Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-11-02 Architectural Review Board Agenda PacketARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD Regular Meeting Thursday, November 02, 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. Board member 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 STUDY SESSION Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 2.739 Sutter [23PLN‐00201]: Request for a Streamlined Housing Development Review to Allow the Construction of an Approximately 18,000 Square Foot (sf) Multi‐Family Project Consisting of 12 Three‐Bedroom Condominium Units in 3‐story Buildings on an Approximately 0.38‐acre (16,707 sf) Parcel. The Project would replace an existing 8‐Unit Residential Rental Building. The Project includes two Units Provided at Below Market Rate and, Accordingly, Requests Concessions and Waivers Pursuant to State Density Bonus Law. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act in Accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 (in‐fill development). Zoning District: RM‐20 (Multiple‐Family Residential). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Claire Raybould at Claire.Raybould@cityofpaloalto.org ACTION ITEMS Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Ten (10) minutes, plus ten (10) minutes rebuttal. All others: Three (3) minutes per speaker. 3.2501 Embarcadero Way [22PLN‐00367]: Consideration of a Site and Design Application to Allow the Construction of a Local Advanced Water Purification System at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP). The Proposed Project Includes 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: Council Previously Adopted an Addendum to the 2015 Environmental Impact Report for the City of Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Which Evaluated the Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Project. Zone District: PF (D) (Public Facility with Site and Design Combining District). 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. 4.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for October 5, 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, November 02, 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. Board member 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 STUDY SESSION Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 2.739 Sutter [23PLN‐00201]: Request for a Streamlined Housing Development Review to Allow the Construction of an Approximately 18,000 Square Foot (sf) Multi‐Family Project Consisting of 12 Three‐Bedroom Condominium Units in 3‐story Buildings on an Approximately 0.38‐acre (16,707 sf) Parcel. The Project would replace an existing 8‐Unit Residential Rental Building. The Project includes two Units Provided at Below Market Rate and, Accordingly, Requests Concessions and Waivers Pursuant to State Density Bonus Law. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act in Accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 (in‐fill development). Zoning District: RM‐20 (Multiple‐Family Residential). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Claire Raybould at Claire.Raybould@cityofpaloalto.org ACTION ITEMS Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Ten (10) minutes, plus ten (10) minutes rebuttal. All others: Three (3) minutes per speaker. 3.2501 Embarcadero Way [22PLN‐00367]: Consideration of a Site and Design Application to Allow the Construction of a Local Advanced Water Purification System at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP). The Proposed Project Includes 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: Council Previously Adopted an Addendum to the 2015 Environmental Impact Report for the City of Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Which Evaluated the Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Project. Zone District: PF (D) (Public Facility with Site and Design Combining District). 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. 4.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for October 5, 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, November 02, 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. Board member 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 ProjectsSTUDY SESSIONPublic Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.2.739 Sutter [23PLN‐00201]: Request for a Streamlined Housing Development Review toAllow the Construction of an Approximately 18,000 Square Foot (sf) Multi‐Family ProjectConsisting of 12 Three‐Bedroom Condominium Units in 3‐story Buildings on anApproximately 0.38‐acre (16,707 sf) Parcel. The Project would replace an existing 8‐UnitResidential Rental Building. The Project includes two Units Provided at Below MarketRate and, Accordingly, Requests Concessions and Waivers Pursuant to State DensityBonus Law. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the Provisions of the CaliforniaEnvironmental Quality Act in Accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 (in‐filldevelopment). Zoning District: RM‐20 (Multiple‐Family Residential). For MoreInformation Contact the Project Planner Claire Raybould atClaire.Raybould@cityofpaloalto.orgACTION ITEMSPublic Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Ten (10) minutes, plus ten (10) minutes rebuttal. All others: Three(3) minutes per speaker.3.2501 Embarcadero Way [22PLN‐00367]: Consideration of a Site and Design Applicationto Allow the Construction of a Local Advanced Water Purification System at the RegionalWater Quality Control Plant (RWQCP). The Proposed Project Includes the Constructionand Operation of a Membrane Filtration Recycled Water Facility and a Permeate StorageTank at the City’s RWQCP to Improve Recycled Water Quality and Increase its Use.Environmental Assessment: Council Previously Adopted an Addendum to the 2015 Environmental Impact Report for the City of Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Which Evaluated the Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Project. Zone District: PF (D) (Public Facility with Site and Design Combining District). 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. 4.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for October 5, 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, November 02, 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. Board member 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 ProjectsSTUDY SESSIONPublic Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.2.739 Sutter [23PLN‐00201]: Request for a Streamlined Housing Development Review toAllow the Construction of an Approximately 18,000 Square Foot (sf) Multi‐Family ProjectConsisting of 12 Three‐Bedroom Condominium Units in 3‐story Buildings on anApproximately 0.38‐acre (16,707 sf) Parcel. The Project would replace an existing 8‐UnitResidential Rental Building. The Project includes two Units Provided at Below MarketRate and, Accordingly, Requests Concessions and Waivers Pursuant to State DensityBonus Law. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the Provisions of the CaliforniaEnvironmental Quality Act in Accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 (in‐filldevelopment). Zoning District: RM‐20 (Multiple‐Family Residential). For MoreInformation Contact the Project Planner Claire Raybould atClaire.Raybould@cityofpaloalto.orgACTION ITEMSPublic Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Ten (10) minutes, plus ten (10) minutes rebuttal. All others: Three(3) minutes per speaker.3.2501 Embarcadero Way [22PLN‐00367]: Consideration of a Site and Design Applicationto Allow the Construction of a Local Advanced Water Purification System at the RegionalWater Quality Control Plant (RWQCP). The Proposed Project Includes the Constructionand Operation of a Membrane Filtration Recycled Water Facility and a Permeate StorageTank at the City’s RWQCP to Improve Recycled Water Quality and Increase its Use.Environmental Assessment: Council Previously Adopted an Addendum to the 2015Environmental Impact Report for the City of Palo Alto Recycled Water Project WhichEvaluated the Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Project. Zone District: PF (D)(Public Facility with Site and Design Combining District). For More Information Contactthe Project Planner, Claire Raybould, at Claire.Raybould@Cityofpaloalto.org.APPROVAL OF MINUTESPublic Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.4.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for October 5, 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: November 2, 2023 Report #: 2310-2134 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 2023-2024 Meeting Schedule & Assignments 2023-2024 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 1/04/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Cancelled 1/18/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 2/01/2024 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 November 16, 2023 •SB 9 Update Informational Report December 7, 2023 •70 Encina: Request for Preliminary Architectural Review •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 Ave. Bridge On-hold for redesign - Allow the removal and replacement of the Pope-Chaucer Bridge over San Francisquito Creek with a new structure that does not obstruct creek flow to reduce flood risk. The project will also include channel modifications. Environmental Assessment: The SFCJPA, acting as the lead agency, adopted a Final EIR on September 26, 2019. Zoning District: PF. __ AR Major - Board Zone Change 12/21/21 21PLN- 00341 EFOLEY 660 University Mixed use ARB 1st formal 12/1/22, ARB 2nd formal tentative for Dec/Jan - 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- __ Item 1 Attachment B-2023 Agenda and New Projects List 11-02     Packet Pg. 8     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, 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; 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 Road Housing 8/17 ARB; Waiting on resubmittal, targeting late December/January hearing - Request for a zone change from CS to Planned Community (PHZ) for a 76-unit, 5- story residential building. 16 of the units would be provided at below market rate, 4 of which would be to low income and 7 of which would be to very low income. The building is designed as a 5-story building with four levels of wood framing over a concrete podium superstructure, with two levels of subterranean parking. Project went to a Council prescreening on 8/15. Rosenberg, Hirsch Reported out 5/4 Major Architectural Review 1/04/2023 23PLN- 00058 CHODGKI 420 Acacia Residential- 16 units replacing surface parking lot 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 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 Rosenberg, Hirsch Reported out 5/4 Item 1 Attachment B-2023 Agenda and New Projects List 11-02     Packet Pg. 9     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. Application Resubmitted 10/19. 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; Resubmitted 9/25; NOI Sent 10/25. 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 Major Architectural Review 7/19/2023 23PLN- 00181 EFOLEY 824 San Antonio Road Housing – 16 senior units, 12 convalescen t units Submitted 7/19/23. Notice of Incomplete sent 8/20/23. Targeting Jan hearing. 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 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. Community Meeting in October. Targeting Jan PTC, and Feb ARB hearing. 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 Item 1 Attachment B-2023 Agenda and New Projects List 11-02     Packet Pg. 10     Preliminary Architectural Review 10/30/2023 EFOLEY 70 Encina Housing Not yet submitted (intake scheduled for 10/30). Request for Preliminary Architectural Review to Allow a New 3-story, approximately 22,000 sf building (1.84 FAR) and full site improvements to replace an existing surface parking lot. The project includes 10 new 3-story townhouse residential units around a common central courtyard. 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 Heard by Council on 6/5/23 - Council Pre- Screening request by Valley Water to allow a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to update the land use of a portion of Area B of parcel #116-01- 013 from Public Conservation Land to Major Institution/Special Facilities. The other portion of Area B is currently designated as a Major institution/Special Facilities and the proposed project also calls for the subdivision of Area B. Zoning District: PF(D). __ SB 330 Pre- Application 3/22/2023 23PLN- 00073 JGERHA RDT 300 Lambert Housing – 45 units SB 330 Pre-Application - Request for a proposed 5-story housing development project utilizing Builder's Remedy. The project includes 45 residential units and two floors of below grade parking (85 spaces) in a 3:1 FAR building. Nine units will be designated as BMR/Low Income Units. Two parcels 280 and 300 Lambert Ave, previously Thompson, Chen Reported out 6/15 Item 1 Attachment B-2023 Agenda and New Projects List 11-02     Packet Pg. 11     used as automotive repair facilities, would be merged. Zoning District: CS. 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). Preliminary Architectural Review 8/29/2023 23PLN- 00231 CHODGKI 616 Ramona Commercial Submitted 8/29/23. ARB Prelim hearing; waiting on formal application submittal. 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. Item 1 Attachment B-2023 Agenda and New Projects List 11-02     Packet Pg. 12     Item No. 2. Page 1 of 14 Architectural Review Board Staff Report From: Jonathan Lait, Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: November 2, 2023 Report #: 2309-1978 TITLE 739 Sutter [23PLN-00201]: Request for a Streamlined Housing Development Review to Allow the Construction of an Approximately 18,000 Square Foot (sf) Multi-Family Project Consisting of 12 Three-Bedroom Condominium Units in 3-story Buildings on an Approximately 0.38-acre (16,707 sf) Parcel. The Project would replace an existing 8-Unit Residential Rental Building. The Project includes two Units Provided at Below Market Rate and, Accordingly, Requests Concessions and Waivers Pursuant to State Density Bonus Law. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act in Accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 (in-fill development). Zoning District: RM-20 (Multiple-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 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 0.38-acre parcel at 739 Sutter Avenue, includes 12 residential for-sale units, two of which are to be provided at below market rate to low income (50-80% of AMI). The project would replace an existing 8-unit residential rental development that is currently occupied. The project is a housing development project in accordance with the Housing Accountability Act and qualifies for a Density Bonus based on the percentage and income level restrictions on the provided units. The project is also eligible for three concessions 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. Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 13     Item No. 2. Page 2 of 14 A location map for the proposed project is included in Attachment A and the project plans are included in Attachment I. The City, acting as the lead agency in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, 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 I. BACKGROUND Project Information Owner:Ge Sun (Grace Li) Architect:Dahlin Group Representative:Kriselle Rodriguez and Eric Muzzy, Dahlin Group Legal Counsel:Not Applicable Property Information Address:739 Sutter Avenue Neighborhood:Midtown Lot Dimensions & Area:~125x~133 (16,707 sf [.38 ac]) Housing Inventory Site:Not Applicable (Site identified as a pipeline project for the Cycle 6 Housing Element) Located w/in a Plume:Not Applicable Protected/Heritage Trees:No heritage trees; see discussion below regarding street trees Historic Resource(s):Not Applicable (see discussion below) Existing Improvement(s):Approximately 5,250 sf; single story; 1954 Existing Land Use(s):Multi-family residential (8 rental units) Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North: Multi-family Land Use (RM-20 Zoning) West: Single-family Land Use (R-1 Zoning) East: Multi-family Land Use (RM-20 Zoning) South: Multi-family Land Use (RM-20 Zoning) Aerial View of Property: Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 14     Item No. 2. Page 3 of 14 Source: Google Satellite Maps Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans Comp. Plan Designation:Multi-Family Residential Zoning Designation:RM-20 (Low Density Multi-Family Residential) 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 PTC:None HRB:None ARB:Yes, see discussion below. Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 15     Item No. 2. Page 4 of 14 The ARB held a study session to provide preliminary feedback on this proposal on November 18, 2021. Following is a summary of the key comments from board members during the preliminary review and revisions made to the design prior to formal submittal. Board member Comments Design Revisions Since Preliminary Review Encouraged reduction to the height of the units by not having open space or mechanical equipment on the roof. The applicant reduced the height of Building 2 from approximately 35.5 feet to 31.5 feet. Rooftop open space is not provided on the rear buildings. Second floor decks were also removed. Decks are provided on the third floor to meet private open space requirements but were stepped back further away from the property line (approximately 9 additional feet) to comply with daylight plane requirements and privacy requirements for balconies as outlined in the objective standards. The mechanical equipment for the rear building (Building 2) is incorporated into the third-floor deck area to avoid height increases on the roof at the rear building. Encouraged revisiting the windows on the rear of the building to reduce privacy impacts to neighboring residents The applicant has modified the window design to comply with the privacy requirements set forth in PAMC 18.24. Encouraged changes to Building 1 to incorporate more of the design concepts of Building 2, particularly with respect to colors. The color palette of the buildings has been modified to align more with each other as well as to align more with the color scheme originally proposed for Building 2 (eliminating the beige colors originally proposed for Building 1). Some board members commented on the increased density of units on this property and asked the applicant to consider whether the number of units proposed was appropriate for this site. The project complies with the density bonus allowances under state density bonus law. Accordingly, the number of units has not been reduced and the city cannot require modifications, or otherwise condition approval of the project, to reduce the number of units. Board members asked whether the parking could be reduced in order to help reduce the height of the units. The project complies with the parking requirements set forth in the municipal code, which requires 2 parking spaces per unit. State law requires 1.5 spaces per unit. The project is meeting code and state density bonus law by providing 2 spaces per unit. However, as noted above, modifications were made to reduce the height of the rear Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 16     Item No. 2. Page 5 of 14 building abutting R-1 to meet the base zoning requirement of 30 feet. