Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-10-05 Architectural Review Board Agenda PacketARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD Regular Meeting Thursday, October 05, 2023 Council Chambers & Hybrid 8:30 AM Pursuant to AB 361 Palo Alto City Council meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with the option to attend by teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safety while still maintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose to participate from home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe and participate in the meeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged if attending in person. The meeting will be broadcast on Cable TV Channel 26, live on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen Media Center https://midpenmedia.org. Visit https://bit.ly/PApendingprojects to view project plans and details. Commissioner names, biographies, and archived agendas and reports are available at https://bit.ly/paloaltoARB.  VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/96561891491) Meeting ID: 965 6189 1491    Phone: 1(669)900‐6833 PUBLIC COMMENTS Public comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or an amount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutes after the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance to arb@CityofPaloAlto.org and will be provided to the Board and available for inspection on the City’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you are referencing in your subject line. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson's presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. The Chair may limit Public Comments to thirty (30) minutes for all combined speakers. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak for Study Sessions and Action Items to two (2) minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers. PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted only by email to arb@CityofPaloAlto.org at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Once received, the Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. To uphold strong cybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storage devices are not accepted. CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL PUBLIC COMMENT  Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS The Chair or Board majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management. CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS 1.Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2) Tentative Future Agenda Items and 3) Recently Submitted Projects 2.Staff Presentation Providing a Summary on State Housing Laws for Multi‐family Housing Projects ACTION ITEMS Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Ten (10) minutes, plus ten (10) minutes rebuttal. All others: Three (3) minutes per speaker. 3.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI‐JUDICIAL. 180 El Camino Real [23PLN‐00155]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Minor Architectural Review Board Application to Allow Exterior Modifications, Including a Newly Designed Façade for the Previously Approved Three‐Story, Stand Alone Building, “Restoration Hardware” at the Stanford Shopping Center. No Modifications are Proposed to any Site Design Details and There is no Change of use. Zoning District: CC. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from CEQA per Section 15302 (Replacement or Reconstruction). Zoning District: CC (Community Commercial). 4.At‐Places Memo Added   PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI‐JUDICIAL. 420 Acacia [23PLN‐00058]: Request for a Streamlined Housing Development Review to Allow the Construction of an Approximately 35,354 Square Foot (sf) Multi‐Family Project Consisting of 16 Two‐ and Three‐Bedroom Condominium Units in Four 2‐ and 3‐story Buildings on an Approximately 0.8‐acre (35,753 sf) Parcel. The Project would replace a paved, 68‐space surface parking lot. The Project includes two Units Provided at Below Market Rate and, Accordingly, Requests Concessions and Waivers Pursuant to State Density Bonus Law. A Compliant Senate Bill Pre‐Application was Submitted on January 4, 2023; Therefore, this Project is Being Processed in Accordance with SB 330. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act in Accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 (in‐fill development). Zoning District: The Project Site has a Split Zoning Designation of RM‐30 (Multiple‐Family Residential) and R‐1 (Single‐Family Residential). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Claire Raybould at Claire.Raybould@cityofpaloalto.org. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 5.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for August 17, 2023 6.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for September 7, 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 Board, click on the link below to access a Zoom‐ based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully. You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in‐ browser. If using your browser, make sure you are using a current, up‐to‐date browser: Chrome 30, Firefox 27, Microsoft Edge 12, Safari 7. Certain functionality may be disabled in older browsers including Internet Explorer. You may be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify you that it is your turn to speak. When you wish to speak on an Agenda Item, click on “raise hand.” The Clerk will activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak. When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. A timer will be shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments. 3. Spoken public comments using a smart phone will be accepted  through the teleconference meeting. To address the Board, download the Zoom application onto your phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter the Meeting ID below. Please follow the instructions above. 4. Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the Board. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted. CLICK HERE TO JOIN    Meeting ID: 965 6189 1491   Phone: 1‐669‐900‐6833  Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329‐2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARDRegular MeetingThursday, October 05, 2023Council Chambers & Hybrid8:30 AMPursuant to AB 361 Palo Alto City Council meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with theoption to attend by teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safetywhile still maintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose toparticipate from home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe andparticipate in the meeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged ifattending in person. The meeting will be broadcast on Cable TV Channel 26, live onYouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen MediaCenter https://midpenmedia.org. Visit https://bit.ly/PApendingprojects to view project plansand details. Commissioner names, biographies, and archived agendas and reports are availableat https://bit.ly/paloaltoARB. VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/96561891491)Meeting ID: 965 6189 1491    Phone: 1(669)900‐6833PUBLIC COMMENTSPublic comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or anamount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutesafter the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance toarb@CityofPaloAlto.org and will be provided to the Board and available for inspection on theCity’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you are referencing in your subjectline.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified aspresent at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson's presentation will be allowed up tofifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking membersagree not to speak individually. The Chair may limit Public Comments to thirty (30) minutes forall combined speakers. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak for Study Sessions andAction Items to two (2) minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers. PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted only by email to arb@CityofPaloAlto.org at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Once received, the Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. To uphold strong cybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storage devices are not accepted. CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL PUBLIC COMMENT  Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS The Chair or Board majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management. CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS 1.Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2) Tentative Future Agenda Items and 3) Recently Submitted Projects 2.Staff Presentation Providing a Summary on State Housing Laws for Multi‐family Housing Projects ACTION ITEMS Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Ten (10) minutes, plus ten (10) minutes rebuttal. All others: Three (3) minutes per speaker. 3.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI‐JUDICIAL. 180 El Camino Real [23PLN‐00155]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Minor Architectural Review Board Application to Allow Exterior Modifications, Including a Newly Designed Façade for the Previously Approved Three‐Story, Stand Alone Building, “Restoration Hardware” at the Stanford Shopping Center. No Modifications are Proposed to any Site Design Details and There is no Change of use. Zoning District: CC. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from CEQA per Section 15302 (Replacement or Reconstruction). Zoning District: CC (Community Commercial). 4.At‐Places Memo Added   PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI‐JUDICIAL. 420 Acacia [23PLN‐00058]: Request for a Streamlined Housing Development Review to Allow the Construction of an Approximately 35,354 Square Foot (sf) Multi‐Family Project Consisting of 16 Two‐ and Three‐Bedroom Condominium Units in Four 2‐ and 3‐story Buildings on an Approximately 0.8‐acre (35,753 sf) Parcel. The Project would replace a paved, 68‐space surface parking lot. The Project includes two Units Provided at Below Market Rate and, Accordingly, Requests Concessions and Waivers Pursuant to State Density Bonus Law. A Compliant Senate Bill Pre‐Application was Submitted on January 4, 2023; Therefore, this Project is Being Processed in Accordance with SB 330. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act in Accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 (in‐fill development). Zoning District: The Project Site has a Split Zoning Designation of RM‐30 (Multiple‐Family Residential) and R‐1 (Single‐Family Residential). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Claire Raybould at Claire.Raybould@cityofpaloalto.org. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 5.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for August 17, 2023 6.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for September 7, 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 Board, click on the link below to access a Zoom‐ based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully. You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in‐ browser. If using your browser, make sure you are using a current, up‐to‐date browser: Chrome 30, Firefox 27, Microsoft Edge 12, Safari 7. Certain functionality may be disabled in older browsers including Internet Explorer. You may be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify you that it is your turn to speak. When you wish to speak on an Agenda Item, click on “raise hand.” The Clerk will activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak. When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. A timer will be shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments. 3. Spoken public comments using a smart phone will be accepted  through the teleconference meeting. To address the Board, download the Zoom application onto your phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter the Meeting ID below. Please follow the instructions above. 4. Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the Board. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted. CLICK HERE TO JOIN    Meeting ID: 965 6189 1491   Phone: 1‐669‐900‐6833  Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329‐2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARDRegular MeetingThursday, October 05, 2023Council Chambers & Hybrid8:30 AMPursuant to AB 361 Palo Alto City Council meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with theoption to attend by teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safetywhile still maintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose toparticipate from home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe andparticipate in the meeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged ifattending in person. The meeting will be broadcast on Cable TV Channel 26, live onYouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen MediaCenter https://midpenmedia.org. Visit https://bit.ly/PApendingprojects to view project plansand details. Commissioner names, biographies, and archived agendas and reports are availableat https://bit.ly/paloaltoARB. VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/96561891491)Meeting ID: 965 6189 1491    Phone: 1(669)900‐6833PUBLIC COMMENTSPublic comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or anamount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutesafter the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance toarb@CityofPaloAlto.org and will be provided to the Board and available for inspection on theCity’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you are referencing in your subjectline.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified aspresent at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson's presentation will be allowed up tofifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking membersagree not to speak individually. The Chair may limit Public Comments to thirty (30) minutes forall combined speakers. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak for Study Sessions andAction Items to two (2) minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers.PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted onlyby email to arb@CityofPaloAlto.org at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Once received,the Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. To uphold strongcybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storage devices are notaccepted.CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALLPUBLIC COMMENT Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker.AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONSThe Chair or Board majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management.CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS1.Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2) Tentative FutureAgenda Items and 3) Recently Submitted Projects2.Staff Presentation Providing a Summary on State Housing Laws for Multi‐family HousingProjectsACTION ITEMSPublic Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Ten (10) minutes, plus ten (10) minutes rebuttal. All others: Three(3) minutes per speaker.3.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI‐JUDICIAL. 180 El Camino Real [23PLN‐00155]:Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Minor Architectural ReviewBoard Application to Allow Exterior Modifications, Including a Newly Designed Façade forthe Previously Approved Three‐Story, Stand Alone Building, “Restoration Hardware” atthe Stanford Shopping Center. No Modifications are Proposed to any Site Design Detailsand There is no Change of use. Zoning District: CC. Environmental Assessment: Exemptfrom CEQA per Section 15302 (Replacement or Reconstruction). Zoning District: CC(Community Commercial).4.At‐Places Memo Added   PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI‐JUDICIAL. 420 Acacia [23PLN‐00058]:Request for a Streamlined Housing Development Review to Allow the Construction of anApproximately 35,354 Square Foot (sf) Multi‐Family Project Consisting of 16 Two‐ andThree‐Bedroom Condominium Units in Four 2‐ and 3‐story Buildings on an Approximately0.8‐acre (35,753 sf) Parcel. The Project would replace a paved, 68‐space surface parkinglot. The Project includes two Units Provided at Below Market Rate and, Accordingly,Requests Concessions and Waivers Pursuant to State Density Bonus Law. A CompliantSenate Bill Pre‐Application was Submitted on January 4, 2023; Therefore, this Project isBeing Processed in Accordance with SB 330. Environmental Assessment: Exempt fromthe Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act in Accordance with CEQAGuidelines Section 15332 (in‐fill development). Zoning District: The Project Site has a Split Zoning Designation of RM‐30 (Multiple‐Family Residential) and R‐1 (Single‐Family Residential). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Claire Raybould at Claire.Raybould@cityofpaloalto.org. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 5.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for August 17, 2023 6.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for September 7, 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 Board, click on the link below to access a Zoom‐ based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully. You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in‐ browser. If using your browser, make sure you are using a current, up‐to‐date browser: Chrome 30, Firefox 27, Microsoft Edge 12, Safari 7. Certain functionality may be disabled in older browsers including Internet Explorer. You may be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify you that it is your turn to speak. When you wish to speak on an Agenda Item, click on “raise hand.” The Clerk will activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak. When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. A timer will be shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments. 3. Spoken public comments using a smart phone will be accepted  through the teleconference meeting. To address the Board, download the Zoom application onto your phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter the Meeting ID below. Please follow the instructions above. 4. Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the Board. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted. CLICK HERE TO JOIN    Meeting ID: 965 6189 1491   Phone: 1‐669‐900‐6833  Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329‐2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARDRegular MeetingThursday, October 05, 2023Council Chambers & Hybrid8:30 AMPursuant to AB 361 Palo Alto City Council meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with theoption to attend by teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safetywhile still maintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose toparticipate from home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe andparticipate in the meeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged ifattending in person. The meeting will be broadcast on Cable TV Channel 26, live onYouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen MediaCenter https://midpenmedia.org. Visit https://bit.ly/PApendingprojects to view project plansand details. Commissioner names, biographies, and archived agendas and reports are availableat https://bit.ly/paloaltoARB. VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/96561891491)Meeting ID: 965 6189 1491    Phone: 1(669)900‐6833PUBLIC COMMENTSPublic comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or anamount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutesafter the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance toarb@CityofPaloAlto.org and will be provided to the Board and available for inspection on theCity’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you are referencing in your subjectline.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified aspresent at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson's presentation will be allowed up tofifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking membersagree not to speak individually. The Chair may limit Public Comments to thirty (30) minutes forall combined speakers. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak for Study Sessions andAction Items to two (2) minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers.PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted onlyby email to arb@CityofPaloAlto.org at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Once received,the Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. To uphold strongcybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storage devices are notaccepted.CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALLPUBLIC COMMENT Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker.AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONSThe Chair or Board majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management.CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS1.Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2) Tentative FutureAgenda Items and 3) Recently Submitted Projects2.Staff Presentation Providing a Summary on State Housing Laws for Multi‐family HousingProjectsACTION ITEMSPublic Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Ten (10) minutes, plus ten (10) minutes rebuttal. All others: Three(3) minutes per speaker.3.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI‐JUDICIAL. 180 El Camino Real [23PLN‐00155]:Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Minor Architectural ReviewBoard Application to Allow Exterior Modifications, Including a Newly Designed Façade forthe Previously Approved Three‐Story, Stand Alone Building, “Restoration Hardware” atthe Stanford Shopping Center. No Modifications are Proposed to any Site Design Detailsand There is no Change of use. Zoning District: CC. Environmental Assessment: Exemptfrom CEQA per Section 15302 (Replacement or Reconstruction). Zoning District: CC(Community Commercial).4.At‐Places Memo Added   PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI‐JUDICIAL. 420 Acacia [23PLN‐00058]:Request for a Streamlined Housing Development Review to Allow the Construction of anApproximately 35,354 Square Foot (sf) Multi‐Family Project Consisting of 16 Two‐ andThree‐Bedroom Condominium Units in Four 2‐ and 3‐story Buildings on an Approximately0.8‐acre (35,753 sf) Parcel. The Project would replace a paved, 68‐space surface parkinglot. The Project includes two Units Provided at Below Market Rate and, Accordingly,Requests Concessions and Waivers Pursuant to State Density Bonus Law. A CompliantSenate Bill Pre‐Application was Submitted on January 4, 2023; Therefore, this Project isBeing Processed in Accordance with SB 330. Environmental Assessment: Exempt fromthe Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act in Accordance with CEQAGuidelines Section 15332 (in‐fill development). Zoning District: The Project Site has aSplit Zoning Designation of RM‐30 (Multiple‐Family Residential) and R‐1 (Single‐FamilyResidential). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Claire Raybould atClaire.Raybould@cityofpaloalto.org.APPROVAL OF MINUTESPublic Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.5.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for August 17, 20236.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for September 7, 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 Board, click on the link below to access a Zoom‐ based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully. You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in‐ browser. If using your browser, make sure you are using a current, up‐to‐date browser: Chrome 30, Firefox 27, Microsoft Edge 12, Safari 7. Certain functionality may be disabled in older browsers including Internet Explorer. You may be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify you that it is your turn to speak. When you wish to speak on an Agenda Item, click on “raise hand.” The Clerk will activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak. When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. A timer will be shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments. 3. Spoken public comments using a smart phone will be accepted  through the teleconference meeting. To address the Board, download the Zoom application onto your phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter the Meeting ID below. Please follow the instructions above. 4. Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the Board. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted. CLICK HERE TO JOIN    Meeting ID: 965 6189 1491   Phone: 1‐669‐900‐6833  Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329‐2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service. Item No. 1. Page 1 of 2 Architectural Review Board Staff Report From: Jonathan Lait, Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: October 5, 2023 Report #: 2309-2005 TITLE Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2) Tentative Future Agenda Items and 3) Recently Submitted Projects RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) review and comment as appropriate. BACKGROUND The attached documents are provided for informational purposes. The Board may review and comment as it deems appropriate. If individual Board members anticipate being absent from a future meeting, it is requested that this be brought to staff’s attention when considering this item. The first attachment provides a meeting and attendance schedule for the current calendar year. Also included are subcommittee assignments, which are assigned by the ARB Chair as needed. The second attachment is a Tentative Future Agenda that provides a summary of upcoming projects or discussion items. The hearing dates for these items are subject to change. The attachment also has a list of pending ARB projects and potential projects. Approved projects can be found on the City’s Building Eye webpage at https://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning. Any party, including the applicant, may request a hearing by the ARB on the proposed director’s decision(s) within the 10-day or 14-day appeal period by filing a written request with the planning division. There shall be no fee required for requesting such a hearing. However, there is a fee for appeals. Pursuant to 18.77.070(b)(5) any project relating to the installation of cabinets containing communications service equipment or facilities, pursuant to any service subject to Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 2.11, Chapter 12.04, Chapter 12.08, Chapter 12.09, Chapter 12.10, or Chapter 12.13 is not eligible for a request for hearing by any party, including the applicant. 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 Cancelled Rosenberg 7/20/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Cancelled 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 October 19, 2023 •616 Ramona: Preliminary Review for Proposed Addition November 2, 2023 •Local Advanced Water Purification System: First Formal as a Study Session •739 Sutter: Streamlined Housing Development Review for Replacement of 8 units with 12 units November 16, 2023 •North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan: Second Study Session 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 9/16/20 20PLN- 00202 CHODGKI 250 HAMILTON AV Bridge On-hold for redesign - Allow the removal and replacement of the Pope-Chaucer Bridge over San Francisquito Creek with a new structure that does not obstruct creek flow to reduce flood risk. The project will also include channel modifications. Environmental Assessment: The SFCJPA, acting as the lead agency, adopted a Final EIR on September 26, 2019. Zoning District: PF. __ Item 1 Attachment B-2023 Agenda and New Projects List     Packet Pg. 8     AR Major - Board Zone Change 12/21/21 21PLN- 00341 EFOLEY 660 University Mixed use ARB 1st formal 12/1/22 - Planned Community (PC), to Combine 3 Parcels (511 Byron St, 660 University Ave, 680 University Ave/500 Middlefield Rd), Demolish Existing Buildings (9,216 SF Office) and Provide a New Four Story Mixed-Use Building with Ground Floor Office (9,115 SF) and Multi-Family Residential (all floors) Including a Two Level Below-Grade Parking Garage. Proposed Residential Proposed Residential (42,189 SF) Will Include 65 Units (47 Studios, 12 1-Bedroom, 6 2-Bedroom). __ AR Major - Board 06/16/2022 22PLN- 00201 CHODGKI 739 SUTTER AV Housing Prelim 11/18/21, Formal Resubmitted 7/21, Tentative 11/2 ARB hearing- 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 __ Site and Design 10/27/2022 22PLN- 00367 CHODGKI 2501 EMBARCAD ERO WY Public Utility – Water Filtration Application Resubmitted 8/8/23; Tentative 11/2 ARB Hearing- Request for Site and Design Review to allow construction of a Local Advanced Water Purification System at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP). The proposed project will include the construction and operation of a membrane filtration recycled water facility and a permeate storage tank at the City’s RWQCP to improve recycled water quality and increase its use. Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: Public Facilities with Site and Design combining district (PF)(D). __ Zone Change 1/19/2023 23PLN- 00010 EFOLEY 800-808 SAN ANTONIO RD Housing 8/17 ARB; Waiting on resubmittal - 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 Major Architectural Review 1/04/2023 23PLN- 00058 CHODGKI 420 Acacia Residential- 16 units replacing surface NOI sent 3/7/23, October 5 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 Rosenberg, Hirsch Reported out 5/4 Item 1 Attachment B-2023 Agenda and New Projects List     Packet Pg. 9     parking lot Concessions and Waivers in Accordance with the State Density Bonus. The SB 330 pre-application was deemed compliant on February 2, 2023. Zone District: RM-30 and R-1. Environmental: Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 (infill development)— documented exemption currently under preparation. Major Architectural Review 3/22/23 23PLN- 00061 EFOLEY 702 Clara Street Housing – 3 units NOI sent 4/21. Waiting for revised plans. Request for Major Architectural Review and Individual Review to Allow the Construction of Three new two-Story homes approximately 1700sf Square Foot each, to be located on the same Lot, Subdivision Major Architectural Review 5/5/2023 23PLN- 00110 CHODGKI 3000 El Camino Office NOI Sent 6/6/23. Request for a Major Architectural Review to convert an existing 10,000 square foot movie theater into new office space. Zoning District: Planned Community (PC-4637 and 2533). Baltay, Thompson Major Architectural Review 6/8/2023 23PLN- 00136 23PLN- 00003 and - 00195 – SB 330 GSAULS 3150 El Camino Real Housing - 380 units NOI sent 7/6. Request for Major Architectural Review for construction of a 380-unit Multi-family Residential Rental Development with 10% Below Market Rate. The project includes a 456,347 square foot apartment building with a 171,433 square foot garage that extends to 84 feet in height. Staff is reviewing the project to ensure the requested concessions and waivers are in accordance with the State Density Bonus laws. Rosenberg, Hirsch Reported out 5/4 on SB 330 Rosenberg, Hirsch Reported out on 8/17 Minor Board Review 6/22/2023 23PLN- 00155 THARRIS ON 180 El Camino Real Retail NOI Sent 7/18. Resubmitted; Tentative October 5 ARB hearing. Exterior modification to previous planning entitlement for Restoration Hardware. Modifications include changes to plaster, metal color, and other minor architectural details. Zoning district: CC. Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (existing facilities) Major Architectural Review 6/22/2023 23PLN- 00160 GSAULS 3600 Middlefield Public Facility Prelim ARB 2/16. 8/3 1st Formal. Request for Major Architectural Review to allow the deconstruction of the existing Palo Alto Fire Station Number 4 and construction of a new 8,000SF fire station. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15302 (replacement) and 15303 (small construction). Zoning District: PF (Public Facility). Major Architectural Review 7/19/2023 23PLN- 00181 EFOLEY 824 San Antonio Road Housing – 16 senior units, 12 convalescen Submitted 7/19/23. Notice of Incomplete sent 8/20/23. Request for Major Architectural Review to allow the Demolition of an existing 2-Story office building and the new construction of a 4-Story private residential senior Item 1 Attachment B-2023 Agenda and New Projects List     Packet Pg. 10     t units living facility, including 15 independent dwelling units, 12 assisted living dwelling units and 1 owner occupied unit. Common space amenities on all floors, underground parking, and ground floor commercial space. Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: CS (Commercial Services). PC Amendment 8/9/2023 23PLN- 00202 EFOLEY 4075 El Camino Way Commercial — 14 additional assisted living units Submitted 8/9/23. Request for a Planned Community Zone Amendment to Allow New Additions to an existing Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility consisting of 121 Units. The New additions include 14 Additional Assisted Living Dwelling Units; 5 Studios and 9 One Bedrooms. The total Proposed 135 Units are for Assisted Living and for the elderly in need of day-to-day care for Memory Issues. Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: PC-5116 (Planned Community). Baltay, Chen reported out 6/1 Preliminary Architectural Review 8/29/2023 23PLN- 00231 CHODGKI 616 Ramona Commercial Submitted 8/29/23. Tentative 10/19 ARB hearing. Request for Preliminary Architectural Review to Allow the Partial Demolition and remodel of an Existing , 8,357 square foot, Commercial Building with the addition using TDR and exempt floor area earned from ADA Upgrades. Environmental Assessment: Not a Project. The Formal Application Will be Subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review. 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 SB 330 Pre- Application 07/07/2022 22PLN- 00227 23PLN- 00149 GSAULS 3400 EL CAMINO REAL Housing – 382 units Heard by Council on 9/19/22, SB 330/Builder’s Remedy application submitted 6/14/23, 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. __ 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 __ Item 1 Attachment B-2023 Agenda and New Projects List     Packet Pg. 11     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 Reported out 6/15 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 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 scheduled 9/11 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 reported out 8/17 SB 330 Pre- Application 5/3/2023 23PLN- 00107 GSAULS 3997 Fabian Housing – up to 350 units SB 330 Pre-Application - Request for a 292 or 350 unit apartment development in an 8 story structure. Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: GM (General Manufacturing). Chen, Hirsch reported out 8/17 Preliminary Architectural Review 7/6/2023 23PLN- 00171 CHODGKI 425 High Street Commercial Preliminary Hearing Held 9/7; waiting on formal application submittal. Request for Preliminary Architectural Review to provide feedback on a proposal to add a new 4th floor (2,632 square feet) for either a new office use (existing hotel to remain) or to provide eight new guest rooms to the existing three-story Hotel Keen structure. Environmental Assessment: Not a Project. Zoning District: CD-C (P) (Downtown Commercial-Community with Pedestrian Combining District). Item 1 Attachment B-2023 Agenda and New Projects List     Packet Pg. 12     Item 1 Attachment B-2023 Agenda and New Projects List     Packet Pg. 13     Item No. 3. Page 1 of 7 Architectural Review Board Staff Report From: Jonathan Lait, Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: October 5, 2023 Report #: 2309-2000 TITLE PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 180 El Camino Real [23PLN-00155]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Minor Architectural Review Board Application to Allow Exterior Modifications, Including a Newly Designed Façade for the Previously Approved Three- Story, Stand Alone Building, “Restoration Hardware” at the Stanford Shopping Center. No Modifications are Proposed to any Site Design Details and There is no Change of use. Zoning District: CC. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from CEQA per Section 15302 (Replacement or Reconstruction). Zoning District: CC (Community Commercial). RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s): 1. Consider the proposed façade modifications and recommend that the ARB continue the proposed project or recommend approval to the Director of Planning and Development Services EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The proposed project is a request for approval of a Minor Architectural Review application to allow for modifications to the previously approved façade of the three-story, standalone building for “Restoration Hardware”, a new retail tenant at the Stanford Shopping Center. The ARB recommended approval of the previous façade design and site plan for the Restoration Hardware building (19PLN-00110) on December 5, 2019, following multiple hearings which was then approved by the Director. The applicant is now proposing to revise the previously approved exterior façade of the Restoration Hardware building in an effort to achieve a more modern design. No changes are being proposed to the previously approved site design details. The project is subject to requirements outlined the Master Tenant Façade and Sign Program (MTFSP, 23PLN-00009). The MTFSP for the Stanford Shopping requires a Planning entitlement if any standalone building or tenant space that faces a public right-of-way proposes exterior changes. Major Architectural review is typically required for tenant spaces with outward facing Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 14     Item No. 3. Page 2 of 7 façades greater than 35 ft long. The proposed façade meets both thresholds. The original application was processed as a Major Architectural Review application. The proposed modifications to the previously approved design are being processed as a Minor Board level Architectural Review. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project is a Minor Architectural Review application to allow for exterior modifications, which includes a newly designed façade, for the previously approved “Restoration Hardware”, a new retail tenant at the Stanford Shopping Center. Requested Entitlements, Findings and Purview: The following discretionary application(s) are being requested: •Architectural Review – Major (AR): The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC 18.77.070. AR applications are reviewed by the ARB and recommendations are forwarded to the Planning & Community Environment Director for action within five business days of the Board’s recommendation. Action by the Director is appealable to the City Council if filed within 14 days of the decision. AR projects are evaluated against specific findings. All findings must be made in the affirmative to approve the project. Failure to make any single finding requires project redesign or denial. The findings to approve an AR application are provided in Attachment B. BACKGROUND Project Information Owner: The Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior University Architect: RH Architecture and Design Representative: Matthew Morgan – Kimley Horn and Associates Legal Counsel: N/A Property Information Address:180 El Camino Real Neighborhood:Stanford Shopping Center Lot Dimensions & Area:Various & 52.8 Acres 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; 50’’ height max. Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 15     Item No. 3. Page 3 of 7 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 Baylands Master Plan:Not Applicable El Camino Real Design Guidelines (1976 / 2002): Yes, 1976 Guidelines Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 16     Item No. 3. Page 4 of 7 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 ANALYSIS Following is staff’s analysis of the proposed project’s consistency with relevant plans, regulations and the findings for approval. Neighborhood Setting and Character The project is located within the Stanford Shopping Center in the northwestern portion of the site, just off Sand Hill Road and Shopping Center Way. The 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 site is surrounded by a hospital, retail, and multi-family uses. 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 Restoration Hardware building is currently under construction at the center and is located at an exterior facing location of the Stanford Shopping Center. The proposed project involves a façade over 35 ft in length and faces Sand Hill Road, and is therefore subject to a Minor Board Level Architectural Review. