there were none. Boardmember Hirsch inquired about the façade of the building and if it would be painted. Mr. Avellone stated they will keep the current concrete intact and paint the entire exterior of the building. Chair Baltay inquired about the metal perforated panels enclosing the cooling towers and if they would be painted. Ms. Hazelroth replied they will be left the aluminum metal color. Boardmember Chen commented that the project is very straightforward, and she appreciated the materials they selected, and she will support the project. Boardmember Hirsch commented that he appreciates the removal of the drive obstruction and in back of the building seems to be the most exciting part of the project and wondered if it wouldn’t be a great edition to incorporate the perforated metal along the roofline of the entire building to help screen the top of the building further. He appreciated the landscaping plans and inquired about the drainage for the flood proofing. Mr. Sauls replied that Public Works will be a part of the engineering of those plans but what they understood was Public Works does not allow for drainage offsite of the property so it will be directed to the catch basins. Boardmember Hirsch asked if there would be any public use of the courtyard. Mr. Sauls stated his understanding was it would be used for employees only. Vice Chair Rosenberg thanked the applicants for the straightforwardness of the project details and appreciated the thoughtfulness of the noise and lighting concerns and the design choice for the screening Item 4 Attachment A Minutes of May 4, 2023 Packet Pg. 159 Page 11 of 12 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 05/4/23 of the mechanical yard. She agreed with Boardmember Hirsch comments in that it would be nice if they could incorporate them more into other areas of the project, but she wasn’t going to penalize them for not doing so. It’s a very attractive feature. Chair Baltay shared the other Boardmembers’ views and had nothing further to add and referenced page A2.03 with two large mechanical screen facing the street and asked if those were the screen Vice Chair Rosenberg and Boardmember Hirsch had referenced. Vice Chair Rosenberg answered she’s fine with the rooftop and what has been proposed, she was just fond of the sheet panel and would love to see it incorporated more into the project if possible. Boardmember Hirsch stated he liked it so much he’d like the entire building to be those panels! Boardmember Chen commented she doesn’t believe the rooftop needs the screening because it’s far from the street and it’s hard to see from the sidewalk, and the trees will block it from the residential neighborhood. She doesn’t see the point necessarily in making this building special by using more of the sheet paneling as the scheme of this building matches the color schemes of the other buildings on the campus. Dan Marky indicated there is a small recessed area in the front that has a metal railing, and they could incorporate it there as an added feature element to the front of the building. MOTION: Boardmember Rosenberg moved, seconded by Boardmember Chen, to approve staff’s recommendations for the project with the condition of the offered addition of the perforated sheet paneling in place of the metal railing in the recessed area. VOTE: 4-0-0-1 (Boardmember Thompson absent) Approval of Minutes 4. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for April 6, 2023. Chair Baltay introduced the item and called for any additions, deletions, or changes. MOTION: Boardmember Rosenberg moved, seconded by Boardmember Hirsch, to approve the meeting minutes for April 6, 2023, as drafted. VOTE: 3-0-1-1 (Abstained by Boardmember Chen, Boardmember Thompson absent) Boardmember Questions, Comments or Announcements Chair Baltay extended appreciation to former Chair Hirsch for his time as Chair. Boardmember Hirsch commented he spoke with Ms. Raybould about the objective regulations on the townhomes and asked Ms. Raybould to share what she told him. Item 4 Attachment A Minutes of May 4, 2023 Packet Pg. 160 Page 12 of 12 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 05/4/23 Ms. Raybould stated that City Council has to approve the work plan before staff can spend time working on that project. They will then have to speak to the Director to find out how much time can be allocated, once it’s approved. She does, however, see that effort moving forward. Chair Baltay recollected that the ad hoc committee was asked to come up with a plan that would be ready for staff if and when it is approved by City Council. Boardmember Hirsch inquired about the study session for SB 9. Ms. Raybould stated that is also part of the objective standards in the work plan, however, Chief Planning Official Amy French continued the study session to a date certain of May 18 to finish up the study session. Staff will be bringing forth research into how other cities have worked through some of the changes. Staff will provide a brief summary of the ARB comments to the stakeholders of future focus groups. Chair Baltay suggested all Board members come to the May 18 meeting well prepared with their input so they can get through it at that time. Adjournment Chair Baltay adjourned the meeting. Item 4 Attachment A Minutes of May 4, 2023 Packet Pg. 161