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project is a request from Dahlin Group on behalf of the property owner, Grace Li (also known as Ge Sun), to construct a 12-unit, three-story, multifamily residential development on a 0.38-acre lot at 739 Sutter Avenue. The development would replace an eight-unit multi- family residential rental building. Parking for the proposed project would be provided in individual garages with two spaces per unit. For the rear building the project includes open space on third floor balconies; on the front building the project includes rooftop open space as well as balconies along the frontage. Two of the units (25% of the base 8 units) would be deed restricted and sold at a rate affordable to lower-incomes (50%-80% of Area Median Income). The application accordingly proposes to utilize waivers and concessions in accordance with State Density Bonus regulations. The project includes the following waiver requests: ▪Floor area ratio (1.4:1 where 1.25:1 is allowed) ▪Maximum site coverage (50 percent where 35 percent is allowed) ▪Minimum front yard setback (5 feet where 20 feet is required) ▪Minimum interior side yard setback (4.6 feet where 10 feet is required) ▪Side lot line daylight plane (10 ft and 82 degrees where 10 feet, 45 degrees is required) ▪Private street width (20-24 feet where 32 feet is required) ▪Minimum finished floor height (0.5 feet where 1.5 feet is required) ▪Upper floor stepback on south side (setback of 8.5 feet for 25 percent of the building at 27 feet in height where 6 ft setback for 70 percent of the building at 33 feet is required when adjacent to single-story) ▪Façade break (1-foot by4-foot break with minimum 8.9 square foot area where 2-feet by 4-feet break with 32 square foot area is required) ▪Individual residential entry width (4.5 feet for Building 2 entry stoops where 5 feet is required) ▪Private open space dimensions (5.5 feet clear where 6 feet clear is required) ▪No privacy screening along the southern property line (between 723-737 Sutter and the proposed project) due to its conflict with the private street ▪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. ▪0 percent landscaping with raised beds for gardening on the rooftop deck where at least 15 percent but no more than 25 percent of the rooftop shall be landscaped with raised beds for gardening or other landscaping. Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 17     Item No. 2. Page 6 of 14 The following concession is also requested: ▪Building height (36.5 feet for Building 1 and 32 feet for Building 2 where 30 feet is allowed) Additionally, although the City’s code limits tandem parking to 25%, state density bonus law includes an additional allowance for density bonus projects to provide all parking spaces as tandem without the need for an additional waiver. A project location map showing the parcel is included in Attachment A. The project plans are included in Attachment I. 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. •Tentative Map and Final Map for condominium purposes: The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in Title 21 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) and California Government Code 66474. The process for approval of a Tentative Map for a condominium subdivision is outlined in PAMC Sections 21.12.010. Tentative maps require Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) review. The PTC reviews whether the amended subdivision is consistent with the Subdivision Map Act (in particular Government Code 66474), Title 21 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, and other applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and State Law. The PTC’s recommendation is forwarded to the City Council for final approval. The applicant has not yet filed their application for a Tentative Map; however, a tentative map is required for a one lot subdivision for condominium purposes to create the 12 condominium parcels. A tentative map may be filed concurrent with the entitlement for proposed improvements, but cannot be formally processed for decision until all other entitlements are complete. Filing and processing of a Tentative Map and Final Map would be made a condition of approval of this project. The ARB’s purview of the formal application is limited by the following state law: Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 18     Item No. 2. Page 7 of 14 •Housing Accountability Act (Government Code 65589.5): The project constitutes a “housing development project” under the Housing Accountability Act. The Housing Accountability Act Section 65589.5(j) requires that when a proposed housing development project complies with applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards, a local agency may only deny or reduce the density the project or reduce its density if the agency first finds that (1) the development would have a specific adverse impact on public health or safety unless disapproved, or approved at a lower density; and (2) there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact, other than the disapproval, or approval at a lower density. 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 on Sutter Avenue and surrounded on the northeast, east, and south by other multi-family residential uses within the RM-20 Zone district. At the rear of the property (west) the site abuts single-family residential uses along San Carlos Court. Surrounding development is primarily single-story. The site is located within close proximity to commercial uses along Middlefield, such as a grocery store and small retail, financial, and personal service uses. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans and Guidelines1 The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the project site is Multiple-Family Residential. The Land use element describes this designation as having a density range of eight to 40 dwelling units per acre. The project has a density of 31.5 dwelling units per acre (12 units/.38 acre), which complies with the intended multiple-family residential density. Although the site is not listed as a housing inventory site, the project site was alternatively 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. The project is subject to the Comprehensive Plan to the extent that those policies are objective. A detailed review of the project’s consistency with objective policies in the Comprehensive Plan is provided in Attachment B. State Density Bonus Law Compliance The project is a qualifying project for state density bonus in accordance with California Government Code §65915(b)(1)(A) which includes projects that sell at least 10% of the base 1 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/landuse/compplan.asp Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 19     Item No. 2. Page 8 of 14 number of dwelling units of a housing development to persons and families of lower income, as defined in Section 50079 of the Health and Safety Code. In accordance with AB 2345, which modified state density bonus law (California Government Code §65915), and the City’s density bonus ordinance (PAMC Section 18.15.030), an applicant providing 24% of the base units at low-income is eligible for a 50% density bonus. The applicant is providing 25% (a total of 2) of the base (8) units at below market rate to low income (50-80% of AMI). Therefore, the project is eligible for a 50% density bonus (allowing the development of up to 12 units on the site where 8 would otherwise be allowed). Per §65915(d)(2)(C) and PAMC §18.15.050(c)(iii), the project is also eligible for three concessions or incentives. In general, the City must provide an unlimited number of waivers from development standards that would physically preclude the project from being built at the allowed density. The requested waivers and concession are provided in the project description. 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 City may request documentation supporting the cost reduction achieved through the concession. For waivers, the City may request documentation that explains why the development standard would physically preclude the project from being constructed at the proposed density. Attachment F provides the applicant’s documentation for the requested waivers and concession. 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. Senate Bill 330 Compliance and Other Renter Protection Compliance Senate Bill (SB) 330, (Government Code Section 65943), created a preliminary application process ‘freezing’ local standards at the time a compliant pre-application is submitted and limiting the number of public hearings to five hearings in total. The applicant initially submitted a compliant pre-application (21PLN-00280) October 5, 2021 in accordance with Senate Bill 330 as a qualifying Housing Development Project and therefore was initially being processed in accordance with the streamlining provisions under Senate Bill 330. However, SB 330 requires that a formal submittal be provided within 180 days of filing the pre-application. The applicant did not file a formal application within the allotted timeframe. The applicant filed a second compliant SB 330 pre-application (22PLN-00151) on May 5, 2022. They submitted the current subject application within the allotted 180 days on June 16, 2022. However, SB 330 requires that, following the receipt of comments, resubmittals be provided within 90 days. Although the City provided comments on the formal application on July 15, 2022, revised plans were not resubmitted until April 4, 2023. Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 20     Item No. 2. Page 9 of 14 Therefore, the project is not subject to streamlining in accordance with SB 330 and is subject to the current code requirements, including the objective design standards set forth in PAMC Section 18.24. However, the applicant is also eligible to utilize the process set forth in the code for housing development projects under the Streamlined Housing Development Review. Renter Protections Under SB 330 and Palo Alto Municipal Code SB 330 also set forth renter protection requirements that would apply to all housing development projects, to the extent the requirements are applicable, regardless of whether an SB 330 pre-application is filed. The renter protection requirements in SB 330 are specific to “protected” rental units. Protected is further defined as: •Any units that had a low-income deed-restriction for any of the previous five years •Any units that were subject to local rent control for any of the previous five years •Any units that were rented by a tenant who was low income for any of the previous five years. •Any units that were removed from the market per the Ellis Act (Section 7060) in the previous ten years None of units at the project site meet the definition of being a protected unit under SB 330; therefore, the additional requirements set forth pursuant to this state law do not apply. However, the City also has renter protections set forth in PAMC Section 9.68. Specifically, for no-fault evictions (which includes remodel or redevelopment) for existing rental developments of less than 10 units, notice is required to terminate the tenancy and the property owner must provide the amount of one month’s rent in relocation assistance within 15 days of providing the notice or shall waive the rent due for the final month of the tenancy. Although this requirement is set forth in the code, it would also be reinforced as a condition of approval of the project. Zoning Code Consistency2 A table summarizing the proposed project’s consistency with applicable RM-20 zoning standards 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. As noted above, the applicant has requested a waiver in accordance with state density bonus law from the following standards set forth in 18.24 of the code: •Minimum finished floor height (.5 feet where 1.5 feet is required) 2 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: bit.ly/PAZoningCode Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 21     Item No. 2. Page 10 of 14 •Upper floor stepback on south side (setback of 8.5 feet for 25% of the building at 27 feet in height where 6 ft setback for 70% of the building at 33 feet is required when adjacent to single-story) •Façade break (1’x4’ break with minimum 8.9 sf area where 2’x4’ break with 32 sf area is required) •Individual residential entry width (4.5 ft for Building 2 entry stoops where 5 feet is required) •Private open space dimensions (5.5 ft clear where 6 ft clear is required) •No privacy screening along the southern property line (between 723-737 Sutter and the proposed project) due to its conflict with the private street Rooftop Open Space The project is also subject to the rooftop garden open space requirements for the rooftop areas on Building 1. The project requests two waivers from standards related to rooftop open space on this building, including: ▪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. ▪0 percent landscaping with raised beds for gardening on the rooftop deck where at least 15 percent but no more than 25 percent of the rooftop shall be landscaped with raised beds for gardening or other landscaping. The project does provide an area for landscaping, but the actual planting area with a permanent water source is not provided. Citywide Affordable Housing Requirements Consistency The project complies with the Citywide affordable housing requirement by providing 25% of the base units as below market rate. Per the City’s standard conditions, a regulatory agreement must be recorded for the below market rate units to ensure compliance with the City’s citywide affordable housing requirements (PAMC 16.65) and the project description. This agreement must be executed and recorded prior to final map approval or building permit issuance, whichever occurs first. The applicant has proposed two of the units in Building 2 as the two below market rate units. Because the units on Building 1 have a larger square footage, more amenity space, and standard parking versus tandem, one unit from each building should be dedicated as below marker rate in order to provide an equal mix of the BMR units and market rate units (PAMC Section 16.65.075). Multi-Modal Access The existing development at 739 Sutter Avenue shares ingress/egress with the adjacent property at 723-737 Sutter Avenue. However, there are no records documenting a shared Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 22     Item No. 2. Page 11 of 14 ingress/egress easement between the two properties. The proposed development assumes a shared access, consistent with the existing conditions, widening the access to 24 feet. With the new development, the City would require that the applicant record a private, shared ingress/egress between the two property owners, with the City as a third party, to ensure this required access is maintained in perpetuity. Further, in accordance with PAMC Section 21.04.030(30),3 because the applicant is proposing that this vehicular access easement provide access to two or more lots (including lots for condominium purposes) that do not have frontage on a public street, the proposed access meets the definition of a private street and is therefore subject to the width requirements for private streets. In accordance with PAMC Section 21.40.040, access to the property must be provided via a private, 32-foot-wide street because the access is serving more than four lots. The applicant requests a waiver from this requirement as detailed in Attachment E. At the time of the preliminary application, staff noted that a minimum 26-foot clearance is required for fire access. However, after formal review of the current application with the Fire Department, it was noted that the 26-foot clearance requirement would not apply because the existing overhead lines already restrict the fire apparatus from utilizing aerial ladders and accessing the property. The proposed project complies with fire safety requirements instead by providing ground ladder access points at both ends of each building. Firefighters would utilize hose from the apparatus parked on Sutter Avenue and ground ladder access to fight a fire in the case of an emergency. Increased, commercial grade, sprinkler requirements would also apply for the proposed development in order to satisfy fire code requirements. The plans have been revised since the preliminary review phase to comply with the fire code, including modifications to accommodate the ground ladder access requirements for both buildings. The plans have been reviewed and approved by the City’s Fire Department. Additionally, there driveway aprons on each side of the 20-foot-wide street such that adequate back-up space (24 feet) is provided for vehicles exiting garages. Therefore, the current waiver requests, particularly related to the width of private street, would not affect safety. There are no existing or proposed bike lanes along Sutter Avenue that would be affected by the proposed project. The project provides a 5-foot sidewalk width and adjacent landscaped area, maintaining existing conditions. Three existing trees along the frontage would be replaced with five new street trees. 723-737 Sutter 3 “Private street” means any right-of-way, including vehicular access easements, not dedicated as a public street which is used for vehicular traffic to or from two or more lots which do not have frontage on a public street, or to or from one parcel which does not have frontage on a public street if the right- of-way or easement used for ingress or egress is more than two hundred feet in length. For the purpose of this section, "parcel" includes fee ownership, condominium, townhome or other ownership configurations. Private streets shall be excluded for the purpose of determining Floor Area Ratio (FAR). Minimum width of "private streets" shall be as defined Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 23     Item No. 2. Page 12 of 14 Because the driveway access meets the definition of a private street, the area of the street is deducted from the lot area for the purposes of calculating floor area in accordance with PAMC Section 21.04.030(30). This affects not only the net site area and required floor area for the proposed development, but also affects the same for the neighboring development. The adjacent property owner has provided their written agreement in Attachment G indicating their willingness to accept this impact to their real property and the change would not cause the property to exceed the floor area allowance for their property. The property owner would be required to be a signatory on the Tentative Map application and on the Final Map itself, which would record the private street. They would also be required to be a signatory on the private ingress/egress easement documentation. These requirements are reinforced in the draft conditions of approval of the project. Multi-Modal Parking Each unit includes two vehicular parking spaces and one long-term bicycle parking space. Two short-term bicycle parking spaces are also provided. The project meets or otherwise exceeds code requirements as detailed in Attachment D. 