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans and Guidelines The Comprehensive Plan includes Goals, Policies, and Programs that guide the physical form of the City. The Comprehensive Plan provides the basis for the City’s development regulations used by City staff to regulate building and development and make recommendations on projects. Further, ARB Finding #1 requires that the design be consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the Stanford Shopping Center as a regional center with a land use designation of Community Commercial. The project includes a retail use within the shopping center, consistent with this land use designation. The project is also consistent with relevant policies in the Comprehensive Plan and, therefore, fulfills the goals of the Plan. The finding in Attachment B include a detailed review of the project’s consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 17     Item No. 3. Page 5 of 7 Zoning Compliance1 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. Staff performed a review of the proposed project’s consistency with applicable zoning standards. The project does not propose any change to the building envelope and does not add any outdoor uses. A draft spreadsheet of all Shopping Center building areas is currently undergoing review. As mentioned, no site plan changes are proposed to the shopping center, including any changes to access, circulation, and parking. Attachment B shows that the project is consistency with the zoning ordinance. Master Façade and Sign Program Compliance The project proposes materials consisting of plaster, metals and glass skylight, and glazing. While the proposed exterior façade materials are consistent with the “Acceptable Finishes” identified by the Master Tenant Façade and Sign Program for the center, the previously approved exterior façade materials consisting of smooth stucco, metals, glass skylight, glazing and green walls are more in line with the quality of architectural design expected at the Stanford center. The master program requires unique and distinctive contemporary designs with high quality materials and creative lighting. The proposed revisions to the building have removed a number of architectural details, including lighting sconces and green features from the building resulting in a more simplified design. Given the location of the building at a prominent intersection at the center, staff believes that the previously approved design is more consistent with the type of high quality expected at the Stanford Shopping Center and requests that the ARB provide input on the proposed revised materials. Staff also requests that the ARB provide input as to whether or not the building will still meet the requirements of the master program and the ARB findings, and whether the new design would be acceptable in place of the previously approved design. No signage is proposed under this project. Multi-Modal Access & Parking The project site has multi-modal access and parking which 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. Vehicle and bike parking requirements for Restoration Hardware were reviewed under the approved Macy’s Men’s Redevelopment Project (19PLN-00110). The current application does not propose to adjust the floor area of the building; therefore, the previously approved vehicle and bike parking counts are valid. Throughout the site there are pedestrian amenities such as outdoor seating areas, planters, fountains, interactive maps, pedestrian level lighting, and public art. Consistency with Application Findings The project is consistent with most of the required findings as shown in Attachment B. However, staff believe the project may be inconsistent with finding 3, as the new design removes architectural details from the originally approved design. As stated above, staff find the originally 1 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: bit.ly/PAZoningCode Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 18     Item No. 3. Page 6 of 7 approved design and materials to be more in line with the quality of architectural design expected at the Stanford center. The previously approved plans are available on the project website, a link to which is provided in Attachment C. While the proposed materials are consistent with the master program for the center, the project’s architectural design and new materials will need to be discussed so the ARB can determine whether or not they are acceptable. The improvements contribute to the exclusive retail, dining, and personal service experience of the Stanford Shopping Center. If the ARB determines that the proposed revisions are acceptable and decide to recommend approval to the Director of Planning and Development Services, staff has attached the previously adopted findings conditions of approval for the project in Attachment A, which would still be applicable to the project. However, Condition of Approval No. 1, Conformance with Plans, would be revised to update the date of the revised plan submittal as follows: CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS. Construction and development shall conform to the approved plans entitled, "Architectural Review Board Plans for Stanford Shopping Center,” uploaded to the Palo Alto Online Permitting Services Citizen Portal on September 25, 2023, on file with the Planning & Development Services Department, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California except as modified by these conditions of approval. 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 September 22, 2023, which is 12 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on September 20, 2023, which is 13 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 2 (Replacement or Reconstruction) exemption (CEQA Guidelines Section 15302) because the scope of work that is limited to exterior alterations to the façade of an existing building. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS The Architectural Review Board may: 2. Approve the project based on the previous conditions of approval or with modified findings or conditions; or 3. Continue the project to a date (un)certain; or Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 19     Item No. 3. Page 7 of 7 4. Deny the project with modified findings ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Previous Approval with Previously Adopted Findings and Conditions of Approval Attachment B: Zoning Comparison Table Attachment C: Project Plans AUTHOR/TITLE: Tamara Harrison Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 20     Item 3 Attachment A-Previous Approval with Adopted Findings and Conditions     Packet Pg. 21     Item 3 Attachment A-Previous Approval with Adopted Findings and Conditions     Packet Pg. 22     Item 3 Attachment A-Previous Approval with Adopted Findings and Conditions     Packet Pg. 23     Item 3 Attachment A-Previous Approval with Adopted Findings and Conditions     Packet Pg. 24     Item 3 Attachment A-Previous Approval with Adopted Findings and Conditions     Packet Pg. 25     Item 3 Attachment A-Previous Approval with Adopted Findings and Conditions     Packet Pg. 26     Item 3 Attachment A-Previous Approval with Adopted Findings and Conditions     Packet Pg. 27     Item 3 Attachment A-Previous Approval with Adopted Findings and Conditions     Packet Pg. 28     Item 3 Attachment A-Previous Approval with Adopted Findings and Conditions     Packet Pg. 29     Item 3 Attachment A-Previous Approval with Adopted Findings and Conditions     Packet Pg. 30     Item 3 Attachment A-Previous Approval with Adopted Findings and Conditions     Packet Pg. 31     Item 3 Attachment A-Previous Approval with Adopted Findings and Conditions     Packet Pg. 32     Item 3 Attachment A-Previous Approval with Adopted Findings and Conditions     Packet Pg. 33     Item 3 Attachment A-Previous Approval with Adopted Findings and Conditions     Packet Pg. 34     Item 3 Attachment A-Previous Approval with Adopted Findings and Conditions     Packet Pg. 35     Item 3 Attachment A-Previous Approval with Adopted Findings and Conditions     Packet Pg. 36     Item 3 Attachment A-Previous Approval with Adopted Findings and Conditions     Packet Pg. 37     Item 3 Attachment A-Previous Approval with Adopted Findings and Conditions     Packet Pg. 38     Item 3 Attachment A-Previous Approval with Adopted Findings and Conditions     Packet Pg. 39     Item 3 Attachment A-Previous Approval with Adopted Findings and Conditions     Packet Pg. 40     Item 3 Attachment A-Previous Approval with Adopted Findings and Conditions     Packet Pg. 41     Item 3 Attachment A-Previous Approval with Adopted Findings and Conditions     Packet Pg. 42     Item 3 Attachment A-Previous Approval with Adopted Findings and Conditions     Packet Pg. 43     Item 3 Attachment A-Previous Approval with Adopted Findings and Conditions     Packet Pg. 44     ATTACHMENT # ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 180 El Camino Real (Restoration Hardware), 23PLN-00155 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.16 (CC(2) DISTRICT) Exclusively Non-residential Development Standards Regulation Required Existing Proposed Minimum Site Area, width and depth No Requirement L-shaped lot, 34,384 sf. L-shaped lot, 34,384 sf. Minimum Front Yard (Park Boulevard) 0-10 feet to create an 8-12 foot effective sidewalk width (1), (2), (8) 3 ft. to create X sidewalk width Rear Yard No Requirement 10 ft. Street Side Yard (Sherman)No Requirement 10 ft. Street Side Yard (Grant)No Requirement 0 ft. and 13ft adjacent to residential Min. yard for lot lines abutting or opposite residential districts or residential PC districts 10 feet (2) 10 ft. at rear, 10ft on Sherman, 13 ft on Grant Build-to-lines 50% of frontage built to setback on Park Boulevard; 33% of side street built to setback on Grant Avenue (7) Complies Max. Site Coverage No Requirement 15,523 sf 29,681 sf Max. Building Height 50 feet (4)3 stories 3 stories Max. Floor Area Ratio (FAR)2.0:1 (68,768 sf)15,523 sf 51,945 sf 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 Item 3 Attachment B - CC Zoning Comparison Table     Packet Pg. 45     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 nearby residentially zoned property 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 CS 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 B - CC Zoning Comparison Table     Packet Pg. 46     Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) for Office* Type Required Existing Proposed Vehicle Parking 1/250 sf of office gross floor area for 193 parking spaces 1/200 sf of retail gross floor area for 20 parking spaces 213 total 5,256 spaces No change Bicycle Parking 1/2,500 sf (20% long term and 80% short term) equals 20 spaces for office 1/2,000 sf (20% long term and 80% short term) equals 2 spaces for retail 410 spaces (97 long term, 313 short) No change Loading Space 1 loading spaces for less than 100,000 sf ~25 loading spaces 1 on-street space * On-site employee amenity space is exempted from the parking requirements Item 3 Attachment B - CC Zoning Comparison Table     Packet Pg. 47     Attachment C Project Plans Project plans are only available to the public online. Hardcopies of the plans have been provided to Board members. Directions to review Project plans online: 1. Go to: bit.ly/PApendingprojects 2. Scroll down to find “180 El Camino” and click the address link for the project labeled Restoration Hardware 3. On this project specific webpage you will find a link to the project plans, the documented exemption and other important information Direct Link to Project Webpage: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Current- Planning/Projects/180-El-Camino-Real-Restoration-Hardware Materials Boards: Color and material boards will be available to view in chambers during the ARB hearing. Item 3 Attachment C- Project Plans     Packet Pg. 48     Item No. 4. Page 1 of 10 Architectural Review Board Staff Report From: Jonathan Lait, Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: October 5, 2023 Report #: 2309-1972 TITLE PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI-JUDICIAL. 420 Acacia [23PLN-00058]: Request for a Streamlined Housing Development Review to Allow the Construction of an Approximately 35,354 Square Foot (sf) Multi-Family Project Consisting of 16 Two- and Three-Bedroom Condominium Units in Four 2- and 3-story Buildings on an Approximately 0.8-acre (35,753 sf) Parcel. The Project would replace a paved, 68-space surface parking lot. The Project includes two Units Provided at Below Market Rate and, Accordingly, Requests Concessions and Waivers Pursuant to State Density Bonus Law. A Compliant Senate Bill Pre-Application was Submitted on January 4, 2023; Therefore, this Project is Being Processed in Accordance with SB 330. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act in Accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 (in-fill development). Zoning District: The Project Site has a Split Zoning Designation of RM-30 (Multiple-Family Residential) and R-1 (Single-Family Residential). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Claire Raybould at Claire.Raybould@cityofpaloalto.org. RECOMMENDATION Conduct a study session to provide feedback on whether minor adjustments to the application would result in closer adherence to the contextual design criteria/objective design standards contained in Chapter 18.24, Objective Standards, consistent with the streamlined review pursuant to 18.77.073 for housing development projects. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The proposed residential for-sale townhome project, located on a 0.8-acre parcel at 420 Acacia Avenue, includes 16 residential rental units, two of which are to be provided at below market rate. The project would replace a vacant surface parking lot. The applicant filed a compliant pre-application in accordance with Senate Bill 330 on January 4, 2023. Therefore, the project analysis is based on the applicable objective standards in place at the time the compliant SB 330 preapplication was submitted. Item 4 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 49     Item No. 4. Page 2 of 10 The project qualifies as a housing development project in accordance with the Housing Accountability Act. It qualifies, based on the percentage and income level restrictions on the provided units, for one concession as well as unlimited waivers, or changes to the objective development standards, to accommodate the development in accordance with the State Density Bonus allowances (California Government Code §65915) and PAMC Chapter 18.15. A location map for the proposed project is included in Attachment A and the project plans are included in Attachment H. The City, acting as the lead agency in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, determined that the project is categorically exempt from CEQA in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 (infill exemption). Documentation to support the exemption is also provided in Attachment H. BACKGROUND Project Information Owner:Acacia Camino Investors LLC Architect:Dahlin Group Representative:Dividend Homes Legal Counsel:Not Applicable Property Information Address:420 Acacia Avenue Neighborhood:North Ventura Lot Dimensions & Area:Approximately 278ft x 109ft Housing Inventory Site:Not Applicable (identified as pipeline project; see discussion below) Located w/in a Plume:Yes (see discussion below) Protected/Heritage Trees:Protected trees (see discussion below) Historic Resource(s):Not Applicable Existing Improvement(s):Surface parking lot Existing Land Use(s):Multi-family and Single-family split land use designation; existing use surface parking Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North: Single-family Residential (R-1 Zoning) West: Surface park and Cannery building (RM-30 Zoning) (area to be rezoned and redeveloped in accordance with the Sobrato Development Agreement) East: Surface Parking lot (CS Zoning) (to be redeveloped with 129- unit affordable multi-family development) South: Commercial Land Uses (retail, commercial rec) (CS Zoning) Aerial View of Property: Item 4 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 50     Item No. 4. Page 3 of 10 Source: Google Satellite Maps Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans Comp. Plan Designation:Split land use designation of Multi-family Residential and Single-family Residential (see project plans) Zoning Designation:Split zoning designation of RM-30 and R-1 (see project plans) Yes Yes Yes Baylands Master Plan/Guidelines (2008/2005) El Camino Real Guidelines (1976) Housing Development Project Downtown Urban Design Guidelines (1993) South El Camino Real Guidelines (2002) Utilizes Chapter 18.24 - Objective Standards Individual Review Guidelines (2005) Within 150 feet of Residential Use or District Context-Based Design Criteria applicable SOFA Phase 1 (2000)Within Airport Influence Area SOFA Phase 2 (2003) Prior City Reviews & Action City Council:None Item 4 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 51     Item No. 4. Page 4 of 10 PTC:None HRB:None ARB:None PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project is a request from Dividend Homes to construct a 16-unit, three-story, multi- family residential development on a 0.8-acre lot at 420 Acacia Avenue. The development would replace an existing surface parking lot. The project would utilize waivers, as allowed in accordance with State Density Bonus regulations. Two of the units would be deed restricted and sold at a rate affordable to moderate-incomes (80%-120% of Area Median Income); pursuant to 16.65 the remaining 0.4 fractional unit of the required 15% would be paid in-lieu. This parcel was recently created through a certificate of compliance (File # 22COC00002); a project location map showing the parcel is included in Attachment A. The project plans are included in Attachment H. The project is subject to streamlining in accordance with Senate Bill 330 as a qualifying Housing Development Project. Senate Bill (SB) 330, (Government Code Section 65943), created a preliminary application process ‘freezing’ local standards for this project at the time of application and limiting the number of public hearings to five hearings in total. Dividend Housing submitted a compliant pre-application on January 4, 2023. Parking for the proposed project would be provided in individual garages with two spaces per unit. The project includes open space in ground floor yards along the rear of the property for units abutting single family residential uses and on third-floor decks for all other units. Requested Entitlements, Findings and Purview: The following discretionary applications are being requested: •Streamlined Housing Development Review: The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC 18.77.073. Streamlined Housing Development Review applications require a study session with the ARB and recommendations are forwarded to the Planning & Development Services Director for action following the review. Action by the Director is appealable to the City Council if filed within 14 days of the decision. Streamlined Housing Development projects are evaluated against specific findings. Both of the findings must be made in the affirmative to approve the project. Failure to make any one finding requires project redesign or denial. Draft findings for this project are provided in Attachment B. ANALYSIS The proposed project has been analyzed for consistency with applicable plans, the municipal code, state law, and the findings for approval. Neighborhood Setting and Character The project is located within the North Ventura neighborhood within 0.5 mile of the California Avenue Caltrain Station and adjacent a high-quality transit corridor on El Camino Real. The site Item 4 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 52     Item No. 4. Page 5 of 10 abuts single-family residences to the north along Olive Avenue and commercial uses (e.g. retail and commercial recreation [equinox gym]) across Acacia Avenue. To the east, the Sobrato property (200-404 Portage) has been approved for redevelopment in accordance with a recently approved Development Agreement. Under the Development Agreement the portion of the former cannery building adjacent to 420 Acacia, part of which is currently occupied by Playground Global, would remain and continue to be occupied with the existing R&D tenants on the site. A parking structure would be developed adjacent to 420 Acacia, the ramp to which would connect to the shared driveway access at the east end of the site. To the west, a 129-unit affordable housing project has been approved to replace the surface parking lot between the subject property and El Camino Real. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans and Guidelines1 The Comprehensive Plan includes Goals, Policies, and Programs that guide the physical form of the City. The Comprehensive Plan provides the basis for the City’s development regulations and is used by City staff to regulate building and development and make recommendations on projects. Further, ARB Finding #1 requires that the design be consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the project site is split and includes Multiple- Family Residential and single family residential. Multi-family residential prescribes a density range of eight to 40 dwelling units per acre. The project has a density of 20 dwelling units per acre, which complies with the intended multiple-family residential density. In order to comply with the land use designations as they relate to this site as well as to maintain the rear daylight plan and to provide public and private open space between the buildings and adjacent single- family uses, all residences are located outside of the area designated as single-family residential land use. The project site was listed as a pipeline project for the purposes of the Housing Element in assessing the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation for the Cycle 6 Housing Element. Therefore, the proposed unit number and density aligns with the recently adopted Housing Element. On balance, the project is consistent with the policies in the Comprehensive Plan and therefore fulfills the goals of the Plan as well. A detailed review of the project’s consistency with the Comprehensive Plan is provided in Attachment B. North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan The City began planning for the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan in 2018. A draft vision of the North Ventura Coordinated area plan was circulated in May 2023 for public review. The Draft Plan envisions this site as a medium-density mixed-use site with ground floor retail uses. The anticipated floor area proposed for the site is 2.0 and maximum height is 45 feet. This 1 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online: bit.ly/PACompPlan2030 Item 4 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 53     Item No. 4. Page 6 of 10 project does not align with the vision of mixed-use for the site, but the proposed floor area and height as requested in accordance with the waivers is within the development standards that are anticipated for the site as part of the NVCAP process. State Density Bonus Law Compliance The project provides two of the 16 units (12.5%) as below-market rate affordable to a moderate-income level. In accordance with Chapter 16.65, one of these is required to be provided at 80-100% of AMI and one may be provided at 100-120% of AMI. Based on the percentage of units and affordability level provided, the project is a qualifying project in accordance with California Government Code §65915(b)(1)(D) which includes projects that sell at least 10% of the total dwelling units of a housing development to persons and families of moderate income, as defined in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code, provided that all units in the development are offered to the public for purchase. Under §65915(d)(2)(A) and PAMC §18.15.050(c)(iv), the project is also eligible for one concession or incentive. State density bonus law also allows for unlimited waivers. The applicant has requested the following waivers: •Site Coverage (49% where 40% is required) •Floor area (1.4:1 where 0.6:1 is required [note that total FAR for townhomes also deducts private streets from the net lot area]) •Front Setback (9.5 feet where 20 feet is required) •Height (44’-2” where 35’ is required) •Private Street Width (22’ where 32’ is required) •Finished floor height (2’ where 2’8” is required) •Allowances for fixtures (guardrail and stairs) to exceed the 45-degree angle from the edge of the building starting at the rooftop garden surface sloping upward and inward toward the center of the property. The applicant has also requested the following concession: •0% landscaping with raised beds for gardening on the rooftop deck where at least 15% but no more than 25% of the rooftop shall be landscaped with raised beds for gardening or other landscaping. Under state density bonus law, the City may request reasonable documentation that establishes eligibility for concessions and waivers; however, the City cannot require the preparation of a study or report and the burden is on the City to identify a basis to deny a requested concession or waiver. For concessions, the developer must provide documentation supporting the cost reduction achieved through the concession. For waivers, the applicant must provide documentation that explains why the development standard would physically preclude the project from being constructed at the proposed density. The applicant’s request for concessions and waivers and explanations for those are provided in Attachment F. In Item 4 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 54     Item No. 4. Page 7 of 10 general, the City must provide an unlimited number of waivers from development standards that would physically preclude the project from being built. For purposes of the Housing Accountability Act, the use of concessions and waivers under density bonus law is not a basis for finding the project inconsistent with the City’s objective standards. In other words, the City cannot deny a project for being inconsistent with a development standard if the applicant has requested a waiver or concession from that standard. Zoning Code Consistency2 A table summarizing the proposed project’s consistency with applicable RM-30 (PAMC 18.13) and R-1 (PAMC 18.12) zoning standards, as they relate to the respective portions of the site, is included in Attachment D. The proposed project complies with all applicable codes or is seeking, through the state density bonus provisions, permission to deviate from certain code standards in a manner that is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance and state density bonus law. Objective Design Standards The project is subject to the Objective Design Standards set forth in PAMC Section 18.24. A summary of each standard and how the project complies with that standard is provided in Attachment E. The project complies with all of the objective standards that apply to the project as set forth in the code, with the exception of the residential ground floor height. As noted above, the applicant has requested a waiver in accordance with state density bonus law to reduce the height of the first floor. The applicant has also stated that their assertion that two of the objective standards, related to the location of micro-mobility equipment and benches within a certain distance of a main entrance, is not uniformly verifiable because it’s unclear which entrance would constitute the main entrance; therefore, the applicant states that the standard would not be objective. Nevertheless, staff notes that bicycle parking and benches are required within the minimum distance from a pathway and/or main residential entrance; therefore, the project appears to comply. Opportunities to Improve Consistency/Address Public Comment Staff has identified areas where minor modifications or conditions of approval could be considered to improve compliance with the findings or consistency with the objective standards and/or to better address public comments. These include the following: •Improved screening between the trash enclosure and adjacent single-family residences •Addition of a bench adjacent the central walking path along the streetscape •Modifications to the mailbox location/materials •Landscaping on the rooftop open space 2 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: bit.ly/PAZoningCode Item 4 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 55     Item No. 4. Page 8 of 10 Improved screening The project appears to provide smaller shrubs between the trash enclosure and the adjacent residences. Staff recommends that improvements be made to provide better screening between the enclosure and the residences to better address neighbor concerns related to the visibility of the trash enclosure. The applicant should also consider making the fence seven feet in height instead of six feet along the rear to address visibility as well as stated concerns from the residents regarding security. Bench The applicant may consider adding a bench along the frontage to better activate the frontage and align more with the intent of the objective standard requirements for benches adjacent pedestrian paths or entrances. Mailbox The mailbox location needs to be revised prior to approval to be placed outside the required setback. The materials should be of higher quality (e.g. matching the façade materials). This appears to be easily achievable by swapping the location of the mailbox and a tree. This would also improve compliance with the objective standards by providing more trees along the frontage and more landscaping in general, consistent with the landscaped area requirements. Rooftop Open Space Although the applicant is requesting a concession from the 15% landscaping requirement for rooftop open space, staff would encourage the applicant to consider ways to provide planters on the rooftop or otherwise encourage future owners, such as through CC&Rs, to provide moveable planter boxes or similar to better meet the intent of the requirement. Multi-Modal Access & Parking The proposed project includes two curb cuts along Acacia Avenue, one for each of the private streets, both of which provide vehicular access to/from the site. On the western end of the site adjacent the cannery building, an ingress/egress easement provides access to both the subject property as well as the existing surface parking lot (proposed to become a parking garage) adjacent the cannery building. The transportation analysis considered the future anticipated conditions on the adjacent property in its analysis. There are no existing or proposed bike lanes along Acacia Avenue. However, planned bicycle lanes along Portage would connect into the recently approved public bicycle access from Ash Street to Park Boulevard across the Cannery site, providing a connection to the existing bicycle lanes along Park (planned to be a bicycle boulevard) which connect across Oregon Expressway to California Avenue and the California Avenue Caltrain Station. The project provides a 5-foot sidewalk width and 4.5 feet of landscaped area, maintaining existing conditions. The existing single street tree would be replaced with seven new street trees. The overhead lines along this frontage will be undergrounded. Item 4 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 56     Item No. 4. Page 9 of 10 Each unit includes two vehicular parking spaces, two long-term bicycle parking spaces, and two short term bicycle parking spaces, meeting or exceeding the code requirements. Consistency with Application Findings Overall staff finds the project to be consistent with the findings for approval of a streamlined housing development, as set forth in PAMC Section 18.77 and, with approval of the requested concession and waivers in accordance with state density bonus allowances and PAMC 18.15, consistent with the zoning code. The requested concession and waivers would not have an adverse impact upon public health and safety. As noted throughout the report, there are some opportunities for minor modifications to the plan to improve consistency with the context-based design criteria/objective standards. Staff would recommend that any minor changes to the design be incorporated into the final plan set prior to issuance of a decision or otherwise incorporated as a condition of approval of the project. 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 September 22, which is 12 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on September 20, which is 14 days in advance of the meeting. Public Comments The applicant met with local residents on Olive to obtain feedback on the proposed design. A summary of the meeting was provided by a local resident to the planning staff following the meeting; a copy of which is included in Attachment G. Key comments included: •Concerns about the placement of the trash enclosure due to noise/smell •Request from one resident to meet directly with the landscape architect to discuss plantings along the rear of the property •Request to resolve the drainage issue on neighboring properties and to remove the soil berm along the rear of the property for drainage and security •Request to extend the 8-foot high concrete block wall from the Sobrato property along the rear of this property as well The applicant’s architect reached out to the local resident to discuss the landscaping directly but did not receive a response. The project as designed removes the berm along the rear of the property consistent with the resident’s request to help improve safety. The applicant has chosen not to extend the concrete wall, but staff recommends that the applicant consider increasing the height of the fence by a foot to help better address the neighbor’s comment. The project is designed in a manner that ensures that the drainage conditions along the rear of the property maintain or otherwise improve existing conditions by continuing to capture any runoff Item 4 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 57     Item No. 4. Page 10 of 10 to the subject property as well as improving on-site conditions to capture stormwater runoff from the subject property. With respect to the trash enclosure, although a different location was not proposed, staff notes that the bins would not be serviced from the site and instead would be brought out by a property manager to the curb for pickup, reducing noise levels at the rear of the site. The trash is located within an enclosure as required in accordance with the municipal code. As recommended in this report, increasing the fence height and improving planting between the fence the enclosure would help to better screen this enclosure from the neighbors. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. Specifically, the project is exempt from the provisions of the California environmental Quality Act in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 (in- fill development). The documentation to support this exemption is included in Attachment H. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Location Map Attachment B: Architectural Review Findings for Approval Attachment C: Conditions of Approval Attachment D: Zoning Consistency Analysis Attachment E: Objective Standards Consistency Analysis Attachment F: Requested Waivers Summary Attachment G: Written Public Comments Attachment H: Project Plans and Environmental Analysis AUTHOR/TITLE: Claire Raybould, AICP, Senior Planner Item 4 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 58     199.7' 50.0' 50.0' 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' 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' 5 50.0' 119.7' 119.7' 65.7' 119.7' 65.6' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 19.7' 50.0' 50.0' 119.7' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 0.0' 119.7' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0'50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 47.9' 200.0' 72.6' 200.0' 72.6' 148.7' 51.0' 200.0' 199.7' 165.4 85.1 34.6 150.0' 50.0' 1 149.7' 149.7' 50.0' 85.1 30.0' 18.0' 190.0' 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' 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' 3159 411 435 425 435 3200 455 395 385 375 365 412 420 430 440 450 421 411 2904 456 470 3051 3225 451 441 431 421 411 405 399 34 370 380 461 3017 3001 3127 3111 440 360 429 3101 AC ACIA A V E NU E PORTAGE AVENUE OLIVE AVENUE REET EL CAMINO REALEL CAMINO REAL 1 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 0'115' Attachment A: Location Map 420 Acacia 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, 2023-09-25 10:33:15 (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) R-1 RM-30 CS Item 4 Attachment A-Location Map     Packet Pg. 59     ATTACHMENT B ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL In order for the ARB to make a future recommendation of approval, the project must comply with the following Findings for Architectural Review as required in Chapter 18.76.020 of the PAMC. Finding #1: The application complies with all applicable and objective standards in the Comprehensive Plan, the Palo Alto Municipal Code, and other City plans or policies. The proposed project complies with all applicable and objective standards in the Comprehensive Plan and the Palo Alto Municipal Code as detailed in the staff report and in Attachments C, Zoning Consistency, and D, Objective Standards Consistency, except where waivers or concessions are requested pursuant to state density bonus law. In accordance with The Housing Accountability Act as set forth in California Government Code 65589.5(j)(3), the receipt of a density bonus, incentive, concession, waiver, or reduction of development standards pursuant to Section 65915 shall not constitute a valid basis on which to find a proposed housing development project is inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity, with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision. Therefore, for the project is compliant with the objective standards. A summary of the project’s consistency with the Comprehensive Plan is provided in this table. The project is required to comply with the Comprehensive Plan to the extent that the requirements are objective. 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 split between Service Commercial, Multi-family Residential, and Single-Family Residential The project adheres to the Comprehensive Plan by providing multi-family housing in a transit-oriented area. Housing Element Policy 4.3 Implement development standards, objective design standards, and architectural and green building standards that encourage new high-quality rental and ownership housing. The project complies with the implemented standards except where requests for waivers or concessions in accordance with state density bonus law is provided. Land Use and Community Design Element Policy L-2.8: When considering infill development, work to minimize the displacement of existing residents The project Is an infill project that does not displace any existing residents because it replaces a surface parking lot Item 4 Attachment B - Streamlined Housing Findings for Approval     Packet Pg. 60     Policy L-9.2 Encourage development that creatively integrates parking into the project, including by locating it behind buildings or underground wherever possible, or by providing for shared use of parking areas. Encourage other alternatives to surface parking lots that minimize the amount of land devoted to parking while still maintaining safe streets, street trees, a vibrant local economy and sufficient parking to meet demand. The project incorporates the parking into each unit and does not include a surface parking lot. Policy L-9.4 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 maintains sidewalks and improves the streetscape with landscape planting and trees on both sides of the sidewalk. Transportation Element Policy T-3.7 Encourage pedestrian-friendly design features such as sidewalks, street trees, on-street parking, gathering spaces, gardens, outdoor furniture, art and interesting architectural details. The project includes direct connections to the sidewalk that help to activate the frontage along Acacia in addition to new street trees and plantings. Policy T-3.9 Support citywide sustainability efforts by preserving and enhancing the tree canopy where feasible within the public right-of-way, consistent with the Urban Forest Management Plan, as amended. The project meets the tree canopy replacement requirements through on and off-site planting as well as in-lieu fees and improves the public ROW plantings with 7 new street trees where only one exists currently. Finding #2: Approving the application will not result in a specific, adverse, impact upon the public health or safety, which cannot feasibly be mitigated or avoided in a satisfactory manner. As used in this Section, a "specific, adverse impact" means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete. The proposed project would not result in a specific, adverse, impact upon public health or safety. The project complies with all applicable safety requirements with respect to fire safety for the building itself (e.g. ladder access, sprinklers) as well as emergency vehicle access. The traffic report concluded that the project would not create any conflicts with respect to traffic safety. Item 4 Attachment B - Streamlined Housing Findings for Approval     Packet Pg. 61     Start to Standard Conditions for Planners – updated 10/2018 PLANNING DIVISION 1. CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS. Construction and development shall conform to the approved plans entitled, "Acacia Avenue Palo Alto, California Major Architectural Review” stamped as received by the City on September 6, 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. LANDSCAPE PLAN. Plantings shall be installed in accordance with the approved plan set and shall be permanently maintained and replaced as necessary. 6. NOISE THRESHOLDS ON RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. In accordance with PAMC Section 9.10.030, No person shall produce, suffer or allow to be produced by any machine, animal or device, or any combination of same, on residential property, a noise level more than six dB above the local ambient at any point outside of the property plane. 7. OPEN AIR LOUDSPEAKERS (AMPLIFIED MUSIC). In accordance with PAMC Section 9.12, no amplified music shall be used for producing sound in or upon any open area, to which the public has access, between the hours of 11:00pm and one hour after sunrise. 