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. If minor changes to the design are proposed and accepted by the applicant to improve consistency with the objective standards, these should be incorporated into the final plan set prior to issuance of a decision. 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 October 20, which is 12 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on October 18, which is 14 days in advance of the meeting. Public Comments Attachment H includes all written comments on the proposed project both from the preliminary review application and on the current formal application. Public Engagement at Preliminary Review Phase At the preliminary architectural review phase, several residents provided comments on the proposed project. While these comments were provided to the applicant, due to staffing changes these were inadvertently not included in the preliminary report that went to the ARB. Additionally, the preliminary review hearing was not noticed to residents within 600 feet. Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 24     Item No. 2. Page 13 of 14 Although this is not a code requirement, the City does typically provide this noticing in order to solicit early comments from the public. In response to this oversight, the City held a community meeting on February 22, 2022 in order to provide another opportunity for members of the public to comment on the preliminary review application and provide early feedback to the applicant. Key comments from members of the public at this community meeting focused on the following: •The height of the building adjacent the single-family residences abutting the rear of the lot (too tall) and the new building’s impact on future solar access •Privacy impacts to single-family residences from Building 2 •Concerns about the setback between Building 2 and the property line and residents/visitors walking too close to single-family backyards •Requests for the daylight plan requirements be met •Concerns about the project’s impacts to public parking on Sutter Ave. •Statements that multi-story multi-family residential is not consistent with neighborhood character. As summarized above in the background section; modifications were made to the design to incorporate the feedback from the public as well as the ARB especially as they related to height, setbacks, daylight plane, and privacy impacts. Public Engagement on Formal Application In addition to the written comments received (Attachment H), staff met with a group of concerned residents and their attorney on September 12, 2023. Comments expressed in that meeting were consistent with those provided in the letter from Silicon Valley Law Group on behalf of the San Carlos Court Neighborhood Association to the city dated August 30, 2023. Residents, during the in-person meeting as well as in written comments, generally expressed similar concerns to those provided at the preliminary Architectural Review stage, including concerns about massing and privacy impacts adjacent the single-family residences on San Carlos Court. Residents noted that the landscaping provided would not provide screening for several years and should not be relied upon for privacy purposes. The residents also requested that the applicant provide a shade/shadow study to show how the proposed development would affect their solar access. At the residents’ request, staff asked the applicant if they would be willing to provide this information. The applicant declined to prepare this study. This study is not a requirement per the city’s checklist and therefore it is not a requirement for the applicant to provide. The City also does not have a code standard or CEQA threshold with respect to shading; therefore, it’s unclear how this study would be used to modify the project. Staff notes that the project complies with both the setback and daylight plane requirements at the rear of the site, although the maximum height is exceeded by approximately 2 feet. Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 25     Item No. 2. Page 14 of 14 Staff notes that further design changes to address these comments have not been made since the September 12, 2023 meeting with residents. However, several design changes were made to address these concerns between the preliminary review stage and the formal plans as discussed earlier in the report. A summary response regarding specific comments made on the CEQA analysis are included below under the environmental review section of this report. 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 (infill development). The documentation to support this exemption is included in Attachment I. The letter from Silicon Valley Law Group to the City dated August 30, 2023 expressed specific concerns related to the applicability of the Class 32 exemption. The City disagrees with the assertions in this letter as they relate to the applicability of the Class 32 exemption. The documentation provided includes substantial evidence to support the conclusion that a Class 32 exemption applies to the proposed project and is the appropriate level of environmental analysis for this project. Specifically, it provides documentation to support the conclusion that there would be less than significant impacts related to air quality, traffic, water quality and noise. The CEQA documentation also includes a cultural resources analysis, which concludes that the project is not eligible for any register (National, State, or local). As noted above, many of the letter’s objections – with respect to comprehensive plan consistency, noise, drainage, air quality, traffic, and historic resources – are addressed in Attachment I. The letter’s objections relating to privacy and the number of waivers requested raise policy questions but have no bearing on CEQA compliance. Neither the state CEQA guidelines nor the City have identified privacy as a relevant environmental impact. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Location Map Attachment B: Streamlined Housing Development Findings for Approval Attachment C: Draft Conditions of Approval Attachment D: Zoning Consistency Analysis Attachment E: Consistency with Objective Design Standards Attachment F: Requested Waivers and Concessions Attachment G: Letter from Adjacent Property Owner Attachment H: Written Public Comment Attachment I: Project Plans and Environmental Analysis AUTHOR/TITLE: Claire Raybould, AICP, Senior Planner Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 26     24 Safeway 125.6' 161.0' 130.7' 52.8' 108.5' 130.7' 35.4' 86.1' 1.6' 125.6' 133.0' 125.6' 133.0' 125.6' 82.5' 42.5' 10.5' 119.4' 135.0' 119.4' 95.7' 27.5' 81.0' 109.9' 125.6' 133.0' 125.6' 133.0' 70.0' 61.0'70.0' 61.0' 70.0' 60.0'70.0' 60.0' 70.0' 57.3'70.0' 57.3' 70.0' 57.0'70.0' 57.0' 97.4' 114.3' 97.4' 114.3' 90.0' 60.0' 90.0' 60.0' 107.4' 61.0' 107.4' 61.1' 70.0' 135.0' 70.0' 135.0' 70.0' 31.0' 70.0' 31.0' 0' 50.0' 42.0' 10.0' 43.6' 247.5' 171.0' 77.5' 7.0'39.0' 136.5' 49.7'176.2' 80.3' 153.4' 44.3' 32.5' 61.0' 7.4' 60.0' 164.0' 126.2'120.8' 62.3' 190.5' 172.0' 52.0' 172.0' 54.2' 156.6' 287.9' 289.4' 70.0' 123.4' 70.0' 123.4' 44.5' 103.3' 44.5' 103.3' 60.0' 110.8' 105.6' 803 125.6' 60.3' 31.4' 125.6' 94.9'125.6' 94.9' 125.6' 94.9'125.6' 94.9' 125.6' 94.9'125.6' 94.9' 44.5' 103.3' 44.5' 103.3' 44.5' 103.3' 44.5' 103.3' 44.5' 115.0' 115.0' 40.0' 109 40.0' 109.6 102.8' 42.0' 102.8' 42.8' 95.9' 42.3' 95.9' 44.6' 88.8' 44.0' 88.8' 46.6' 81.4' 46.0' 81.4' 51.5' 73.2' 50.8' 73.2'60.0' 31.4' 45.0' 125.6' 125.6'125.6' 60.0' 125.6' 60.0' 125.6' 60.0' 125.6' 60.0' 125.6' 60.0' 125.6' 60.0' 125.6' 60.0' 125.6' 60.0' 125.6' 60.0' 125.6' 60.0' 43.6' 43.6' 125.6' 523.6' 136.5' 38.9' 7.0' 44.5' 32.5' 138.5' 72.0' 153.4' 94.2' 2875 735 733 745 734 730 746 724 718 720 2811 707 -721 723- 737 718 729 723 70 717 704- 718 702 767 771 779 755-759 761 763 708 704 706 775 750 752 754 760 749 733 744 739-753 726- 738 722-724 736 732 731 741 730 724 730-738 740-748 720-728 737 SUT TER AV ENUE ORTH PLACE (PVT) COLORADO AVENUE SUT CLA SAN CARLOS COURT PC- 2197 R-2 -1 RM-20 R-2 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' 88' Attachment A: Location Map 739 sutter CITY OF PALO ALTOI N C O R P O R A T E D CAL I F O R 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, 2023-10-18 11:38:02 (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) 5 Item 2 Attachment A - Location Map     Packet Pg. 27     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 D, Zoning Consistency, and E, 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 Multi-family Residential which allows for densities ranging from 8 to 40 units per acre The project adheres to the Comprehensive Plan by providing multi-family housing on a multi-family use site. The proposed density is 31 units per acre which is consistent with this land use designation 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. While existing rental tenants would be required to either purchase or relocate, the project replaces Item 2 Attachment B - Streamlined Housing Findings for Approval     Packet Pg. 28     more units than it removes. The applicant will comply with relocation assistance requirements for project of less than 10 units as set forth in PAMC Section 9.68 for no-fault just-cause eviction. 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 along the project frontage. 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 Item 2 Attachment B - Streamlined Housing Findings for Approval     Packet Pg. 29     for the building itself (e.g. ladder access, sprinklers) as well as emergency vehicle access to the site. The traffic report concluded that the project would not create any conflicts with respect to traffic safety. The project also does not introduce any new changes to streets (e.g. new curves in a roadway) or impacts to line-of-sight that would create a safety hazard as detailed in the transportation analysis. Item 2 Attachment B - Streamlined Housing Findings for Approval     Packet Pg. 30     Draft Conditions of Approval 739 Sutter Avenue: 22PLN-00201 PLANNING DIVISION 1. CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS. Construction and development shall conform to the approved plans entitled, "739 Sutter Avenue by Ge Sun Palo Alto, California Streamlined Housing Development Review Set” stamped as received by the City on October 25, 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. Item 2 Attachment C - Draft Conditions of Approval     Packet Pg. 31     10. 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. 11. 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, as noted in the project description and per the City’s standard conditions, 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. 12. STANDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PROTECTION OF NESTING BIRDS. As detailed in the project description and per the City’s standard conditions, vegetation or tree removal shall be prohibited during the general avian nesting season (February 1 – August 31), if feasible. If nesting season avoidance is not feasible, the applicant shall retain a qualified biologist, as approved by the City of Palo Alto, to conduct a preconstruction nesting bird survey to determine the presence/absence, location, and activity status of any active nests on or adjacent to the project site no more than 14 days prior to scheduled vegetation clearance and/or demolition activities. If nesting birds are found to be present, a suitable buffer (typically a minimum buffer of 50 feet for passerines and a minimum buffer of 250 feet for raptors) as determined appropriate by the biologist, shall be established around such active nests and no construction shall be allowed within the buffer areas until a qualified biologist has determined that the nest is no longer active (i.e., the nestlings have fledged and are no longer reliant on the nest). 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 dedicated as low income. 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. 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. RENTER PROTECTIONS. The project is subject to the renter protection requirements set forth in PAMC Item 2 Attachment C - Draft Conditions of Approval     Packet Pg. 32     Section 9.68.050 for no fault evictions for rental properties with less than 10 units. This includes either rental fee waiver for the last month or relocation assistance as detailed in the municipal code. Notification requirements in accordance with the code is required. Documentation showing compliance with these code requirements must be provided to the project planner prior to issuance of a demolition/deconstruction permit. 16. ESTIMATED IMPACT FEE. Development Impact Fees, currently estimated in the amount of $279,177.12 plus the applicable public art fee, per PAMC 16.61.040, shall be paid prior to the issuance of the related building permit(s). 17. 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. 18. 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. 19. 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. 20. 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 21. 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 Item 2 Attachment C - Draft Conditions of Approval     Packet Pg. 33     the following link: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Public-Works/Engineering-Services/Forms- and-Permits 22. OVERVIEW AND GUIDELINES FOR THE REVIEW OF SUBDIVISION PROJECTS: Developer shall familiarize themselves with the guidelines described in the November 2007 revision of the document titled “Overview and Guidelines for the Review of Subdivision Projects”. Particularly Section II (items 5 through 12) and Section V (items A through C). https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/planning-amp- development-services/file-migration/current-planning/forms-and-guidelines/overview-and-guidelines-for- the-review-of-subdivision-projects.pdf 23. 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. 24. STREETWORK PERMIT: The applicant shall obtain a Streetwork Permit from the Department of Public Works for all public improvements. 25. 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.” 26. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER STATEMENT: The grading plans shall include the following statement signed and sealed by the Geotechnical Engineer of Record: “THIS PLAN HAS BEEN REVIEWED AND FOUND TO BE IN GENERAL CONFORMANCE WITH THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT”. 27. LOGISTICS PLAN: A construction logistics plan shall be provided addressing all impacts to the public including, at a minimum: work hours, noticing of affected businesses, bus stop relocations, construction signage, dust control, noise control, storm water pollution prevention, job trailer, contractors’ parking, truck routes, staging, concrete pours, crane lifts, scaffolding, materials storage, pedestrian safety, and traffic control. All truck routes shall conform to the City of Palo Alto’s Trucks and Truck Route Ordinance, Chapter 10.48, and the route map. NOTE: Some items/tasks on the logistics plan may require an encroachment permit. 28. 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. 29. STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION: All improvement plan sets shall include the “Pollution Prevention – It’s Part of the Plan” sheet. Item 2 Attachment C - Draft Conditions of Approval     Packet Pg. 34     30. 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. 31. 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. 32. 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. 33. 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. 34. PAVEMENT RESTORATION: The applicant shall restore the pavement along the entire project frontage, curb- to-curb, by performing a 3.5” grind and overlay. The exact restoration limits will be determined once the resulting road condition is known following completion of heavy construction activities and utility lateral installations, at minimum the extent will be the project frontage. TRANSPORTATION 35. SHORT-TERM BICYCLE PARKING ACCESS. Provide at least a six-foot-long, 5 foot wide paved area for the short- term bicycle parking area bicycle parking. 36. Due to the width of Sutter 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 during trash pickup hours. Applicant shall install required parking restriction signs for trash pick-up hours 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 UTILITIES 37. 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. 38. 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 Item 2 Attachment C - Draft Conditions of Approval     Packet Pg. 35     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. 39. 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. 40. 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.). 41. 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. 42. 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. 43. 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. 44. 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. 45. 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. 46. 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. Item 2 Attachment C - Draft Conditions of Approval     Packet Pg. 36     47. 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. 48. 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. 49. 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. 50. 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, including as shown on the approved plans. 51. 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. 52. 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 53. UTILITY EASEMENT REQUIRED. Prior to energization, a public utility easement is required to provide access to the proposed transformer. This can either be provided through separate instrument and documented on the tentative and final map or dedicated through the tentative and final map process. 54.UTILITIES APPLICATION. Changes to existing electric utilities equipment on site, such as the transformer, will require a utilities application. Submit a utilities application and obtain City of Palo Alto Utilities Electrical Engineering approval for the modifications to the electrical system. 55. UTILITY DISCONNECT. The applicant shall submit a request to disconnect all existing utility services proposed for removal, including a signed affidavit of vacancy, on the form provided by the Building Inspection Division. Utilities will be disconnected or removed within 10 working days after receipt of request. The demolition permit will be issued after all utility services and/or meters have been disconnected and, as applicable, removed. 56. UTILITIES SHOWN ON LANDSCAPE PLANS. All utility meters, lines, transformers, backflow preventers, and any other required equipment shall be shown on the landscape and irrigation plans and shall show that no conflict will occur between the utilities and landscape materials. In addition, all aboveground equipment shall be screened in a manner that is consistent with the building design and setback requirements. Item 2 Attachment C - Draft Conditions of Approval     Packet Pg. 37     57. PERMIT. Contractors and developers shall obtain permit from the Department of Public Works before digging in the street right-of-way. This includes sidewalks, driveways and planter strips. 58. UNDERGROUND SERVICES ALERT. At least 48 hours prior to starting any excavation, the customer must call Underground Service Alert (USA) at 1-800-227-2600 to have existing underground utilities located and marked. The areas to be checked for underground facility marking shall be delineated with white paint. All USA markings shall be removed by the customer or contractor when construction is complete. 59. CITY STANDARDS. All new underground conduits and substructures shall be installed per City standards and shall be inspected by the Electrical Underground Inspector before backfilling. PUBLIC WORKS ZERO WASTE 60. REQUIRED DECONSTRUCTION. In conformance with PAMC 5.24, deconstruction and source separation are required for all residential and commercial projects where structures (other than a garage or ADU) are being completely removed, demolition is no longer allowed. Deconstruction takes longer than traditional demolition, it is important to plan ahead. For more information, visit www.cityofpaloalto.org/deconstruction. 61. SALVAGE SURVEY FOR REUSE. A Salvage Survey is required for deconstruction permit applications. The survey shall be conducted by a City approved reuse vendor. The survey submittal shall include an itemized list of materials that are salvageable for reuse from the project. The applicant shall source separate and deliver materials for reuse. Certification is required indicating that all materials identified in the survey are properly salvaged. Contact The ReUse People to schedule this FREE survey by phone (888) 588-9490 or e-mail info@thereusepeople.org. More information can be found at www.TheReusePeople.org. Please upload a completed copy to the deconstruction permit. 62. SOURCE SEPARATION FOR RECYCLING. The applicant shall source separate deconstruction materials into specific categories for recycling. Additional staging areas for source separated materials will need to be considered. All materials shall be delivered to one of the City approved materials recovery facilities listed in Green Halo, all records shall be uploaded to www.greenhalosystems.com. For more information, refer to www.cityofpaloalto.org/deconstruction. PUBLIC WORKS WATER QUALITY 63. Stormwater Best Management Practices (BMPs) associated with refuse management (including actions related to refuse pick-up and the enclosure itself) shall be followed to ensure pollution prevention and preventing potential discharges to the City’s storm drain system. Stormwater BMPS include, but are not limited to, power washing the pavement on both the private property and in the right-of-way and sidewalk a minimum of once per year before the wet season begins on October 1st; utilizing a power washing contractor that is a Recognized Surface Cleaner by the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (BASMAA); disposing of wash water according to the Recognized Surface Cleaner certification requirements; and removing any potential trash build-up on a regular basis. PUBLIC WORKS URBAN FORESTRY 64. PLAN SET REQUIREMENTS. The final Plans submitted for building permit shall include Item 2 Attachment C - Draft Conditions of Approval     Packet Pg. 38     a. SHEET T-1, BUILDING PERMIT. The building permit plan set will include the City’s full-sized, Sheet T-1 (Tree Protection-it's Part of the Plan!), available on the Development Center website at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/31783. The Applicant shall complete and sign the Tree Disclosure Statement and recognize the Project Arborist Tree Activity Inspection Schedule. b. The Tree Preservation Report (TPR). All sheets of the Applicant’s TPR approved by the City for full implementation by Contractor shall be printed on numbered Sheet T-1 (T-2, T-3, etc) and included in the sheet index for the plans submitted for building permit. 65. PLANS--SHOW PROTECTIVE TREE FENCING. The Plan Set (esp. site, demolition, grading & drainage, foundation, irrigation, tree disposition, utility sheets, etc.) must delineate/show Type I or Type II fencing around each Regulated Trees, using a bold dashed line enclosing the Tree Protection Zone as shown on Standard Dwg. #605, Sheet T-1, and the City Tree Technical Manual, Section 6.35-Site Plans; or using the Project Arborist’s unique diagram for each Tree Protection Zone enclosure. 66. SITE PLAN REQUIREMENTS. The following notes shall be included on the site plan for the plans submitted for building or grading permits: a. Note #1. Apply to the site plan stating, "All tree protection and inspection schedule measures, design recommendations, watering and construction scheduling shall be implemented in full by owner and contractor, as stated on Sheet T-1, in the Tree Protection Report and the approved plans”. b. Note #2. All civil plans, grading plans, irrigation plans, site plans and utility plans and relevant sheets shall add a note applying to the trees to be protected, including neighboring trees stating: "Regulated Tree--before working in this area contact the Project Site Arborist at 650-654-3351 "; c. Note #3. Utility (sanitary sewer/gas/water/backflow/electric/storm drain) plan sheets shall include the following note: “Utility trenching shall not occur within the TPZ of the protected tree. Contractor shall be responsible for ensuring that no trenching occurs within the TPZ of the protected tree by contractors, City crews or final landscape workers. See sheet T-1 for instructions.” d. Note #4. “Basement or foundation plan. Soils Report and Excavation for basement construction within the TPZ of a protected tree shall specify a vertical cut (stitch piers may be necessary) in order to avoid over-excavating into the tree root zone. Any variance from this procedure requires Urban Forestry approval, please call (650) 496-5953.” e. Note #5. “Pruning Restrictions. No pruning or clearance cutting of branches is permitted on City trees. Contractor shall obtain a Public Tree Permit from Urban Forestry (650-496-5953) for any work on Public Trees” 62. TREE PROTECTION VERIFICATION. Prior to demolition, grading or building permit issuance, a written verification from the contractor that the required protective fencing is in place shall be submitted to the Building Inspections Division. The fencing shall contain required warning sign and remain in place until final inspection of the project. DURING CONSTRUCTION Item 2 Attachment C - Draft Conditions of Approval     Packet Pg. 39     63. EXCAVATION RESTRICTIONS APPLY (TTM, Sec. 2.20 C & D). Any approved grading, digging or trenching beneath a tree canopy shall be performed using ‘air-spade’ method as a preference, with manual hand shovel as a backup. For utility trenching, including sewer line, roots exposed with diameter of 1.5 inches and greater shall remain intact and not be damaged. If directional boring method is used to tunnel beneath roots, then Table 2-1, Trenching and Tunneling Distance, shall be printed on the final plans to be implemented by Contractor. 64. PLAN CHANGES. Revisions and/or changes to plans before or during construction shall be reviewed and responded to by the (a) project site arborist, or (b) landscape architect with written letter of acceptance before submitting the revision to the Building Department for review by Planning, PW or Urban Forestry. 65. TREE PROTECTION COMPLIANCE. The owner and contractor shall implement all protection and inspection schedule measures, design recommendations and construction scheduling as stated in the TPR & Sheet T-1, and is subject to code compliance action pursuant to PAMC 8.10.080. The required protective fencing shall remain in place until final landscaping and inspection of the project. Project arborist approval must be obtained and documented in the monthly activity report sent to the City. The mandatory Contractor and Arborist Monthly Tree Activity Report shall be sent monthly to the City (pwps@cityofpaloalto.org) beginning with the initial verification approval, using the template in the Tree Technical Manual, Addendum 11. 66. TREE DAMAGE. Tree Damage, Injury Mitigation and Inspections apply to Contractor. Reporting, injury mitigation measures and arborist inspection schedule (1-5) apply pursuant to TTM, Section 2.20-2.30. Contractor shall be responsible for the repair or replacement of any publicly owned or protected trees that are damaged during the course of construction, pursuant to Title 8 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, and city Tree Technical Manual, Section 2.25. 67. GENERAL. The following general tree preservation measures apply to all trees to be retained: No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment shall be permitted within the tree enclosure area. The ground under and around the tree canopy area shall not be altered. Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. POST CONSTRUCTION 68. MAINTENANCE. All landscape and trees shall be maintained, watered, fertilized, and pruned according to Best Management Practices-Pruning (ANSI A300-2008 or current version) and the City Tree Technical Manual, Section 5.00. Any vegetation that dies shall be replaced or failed automatic irrigation repaired by the current property owner within 30 days of discovery. Item 2 Attachment C - Draft Conditions of Approval     Packet Pg. 40     ATTACHMENT D ZONING CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS 739 Sutter Avenue, 22PLN-00201 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.13 (RM-20 DISTRICT) Regulation Required Proposed Minimum/Maximum Site Area, Width and Depth 8,500 sf area, 70-foot width, 100 foot depth No Change 133 feet by 126 feet, 16,707 sf (0.38 acre) 13, 093 sf net lot area (deducting private street width) Minimum Front Yard 20 feet 5 feet to porch; 10 feet to building Rear Yard 10 feet 12 feet Street Side Yard 16 feet Not Applicable Interior Side Yard (for lots greater than 70 feet in width) 10 feet 4 ft, 6 inches (north side at Building 2 upper levels) 14 ft, six inches (south side) Max. Building Height 30 feet Building 1 (front building): 36.5 inches (three story development) Building 2 (rear building): 32 feet Side Yard Daylight Plane 10 feet at interior side lot line then 45 degree angle 10 feet at interior side lot line then 82 degree angle Rear Yard Daylight Plane 10 feet at rear setback line then 45-degree angle Complies Max. Site Coverage 35% (plus an additional 5% for covered patios or overhangs) (8,294 sf) 50% (8,294 sf) Max. Total Floor Area Ratio 1.25:1 (16,366 sf)~1.39:1 (18,239 sf); Residential Density 11 to 20 units per acre (2 to 8 units)12 DU on 0.38 acre = 31 units per acre Minimum landscape/ Site Open Space 35% (5,847 sf)36% (6,074 sf) Minimum Usable Open Space 150 sf per unit 316 sf per unit Minimum Common Open Space 75 sf per unit 1,528 sf (127 sf per unit) Minimum Private Open Space 50 sf per unit 2,268 sf total (units ranging from 182 sf per unit to 682 sf per unit) Item 2 Attachment D - Zoning Comparison Table     Packet Pg. 41     Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking) for Multiple-Family Residential Type Required Proposed Vehicle Parking 1 per studio unit 1.2 per 1-bedroom unit 2 per 2-bedroom or larger unit at least one of which must be covered Tandem parking is permitted for multiple-family and two-family uses at a maximum of 25% of the units(1) 12 – 3-bedroom units; 24 spaces 58% tandem (7 Units tandem)(1) Loading Area None required None Proposed Bicycle Parking One (1) Long-term bicycle parking space per unit=12 spaces One (1) short-term bicycle parking space per 10% of units=1.2 spaces 12 LT spaces; two (2) ST spaces (1) In accordance with state density bonus law, only 1.5 parking spaces is required, and all units may have tandem parking. Therefore, although this requirement does not meet the city’s local code requirements, this allowance is provided per state law without the need for an additional waiver/concession. Item 2 Attachment D - Zoning Comparison Table     Packet Pg. 42     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-20 zone district) a. Pedestrian clear path length (8 feet minimum): ______ feet Not Applicable b. Landscape or furniture area length (2 feet minimum): ______ feet Not Applicable ☐ 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 shared bicycle/pedestrian paths proposed) a. Pedestrian clear path width (8 feet min.): ____ ft. Item 2 Attachment E - Objective Standards Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 43     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. A0.4 Project provides 4 new street trees along the 115 foot sidewalk frontage therefore complies with this requirement. a. Sidewalk frontage length: 115 linear feet b. Street Trees required: 4 tree(s) c. Street Trees provided: 4 tree(s) A0.4 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 A0.4 The project provides bike parking within 30 feet of a primary building entry and within 30 feet of the path that leads to all other building entries. 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; none existing (B)(4) Seating Item 2 Attachment E - Objective Standards Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 44     City of Palo Alto Objective Design Standards: Checklist Page 3 Pic k O n e ☒ 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 A0.4 The project provides benches adjacent trees along the rear of the property within 30 feet of primary building entries as well as the path leading to multiple building entries. Benches are also provided within each stoop on Building 1. Therefore, the project complies. ☐ 2. Existing seating areas or benches are already located in the public right-of-way within 50 feet of the building entry. Not Applicable; none existing 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; not a through lot (B)(2) Building Entries ☒ 1. Entries to Primary Building Entries are located from a public right-of-way A0.4 Entries are proposed facing the public right-of-way (Building 1) or from a pedestrian walkway leading from the public right-of- way (Building 2). (B)(3) Vehicle Access ☒ 1. Vehicle access is located on alleys or side streets where available. A0.4 Vehicular access is provided from the only abutting street, Sutter Avenue—Private streets are proposed consistent with Item 2 Attachment E - Objective Standards Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 45     City of Palo Alto Objective Design Standards: Checklist Page 4 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. A0.4 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 ☒ 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: Ch e c k A l l ☐ 1. A height to width ratio greater than 1.2:1. The building is less than 40 feet in height but it is not a corner building and does not have an end unit of a townhome that faces the street. a. Secondary building frontage height: _____ feet Item 2 Attachment E - Objective Standards Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 46     City of Palo Alto Objective Design Standards: Checklist Page 5 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 _____ % ☐ 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: Ch e c k O n e o r M o r e w i t h i n A o r B 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 standard does not apply because it is specific to corner buildings that are 40 feet or taller. The subject parcel is not a corner lot and the building is less than 40 feet in height. ☐ 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. ☐ c. A change in height of at least 4 feet greater or less than the height of the abutting primary façade. Ch e c k O n e o r Mo r e wit h i n A o r B 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 standard does not apply because it is specific to corner buildings that are 40 feet or taller. The subject parcel is not a corner lot and the building is less than 40 feet in height. ☐ a. A publicly accessible open space/plaza. ☐ b. A space used for outdoor seating for public dining. Item 2 Attachment E - Objective Standards Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 47     City of Palo Alto Objective Design Standards: Checklist Page 6 ☐ 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: Ch e c k On e o r M o r e ☒ 1. Faces a public right-of-way. A0.4 The proposed units either face Sutter (Building 1) or face a pedestrian walkway that leads out to the public ROW (Building 2) ☒ 2. Faces a publicly accessible pedestrian walkway. A0.4 ☐ 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) ☐ 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 ☐ 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: Ch e c k A l l t h a t Ap p l y ☐ a. Setback adjacent to public right of way: __14_ feet ☐ b. Minimum ground floor finished floor height: __.7___ feet 𝒚𝒚 = �−𝟒𝟒𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏�(𝒙𝒙)+ 𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟑𝟑 where 𝑥𝑥 = setback length from back of walk, in feet and 𝑦𝑦 = ground floor finished floor height, in feet A2.3 Requests waiver to provide 0.5’ where 1.5’ is required. Item 2 Attachment E - Objective Standards Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 48     City of Palo Alto Objective Design Standards: Checklist Page 7 ☐ c. Sites with slopes greater than 2% along building façade – Average height of finished floor: _____ feet Not applicable (less than 2% grade) ☐ 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 O n e ☒ 1. Ground floor residential entries are setback a minimum of 10 feet from the back of sidewalk; OR Unit entries are set back 14 feet from the back of sidewalk ☐ 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. A0.4 All units that face the public ROW on Sutter have a unit entry with direct access to the sidewalk. All other units face pedestrian paths 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): _10___ 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 Item 2 Attachment E - Objective Standards Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 49     City of Palo Alto Objective Design Standards: Checklist Page 8 (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: Ch e c k A l l tha t A p p l y ☐ 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. i. Minimum setback area (setback x frontage x 60%): __1,330__ sq. ft. L-3.0 70% is provided as landscaped area (setback is 10 feet and length of frontage is 133 ft) ii. Landscape area in required setback: __930__ sq. ft. 18.24.050 Building Massing Check Standard Sheet # Applicant’s Justification (b)(1) Upper Floor Step Backs and Daylight Plane Pic k O n e ☐ 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. Does not apply to north or east side; requirements under 1B apply to south side (facing private street) and west side (facing R-1). i. Proposed building height Building 1: __36’___ feet Proposed Building Height Building 2: __31.5___feet ii. Average building height of the adjacent building(s): North Along Sutter: __20___ feet South Along Sutter: Does not apply, see below for requirement adjacent single story Item 2 Attachment E - Objective Standards Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 50     City of Palo Alto Objective Design Standards: Checklist Page 9 West (facing R-1): Does not