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 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. CALIFORNIA-OLIVE-EMERSON (COE) PLUME AREA. For projects within the California-Olive-Emerson (COE) Plume area, which are known to be subject to risk of vapor intrusion, the applicant shall assess site Item 4 Attachment C-Draft Conditions of Approval     Packet Pg. 62     conditions to determine both the nature and extent of contamination. If contamination at the site exceeds the most current environmental screening levels (ESLs) identified by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) for volatile organic compounds, the applicant shall prepare and submit a Site Management and Contingency Plan (SMCP) to either the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), RWQCB, or the County of Santa Clara Department of Environmental Health for approval. The SMCP shall include details regarding the pending development and propose remediation and/or mitigation to address any environmental risk identified in the site assessment. The applicant shall agree to and implement all recommendations of the reviewing regulatory agency approving the SMCP in order to reduce the exposure of future occupants to vapor intrusion. If the reviewing agency requires that a vapor intrusion barrier system be installed, the VIMs shall be document in the building permit plan set prior to issuance of the building permit. Post construction indoor air monitoring shall be conducted for any VIMS systems and shall comply with the specific recommendations set forth by the regulatory agency approving the SMCP. 11. 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. 12. TREATMENT OF BURIED ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES. DESIGN FEATURES. Key aspects of the project’s design features and construction were designed to avoid impacts to sensitive habitat and species within the project area. Therefore, as outlined in the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project, the following parameters shall be observed for project design and construction: •To avoid disturbing nesting Ridgway’s rails, construction will be restricted to the non-nesting season of September 1st through January 31st… no work will be allowed during extreme high tides. •Contractor will utilize the existing boardwalk as a staging platform to construct the new boardwalk… The new piles/posts will be located outboard of the existing boardwalk footprint, which will facilitate installation from the existing boardwalk. Old piles/posts would be cut at ground level and left in place. Pile-driving will not occur ... Staining of natural wood will be performed at a staging platform to prevent chemicals from entering the Baylands. •Since only hand-held tools and smaller materials … The mats would be used because they distribute weight and prevent excessive sediment disturbance and mobilization. •Construction personnel will be restricted to the existing boardwalk and marsh mats. •Area trails would remain open and the Interpretive Center would remain in use during construction. 13. REFUSE. All trash areas shall be 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. Trash enclosure can only be used to store refuse (garbage, recycling, and compost) and not for other storage. 14. BELOW MARKET RATE (BMR) HOUSING. This project is proposed as a state density bonus project and is also subject to the affordable housing requirements set forth in Section 16.65.030 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. In accordance with the City’s requirements and the proposed project in accordance with state density bonus law, the project is required to contain no less than two (2) below market rate units and to pay the additional remaining in-lieu fees for the fractional unit. A Regulatory Agreement in a form acceptable to the City Attorney for the two (2) BMR units shall be executed and recorded prior to final map approval or Item 4 Attachment C-Draft Conditions of Approval     Packet Pg. 63     building permit issuance, whichever occurs first. In addition, the payment for the 0.4 fractional unit, estimated at _____________, shall be paid to the Residential Housing Fund prior to issuance of any building permits for the project; provided, however, that prior to issuance of the first building permit for the project, the applicant may elect to provide one additional inclusionary unit instead of paying the fractional in lieu payment (PAMC Section 16.65.060). All BMR units constructed under this condition shall be in conformance with the City’s BMR Program rules and regulations. Failure to comply with the timing of this condition and any adopted BMR Program rules and regulations shall not waive its later enforcement. 15. ESTIMATED IMPACT FEE. Development Impact Fees, currently estimated in the amount of $_______ plus the applicable public art fee, per PAMC 16.61.040, shall be paid prior to the issuance of the related building permit. 16. IMPACT FEE 90-DAY PROTEST PERIOD. California Government Code Section 66020 provides that a project applicant who desires to protest the fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions imposed on a development project must initiate the protest at the time the development project is approved or conditionally approved or within ninety (90) days after the date that fees, dedications, reservations or exactions are imposed on the Project. Additionally, procedural requirements for protesting these development fees, dedications, reservations and exactions are set forth in Government Code Section 66020. IF YOU FAIL TO INITIATE A PROTEST WITHIN THE 90-DAY PERIOD OR FOLLOW THE PROTEST PROCEDURES DESCRIBED IN GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66020, YOU WILL BE BARRED FROM CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OR REASONABLENESS OF THE FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS, AND EXACTIONS. If these requirements constitute fees, taxes, assessments, dedications, reservations, or other exactions as specified in Government Code Sections 66020(a) or 66021, this is to provide notification that, as of the date of this notice, the 90-day period has begun in which you may protest these requirements. This matter is subject to the California Code of Civil Procedures (CCP) Section 1094.5; the time by which judicial review must be sought is governed by CCP Section 1094.6. 17. ENTITLEMENT EXPIRATION. The project approval shall be valid for a period of two years from the date of issuance of the entitlement. If within such two-year period, the proposed use of the site or the construction of buildings has not commenced, the Planning entitlement shall expire. Application for a one-year extension of this entitlement may be made prior to expiration. 18. 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. 19. INDEMNITY. To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City for its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice. PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING Item 4 Attachment C-Draft Conditions of Approval     Packet Pg. 64     20. 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 21. 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. 22. STREETWORK PERMIT: The applicant shall obtain a Streetwork Permit from the Department of Public Works for all public improvements. 23. 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.” 24. 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. 25. STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION: All improvement plan sets shall include the “Pollution Prevention – It’s Part of the Plan” sheet. 26. 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. 27. Submit the following as part of the building permit application: a. Stamped and signed C.3 data form (April 2023 version) from SCVURPPP. https://scvurppp.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/SCVURPPP-C.3-Data-Form-_-updated__4- 12-2023_clean_fillable.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. 28. C.3 STORMWATER AGREEMENT: The applicant shall enter into a Stormwater Maintenance Agreement with the City to guarantee the ongoing maintenance of the permanent storm water pollution prevention measures. The City will inspect the treatment measures yearly and charge an inspection fee. The agreement shall be executed by the applicant team prior to building permit final. 29. C.3 FINAL THIRD PARTY CERTIFICATION PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY: Within 45 days of the installation of the required storm water treatment measures and prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit for the building, Item 4 Attachment C-Draft Conditions of Approval     Packet Pg. 65     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. TRANSPORTATION 30. PARKING RESTRICTION SIGNAGE. Due to the width of Acacia Avenue, on-street parking may need to be restricted to one side of the street for all or a portion of the roadway segment along the project frontage. Trash pick-ups and loading zones can be allowed. Applicant shall install required parking restriction signs and loading zone signs as part of the project. The parking restriction signage plan shall be reviewed by the Office of Transportation as part of the building permit application. WASTE-GAS-WATER 31. UTILITY DISCONNECT. Prior to issuance of a demolition permit 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. 32. SERVICE CONNECTION APPLICATION. At the time of building permit application 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. 33. UTILITY IMPROVEMENT PLANS. At the time of building permit application the applicant shall also 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 ductbank to verify 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. 34. AUXILIARY WATER SUPPLY. On the building permit and relevant utility applications, 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.). 35. UTILITY LATERALS AND MAINS. The applicant shall be responsible for installing and upgrading the existing utility mains and/or services, laterals as necessary to handle anticipated peak loads. This responsibility includes all costs associated with the design and construction for the installation/upgrade of the utility mains and/or services/laterals. 36. RPPA. 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 Item 4 Attachment C-Draft Conditions of Approval     Packet Pg. 66     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. 37. RPDA. 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. 38. BACKFLOW PREVENTER. 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. 39. CAPACITY FEES. Prior to building permit issuance, 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. 40. FIRE WATER LATERAL. A new water service line installation for fire system usage is required. Show the location of the new water service on the building permit plans. The applicant shall provide the engineering department with a copy of the plans for the fire system including all fire department's requirements. 41. LATERAL AND METERS. Each unit or building shall have its own water meter shown on the plans. Each parcel shall have its own water service and sewer lateral connection shown on the plans. 42. SEWER LATERAL. A new sewer lateral is required, and a profile of the sewer lateral is required showing any possible conflicts with electric/communications duct banks or other utilities. 43. WATER LATERAL. All existing water and wastewater services/laterals that will not be reused shall be abandoned at the main per the latest WGW utilities standards. 44. SEPARATION. Utility vaults, transformers, utility cabinets, concrete bases, or other structures cannot be placed over existing water, gas, or wastewater mains/services. Maintain 1’ horizontal clear separation from the vault/cabinet/concrete base to existing utilities as found in the field. If there is a conflict with existing utilities, Cabinets/vaults/bases shall be relocated from the plan location as needed to meet field conditions. Trees may not be planted within 10 feet of existing water, gas, and wastewater mains/laterals/water services/or meters. New water or wastewater services/laterals/meters may not be installed within 10’ of existing trees. Maintain 10’ between new trees and new water and wastewater services/laterals/meters except as otherwise approve in conjunction with utilities and urban forestry. 45. COPY OF PLANS. 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. 46. METER LAYOUT. Domestic water meter layout: The applicant needs to provide an estimated domestic water load in G.P.M. to design the water service and meter size. A 3" or 4” water meter will require a 4'x8' water meter set with a 2" by-pass per DWG. NO. WD-04. The vault shall be located on private property inside a public utility easement. The applicant's engineer shall obtain, prepare, and record with the county of Santa Item 4 Attachment C-Draft Conditions of Approval     Packet Pg. 67     Clara, and provide the utility engineering section with copies of the public utilities easement on the front of the property adjacent to the City right of way at the water point of service. 47. UTILITY INSTALLATIONS. All utility installations shall be in accordance with the City of Palo Alto utility standards for water, gas, & wastewater PUBLIC WORKS ELECTRIC UTILITIES 48. EXTEND THE JOINT TRENCH. Extend the Joint trench up to Manhole 1636. With this scheme, the No. 6 box would not be needed. There would also be no need for a down guy. It is not advisable to maintain one span of overhead primary line. 49. DOWN GUY. If a down guy cannot be installed at the proposed transition pole from Overhead to underground at 380 Portage, explore the possibility of undergrounding of electric lines to the next pole and install down guy from said pole. The existing primary cable is 556 kcmil and it is not advisable to slack span said cable given the existing pole spacing. PUBLIC WORKS ZERO WASTE 50. TRASH ENCLOSURE DESIGN AND SERVICING. The trash enclosure shall comply with the trash enclosure area guidelines. Any modifications to the propose trash enclosure shall require Zero Waste review and approval. Containers must be brought out to the street or any area within 25 feet of the service area or charges will apply. All service area around the refuse enclosure must have a clearance height of 20 feet for bin services. The path-of-travel must have a 22’ wide access (ingress and egress) with a 16’ tall overhead clearance along the full path and a 12’ wide impervious path-of-travel. Identify the waste bin service area path-of-travel if different from location of waste enclosure. The path-of-travel must be unobstructed (bins be able to roll without obstacles or jumping curbs). 51. DISPOSAL FACILITY REQUIREMENTS. If your scope of work includes internal and external bins then cut-sheets for the color-coded internal and external containers, related color-coded millwork, and it’s colored signage must be included in the building plans prior to receiving approval from Zero Waste in accordance with PAMC 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 community room, outdoor family 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 worth of color-coding, 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. Copy area must have either a recycle bin only or all three refuse receptacles (green compost, blue recycle, and black landfill container). Mother’s room must minimally have a green compost 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 WATER QUALITY Item 4 Attachment C-Draft Conditions of Approval     Packet Pg. 68     52. TRASH ENCLOSURE DESIGN FOR STORMWATER. In compliance with PAMC 16.09.180(b)(10) Dumpsters for New buildings and residential developments providing centralized solid waste collection, except for single- family and duplex residences, shall provide a covered area for a dumpster. The area shall be adequately sized for all waste streams and designed with grading or a berm system to prevent water runon and runoff from the area. Please provide a standard detail drawing of the trash enclosure area. Item 4 Attachment C-Draft Conditions of Approval     Packet Pg. 69     ATTACHMENT D ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 420 Acacia Avenue, 23PLN-00058 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.13 (RM-30 DISTRICT) Regulation Required Existing Proposed Minimum/Maximum Site Area, Width and Depth 8,500 sf area, 70 foot width, 100 foot depth 35,573 sf (0.80 acres) RM-30 Portion (30,615 sf) R-1 Portion (4,958 sf) No Change to lot boundaries; net lot area reduced from 35,573 sf to 28,064 sf with introduction of private streets Minimum Front Yard (2) 20 feet Parking lot 9.5 feet (requested waiver) Rear Yard 10 feet for RM-30 zoning 20 feet for R-1 zoning Parking lot 20 feet Interior Side Yard 6 feet Parking lot 10 feet adjacent 3001 El Camino Real; 19’1” adjacent 380 Portage Avenue Street Side Yard 16 feet Not applicable Not applicable Special Setback Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Max. Building Height 35 feet Parking lot 44’ 2” Side Yard Daylight Plane 10 feet at interior side lot line then 45 degree angle Not Applicable Complies Rear Yard Daylight Plane 10 feet at rear setback line then 45 degree angle Not Applicable Complies Max. Site Coverage 40% of 30,615 sf 35% of 4,958 sf Total for site: 12,246+1,735=13,981 sf Parking lot 51% of site (15,591 sf); 49% of RM-30 zone (15,112 sf); 10% of R-1 Zone Max. Total Floor Area Ratio 0.6:1 (16,838 sf) for RM-30* 45% of first 5,000 sf (2,243) Total for site: 19,081 sf Parking lot .09:1 (479 sf for R-1) 1.18:1 (33,354 sf for RM- 30) Total for site=33,833 sf (roughly 1.2:1) of the site as a whole Minimum Site Open Space 30% (9,185 sf) for RM-30 Not Applicable for R-1 Not Applicable 38% (13,593 sf) Minimum Usable Open Space 150 sf per unit (2,400 sf)Not Applicable 8,647 sf Minimum Common Open Space 75 sf per unit (1,200 sf)Not Applicable 2,546 sf Minimum Private Open Space 50 sf per unit (800 sf)Not Applicable 1,715 sf provided as private yards; 4,386 sf as roof decks (266 sf to 1,700 sf per unit) Item 4 Attachment D-Zoning Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 70     * Based on net lot area (deducting private streets) Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking) for Multiple-Family Residential Type Required Proposed Vehicle Parking 2 spaces per unit, of which at least one space per unit must be covered. 34 spaces required 34 spaces Bicycle Parking 1 space per unit (long term) and 1 space per 10% of units (Short term) =16 long-term; 2 short-term required 34 long-term spaces; 4 short-term spaces provided Table 3: ACCESSORY STRUCTURE COMPLIANCE 18.12.080 for Single-Family Residential Zoning Regulation Standard Proposed Height 12’12’ Daylight plane 8’ at property line; 1 foot up for every 3 feet Complies Setback An accessory building shall not be located in a required interior side or rear yard unless the building is placed at least seventy-five feet from the front lot line 110’ Plumbing fixtures No accessory building greater than 200 square feet in size shall have more than two plumbing fixtures. Accessory buildings shall not be allowed to be turned into habitable space nor shall these structures be allowed to have showers (indoor or outdoor), gas lines, washer/dryers, and/or cooking facilities to be provided inside or attached to the structure, unless the structure is proposed as an ADU/JADU that satisfies all requirements of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. Complies (no fixtures) Rear yard coverage Accessory buildings located within a required interior yard, as permitted by this section, shall not individually or cumulatively occupy an area exceeding fifty percent of the required rear yard. Complies Item 4 Attachment D-Zoning Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 71     City of Palo Alto Objective Design Standards: Checklist Page 1 Objective Design Standards Checklist The Objective Design Standards Checklist is a tool to evaluate a project’s compliance with the Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 18.24). The Checklist is not the Zoning Ordinance. Applicants shall be responsible for meeting the standards in the Zoning Ordinance. To simplify evaluation of the Zoning Ordinance, language in the Checklist may vary from the Zoning Ordinance. If a standard is not applicable to applicant’s project, please write N/A in Applicant’s Justification column. 18.24.020 Public Realm/Sidewalk Character Check Standard Sheet #Applicant’s Justification (b)(1)(A) Public Sidewalks - Sidewalk Design 1. In the following districts/locations, sidewalk width (curb to back of walk) is at least: •Commercial Mixed-Use District: CN, CS, CC, CC(2), CD-C, CD-S, CD-N, PTOD: 10 ft. •El Camino Real: 12 ft. •San Antonio Road, from Middlefield Road to East Charleston Road: 12 ft And consists of: Not Applicable (RM-30 zone district) a. Pedestrian clear path length (8 feet minimum): ______ feet N/A ☐ b. Landscape or furniture area length (2 feet minimum): ______ feet N/A ☐ 2. If the existing public sidewalk does not meet the minimum standard, a publicly accessible extension of the sidewalk, with corresponding public access easement, shall be provided. Not Applicable (b)(1)(B) & (C) Pathways ☐1. Publicly accessible sidewalks or walkways connecting through a development parcel (e.g., on a through lot) are at least 6 feet wide. Not Applicable (no publicly accessible sidewalks are proposed on the parcel) 2. Walkways designed to provide bicycle access are at least 8 feet wide, consisting of:Not Applicable, no bicycle paths are proposed on or off-site☐ a. Pedestrian clear path width (8 feet min.): ____ ft. Item 4 Attachment E-Objective Standards Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 72     City of Palo Alto Objective Design Standards: Checklist Page 2 b. Clear space/buffer (2 feet min. on each side of path): ____ ft. & ____ ft. Check Standard Sheet #Applicant’s Justification (B)(2) Street Trees 1. One street tree provided for every 30 linear feet of sidewalk length and located within 6 feet of the sidewalk. A.6 The applicant responded that this objective standard would not apply. Staff believes that this would apply; however, the project provides seven new street trees and 5 new trees on site within 6 feet of the sidewalk and therefore complies with this requirement. a. Sidewalk frontage length: 278 linear feet b. Street Trees required: 8 tree(s) ☐ c. Street Trees provided: 7 tree(s) in public ROW, 5 within 6 feet of sidewalk along the frontage A.6 Complies (B)(3) Accent Paving 1. Parcels abutting University Avenue between Alma Street and Webster include accent paving along the project frontages, as indicated below: Not Applicable, not located within this area. a. Brick paving at corners ☐ b. Brick trim mid-block ☐2. Parcel abutting California Avenue between El Camino Real and Park Blvd include decorative glass accent paving along project frontages Not Applicable, not abutting California Avenue. (B)(4) Mobility Infrastructure Pic k O n e ☒1. On-site micromobility infrastructure is located within 30 feet of the primary building entry or within a path leading to the primary building entry; OR A.6 The applicant states that the requirement is not objective because subjective judgement is required to determine where micromobility infrastructure is required and what constitutes a Item 4 Attachment E-Objective Standards Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 73     City of Palo Alto Objective Design Standards: Checklist Page 3 ☒1. Primary building entries shall provide at least one seating area or bench within 30 feet of building entry and/or path leading to building entry; OR A.6 The applicant states that the requirement is not objective because subjective judgement is required to determine where micromobility infrastructure is required and what constitutes a primary building entry and neither are uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark. Additionally the project has multiple entries. Nevertheless, staff notes that benches are provided within 30 feet of a primary building entry as well as a path leading to that entry. Therefore, the project complies. Pic k O n e ☐2. Existing seating areas or benches are already located in the public right-of-way within 50 feet of the building entry.Not Applicable primary building entry and neither are uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark since the project has multiple entries. Nevertheless, staff notes that bike racks are provided within 30 feet of a primary building entry as well as a path leading to that entry. Therefore, the project complies. ☐2. Existing micromobility infrastructure is already located within 50 feet of project site, and located in a public right-of-way.Not Applicable (B)(4) Seating Item 4 Attachment E-Objective Standards Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 74     City of Palo Alto Objective Design Standards: Checklist Page 4 18.24.030 Site Access Check Standard Sheet #Applicant’s Justification (B)(1) Through Lots ☒ 1. Through lots located more than 300 feet from an intersecting street or pedestrian walkway include a publicly accessible sidewalk or pedestrian walkway connecting the two streets. Not Applicable (B)(2) Building Entries ☒1. Entries to Primary Building Entries are located from a public right-of-way A.6 Entries are proposed along public right-of-way and from a pedestrian walkway leading from the public right-of-way. (B)(3) Vehicle Access ☒1. Vehicle access is located on alleys or side streets where available.A.6 Vehicular access is provided from the only abutting street, Acacia Avenue—Private streets are proposed consistent with Title 21 of the code, which considers vehicular access serving 4 or more units (inclusive of condominium parcels) to be private streets. ☒2. No off-street parking, off-street vehicle loading, or vehicular circulation areas are located between the building and primary building frontage.A.6 Parking and vehicle circulated is provided from public right of way and leading to private garages. Parking/circulation is not provided between the buildings and the primary building frontage. (B)(4) Loading Docks Item 4 Attachment E-Objective Standards Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 75     City of Palo Alto Objective Design Standards: Checklist Page 5 ☒1. Loading docks and service areas are located on/facing the following areas: Alley, Parking Area, Rear or Side Building Facades Not Applicable ☒ 2. Loading docks and service areas located within setback areas shall be screened by a solid fence, or wall, or dense landscaping and separated from pedestrian access to the primary building entry to avoid impeding ped movement/safety. Not Applicable 18.24.040 Building Orientation and Setbacks Check Standard Sheet #Applicant’s Justification (b)(1) Treatment of Corner Buildings (less than 40 feet in height) Corner buildings less than 40 feet in height and end units of townhouses or other attached housing products that face the street shall include all of the following features on their secondary building frontage: 1. A height to width ratio greater than 1.2:1. This section does not apply because it is specific to corner buildings and the subject parcel is not a corner lot. a. Secondary building frontage height: _____ feet b. Secondary building frontage length: _____ feet ☐ c. Secondary building frontage height to width ratio: ___ 2. A minimum of 15 percent fenestration area. a. Total secondary building frontage façade area: ___ sq. ft. b. Secondary building frontage façade fenestration area: ___ sq. ft.☐ c. Percent of fenestration area _____ % Ch e c k A l l ☐3. At least one facade modulation with a minimum depth of 18 inches and a minimum width of two feet. (b)(2)(A) & (B) Treatment of Buildings Corners on Corner Lots (40+ feet in height) Corner Buildings 40 feet or taller in height shall include at least one of the following special features: Item 4 Attachment E-Objective Standards Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 76     City of Palo Alto Objective Design Standards: Checklist Page 6 A. Street wall is located at the minimum front yard setback or build-to line for a minimum aggregated length of 40 feet in length on both facades meeting at the corner and includes one or more of the following building features: This section does not apply because it is specific to corner buildings and the subject parcel is not a corner lot. ☐a. An entry to ground floor retail or primary building entrance located within 25 feet of the corner of the building. ☐b. A different material application and/or fenestration pattern from the rest of the façade. Ch e c k O n e o r M o r e w i t h i n A o r B ☐c. A change in height of at least 4 feet greater or less than the height of the abutting primary façade. B. An open space with a minimum dimension of 20 feet and minimum area of 450 square feet. The open space shall be at least one of the following This section does not apply because it is specific to corner buildings and the subject parcel is not a corner lot. ☐a. A publicly accessible open space/plaza. ☐b. A space used for outdoor seating for public dining. Ch e c k O n e o r M o r e wi t h i n A o r B ☐ c. A residential Common Open Space adjacent to a common interior space and less than two feet above adjacent sidewalk grade. Fences and railing shall be a minimum 50% transparent. (b)(3) Primary Building Entry The primary building entry meets at least one of the following standards: ☒1. Faces a public right-of-way.A.6 The proposed units either face Acacia (Building D) or face a pedestrian walkway that leads out to the public ROW (Buildings A, B and C) ☒2. Faces a publicly accessible pedestrian walkway.A.6 ☐3. Is visible from a public right-of-way through a forecourt or front porch that meets the following standards: Not applicable (meets the above requirements) Ch e c k O n e o r M o r e ☐ a. For residential buildings with fewer than seven units, building entry forecourts or front porch minimum dimensions of (min. 36 sq. ft. and min. dimension of 6 feet required): ___ sq. ft. and ___ ft. min. dimension Item 4 Attachment E-Objective Standards Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 77     City of Palo Alto Objective Design Standards: Checklist Page 7 ☐ b. For commercial buildings or residential buildings with seven or more units, building entry forecourts or front porch minimum dimensions of (min. 100 sq. ft. and a min. width of 8 feet required): ___ sq. ft. and ___ ft. min. width (b)(4) Ground Floor Residential Units A. Ground Floor Finished Floor Height ☒ The finished floor of ground floor residential units, when adjacent to a public right-of- way, are within the minimum and maximum heights according to setback distance from back of walk identified in Figure 2a of the Zoning Ordinance. Calculate minimum ground floor finished floor height: Waiver requested ☐a. Setback adjacent to public right of way: __9.5_ feet ☐ b. Minimum ground floor finished floor height: _____ feet 𝒚 = ― 𝟒 𝟏𝟓(𝒙)+ 𝟏𝟔 𝟑 where 𝑥 = setback length from back of walk, in feet and 𝑦 = ground floor finished floor height, in feet Requests waiver to provide 2’ where 2’8” is required. ☐c. Sites with slopes greater than 2% along building façade – Average height of finished floor: _____ feet Not applicable (less than 2% grade) Ch e c k A l l t h a t A p p l y ☐d. Sites located in flood zones - Minimum ground floor finished floor height, less flood zone elevation: _____ feet Not applicable, not in a flood zone B. Street Trees Ground floor units with a setback greater than 15 feet have at minimum an average of one tree per 40 linear feet of facade length, within the setback area. Not applicable (setback is less than 15 feet) a. Setback length: ______ feet b. Amount of Linear frontage: ______ feet c. Street Trees required: ____ tree(s) ☐ d. Street Trees provided: ____ tree(s) C and D. Front Setback Pic k On e ☒1. Ground floor residential entries are setback a minimum of 10 feet from the back of sidewalk; OR Unit entries are set back more than 10 feet from the back of sidewalk Item 4 Attachment E-Objective Standards Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 78     City of Palo Alto Objective Design Standards: Checklist Page 8 ☐2. Where no minimum building setback is required, all residential units are set back a minimum 5 feet from back of walk. Not applicable, complies with #1. Check Standard Sheet #Applicant’s Justification 4. Unit Entry 1. A minimum 80% of ground floor residential units that face a public right-of-way or publicly accessible path, or open space shall have a unit entry with direct access to the sidewalk, path, or open space for minimum. A.6 All units that face the public ROW on Acacia have a unit entry with direct access to the sidewalk. All other units do not face a publicly accessible path or open space, but do face private pedestrian paths and open space that directly connect to the public ROW. a. Total number of ground floor residential units facing a public right-of-way, publicly accessible path, or open space: __5__ units b. 80% of total units in (a): _4___ units ☒ c. Subset of number of units in (a) that have a unit entry with direct access to the sidewalk, path, or open space: __100%__ entries (b)(5) Front Yard Setback Character 1. Required setbacks provide a hardscape and/or landscaped area to create a transition between public and private space, and meet the following: a. Ground-floor retail or retail like uses have a minimum of 10% of the required setback as landscape or planters. Not Applicable, exclusively residential use i. Minimum setback area (setback x frontage x 10%): ____ sq. ft.☐ ii. Landscape or planter area in required setback: ____ sq. ft. b. Ground-floor residential uses have a minimum of 60% landscaped area in the required setback area. Ch e c k A l l t h a t A p p l y ☒i. Minimum setback area (setback x frontage x 60%): __2,648__ sq. ft.A.6 70.8% is provided as landscaped area (setback is Item 4 Attachment E-Objective Standards Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 79     City of Palo Alto Objective Design Standards: Checklist Page 9 9.5 and length of frontage is 278.7 ft) ii. Landscape area in required setback: __1,876__ sq. ft. 18.24.050 Building Massing Check Standard Sheet #Applicant’s Justification (b)(1) Upper Floor Step Backs and Daylight Plane 1A When the height of the subject building is more than 20 feet above the average height an adjacent building, an upper floor step back shall start within 2 vertical feet of the height of the adjacent building. The step back shall be a minimum depth of 6 feet along the primary building frontage, and the step shall occur for a minimum of 70% of the façade length. Complies. All proposed building edges adjacent to the single family lots are limited to 2 stories and are less than 20’ from those roofs. The requirement is not applicable along Acacia Avenue since the project is not more than 20 feet above the average height of any adjacent buildings. The proposed 3001 El Camino Real project is taller than the proposed project at 420 Acacia and the existing cannery building is approximately 36 feet. i. Proposed building height: __42’11.5”___ feet ii. Average building height of the adjacent building(s): __20___ feet Abutting residences range from single to two story (primarily single story anywhere from 17- 27 feet) Pic k O n e ☐ iii. Building height where upper floor step back begins: __24__ feet Item 4 Attachment E-Objective Standards Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 80     City of Palo Alto Objective Design Standards: Checklist Page 10 ☒1B Except, when adjacent to a single-story building, the upper floor step back shall occur between 33 and 37 feet in height. Step back occurs at 23-24 feet where abutting single-story buildings ☒ 1C If a project meets the following criteria, a daylight plane with an initial height of 25 feet above grade at the property line and a 45-degree angle shall be required. No setback is required unless otherwise required by the zoning district. This daylight plane is required if all of these criteria are met: (i) The project is not subject to a daylight plane requirement, pursuant to district regulations in Title 18; and (ii) The project proposes a building which is more than 20 feet above the average height (i.e., average of low and high roof elevations) of an adjacent building; and (iii) The project abuts residential units in the side or rear yard. Project is subject to the R-1 Daylight plane which is more restrictive; project complies with the R-1 daylight plane (b)(2) (A)(B)&(C) Transition to Lower Density Building Types 1. Buildings that abut a side and/or rear property line with a RE, RMD, R-1, or R-2 zoned parcel or a village residential or existing single-family residential use, the building breaks down the abutting façade by meeting all of the following: ☒ a. A landscape screen that includes a row of trees with a minimum 1 tree per 25 linear feet and continuous shrubbery planting. This screening plant material shall be a minimum 72 inches (6 feet) in height when planted. Required trees shall be minimum 24” box size. A.6 ☒b. A minimum façade break of 4 feet in width, 2 feet in depth, and 32 square feet of area for every 36 to 40 feet of façade length A.16 Ch e c k A l l ☒ c. Within 40 feet of an abutting structure, no more than 15% of the confronting façade area shall be windows or other glazing. Additional windows are allowed in order to maintain light, if fixed and fully obscured A.9 (b)(3)(A) & (B) Façade Length 1. Buildings 70 feet in length or greater Pic k O n e Ca t e g o r y ( i . e 1, 2 o r 3 ) ☒ 1. Building is greater than 25 feet in height and 70 feet in length, and faces a public street, right-of-way, or publicly accessible path shall not have a continuous façade plane greater than 70% of the façade length without an upper floor modulation, of at least 2 feet in depth Building D is the only building facing a public street. Therefore, calculation is reflecting Building D. However, façade modulations Item 4 Attachment E-Objective Standards Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 81     City of Palo Alto Objective Design Standards: Checklist Page 11 are provided for buildings A and B as well. Building C includes modulations but is less than 25 feet. a. Façade length featuring continuous plane: ___41’6”__ feet A.30 b. Total Façade length: __87___ feet A.30 c. Percent of façade length without upper floor modulation (a/b) (maximum 70%): ___47__ % 2. Buildings 250 feet in length or greater 1. Buildings 250 feet in length or greater, which face a public street, right-of-way, or publicly accessible path, shall have at least one vertical façade break with a minimum area greater than 400 square feet and a width greater than or equal to two times the depth Not applicable (all buildings less than 250 feet In length) a. Total Building length: _____ feet ☐ b. Number of vertical façade breaks: ___ breaks 3. Buildings between 150 feet and 250 feet in length 1. Buildings 150 to 250 feet in length, which face a public street, right-of-way, or publicly accessible path, shall have at least one vertical façade break with a minimum area greater than 64 square feet and a minimum width of 8 feet and minimum depth of 4 feet. Not applicable (all buildings less than 250 feet In length) a. Total Building length: _____ feet ☐ b. Number of vertical façade breaks: ___ breaks Check Standard Sheet #Applicant’s Justification (b)(4) Special Conditions: Railroad Frontages All parcels with lot lines abutting railroad rights-of-way shall meet the following standards on the railroad-abutting façade: Not Applicable (doesn’t front railroad) ☐1. A minimum facade break of at least 10 feet in width and six feet in depth for every 60 feet of façade length. Ch e c k All ☐2. Portions of a building 20 feet or greater in height shall not have a continuous façade length that exceeds 60 feet. Item 4 Attachment E-Objective Standards Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 82     City of Palo Alto Objective Design Standards: Checklist Page 12 18.24.060 Façade Design Check Two or More Standard Sheet #Applicant’s Justification (c)(1) Base-Middle-Top ☐ Buildings three stories or taller and on lots wider than 50 feet shall be designed to differentiate a defined base or ground floor, a middle or body, and a top, cornice, or parapet cap. Each of these elements shall be distinguished from one another for a minimum of 80% of the façade length through use of three or more of the following four techniques: ☒ 1. Variation in Building Modulation: Building modulation shall extend for a minimum 80% of the façade length feet, and shall include one or more of the following building features. ☒a. Horizontal shifts. Changes in floor plates that protrude and/or recess with a minimum dimension of 2 feet from the primary facade. The applicant stated that they are meeting this requirement both through changes in fenestration below as well as horizontal shifts. With respect to horizontal shifts this was viewed from a total surface area perspective. ☐ b. Upper floor step backs. A horizontal step back of upper-floor façades with a minimum 5 foot step back from the primary façade for a minimum of 80% of the length of the façade Ch e c k o n e o r m o r e i f s e l e c t e d ☒ c. Ground floor step back. A horizontal shift of the ground floor facade with a minimum depth of 2 feet for a minimum 80% of the length of the façade. Ground floor step backs shall not exceed the maximum setback requirements, where stated A.30 ☐2. Variation in Façade Articulation: Façade articulation modulation shall include one or more of the following building features. Item 4 Attachment E-Objective Standards Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 83     City of Palo Alto Objective Design Standards: Checklist Page 13 ☒ a. Horizontal and/or Vertical Recesses or Projections. Recesses or projections such as a pattern of recessed grouping of windows, recessed panels, bay windows or similar strategies. The recess or projection shall be a minimum 4 inches in depth. ☒ b. Horizontal and/or Vertical Projections. Projections such as shading, weather protection devices, decorative architectural details, or similar strategies. Ch e c k o n e o r m o r e i f sel e c t e d ☐ c. Datum Lines. Datum lines that continue the length of the building, such as parapets or cornices, with a minimum 4 inches in height or a minimum 2 inches in depth and include a change in material ☒3. Variation in two of the following: ☒a. Fenestration Size ☒b. Fenestration Proportion ☐c. Fenestration Pattern Ch e c k t w o i f sel e c t e d ☐d. Fenestration Depth or Projection ☒4. Variation in two of the following: ☐a. Façade Material ☐b. Facade Material Size ☒c. Façade Texture and Pattern Ch e c k t w o i f sel e c t e d ☐d. Façade Color (C)(2) Façade Composition Building facades shall use a variety of strategies including building modulation, fenestration, and façade articulation to create visual interest and express a variety of scales through a variety of strategies. All facades shall include a minimum of three of the following façade articulation strategies to create visual interest: Ch e c k T h r e e or M o r e ☒A. Vertical and horizontal recesses such as a pattern of recessed grouping of windows or recessed panels. The recess shall be a minimum 4 inches in depth. A27 through A30; A7- A 10 and A 33 Item 4 Attachment E-Objective Standards Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 84     City of Palo Alto Objective Design Standards: Checklist Page 14 ☐B. Vertical and horizontal projections such as shading and weather protection devices or decorative architectural details. Projections shall be a minimum 4 inches in depth. ☐ C. Datum lines that continue the length of the building, such as cornices, with a minimum 4 inches in depth, or a minimum 2 inches in depth and include a change in material. ☐D. Balconies, habitable projections, or Juliet balconies (every 20 to 40 feet) with a minimum 4 inches in depth. ☐E. Screening devices such as lattices, louvers, shading devices, or perforated metal screens. ☐F. Use of fine-grained building materials, such as brick or wood shingles, not to exceed 8 inches in either height or width. ☒G. Incorporate a minimum of three colors, materials, and/or textures across the whole building. A7 through A10 and A33 (c)(3) Compatible Rhythm and Pattern 1. Buildings less than 100 feet in length ☒ 1. Buildings with continuous facades less than 100 feet in length, the façade shall have vertically oriented patterns of vertical recesses or projections, façade articulation, and/or fenestration A7 through A 10 and A 33 All facades are less than 100 feet in length and incorporate vertically oriented patterns in the form of façade articulation and/or fenestration 2. Buildings 100+ feet in length ☐ 1. A vertical recess or change in façade plane with a minimum 2 feet deep vertical shift modulation for a minimum 4 feet in width to establish a vertical rhythm or a unit between 20 to 50 feet in width; OR Not Applicable, building are less than 100 feet in length Ch e c k O n e ☐2. A vertical recess or projection with a minimum depth of 2 feet that establishes the vertical rhythm housing units or individual rooms between 10 to 16 feet in width 3. Residential mixed-use buildings Ch eck On e or Mo re☐1. Facades use vertical patterns of building modulation, façade articulation, and fenestration Not applicable, exclusively residential proposed Item 4 Attachment E-Objective Standards Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 85     City of Palo Alto Objective Design Standards: Checklist Page 15 ☐ 2. Facades use horizontal articulation and fenestration patterns shall use a vertical massing strategy with a minimum 4 feet wide and 2 feet deep vertical shift in modulation at least once every 50 feet of façade length 4. Storefronts ☐1. Storefront uses express a vertical rhythm between 30 and 50 feet in width.Not Applicable (c)(4) Emphasize Building Elements & Massing 1. Primary building entries shall be scaled proportionally to the number of people served (amount of floor-area or number of units accessed). Building entries shall meet the following minimum dimensions: ☒a. Individual residential entries: 5 feet in width A6 Complies ☐b. Shared residential entry, such as mixed-use buildings: 8 feet in width Not applicable ☐c. Commercial building entry: 20 feet in width Not applicableCh e c k A l l ☐d. Storefront entry: 6 feet in width Not applicable 2. Primary building entries (not inclusive of individual residential entries) shall include a façade modulation that includes at least one of the following: Not applicable; Only individual residential entries apply ☐a. Recess or projection from the primary façade plane (minimum 2 feet). Ch e c k On e o r Mo r e ☐b. Weather protection, awning, or similar strategy that is a minimum 4 feet wide and 4 feet deep by recessing the entry. (c)(5) Storefront/Retail Ground Floors A. Ground floor height shall be a minimum 14 feet floor-to-floor OR shall maintain a 2nd floor datum line of an abutting building. Section Not Applicable; project is exclusively residential a. Ground floor height (minimum 14 feet): _____ feet; OR☐ b. Height of 2nd floor datum line of abutting building: _____ feet B. Transparency shall include a minimum 60 percent transparent glazing between 2 and 10 feet in height from sidewalk, providing unobstructed views into the commercial space. a. Façade area between 2 feet and 10 feet: _____ square feet b. Transparent glazing area: _____ square feet ☐ c. Percentage of transparent glazing (minimum 60%): _____ % Item 4 Attachment E-Objective Standards Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 86     City of Palo Alto Objective Design Standards: Checklist Page 16 ☐C. If provided, bulkheads and solid base walls measure between 12 and 30 inches from finished grade D. Primary entries shall include weather protection by recessing the entry, providing an awning or using a combination of these methods. a. Weather protection width (minimum 6 feet): _____ feet☐ b. Weather protection depth (minimum 4 feet): _____ feet ☐ E. If provided, when transom windows are above display windows, awnings, canopies and similar, weather protection elements shall be installed between transom and display windows. (c)(6) Other Non-Residential Ground Floors ☐1. Ground floor height is a minimum 14 feet floor-to-floor OR maintains a 2nd floor datum line of an abutting building Section does not apply; project is exclusively residential ☐a. Ground floor height (minimum 14 feet): _____ feet; OR Pic k On e ☐b. Height of 2nd floor datum line of abutting building: _____ feet 2. Minimum of 50% transparent glazing between 4 and 10 feet in height from sidewalk, providing unobstructed views into the commercial space a. Façade area between 4 feet and 10 feet: _____ square feet b. Transparent glazing area: _____ square feet ☐ c. Percentage of transparent glazing (minimum 50%): _____ % 3. Primary entries include weather protection that is a minimum 6 feet wide and 4 feet deep by recessing the entry, providing an awning or using a combination of these methods. a. Weather protection width (minimum 6 feet): _____ feet☐ b. Weather protection depth (minimum 4 feet): _____ feet (c)(7) Parking/Loading/Utilities 1. Entry Size 1. Portion of the site frontage facing a street devoted to garage openings, carports, surface parking, loading entries, or utilities access is a maximum of 25% (or on sites with less than 100 feet of frontage, no more than 25 feet)☒ a. Site frontage: __278___ feet Item 4 Attachment E-Objective Standards Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 87     City of Palo Alto Objective Design Standards: Checklist Page 17 b. Frontage devoted to garage openings, carports, surface parking, loading entries, or utilities access: __0___ feet c. Percent of frontage devoted to garage openings, carports, surface parking, loading entries, or utilities access ___0__ % 2. Above Ground Structured Parking ☐ 1. Above grade structured parking levels facing a public right-of-way or publicly accessible open space/path, with the exception of vehicular alleys, are lined with commercial or habitable uses with a minimum depth of 20 feet Not applicable 3. Partially Sub-Grade Structured Parking ☐1. Partially sub-grade parking does not have an exposed façade that exceeds 5 feet in height above abutting grade at back of sidewalk.Not applicable ☐2. Partially sub-grade parking is screened with continuous landscaping and shrubbery with minimum height of 3 feet and located within 10 feet of the sub-grade parking. 18.24.070 Residential Entries Pick One or More (A – E)Standard Sheet #Applicant’s Justification (b)(1) Ground Floor Unit Entries Where ground floor residential unit entries are required, one or more of the following entry types shall be provided: ☐A. Stoop ☐1. Stoops provide entry access for a maximum of two ground floor units.Not applicable-patio selected ☐2. Stoop heights are within 1 step of finished floor height of adjacent unit. ☐3. Stoop entry landings are a minimum 5 feet in depth Ch e c k A l l i f Se l e c t e d ☐4. The maximum stoop height from the back of sidewalk grade is 5 feet. ☐B. Porch ☐1. Porches provide entry access for a maximum of one ground floor unit. Not applicable-patio selected ☐2. Porch heights are within 1 step of finished floor height of adjacent unit. Ch e c k A l l if Sel e c t e d ☐3. Porches are large enough so a 6-foot by 6-foot square can fit inside Item 4 Attachment E-Objective Standards Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 88     City of Palo Alto Objective Design Standards: Checklist Page 18 ☐4. The maximum porch height from the back of sidewalk grade is 5 feet. ☒C. Patio Entry ☒1. Patio entries provide access for a maximum of two ground floor units. ☒2. Patio entries are large enough so a 5-foot by 5-foot square can fit inside ☒3. The patio shall include at least one of the following features to define the transition between public and private space: ☒a. Row of shrubs: not exceeding 42 inches in height located between the sidewalk and the patio L-2.0 Shrubs and small grasses line the sidewalk and walkways leading to the patios defining the transition between public and private space ☐b. Fence: not to exceed 36 inches in height located between the sidewalk and the patio Ch e c k A l l i f S e l e c t e d Pic k O n e o r M o r e ☐ c.i. Metal, Wood, or Stone Wall: not to exceed 36 inches in height located between the sidewalk and the patio, AND c.ii. A minimum 18-inch landscape strip is located between the wall and the abutting pedestrian way and entirely landscaped ☐D. Terrace ☐1. Terraces provide entry access for multiple ground floor units. Not applicable-patio selected ☐2. Terraces are a maximum height of 30 inches above the grade of the back of the adjacent sidewalk or accessway. Ch e c k A l l i f Sel e c t e d ☐3. Walls, fences and hedges on Terraces are a maximum of 42 inches tall and have a minimum transparency of 40 percent. ☐E. Frontage Court ☐1. Frontage courts provide entry access for multiple ground floor units. Not applicable-patio selected ☐2. The minimum frontage court width along a primary frontage is 25 feet. ☐3. The maximum frontage court width along a primary frontage is 50 percent of the facade length or 80 feet, whichever is less.Ch e c k A l l i f Se l e c t e d ☐4. The minimum Frontage Court depth is 25 feet. Item 4 Attachment E-Objective Standards Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 89     City of Palo Alto Objective Design Standards: Checklist Page 19 ☐5. The maximum Frontage Court depth is 50 feet or a ratio not to exceed 2:1 depth to width. 18.24.080 Open Space Check Standard Sheet #Applicant’s Justification (B)(1) Private Open Space ☒1. Floor area includes clear space with a minimum dimension of a circle with a six-foot diameter. ☒2. Minimum clear height dimension of 8’-6” feet. ☒3. Directly accessible from a residential unit. ☒4. Balconies are not located within the daylight plane. (B)(1) Ground Floor Patios ☐1. RM-20 and RM-30 districts: Minimum 100 square feet of area, the least dimension of which is 8 feet for at least 75% of the area. Not applicable. Ground floor yards provided, no ground floor patios proposed ☐2. RM-40 districts: Minimum 80 square feet of area, the least dimension of which is 6 feet for at least 75% of the area ☐3. Street facing private open space on the ground floor shall meet the finished floor height for ground floor residential standards in section 18.24.040(b)(4) (B)(2) Common Open Space ☒1. Common open space is a minimum 200 square feet of area. Area shall include a space with a minimum dimension of a circle with a 10-foot diameter.A.4 ☒2. A minimum of 60% of the area shall be open to the sky and free of permanent weather protection or encroachments. A.4 ☐ 3. Notwithstanding subsection (1), courtyards enclosed on four sides shall have a minimum dimension of 40 feet and have a minimum courtyard width to building height ratio of 1:1.25 Not applicable ☒4. Common open space provides seating. A.6 ☒5. Common open space has a minimum 20% of landscaping.A.6 Item 4 Attachment E-Objective Standards Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 90     City of Palo Alto Objective Design Standards: Checklist Page 20 ☐6. Planting in above grade courtyards has minimum soil depth of 12 inches for ground cover, 20 inches for shrubs, and 36 inches for trees.Not applicable 18.24.090 Materials Primary, secondary, and accent materials are allowed or prohibited as in the Residential and Residential Mixed-use Material List, which may be updated from time to time by the Director of Planning with a recommendation by the ARB. 18.24.100 Sustainability and Green Building Code See Chapter 16.14: California Green Building Standards additional requirements for green building and sustainable design. Item 4 Attachment E-Objective Standards Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 91     ACACIA AVENUE Incentives and Concessions & Waiver or Reductions of Development Standards The project is requesting and entitled to the incentives and concessions identified below. Incentive/Concession 1.The project is also requesting a concession from Section 18.40.230 Rooftop Gardens (f) (15 to 20% landscaping requirement) The project is requesting an incentive/concession from this requirement as providing the requested landscaping on the individual roof decks would substantially increase the cost of the project. Note landscaping on individual rooftop decks would produce identifiable and actual cost reductions. Waivers/Reductions RM_30 Development Standards (18.13.040 of the Municipal Code) 2. Site Coverage (Max 40%) Waiver requested to exceed the Max. site coverage allowance to achieve the proposed and allowed General Plan land use density. Proposed coverage on the RM30 zoned area is 49 % 3. FAR (0.6:1) Waiver requested to exceed the Max. FAR allowance to achieve the proposed and allowed General Plan land use density. Proposed FAR on the RM30 zoned area is 1.4:1 4. Front Setback (20’) Waiver requested to reduce the front setback from 20’ to 9.5’ to achieve the proposed and allowed General Plan land use density. The waiver is required to accommodate the required parking dimensions, access to the units and also to avoid encroachment into the R-1 portion of the site. 5. Height (35’ max.) Waiver requested for increased height allowance. Proposed height is +/- 44’ -2” The proposed project uses compact footprints to achieve the proposed and allowed General Plan land use density. The city requires that all residential units comply with a minimum Item 4 Attachment F-Requested Waivers and Concession     Packet Pg. 92     Page 2 of 4 amount of private open space, which the project provides using roof decks. The roof decks are located on top of the third floor and require access, increasing the height of the building above the allowable height. Providing the private open space through ground level patios would increase the building/development footprint, effectively reducing the proposed and allowed project density. 6. 32’ wide Private Street Requirement: The project is requesting a waiver from this development regulation as it would reduce the allowable buildable area. The proposed alleys are 22’ wide and increasing them to 32’ would limit the amount of land left for the buildings. Furthermore, the proposed plans have been preliminary vetted with the Fire Department and complies with their requirement for access. 7.The project is also requesting a waiver from 18.40.230 Rooftop Gardens (a)(iii) For the height limit exceptions in (i) and (ii) above, all fixtures shall not intersect a plane measured at a forty-five degree angle from the edge of the building starting at the rooftop garden surface sloping upward and inward toward the center of the property. The project is requesting a waiver from the requirement as this would require the units to be much wider than currently planned and therefore would preclude the project from being built at the proposed and allowable General Plan density. In addition to the waivers and concessions requested to the RM-30 Development Standards the applicant is also requesting waivers and concessions from the “Objective Standards” listed in Chapter 18.24 of Palo Alto’s Municipal code. Chapter 18.24 Contextual Design Criteria and Objective Design Standards (4) Mobility Infrastructure (A) Where provided or required, micromobility infrastructure, such as locations to lock bicycles and scooters, shall be located within 30 feet of the primary building entry and/or a path leading to the primary building entry. This standard may be satisfied by existing infrastructure already located within 50 feet of the project site and located in the public right-of-way. This requirement is not objective because subjective judgment is required to determine where micro mobility infrastructure is required and what constitutes a primary building entry and neither are uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark. In addition, the project has multiple primary entries these are townhomes. Item 4 Attachment F-Requested Waivers and Concession     Packet Pg. 93     Page 3 of 4 However since the project does provide bike racks in the community open space area, a central located common area and accessible from all units. Since the project has multiple (16) primary units it is not possible to be within 30 feet from all entries. We feel that by providing the bike racks in a central location we do meet the intent of the standard to provide bike racks in a convenient location, that is easily accessible by all users. (B) Primary building entries shall provide at least one exterior seating area or bench within 30 feet of building entry and/or path leading to building entry. This standard may be satisfied by existing seating area or benches located in public right-of- way within 50 feet of the building entry. On arterials–except Downtown–seating areas or benches shall not be located between the sidewalk and curb. Arterial roadways are identified in Map T-5 of the Comprehensive Plan and do not include residential arterials. This requirement is not objective because subjective judgment is required to determine what constitutes a primary building entry and what constitutes a seating area, and neither are uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark. In addition, the project has multiple primary entries since these are townhomes. However since the project does provide benches in the community open space area, a central located common area and accessible from all units. Since the project has multiple (16) primary units it is not possible to be within 30 feet from all entries. We feel that by providing the benches in a central location we do meet the intent of the standard to provide an exterior area/bench in a convenient location, that is easily accessible by all users. 18.24.040 Building Orientation and Setbacks (4) Ground Floor Residential Units The finished floor of ground floor residential units, when adjacent to a public right-of-way, shall be within the minimum and maximum heights according to setback distance from back of walk identified in Figure 2. On sites with a cross slope greater than 2% along a building façade, the average height of the finished floor and back of walk shall be used. In flood zones, the minimum floor height shall be defined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood zone elevation. Waiver requested. Finished floor is 9.5’ from the public right of way and would need to be at 2’-8” above the grade. This waiver request is made because increases to the finished floor height above the current level contribute to additional height to the project, further exceeding the height limitation. Additionally raising the ground floor of the units would require steps to the units from the walkways and the garage. This would require additional space on the outside on the walkways and within the units to accommodate those steps, increasing the individual unit footprints and thus reducing the overall development opportunity as each of the units would increase in depth or width. Otherwise the buildings would need to be setback Item 4 Attachment F-Requested Waivers and Concession     Packet Pg. 94     Page 4 of 4 nearly 20’-0” to be built as proposed, which would limit the area that can be built on, therefore a waiver is requested to accommodate the proposed and allowed development. Item 4 Attachment F-Requested Waivers and Concession     Packet Pg. 95     From:last name, first To:Raybould, Claire Cc:David 275 Olive; OL 441 Ed Kwok; RE PA Olive; sandy lockhart; jaredlockhart@yahoo.com; yugen@logicdw.com; Susanne Jul Subject:Palo Alto 420 Acacia Avenue 230622 Date:Thursday, June 29, 2023 10:41:21 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ RE: 420 Acacia Avenue, Palo Alto CA Dear Claire, Please circulate this information to involved city employees / departments and include the City Engineer and Storm Water Dept. A group of Olive Avenue residents just met with Josh Vrotsos of Dividend Industry development the project directly behind and to the South East of our properties. The concerns we discussed with Josh are relatively few and simple but essential. 1) Move the trash enclosure away from the Olive Avenue back yards. No mater what protections are promised: Trash bins generate loud noises at all times of the day or night when lids slam shut. Rodents and raccoons are extremely prevalent in this neighborhood and pest control services do little to minimize their impact. Flies etc. will be a constant problem. 2) Address the drainage issues that can flood our back yards as deep as 8" at times. Olive Av. lots all slope to the rear into what once was a 40' wide drainage swale from El Camino Real to Park Blvd. In consideration of the huge development projects slated in this area, extensive drainage accommodations must be implemented that will serve in times of high rainfall and handle the impact of additional planned large developments. 3) The once lovely soil berm should be removed in the interest of drainage and security. 4) Over the years there have been a number of security breeches and the 8' high concrete block wall should be extended to limit encroachment into our properties. 5) As per our discussion, I and perhaps others wish to discuss buffer planting with the Landscape Architect Michael Arnone. Thank you for your consideration. Peter Lockhart 405 Olive Avenue Palo Alto landform01@earthlink.net (mailto:landform01@earthlink.net) Item 4 Attachment G-Written Comments     Packet Pg. 96     Attachment H Project Plans Project plans are only available to the public online. Hardcopies of the plans have been provided to Board members. Environmental Document The City, acting as the lead agency, prepared documentation to support a Class 32 (infill development) categorical exemption for the proposed project. Directions to review Project plans online: 1. Go to: bit.ly/PApendingprojects 2. Scroll down to find “420 Acacia Avenue” and click the address link 3. On this project specific webpage you will find a link to the project plans, the documented exemption and other important information Direct Link to Project Webpage: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Current- Planning/Projects/420-Acacia-Avenue Materials Boards: Color and material boards will be available to view in chambers during the ARB hearing. Item 4 Attachment H - Project Plans & Environmental Documents     Packet Pg. 97     Item No. 4. Page 1 of 1 3 0 0 9 Architectural Review Board At-Places Memorandum From: Claire Raybould, AICP, Senior Planner Meeting Date: October 5, 2023 Item Number: 4 Report #:2309-1972 TITLE PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI-JUDICIAL. 420 Acacia [23PLN-00058]: Request for a Streamlined Housing Development Review to Allow the Construction of an Approximately 35,354 Square Foot (sf) Multi-Family Project Consisting of 16 Two- and Three-Bedroom Condominium Units in Four 2- and 3-story Buildings on an Approximately 0.8-acre (35,753 sf) Parcel. The Project would replace a paved, 68-space surface parking lot. The Project includes two Units Provided at Below Market Rate and, Accordingly, Requests Concessions and Waivers Pursuant to State Density Bonus Law. A Compliant Senate Bill Pre-Application was Submitted on January 4, 2023; Therefore, this Project is Being Processed in Accordance with SB 330. RECOMMENDATION This At-Places Memorandum includes a correction to the staff report. Staff inadvertently provided an incomplete version of the Conditions of approval in Attachment C. This memo provides the corrected, complete draft Conditions of Approval for the proposed project. ATTACHMENTS Attachment C: Conditions of Approval APPROVED BY: Claire Raybould, AICP, Senior Planner Item 4 At places memo 420 Acacia     Packet Pg. 98     Draft Conditions of Approval 420 Acacia: 23PLN-00058 PLANNING DIVISION 1. CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS. Construction and development shall conform to the approved plans entitled, "Acacia Avenue Palo Alto, California Major Architectural Review” stamped as received by the City on September 6, 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. LANDSCAPE PLAN. Plantings shall be installed in accordance with the approved plan set and shall be permanently maintained and replaced as necessary. 6. NOISE THRESHOLDS ON RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. In accordance with PAMC Section 9.10.030, No person shall produce, suffer or allow to be produced by any machine, animal or device, or any combination of same, on residential property, a noise level more than six dB above the local ambient at any point outside of the property plane. 7. OPEN AIR LOUDSPEAKERS (AMPLIFIED MUSIC). In accordance with PAMC Section 9.12, no amplified music shall be used for producing sound in or upon any open area, to which the public has access, between the hours of 11:00pm and one hour after sunrise. 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 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. CALIFORNIA-OLIVE-EMERSON (COE) PLUME AREA. For projects within the California-Olive-Emerson (COE) Plume area, which are known to be subject to risk of vapor intrusion, the applicant shall assess site Item 4 Attachment C-Complete Draft Conditions of Approval     Packet Pg. 99     conditions to determine both the nature and extent of contamination. If contamination at the site exceeds the most current environmental screening levels (ESLs) identified by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) for volatile organic compounds, the applicant shall prepare and submit a Site Management and Contingency Plan (SMCP) to either the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), RWQCB, or the County of Santa Clara Department of Environmental Health for approval. The SMCP shall include details regarding the pending development and propose remediation and/or mitigation to address any environmental risk identified in the site assessment. The applicant shall agree to and implement all recommendations of the reviewing regulatory agency approving the SMCP in order to reduce the exposure of future occupants to vapor intrusion. If the reviewing agency requires that a vapor intrusion barrier system be installed, the VIMs shall be document in the building permit plan set prior to issuance of the building permit. Post construction indoor air monitoring shall be conducted for any VIMS systems and shall comply with the specific recommendations set forth by the regulatory agency approving the SMCP. 11. 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. 12. STANDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR UNANTICIPATED DISCOVERY OF BURIED ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES. No known archeological resources are present on or within the immediate vicinity of the site. However, in the unlikely event that an archeological resource is unearthed during ground disturbing activities, work in the immediate area should be halted and an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for archeology (National Park Service 1983) shall be contacted immediately to evaluate the find. If the find is Native American in origin, then a Native American representative should also be contacted to participate in the evaluation of the find. The qualified archaeologist, and, if applicable, the Native American representative, shall examine the find and make recommendations regarding additional work necessary to evaluate the significance of the find and the appropriate treatment of the resource. Recommendations could include, but are not limited to, invasive or non-invasive testing, sampling, laboratory analysis, preservation in place, or data recovery. A report of findings documenting any data recovered during monitoring shall be prepared by a qualified archaeologist and submitted to the Director of Planning. 13. REFUSE. All trash areas shall be 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. Trash enclosure can only be used to store refuse (garbage, recycling, and compost) and not for other storage. 14. BELOW MARKET RATE (BMR) HOUSING. This project is proposed as a state density bonus project and is also subject to the affordable housing requirements set forth in Section 16.65.030 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. In accordance with the City’s requirements and the proposed project in accordance with state density bonus law, the project is required to contain no less than two (2) below market rate units and to pay the additional remaining in-lieu fees for the fractional unit. A Regulatory Agreement in a form acceptable to the City Attorney for the two (2) BMR units shall be executed and recorded prior to final map approval or building permit issuance, whichever occurs first. In addition, the payment for the 0.4 fractional unit, estimated at $360,885.33, shall be paid to the Residential Housing Fund prior to issuance of any building permits for the project; provided, however, that prior to issuance of the first building permit for the project, Item 4 Attachment C-Complete Draft Conditions of Approval     Packet Pg. 100     the applicant may elect to provide one additional inclusionary unit instead of paying the fractional in lieu payment (PAMC Section 16.65.060). All BMR units constructed under this condition shall be in conformance with the City’s BMR Program rules and regulations. Failure to comply with the timing of this condition and any adopted BMR Program rules and regulations shall not waive its later enforcement. 15. ESTIMATED IMPACT FEE. Development Impact Fees (not including the BMR in-lieu fee noted above), currently estimated in the amount of $1,093,304.55 plus the applicable public art fee, per PAMC 16.61.040, shall be paid prior to the issuance of the related building permit(s). 16. IMPACT FEE 90-DAY PROTEST PERIOD. California Government Code Section 66020 provides that a project applicant who desires to protest the fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions imposed on a development project must initiate the protest at the time the development project is approved or conditionally approved or within ninety (90) days after the date that fees, dedications, reservations or exactions are imposed on the Project. Additionally, procedural requirements for protesting these development fees, dedications, reservations and exactions are set forth in Government Code Section 66020. IF YOU FAIL TO INITIATE A PROTEST WITHIN THE 90-DAY PERIOD OR FOLLOW THE PROTEST PROCEDURES DESCRIBED IN GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66020, YOU WILL BE BARRED FROM CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OR REASONABLENESS OF THE FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS, AND EXACTIONS. If these requirements constitute fees, taxes, assessments, dedications, reservations, or other exactions as specified in Government Code Sections 66020(a) or 66021, this is to provide notification that, as of the date of this notice, the 90-day period has begun in which you may protest these requirements. This matter is subject to the California Code of Civil Procedures (CCP) Section 1094.5; the time by which judicial review must be sought is governed by CCP Section 1094.6. 17. ENTITLEMENT EXPIRATION. The project approval shall be valid for a period of two years from the date of issuance of the entitlement. If within such two-year period, the proposed use of the site or the construction of buildings has not commenced, the Planning entitlement shall expire. Application for a one-year extension of this entitlement may be made prior to expiration. 18. 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. 19. INDEMNITY. To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City for its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice. PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING 20. 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 Item 4 Attachment C-Complete Draft Conditions of Approval     Packet Pg. 101     21. 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. 22. STREETWORK PERMIT: The applicant shall obtain a Streetwork Permit from the Department of Public Works for all public improvements. 23. 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.” 24. 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. 25. STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION: All improvement plan sets shall include the “Pollution Prevention – It’s Part of the Plan” sheet. 26. 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. 27. Submit the following as part of the building permit application: a. Stamped and signed C.3 data form (April 2023 version) from SCVURPPP. https://scvurppp.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/SCVURPPP-C.3-Data-Form-_-updated__4- 12-2023_clean_fillable.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. 28. C.3 STORMWATER AGREEMENT: The applicant shall enter into a Stormwater Maintenance Agreement with the City to guarantee the ongoing maintenance of the permanent storm water pollution prevention measures. The City will inspect the treatment measures yearly and charge an inspection fee. The agreement shall be executed by the applicant team prior to building permit final. 29. 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. TRANSPORTATION Item 4 Attachment C-Complete Draft Conditions of Approval     Packet Pg. 102     30. PARKING RESTRICTION SIGNAGE. Due to the width of Acacia Avenue, on-street parking may need to be restricted to one side of the street for all or a portion of the roadway segment along the project frontage. Trash pick-ups and loading zones can be allowed. Applicant shall install required parking restriction signs and loading zone signs as part of the project. The parking restriction signage plan shall be reviewed by the Office of Transportation as part of the building permit application. WASTE-GAS-WATER 31. UTILITY DISCONNECT. Prior to issuance of a demolition permit 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. 32. SERVICE CONNECTION APPLICATION. At the time of building permit application 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. 33. UTILITY IMPROVEMENT PLANS. At the time of building permit application the applicant shall also 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 ductbank to verify 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. 34. AUXILIARY WATER SUPPLY. On the building permit and relevant utility applications, 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.). 35. UTILITY LATERALS AND MAINS. The applicant shall be responsible for installing and upgrading the existing utility mains and/or services, laterals as necessary to handle anticipated peak loads. This responsibility includes all costs associated with the design and construction for the installation/upgrade of the utility mains and/or services/laterals. 36. RPPA. 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. 37. RPDA. 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 Item 4 Attachment C-Complete Draft Conditions of Approval     Packet Pg. 103     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. 38. BACKFLOW PREVENTER. 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. 39. CAPACITY FEES. Prior to building permit issuance, 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. 40. FIRE WATER LATERAL. A new water service line installation for fire system usage is required. Show the location of the new water service on the building permit plans. The applicant shall provide the engineering department with a copy of the plans for the fire system including all fire department's requirements. 41. LATERAL AND METERS. Each unit or building shall have its own water meter shown on the plans. Each parcel shall have its own water service and sewer lateral connection shown on the plans. 42. SEWER LATERAL. A new sewer lateral is required, and a profile of the sewer lateral is required showing any possible conflicts with electric/communications duct banks or other utilities. 43. WATER LATERAL. All existing water and wastewater services/laterals that will not be reused shall be abandoned at the main per the latest WGW utilities standards. 44. SEPARATION. Utility vaults, transformers, utility cabinets, concrete bases, or other structures cannot be placed over existing water, gas, or wastewater mains/services. Maintain 1’ horizontal clear separation from the vault/cabinet/concrete base to existing utilities as found in the field. If there is a conflict with existing utilities, Cabinets/vaults/bases shall be relocated from the plan location as needed to meet field conditions. Trees may not be planted within 10 feet of existing water, gas, and wastewater mains/laterals/water services/or meters. New water or wastewater services/laterals/meters may not be installed within 10’ of existing trees. Maintain 10’ between new trees and new water and wastewater services/laterals/meters except as otherwise approve in conjunction with utilities and urban forestry. 45. COPY OF PLANS. 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. 46. METER LAYOUT. Domestic water meter layout: The applicant needs to provide an estimated domestic water load in G.P.M. to design the water service and meter size. A 3" or 4” water meter will require a 4'x8' water meter set with a 2" by-pass per DWG. NO. WD-04. The vault shall be located on private property inside a public utility easement. The applicant's engineer shall obtain, prepare, and record with the county of Santa Clara, and provide the utility engineering section with copies of the public utilities easement on the front of the property adjacent to the City right of way at the water point of service. 47. UTILITY INSTALLATIONS. All utility installations shall be in accordance with the City of Palo Alto utility standards for water, gas, & wastewater Item 4 Attachment C-Complete Draft Conditions of Approval     Packet Pg. 104     PUBLIC WORKS ELECTRIC UTILITIES 48. EXTEND THE JOINT TRENCH. Extend the Joint trench up to Manhole 1636. With this scheme, the No. 6 box would not be needed. There would also be no need for a down guy. It is not advisable to maintain one span of overhead primary line. 49. DOWN GUY. If a down guy cannot be installed at the proposed transition pole from Overhead to underground at 380 Portage, explore the possibility of undergrounding of electric lines to the next pole and install down guy from said pole. The existing primary cable is 556 kcmil and it is not advisable to slack span said cable given the existing pole spacing. PUBLIC WORKS ZERO WASTE 50. TRASH ENCLOSURE DESIGN AND SERVICING. The trash enclosure shall comply with the trash enclosure area guidelines. Any modifications to the propose trash enclosure shall require Zero Waste review and approval. Containers must be brought out to the street or any area within 25 feet of the service area or charges will apply. All service area around the refuse enclosure must have a clearance height of 20 feet for bin services. The path-of-travel must have a 22’ wide access (ingress and egress) with a 16’ tall overhead clearance along the full path and a 12’ wide impervious path-of-travel. Identify the waste bin service area path-of-travel if different from location of waste enclosure. The path-of-travel must be unobstructed (bins be able to roll without obstacles or jumping curbs). 