apply, see below for requirement adjacent single story iii. Building height where upper floor step back begins: ____ feet ☒ 1B Except, when adjacent to a single-story building, the upper floor step back shall occur between 33 and 37 feet in height. A2.6 On the south side, the step back occurs at 27 feet and is stepped back approximately 8 feet, but the step occurs for 25% ft of the façade where 70% is required. Waiver requested. Along the west side (facing R-1), the stepback occurs at ~19.5 ft and steps back for approximately 9 feet on third level. Copmplies ☒ 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 a 10 ft, 45 degree angle plane on side and rear lot lines which is more restrictive. Project complies with the more restrictive daylight plane where abutting R-1. A waiver is requested for the side daylight plane to provide 10 ft, 82 degree angle where 10 ft, 45 degree angle is required. (b)(2) (A)(B)(C )(D) & (E) Transition to Lower Density Building Types When a Building abuts a residential use on a side and rear property line, the building breaks down the abutting façade by meeting all of the following: Ch e c k A l l ☒ 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 A.0.4 and L-3.0 The project provides one 24- inch box tree every 25 feet (5 in total) along the rear property Item 2 Attachment E - Objective Standards Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 51     City of Palo Alto Objective Design Standards: Checklist Page 10 be a minimum 72 inches (6 feet) in height when planted. Required trees shall be minimum 24” box size. line and along the northern property line (6 in total). No screening is provided on the south side due to conflict with a private street. Waiver requested. ☒ 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 A0.7 (see also waiver requests) Waiver to allow façade break of 4’ in width, 1 ft in depth, and 9 sf of area for every 36 to 40 feet of façade length where minimum façade break of four feet in width, two feet in depth and 32 sf of area for every 36 to 40 feet of façade length is required. ☒ 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 A2.3 (right elevation) and Building 2 front and left elevations) Complies. Applies to north and west side. Where windows are added to maintain light abutting the west side (R-1) the windows are fixed and fully obscured (2nd floor windows [grey indicated glazing]. d. Within 30 feet of facing residential windows (except garage or common space windows) or private open space on an adjacent residential building, facing windows on the subject site shall meet the following: (i) Window sills at and above the 2nd floor shall be at least five feet above finished floor; or (ii) Windows shall have opaque or translucent glazing at or below five feet above finished floor; or (iii) Windows shall be angled up to 30 degrees (parallel to window) to face away from the adjacent privacy impacts; and (iv) Landscape screening shall be 24-inch box size or larger and eight+ feet height at planting; 50% evergreens; and located to align with proposed second floor windows at maturity. A2.3 (right elevation) and Building 2 front and left elevations) Complies with (ii) and (iv) Item 2 Attachment E - Objective Standards Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 52     City of Palo Alto Objective Design Standards: Checklist Page 11 e. Balconies: Within 30 feet of residential windows (except garage or common space windows) or private open space on an adjacent residential building, balconies and decks on the subject site shall be designed to prevent views: (i) No sight lines to the adjacent property window or open space are permitted within five feet above the balcony or deck flooring and a 45- degree angle downward from balcony railing. (ii) Submit section view of proposed balcony/deck and abutting residential windows and/or private open space. (iii) Provide balcony/deck design measure which may include: a. Minimum 85% solid railing b. Obscure glass railing c. Barrier with min. 18" horizontal depth from railing (e.g., landscape planter) Provides solid railing and complies with view site line (b)(3)(A) & (B) Façade Length Pic k O n e Cate g o r y (i.e 1 , 2 o r 3 ) 1. Buildings 70 feet in length or greater ☒ 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 Complies, porches and balconies are proposed to project from the building façade providing a break such that there is no more than 11% of the façade length without a modulation of more than 2’ in depth. a. Façade length featuring continuous plane: ___12’6”__ feet A2.1 b. Total Façade length: __113___ feet c. Percent of façade length without upper floor modulation (a/b) (maximum 70%): ___11_ % 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) Item 2 Attachment E - Objective Standards Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 53     City of Palo Alto Objective Design Standards: Checklist Page 12 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 150 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) Ch e c k All ☒ 1. A minimum facade break of at least 10 feet in width and six feet in depth for every 60 feet of façade length. ☐ 2. Portions of a building 20 feet or greater in height shall not have a continuous façade length that exceeds 60 feet. (b)(5) Diversity of Housing Types A diversity of housing typs (1.g. detached units, attached rowhouses, condominiums or apartments, mixed use) are required for projects on large lots: • Less than one acre lots: Minimum 1 housing types • 1 to 2-acre lots: minimum 2 housing types; or • More than 2-acre lots: minimum 3 housing types Complies, less than one acre and provides one housing type. 18.24.060 Façade Design Check Two or More Standard Sheet # Applicant’s Justification Item 2 Attachment E - Objective Standards Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 54     City of Palo Alto Objective Design Standards: Checklist Page 13 (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. Che c k one o r m o r e if sel e c t e d ☐ a. Horizontal shifts. Changes in floor plates that protrude and/or recess with a minimum dimension of 2 feet from the primary facade. ☒ 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 A0.7 Complies on building 2 ☐ 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 ☐ 2. Variation in Façade Articulation: Façade articulation modulation shall include one or more of the following building features. Che c k on e o r m o r e if sel e c t e d ☒ 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. A0.7 Complies, variations in recesses proposed for both buildings. ☐ b. Horizontal and/or Vertical Projections. Projections such as shading, weather protection devices, decorative architectural details, or similar strategies. ☐ 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: Che c k tw o if sel e c t e d ☒ a. Fenestration Size A3.2 Complies, variation in window grouping patterns and fenestration size for both buildings Item 2 Attachment E - Objective Standards Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 55     City of Palo Alto Objective Design Standards: Checklist Page 14 ☐ b. Fenestration Proportion ☒ c. Fenestration Pattern Complies, variation in window grouping patterns and fenestration size for both buildings ☐ d. Fenestration Depth or Projection ☒ 4. Variation in two of the following: Che c k tw o if sel e c t e d ☒ a. Façade Material A3.2, A3.3 Complies ☐ b. Facade Material Size ☒ c. Façade Texture and Pattern ☒ d. Façade Color A3.2, A3.3 complies (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 Thr e e o r 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. A3.2, A3.3, A0.7 Complies on both buildings ☒ 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. A3.2, A3.3, A0.7 Complies on both buildings ☐ 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. A3.2, A3.3 Complies on both buildings ☐ E. Screening devices such as lattices, louvers, shading devices, or perforated metal screens. Item 2 Attachment E - Objective Standards Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 56     City of Palo Alto Objective Design Standards: Checklist Page 15 ☐ 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. A3.2, A3.3 Complies on both buildings (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 Does not apply, facades are greater than 100 ft in length 2. Buildings 100+ feet in length Ch e c k O n e ☒ 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 Vertical shifts proposed in both buildings using porches or balconies ☐ 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 Che c k O n e or M o r e ☐ 1. Facades use vertical patterns of building modulation, façade articulation, and fenestration Not applicable, exclusively residential proposed ☐ 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: Che c k All ☒ a. Individual residential entries: 5 feet in width A0.7 (see also Waiver requested for building 2 where stoops will be 4.5 feet wide. Item 2 Attachment E - Objective Standards Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 57     City of Palo Alto Objective Design Standards: Checklist Page 16 waiver requests) ☐ b. Shared residential entry, such as mixed-use buildings: 8 feet in width Not applicable ☐ c. Commercial building entry: 20 feet in width Not applicable ☐ 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 Che c k On e o r Mo r e ☐ a. Recess or projection from the primary façade plane (minimum 2 feet). ☐ 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%): _____ % ☐ 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. Item 2 Attachment E - Objective Standards Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 58     City of Palo Alto Objective Design Standards: Checklist Page 17 (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 Pic k On e ☐ a. Ground floor height (minimum 14 feet): _____ feet; OR ☐ 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 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 Item 2 Attachment E - Objective Standards Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 59     City of Palo Alto Objective Design Standards: Checklist Page 18 ☐ 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 Che c k A l l i f Sel e c t e d ☐ 1. Stoops provide entry access for a maximum of two ground floor units. Complies, stoops provide access to either one or two units ☐ 2. Stoop heights are within 1 step of finished floor height of adjacent unit. complies ☐ 3. Stoop entry landings are a minimum 5 feet in depth Complies ☐ 4. The maximum stoop height from the back of sidewalk grade is 5 feet. Complies ☐ B. Porch Che c k A l l i f Sel e c t e d ☐ 1. Porches provide entry access for a maximum of one ground floor unit. Not applicable-stoops selected ☐ 2. Porch heights are within 1 step of finished floor height of adjacent unit. ☐ 3. Porches are large enough so a 6-foot by 6-foot square can fit inside ☐ 4. The maximum porch height from the back of sidewalk grade is 5 feet. ☒ C. Patio Entry Che c k A l l i f Sel e c t e d ☒ 1. Patio entries provide access for a maximum of two ground floor units. Not applicable-stoops selected ☒ 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: Item 2 Attachment E - Objective Standards Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 60     City of Palo Alto Objective Design Standards: Checklist Page 19 Pic k O n e o r M o r e ☒ a. Row of shrubs: not exceeding 42 inches in height located between the sidewalk and the patio ☐ b. Fence: not to exceed 36 inches in height located between the sidewalk and the patio ☐ 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 Che c k A l l i f Sel e c t e d ☐ 1. Terraces provide entry access for multiple ground floor units. Not applicable-stoops selected ☐ 2. Terraces are a maximum height of 30 inches above the grade of the back of the adjacent sidewalk or accessway. ☐ 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 Che c k A l l i f S e l e c t e d ☐ 1. Frontage courts provide entry access for multiple ground floor units. Not applicable-stoops 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. ☐ 4. The minimum Frontage Court depth is 25 feet. ☐ 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. A0.7 (see also waiver request) Waiver requested for the rear balconies at third floor to have 5.5 feet where 6 feet minimum clear is required Item 2 Attachment E - Objective Standards Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 61     City of Palo Alto Objective Design Standards: Checklist Page 20 ☒ 2. Minimum clear height dimension of 8’-6” feet. Complies ☒ 3. Directly accessible from a residential unit. Complies ☒ 4. Balconies are not located within the daylight plane. complies (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 patios not provided as open space ☐ 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. A0.4 Complies ☒ 2. A minimum of 60% of the area shall be open to the sky and free of permanent weather protection or encroachments. Landscape setback compliance diagram complies ☐ 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. A0.4 complies ☒ 5. Common open space has a minimum 20% of landscaping. Compliance diagram complies ☐ 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. Item 2 Attachment E - Objective Standards Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 62     City of Palo Alto Objective Design Standards: Checklist Page 21 The project complies with the materials list 18.24.100 Sustainability and Green Building Code See Chapter 16.14: California Green Building Standards additional requirements for green building and sustainable design. Project complies with the green building standards Item 2 Attachment E - Objective Standards Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 63     739 Sutter Ave, Palo Alto, CA Project Description: The proposed project would demolish the existing 8-unit apartment building located at 739 Sutter Avenue and construct 12 new townhome units on the project site. The proposed units are 3-stories in height and range from +- 1,119 SF to 1,537 SF of living space per unit. Each unit includes a 2-car garage and a deck to provide private open space. The proposed project envisions a contemporary architectural style. The project will not utilize a vibratory rollers or pile drivers for construction. Best management practices for the protection of archeological resources, if uncovered, including evaluation and proper treatment of a resource, if uncovered. Best management practices for the protection of nesting birds, including a pre-construction survey for nesting birds prior to demolition activities/tree removal. Several design features have been added to the project to enhance the privacy of rear neighbors. The third floor at the rear building is stepped back to prevent the decks from looking directly into the neighbors’ yards. The parapet walls at the decks were also revised from metal railing to solid half wall railings. Trees have been planted strategically at the rear fence to obscure sight lines. The fence at the rear was also raised to be a total of 8’in height, a 7’ tall fence with a 1’ trellis to help maintain privacy. Finally, the lower half of the glazing at the second-floor windows have also been revised from transparent to obscure glass. The project is proposed under the Density Bonus Law. The applicant also requests that this Project be reviewed under the City of Palo Alto’s streamlined process, comparing it against the Objective Design Standards that the city adopted in July 2022. The Applicant is requesting for the following waivers listed below from both the Development Standards and the Objective Design Standards, as well as one concession/incentive for building. A detailed exhibit and waiver/concession justification letter is attached. Item 2 Attachment F - Waiver Request and Supporting Documentation     Packet Pg. 64     GE S U N 73 9 S U T T E R A V E N U E M A J O R A R C H I T E C T U R A L R E V I E W S E T - R E S U B M I T T A L 1 SI T E P L A N 58 6 5 O w e n s D r i v e Ple a s a n t o n , C A 9 4 5 8 8 92 5 - 2 5 1 - 7 2 0 0 14 4 7 . 0 0 3 03 - 0 1 - 2 0 2 3 JO B N O . DA T E N A0 . 4 Fo r d e n s i t y b o n u s r e q u e s t s a n d p r o j e c t w a i v e r s a n d c o n c e s s i o n s , ple a s e s e e a t t a c h e d p r o j e c t d e s c r i p t i o n d o c u m e n t . Ad a p t a b l e U n i t s L o c a t i o n s PR O J E C T D A T A : AR C H I T E C T U R A L D A T A : 2,2 5 3 . 9 3 s f 3,2 6 9 . 1 s f WA I V E R D I A G R A M 1 - M A X I M U M S I T E C O V E R A G E - P A M C S e c . 1 8 . 1 3 . 0 4 0 ( a ) Wa i v e r t o a l l o w f o r 5 0 % s i t e c o v e r a g e ( 8 , 2 9 4 s f ) , w h e r e 3 5 % m a x i m u m ( 5 , 8 4 7 ) i s p e r m i t t e d . T h e d e n s i t y b o n u s p r o j e c t p r o p o s e s 1 2 b a s e u n i t s , a l l w i t h a n av e r a g e b u i l d i n g c o v e r a g e o f 6 9 1 s q u a r e f e e t p e r u n i t ( 8 , 2 9 4 s q u a r e f e e t / 1 2 u n i t s = 6 9 1 s q u a r e f e e t p e r u n i t ) . P r o p o s e d b u i l d i n g c o v e r a g e w o u l d n e e d t o b e red u c e d b y 2 , 4 4 7 s q u a r e f e e t t o c o m p l y w i t h a m a x i m u m b u i l d i n g c o v e r a g e o f 3 5 % . T h i s r e d u c t i o n i n b u i l d i n g c o v e r a g e i s t h e e q u i v a l e n t o f e l i m i n a t i n g 3 . 5 o f the d e n s i t y b o n u s p r o j e c t ’s p r o p o s e d u n i t s . Un i t s e x c e e d i n g ma x i m u m c o v e r a g e Un i t s e x c e e d i n g ma x i m u m c o v e r a g e Un i t s w i t h i n m a x i m u m co v e r a g e Un i t s w i t h i n m a x i m u m co v e r a g e 1Item 2 Attachment F - Waiver Request and Supporting Documentation     Packet Pg. 65     GE S U N 73 9 S U T T E R A V E N U E M A J O R A R C H I T E C T U R A L R E V I E W S E T - R E S U B M I T T A L 1 FL O O R A R E A D I A G R A M S 58 6 5 O w e n s D r i v e Ple a s a n t o n , C A 9 4 5 8 8 92 5 - 2 5 1 - 7 2 0 0 14 4 7 . 0 0 3 03 - 0 1 - 2 0 2 3 JO B N O . DA T E A0 . 6 BU I L D I N G 1 BU I L D I N G 2 2 WA I V E R D I A G R A M 2 - M A X I M U M F L O O R A R E A R A T I O - P A M C S e c . 1 8 . 1 3 . 4 5 ( a ) ( i i ) Wa i v e r t o a l l o w f o r 1 . 4 F A R w h e r e 1 . 2 5 m a x i m u m i s p e r m i t t e d . P r i v a t e s t r e e t a r e a i s e x c l u d e d f r o m s i t e a r e a f o r p u r p o s e s o f F A R c a l c u l a t i o n ( a s r e q u i r e d b y Cit y c o d e ) . T h e d e n s i t y b o n u s p r o j e c t p r o p o s e s 8 b a s e u n i t s a n d 4 b o n u s u n i t s , a l l w i t h a n a v e r a g e F l o o r A r e a o f 1 , 5 0 7 s q u a r e f e e t p e r u n i t ( 1 8 , 0 8 8 S F / 1 2 un i t s = 1 , 5 0 7 S F p e r u n i t ) . R e d u c i n g F A R t o 1 . 2 5 ( 1 6 , 3 6 6 s q u a r e f e e t ) i s e q u i v a l e n t t o e l i m i n a t i n g 1 . 