51. DISPOSAL FACILITY REQUIREMENTS. If your scope of work includes internal and external bins then cut-sheets for the color-coded internal and external containers, related color-coded millwork, and it’s colored signage must be included in the building plans prior to receiving approval from Zero Waste in accordance with PAMC 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 community room, outdoor family 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 worth of color-coding, 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. Copy area must have either a recycle bin only or all three refuse receptacles (green compost, blue recycle, and black landfill container). Mother’s room must minimally have a green compost 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 WATER QUALITY 52. TRASH ENCLOSURE DESIGN FOR STORMWATER. In compliance with PAMC 16.09.180(b)(10) Dumpsters for New buildings and residential developments providing centralized solid waste collection, except for single- family and duplex residences, shall provide a covered area for a dumpster. The area shall be adequately sized for all waste streams and designed with grading or a berm system to prevent water runon and runoff from the area. Please provide a standard detail drawing of the trash enclosure area. Item 4 Attachment C-Complete Draft Conditions of Approval     Packet Pg. 105     Item 4 Attachment C-Complete Draft Conditions of Approval     Packet Pg. 106     Item No. 5. 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: October 5, 2023 Report #: 2309-2023 TITLE Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for August 17, 2023 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) adopt the attached meeting minutes. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Minutes of August 17, 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 5 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 107     Page 1 of 35 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 08/17/23 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD DRAFT MINUTES: August 17, 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 Yingxi Chen, Boardmember David Hirsch, Boardmember Osma Thompson Absent: None 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 Senior Planner Raybould reported staff is expecting the NVCAP to return for a second study session focusing on the Chapter 7 implementation and they are hoping to receive a report from the ad hoc committee on the same day regarding a roof tops and bird safe glazing. Boardmember Thompson was on that ad hoc committee, staff was hoping for feedback from Boardmember Chen regarding those items. September 21 has the fire station at 3600 Middlefield Road on the Agenda with modifications, as well as a preliminary review for 425 High Street which is an existing hotel looking to add another level with use of transfer development rights (TDR). It will be a preliminary review. Beyond that, staff is expecting a number of items coming forward in October and they hope to have some of the housing projects back for ARB review. There have been no new projects added since the last meeting. Staff did update the status of projects on the most recent list. Chair Baltay commented he would like to do the ad hoc report outs at the end of the meeting. Action Items 2. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI‐JUDICIAL. 800 San Antonio Road [23PLN‐00010]: Consider the Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Planned Home Zoning (PHZ) to Allow for a Rezoning to Item 5 Attachment A Minutes of August 17, 2023     Packet Pg. 108     Page 2 of 35 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 08/17/23 Planned Community/Planned Home Zoning. The project includes a request for approval of a subdivision map to merge two adjacent lots to create a resulting 0.88‐acre parcel and to construct 76 residential ownership units, 16 of which would be below market rate units (21% of the units). The proposed building is 5‐stories with two levels of subterranean parking. Environmental Assessment: The City is preparing an Environmental Impact Report Addendum to the previously certified Housing Incentive Program Expansion and 788 San Antonio Mixed‐Use Project EIR (SCH # 2019090070). Zoning District: CS (Commercial Service). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Emily Kallas at Emily.Kallas@CityofPaloAlto.org. Chair Baltay introduced the item and called for Boardmember disclosures. Boardmember Hirsch stated he visited the site. Vice Chair Rosenberg stated she visited the site. Chair Baltay stated he visited the site. Boardmember Chen stated she visited the site. Boardmember Thompson stated she visited the site and added that she noticed on one of the buildings there was a sign for a proposed new project for that building as well. The street elevations in the current drawings would be different if that proposed project also gets approved. Ms. Raybould clarified the address and stated that 824 San Antonio is in fact now moving forward. Emily Kallas is the planner for that project as well. Boardmember Thompson stated she took a picture of the building. Chair Baltay requested that the picture be put on the screen if possible. Project Planner Emily Kallas stated she has the information included in her presentation for this project. Chair Baltay requested the staff report. Ms. Kallas reported the project at 800-814 San Antonio Road is a Planned Community (PC) rezoning or Planned Home zoning (PHC) project. The location of the project is on San Antonio Road between Lake Horn Street and East Charleston Road. It is in the Housing Incentive Program (HIP) area, but it is not an HIP project. They are using the PHZ process to ask for exceptions for various development standards. There are other nearby projects, 788 San Antonio project that is on the corner to the south of this project and 824 San Antonio which is two buildings to the north. That project is an HIP project for senior housing. The application came in about three or four weeks ago, it is early in its review stage. General project description for 800 San Antonio is a five story residential building with seventy-six for sale condominium units, sixteen of which will be affordable based on the requirements of the APHZ projects. The project will merge the two existing parcels, the 800 parcel and the 808-814 San Antonio parcels as a simultaneous process. Due to it being a PHZ project, the applicants are requesting the following exceptions: 2.99 FAR where 0.4-1.0 is allowed, 65% Lot coverage where 50% is allowed, 60 feet height where 50 feet height is allowed, no ground floor retail/commercial use is proposed, where typically 1500 sf is required, reduced on-site open space requirements, and balconies project six inches into Special setback. They also project Item 5 Attachment A Minutes of August 17, 2023     Packet Pg. 109     Page 3 of 35 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 08/17/23 into the rear setback, but that is allowed under the base zoning. Along San Antonio it is a special 24-foot setback, typically projections would not be allowed into special setbacks, so they are asking for an exception. The proposed projection is modest, it’s only about six inches for two of the balconies. The front setback is diagonal in a sense; thus, the balcony projections are not consistent. Ms. Kallas displayed the first two floors plans. The ground floor has an added exit leading to the parking garage, and the gym and other resident amenities are pushed towards the street and there is a central courtyard which provides the majority common open space. On the upper floors most of the units have an outdoor balcony, however some of the ground floor units do not have rear private open space because that area is required for a drainage bed. For the height exception, the applicant is asking for a height limit of sixty feet which would be 60’ to the top of the parapet and an additional couple of feet to the top of the mechanical enclosure. Staff would typically not count the rooftop material towards the maximum height of the building, there is generally some exception for additional height. There is no daylight plane requirement since the building is more than 150-feet away from other residential zones. Although 788 San Antonio is a residential project, it's not a residential zoning district. Ms. Kallas displayed the proposed elevations streetscapes and explained that there is a physical material board available for review, they are proposing fiber-cement panels, and metal panels to accent metal trim and glass on the railings of the balconies. For clarification, the height of 788 San Antonio is fifty feet, without taking into consideration the distance between grade and finished floor. The proposed building at 800 San Antonio is very close to grade. The building at 788 San Antonio is stepped up about two or three feet. There’s about a ten foot height distance between the two buildings. The applicants are asking for an exception to the retail preservation ordinance and are requesting that no retail be required. The existing structures currently contain Enterprise Car Rental and a spa. The open space proposed is that most units have a balcony that’s between seventy and a hundred and thirty square feet. Most are five feet deep, where typically six feet is the minimum dimension for private open space and the usable space of the shared courtyard is about 1,900 square feet. The setback areas are not currently programmed as usable space. The front setback is proposing drought tolerant grass and the open space in the rear yard setback is required for drainage. The PHZ process is a little more complicated than other planning entitlements, the project started with a prescreening in August of 2022 and went before Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) in June. The applicants are returning with recommended changes, the process for the future will be once this portion has moved back to the PTC with an ARB recommendation, and PTC makes the recommendation for City Council. Public comments are accepted at all Public Hearings and any time throughout this process by emailing Ms. Kallas directly. The previously certified 788 San Antonio Road and Housing Incentive Program Expansion Environmental Impact Review (EIR) analyzed high-density housing development at this site and on other nearby parcels along San Antonio Rd. The City is preparing an addendum to the previously certified EIR to clarify the proposed-site specific modifications on these parcels and document that no new or more significant impacts would occur as a result of the project and although that is still under analysis, this project must comply with all adopted mitigation measures consistent with 788 San Antonio and other future projects in the area. Staff recommends the ARB provide feedback on the project design and continue the hearing to a date uncertain. Chair Baltay preferred to allow Board questions for staff prior to continuing with the applicants presentation. Item 5 Attachment A Minutes of August 17, 2023     Packet Pg. 110     Page 4 of 35 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 08/17/23 Boardmember Hirsch commented that Ms. Kallas answered his question regarding the rear setback, however, he asked if the department would allow for greater front balcony extensions into the front setback. Ms. Kallas explained that would be considered as part of the PHZ exceptions, which would mean in addition to being considered here in the ARB, it would need Council approval. Since it is a special setback, there is an interest in potential consideration for expansion to allow bike infrastructure along San Antonio. That is still being discussed by the Office of Transportation. Boardmember Hirsch asked if that was moving ahead, as it seems incredibly important at this point. Senior Planner and ARB Liaison Raybould answered that there is nothing currently in the works for that, and comments regarding that were highly discouraged. They are asking for an exception on the balconies. Boardmember Hirsch commented that he had read a comment regarding increasing it so that may be something the ARB discusses. Vice Chair Rosenberg inquired about the CS zone versus the PHZ zone and understood that the CS zone allows for fifty feet of height, then inquired if the difference was that the PHZ asks for fifty feet but will allow for exception. Ms. Kallas explained that the CS zone is what the property is currently zoned the PHZ process is a rezoning where Council is allowed to approve a greater height or increase to the regular development standards for the purpose of providing a public benefit, in this case for the PHZ projects, the benefit is more housing units. The PHZ is simultaneous with the addendum because the development standards are basically crafted around what the proposed project is. Vice Chair Rosenberg clarified that the sixty foot height extension would be granted under the PHZ which would then make it no longer an exception. Ms. Kallas responded that was correct. Boardmember Chen inquired about the retail preservation ordinance and asked if there is generally a minimum retail requirement. Ms. Kallas stated that with the retail preservation ordinance, a proposed residential project would be required to retain the retail square footage that had occupied the property previously. Certain housing projects, including this project, opted to replace 1,500 square feet, which is the minimum required in a mixed use building, the applicant’s requested exception is for this project to have no retail space. Ms. Raybould added that the code gives a partial waiver for exclusively high-density residential, which is thirty dwelling units per acre, or more. In this case, the project meets that. Under the current code they would be required to replace 1,500 square feet to make it mixed use. Boardmember Chen asked if the retail were not made an exception, would that affect the parking requirements. Ms. Kallas stated that yes, if the scope of the project were changed to incorporate retail, it would likely affect the parking requirement. Item 5 Attachment A Minutes of August 17, 2023     Packet Pg. 111     Page 5 of 35 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 08/17/23 Ms. Raybould requested a minute to research the code, as there is an allowance to not provide parking for a certain amount of the retail and she didn’t know those numbers off hand. Ms. Kallas stated currently the parking is proposed according to code requirements, which is why it wasn’t mentioned during the presentation. They are not requesting an exception. There is also an option to do a TDM to reduce the parking to accommodate retail space as well. Boardmember Chen asked if parking was considered for restaurant use. Ms. Kallas replied that restaurant use is considered “retail-like” and could count towards that requirement, even though restaurant does have it’s own requirement. Boardmember Thompson stated it would be good to know how the parking would change and how much more parking would be required. Additionally, she requested that the Board see what 824 San Antonio proposal looks like, it’s available online. Ms. Kallas said she could bring that up as a screen share. Boardmember Hirsch commented that it sounds like commercial space is not specific at that point and inquired how staff determines which projects would have commercial use and which ones wouldn’t. Ms. Raybould replied that all projects that have been approved to move forward are required to have commercial space, it is determined by City Council if they grant the exception allowance or not. There was mixed feedback during the prescreening from the public and Council members. To add clarity to Vice Chair Rosenberg’s question regarding Planned Community (PC) zoning, the Planned Home zoning is about weighing the requested exceptions to the code and what they are proposing as part of the project to the public benefits. Council will be deciding in the end if the public benefits match what they are requesting. It’s question of how many exceptions are being requested, how much are they asking over code, do the public benefits in terms of affordable housing warrant the exceptions requested. This project’s benefits came in high in terms of the mix of low and very low income housing being proposed. That deeper affordability is harder for the City to achieve for the Reginal Housing Needs Allocations (RHNA). City Council determines if what is being proposed warrants granting those exceptions, based on what is being requested in those exceptions. Ms. Kallas displayed the slide showing the 824 front façade elevation on screen, as submitted during the first round of review. It is four stories, fifty feet in height. Chair Baltay commented that the idea is to provide a public benefit, and inquired if retail is also considered a public benefit, or even additional bike lanes, perhaps off site. Ms. Raybould replied that bike lanes could certainly be considered a public benefit, the retail would not be highlighted as a public benefit of a project, particularly because it’s a requirement of the code. But there is value in it. Chair Baltay added that it’s reasonable to recommend that public benefits be construed more broadly perhaps than just housing. He understood there was a CEQA report for 788 San Antonio, and inquired if it is the same report that was prepared for the hotel a few years ago. Item 5 Attachment A Minutes of August 17, 2023     Packet Pg. 112     Page 6 of 35 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 08/17/23 Ms. Raybould answered that 788 San Antonio project evaluated the full housing incentive program being applied through the San Antonio corridor when they went through the CEQA process. As part of that, by applying the HIP, it could result in additional projects, such as this one. Staff had to analyze what the potential was in applying that HIP. As part of that, they evaluated what the potential is on each of these sites using some assumptions about floor area, et cetera. For this project, it assumes 94 units. Ms. Kallas stated it was presumed a higher number of units than what is being proposed because this project is providing the two and three bedroom sized units. They are larger than what had been envisioned. Chair Baltay asked if the reason they are having to amend the EIR is due to one of the two parcels not being in the HIP designated area. Ms. Kallas explained that this project exceeds the floor area that was anticipated because the EIR anticipated maximum build out under what the HIP zoning requirements are, so in that case it’s a 2.0 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and this project is proposing a 2.99 FAR. The addendum is to account for the additional floor area and to be more project specific. Chair Baltay mentioned the reason he’s bringing it up is due to many public comments expressing concern over the additional traffic on San Antonio, based on the EIR reports and additional developments, and asked if that would be studied again as part of the amendment, perhaps bicycle traffic as well. Ms. Kallas stated it would be helpful for her to go get what the exact assumed unit number was in the original EIR, because the 76 that are being proposed as part of this project is less than the original number, staff is assuming that they will have a less or equal traffic impact as what was previously analyzed. Ms. Raybould answered Chair Baltay with no, staff would not revisit all of those things, except to the extent that they are providing more detail. Staff would look at the site specific conditions regarding circulation on the site, where they are proposing driveway access and safety measures as part of that. Staff wouldn’t expect that it would require re analysis. Chair Baltay asked if the date of the original analysis was available. Ms. Raybould replied that she would look into that. Ms. Kallas commented that the final EIR date is dated October of 2020, she would have to look into what the drafted date was. Chair Baltay questioned that the study was done based on traffic patterns that took place more than three years ago. Ms. Ms. Raybould agreed, however the study looks at project plus background, the cumulative scenario in that expected build-out over a period of time, usually a ten year period. She would have to look at what was considered for this particular scenario. It was already considered with a build out of 800 units on the San Antonio corridor. Vice Chair Rosenberg inquired for context, if the traffic for 788 San Antonio enters on the right side or the left side of the front façade of their building. Item 5 Attachment A Minutes of August 17, 2023     Packet Pg. 113     Page 7 of 35 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 08/17/23 Ms. Kallas replied that since that project is on the corner, their entry is on Acorn. Chair Baltay thanked the applicant for their patience and requested they begin their presentation. Mr. Mark Donahue, Design Director for Lowney Architecture, presented the project on behalf of the applicants, at 800-808 San Antonio Road. He gave a brief history of the background behind the RHNA needs and stated that one of their goals for this project is to provide housing for what is critically missing, the missing middle. This area is a very urban area, and the entire block is turning towards residential projects of different sorts. It’s switching from a light industrial zone, which is closer to the core of the community, and not appropriate to use as it was in the past. They wanted to introduce a high-end contemporary design as nod to the future. It’s located very close to major transportation, it’s close to the 101 with easy access to the freeway, and it’s close to Middlefield, on the border with Mountainview. There is somewhat of an assumption that in the future Mountainview will also be looking at potentially developing this area for housing since all cities in the bay area are struggling to meet their RHNA goals. This project is outside the 700 foot radius of residential property. There is a development across the street that is a residential use, but it is in a different zone, and this project is about 300-feet from it. Mountainview is currently large boxed retail and industrial zone. The applicants see the PHZ zoning as vehicle for encouraging denser potential housing and not necessarily commercial, and still be near jobs, near transit, and near services. There is 28% inclusionary requirement, the project achieves 21%, they’ve upgraded that requirement. It’s a rare opportunity to offer full sale product to moderate and low income households. Zoning provides some flexibility in development standards. This site was identified in the Housing Element as an opportunity site, which is how they ended up there. It was a site that was targeted for housing development and targeted at 30 dwelling units per acre, which is what is being presented. Mr. Donahue shared a speculation about what the block would look like in the future and the surrounding area. There are several retail outlets within a mile of the property, as well as a major park and three quarters of a mile from one of the minor neighborhood parks. There is opportunity for local recreation. The setback in the front is being held by the City for some type of future development such as potential bike lanes and did have an affect on how they treated the front elevation. The office of transportation expressed concern regarding the heat island effect and based on those comments the applicant made additional changes to add shrubbery in the front and another row of trees to provide another layering effect with the current street trees in place. There is an interior courtyard to provide large open space to be shared by the residents and it was designed in a way that can be seen from the street. The lobby has a double height space that is transparent with glazing for the full height. When you look in from the street the activity can be seen in the courtyard. Additionally, all the residents with a courtyard unit will have it as their view. The firm has experience with many facets of retail and determined this was a horrible location to put retail. There’s no parking, even if people were to park in the garage, retail thrives on front facing parking, unless it’s a large shopping center with a field of parking. The other consideration given for not including retail is there are plenty of empty store fronts through town that are in far better locations for retail traffic. This is a partially industrial area, there won’t be much in the way of local foot traffic. Even if there was a destination restaurant, a larger area would be needed to provide the number of customers to make it profitable. Active retail is always on everyone’s mind, architects love to see it, but they have to remain cognizant of the reality of placement. The ground floor frontage is primarily for active uses, the gym, clubhouse, and the entry to the parking garage. Item 5 Attachment A Minutes of August 17, 2023     Packet Pg. 114     Page 8 of 35 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 08/17/23 Chair Baltay interjected that the applicant had reached his ten minute time limit and he would allow him an additional minute to wrap up. Mr. Donahue quickly ran through slides of more floor plans, the roof top mechanical and solar panels, the parking garage, the elevation design on all sides, and a comparison with 788 San Antonio. Chair Baltay thanked the applicant for wrapping it up quickly and opened the floor to Boardmembers who wished to ask the applicant questions. Boardmember Thompson stated she had questions but expressed an interest in asking them after the public comments as that may raise additional questions. Boardmember Hirsch commented that he could wait until after public comments. Chair Baltay opened the meeting to public comments and stated that each speaker would be provided with three minutes. PUBLIC COMMENTS Joan Larrabee, a resident of the Green House on San Antonio Rd, provided public comment and inquired if the units would be condominiums for sale or rentals. She has experience looking at traffic engineering analysis and is concerned with the amount of residential going in on San Antonio which is only a four laned road with no bicycle lanes, even though one bicycle space is proposed for each unit. There is no bus service to the building, which was removed years ago. Traveling northbound towards the 101, the two lanes drop to one lane at the Charleston intersection which causes a back up of traffic trying to get onto the freeway. This project is taller than both the hotels which were required to set back each vertical floor with plenty of landscaping. She believes this project is too tall, too crowded and lacks clarification on what type of residential housing they intend. Chris Brosnan provided public comment regarding his appreciation of the mix of below market rates in the units and stated it is exactly what the area needs. Market rate units are adding to the problems that the area already has. Unfortunately, this is not the place to have a large building, the water table is about ten to fifteen feet under the ground at the property and typically a single residential development will take about twenty to thirty million gallons of water out of the ground. There’s a river that runs underground into the bay and a dam will need to be built and the ground will need to be filled and which fills the unseen portion of the bay. He urged the Board not to allow extra exceptions to height with two underground stories of parking. It’s also not a great space for foot traffic. The green house has about ten units per acre and there’s just enough space for kids to play and for people to congregate. This project seems like a lot of units to be adding per acre and then depicting it as a beautiful spacious place for people to be walking around. There are better places in Palo Alto for urban development that is further away from the bay. John Petrilla provided public comment regarding the comments on the original EIR, and the lack of concern displayed in response to those comments. He hoped any further review of the EIR would allow the substance of public comments to be taken more seriously. He would appreciate seeing more Item 5 Attachment A Minutes of August 17, 2023     Packet Pg. 115     Page 9 of 35 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 08/17/23 successful, attractive housing projects. He would also like to see the traffic patterns for students going to school. The school districts are not identified in the project, and it has not been determined how the children who will live at the property get there. Crossing San Antonio and Middlefield Roads are dangerous during high volume traffic hours. He appreciates the additional trees that were added. Canopy is a great organization that can be utilized as a resource for creating more canopy shaded areas. Native California trees are a great addition for any project, they should be able to do better than one or two on the property. Applicants should not be given an opportunity to change their choice of street trees at the last hour. Mr. Petrilla thanked the Board for their time. Chair Baltay thanked the members of the public for their comments and closed the Public Comments. Boardmember Thompson asked if there was open space on the roof. Mr. Donahue responded that all of the open space is at the ground level, except for the balconies which are available to all units above the ground floor. The ground floor units facing the courtyard have patios, the ground floor units that don’t face the courtyard do not. Boardmember Thompson requested information regarding the parking structure encroaching on the new trees in the front lawn. Mr. Donahue confirmed that the front trees are planted in native soil. The garage is held back a bit and does not encroach on the root structures of the trees. Boardmember Thompson inquired about the perforated blue panel which seemed like they were fins, and asked how they would be mounted on the cement panels. Mr. Donahue replied that there are several different ways to detail those, typically they affix a bracket, and that bracket is either behind the panel or it’s mounted on top. For this project they would consider mounting it behind with a slot that allows the panel to come through. Boardmember Thompson asked if the fins would slot into the cement panel. Mr. Donahue stated they were not yet at the point in the project to provide a definitive response to that question, that is a more refined detail. Boardmember Thompson asked if the blue panel was also being used for shading on the south façade. Mr. Donahue answered that it is. Boardmember Thompson stated the plans were a little unclear and asked if there was a view to the courtyard through the lobby from the San Antonio façade. Mr. Donahue replied that was correct. The Lobby is double height glass with glazing on both the exteriors, one facing San Antonio and the other facing the courtyard. Under certain lighting conditions it will be more transparent than at other times during the day. During the mornings it would be likely you could see through the lobby from the street, and in the afternoon, due to the reflective nature of the glass, it would be harder to see. Item 5 Attachment A Minutes of August 17, 2023     Packet Pg. 116     Page 10 of 35 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 08/17/23 Boardmember Thompson noticed there wasn’t much glazing on the street level and inquired about the design intent on the street level. Mr. Donahue responded that the challenge in any residential building that doesn’t have a side street for access, all the service elements want to be on the front of the building. The transformer, the bicycle storage, all those want to be on the front so a portion of the front of the building allotted for those things. They tried to mitigate it with landscape and with plaza like paving. The main entry was designed as a lobby type with a view, using colored glass on the elevation for added design feature, and the community spaces located to the right/south from the lobby, are also very large windows facing onto protected courtyards. As you pass by on the street, they were avoiding the feeling of solidity. It will be transparent and active with those functions that are primarily south of the lobby. Boardmember Thompson questioned if there was design intent with any type of lighting for how the building might look at night. Mr. Donahue commented that residential is limited to uplighting, or any type of lighting that might intrude into the residences. Once does get the sense of the life of the building being projected out when people have their lights on. There isn’t a specific night lighting concept intent. As a firm, they generally try to avoid light noise during the night on the exterior of residential community buildings. There will be down lighting on the ground level and in the lobby. Boardmember Chen requested information on the garbage collection method. She saw there was a loading area outside the trash room underground and asked if the garbage truck would have to travel inside the garage. Mr. Donahue stated that as part of the building management, they would have the trash brought to the surface during collection periods. They are still working through the exact location of where the bins would be located when the truck comes for pick-up. The challenge is if they put the trash room on the front façade, it consumes twenty to thirty feet of the façade with utility doors. The decision was made to have the trash processed in the first basement level and moved for collection. Boardmember Chen inquired if the basement storage space is tenant occupied. Mr. Donahue stated those would be available to rent from the tenants. Boardmember Chen asked if there is an elevation difference between the ground floor and the street level. Mr. Donahue stated there is a difference once you get to the residential area. At the front of the building the elevation has a slight differentiation for drainage. The lobby floor, the corridor leading to the community space and the gym are all at grade level. There will be a ramp up to the residential units. There is one unit that is at grade level. The rest are slightly elevated. Boardmember Chen asked for clarification on where the ramp would be located. Mr. Donahue stated it is on the ground floor, internally, it is depicted by a dashed line on the drawings and is in the lower left corner corridors slope slightly. Item 5 Attachment A Minutes of August 17, 2023     Packet Pg. 117     Page 11 of 35 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 08/17/23 Chair Baltay requested the plan be put on screen for the publics view. Boardmember Chen continued by asking about the patterned screen on the material and inquired if that was the pattern that would be used for the project. Mr. Donahue confirmed that it was. The scale of the openings are about three inches across at their widest, there is a lot of light and air that filters through. Mr. Donahue returned to the ramp question and stated he noticed that the graphics of the ramp location do not show the ramps, and stated looking at the plans may not be helpful. The intent is for the ground level units to be around a foot higher than the adjacent grade, if possible. The drawings will need to be corrected to reflect those. Boardmember Chen asked if the one bedroom on the front would have the increase in grade. Mr. Donahue responded that unit is the exception. The rest of the units are above grade. The trade off is that the non-elevated unit will have higher ceilings. Boardmember Chen inquired about the areas in front of the fire pump facing San Antonio and asked if it will be landscaped or hard scaped. Mr. Donahue answered that the area adjacent to the entry to the garage next to the transformer will be a combination of pavers and turf pavers. The turf pavers provide infiltration for the storm water system. The rest of the pavers are solid. Boardmember Hirsch inquired about the EIR relative to the water table. That could be an issue for the whole area, how is that treated in the EIR study. Ms. Kallas commented that she did a cursory search during and after that comment. She did not find anything that indicated it would be different than a typical project in terms of meeting standard de- watering standards for any large project. The property is not in a flood zone. Boardmember Hirsch stated the comment made was about the water going into the bay. Ms. Raybould commented that the public comment was likely related to dewatering that would be required as part of the project and she remembered correctly, there were formal comments on that in the EIR that staff provided formal responses on. She stated staff could certainly revisit those when Ms. Kallas returns with this projects EIR and provide a little more detail. There is a detailed dewatering ordinance for Palo Alto that was revisited a few years ago and because more strict. There are a lot of code requirements related to how the dewatering has to be done to protect the environment. There are secant walls which provide protection for the base of the structure to stop water coming in. Boardmember Hirsch indicated he was inquiring about the water draining out to the bay, not the water coming in from the bay. If it’s obstructed with structures like this, one would think that would be a consideration as part of the EIR study, particularly structures with basements. Vice Chair Rosenberg inquired if a soils report was included as part of the EIR? Item 5 Attachment A Minutes of August 17, 2023     Packet Pg. 118     Page 12 of 35 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 08/17/23 Ms. Raybould commented that a soils report is generally site specific, as part of any building development permit, a soils report is conducted. Vice Chair Rosenberg stated that typically those note a water table level and asked if at a future hearing that water table level be noted. It might be useful to know particularly with a building proposing a double level basement. Ms. Raybould stated they likely don’t have the geo-technical report because it wouldn’t be required for the building permit, but they can definitely reference the general table level in that area. Boardmember Hirsch believes the response to the 788 building has improved with the changes on the elevations, it would have been nice if those had been in the packet from the beginning. He inquired earlier about the balconies going further into the front of the building. A six foot balcony would be more useful to the tenants, that could be addressed in the design critique of the building. Chair Baltay reminded Boardmember Hirsch that this was time for questions. Boardmember Hirsch asked the applicant if they would consider providing six foot balconies. Mr. Donahue stated he would be very interested. He would have to ask the buyer of the building. They feel additional depth would help with the articulation of the front façade and would make it more livable. Boardmember Hirsch inquired if they explored a location for on-sight deliveries. New residential buildings going into this area, particularly the denser populated projects, aren’t taking into consideration that there isn’t room for loading zones on a street that already doesn’t have a bike lane. With a setback it’s conceivable there would be a front loading area, food deliveries and package deliveries will have an impact on traffic. Mr. Donahue stated that it is a challenge that was considered. Certain vehicles would be possible to bring them into the building, it would also require the cooperation of the companies that are making the deliveries. There will be a loading dock that will be tall enough to accommodate trucks on the first basement level. They anticipate that FedEx, UPS, Amazon will not want to come into the building which is why the applicants are seeking a loading zone, which would also be used by ride share services such as LIFT or UBER. That 24-foot zone is tempting, but they were admonished not to utilize it for those types of functions, as it will have to be relocated if they add a bike lane to San Antonio. The applicant is trying to consider future development, so the 24-foot band is being utilized for something more useful for the neighborhood. Boardmember Hirsch commented that there is also an access point for the garage and the capability of perhaps changing some of the electrical box and turn it in the other direction so there’s an area in the front, in addition to some paving. It is conceivable that a drop off point could be created. Mr. Donahue agreed that it is conceivable. Boardmember Hirsch inquired if they explored the possibility of adding decks into the back yards over the drainage area? Item 5 Attachment A Minutes of August 17, 2023     Packet Pg. 119     Page 13 of 35 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 08/17/23 Mr. Donahue answered they were originally in the plans, the civil engineer stated they would need more space for infiltration. The patios and decks were abandoned for that reason. There are a number of engineering standards for the drainage area, they originally asked if a permeable material could be used. He would be happy to go back and ask again. Boardmember Hirsch asked if the roof could be used for water retainage. Mr. Donahue explained that the entire impermeable surface of the roof has to be dealt with as a drainage surface. All the water that falls onto the roof is regulated by storm water rules require that the plans describe how they would get it off the building and into the storm sewer system or into the adjacent grade. The idea of using it as a holding area has never been discussed. Using a planter system requires the planters be down on the next level so gravity would pull the water from the roof and into the plants. To have planters on the actual roof would require a pumping system to get the water into the plants. Boardmember Hirsch asked if a noise study was considered for the courtyard area and what usage is intended. Mr. Donahue stated it is primarily intended for use by groups of people. It is fairly well shaded and believe as the climate gets warmer, it will serve well for shaded outdoor space. It’s not meant as a recreation area, it’s meant as an outdoor area for a quiet gathering or to have BBQ’s. The acoustics is something they would have to monitor. There is nothing in the code that requires those kinds of consideration. They are required to have certain acoustical quietness within the units. That is a study where the noise levels would be tested as the units were being