1 o f t h e d e n s i t y b o n u s p r o j e c t ’s p r o p o s e d u n i t s . BU I L D I N G 1 @ 5 U N I T S GR O S S F L O O R A R E A = 8 , 6 6 1 S F 8,6 6 1 S F x 4 / 5 u n i t s = 6 , 9 2 8 S F BU I L D I N G 2 ( 7 U N I T S ) GR O S S F L O O R A R E A = 9 , 4 2 7 S F HY P O T H E T I C A L F A R C O D E C O M P L I A N T P R O J E C T : BU I L D I N G 1 @ 4 U N I T S = 6 , 9 2 8 S F BU I L D I N G 2 @ 7 U N I T S = 9 , 4 2 7 S F GR O S S F L O O R A R E A @ 1 1 U N I T S = 1 6 , 3 5 5 S F Un i t s w i t h i n ma x i m u m F A R Un i t s w i t h i n ma x i m u m F A R Un i t s w i t h i n ma x i m u m F A R Un i t s e x c e e d i n g ma x i m u m F A R Un i t s w i t h i n ma x i m u m F A R Un i t s e x c e e d i n g ma x i m u m F A R Un i t s w i t h i n ma x i m u m F A R Un i t s e x c e e d i n g ma x i m u m F A R Un i t s w i t h i n ma x i m u m F A R HY P O T H E T I C A L F A R C O D E C O M P L I A N T P R O J E C T : BU I L D I N G 1 @ 4 U N I T S = 6 , 9 2 8 S F BU I L D I N G 2 @ 7 U N I T S = 9 , 4 2 7 S F GR O S S F L O O R A R E A @ 1 1 U N I T S = 1 6 , 3 5 5 S F Item 2 Attachment F - Waiver Request and Supporting Documentation     Packet Pg. 66     GE S U N 73 9 S U T T E R A V E N U E M A J O R A R C H I T E C T U R A L R E V I E W S E T - R E S U B M I T T A L 1 SI T E P L A N 58 6 5 O w e n s D r i v e Ple a s a n t o n , C A 9 4 5 8 8 92 5 - 2 5 1 - 7 2 0 0 14 4 7 . 0 0 3 03 - 0 1 - 2 0 2 3 JO B N O . DA T E N A0 . 4 Fo r d e n s i t y b o n u s r e q u e s t s a n d p r o j e c t w a i v e r s a n d c o n c e s s i o n s , ple a s e s e e a t t a c h e d p r o j e c t d e s c r i p t i o n d o c u m e n t . Ad a p t a b l e U n i t s L o c a t i o n s PR O J E C T D A T A : AR C H I T E C T U R A L D A T A : WA I V E R D I A G R A M 3 - M I N I M U M S E T B A C K S , F R O N T Y A R D - P A M C S e c . 1 8 . 1 3 . 0 4 0 ( a ) Wa i v e r t o a l l o w f o r 1 0 ’ fro n t s e t b a c k w h e r e 2 0 ’mi n i m u m i s r e q u i r e d . T h e d e n s i t y b o n u s p r o j e c t p r o p o s e s 1 2 b a s e u n i t s , a l l w i t h a n a v e r a g e F l o o r A r e a o f 1 , 5 0 7 sq u a r e f e e t p e r u n i t ( 1 8 , 0 8 8 S F / 1 2 u n i t s = 1 , 5 0 7 S F p e r u n i t ) . I n c r e a s i n g t h e f r o n t s e t b a c k f r o m 1 0 ’ to 2 0 ’ w o u l d r e d u c e t h e d e p t h o f t h e b u i l d i n g e n v e l o p e b y u p to 1 0 ’. B a s e d o n t h e t y p i c a l p r o p o s e d 1 1 2 ' b u i l d i n g w i d t h , t h e i n c r e a s e d s e t b a c k w o u l d r e s u l t i n a r e d u c t i o n o f a p p r o x i m a t e l y 3 , 3 6 0 s q u a r e f e e t o f b u i l d i n g a r e a . Th i s r e d u c t i o n i n b u i l d i n g a r e a i s t h e e q u i v a l e n t o f e l i m i n a t i n g 2 . 2 o f t h e d e n s i t y b o n u s p r o j e c t ’s p r o p o s e d u n i t s . 20'-0" 11 2 ' - 0 " 20 ' s e t b a c k a r e a 3Item 2 Attachment F - Waiver Request and Supporting Documentation     Packet Pg. 67     GE S U N 73 9 S U T T E R A V E N U E M A J O R A R C H I T E C T U R A L R E V I E W S E T - R E S U B M I T T A L 1 SI T E P L A N 58 6 5 O w e n s D r i v e Ple a s a n t o n , C A 9 4 5 8 8 92 5 - 2 5 1 - 7 2 0 0 14 4 7 . 0 0 3 03 - 0 1 - 2 0 2 3 JO B N O . DA T E N A0 . 4 Fo r d e n s i t y b o n u s r e q u e s t s a n d p r o j e c t w a i v e r s a n d c o n c e s s i o n s , ple a s e s e e a t t a c h e d p r o j e c t d e s c r i p t i o n d o c u m e n t . Ad a p t a b l e U n i t s L o c a t i o n s PR O J E C T D A T A : AR C H I T E C T U R A L D A T A : WA I V E R D I A G R A M 4 - M I N I M U M S E T B A C K S , I N T E R I O R S I D E Y A R D - P A M C S e c . 1 8 . 1 3 . 0 4 0 ( a ) 10 ' - 0 " Wa i v e r t o a l l o w f o r 4 ’ si d e s e t b a c k w h e r e 1 0 ’ m i n i m u m i s r e q u i r e d . I n c r e a s i n g t h e s i d e s e t b a c k f r o m 4 . 6 ' t o 1 0 ’ w o u l d r e d u c e t h e w i d t h o f t h e b u i l d i n g e n v e l o p e b y up t o 5 . 4 ’. T h e d e n s i t y b o n u s p r o j e c t p r o p o s e s 1 2 b a s e u n i t s , a l l w i t h a n a v e r a g e F l o o r A r e a o f 1 , 5 0 7 s q u a r e f e e t p e r u n i t ( 1 8 , 0 8 8 S F / 1 2 u n i t s = 1 , 5 0 7 S F p e r un i t ) . B a s e d o n p r o p o s e d b u i l d i n g d e p t h s o f e a c h l e v e l t h e i n c r e a s e d s e t b a c k w o u l d r e s u l t i n a r e d u c t i o n o f a p p r o x i m a t e l y 7 6 7 s q u a r e f e e t o f b u i l d i n g a r e a . T h i s red u c t i o n i n b u i l d i n g a r e a i s t h e e q u i v a l e n t o f e l i m i n a t i n g . 5 o f t h e d e n s i t y b o n u s p r o j e c t ’s p r o p o s e d u n i t s . T h e r e d u c t i o n i n w i d t h w o u l d a l s o c o n f l i c t w i t h m i n i m u m ga r a g e c l e a r a n c e s a n d s t a i r a c c e s s f o r e a c h u n i t w h i c h w o u l d p r e c l u d e 2 o f t h e d e n s i t y b o n u s p r o j e c t ’s p r o p o s e d u n i t s . 5'- 4 3 / 4 " 4'- 7 1 / 4 " 3'- 5 1 / 2 " 3'- 6 1 / 4 " 10' setback area 43'-6" 33'-0" 4Item 2 Attachment F - Waiver Request and Supporting Documentation     Packet Pg. 68     GE S U N 73 9 S U T T E R A V E N U E M A J O R A R C H I T E C T U R A L R E V I E W S E T - R E S U B M I T T A L 1 FL O O R A R E A D I A G R A M S 58 6 5 O w e n s D r i v e Ple a s a n t o n , C A 9 4 5 8 8 92 5 - 2 5 1 - 7 2 0 0 14 4 7 . 0 0 3 03 - 0 1 - 2 0 2 3 JO B N O . DA T E A0 . 6 BU I L D I N G 1 BU I L D I N G 2 Wa i v e r t o a l l o w a d a y l i g h t p l a n e w i t h a n i n i t i a l h e i g h t o f 1 0 ' a n d a n a n g l e o f u p t o 8 2 d e g r e e s , w h e r e a d a y l i g h t p l a n e w i t h a n i n i t i a l h e i g h t o f 1 0 ' a n d a n a n g l e o f 45 d e g r e e s i s p e r m i t t e d . D e c r e a s i n g t h e d a y l i g h t p l a n e a n g l e t o 4 5 d e g r e e s w o u l d c o n f l i c t w i t h l e v e l s 2 a n d 3 i n b o t h b u i l d i n g s a n d w o u l d r e s u l t i n a r e d u c t i o n of a p p r o x i m a t e l y 1 , 5 3 7 s q u a r e f e e t o f b u i l d i n g a r e a . T h i s r e d u c t i o n i n b u i l d i n g a r e a i s t h e e q u i v a l e n t o f e l i m i n a t i n g 1 o f t h e d e n s i t y b o n u s p r o j e c t ’s p r o p o s e d un i t s . S e e w a i v e r d i a g r a m s 5 a a n d 5 c f o r d a y l i g h t p l a n e a l i g n m e n t s . WA I V E R D I A G R A M 5 - D A Y L I G H T P L A N E S , S I D E L O T L I N E - P A M C S e c . 1 8 . 1 3 . 0 4 0 ( a ) 19 ' - 0 " 6'- 0 " 17 8 . 6 3 s f 62 4 . 2 4 s f 16 ' - 0 " 6'- 0 " 20 9 . 2 2 s f 52 6 . 2 4 s f 5Item 2 Attachment F - Waiver Request and Supporting Documentation     Packet Pg. 69     GE S U N 73 9 S U T T E R A V E N U E M A J O R A R C H I T E C T U R A L R E V I E W S E T - R E S U B M I T T A L 1 SI T E P L A N 58 6 5 O w e n s D r i v e Ple a s a n t o n , C A 9 4 5 8 8 92 5 - 2 5 1 - 7 2 0 0 14 4 7 . 0 0 3 03 - 0 1 - 2 0 2 3 JO B N O . DA T E N A0 . 4 Fo r d e n s i t y b o n u s r e q u e s t s a n d p r o j e c t w a i v e r s a n d c o n c e s s i o n s , ple a s e s e e a t t a c h e d p r o j e c t d e s c r i p t i o n d o c u m e n t . Ad a p t a b l e U n i t s L o c a t i o n s PR O J E C T D A T A : AR C H I T E C T U R A L D A T A : WA I V E R D I A G R A M 6 - M I N I M U M F I N I S H E D F L O O R H E I G H T - P A M C S e c . 1 8 . 2 4 . 0 4 0 ( b ) ( 4 ) Wa i v e r t o a l l o w t h e f i n i s h e d f l o o r h e i g h t s o f g r o u n d f l o o r r e s i d e n t i a l u n i t s , w h e n a d j a c e n t t o a p u b l i c r i g h t - o f - w a y , t o b e . 5 ' m i n i m u m a b o v e s i d e w a l k w h e r e a s ba s e d o n p r o p o s e d 1 4 ' s e t b a c k d i s t a n c e f r o m b a c k o f w a l k , m i n i m u m f i n i s h e d f l o o r o f 1 . 6 ' t o 5 ' m a x i m u m i s p e r m i t t e d . A p p l i e s t o b u i l d i n g 1 . ( y = ( - 4 / 1 5 ) x ( 1 4 ) + ( 1 6 / 3 ) . y = 1 . 6 ' m i n ) T h e d e n s i t y b o n u s p r o j e c t p r o p o s e s a 1 4 ' s e t b a c k f r o m s i d e w a l k t o e n t r y . I n c r e a s i n g t h e p r o p o s e d s e t b a c k d i s t a n c e f r o m 1 4 ' t o 1 8 ' wo u l d a l l o w a f i n i s h e d f l o o r h e i g h t o f 6 " m i n i m u m a b o v e s i d e w a l k . L i t e r a l a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h i s s t a n d a r d w o u l d r e q u i r e i n c r e a s i n g t h e p r o p o s e d f r o n t s e t b a c k b y 4 ' , an d w o u l d c o n f l i c t w i t h m i n i m u m t a n d e m g a r a g e d e p t h s . C o n v e r t i n g t a n d e m g a r a g e s t o s t a n d a r d g a r a g e s w o u l d e l i m i n a t e 2 o f t h e d e n s i t y b o n u s p r o j e c t ’s pro p o s e d u n i t s . I n c r e a s i n g f i n i s h e d f l o o r h e i g h t s w i t h i n B u i l d i n g 1 w o u l d r e q u i r e 3 s t a i r s w i t h i n t h e g a r a g e , w h i c h w o u l d c o n f l i c t w i t h m i n i m u m p a r k i n g dim e n s i o n s . 7 t a n d e m g a r a g e u n i t s . PR O P O S E D P L A N 12 U N I T S w / 1 4 ' S E T B A C K . HY P O T H E T I C A L C O D E C O M P L I A N T P L A N 10 U N I T S w / 1 8 ' S E T B A C K . 32 ' p r i v a t e s t r e e t w i d t h p r e c l u d e s t a n d e m g a r a g e d e p t h s o n B u i l d i n g 2 . 32'-0" 18 ' s e t b a c k w o u l d r e s u l t i n 4 s t a n d a r d ga r a g e u n i t s o n B u i l d i n g 2 . Ba c k o f w a l k 20'-0" 20'-0" 14 ' s e t b a c k e n a b l e s t a n d e m g a r a g e d e p t h s o n B u i l d i n g 2 . 5 s t a n d a r d g a r a g e u n i t s . 14'-4 1/4" 18 ' s e t b a c k p r e v e n t s t a n d e m g a r a g e d e p t h s o n B u i l d i n g 2 . 18'-0" 5 s t a n d a r d g a r a g e u n i t s . 5 s t a n d a r d g a r a g e u n i t s . Se t b a c k i n c r e a s e d t o 1 8 ' f r o m b a c k o f w a l k 6Item 2 Attachment F - Waiver Request and Supporting Documentation     Packet Pg. 70     GE S U N 73 9 S U T T E R A V E N U E M A J O R A R C H I T E C T U R A L R E V I E W S E T - R E S U B M I T T A L 1 SI T E P L A N 58 6 5 O w e n s D r i v e Ple a s a n t o n , C A 9 4 5 8 8 92 5 - 2 5 1 - 7 2 0 0 14 4 7 . 0 0 3 03 - 0 1 - 2 0 2 3 JO B N O . DA T E N A0 . 4 Fo r d e n s i t y b o n u s r e q u e s t s a n d p r o j e c t w a i v e r s a n d c o n c e s s i o n s , ple a s e s e e a t t a c h e d p r o j e c t d e s c r i p t i o n d o c u m e n t . Ad a p t a b l e U n i t s L o c a t i o n s PR O J E C T D A T A : AR C H I T E C T U R A L D A T A : WA I V E R D I A G R A M 7 - W I D T H , P R I V A T E S T R E E T - P A M C S e c . 2 1 . 2 0 . 2 4 0 ( b ) ( 4 ) Wa i v e r t o a l l o w 2 0 ’ m i n i m u m d r i v e a i s l e w i d t h w h e r e a 3 2 ’ w i d e p r i v a t e s t r e e t i s r e q u i r e d . T h e D e n s i t y B o n u s p r o j e c t p r o p o s e s a d r i v e a i s l e w i d t h o f 2 4 ’ pe r p e n d i c u l a r t o S u t t e r A v e n u e , a n d a d r i v e a i s l e w i d t h o f 2 0 ’ be t w e e n b u i l d i n g s 1 a n d 2 . L i t e r a l a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h i s s t a n d a r d w o u l d r e q u i r e i n c r e a s i n g d r i v e ais l e w i d t h s b y 6 ’ an d 1 2 ’ re s p e c t i v e l y , a n d w o u l d c o n f l i c t w i t h m i n i m u m t a n d e m g a r a g e d e p t h s . C o n v e r t i n g t a n d e m g a r a g e s t o s t a n d a r d g a r a g e s w o u l d r e s u l t in a r e d u c t i o n o f 2 u n i t s . P r o p o s e d b u i l d i n g w i d t h s w o u l d a l s o c o n f l i c t w i t h 3 2 ' w i d e p r i v a t e s t r e e t s , r e s u l t i n g i n a r e d u c t i o n o f 1 u n i t i n e a c h b u i l d i n g . L i t e r a l ap p l i c a t i o n o f t h i s s t a n d a r d w o u l d e l i m i n a t e 4 o f t h e d e n s i t y b o n u s p r o j e c t ’s p r o p o s e d u n i t s . . 20 ' d r i v e a i s l e w i d t h e n a b l e s t a n d e m g a r a g e d e p t h s o n B u i l d i n g 2 . 5 s t a n d a r d g a r a g e u n i t s . 20'-0" 7 t a n d e m g a r a g e u n i t s . 24 ' - 0 " PR O P O S E D P L A N 12 U N I T S w / 2 1 ' M I N I M U M D R I V E A I S L E W I D T H . HY P O T H E T I C A L C O D E C O M P L I A N T P L A N 8 U N I T S w / 3 2 ' P R I V A T E S T R E E T W I D T H . 24 ' d r i v e a i s l e w i d t h en a b l e s g a r a g e w i d t h on b o t h b u i l d i n g s . 32 ' p r i v a t e str e e t w i d t h all o w s o n l y f o r 4 u n i t bu i l d i n g s o n ea c h s i d e , f o r a t o t a l o f 8 un i t s . 32 ' p r i v a t e s t r e e t w i d t h p r e c l u d e s t a n d e m g a r a g e d e p t h s o n B u i l d i n g 2 . 4 s t a n d a r d g a r a g e u n i t s . 32'-0" 32 ' p r i v a t e s t r e e t w o u l d r e s u l t i n 4 sta n d a r d g a r a g e u n i t s o n B u i l d i n g 2 . 32 ' - 0 " 7Item 2 Attachment F - Waiver Request and Supporting Documentation     Packet Pg. 71     GE S U N 73 9 S U T T E R A V E N U E M A J O R A R C H I T E C T U R A L R E V I E W S E T - R E S U B M I T T A L 1 FL O O R A R E A D I A G R A M S 58 6 5 O w e n s D r i v e Ple a s a n t o n , C A 9 4 5 8 8 92 5 - 2 5 1 - 7 2 0 0 14 4 7 . 0 0 3 03 - 0 1 - 2 0 2 3 JO B N O . DA T E A0 . 6 BU I L D I N G 1 BU I L D I N G 2 E TP O R BU I L D I N G 2 GR O S S F L O O R A R E A R E D U C T I O N = 1 7 0 S F 17 0 . 1 4 s f Bu i l d i n g c o n f l i c t i n g w i t h u p p e r l e v e l s t e p b a c k . Bu i l d i n g c o n f l i c t i n g w i t h u p p e r l e v e l s t e p b a c k . BU I L D I N G 1 GR O S S F L O O R A R E A R E D U C T I O N = 2 0 6 S F 62 6 . 2 8 s f Bu i l d i n g c o m p l i e s w i t h u p p e r l e v e l s t e p b a c k . WA I V E R D I A G R A M 8 - U P P E R F L O O R S T E P B A C K - P A M C S e c . 1 8 . 2 4 . 0 5 0 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( B ) Wa i v e r t o a l l o w 0 ' u p p e r f l o o r s t e p b a c k , w h e r e 6 ' u p p e r f l o o r s t e p b a c k a d j a c e n t t o s i n g l e s t o r y b u i l d i n g s i s r e q u i r e d . Wo u l d a p p l y t o 3 r d l e v e l a l o n g e a s t s i d e o f b u i l d i n g 1 . L i t e r a l a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h i s s t a n d a r d w o u l d r e q u i r e a r e d u c t i o n o f p r o p o s e d b u i l d i n g w i d t h i n b u i l d i n g 1 , co n f l i c t w i t h m i n i m u m r o o m s i z e s , r o o f t o p e q u i p m e n t , a n d w o u l d r e s u l t i n a r e d u c t i o n o f 2 0 6 S F o f p r o p o s e d b u i l d i n g a r e a . W o u l d a p p l y t o 3 r d l e v e l a l o n g n o r t h an d e a s t s i d e s o f b u i l d i n g 2 . L i t e r a l a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h i s s t a n d a r d w o u l d r e q u i r e a r e d u c t i o n o f p r o p o s e d b u i l d i n g w i d t h i n b u i l d i n g 2 , c o n f l i c t w i t h s t a i r l o c a t i o n s , roo f d e c k , r o o f t o p e q u i p m e n t , a n d w o u l d r e s u l t i n a r e d u c t i o n o f 1 7 0 S F o f p r o p o s e d b u i l d i n g a r e a . T h i s r e d u c t i o n i n b u i l d i n g a r e a i s t h e e q u i v a l e n t o f eli m i n a t i n g . 2 o f t h e d e n s i t y b o n u s p r o j e c t ’s p r o p o s e d u n i t s . 8 71 . 1 5 s f 6'- 0 " 66 . 1 7 s f 71 . 1 5 s f 66 . 1 7 s f 17 0 . 1 4 s f Item 2 Attachment F - Waiver Request and Supporting Documentation     Packet Pg. 72     GE S U N 73 9 S U T T E R A V E N U E M A J O R A R C H I T E C T U R A L R E V I E W S E T - R E S U B M I T T A L 1 FL O O R A R E A D I A G R A M S 58 6 5 O w e n s D r i v e Ple a s a n t o n , C A 9 4 5 8 8 92 5 - 2 5 1 - 7 2 0 0 14 4 7 . 0 0 3 03 - 0 1 - 2 0 2 3 JO B N O . DA T E A0 . 6 BU I L D I N G 1 BU I L D I N G 2 BU I L D I N G 2 GR O S S F L O O R A R E A R E D U C T I O N = 1 7 0 S F Bu i l d i n g c o n f l i c t i n g w i t h 2 n d l e v e l f a c a d e b r e a k . WA I V E R D I A G R A M 9 - F A C A D E B R E A K - P A M C S e c . 1 8 . 2 4 . 0 5 0 ( b ) ( 2 ) ( B ) Wa i v e r t o a l l o w f a c a d e b r e a k o f 4 ' i n w i d t h , 1 ' i n d e p t h , a n d 9 s q u a r e f e e t o f a r e a f o r e v e r y 3 6 t o 4 0 f e e t o f f a ç a d e l e n g t h , w h e r e m i n i m u m f a ç a d e b r e a k o f f o u r fee t i n w i d t h , t w o f e e t i n d e p t h , a n d 3 2 s q u a r e f e e t o f a r e a f o r e v e r y 3 6 t o 4 0 f e e t o f f a ç a d e l e n g t h i s r e q u i r e d . W o u l d a p p l y t o s o u t h a n d e a s t s i d e s o f b u i l d i n g 1. B u i l d i n g s 1 c o m p l i e s . W o u l d a p p l y t o n o r t h a n d e a s t s i d e s B u i l d i n g 2 . B u i l d i n g 2 c o m p l i e s o n e a s t s i d e . L i t e r a l a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h i s s t a n d a r d w o u l d r e q u i r e a red u c t i o n o f 8 9 S F o f p r o p o s e d b u i l d i n g a r e a . T h i s r e d u c t i o n i n b u i l d i n g a r e a i s t h e e q u i v a l e n t o f e l i m i n a t i n g . 1 o f t h e d e n s i t y b o n u s p r o j e c t ’s p r o p o s e d u n i t s . Lit e r a l a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h i s s t a n d a r d o n t h e n o r t h s i d e o f t h e p r o j e c t w o u l d p r e c l u d e 4 u n i t s b y c o n f l i c t i n g w i t h l a u n d r y r o o m s a n d 3 r d l e v e l s t a i r s . Bu i l d i n g c o m p l i e s w i t h f a c a d e b r e a k a t e a s t s i d e . Bu i l d i n g w i d t h i s l e s s t h a n 4 0 ' . 30'-7 3/4" 33'-1 1/4"33'-1 1/4" 34'-11 3/4"22'-10 3/4"2'- 0 " 37 . 6 7 s f 42'-10" 40'-3" 2'- 0 " 32 . 9 s f 2'- 0 " 32 . 9 s f Bu i l d i n g c o m p l i e s w i t h f a c a d e b r e a k a t e a s t s i d e . Bu i l d i n g d o e s n o t c o m p l y w i t h f a c a d e b r e a k a t n o r t h s i d e . 26 ' - 7 3 / 4 " 26 ' - 7 3 / 4 " 44 . 5 3 s f 44 . 5 3 s f 37 ' - 9 3 / 4 " Bu i l d i n g c o m p l i e s w i t h f a c a d e b r e a k a t g r o u n d l e v e l . 26 ' - 7 3 / 4 " 26 ' - 7 3 / 4 " 23 . 5 5 s f 37 ' - 9 3 / 4 " 3'-9" 8'-11" 4'-11 1/4" 8'- 1 1 " 23 . 7 5 s f 3'-9" 8'-11"Bu i l d i n g c o n f l i c t i n g w i t h 3 r d l e v e l f a c a d e b r e a k . 27 ' - 2 " 39 ' - 0 " 21 . 3 s f 4'-3 1/4" 7'- 6 3 / 4 " 27 ' - 3 1 / 4 " 21 . 3 s f 4'-3 1/4" 7'- 6 3 / 4 " 5'-0" 5'-1/2" 35'-5 3/4" 1'-0"8.9 s f 12 ' - 7 " 6'-0" 12 ' - 6 3 / 4 " 6'-0" 6'-0" 12 ' - 6 3 / 4 " 19 ' - 1 " 9'- 6 " 9'- 6 " 12 ' - 6 " 12 ' - 6 " 12 ' - 7 " 6'-0" 6'-0" 6'-0" 12 ' - 6 3 / 4 " 19 ' - 1 " 9'- 6 " 9'- 6 " 12 ' - 6 " 12 ' - 6 " 12 ' - 7 " 6'-0" 6'-0" 6'-0" 12 ' - 6 3 / 4 " 19 ' - 1 " 9'- 6 " 9'- 6 " 14'-2 3/4" 12 ' - 6 " 12 ' - 6 3 / 4 " 9'- 6 " 9'- 6 " 9'- 6 " 12 ' - 6 3 / 4 " 9Item 2 Attachment F - Waiver Request and Supporting Documentation     Packet Pg. 73     GE S U N 73 9 S U T T E R A V E N U E M A J O R A R C H I T E C T U R A L R E V I E W S E T - R E S U B M I T T A L 1 FL O O R A R E A D I A G R A M S 58 6 5 O w e n s D r i v e Ple a s a n t o n , C A 9 4 5 8 8 92 5 - 2 5 1 - 7 2 0 0 14 4 7 . 0 0 3 03 - 0 1 - 2 0 2 3 JO B N O . DA T E A0 . 6 BU I L D I N G 1 BU I L D I N G 2 WA I V E R D I A G R A M 1 0 - I N D I V I D U A L R E S I D E N T I A L E N T R Y W I D T H - P A M C S e c . 1 8 . 2 4 . 0 6 0 ( c ) ( 4 ) ( A ) ( i ) ( a ) Wa i v e r t o a l l o w 4 ' - 5 " m i n i m u m e n t r y w i d t h w h e r e 5 ' i s r e q u i r e d . W o u l d a p p l y t o b o t h b u i l d i n g s . B u i l d i n g 1 c o m p l i e s . L i t e r a l a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h i s s t a n d a r d o n Bu i l d i n g 2 w o u l d p r e c l u d e a l l p r o p o s e d t a n d e m u n i t s b y c o n f l i c t i n g w i t h m i n i m u m g a r a g e d i m e n s i o n s a n d w o u l d r e s u l t i n a r e d u c t i o n o f 1 4 S F o f p r o p o s e d bu i l d i n g a r e a . T h i s r e d u c t i o n i n b u i l d i n g a r e a i s t h e e q u i v a l e n t o f e l i m i n a t i n g . 