built. Boardmember Hirsch asked if they studied the solar light within the courtyard and how that impacts the ground level units. Mr. Donahue stated that the ground level will be in shade for the bulk of the year. The courtyard is wider than a usual courtyard, but not wide enough to have sunlight in the middle of a six story building on the ground level, other than during midday in summer months. The materials selected for the north wall are high albedo. There will be light, it won’t be reflected in the sense of a mirror, but there will be some light reflected and it won’t be a dark space. Boardmember Hirsch inquired about the growth of the trees in the courtyard. There isn’t a landscape person available at the hearing. Some of the trees are under balconies as well. Mr. Donahue stated they rely on their landscape architects as the professionals to provide them with the proper planting depth and the right species that will survive in that environment. They have consulted with them on what is to be expected in that space. He can follow up with that. All of the trees will be in raised planters to allow for some soil depth. Boardmember Hirsch asked if they took into consideration that half the trees will be shaded by balconies. Mr. Donahue stated it was acknowledged. Boardmember Hirsch stated there seemed to be missing drawings for sections through areas like that. For example, there’s a planting wall on the east side of the courtyard. Item 5 Attachment A Minutes of August 17, 2023     Packet Pg. 120     Page 14 of 35 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 08/17/23 Mr. Donahue stated that in their experience it’s relatively easy to find groups of species that will thrive in those conditions. It’s currently planned to grow up to two or three stories. Ms. Raybould noted that looking at the ground level on A2.1, it doesn’t seem like the trees are under the patios. Mr. Donahue stated there are balconies that sit out over the footprint of the trees. Boardmember Hirsch stated it’s on drawing A2.2. Mr. Donahue stated he said he has a red maple that is under the eaves, and it does very well. Boardmember Hirsch asked if this project is above the flood zone. Mr. Donahue replied that there’s not a flood zone in that location. Ms. Kallas stated that neither 800 nor 808 are in flood zones. Vice Chair Rosenberg thanked the other Boardmembers for asking a lot of the questions that she had, and asked if there are interior courtyard elevations of the building. Mr. Donahue responded that they do not. Vice Chair Rosenberg asked if they had considered opening the gym or the club house to that open space. Mr. Donahue stated that was part of the original study and in order to do that, they end up with more units facing the street. Vice Chair Rosenberg asked if the gym would be open to the public or only open to the residents of the building. Mr. Donahue responded it is currently planned for the residents only. Vice Chair Rosenberg inquired if having the units to the north and south of the courtyard, abutting that space, is going to pose any sort of privacy or noise issue. Mr. Donahue explained that in the landscape plan, each of those units will have a fenced patio of their own. There will be some acoustical consideration when the space is active. The privacy fence should provide an exterior area for those units to enjoy. Vice Chair Rosenberg stated that if there were not those dedicated patios there would be up to 3,000 square feet (SF) of open space for the public and asked if they had considered making the open space larger. Vice Chair Rosenberg noted she appreciated his earlier candor in his presentation in saying the nearest park was over a mile away and parents would get in their mini vans and go. Mr. Donahue answered her inquiry in making those public patios versus using that as open space and explained that if there were no patios, those who are using the courtyard could step right up to the windows and doors, in which case the privacy issue then becomes a concern. Additionally, the question regarding exterior recreation on urban infill projects is always troubling because a lot of time roof terraces requires a level of vigilance with watching children and property owners aren’t comfortable with the liability. They were trying to balance a number of concerns, first being how many units to include in order Item 5 Attachment A Minutes of August 17, 2023     Packet Pg. 121     Page 15 of 35 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 08/17/23 for it to get built. There is small room for error in the proforma once the number of units starts to decrease. Particularly with the recent cost increases on materials used to build. Vice Chair Rosenberg then questioned if they were accidentally pricing out retail, particularly with low income residents in the building. If they price the retail space low enough, they will likely find a potential renter for the space. Mr. Donahue replied they had several long conversations regarding retail in the building and reached out to their broker partners in real estate to get potential proformas for many potential types of retail and based on that input, the numbers didn’t make sense, the space would be best served as community use for the building. Looking further into the future, if they ended up with more traffic that could justify retail, with the way the space is designed, they could potentially look at the community space for a conversion to a future retail use. Vice Chair Rosenberg inquired about bike and school traffic and families would be renting… Mr. Donahue interrupted her and clarified that this is a condo building, not a rental building. Vice Chair Rosenberg asked if they expected families to purchase the space and live there for a period of time. Mr. Donahue stated that was correct. Vice Chair Rosenberg inquired if they had accounted for the path finding and safety of the children getting to the local schools, particularly to the closest elementary school which is Cubberly. Mr. Donahue stated they had not done that, mostly due to that part is beyond the purview of the project and would likely change if the bike lanes came to fruition on San Antonio. He added that as a parent and after the conversations in this hearing, he plans to seek that out as he himself would want to know. Additionally, if all the schools are located to the south, away from the 101, that becomes a much broader question regarding who controls the crosswalks and signaling. Chair Baltay stated he didn’t have any questions of his own. Boardmember Thompson noted they had said something about a multi-colored glass in the lobby and the material board only had one single-colored glass sample. Mr. Donahue answered that the glass on the material board was a representative of the glass quality, they would provide additional information about what is illustrated, they could bring alternate glass colors next time they are scheduled to go before the ARB. Boardmember Thompson asked him to describe it. Mr. Donahue responded that it’s flat along the plane, and there is a clear and a blue. Chair Baltay suggested they take a break before they continue to the Board discussion. The ARB took a 12-minute break. Item 5 Attachment A Minutes of August 17, 2023     Packet Pg. 122     Page 16 of 35 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 08/17/23 The meeting continued at 10:26 a.m. with all ARB Boardmembers present. Chair Baltay resumed the meeting. Boardmember Thompson thanked the applicant and staff for the presentation and the public who spoke and commented that in general she appreciates a lot of the discussion regarding the design intent. The diagram in the presentation was helpful to understand the thinking behind their parti. She believes the elevation gets a bit muddied, the white blocks, which she felt were an important part of the parti is being encroached upon by the balconies. Because this is a taller building, she believes a step back at the upper levels makes a lot of sense and they are doing that with other tall buildings along San Antonio. The buildings scale down to the greenhouse projects. She believes it would also give it more hierarchy to the façade. She spent time walking down San Antonio on both sides and it has a lot of texture. There is masonry and art all along that area and as a result that texture is starting to get a bit lost. Initially she felt the ground level was too blocked off from the rest of the street, and while she understands the conversations surrounding retail, she felt for the solid elements on the ground, it is critical that those have a lot of texture. More than what is showing know. It lacks visual intrigue compared to other projects that have a lot of depth and play on the landscape part of those properties. That’s a critical part of maintaining the character of the area. She appreciates that there is a few into the courtyard, she’ll be curious to see how that works with the colored glass. The side elevations will also be very visible, and she finds those too blank as well. She recommended adding a bit more visual intrigue and character into those elevations as well. The pallet is quite cold. There are light grey and dark grey tones. She understands those are colors being used across the street, but she feels in the greenhouse project there is so much greenery it plays with the greys more. This project lacks the character of a contrast color to bring a warmer element. The blue and brown colors work well together, it would have been nice to see the powder coat chip, and samples of the scale of some of the materials. It could be easily adjusted by swapping out one of the colors for a warmer tone. Maybe a wood grain or something with some texture that would give it a bit more richness. She didn’t realize the blue elements were on the fins and originally thought the elevations were inconsistent. She’s never been a fan of using greys in urban areas because it tends to lend itself to depression in urban areas. It only makes sense if there’s nothing there to play against the grey. She might recommend an air flow analysis for the courtyard given that it is going to be in shade potentially on hot days. She feels it might be worth it to add a breezeway or something that would help the air circulate through the courtyard. She believes the interior elevations would be great. Boardmember Chen thanked the applicant for the presentation and felt she heard a lot of good ideas and design intents behind the project. Her comments on the site plans were to provide a loading and deliveries on site due to the busy-ness of San Antonio Road. She suggested including retail on the ground floor. In the bigger picture there will be an increase of over 800 in the neighborhood. Retail will be needed. There is already some retail in the surrounding area that is doing well. The place across the street is very popular, however parking is a problem. She suggested relocating or replacing the one bedroom unit to face the courtyard. With it facing San Antonio the privacy will be comprised with it being on the street level. It’s nice to have the courtyard at the center but it is relatively small compared to the height of the building. It will be even smaller with the added fences on the patios, which is less than what is shown in the drawings. A larger courtyard would bring more natural light into it and would make the courtyard more pleasant. She agreed with Boardmember Thompson regarding the materials. She suggested adding some warmth Item 5 Attachment A Minutes of August 17, 2023     Packet Pg. 123     Page 17 of 35 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 08/17/23 to the ground level to make it more welcoming and inviting. For the next meeting, she suggested providing elevations for the courtyard. Vice Chair Rosenberg stated she echoed some of her Boardmembers comments. The interior courtyard elevations are a must, the Board really needs to see those, particularly regarding height, colors, textures, all of that information. Many of the windows on the south side do not have sun shading. If those windows are not deeply recessed windows that will potentially pose a problem for the residents in those units. She suggested they consider the shading on the south facing façades, including the south facing courtyard façades. The front elevation façades should also be considered because it almost looks like the sun shading is on the wrong side. The blue strips are on the left side of the windows rather than the right, which shades the north sun and not the south sun on those windows. She had a lot of concerns regarding the courtyard and has a full understanding of what a courtyard should look like in the middle of a six-story building and can be successful, they just need to be amenable to that as air flow matters. Sun light matters and use on the ground level matters. She encouraged them to really consider if they want that area surrounded by residential units. Maybe the north two be units and the south two could be the clubhouse and the gym that open up into the courtyard. It would feel much more like an indoor/outdoor space a creates the illusion of adding more SF to the courtyard but also allows that space to flow in and out, which would make it feel bigger and much more welcoming to the people using the building. The long skinny patios in the courtyard don’t really work. She understands they are there as buffers, but they are not really usable. Maybe there could be two large planters on the left and right side and make two more of a squared area which would make it a much more usable space for those two ground courtyard facing units. She doesn’t have an issue with the 60’ height limit. It’s the center of the block, if they are asking for more on the ground level, it stands to reason the height may need to be increased to add more units which would make the project worthwhile. She knows they are asking for a lot on the ground level. Including retail. She believes it needs to happen, and it doesn’t necessarily need to be the full 1,500 SF, it could be 500, a smaller retail space, but there needs to be retail of some sort. The reason it’s important is when they talk about forward thinking, they need to full play for forward thinking. Having retail creates a vitality to the streetscape, otherwise there’s a really long façade that no one is going into other than the patrons that live there. If they want the area to be walkable and bikeable, they need to think about the future plans of that area now. She encouraged them to begin processing their transportation in and out traffic flows now. Look into bike paths, consider what’s feasible. Whether it’s today or ten years from now there will be kids living in those units that will need to get to their schools and the park. While it may not be the purview of the building itself, it is the purview of how the building relates to the greater community in the area and that’s important. It doesn’t need to be solved right now, but it should be addressed. Trash and circulation, she believes asking management to haul the trash of 76 units on a weekly basis is asking a lot, unless there’s a dedicated person receiving just pay to do so. Door Dash, UPS, all those will be in and out. Make it easy and put a loading zone right there near the mail room. There’s an area there with the bike room, the fire pump, and the switch gear rooms that are all in the front near the garage entrance. There could possibly be a loading zone solution in that area. She loves the concept of being able to see through the entry into the courtyard. It’s elegant and inviting. It makes this building super interesting. Her concern is that the entry, where the address is, has a horizontal band right through the middle. She would love to see that as more open. They could make that look like a double height entry as opposed to where the horizontal band cuts that are in half. It’s a great idea having that area open with a view into the courtyard, Item 5 Attachment A Minutes of August 17, 2023     Packet Pg. 124     Page 18 of 35 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 08/17/23 they should incorporate more of that. With some small refinements that could add a lot of wow factors to the front façade. Vice Chair Rosenberg agreed with her fellow Boardmembers about the materials. She looked forward to seeing them again next time. Boardmember Hirsch commented that several Boardmembers covered a few of his comments. He believed they should push hard to extend the balconies to six feet, they would become so much more useful. He still believed that decks could be possible in the rear yard in a way that would allow the water retention below the decks. Engineers should be able to figure that out. He believed the issue of hauling the garbage to the grade level in front reduces the use of the space. It could be designed in such a way that by adding more landscape and using the sidewalk leading to the garage, a loading area could be created. Adding signage to the front on San Antonio might defer people from using the front of the building. The bike path on San Antonio Road is a current critical need for the area and will affect the use of the street side on the front façade. Rooftop retention is something he asked the applicant to explore. He’s concerned about the courtyard use. Given the size, they need to be careful regarding the use of it. He liked the idea of incorporating some of the ground level community use areas into the courtyard. It would make it a more interesting space. With them still being flexible they may consider moving some of the courtyard units to the front of the building where the current community area is. That, along with opening the community area up into the courtyard, would increase the size of the courtyard. That would also put the courtyard activity further away from the units on the opposite façade and would encourage the noise of the activities to be in the rooms adjacent to the courtyard, rather than in the courtyard. He disagreed with the other Boardmembers regarding adding retail. He thinks the applicants explanation for not including retail was valid. There isn’t good access and there isn’t good parking. Boardmember Hirsch believes that retail will happen elsewhere on the street and is already. He visited the Ramen restaurant to view the site from across the street. Retail is going to be figured out more once they determine the best way for pedestrians and bikes to cross El Camino. He doesn’t like the idea of one small retail space in each of the buildings. It’s not a useful concept and retail is more efficient in plazas with combined uses. He’s concerned about the whiteness of the building. They could be more subtle with that in the way they did with the perforated panels on the front façade. He would like to see some of the texturing on the ground floor extended. The idea of looking into a building and seeing the courtyard is an interesting idea, but it isn’t happening for any of the car traffic. It’s more important to create textures that are friendlier for people visiting and living in the building every day. The ground floor textures in the perforated panels are quite exciting. The entry itself is rather cold and uninviting. They are missing an opportunity on the top floor by not adding sun shading. If that were added, it would animate the top of the building more. There are many options that would accommodate having shading and would add character to the front façade. He liked the idea of the aesthetics of the darker panel extending beyond the edge of the building to create a framework. He believed it was very well done. He complimented them on the planning of the building, he believed it was excellently done. They did a brilliant job in planning the units and he liked to see the way they were organized. The ARBs list can sometimes become long and confusing and applicants have to pick and choose what they consider because they can’t answer to all of the changes. He believed the ARB believe the street façade as a whole has been something they’ve all been concerned about in some way or another. It looks like the project next to it may be an interesting one as well. Both projects on either side will be different, and the City is beginning to have some regulation as to the massing of the new projects, setback areas which are beginning to shape how that side of the street will be organized. Item 5 Attachment A Minutes of August 17, 2023     Packet Pg. 125     Page 19 of 35 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 08/17/23 It’s good progress for the area and the size of the building doesn’t bother him at all. There will always be a push a pull between the size of a building, the number of units, and the economics of construction; he didn’t believe the mass of the building will be a problem for that side of San Antonio. The setback is establishing a proper relationship to the street. There is a base, building, and top that is very clearly defined. The street is starting to establish character and he was happy to see that. The glass panel along the side, the vertical panel, seems to be more of a privacy panel than a sunshade panel. He didn’t ask the question but he’s not quite sure the use of it, or if it’s addressing some of the other questions regarding the shading. He suggested they loosen up some on the brightness of the building and create more textures on the ground floor. He also recommended that they keep in mind there will be a need for places to sit outdoors along the front façade, which could impact where the bike racks should be located. Chair Baltay commented that it’s unfortunate that the drawings are not complete enough. The elevations are not clear, there’s not a good site plan. They definitely need to see a unit plan for each different floor plan in order to understand how the open space really works and how it impacts the façade. The ARB needs to see renderings of the buildings along San Antonio Road and even perhaps into the courtyard. None of that has been provided other than one rendering. This is not a preliminary application, and the ARB is being requested to keep working with them on it. It helps to speed the process along when the drawings are more complete and comprehensive. He believes there should be some sort of onsite loading capability for trash pick-up, deliveries, uber drivers and ride sharing. It’s not at all realistic to think there will be a pull out along San Antonio Road given the traffic, it’s 24’ from the front door, or that the trash will be brought out to the street, or that the trucks will pick it up that way. San Antonio Road is too busy of a street. Chair Baltay believed the answer lies in using the 24’ setback, but that is up to the applicant. They have to find someway to get that on the site. He believed they should incorporate ground floor activity. He refrained from using the word retail and explained that right now on San Antonio there are many small scale commercial activity taking place and they need to anticipate more of that in the future as there becomes more housing units on that street. He doesn’t disagree with the analysis from the real estate agents; however, he thinks the future will change and everyone needs to plan for that. Saying that the building will change later to accommodate that isn’t realistic. They also need to make better use of the San Antonio frontage. There’s a 24’ wide strip with some sort of hardscape landscaping, there are plenty of places to put patios, or some sort of commercial activity. Using that area as a buffer is a shame. They are forced to have the setback, they should design it and put more thought into what happens in that space. He’s concerned about the planning regarding transportation. He knows it’s not fair to put it all on this project, but they need to understand how the residents in this building are going to access and integrate with the rest of the town. In the case of San Antonio, it’s obvious that it’s not good, but you will find a lot of families who want to bike to school. It’s prominent in Palo Alto. He’d like to see them come up with some solutions for that, or work with the city to find solutions. They should take part in providing a bicycle lane along San Antonio and find a way to make the crosswalk safer. He wants this project to be more actively involved with the City to come up with transportation solutions that benefit the residents of the building and the residents of the area. It’s essential to include that in the site plan. Regarding the building design, he’s concerned with everything being on the ground level. If they were to raise the residential units, even perhaps even two feet, a lot of good things would start to happen. Currently they are forced to have the ground level units at the courtyard. Some level of separation would be nice. The same applies to the rear of the building. The reason it’s hard is because they can’t have a deck at grade. Item 5 Attachment A Minutes of August 17, 2023     Packet Pg. 126     Page 20 of 35 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 08/17/23 There has to be some solid surface which affects the bio swell. If there were to be a deck above it, that would work. Those things are possible with a little more separation. It also might help activate the façade by having a taller base level. It’s a common thing the ARB sees with residential design, and it’s part of the objective standards to have some type of separation there and he believed it would help in this case. He’s concerned about the courtyard being too small. They really need an aspect ratio of about 2:1. Twice the width to the height. In this case they are 55’ high and 80’ wide at the maximum east to west and it needs to be more like a 110’. He’s not even sure if courtyard applies. He would use the word airshaft. It’s entirely dark at the bottom all the time and even on a warm day, it will be too chilly to comfortably sit there. At night, it’s a fallacy to think there will be a BBQ there, it will be way too cold. There needs to be a courtyard that functions in order for it to be a proper open space, and they need open space. He very much liked the idea of a two story entry, and he liked the idea that people can see from the street into the courtyard. It's worth picking up on. Vice Chair Rosenberg noted accurately that the façade design interferes with that, however that’s something that can be worked on. He encouraged them to keep that integration. He noted to consider some type of roof top terrace, and he understands that that’s hard to make use of for everybody, but it has been successful in other projects along the street. People find that’s what they have to do in order to get the amount of open space that is required. There is a standard that was debated at some length, the balconies need to be six feet in order to be useful to the residents. He’s perfectly fine with greater projections into setbacks and those types of things, but he’d like to see the balconies be large enough to be properly considered as open space. He agrees regarding the material selection. They are too cold. He has a question regarding the fiber cement panels in general. They are not as high quality of material that he likes to see used as opposed to porcelain tile. It’s all in the execution; the ARB needs to see much more detail regarding the size of the panels, how they are put together, what kind of shadow they will cast, and what size will they be. The detail is lacking. Based on looking at the material board and flatness of the cement, the current greys are too cold. There’s a lot more to it, particularly with fiber cement and how it’s put together. The landscaping plan also lacks a good deal of information. The questions Boardmember Hirsch was asking regarding the courtyard landscaping were spot on. There are trees growing under balconies. The courtyard will not be a heavily irrigated area. The ARB is required to make a finding regarding the sustainability of the project. He is deeply concerned with the proximity of the water table, and how they expect to deal with that. He understands that Palo Alto has a significant ordinance that will make it possible to build if they would follow that ordinance correctly. The cut off walks are a significant expense; he’d like to see that issue dealt with. If they plan to dewater, he has serious concerns with that. The water tables are about ten to eleven feet in that neighborhood. This building is going to require an excavation of at least twenty-five feet. That’s a significant dig into the water table. When they built the hotel in the area, they proposed a two-story basement and would deal with the water table, as they got into construction, they wanted to eliminate the second level due to the water table being very challenging. That affects the design of the building now. If there is going to be one-level parking and not two, that needs to be planned for. The second level basement will affect the construction budget significantly. That will affect the ARB’s decision on if the building is sustainably designed. Chair Baltay reported that when City Council reviewed the project, they were asking for changes to the zoning code. The justification for that was that it provided a public benefit. The public benefit is the affordable housing that it will provide. In his opinion that is not a justifiable public benefit enough. The building has to do more to benefit the public and specifically for this project, it comes to the transportation Item 5 Attachment A Minutes of August 17, 2023     Packet Pg. 127     Page 21 of 35 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 08/17/23 issue. Specifically bicycle usage. If they ask every project going in along San Antonio to participate improve that bicycle connectivity to town, they will get someplace in terms of public benefit. The real issue as he sees it is that San Antonio is a pretty heavily trafficked street that blocks anyone on the south side of it from accessing the rest of Palo Alto. People living in the area have to go to the Palo Alto schools. They will attend Mitchell Park, and Cubberly. There’s an enormous, almost freeway, blocking them. It needs to be solved and it is almost a travesty that City Council has yet to address this issue. When an applicant wants to come in and provide public benefit, that’s a benefit that the ARB needs to ask them to do. Helping to solve the transportation problem needs to be a benefit that new construction provides. He also believes that another benefit is the retail activity at the ground level. He fully agrees that right now from a proforma business point of view, they won’t get the rent from a retail space on the ground floor. Five years from now once all those residential buildings have been built, that will be a different story. Particularly once the bicycle lane issue is resolved. When they make it into the environment, they all think it can become, the retail space will work. That is also a public benefit, to ask an applicant to do future planning. He stated he said all this because he would like the Board as a whole to stand firm in saying they support public benefit being more than just affordable housing. If they can collectively make a statement along those lines, it will be amplified through the City. He believes that is important to do. Boardmember Thompson stated she heard many of the Boardmembers comment on how deep the courtyard is, and their concerns about it. She suggested a possible solution to the applicant that may also mitigate the water table issue. There are projects they have worked on that instead of going underground with the parking because the water table is too high, they’ve gone into the building, so that there are two levels of mezzanine parking and that pushed the courtyard up to the four stories below the top of the building. So instead of it being a six story hole it’s a four story hole and then they wrapped the parking with residential, townhomes, retail. The parking is inset. The character can stay as designed or can be improved. The design can have very active street frontage, but they get out of the water table, the get a high courtyard that gets more sunlight, and they get their parking as well. That is a multifamily housing plan that she has seen in the past that this project may benefit from. Chair Baltay thanked Boardmember Thompson and stated that is a legitimate idea. Boardmember Hirsch stated he’s reluctant to ask the applicant to revise something as major as the parking, in the manner Boardmember Thompson described. He believes another alternative would be to have the staged parking with a machine lift to consider for a taller parking structure, without having to use the double level basement. That would reduce the water table. From an engineering standpoint the applicant will need to look at the impact of those changes. It would have a significant financial impact. He’s concerned that sometimes they say this is what the ARB would like, but then it doesn’t price out properly for a development project based on the economics of the project. Changing the design is really a lot of work. Additionally, affordable housing right now is a huge benefit for that area. He also disagrees with the retail issue. He doesn’t believe they should insist on as much as possible from a smaller building such as this particular project. There’s a whole street of buildings, some of which are bigger and commercial spread out in such a way that people have to walk to it isn’t as efficient and crossing the street is so difficult. Mixing in commercial is potentially financially dangerous unless it can be converted to something useful at a later date. He would prefer they keep in line with the aesthetics of the building Item 5 Attachment A Minutes of August 17, 2023     Packet Pg. 128     Page 22 of 35 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 08/17/23 rather than push for commercial in a building of this size when there will be many other larger projects where the commercial would be better suited. Chair Baltay noted that he didn’t believe any of the Boardmembers had an issue with the building being ten feet above the maximum height limit, with a 3.0 FAR compared to the 1.0 that is currently required. It exceeds the lot coverage. There are a number of zoning parameters that are not small zoning changes as the PTC said, but rather pretty significant. He heard everyone feel extremely comfortable with that. Boardmember Thompson stated she made a comment that she feels it should be set back. Chair Baltay stated that Boardmember Thompson idea for the parking would make the building even taller, and that might actually receive support from the ARB. He wanted to point out to the applicant that they haven’t had a negative reaction to the overall request to the zoning changes, he believes if they do, they need to be clear about that. Vice Chair Rosenberg commented that she was clear in saying she doesn’t have an issue with the sixty foot height. It’s a nice transition between the two fifty foot buildings on either side. If they try to bump it up to seventy or eight feet, they may run into a bit more concern. She believes the sixty foot is appropriate, particularly given where the site is located and the length of the block. She did not, however, want to set a precedence that every building could be sixty feet tall. As a Board they should consider being cautious about that. It’s not that the FAR is inappropriate as much as the open space isn’t being through of in a way that could be more beneficial to the residents. It’s small and it feels low. The coverage is also not an issue, they just want those things to be handled thoughtfully and carefully. Boardmember Hirsch commented that Vice Chair Rosenberg’s thoughts were appropriately expressed relative to the street façade. Chair Baltay commented that the staff report listed six items that were essentially the request for exception from the zoning code. At least four of them he had heard support from all of the Boardmembers. The height limit increase, the FAR increase, the lot coverage, and balcony encroachments into the special setback. Vice Chair Rosenberg referenced the top of packet page 17 for the list of exceptions. Boardmember Thompson stated that she heard four say they felt the building needs retail and she could get on board with that. Chair Baltay stated the division was on the retail space and he didn’t hear conclusive decisions on the balcony dimensions in the open space. He believed they were going to push for six feet on those. Boardmember Thompson agreed the six feet is important for the open space balconies. Vice Chair Rosenberg commented that she’s neutral regarding the balconies, so she deferred to the Board on that item. Boardmember Chen inquired if everyone was alright with the six inch encroachment into the special setback. She understood that it is tiny for this project, and it’s only some of the balconies. If in the future some projects come back wanting to encroach 18 inches or event just a foot, would it be as simple as Item 5 Attachment A Minutes of August 17, 2023     Packet Pg. 129     Page 23 of 35 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 08/17/23 changing the numbers. For this project it’s just part of the balcony. They haven’t seen the unit floor plans so there may be a possibilities that they could set the balcony in on the unit side, instead of using the six inch encroachment. Chair Baltay asked how each Boardmember felt about the encroachment. Boardmember Thompson stated she was not supportive of the encroachment. She was fine with the six foot balconies everywhere else, but on the special setback, she would not be okay with making that exception. Vice Chair Rosenberg commented that she was inclined to agree with both Boardmember Chen and Boardmember Thompson and would like the applicant to respect the setback. There are several different ways to do that. She agrees that this is setting a precedence and they need to be careful that while on this project it’s only six inches and it’s only two of the front balconies, another project might do a whole front patio that suddenly encroaches. Chair Baltay commented that he cautioned that they are trying sell something with this project. They are giving an exception to the code, to get something back in benefit. If they don’t give them something valuable, they won’t do something valuable in return. Letting them project into a twenty-four foot setback on San Antonio Road, in his opinion, is not a big deal. From a design point of view, it will help the building. There’s no real specific need to buffer it. It’s not breaking a strong daylight plane, it’s not in a residential area that has established planes. He believes that is an exception that is worth the public benefit. Vice Chair Rosenberg agreed and stated that on that note, a possible solution could be to say this one can be approved, but maybe the precedence could be to add that it can’t be more than ten percent of the façade, even if it was something like five percent, this project would comply with that. Boardmember Hirsch stated that he was convinced by Boardmember Chen that it could be handled without allowing the extension. He believed that is a more reasonable way of handling that verses allowing an exception to the regulation. The trade off for this project is the height of the building for the number of units. That is also the economical trade off for the developer. Boardmember Thompson added that she had comments on the massing. She agreed that she was with Boardmember Chen and Boardmember Hirsch in that they are allowing other concessions and space on San Antonio is sacred. The conversations have been about how congested it is and there needs to be improvements for widening the streets and that special setback is there because it’s meant for something that San Antonio needs in the future. Chair Baltay summarized that the consensus is that the Board is not unanimous about the encroachment into the special setback is not okay. The next item is the open space and the use and the definition of it. There are three proposed types of open space on the project, the first is the courtyard which is common open space, another is the balconies, and then there is the street frontage. They all agree that they need the open space that’s required. The question seems to be whether the courtyard is good open space, if the balconies need to be increased to six feet for them to count as open space, and the frontage. He heard all but one Boardmember agree about the six foot balconies. Item 5 Attachment A Minutes of August 17, 2023     Packet Pg. 130     Page 24 of 35 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 08/17/23 Boardmember Hirsch felt that from the beginning something could happen that was never mentioned, and that is that if they were to change the shape of the courtyard at the top of the building, they could actually expand it to get more light into it, it would change the plan and make it much more interesting. He believed there’s an alternate consideration for how to design the courtyard in order to improve it. He was concerned about making any other change to the general plan of the whole building. He didn’t believe it's too small of a space to be useful, just that consideration should be given to changing the shape of it. Chair Baltay commented that was fair enough and maybe the consensus would be that the courtyard isn’t designed correctly at this time. Several ideas have floated about what to do about it, but that’s up to the applicant. Chair Baltay asked if it was fair to say that as the project is currently presented, it’s not adequate common open space. Boardmember Hirsch answered yes. Chair Baltay summarized that there have been concerns about air flow, sunlight, the overall dimensions of it, and concerns about the landscaping inside of it; with concerns about the proximity of residential uses on it. Boardmember Thompson commented that the idea she floated about raising the courtyard and having units wrap or program being wrapped around it, potentially that may not compromise the unit count, it might compromise the unit mix. They may need to change types of units. The good thing about that solution is that parking doesn’t need a very high floor to floor. If they wanted to do stackers, then they could just do one level. Increasing the parking would also increase the viability of retail. That extra height has been a successful solution, especially if there is ground floor retail and they want the extra height. Additionally, they could include unit types such as townhomes that can have mezzanines along that side. She agrees there are solutions that could make the courtyard work better. Chair Baltay moved on to a conversation about the separation of the units from the street frontage to the courtyard. Vice Chair Rosenberg raised the idea that perhaps residential units shouldn’t be much less prominently relating to the courtyard. Possibly other uses would work better there, particularly if there was commercial activity on the street. The gym and the clubhouse would be much more suitable facing the courtyard. That would be up to the applicant to configure their building. He believed it was fair to say that the ground floor units, at grade with the public spaces, just don’t work. They need more than just a six foot landscape buffer and then call it a patio. Boardmember Hirsch commented that he likes the idea of some type of mixed use for the courtyard. It animates it more and makes it more useful to the whole building. He also didn’t understand why more units could face toward the street. Chair Baltay added that if they were raised up in grade, or they use the landscape buffer much more creatively. There are many options with twenty feet of space. Boardmember Thompson stated she could see the benefit of it, but so many other things are in flux that it’s hard to say if she would support that. Item 5 Attachment A Minutes of August 17, 2023     Packet Pg. 131     Page 25 of 35 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 08/17/23 Chair Baltay explained that what he was trying to do was make a statement about what the ARB as a whole feels that the currently proposed separation between the private residential units and the public spaces is not adequate. Boardmember Thompson inquired if he meant just in the courtyard. Chair Baltay responded that he meant in the street too, and in the rear. When there are ground level units in the back, then the bio-swell becomes a significant limitation. When the units are raised just a bit, there are a lot more options. When there are ground level units along San Antonio that creates all types of issues. The basic statement from the ARB is that it’s just not there yet. The Board has floated a lot of ideas, ultimately the decision is up to the applicants. What is being presented just isn’t working. Chair Baltay moved into the conversation regarding ground floor retail or commercial and that Boardmember Hirsch made a strong pitch against it, Chair Baltay felt the opposite and inquired how the remaining Boardmembers felt. Vice Chair Rosenberg stated that she believed the project needs it but possibly not the entire 1500 SF. She also argued respectively to Boardmember Hirsch’s point that the ARB pressed the developers at 788 that they needed retail space, and that building is right next door. The Sherman Avenue project on California Avenue, while it’s closer to a series of retail spaces, it’s off to the side and down a block and the ARB still required it for that location. Either they are going to set a precedence along San Antonio and in those areas, or they say they aren’t going to push on it, and it will be a long walk of nothing but residential. Boardmember Thompson stated that she’s for retail. Boardmember Chen agreed that retail is needed in the neighborhood and just considering the increase of the units in that neighborhood in the next ten years or so, they will need some retail. If they had retail in different projects along San Antonio, the street would become more pedestrian friendly. Chair Baltay stated he agreed with the majority of his colleagues and offered Boardmember Hirsch one more opportunity to debate his position. Boardmember Hirsch stated that he’s definitely in the minority and commented that he also disagreed about the retail in the other one, as it didn’t animate the front and causes confusion for people going into a private building. The access isn’t always easy and there isn’t enough parking, even for bikes. He liked the idea of there being more concentrated shopping areas. The street needs design to satisfy bike traffic and pedestrian movement. Chair Baltay commented on that topic they had four Boardmembers feel that retail or commercial activity should be included on the ground level and moved into the discussion on the utility and trash circulation of the building, whether it be permitted to be at the curb side, to include ride sharing, deliveries and pick- up services. He made the comment and heard others with the same position in believing that should really be on site. All Boardmembers did a verbal agree on the point of needing a dedicated area on site for those services. Chair Baltay expressed hope that staff would take to heart what the ARB had said and insist that they provide some sort of solution for these services. He added that he hadn’t commented on it prior, but he Item 5 Attachment A Minutes of August 17, 2023     Packet Pg. 132     Page 26 of 35 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 08/17/23 agreed that the building should consider a step back at the top and opened the discussion about the ARB requesting the massing of the building to be modified. Currently it’s a five story box with some texture. He noted that every building along San Antonio the ARB has requested significant step backs and believed that this building is no different. At the top level, and perhaps at the sides. Chair Baltay inquired how the other Boardmembers feel about that. Boardmember Hirsch commented that he disagrees, that one has to look at the design of the paneled background with projecting volumes, some being transparent and some being more solid. He does believe the textural aspect of it should be changed and the color should be changed, but believes the concept is a good idea. He would hate to see that lost with a setback that changed the basic concept of the design. He does believe that the volume could change where the windows are. They could recess, which would allow for the balcony to increase. Sunshades or canopies could be utilized at the top floor, those would not disturb the shape or the idea that the plane that is being projected in the current design of face of the building. Boardmember Thompson believes the massing is lacking, it is too simple and too much of a box. There are some hits on the fifth floor of a little serrated edge happening. She would suggest if that were going to be an element of the building it should be more pronounced. Stepping down is essential because that gives a lot of depth to the façade and right now the façade does not have a lot of depth. It’s relying on the balconies and the fins and the white boxes, but they aren’t playing together in the current design. In her opinion the massing needs considerable work to provide more order, make it a bit more simplified so that the concept really shines though. Chair Baltay clarified that he is asking for changes to the massing of the building, not the textural detailing on the façade. He believes the upper floors need to be stepped back from the lower floors on the front and the sides of the building to some degree. Similar to what the ARB requested from the building to the right and at the hotel up the street. In his opinion that request has shown to be tremendously successful, as compared to what was first presented in those projects. Boardmember Thompson commented that she’s very much in support of that. Boardmember Chen commented that generally speaking she is okay with what they proposed because it works well, but she does agree that there could be some step backs on the interior courtyard façades. The courtyard could be a funnel shape to bring in more natural light. Street front is okay, and she doesn’t have a big issue, and doesn’t want to see San Antonio be like a cookie cutter with all the buildings being the same. There could be variations. Vice Chair Rosenberg commented that she is not necessarily inclined to force them to step back the upper level on the front façade specifically. She hears Chair Baltay’s point about how it’s been successful in some of the nearby related projects, but there’s no daylight plan going to San Antonio so there’s nothing that’s protecting on the front façade. She’s less inclined to force the issue there. She would be more in support of stepping back on the courtyard façades or funneling away from the neighboring side buildings. To her that makes more sense. She believes having the variation of the front façades of the buildings will provide for a more interesting street scape. Item 5 Attachment A Minutes of August 17, 2023     Packet Pg. 133     Page 27 of 35 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 08/17/23 Chair Baltay stated that when he’s talking about the public facing massing, not the courtyard which is a separate design issue internal to the building. The ARB is tasked in part to find that the building is contextually compatible, which is their code. He challenged them to look at any other tall building on San Antonio and they all have setbacks on the top level, even the JCC has the wonderful upstairs patio at the top level with a deeply recessed floor setback. The hotel steps back on the third, fourth and fifth floor in a cascading effect. When traffic exits the 101, they will see the wall very directly, which is why they asked for 788 to step back. A fifty foot building wall with no real modulation is not within context or good urban design. Boardmember Thompson commented to piggyback on Chair Baltay, it provides a precedent for other buildings to also make huge walls that go all the way to the front and this project needs and wants to be successful, and she believes that. It can’t just be a big block of wall across the whole street, there needs to be breathing room from the street and part of that is the setback. She believes in response to Vice Chair Rosenberg’s question, it’s the aesthetic element that they are trying to protect, in making sure the street has character and it has modulation on the front. The trees on San Antonio need light as well, those need to thrive. Boardmember Hirsch commented that they have a plane that’s expressed and the darker element on which the other elements project. They are sculptural elements to a plane that is establishing a setback. It is setback, and he doesn’t understand why they feel it’s not. Chair Baltay asked Boardmember Hirsch to show them on the floor plan where those changes are that he’s referring to. Boardmember Hirsch stated that he’s looking at the front elevation. Boardmember Thompson inquired how deep the setback is. Chair Baltay asked where it is located in the plans. Vice Chair Rosenberg stated that they have to flip-flop back and forth between A2.4 and A2.5, and unfortunately, it’s not noted what that setback is, which would be helpful. Boardmember Thompson believed the plans don’t show any variation. Vice Chair Rosenberg stated that when she flips from A2.4 to A2.5, they are setback but by only a couple of feet and it would be helpful if it was noted what those dimensions are. Chair Baltay said that he was able to see the foot setback. Boardmember Thompson commented that she wasn’t sure if a foot setback counts. Boardmember Hirsch stated that the whole plane on the front is the darker element, and everything on the front elevation is pushed forward from that. Ms. Kallas stated that she pulled she section and shared it on the screen and they could see that the left side is the San Antonio side and that there is a slight recess. As Vice Chair Rosenberg noted, it’s not dimensioned, however there is a slight step back and it is offset by the balcony also projecting some. Item 5 Attachment A Minutes of August 17, 2023     Packet Pg. 134     Page 28 of 35 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 08/17/23 Chair Baltay noted that he now sees that. To him that’s not nearly enough for what he was talking about, but he understood that it was part of the parti of the design and he doesn’t buy that design in that location. He believes that is the wrong parti, and that’s how he feels. Boardmember Hirsch stated that he feels that it is sufficient. Chair Baltay inquired how the rest of the Board felt. Boardmember Thompson stated that she doesn’t feel it is sufficient. Boardmember Chen commented that she’s totally fine with what is proposed for the street front elevation. Vice Chair Rosenberg commented that she appreciates the desire for the setback, her thinking is if they go back and look at that section, they could pull that building quite a few more feet forward. They are only holding it back because of the allowance for the balconies. She questioned if they should allow for the two foot jog; or would they rather have them keep the upper level where it is but pull those three or four middle levels all the way to that setback. She believes that is a design decision and not for the ARB to say. They aren’t riding the special setback the whole way and she wanted to account for the fact that they haven’t tried to create a wall at that setback. They are allowing for some modulation, whether it’s exaggerated enough to be a truly successful design is the question. She had a hard time saying as much as she would like, it would be nice if there was a little more, however she also didn’t want to see them push everything forward to the setback either. Chair Baltay stated to staff that he heard 2.5 votes for and 2.5 votes against it, and they will likely revisit that point in future presentations, currently there’s not clear consensus that they need to step the building back. The next discussion was on the use of the materials on the building; he heard a fairly consistent commentary that the colors were not warm enough, several comments regarding the detailing of the material and textuality, which is fairly subjective. Boardmember Hirsch believed there had been an expression of textures and what was proposed for it, with the panels and the perforated panels; and believes that they are moving in the right direction, but they aren’t there yet. There has to be more of that, particularly with some sun shading on the roof level. Another appropriate material at the top to create shading is an addition to the textualization and on the ground floor he could imagine that projecting into the entry, which he finds is cold. They could use those materials and colorization as they move the design into the front the building. He likes the idea of the two story expression and the light from the inside coming out, but that doesn’t mean it should be without texture or color change. Boardmember Thompson commented that in terms of textuality the comment is basically more small scale muse, particularly on the ground level. She could see that carried up through the façade. Throughout San Antonio Road there is a lot of texture on the ground level, with an interesting flow of depth. Some of those walls have a lot of depth by using patterning and character. She said that one scale smaller than what is being proposed currently on the façade, and having something more human scale that feels like it has a good relationship with the people on the street would be good. Boardmember Hirsch emphatically agreed. Item 5 Attachment A Minutes of August 17, 2023     Packet Pg. 135     Page 29 of 35 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 08/17/23 Vice Chair Rosenberg believed that it feels like a rough draft in a sense. Maybe take a look at it and see if they need to have the four panels exactly the same, maybe there could be variation in texture or even slight color changes. It could be taken to another level and having more warmth in the colors could be beneficial. Boardmember Hirsch added that had all been talking about the landscaping in the front and one could imagine that if there were some sort of walls built there to separate a bike path from the landscaped areas, the top of a wall for that separation could be a spot to use more of that metal topping that creates color and texture. Chair Baltay asked if staff felt they had given clear direction on what they would like to see. Ms. Kallas responded that when she looked back at her notes, she turned Chair Baltay’s six points into about ten. In addition to general refinements to the plan, she has a more specific list. They noted that while generally the proposed 2.99 FAR is acceptable, it needs to be potentially allocated in a way that has more thought towards open space, the Board has expressed that they do not support a front setback encroachment, however the open space balconies should be increased to the six feet to meet the minimum required by the code. The courtyard open space is not currently adequate, but the applicant will need to consider how to address that. However, at least two Boardmembers supported doing a funnel type design. Overall, the separation of public and private space is not adequate in the courtyard, the applicant should consider if it would be possible for the gym or clubhouse to open up into the courtyard, additionally the street facing unit on the ground level would need more of a buffer. The Board supports retaining the retail and unanimously agreed that circulation needs to be improved for loading, deliveries, trash pickup, ride shares and bikes. Specifically needs an onsite loading space as opposed to the curbside. The Board is split 50/50 on if the upper floors need a step back, however generally having slightly more modulation would be supported. The materials need more warmth, the two story entry is good, however, at least two Boardmembers noted that the address signage piece cuts it off. More ground level human scale texture should be added. Chair Baltay provided the applicant with the opportunity to comment or respond to any of the ARB feedback and asked if they had any questions. Boardmember Thompson stated there was one more item, she had made a comment about the side elevation being too blank. She would like the rest of the Board to comment on that. Vice Chair Rosenberg agreed and stated that the blank spot is repetitive. Boardmember Chen commented that she is okay with what was proposed because there is some variation on the east elevation and some shading that provides nice details. In the future, when the adjacent neighbor builds a four or five store building, the blank spots on the side elevations would not be that noticeable. Vice Chair Rosenberg noted there was a minor typo on sheet A3.1. Those are also labeled as east and west elevations and she believes they were supposed to be north and south. Item 5 Attachment A Minutes of August 17, 2023     Packet Pg. 136     Page 30 of 35 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 08/17/23 Boardmember Hirsch stated that if they were going to work on some of the texture issues, the fiber cement panels don’t all have to be the same color. There could be some subtle variety which would allow for some improvements on the side elevations if it were to be carried through from the front to the sides. Chair Baltay understood that the Boards comments regarding materiality applied to all sides of the building. He believes the side elevations certainly need the same additional treatment. He’s not in the majority in thinking they need to do more for modulation on the sides, however at least half the Board believed it to be okay. Mr. Donahue commented that in terms of the fiber cement material the specific brand they are considering is called aquatone and it comes in a wide variety of textures and patterns. He agreed that they are not getting close enough to the building for them to see it. The presentation had a closer view of the entrance that wasn’t shown because he ran out of time, and he believed that some of their concerns would be immediately addressed by getting closer to the building. The will also consider using entirely different patterns based on some of the feedback received at this meeting. As far as the massing goes, all of the things requested would reduce the amount of sellable square footage so yes all of the suggestions would work, however, they would have to consult with the owner group for the final decision. The proposal which has the changes in it still has to meet the demands of the proforma. Regarding parking, wrapped parking is done often, this site is too small. There are 144 spaces, the entire lower level of parking already has stackers. To achieve the same count within a 14’ volume would take up the entire footprint of the site. It’s not practical for this site. They are aware of the challenges with dewatering the site. The average water table is eight feet below the surface. He has worked on projects where they were thirty or forty feet into the water table, and it is a serious challenge and acknowledged the ARBs concerns. They absolutely want to get ahead of that and not return at a later date saying they didn’t know how bad it is. He appreciated the suggestions, and they can start looking into those now. Putting the community areas on the back side looking into the courtyard is worth considering. It does present the challenge of having to move those units to the street, and Boardmember Chen mentioned that street facing ground level units are also problematic. His understanding from staff was that no permanent improvements were allowed within the twenty-four foot special setback and requested clarification. Ms. Raybould replied that was an incorrect understanding. They can make certain improvements. Any sort of building would not be allowed. Low garden walls, landscaping and trees are allowed, along with grade level patio areas can be programmed into the open space. Mr. Donahue stated in that case that whole area will be changed and also requested clarification about if they could put a loading zone within that twenty-four foot zone. Ms. Kallas responded that generally yes and noted that there are specific comments that the trash haulers provided that have not yet been related to the architects because she wanted to include the comments from the meeting. Ms. Raybould commented that the loading zone and trash area is something that Ms. Kallas will likely need to work with the architects and the Department of Transportation more in terms of considering what the future transportation plans are for this area. She believed several Council members expressed similar concerns regarding about congestion on San Antonio and putting loading and trash collection on the street front. Item 5 Attachment A Minutes of August 17, 2023     Packet Pg. 137     Page 31 of 35 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 08/17/23 Mr. Donahue stated that they would be happy to work with staff and transportation on that. The last thing is the ground floor commercial. Their main concern isn’t that it should be there, but rather having an empty space for the next five years. That can be dealt with on a rental basis by lowering the rent, however, then they get into what type of commercial would they attract with cheaper rent. He heard that the ARB believes it is a good idea and the owner has some comments regarding that as well, they will address it how they need to address it. Yorke Lee, TS800 SA LLC and owner of the development, wanted to provide more information in regard to the commercial space. They originally discussed the retail space with staff and City Council in a Council pre-screening meeting. City Council recommended that they provide more AI units in place of the commercial space. The below market rate (BMR) requirement is 20% and that was what was initially proposed. After several meetings with staff and the Council prescreening meeting, they are now providing 21% BMR in exchange for the retail space. They have to determine which is more useful and different people have different answers. Council and staff convinced them that more BMR is more beneficial than a small commercial space such as this project. He felt the ARB was missing that information and it might be helpful to them to know. Chair Baltay thanked him for his comments. Ms. Raybould commented on record, she was the planner at the prescreening for this project and Ms. Kallas took over for the formal application. What she heard at Council from individual members was that generally the idea of the exceptions that are being requested, more public benefit was needed. The context of providing more BMR housing was based on the idea that if they were going to ask for the exceptions, then Council would want to see more. Whether the one additional unit is sufficient to address those concerns, she had heard from some Council Members some concerns about the retail component. That is something that PTC and Council would be weighing in terms of sufficiency for the exceptions being requested. It is also her recollection that the applicant did also provide deeper affordability of the units, which was the other consideration… if they couldn’t provide more BMR, the units needed to have a deeper affordability. Staff also expressed that other considerations could be making bike lanes or other transportation improvements to that area. Chair Baltay thanked Ms. Raybould for putting that on the record. Boardmember Hirsch commented that he believes the ARB is asking for some other improvements to this project, changing perhaps the shape of the courtyard and reducing the unit sizes in order to make that happen at the top of the building. That’s a significant change, as is moving other functional use to the courtyard area. It affects the commercial aspects of this project in some way. That’s a fair trade off in improving the design, rather than forcing the issue with the commercial which has already gone through the processes. Chair Baltay stated he’s going to close this up. To the applicant, he cautioned him to be careful how he hears what he’s hearing from the Council and the ARB. He’s seen a lot of projects that were approved over the last ten years and almost all of them ended up putting some type of retail on the ground floor, the extend that they listen to the City’s recommendations is the extend of how smoothly the project will go through the process. They want the project to be approved. Chair Baltay requested the applicant with Item 5 Attachment A Minutes of August 17, 2023     Packet Pg. 138     Page 32 of 35 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 08/17/23 work this and not against them. They appreciate and really support the big picture of what they are doing. It’s a great project. MOTION: Boardmember Thompson moved, seconded by Boardmember Chen, that the project at 800 San Antonio Road [23PLN‐00010] be moved to a date uncertain. Chair Baltay requested a roll call vote. VOTE: 5-0-0-0 Boardmember Questions, Comments or Announcements Chair Baltay commented that they wanted to get the reports from the ad hoc committees. Vice Chair Rosenberg referred them to packet page 9 and listed the project report outs on 3150 El Camino Real, one packet page 11 is 3265 El Camino Real, and 3997 Fabian. She started with 3150 El Camino. Chair Baltay explained that each project had a subcommittee assigned to it and the idea is to report back as a whole on what they saw regarding the project, with the comprehensiveness of the information that was there, and if there were things that the subcommittees felt the Board should be looking at. Please remember they are not passing judgement or presenting opinions on the design as of yet, rather alerting their colleagues to feel free to take a note of it and they can independently report to staff what they think about the project, which will be provided as early feedback to the applicant. Vice Chair Rosenberg stated she will try to keep her comments brief. They’ve had two meetings on this project, with 3150 El Camino Real they looked at the package for completion and there were significant items missing. Those items were the blow ups of the typical apartment type floor plans, it is very beneficial information in determining the functionality of a project. The traffic flow and processing plan is not provided. That is extremely important for the traffic circulation of bikes, pedestrians and vehicles and they need to know where they will enter the building, for trash, loading zones, deliveries, and ride shares. They found some significant concerns regarding the traffic circulation of the ground floor and path of travel in and out of the building should be noted. The bike storage is on the second floor. Boardmember Hirsch stated that he wanted to add to the discussion, regarding the process. They, as a Board, are making comments on planning aspects that have to do with the functionality of the building and some of those aspects need to be addressed in all of the projects, particularly now larger projects, at a very early stage of development. That’s part of what the subcommittees objective is. This is an open subject they should be discussing with planning. He asked the Chair if they could address it in a general way so that in the future there’s some manner in which either the subcommittee or they as a Board, however it’s done, have discussions with planning at an early stage in order to effect the issues that have to do with functionality. Item 5 Attachment A Minutes of August 17, 2023     Packet Pg. 139     Page 33 of 35 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 08/17/23 Chair Baltay responded so noted. They should keep pressing this and had discussed it before. They have to be careful during the subcommittee phase because they are preliminary applications. This isn’t an Agenda item, but he will allow staff to comment. Ms. Gerhardt stated she was happy to speak about it briefly and staff could certainly Agendize the discussion for a later date if needed. An ARB checklist is used by staff and provided to architects so they will know what they should provide in the application they submit to staff. The traffic flow with the trash room and loading zones isn’t necessarily mandatory on that check list, and maybe that’s something that needs to be added. If the ARB wants to look at that checklist, she will provide that, and asked if she heard the ARB comments correctly. Chair Baltay stated that he doesn’t know that every project would need to do that. He believed the checklist states that they have to show a site plan. To him, part of the site plan would include things like transportation, delivery, and drop off. Ms. Gerhardt replied that they could list it with the caveat that it’s only needed for multi-family projects, something to that degree. All architects are different, it helps staff to go down the checklist to make sure everything is in the packet that the Boards need to see. Chair Baltay suggested they Agendize for a future meeting, a discussion where the ARB can help staff revisit the check list for potential changes. Ms. Gerhardt commented that all of these projects are very early in the process, and staff was hoping that the ARB can provide staff with items that may be missing from the plan sets, such as floor plans, or site plans. Vice Chair Rosenberg summarized there are five items they feel are missing that they would like to see. The blown up floor plans of the different type of units, a traffic flow, traffic flow, drop off and pick up plan, a bike flow plan, a solar analysis to some degree of the courtyard, and the materials need more information and refinement. Chair Baltay commented he felt that was good feedback for staff and the Board. Boardmember Thompson stated her project is 3265 El Camino Real. Chair Baltay stated that project was Vice Chair Rosenberg and Boardmember Thompson. Boardmember Thompson reported this is a housing project with commercial on the ground floor. Some of the things they noted were similar comments regarding site circulation and for trash pickup. There are three main façades that will be very visible. The material clarity and landscape choices are things they would suggest their colleagues also note. Chair Baltay commented he believed the last project was Boardmember Chen and Boardmember Hirsch, 3997 Fabian Way. Boardmember Chen reported they had similar comments as the other housing projects. They would like to see the circulation diagrams showing the visitors flow, where they park and how they get access to the lobby, bicycle access, garbage collection and mail delivery circulations, loading zones and package delivery Item 5 Attachment A Minutes of August 17, 2023     Packet Pg. 140     Page 34 of 35 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 08/17/23 areas. They also were interested in seeing the distance to the community facilities. They also would be interested in seeing the distance between the proposed building and the adjacent building. The existing JCC housing unit is quite close to the property. They would also like the applicant to provide additional sections showing elevation changes such as the pool and garage ramps as it impacts the functionality of the project. The last item was to provide large diagrams of the unit floor plans and of the back of the house (BOH). Boardmember Hirsch added that they want to see the relationship of street parking to those facilities within the building and for servicing the building, as well as street parking. They also need to understand the sun angles in the open courtyards. Chair Baltay commented that they are expecting to hear back from Boardmember Chen at the next meeting regarding the bird safe glazing feedback. Chair Baltay stated he wanted to publicly acknowledge and provide thanks to Boardmember Thompson who is retiring from the board today. Each Boardmember will have the opportunity to provide a quick comment if they’d like to. Vice Chair Rosenberg commented that’s she’s a newer Boardmember and when she started Boardmember Thompson was the Chair. It’s been wonderful working with her, and she feels very inspired by her. She’s excited for her new adventure to begin. Boardmember Hirsch commented that he’s been sensitized to textures, materials, colors over the years due to Boardmember Thompson. He thanked her for providing good lessons on materiality of buildings. He will miss the comradery even more than everything else. Boardmember Chen stated she had a similar experience that Vice Chair Rosenberg mentioned. She appreciated Boardmember Thompson as the Chair of the Board as it made her transition easy and smooth onto the Board. She has enjoyed listening to her and had enjoyed the wide range of perspectives from Boardmember Thompson at each of the meetings. She also appreciates the manner in which Boardmember Thompson asks questions and pushes back. She set a really good example to future Boardmembers. Boardmember Thompson will be missed, and she wished her much luck in her next chapter. Ms. Raybould stated that this is the first Board that she was a liaison to and that Boardmember Thompson has been on the Board for most of the time period that she has been with the City. She as appreciated her comments and noted that, from a staff perspective, each Boardmember leaves their mark in terms of something they always comment on. She believed that Boardmember Thompson championed the sustainability aspects, passive ventilations, and roof tops and bringing greenery in and she thinks that’s a really valuable thing that Boardmember Thompson brought to the city. Ms. Gerhardt stated that staff really did appreciate her work on the Board, and who ever convinced her that it wasn’t going to take a large amount of time, it does take a fair amount of time, but all of that effort was very much appreciated, and she thanked Boardmember Thompson. Item 5 Attachment A Minutes of August 17, 2023     Packet Pg. 141     Page 35 of 35 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 08/17/23 Chair Baltay thanked Boardmember Thompson and stated that it’s been a distinct honor and pleasure having her as a colleague on the Board, as a professional colleague but mostly as a friend. He thanked her for her friendship and stated that she’s a wonderful person. Adjournment Chair Baltay adjourned the meeting at 12:29 p.m. Item 5 Attachment A Minutes of August 17, 2023     Packet Pg. 142     Item No. 6. Page 1 of 1 Architectural Review Board Staff Report From: Jonathan Lait, Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: October 5, 2023 Report #: 2309-2047 TITLE Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for September 7, 2023 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) adopt the attached meeting minutes. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Minutes of September 7, 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 6 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 143     Page 1 of 15 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 09/7/23 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD DRAFT MINUTES: September 7, 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 8:34 a.m. Present: Chair Peter Baltay, Vice Chair Kendra Rosenberg, Boardmember Yingxi Chen, Boardmember David Hirsch Absent: None Oral Communications None Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Senior Planner and Architectural Review Board (ARB) Liaison Claire Raybould indicated there were no Agenda changes, additions, or deletions. Boardmember Chen inquired if the bird safety subcommittee was due for a report-out. Ms. Raybould explained that it will be part of an Agendized meeting, not necessarily as a subcommittee report out at the end of the meeting, however if Boardmember Chen wanted to speak on it, she was welcome to do so. It would be very helpful. The North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP) was moved to October 19, so she could do that as an informational item at the end. Boardmember Chen stated she did have summaries of information they had gathered. Chair Baltay stated that subcommittee was requested to get the subcommittee of the Board to report back on their findings regarding bird safe glazing, they had intended to link that with the NVCAP project review, however that had been pushed back. Chair Baltay asked Boardmember Chen if she preferred to report at the current meeting, or with the NVCAP. Boardmember Chen answered she could report it today and they could provide extra links that could be added to the staff report for the future meetings. Chair Baltay commented they could do that at the end of the current meeting. City Official Reports 1. Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2) Tentative Future Agenda items and 3) Recently Submitted Projects Item 6 Attachment A - Minutes of September 7, 2023     Packet Pg. 144     Page 2 of 15 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 09/7/23 Senior Planner Raybould reported that upcoming items include the fire station at 3600 Middlefield on September 21, an item was just added for Our House who have chosen to make some revisions to their design and are scheduled for further ARB review on September 21 as well. The project at 420 Acacia Avenue is a housing project that is hoping to be reviewed on the October 5 Agenda. The NVCAP study session was moved to the October 19, 2023 meeting. New projects that were added in the last week include a request for a preliminary review for 616 Ramona. Study Session 2. 425 High Street [23PLN-00171]: Request for Preliminary Architectural Review of a proposed fourth floor addition to an existing three-story hotel use (Hotel Keen). The applicant proposes to add 2,632 sf to the existing building utilizing transferred development rights for either a new office use or eight additional hotel guest rooms. Environmental Assessment: Not a Project. The Formal Application Will be Subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review. Zoning District: CD-C (P) (Commercial Downtown-Community with Pedestrian Combining District). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Claire Raybould at Claire.Raybould@Cityofpaloalto.org. Chair Baltay introduced the item, stated the study session does not require disclosures, and requested staff’s report. Senior Planner Claire Raybould reported that the project before the Board is 425 High Street, a preliminary review of the project. It is located in the commercial area of the downtown community with surrounding uses of religious institution to the south, an office use to the north, across High Street is a mixed use development that is zoned PC, and the Landmark Aquarius Theater is located at the rear of the site. The applicant is looking to add a four story to the existing Hotel Keen that includes either eight new guest rooms totaling 2,632 square feet (sf) extra floor area, or 2,632 sf of office. Either way they would be using transferred development rights (TDR) and that they are still in the process of obtaining. Once they obtain those rights they would appear before the ARB with their formal application. No additional parking is currently being proposed for the site’s addition. Key considerations for the ARB were an interest in getting the Board’s comments regarding materials, colors, and neighborhood context. Ms. Raybould listed the following items as being highlighted in the staff report: no new parking is proposed; however, they did pay in the District for 48 parking spaces. The required parking for the current building is 50 spaces based on the square footage of the building. The new project for hotel use would bring the required parking up to 60 spaces. They are interested in asking for a parking exception in order to allow the hotel use. Under AB 2097, if they were to create office use, additional car parking would not be required. Staff noted that there doesn’t seem to be any bike parking in the area and would expect them to meet the minimum required by Code, perhaps by adding some bike parking in front of the building or somewhere on the interior ground floor if possible. Staff also noted that the floor area that is being calculated for the new fourth floor didn’t seem to be calculated correctly. There seemed to be a few areas on the upper floors that need to be counted towards floor area and staff expects there would be some revisions to the design to accommodate those differences, and for it to not exceed what they are requesting, which brings them to the maximum 3.0 floor area (FAR). She also noted with respect to trash, there didn’t seem to be a trash enclosure shown on the ground floor, but the applicant had indicated that trash is provided onsite and brought out to the street for pickup. With the proposed change, there could be additional bins that might be warranted, particularly with the addition of office use. Zero Waste could require a dedicated room for Item 6 Attachment A - Minutes of September 7, 2023     Packet Pg. 145     Page 3 of 15 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 09/7/23 the trash, which would need to be resolved as they move forward with a formal application. No formal action was being requested, staff is looking for ARB feedback, following the preliminary review meeting the applicant may choose to file a formal application. The applicant also has a brief presentation. Chair Baltay asked the Board if there were any questions for staff prior to hearing the applicants presentation. Vice Chair Rosenberg asked for confirmation that the proposed plan shows the upper level as office space, but there is potential for it to be a hotel, or the applicants are requesting a hotel. Ms. Raybould answered that there were discussions with the applicant because the plans have some inconsistencies throughout where it references hotel addition as well as office addition. They have expressed to staff that the real interest is doing a hotel addition, but they are still exploring their options. There were some possible misunderstandings with the Code, in thinking that the office space addition would be an easier option for them, particularly with AB 2097, should staff choose not to work with them on the parking exception for the desired hotel addition. The applicant specifically expressed concern that if they had to pay for the parking spots for the hotel use, it would make the project economically infeasible. They are still exploring their options with respect to both. Vice Chair Rosenberg inquired if the FAR for a hotel and office space are both 3.0. Ms. Raybould answered yes. Boardmember Hirsch commented that he had been trying to figure out the area on the foot top in relation to public areas and asked if it was open to the sky. Chair Baltay explained that would be a question for the applicant after they give their presentation. Chair Baltay requested Ms. Raybould walk the Board through the process for transferred development rights, he felt that part seemed vague as the applicants have not yet secured those rights. Ms. Raybould displayed the code and explained that the applicant has to secure the transferred development rights (TDR) before they are allowed to get approval on a proposed project. It’s acceptable to identify them without purchasing them, have an option in place that if a project is approved, they would be able to purchase. Ms. Gerhardt commented that 1880 is transferred development rights and evidence of the development rights would need to be in place before such a project could be approved. Chair Baltay clarified that there is no bearing on the ARB whether or not they have those rights secured already. Ms. Raybould read the code beginning with “evidence that the applicant owns the transferrable development rights or a signed statement from any other owners of the TDRs that the specified amount of floor area is available for the proposed project and will be assigned for its use”. Chair Baltay asked if once they secure that, it’s not a subjective approval process still to get those rights. Item 6 Attachment A - Minutes of September 7, 2023     Packet Pg. 146     Page 4 of 15 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 09/7/23 Ms. Raybould answered if they purchased them, they would still need approval to use them on that building. Chair Baltay clarified that the approval is not a subjective thing that the ARB takes part in. Ms. Gerhardt responded that is not the ARB’s purview, it is a black and white code section. If they purchase the TDRs, they are allowed to use them up to the 3.0 FAR and other restrictions in the code. Chair Baltay requested information on how the reduction of the parking works with the parking plan. Ms. Raybould explained that it would be a request for the reduction of parking under 1852 of the code, which allows for that request. Ms. Gerhardt explained there is generally a TDM that goes along with that. Chair Baltay invited the applicant to make his presentation, and explained he would be allowed ten minutes. Tony Carrasco, Carrasco & Associates, introduced himself as the architect of the project. He provided the address and additional square footage of the project and explained the context of the project, which was based on the codes for downtown Palo Alto, where there are buildings of varying heights. Different policies created different heights in buildings and when this building was proposed as four stories, it was because of those policies. They main driver of the current project was how to see the building from University Avenue, and they wanted to add landscaping on the top of the building. The project is in the parking assessment district, and they paid for 48 parking spaces and use only seven per day. That metric is calculated by the number of parking passes that the hotel sells, and it very rarely exceeds seven. Usually, it’s between three and four. Most people use public transportation, so they don’t need more parking. It would be great if they could get approval before they buy TDRs, because those are expensive. However, they will comply with the present regulation that states the TDRs must be obtained before acquiring approval for the project. The addition will conform with the existing footprint, they prefer to do the addition as hotel rooms, but that is dependent on what staff has to say about the parking reduction request. Chair Baltay opened the floor to ARB questions of the applicant. Boardmember Hirsch stated he is confused about the top floor regarding what is roofed and what is not. Particularly because the planting is throughout the area of the circulation and in the front. If the planting is in the back area, it really wouldn’t be seen. Mr. Carrasco responded that the idea is to build cottages, with everything open between them. There will be trellises on top for the plants to grow on. The roof would be more than fifty percent open to the sky. Boardmember Hirsch clarified that the type of plantings would be vines growing over the open spaces. Mr. Carrasco answered yes. There would be two planters in the front section that sit on either side and from there the overhangs would have vine type plants. Boardmember Hirsch asked about the red Bougainvillea. Item 6 Attachment A - Minutes of September 7, 2023     Packet Pg. 147     Page 5 of 15 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 09/7/23 Mr. Carrasco replied that was their preference, either red or white, it could be other colors. Boardmember Hirsch clarified there is no problem with the use of the space when in the corridor area and then enter a private residential or office room. Mr. Carrasco stated there may be an awning over the door, but it would be open. They want to make it feel like they are outside. Boardmember Hirsch inquired about the drainage from rainwater. Mr. Carrasco responded it would be collected below. The way the structure will be built is with a parapet wall about eighteen inches tall and they are going to lay 3 feet steel across from one parapet to the other with additional space underneath with contains mechanical equipment that will need to be protected. They will build above the parapet wall. The water will go into the space between them with a membrane on it and will distribute to the existing vertical drainpipes. Boardmember Hirsch commented that they have looked at the front elevations, the side elevations done really indicate anything about material, and inquired if they were going to carry the same change in color of the stucco portions onto the side walls of the building. Mr. Carrasco answered yes, and explained the existing color is a type of oak or beige color and that color will be continued up, and front two walls are currently dark grey, they are going to paint those the same as the sides. Boardmember Chen stated on the elevations there is already an existing site for the mechanical, on the elevations they are showing glazing and inquired if there would be spinodal glass for that portion. Mr. Carrasco stated that is existing glazing. The top part is a frame, but all of that is existing glass. Boardmember Chen asked about the design features above the elevator towers and their design intent for those. Mr. Carrasco explained that when they took the elevator tower straight up, it looked too clunky and didn’t touch the sky well. They bent the corners up like the World Trade Center, using a smaller scale of the same geometry, it shows up in plan but it’s not very clear in the elevations. He thanked Boardmember Chen for asking about that. Boardmember Chen asked if there would be any lighting around the elevator. Mr. Carrasco answered there’s no lighting other than on the front columns, which already exists. Boardmember Chen commented that the front elevation seems to have a big tree logo and inquired about the material of it and if it’s flat or three dimensional. Mr. Carrasco said they wanted to hire an artist to do that, and the drawings are a place holder for a mural that will have a tree like shape on that façade. They will bring that before the ARB at the final hearing. The image shown is not the final image. Boardmember Chen inquired about the trellis on the top floor and if there would be any extra protection layers for rainy days. Item 6 Attachment A - Minutes of September 7, 2023     Packet Pg. 148     Page 6 of 15 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 09/7/23 Mr. Carrasco stated it’s all open. They want to make it feel like an alley, and they are considering graffiti along those walls. Vice Chair Rosenberg stated she didn’t have any questions at that time. Chair Baltay commented that on the front left elevation he saw a projection for what appeared to be stairs and requested an explanation of why that would be necessary. Mr. Carrasco stated that because of the extra space, which is about three and a half feet, maybe four feet deep for the mechanical stuff, the stair length gets a bit longer than the normal stair length and they had to project it out and that was the only place they could do that to get up there. Chair Baltay asked if there were any other options to not have a projection of the stairs. Mr. Carrasco explained they tried looking at all kinds of ways to get up there without the projection, but they felt that it would not be too noticeable. Chair Baltay referenced the right south side of the building, fronting next to the church structure, and the series of light shafts; noticing the new building appears to be built on those, Chair Baltay inquired if they studied how light would get into those windows with the new addition. Mr. Carrasco answered that the building next door is about twenty-eight feet high, so there is light that comes in over that building and into the shafts. Chair Baltay asked if it was correct that if the other building were to be redeveloped to a higher limit, there would be no restriction on them blocking off those light shafts all together. Mr. Carrasco stated that was correct. However, they tried to purchase that building and it’s a church and has not paid into the parking assessment district and so they cannot add anymore, at least with present regulations. He doesn’t see those regulations changing. Chair Baltay requested an explanation of how trash and bicycle parking would be handled for this building. Mr. Carrasco explained that the bicycle parking is currently almost fully developed on the site except for one corridor on the north side. There is some space for bicycle parking however, it’s already close to full. There may be some space that can be provided because they know there’s a need, but they haven’t looked that far into adding that into the plans as of yet. Chair Baltay commented that he believes staff is going to require additional bicycle parking and asked if he could explain where that would be located. Mr. Carrasco stated this is the first he’s heard about bicycle parking and if the ARB believed it’s an important issue, they would look for a place to put it. Chair Baltay inquired how trash is currently being handled. Mr. Carrasco answered there’s a trash bin under the front stairs, under the landing. That is used and never seems to get full. On collection days it’s taken through the gate on the left side under the projection. Item 6 Attachment A - Minutes of September 7, 2023     Packet Pg. 149     Page 7 of 15 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 09/7/23 Chair Baltay stated that currently the building is a grey color on the street side and asked why they are changing that to a tan color. Mr. Carrasco explained that the owner claimed a lot of the residents can not find the building, the owners believe it’s because of the dark color. Chair Baltay was under the impression that Mr. Carrasco was the architect of the original building. Mr. Carrasco stated the remodel for the hotel, yes. Chair Baltay commented he finds it quite attractive as it is and confirmed that a material board with samples has not yet been provided. Mr. Carrasco stated that was correct. There is no material board, however the materials are called out on the third to the last sheet in the plan packet. Chair Baltay stated that as he understood it, on the fourth floor, the floor area calculations would require not only the space that’s used, but also the minimum requirement for circulation, in the upper corridor. Typically, that’s done with a solid roof over the whole space. Chair Baltay asked if the same calculations are used on a trellis that is more than 50% open. Ms. Raybould stated that was something she wanted to discuss further internally for the formal application, but as noted in the staff report, she included the language from the code, and it does indicate that whether open or …. Ms. Gerhardt continued with “open or roofed porches, patios, balconies, breezeways, if located above the ground floor and used for required access” does count towards gross floor area. Chair Baltay commented that the code was very clear, there would be an impact to the design because they will have to accommodate for that. It seems clear that they are trying to leave it open, in part for that reason. He wanted to put that out there for future reference. Chair Baltay stated the plans are not specific about it being a hotel or office space and asked if the intent is for a hotel. Mr. Carrasco answered yes, the desire is for the space to be hotel use. Chair Baltay asked why it was being shown as an office building. Mr. Carrasco stated that as Ms. Raybould previously mentioned, they thought the hotel would only go two to one FAR, and an office could go to three to one FAR. It turned out the staff clarified that with TDRs, a hotel can go up to three to one FAR. If there are no additional parking requirements, their desire is for it to be hotel use. Ms. Gerhardt stated there is an additional parking requirement for hotel use, because that is not covered by State Law. Chair Baltay inquired if they are able to apply for a parking management plan, in which staff could then determine that the current parking is adequate for the new hotel use, even if it’s larger. Item 6 Attachment A - Minutes of September 7, 2023     Packet Pg. 150     Page 8 of 15 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 09/7/23 Ms. Gerhardt replied yes, staff would also look at a TDM plan and consider a reduction from that standpoint. Chair Baltay asked hypothetically speaking, would staff approve that type of request. Ms. Gerhardt asked Ms. Raybould if she was correct in assuming they were fully parked and speaking in terms of a handful of spaces that would be the reduction; she didn’t know what the exact percentage was. Ms. Raybould stated that it could be feasible based on the discussions she had already had with the applicant regarding what’s already available on the site and based on the information about what their current use is. Use being the actual current use of the facility, and the fact that the applicants are already tracking that information. She didn’t have the actual reduction percentage, but she knew they had worked out that it could be feasible with a TDM plan, based on the location. Ms. Gerhardt commented that the applicant is stating a twenty percent reduction is allowed. Mr. Carrasco stated the requested reduction percentage would likely be less than twenty percent. Ms. Gerhardt stated that if it were less than twenty percent and they were to buy train passes for employees and offer some sort of subsidy for hotel guests, they have had other hotels offer $20 dollars towards an uber ride or something to that effect. If those things were in place, it would likely be approved, but it’s not exactly in plannings purview. It would need to be discussed with the office of transportation. Ms. Raybould stated that it’s exactly twenty percent after her calculations. Vice Chair Rosenberg asked when the applicant does need to calculate that three foot wide corridor on the roof level, is it a straight line down the middle or going from staircase to elevator. She wants to ensure the applicant has an accurate way to account for that. Ms. Gerhardt answered that it’s whatever the required access is based on the building code. Vice Chair Rosenberg asked if that goes from each room individually or straight down the middle. Ms. Gerhardt stated that it does need to get from each room. Vice Chair Rosenberg inquired from the applicant if it was just the parapets that have varying heights. Mr. Carrasco stated there is a mechanical space above the bathrooms, at those points the roofs would be a little lower. PUBLIC COMMENTS Chair Baltay opened the meeting to public comments, seeing none, he closed the meeting to public comments and turned the floor to the Board for discussion. Chair Baltay stated that since this was a study session, the Board would offer their opinions to the applicant. Boardmember Hirsch commented that they asked a lot of technical questions, and the idea of changing the color from the gray is more than just a wayfinding for the building. By making it a lighter color with the vertical elements in the middle, it better defines the design and he’s happy to see that. However, he Item 6 Attachment A - Minutes of September 7, 2023     Packet Pg. 151     Page 9 of 15 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 09/7/23 expressed caution in doing so since those colors were not provided for review. The ARB generally likes to see colors that aren’t so bright in nature that the building doesn’t fit in with the surrounding area. The ARB will need to see those colors on a material board to show a relationship to the front façade. They haven’t discussed the style of the building but appears to be post modern in nature with the addition. Concerning raising part of the staircase, he believed it benefited the top of the building quite a lot. He noticed the building across the street is five stories. Regarding establishing heights of buildings, they are under pressure to create more dense housing throughout the city, that’s going to change the skyline a good bit and the regulations will have to change in order to accommodate that. The idea of there being a variation in height for this project is not a problem for him. He suggested for future hearings they do a better job in showing the rest of the buildings on neighboring streets. Particularly across the street from the five story building. He believes the elevation is quite interesting and he’s okay with the massing of the building and extending it up is a pleasant idea. The fact that it’s an open rooftop, one needs to get used to the concept of that, he believes it might be night to go up and be under the sky to an extent and to have the coloring from the planting. It’s important for it to extend to the front so people can see it from the street. He projected it might be nice to have a café on the roof, but it’s not a requirement. He would like to think that it might have furniture and could be usable space, although that would require the furniture to be protected from the weather. Boardmember Hirsch stated that without joint lines, it becomes important to see the scale of the division between a stucco wall and other materials. More clarity will need to be shown for the plans of bicycle parking and trash management. He understands the big picture of the project must first be clarified before they can fine tune the details. The roof top addition will add significantly to the aesthetics of the original building and the finished effect isn’t presented well currently, so they have an opportunity to add to that. Vice Chair Rosenberg thanked the applicant for the presentation and stated that she’s quite fond of the building and pleased to see them renovating and possibly expanding to the current existing space. In terms of the FAR, they will need to comply and figure out how to get that done, and the question would be if it’s worth covering the walkways in just those zones if they have to. She does love the open air concept. Her one piece of advice would be to make sure there is protection from the rain at the doorways. Maybe if they know a storm is coming in, they can book people into the lower rooms. She appreciates how airy, light, and bright the open air concept is. Her items of concern include that the elevator shaft is very tall and while she appreciates the chamfering element to it, she wondered if there wasn’t a better solution to it. Visually, she had trouble with that element being so much taller than the rest of the building. Additionally, it’s the only element that has that chamfer. She liked the chamfer and suggested considering another spot where that element could pick back up again. Possibly at the top of the staircase, or possibly in the mural. She appreciated Boardmember Hirsch idea of having a rooftop lounge type area, possibly outdoor seating that could provide a gathering space for the hotel guests. She is partial to the grey color, but that was just her own preference in aesthetics. The new color being proposed is nice, she would like to see the sample boards for it. She is concerned about the darkness of the olive color on the sides, particularly if there will be shading on them, and she would want to see more details about how dark that olive color is. Boardmember Chen thanked the applicant for the presentation and commented that she finds the addition is quite interesting and well thought out and blends well with the original building. It’s hard to see it as an addition. She appreciated the concept of an alley between cottages; however, she suggested Item 6 Attachment A - Minutes of September 7, 2023     Packet Pg. 152     Page 10 of 15 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 09/7/23 covering above the corridors as protection from potential weather. If it becomes hotel space, the intent is for those rooms to be used. She believed the lighter color would help with the wayfinding. The rooftop trellis with the planting also helps. Those are good features for the addition. Chair Baltay agreed with his colleagues, it’s a wonderful project and he loved to see the additional height. It’s interesting and it’s nice to see taller buildings in different places in town. He liked the idea of the open air terrace lounge on the roof, it would bring vitality and life and there’s been a lot of interest in that. He could support all of that comfortably and encouraged them to proceed. The applicant needs to show bicycle parking and trash circulation and those type of elements need to be resolved, as well as more details on the colors and materials. He could comfortably support the direction that the project is going. He believed it’s up to staff to figure out the FAR, transfer development rights and then up to the applicant to comply. The two elements that concern him are the projecting stair tower on the left to the front, there must be some other way to structure that staircase that doesn’t require a projection out. His concern is when that is looked at three dimensionally from Litton Avenue, it will look odd with that overhanding a very clean and well defined façade. It’s worth another effort to find a way to get that stair to function, and if not, prepare some renderings that convinces that the projection fits into the scheme. His second concern is that the bedrooms on the right façade (southwest façade) are going to become even darker than they are now by covering the windows with the new addition. He didn’t believe it was a good idea to restrict the light to those rooms. Particularly on the lower floors. If the adjacent building were to be redeveloped that could potentially be a real problem. They should consider adjusting the floor plan of the addition to not be so restrictive to the lighting that is already in place for those rooms. Otherwise, he believed it to be a very good project. Chair Baltay requested the Board speak about the two concerns he had so the applicant would have clear direction. Vice Chair Rosenberg stated she agreed with both of those statements, that stair mass is rather imposing and would love a second look at that to some extent. She also agreed with the lighting comments from the rooms on that southeast side. It will be very important, even though the expectation is that the other building will not be developed further, no one can know for sure. Boardmember Hirsch commented that when one looks at a straight elevation, they should look at it from the street side, but the tree cuts off that extension on that elevation and asked the applicant to clarify that wall. Mr. Carrasco stated the existing wall is set back about six inches. Boardmember Hirsch clarified that above the tree from the front side of the building going up to the parapet line in front of the staircase, there’s a line that runs all the way across with the wall behind it. Mr. Carrasco stated that’s way back, it’s the rooms behind it. Regarding the daylight into the lower windows, with the run of the beam on the exterior side of those jobs, a beam has to be run on top for sheer. That is the limitation that they have, they can’t move that beam in. He would have loved to have brought more light into those wells. Item 6 Attachment A - Minutes of September 7, 2023     Packet Pg. 153     Page 11 of 15 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 09/7/23 Chair Baltay commented that they could possibly head it out, have a pair of beams at each side of the light shafts and then step the floor back between the two. It’s a common framing technique. Boardmember Hirsch asked if an entirely new stair is being erected to get to the top and questioned the reasoning for that. Mr. Carrasco explained they are adding to the existing stairs on the front stairs, for the top floor only. Because of the intraspinal space for the mechanical equipment that needs to be protected, the run up the stairs gets longer. Boardmember Hirsch commented that if they look at the elevation, it shows the cantilever, and he believes it relates nicely if you look at it relative to the asymmetry of the open space on the roof. It creates a type of balancing act in the façade. He doesn’t have a problem with that. His opinion regarding the lighting on the lower floors is based on something that may or may not happen, so they can hope for the best. If the church was built there would still be open area. Chair Baltay commented that it wouldn’t be enough for a safety egress. Boardmember Hirsch stated there are no egress. Mr. Carrasco confirmed there is no egress on that side. The egress is through the corridor, not on the windows. Boardmember Hirsch stated he’s willing to take a chance that the church will not expand up. Boardmember Chen commented that speaking in terms of the stairs on the roof, she agreed with Boardmember Hirsch, she doesn’t believe it’s offensive for the size of the cantilever. She sees a lot of buildings that have cantilevers on the side, but she does agree that if they should not leave the side façade blank and suggested maybe having something there that ties in the cantilever. In terms of the light shafts, she agreed with Chair Baltay and had concerns, however, they still have the opportunity to rework the floor area on the top floors to accommodate making those light shafts work. Chair Baltay asked if the applicant had any questions on any of the feedback that was received. Mr. Carrasco stated he felt it would be good to meet with the Board if possible. Chair Baltay suggested he reach out to staff, if it seems appropriate, they would be more than happy to accommodate that request. Approval of Minutes 3. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for August 3, 2023. Chair Baltay asked for comments or a motion. Boardmember Hirsch commented that on page 10 of 16, he was concerned that the minutes don’t repeat the idea that he expressed. He would like added, starting at “Another suggestion” on line 13, with “Boardmember Hirsch requested that the applicant relocate the mechanical equipment to the roof top, Item 6 Attachment A - Minutes of September 7, 2023     Packet Pg. 154     Page 12 of 15 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 09/7/23 and provide clear story windows at the perimeter of the exercise room, and revise the façade materials to match the front façade”. Ms. Raybould commented that staff has already received notice that the applicant is ready for the second hearing and her recollection was that they did make changes to the clear story windows as well as the equipment, but she was not sure if they changed the material. Chair Baltay stated he was trying to get the record straight. Vice Chair Rosenberg noted a typo on the top of page 4, staff is misspelled. MOTION: Boardmember Hirsch , seconded by Chair Baltay, to approve the meeting minutes for August 3, 2023 as revised above. VOTE: 4-0-0 Boardmember Questions, Comments or Announcements Chair Baltay commented that they were going to have the discussion about bird safe glazing, however before that he shared that he attended a City Council meeting on Tuesday where he presented to Council the results of their discussions concerning the Portage Avenue, Fry’s site. There were quite a few members of the public there, almost everyone spoke in some form or another to preserving the cannery building. He was very clear in presenting the ARB’s findings and the two comments about the historic reuse of the building and about additional density or development types of housing. The ARB was represented at that meeting. Boardmember Chen thanked staff for sending them additional links for the bird safe codes in other areas. The subcommittee also did additional research on the website for the lead requirement for bird safety and a study by the US Fish and Wildlife Association, and the website of the American Bird Conservancy who provides a look at different materials and displays the threat factors of those materials to the birds. They concluded that the Board needs to consider more than just the UV coated glass for bird safety and ask applicants to follow the lead requirement. There are different hazard zones that are separated by height. For example, from grade level to forty feet, it’s easier for birds to fly into glass while leaving a tree. There are four items might affect bird safety. Material choice is one of them and they would like the applicant to reference the American Bird Conservancy for their list of materials that are appropriate. Polished steel could also be a hazard to the bird. The second item for consideration is the placement and adjacency. The subcommittee would request the applicant to minimize the clear glass and reflective surfaces adjacent to landscaping, and possibly consider using angled glass. Extra screening would help the louvers for shading. The third item would be landscape and the subcommittee suggest they not funnel the birds towards the glass. An example would be interior landscaping with clear glass above it, which can also be a danger to the birds. Sometimes the rooftop gardens are near a large area with glazing, and if it’s near heavy landscaping, it could be a danger to the birds. The fourth item for consideration is light pollution. During the night, if there is beacon lighting, it could impact the birds in finding their way particularly during migration seasons because the birds rely on the stars and moon for finding their way. Finally, in considering historic buildings in town, they should be treated differently; they might consider Item 6 Attachment A - Minutes of September 7, 2023     Packet Pg. 155     Page 13 of 15 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 09/7/23 working with the Historical Resources Board for alternative solutions when the other strategies won’t work for historical buildings. Chair Baltay asked if they found an existing standard for bird safe glazing for buildings. Boardmember Chen answered that the link for the San Francisco Bird Safety building code, the same applies to Portland Oregon. Lead requirements is also good to reference for specific points for bird friendly designs. Ms. Raybould stated that there is no real set standard, she believed the idea was what could be considered to see if they want to include something in the NVCAP in order to set a standard. Those were very helpful points. Chair Baltay believed that some of those may on some level be contradictive to other current design objectives. Things like not having glazing near landscaping, that sort of flies in the face of every window view. He inquired from staff if they knew of any effort within the city to try to come up with a more comprehensive regulation for bird safety. Their objection was to try to come up with something for the ARB to provide clear guidance to applicants, as he looked at the list that the subcommittee uncovered, it seemed even more important to try to do that, but he felt uncomfortable trying to make a standard such as that, as a Board. Ms. Gerhardt stated that they don’t currently have direction from Council on this specific topic, however, they have had conversations with Audubon Society in the past. Based on that past conversation, staff started somewhat using the San Francisco guidelines and bringing that to the attention of applicants and incorporate those into their projects when they could. They are also hearing that possibly the San Francisco standards may be somewhat out of date and staff were guided towards Cupertino. Ms. Gerhardt didn’t see much detail in their guidelines that was helpful. There are a handful of other cities that have already tackled this issue, that would be the easiest way to go. Staff could also have another conversation with the Audubon Society to see what their thoughts are. Ms. Raybould added that the answer to that could be a little bit nuance because she felt it could be a bigger concern in certain areas, or as Boardmember Chen noted, once they get to taller buildings over forty feet it becomes slightly more concerning. Areas in the Baylands are certainly paying more attention to that. It has come up as an issue, particularly when office buildings are looking at designs that have a substantial amount of glass. It comes down to what is being proposed, where it is being proposed for how significant the concern is. An NVCAP area is not quite as tall for most of the buildings, and a lot of them will not be big window office buildings, but they still wanted to explore if they should include something. The Comprehensive Plan does have a policy that encourages staff to come up with bird safe guidelines, so it came up as part of the NVCAP, but it’s something that they might can explore to include in the objective standards to address that in the future. Chair Baltay believed that staff thinks it could be linked towards being a comprehensive plan item. He was looking at it from the ARB’s finding No. 6 regarding sustainability and to him, it’s a sustainability issue and affects how the buildings interact with the broader environment. He inquired if it was something the Board wanted to create a statement for applicants, or perhaps suggest to Council that they modify one of Item 6 Attachment A - Minutes of September 7, 2023     Packet Pg. 156     Page 14 of 15 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 09/7/23 their findings to be more explicit about that issue. He guessed staff was not ready to pick that up as a full project. Boardmember Hirsch stated that seemed clear to him as well, and he agreed with Ms. Gerhardt in that there are other places that have been working on this and they should do the research to find out if regulations are already incorporated into other city’s standards that they could use. There is a representative of the Audubon Society, Ms. Shani Kleinhaus, it might make sense to include her in some of the discussions, and she has been involved in this to some depth. In his opinion, it would be best not to tie up the ARB’s time for more detail that’s already been presented and use other city regulations and make to work to Palo Alto’s benefit. Chair Baltay stated he had heard information from former Boardmember Thompson and Boardmember Chen that was interesting to him, and he had never thought about the highly reflective materials and that it becomes more important the higher a building gets. It’s good to educate the Board in that way. Another goal might be to put out some sort of standard to communicate with applicants that come before the ARB, that they understand that the ARB considers it to be serious, and what the ARB’s position is. They don’t have a regulation they can reference and it’s likely they won’t get any formal process made on that. Do they feel that is an item the Board should issue some sort of statement for applicants. Boardmember Hirsch commented that it becomes a bit of a precedence if they are going to start giving regulations from them. Chair Baltay stated exactly, if they want to do that, they have to be careful about it and be united behind it. Chair Baltay felt it was not sufficiently important to warrant explicit instructions. It is one of many items they deal with that are more broadly encompassed with findings regarding the comprehensive plan and sustainability. Boardmember Chen agreed that as they read more, they find out there’s even more they don’t know and it’s beyond the ARB’s knowledge. She believed the NVCAP should not say bird safety standards, but rather bird friendly strategies in design. Chair Baltay commented that one of the things that brought this up was looking at the NVCAP as a series of design parameters within it, and they wanted it incorporated but they do need to be careful not to make it a standalone guideline and only for those particular buildings. Vice Chair Rosenberg feels that she is a bit more tentative about moving forward with the broad goal of the City and thinks that when they’ve seen bird glazing come up in previous discussions, it’s been in locations closer to the Baylands, it’s been in buildings with a vast quantity of glazing in their exterior façades and she felt uncomfortable implementing something broad strokes, not feeling like they understand how big the problem is. She didn’t want to put in writing a solution going forward on something that’s not necessarily an actual problem. She did not feel that as a Board, they had accurate information on how detrimental the bird strikes are within the City. They don’t know how common the problem is, if the city is in the path of a bird migration, et cetera. She did not feel comfortable implementing anything at that time. Item 6 Attachment A - Minutes of September 7, 2023     Packet Pg. 157     Page 15 of 15 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 09/7/23 Chair Baltay asked Boardmember Chen how big of a problem this was in their recent research. Boardmember Chen responded that it could happen anywhere, but when they review the design of a building, there are many factors they have to balance. It’s not just the bird safety issue. It’s a broad topic and not just buildings. The wind turbines are also a concern. She believes it’s a bigger issue than what is within their purview to decide. However, it is an important item for the applicant to think about, to not limit the bird safety to just glazing. Boardmember Hirsch said ditto to Vice Chair Rosenberg’s comments. She was right on in that the Board could get sidetracked on something they don’t know enough about. When they get near waterways, that’s where those things become more important, the creek that runs next to Fry’s might be a concern for that project. However, it’s something they should spend a lot of time thinking about. Chair Baltay agreed that they should not spend any more time thinking about it. He appreciated the work of Boardmember Thompson and Boardmember Chen, it was very educational report, and they will take that as an educational process at the moment. Adjournment Chair Baltay adjourned the meeting at 10:30 a.m. Item 6 Attachment A - Minutes of September 7, 2023     Packet Pg. 158