1 o f t h e d e n s i t y b o n u s p r o j e c t ’s p r o p o s e d u n i t s . Bu i l d i n g c o m p l i e s w i t h m i n i m u m p o r c h w i d t h . Bu i l d i n g 2 d o e s n o t c o m p l y w i t h m i n i m u m p o r c h w i d t h . 5'-1/2" 9'- 6 " 8'- 1 0 " 8'- 1 0 " 9'- 6 " 9'- 6 " 10 ' - 2 " 4'- 5 " 5'- 0 " 2.0 5 s f 5'- 0 " 2.0 5 s f 5'- 0 " 2.0 5 s f 5'- 0 " 2.0 5 s f 5'- 0 " 2.0 5 s f 5'- 0 " 2.0 5 s f 5'- 0 " 2.0 5 s f 9'- 7 " 10 ' - 2 " 9'- 7 " 10 ' - 2 " 9'- 7 " 10 ' - 2 " 9'- 7 " 10 ' - 2 " 9'- 7 " 10 ' - 2 " 9'- 7 " 10 ' - 2 " 9'- 7 " 40'-4 3/4" 10Item 2 Attachment F - Waiver Request and Supporting Documentation     Packet Pg. 74     GE S U N 73 9 S U T T E R A V E N U E M A J O R A R C H I T E C T U R A L R E V I E W S E T - R E S U B M I T T A L 1 FL O O R A R E A D I A G R A M S 58 6 5 O w e n s D r i v e Ple a s a n t o n , C A 9 4 5 8 8 92 5 - 2 5 1 - 7 2 0 0 14 4 7 . 0 0 3 03 - 0 1 - 2 0 2 3 JO B N O . DA T E A0 . 6 BU I L D I N G 1 BU I L D I N G 2 WA I V E R D I A G R A M 1 1 - P R I V A T E O P E N S P A C E D I M E N S I O N S - P A M C S e c . 1 8 . 2 4 . 0 8 0 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( a ) Wa i v e r t o a l l o w a c l e a r s p a c e w i t h a m i n i m u m d i m e n s i o n o f a c i r c l e w i t h a f i v e f o o t d i a m e t e r , w h e r e a c l e a r s p a c e w i t h a m i n i m u m d i m e n s i o n o f a c i r c l e w i t h a six - f o o t d i a m e t e r w i t h i n p r i v a t e o p e n s p a c e i s r e q u i r e d . W o u l d a p p l y t o b o t h b u i l d i n g s . L i t e r a l a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h i s s t a n d a r d o n B u i l d i n g 1 w o u l d c o n f l i c t w i t h l e v e l 2 s t a i r s ( o r b a t h i f s t a i r i s s h i f t e d ) a n d l e v e l 3 b e d r o o m s , a n d w o u l d r e s u l t i n a r e d u c t i o n o f 1 2 5 S F o f p r o p o s e d b u i l d i n g a r e a . L i t e r a l a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h i s sta n d a r d o n B u i l d i n g 2 w o u l d c o n f l i c t w i t h l e v e l 3 b e d r o o m s , a n d w o u l d r e s u l t i n a r e d u c t i o n o f 8 0 S F o f p r o p o s e d b u i l d i n g a r e a . T h i s r e d u c t i o n i n b u i l d i n g a r e a is t h e e q u i v a l e n t o f e l i m i n a t i n g . 1 o f t h e d e n s i t y b o n u s p r o j e c t ’s p r o p o s e d u n i t s . 9'- 6 " 8'- 1 0 " 8'- 1 0 " 9'- 6 " 9'- 6 " Pr o p o s e d p o r c h e s a n d d e c k s d o n o t m e e t r e q u i r e d d i m e n s i o n s . W o u l d r e d u c e bu i l d i n g 1 a r e a b y + / - 1 2 5 S F , o r w o u l d c o n f l i c t w i t h s e t b a c k r e q u i r e m e n t s . 6'-0" 11 . 6 s f 11 . 6 s f 11 . 6 s f 11 . 6 s f 11 . 6 s f 11 . 6 s f 11 . 6 s f Bu i l d i n g c o n f l i c t i n g w i t h 3 r d l e v e l p r i v a t e o p e n s p a c e c l e a r a r e a r e q u i r e m e n t . 6'-0" 12 . 5 3 s f 12 . 5 3 s f 12 . 5 3 s f 12 . 5 3 s f 12 . 5 3 s f Bu i l d i n g c o n f l i c t i n g w i t h 2 n d l e v e l p r i v a t e o p e n s p a c e c l e a r a r e a r e q u i r e m e n t . Bu i l d i n g c o n f l i c t i n g w i t h 3 r d l e v e l p r i v a t e o p e n s p a c e c l e a r a r e a r e q u i r e m e n t . 6'-0" 12 . 5 3 s f 12 . 5 3 s f 12 . 5 3 s f 12 . 5 3 s f 12 . 5 3 s f Pr o p o s e d p o r c h e s a n d d e c k s d o n o t m e e t r e q u i r e d d i m e n s i o n s . W o u l d r e d u c e bu i l d i n g 2 a r e a b y + / - 7 8 S F , o r w o u l d c o n f l i c t w i t h s i g h t l i n e r e q u i r e m e n t s . 11Item 2 Attachment F - Waiver Request and Supporting Documentation     Packet Pg. 75     GE S U N 73 9 S U T T E R A V E N U E M A J O R A R C H I T E C T U R A L R E V I E W S E T - R E S U B M I T T A L 3 BU I L D I N G 1 F L O O R P L A N & R O O F P L A N NO T E : PL A N 1 I S T H E S T A N D A R D M I D U N I T . P L A N 1 Y I S T H E A D P A T A B L E M I D U N I T . AS P H A L T S H I N G L E RO O F I N G , T Y P . 58 6 5 O w e n s D r i v e Ple a s a n t o n , C A 9 4 5 8 8 92 5 - 2 5 1 - 7 2 0 0 14 4 7 . 0 0 3 10 - 0 2 - 2 0 2 3 JO B N O . DA T E A2 . 2 TP O R O O F I N G , T Y P . PL A N 1 PL A N 1 X P L A N 1 - R P L A N 1 - R PL A N 1 - R BU I L D I N G 1 - 5 P L E X - F R O N T E L E V A T I O N SC A L E : 1 / 8 ” = 1 ’ 45 de g r e e ste p b a c k 45 de g r e e ste p b a c k WA I V E R D I A G R A M 1 2 - R O O F T O P G A R D E N H E I G H T L I M I T E X C E P T I O N - P A M C S e c . 1 8 . 4 0 . 2 3 0 ( a ) ( i i i ) Wa i v e r t o a l l o w n o s t e p b a c k f r o m e d g e o f b u i l d i n g t o r o o f p a r a p e t , w h e r e a 4 5 d e g r e e s t e p b a c k m i n i m u m i s r e q u i r e d . W o u l d a p p l y t o B u i l d i n g 1 . L i t e r a l ap p l i c a t i o n o f t h i s s t a n d a r d o n B u i l d i n g 1 w o u l d c o n f l i c t w i t h p a r a p e t , r o o f d e c k p l a n t i n g a r e a s , a n d r o o f d e c k p r i v a t e o p e n s p a c e a r e a s , a n d w o u l d r e s u l t i n a red u c t i o n o f 3 7 6 S F o f p r o p o s e d r o o f d e c k a r e a . T h i s r e d u c t i o n i n b u i l d i n g a r e a i s t h e e q u i v a l e n t o f e l i m i n a t i n g . 2 o f t h e d e n s i t y b o n u s p r o j e c t ’s p r o p o s e d u n i t s . 12 3'-6" 3'- 6 " 92 . 2 6 s f 3'-6" 3'-6" 3'-6" 63 . 8 3 s f 63 . 8 3 s f 63 . 8 4 s f 92 . 2 6 s f 36'-6" Item 2 Attachment F - Waiver Request and Supporting Documentation     Packet Pg. 76     GE S U N 73 9 S U T T E R A V E N U E M A J O R A R C H I T E C T U R A L R E V I E W S E T - R E S U B M I T T A L 1 SI T E P L A N 58 6 5 O w e n s D r i v e Ple a s a n t o n , C A 9 4 5 8 8 92 5 - 2 5 1 - 7 2 0 0 14 4 7 . 0 0 3 03 - 0 1 - 2 0 2 3 JO B N O . DA T E N A0 . 4 Fo r d e n s i t y b o n u s r e q u e s t s a n d p r o j e c t w a i v e r s a n d c o n c e s s i o n s , ple a s e s e e a t t a c h e d p r o j e c t d e s c r i p t i o n d o c u m e n t . Ad a p t a b l e U n i t s L o c a t i o n s PR O J E C T D A T A : AR C H I T E C T U R A L D A T A : WA I V E R D I A G R A M 1 3 - L A N D S C A P E S C R E E N I N G , I N T E R I O R S I D E Y A R D - P A M C S e c . 1 8 . 1 3 . 0 5 0 ( b ) ( 2 ) ( A ) 10 ' - 0 " Wa i v e r t o a l l o w n o l a n d s c a p e s c r e e n i n g a l o n g w e s t i n t e r i o r s i d e l o t l i n e w h e r e l a n d s c a p e s c r e e n i n g i s r e q u i r e d . P r o v i d i n g a r o w o f t r e e s i n t h i s l o c a t i o n w o u l d red u c e t h e w i d t h o f t h e b u i l d i n g e n v e l o p e b y + / - 6 ' . T h e d e n s i t y b o n u s p r o j e c t p r o p o s e s 1 2 b a s e u n i t s , a l l w i t h a n a v e r a g e F l o o r A r e a o f 1 , 5 0 7 s q u a r e f e e t p e r u n i t (18 , 0 8 8 S F / 1 2 u n i t s = 1 , 5 0 7 S F p e r u n i t ) . B a s e d o n p r o p o s e d b u i l d i n g d e p t h s o f e a c h l e v e l t h e i n c r e a s e d s e t b a c k w o u l d r e s u l t i n a r e d u c t i o n o f a p p r o x i m a t e l y 1,3 7 7 s q u a r e f e e t o f b u i l d i n g a r e a . T h i s r e d u c t i o n i n b u i l d i n g a r e a i s t h e e q u i v a l e n t o f e l i m i n a t i n g . 9 o f t h e d e n s i t y b o n u s p r o j e c t ’s p r o p o s e d u n i t s . T h e r e d u c t i o n in w i d t h w o u l d a l s o c o n f l i c t w i t h m i n i m u m g a r a g e c l e a r a n c e s a n d u t i l i t y c l o s e t a c c e s s a n d d r i v e a i s l e , w h i c h w o u l d p r e c l u d e 2 o f t h e d e n s i t y b o n u s p r o j e c t ’s pro p o s e d u n i t s . 6'- 0 " 5'-9 3/4" 5'- 1 1 1 / 2 " 4'- 5 1 / 2 " 10' setback area 43'-6"33'-0" 13 6'66'6'66'666 0" -55 //22//2/ ''5 1 / /22 -99 3/4" 5555555525'-0"25'-0" 2" 55'-11-11 1//// 1111 1/2//////////////// -111 1///// 5555 2" 25'-0"25'-0" Item 2 Attachment F - Waiver Request and Supporting Documentation     Packet Pg. 77     GE S U N 73 9 S U T T E R A V E N U E M A J O R A R C H I T E C T U R A L R E V I E W S E T - R E S U B M I T T A L 3 BU I L D I N G 1 F L O O R P L A N & R O O F P L A N NO T E : PL A N 1 I S T H E S T A N D A R D M I D U N I T . P L A N 1 Y I S T H E A D P A T A B L E M I D U N I T . AS P H A L T S H I N G L E RO O F I N G , T Y P . 58 6 5 O w e n s D r i v e Ple a s a n t o n , C A 9 4 5 8 8 92 5 - 2 5 1 - 7 2 0 0 14 4 7 . 0 0 3 10 - 0 2 - 2 0 2 3 JO B N O . DA T E A2 . 2 TP O R O O F I N G , T Y P . WA I V E R D I A G R A M 1 4 - R O O F T O P G A R D E N L A N D S C A P I N G - P A M C S e c . 1 8 . 4 0 . 2 3 0 ( f ) Wa i v e r t o a l l o w n o r o o f t o p l a n d s c a p i n g w i t h a u t o m a t i c i r r i g a t i o n s y s t e m s , w h e r e 1 5 % r o o f t o p l a n d s c a p i n g w i t h a u t o m a t i c i r r i g a t i o n s y s t e m s m i n i m u m i s req u i r e d . W o u l d a p p l y t o B u i l d i n g 1 . L i t e r a l a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h i s s t a n d a r d o n B u i l d i n g 1 w o u l d c o n f l i c t r o o f d e c k p r i v a t e o p e n s p a c e a r e a s , a n d w o u l d r e s u l t i n a red u c t i o n o f 2 4 4 S F o f p r o p o s e d r o o f d e c k a r e a . T h i s r e d u c t i o n i n b u i l d i n g a r e a i s t h e e q u i v a l e n t o f e l i m i n a t i n g . 2 o f t h e d e n s i t y b o n u s p r o j e c t ’s p r o p o s e d u n i t s . 14 45 . 5 8 s f 50 . 5 4 s f 50 . 5 4 s f 50 . 5 4 s f 50 . 5 5 s f Item 2 Attachment F - Waiver Request and Supporting Documentation     Packet Pg. 78     CO N C E S S I O N D I A G R A M 1 a - B U I L D I N G H E I G H T - P A M C S e c . 1 8 . 1 3 . 0 4 0 ( a ) 36'-6" 30'-0" 36'-6" 30'-0" Bu i l d i n g e x c e e d i n g m a x i m u m h e i g h t . 36'-6" 30'-0" 36'-6" 30'-0" Co n c e s s i o n t o a l l o w f o r 3 6 ’-6" m a x i m u m b u i l d i n g h e i g h t w h e r e 3 0 ’ m a x i m u m i s p e r m i t t e d . T h r e e s t o r y b u i l d i n g h e i g h t i s n e c e s s a r y t o a c h i e v e t h e d e n s i t y b o n u s pro j e c t s p r o p o s e d u n i t c o u n t ( 1 2 u n i t s ) , a n d r e s i d e n t i a l a r e a ( 1 8 , 0 8 8 S F ) . G a r a g e a r e a r e q u i r e s t h e m a j o r i t y o f o n e f l o o r ( l e v e l 1 ) , l i v i n g a r e a a n d d i n i n g a r e a req u i r e s a n o t h e r f l o o r l e v e l ( l e v e l 2 ) , b e d r o o m s r e q u i r e a t h i r d f l o o r l e v e l ( l e v e l 3 ) . I n s t a l l a t i o n o f u n d e r g r o u n d p i t s a n d p a r k i n g l i f t s w a s e x p l o r e d t o c o m p l y w i t h bu i l d i n g h e i g h t . C o m p l y i n g w i t h t h e 3 0 ’ he i g h t l i m i t i s e s t i m a t e d t o i n c r e a s e t h e c o s t o f c o n s t r u c t i o n b y $ 1 , 5 0 0 , 0 0 0 a n d w o u l d r e d u c e r e s i d e n t i a l a r e a b y 2 , 4 0 0 SF ( 2 0 0 S F p e r u n i t ) . T h e r e f o r e , a c o n c e s s i o n f r o m t h i s r e q u i r e m e n t i s m e r i t e d . Th e p r o p e r t y a l s o q u a l i f i e s f o r a h e i g h t w a i v e r t o a c c o u n t f o r t h e c o n c e s s i o n . L i t e r a l e n f o r c e m e n t o f t h e h e i g h t l i m i t ( w i t h o u t t h e c o n c e s s i o n ) w o u l d c o n f l i c t w i t h the 3 r d f l o o r r e d u c e t h e s i z e o f t h e p r o j e c t b y 7 , 6 8 7 s q u a r e f e e t , e q u a l t o 5 u n i t s . Bu i l d i n g e x c e e d i n g m a x i m u m h e i g h t . Bu i l d i n g e x c e e d i n g m a x i m u m h e i g h t . Bu i l d i n g e x c e e d i n g m a x i m u m h e i g h t . 15Item 2 Attachment F - Waiver Request and Supporting Documentation     Packet Pg. 79     CO N C E S S I O N D I A G R A M 1 b - B U I L D I N G H E I G H T - P A M C S e c . 1 8 . 1 3 . 0 4 0 ( a ) 32'-0" 30'-0"Bu i l d i n g e x c e e d i n g m a x i m u m h e i g h t . 32'-0" 30'-0"Bu i l d i n g e x c e e d i n g m a x i m u m h e i g h t . 32'-0" 30'-0"Bu i l d i n g e x c e e d i n g m a x i m u m h e i g h t . 32'-0" 30'-0"Bu i l d i n g e x c e e d i n g m a x i m u m h e i g h t . Co n c e s s i o n t o a l l o w f o r 3 6 ' - 6 " ’ m a x i m u m b u i l d i n g h e i g h t w h e r e 3 0 ’ m a x i m u m i s p e r m i t t e d . T h r e e s t o r y b u i l d i n g h e i g h t i s n e c e s s a r y t o a c h i e v e t h e d e n s i t y bo n u s p r o j e c t s p r o p o s e d u n i t c o u n t ( 1 2 u n i t s ) , a n d r e s i d e n t i a l a r e a ( 1 8 , 0 8 8 S F ) . G a r a g e a r e a r e q u i r e s t h e m a j o r i t y o f o n e f l o o r ( l e v e l 1 ) , l i v i n g a r e a a n d d i n i n g are a r e q u i r e s a n o t h e r f l o o r l e v e l ( l e v e l 2 ) , b e d r o o m s r e q u i r e a t h i r d f l o o r l e v e l ( l e v e l 3 ) . I n s t a l l a t i o n o f u n d e r g r o u n d p i t s a n d p a r k i n g l i f t s w a s e x p l o r e d t o c o m p l y wit h b u i l d i n g h e i g h t . C o m p l y i n g w i t h t h e 3 0 ’ he i g h t l i m i t i s e s t i m a t e d t o i n c r e a s e t h e c o s t o f c o n s t r u c t i o n b y $ 1 , 5 0 0 , 0 0 0 a n d w o u l d r e d u c e r e s i d e n t i a l a r e a b y 2,4 0 0 S F ( 2 0 0 S F p e r u n i t ) . T h e r e f o r e , a c o n c e s s i o n f r o m t h i s r e q u i r e m e n t i s m e r i t e d . Th e p r o p e r t y a l s o q u a l i f i e s f o r a h e i g h t w a i v e r t o a c c o u n t f o r t h e c o n c e s s i o n . L i t e r a l e n f o r c e m e n t o f t h e h e i g h t l i m i t ( w i t h o u t t h e c o n c e s s i o n ) w o u l d c o n f l i c t w i t h the 3 r d f l o o r r e d u c e t h e s i z e o f t h e p r o j e c t b y 7 , 6 8 7 s q u a r e f e e t , e q u a l t o 5 u n i t s . 16Item 2 Attachment F - Waiver Request and Supporting Documentation     Packet Pg. 80     GE S U N 73 9 S U T T E R A V E N U E M A J O R A R C H I T E C T U R A L R E V I E W S E T - R E S U B M I T T A L 1 SI T E P L A N 58 6 5 O w e n s D r i v e Ple a s a n t o n , C A 9 4 5 8 8 92 5 - 2 5 1 - 7 2 0 0 14 4 7 . 0 0 3 03 - 0 1 - 2 0 2 3 JO B N O . DA T E N A0 . 4 Fo r d e n s i t y b o n u s r e q u e s t s a n d p r o j e c t w a i v e r s a n d c o n c e s s i o n s , ple a s e s e e a t t a c h e d p r o j e c t d e s c r i p t i o n d o c u m e n t . Ad a p t a b l e U n i t s L o c a t i o n s PR O J E C T D A T A : AR C H I T E C T U R A L D A T A : CO N C E S S I O N D I A G R A M 1 c - B U I L D I N G H E I G H T - P A M C S e c . 1 8 . 1 3 . 0 4 0 ( a ) PR O P O S E D P L A N 12 U N I T S w / 3 6 ' - 6 " B U I L D I N G H E I G H T . HY P O T H E T I C A L C O D E C O M P L I A N T P L A N 12 U N I T S w / 3 0 ' B U I L D I N G H E I G H T . 20'-0"10 ' - 0 " 10 ' - 0 " 20'-0"10'-0" 5 s t a n d a r d g a r a g e u n i t s @ 3 - s t o r i e s ( 3 6 ' - 6 " h e i g h t ) . 7 t a n d e m g a r a g e u n i t s @ 3-s t o r i e s ( 3 2 ' h e i g h t ) . Ca r l i f t s r e d u c e r e s i d e n t i a l a r e a b y 2 , 4 0 0 S F ( 2 0 0 S F p e r u n i t ) . 7 u n i t s w i t h p a r k i n g l i f t s @ 2 - s t o r i e s ( 3 0 ' h e i g h t ) . 5 u n i t s w i t h p a r k i n g l i f t s @ 2 - s t o r i e s ( 3 0 ' h e i g h t ) . Ca r l i f t l o c a t i o n s 20 0 S F ( 1 0 ' x 2 0 ' ) Ca r l i f t l o c a t i o n s 20 0 S F ( 1 0 ' x 2 0 ' ) Co n c e s s i o n t o a l l o w f o r 3 6 ’-6" m a x i m u m b u i l d i n g h e i g h t w h e r e 3 0 ’ m a x i m u m i s p e r m i t t e d . T h r e e s t o r y b u i l d i n g h e i g h t i s n e c e s s a r y t o a c h i e v e t h e d e n s i t y b o n u s pro j e c t s p r o p o s e d u n i t c o u n t ( 1 2 u n i t s ) , a n d r e s i d e n t i a l a r e a ( 1 8 , 0 8 8 S F ) . G a r a g e a r e a r e q u i r e s t h e m a j o r i t y o f o n e f l o o r ( l e v e l 1 ) , l i v i n g a r e a a n d d i n i n g a r e a req u i r e s a n o t h e r f l o o r l e v e l ( l e v e l 2 ) , b e d r o o m s r e q u i r e a t h i r d f l o o r l e v e l ( l e v e l 3 ) . I n s t a l l a t i o n o f u n d e r g r o u n d p i t s a n d p a r k i n g l i f t s w a s e x p l o r e d t o c o m p l y w i t h bu i l d i n g h e i g h t . C o m p l y i n g w i t h t h e 3 0 ’ he i g h t l i m i t i s e s t i m a t e d t o i n c r e a s e t h e c o s t o f c o n s t r u c t i o n b y $ 1 , 5 0 0 , 0 0 0 a n d w o u l d r e d u c e r e s i d e n t i a l a r e a b y 2 , 4 0 0 SF ( 2 0 0 S F p e r u n i t ) . T h e r e f o r e , a c o n c e s s i o n f r o m t h i s r e q u i r e m e n t i s m e r i t e d . Th e p r o p e r t y a l s o q u a l i f i e s f o r a h e i g h t w a i v e r t o a c c o u n t f o r t h e c o n c e s s i o n . L i t e r a l e n f o r c e m e n t o f t h e h e i g h t l i m i t ( w i t h o u t t h e c o n c e s s i o n ) w o u l d c o n f l i c t w i t h the 3 r d f l o o r r e d u c e t h e s i z e o f t h e p r o j e c t b y 7 , 6 8 7 s q u a r e f e e t , e q u a l t o 5 u n i t s . 17Item 2 Attachment F - Waiver Request and Supporting Documentation     Packet Pg. 81     Item 2 Attachment G - Letter From Neighboring Property Owner     Packet Pg. 82     You don't often get email from taratorin@gmail.com. Learn why this is important From:Raybould, Claire To:Alexander Taratorin Subject:RE: 739 Sutter Av project 22PLN-00201 Date:Thursday, June 30, 2022 8:28:00 AM Attachments:image005.png image006.png image008.png image009.png image010.png image011.jpg image012.png image013.png Good morning Alexander, I’m writing to confirm receipt of these comments. I appreciate your comments on the project. To clarify, the notice that was provided is a notice indicating that an application has been submitted for a project and inviting public comments on the project. The project has not been approved. The initial plan set is under review so no comments have yet been provided to the applicant. The City has a 30 day period to respond to the initial submittal, so we will respond by July 16, 2022 with our initial comments on the project. The project will require public hearing(s) in front of the Architectural Review Board prior to decision. Notifications will be mailed prior to any hearings and at the time a decision is issued per our standard practices. I’m happy to also keep you informed via e-mail. Regards, Claire Claire Raybould, AICP Senior Planner Planning and Development Services Department (650) 329-2116 | Claire.Raybould@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org NEW Parcel Report | Palo Alto Municipal Code | Online Permitting System | Planning Forms & Handouts | Planning Applications Mapped The City of Palo Alto is doing its part to reduce the spread of COVID-19. We have successfully transitioned most of our employees to a remote work environment. We remain available to you via email, phone, and virtual meetings during our normal business hours. From: Alexander Taratorin <taratorin@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2022 9:29 PM To: Raybould, Claire <Claire.Raybould@CityofPaloAlto.org> Subject: 739 Sutter Av project 22PLN-00201 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi, Claire This is Alexander Taratorin/Natalia Kroupnova, at 754 San Carlos Court, Palo Alto, CA 94306 We just got a postcard from the planning division regarding a construction project at 739 Sutter avenue. This is the first time we are able to comment on this project. We are strongly and ultimately opposed to the proposed development. We lived at this property for over 12 years and we moved to Palo Alto hoping that the environment will stay comfortable, safe and quiet. The project will mean at least year-long noise and mess next to our residence. It will change the local comfortable landscape - currently all buildings are one or two stories. It will block view from our bedroom. It will increase population density, local traffic, not to mention proposed 25% low income units. We had an experience living next to the apartment complex in Sunnyvale, when low income units were made available. A couple of month later we had to sell our property and leave. I've seen enough drug addicts and people urinating on the streets in front of our kids. Looks like it is time to reconsider the last resort of normal residential life in the Bay Area and probably leave California. This is outrageous. You ruin life of our community To summarize- we strongly oppose. This is a direct way to destroy the Palo Alto environment. With all city taxes we pay for our property we expected better planning and decisions. Alexander Taratorin Natalia Kroupnova 754 San Carlos Court Palo Alto CA 94306 Item 2 Attachment H - Written Public Comments     Packet Pg. 83     To Dated: July 11, 2022 Palo Alto City Planning & Development Services Subject: Proposed development on 739 Sutter Ave Dear City Planner: In reference to the notice issued by your office regarding the proposed new development on 739 Sutter Ave, we the undersigned residents of Sutter Ave, hereby object to the proposed development. Among our many objections are concerns of increasing the density of housing on the street as well as the addition of low income housing. We have made a significant investment in our houses in Palo Alto and would not like to see a development which has the potential not only to erode the value of our properties, but also bring the safety and privacy concerns to the neighbourhood. We already have so many apartment complexes and rental properties in our block with tenants moving in and out. The 3-story rooftop open space overlooking our properties is also definitely not welcomed for our privacy and security. Sincerely, Owner Name Residing At Signature Milan Saini 775 Sutter Ave David Wang 779 Sutter Ave Moshe Frozenfar 767 Sutter Ave May Mak 772 Sutter Ave Item 2 Attachment H - Written Public Comments     Packet Pg. 84     From:jue cheng To:Raybould, Claire Cc:R W; Gerhardt, Jodie; Yogabear23; Mj Wolf; lilyzhao68@gmail.com; ni2qun2@gmail.com; karenhlaw@gmail.com; jeff_conrad@msn.com Subject:Re: 739 Sutter Ave project Date:Friday, July 8, 2022 9:19:06 PM Attachments:image009.png image012.png image001.png image003.png image005.jpg image007.png image013.png Hi Claire, Just a kind follow up on the current status of 739 Sutter Ave project. Please kindly let us know if there are any updates on the city's response to the formal application. As one of the neighbors who live right next to the site, the deepest concern is the privacy issue. You may have noticed that houses along San Carlos Ct, and next to the west side of the site, are set on rather small lots, less than 5,000 sqft for each. We are all single story bungalows and the backyards are rather tiny as well. Across the fence, it is the 739 Sutter Ave project site. Looking at the current plan, we feel a huge threat to privacy. It looks like the rear 7 units are all 3-story high, and it is only 11 feet between the fence and the 3- story 7 units. Standing in our living room, looking at the backyard, we feel these units would look like just right above the fence. Other than the privacy issue, we are also concerned whether it's safe that all the entrances to the rear 7 units are along the 11-foot easement which is right across the fence of the San Carlos Ct neighbors. Currently we have 4 one-story one-bed-room units there. The traffic and noise are already significant. We don't know how many more traffics it will bring if 7 units. We look forward to hearing more responses from the city. Btw, I haven't received the notice yet and I believe my house should be within the 600 foot radius scope. Please kindly keep me in the loop when sending further updates. Thank you, and hope you have a great weekend. Jue Jue Cheng (746 San Carlos Ct) 312.493.7162 peanutsjue@gmail.com On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 7:56 PM jue cheng <peanutsjue@gmail.com> wrote: Claire, thanks for the detailed information. We really appreciate your further updates once the city starts the review. As neighbors who live close to the site, we are deeply concerned about the waivers and concessions this project asks for at the moment. We hope we could get our voice heard as well before the project moves further. Thank you for your understanding. I have copied a few neighbors who have been following this project for a while. Any updates, please kindly let us know. Best regards, Jue (San Carlos Ct) On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 4:37 PM Raybould, Claire <Claire.Raybould@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote: Richard, An application was filed on 6/16. The project is currently under review and the City has 30 days to provide comments on the project. There is no requirement to file within 180 days of the preliminary Architectural review, this is a voluntary review process that is completely separate from the Senate Bill 330 pre-application requirements for streamlining of a housing project. The 180 day time period for the original Senate Bill 330 pre-application they submitted lapsed. They filed a new compliant pre-application. I’ve attached the City’s response to that pre-application. The items for review on the pre- application are limited to select objective requirements as outlined in state code (i.e. if they submit the information, the application is deemed to comply). Following that pre-application, they submitted a formal application for Architectural review on 6/16. The information was made available on our pending project webpage and notices were mailed to all residents within a 600 foot radius of the site last week. I am happy to keep you informed on the project via e-mail as we move forward with the review. We also send notices to a 600 foot radius of the site prior to any future hearing and when a tentative decision is issued. I can ensure that notification goes to any interested parties via e-mail if you would like. I have not yet reviewed the application but will review and respond to the application within 30 days of the submittal. Regards, Claire Claire Raybould, AICP Senior Planner Item 2 Attachment H - Written Public Comments     Packet Pg. 85     Planning and Development Services Department (650) 329-2116 | Claire.Raybould@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org NEW Parcel Report | Palo Alto Municipal Code | Online Permitting System | Planning Forms & Handouts | Planning Applications Mapped The City of Palo Alto is doing its part to reduce the spread of COVID-19. We have successfully transitioned most of our employees to a remote work environment. We remain available to you via email, phone, and virtual meetings during our normal business hours. From: R W <flyingrichard@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2022 4:20 PM To: Raybould, Claire <Claire.Raybould@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Gerhardt, Jodie <Jodie.Gerhardt@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Ketchum, Stanley <Stanley.Ketchum@CityofPaloAlto.org> Cc: Jue Cheng <peanutsjue@gmail.com>; Yogabear23 <yogabear23@aol.com>; Mj Wolf <mimi.wolf@gmail.com> Subject: Fw: 739 Sutter Ave project Hi, Claire/Jodie, I'd like to inquire about the status of 739 Sutter Ave(22PLN-00201) again, since it has been a while after the zoom meeting and the preliminary architecture review in last November. As to my understanding, application should be submitted within180 days after the ARB public hearing in Nov 18, 2021, is this still an active or valid case? Also, will the city planning send any update to the neighbors and community about this project? thanks Richard ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: R W <flyingrichard@yahoo.com> To: Jodie Gerhardt <jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org>; Ketchum, Stanley <stanley.ketchum@cityofpaloalto.org> Cc: Jue Cheng <peanutsjue@gmail.com>; Yogabear23 <yogabear23@aol.com>; Mj Wolf <mimi.wolf@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 1, 2022, 10:41:48 AM PDT Subject: Re: 739 Sutter Ave project Hi, Jodie, Stan, Hope you are having a great weekend. Did the city receive any updated application on this project? I did not find any on the buildingeye website. Item 2 Attachment H - Written Public Comments     Packet Pg. 86     thanks Richard On Friday, January 28, 2022, 09:01:43 AM PST, Ketchum, Stanley <stanley.ketchum@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote: Attached are the Agenda and the Zoom meeting link for the meeting to discuss the proposed housing project at 739 Sutter Ave. Meeting: Tuesday, February 1, 1:00 pm Zoom meeting link: https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/83303512275 From: R W <flyingrichard@yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2022 9:08 PM To: Ketchum, Stanley <Stanley.Ketchum@CityofPaloAlto.org> Cc: Gerhardt, Jodie <Jodie.Gerhardt@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Eric Muzzy <eric.muzzy@dahlingroup.com>; Grace Li <graceli_1999@yahoo.com>; mimi.wolf@gmail.com; yogabear23@aol.com; Padru Kang <padru.kang@dahlingroup.com>; Darian Rauschendorfer <darian.rauschendorfer@dahlingroup.com>; Kriselle Rodrigues <kriselle.rodrigues@dahlingroup.com>; Karen Law <karenhlaw@gmail.com>; Jue Cheng <peanutsjue@gmail.com>; Lily Zhao <lilyzhao68@gmail.com>; wangf22@hotmail.com; Lait, Jonathan <Jonathan.Lait@CityofPaloAlto.org>; French, Amy <Amy.French@CityofPaloAlto.org> Subject: Re: Zoom meeting to discuss proposed project at 739 Sutter Ave. Hi, Stan, Can you share the zoom link for this meeting as soon as possible? Also, can city publish such meeting notice anywhere appropriate? Neighborhood are anxiously asking about this meeting, and it's just 2 business days ahead. Your speedy process is highly appreciated! On Saturday, January 22, 2022, 03:50:30 PM PST, R W <flyingrichard@yahoo.com> wrote: Hi, Stan, thanks for the notice. Can you share the zoom link as soon as possible? I have heard several friends are concerned with the traffic/security and privacy to the neighborhood. They would like to be informed and join the meeting too. It will be great to post the meeting notice publicly on newspaper/website, too. On Friday, January 21, 2022, 08:23:23 AM PST, Ketchum, Stanley <stanley.ketchum@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote: We will schedule the meeting for Tuesday, February 1 at 1:00 pm. A Zoom meeting invite will be sent in advance. Thanks, Stan Item 2 Attachment H - Written Public Comments     Packet Pg. 87     From: Eric Muzzy <eric.muzzy@dahlingroup.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2022 12:32 PM To: Ketchum, Stanley <Stanley.Ketchum@CityofPaloAlto.org> Cc: Gerhardt, Jodie <Jodie.Gerhardt@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Grace Li <graceli_1999@yahoo.com>; mimi.wolf@gmail.com; yogabear23@aol.com; R W <flyingrichard@yahoo.com>; Padru Kang <padru.kang@dahlingroup.com>; Darian Rauschendorfer <Darian.Rauschendorfer@dahlingroup.com>; Kriselle Rodrigues <Kriselle.Rodrigues@dahlingroup.com> Subject: RE: Zoom meeting to discuss proposed project at 739 Sutter Ave. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi Stan, Jack is not available to attend on Wednesday. Hopefully Monday 1/31: 1-2:30 pm, or Tuesday 2/1: 1-3 pm will work for the rest of the group. Thank you, ERIC MUZZY DAHLIN GROUP ARCHITECTURE | PLANNING www.dahlingroup.com PASSION FOR PLACE ® From: Eric Muzzy Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2022 12:21 PM To: Ketchum, Stanley <Stanley.Ketchum@CityofPaloAlto.org> Cc: Gerhardt, Jodie <jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org>; Grace Li <graceli_1999@yahoo.com>; mimi.wolf@gmail.com; yogabear23@aol.com; R W <flyingrichard@yahoo.com>; Padru Kang <padru.kang@dahlingroup.com>; Darian Rauschendorfer <Darian.Rauschendorfer@dahlingroup.com>; Kriselle Rodrigues <Kriselle.Rodrigues@dahlingroup.com> Subject: RE: Zoom meeting to discuss proposed project at 739 Sutter Ave. Good afternoon Stan, Could you please share a meeting agenda and list of attendees? The following meeting times work for DAHLIN: Monday 1/31: 1-2:30 pm Tuesday 2/1: 1-3 pm Wednesday 2/2: 10am-noon, 1:30 – 2:30 pm We are hoping that this meeting will include representatives from Fire and Public Works in addition to Planning, so that the project team has an opportunity to review preapplication comments and potential responses together. Thank you, ERIC MUZZY DAHLIN GROUP ARCHITECTURE | PLANNING www.dahlingroup.com PASSION FOR PLACE ® From: Grace Li <graceli_1999@yahoo.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2022 11:45 AM To: R W <flyingrichard@yahoo.com>; yogabear23@aol.com; mimi.wolf@gmail.com; Eric Muzzy <eric.muzzy@dahlingroup.com>; Ketchum, Stanley <Stanley.Ketchum@CityofPaloAlto.org> Cc: Gerhardt, Jodie <jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org> Subject: Re: Zoom meeting to discuss proposed project at 739 Sutter Ave. Alert: External Email Hi Stan, Item 2 Attachment H - Written Public Comments     Packet Pg. 88     I am available at any time on those dates. Thank you. Grace On Wednesday, January 19, 2022, 09:44:49 AM PST, Ketchum, Stanley <stanley.ketchum@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote: Planning Staff is going to schedule a Zoom meeting to discuss the proposed residential project located at 739 Sutter Ave. The possible dates are Monday 1/31, Tuesday 2/1, or Wednesday 2/2 between 10:00 am and 3:00 pm. Please respond with two or three timeframes that you are available so we can pick a time that works for the most participants. Other individuals are welcome to participate. Thanks, Stan Item 2 Attachment H - Written Public Comments     Packet Pg. 89     From:jue cheng To:Raybould, Claire Cc:R W; Gerhardt, Jodie; Yogabear23; Mj Wolf; lilyzhao68@gmail.com; ni2qun2@gmail.com; karenhlaw@gmail.com; jeff_conrad@msn.com Subject:Re: 739 Sutter Ave project Date:Friday, July 15, 2022 2:17:43 PM Attachments:image009.png image012.png image001.png image003.png image005.jpg image007.png image013.png Bldg2Elevations - concerns fm San Carlos Ct.pdf Hi Claire and Jodie, hope you all had a nice week. We would like to follow up on the previous email. Please kindly let us know if there is any update on the city's response to the formal application. We have been reading the plan and drawings for a while. I am not an architect, just trying to understand what is proposed in the plan and what would greatly impact the neighbors. One of our neighbors spent a lot of time and shared with us the thoughts based on the application. I would like to share a part of the discussions and the drawings here for your reference. The main concern / discussion here is about how a line of trees can better protect the existing neighbors' privacy along the San Carlos Ct. We hope our voice could reach out to the city and could bring this topic up to the discussions. Thank you, Jue Forwarding messages: ----------- Folks, I’ve added front elevations of Building 2 showing trees that are 20 , 30 , and 40 in height, relying mainly on the mature aspect ratio suggested in the Planting Plan on page 32 of the project file. I think what the drawings show is self-explanatory. A few things to keep in mind: The shapes of the tree crowns are pretty arbitrary; I wouldn’t take them too literally. The projection is orthographic, so the perspective is infinity. The actual impression in back yards on the southeast side of San Carlos Ct. would be quite different; shorter trees would probably provide better privacy than I imply. The 12 lattice I’ve shown on top of the fence doesn’t currently exist, despite claims to the contrary—so it would need to be added by the developer to figure in the picture. One thing is pretty obvious: even with a distant perspective, the 30 trees provide pretty good privacy vertically. But the 24 spacing leaves huge gaps until the trees are quite mature. And I think it’s also obvious that the proposed 24 box trees, which I’d guess would be about 10 tall, wouldn’t do much of anything for a long time. As I’ve said, the developer should be able to provide better drawings. But what I’ve provided might at least serve as a basis for discussion. And I think discussion is indicated. On Fri, Jul 8, 2022 at 9:18 PM jue cheng <peanutsjue@gmail.com> wrote: Hi Claire, Just a kind follow up on the current status of 739 Sutter Ave project. Please kindly let us know if there are any updates on the city's response to the formal application. As one of the neighbors who live right next to the site, the deepest concern is the privacy issue. You may have noticed that houses along San Carlos Ct, and next to the west side of the site, are set on rather small lots, less than 5,000 sqft for each. We are all single story bungalows and the backyards are rather tiny as well. Across the fence, it is the 739 Sutter Ave project site. Looking at the current plan, we feel a huge threat to privacy. It looks like the rear 7 units are all 3-story high, and it is only 11 feet between the fence and the 3- story 7 units. Standing in our living room, looking at the backyard, we feel these units would look like just right above the fence. Other than the privacy issue, we are also concerned whether it's safe that all the entrances to the rear 7 units are along the 11-foot easement which is right across the fence of the San Carlos Ct neighbors. Currently we have 4 one-story one-bed-room units there. The traffic and noise are already significant. We don't know how many more traffics it will bring if 7 units. We look forward to hearing more responses from the city. Btw, I haven't received the notice yet and I believe my house should be within the 600 foot radius scope. Please kindly keep me in the loop when sending further updates. Thank you, and hope you have a great weekend. Jue Jue Cheng (746 San Carlos Ct) 312.493.7162 peanutsjue@gmail.com On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 7:56 PM jue cheng <peanutsjue@gmail.com> wrote: Claire, thanks for the detailed information. We really appreciate your further updates once the city starts the review. As neighbors who live close to the site, we are deeply concerned about the waivers and concessions this project asks for at the moment. We hope we could get our voice heard as well before the project moves further. Thank you for your understanding. I have copied a few neighbors who have been following this project for a while. Any updates, please kindly let us know. Item 2 Attachment H - Written Public Comments     Packet Pg. 90     Best regards, Jue (San Carlos Ct) On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 4:37 PM Raybould, Claire <Claire.Raybould@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote: Richard, An application was filed on 6/16. The project is currently under review and the City has 30 days to provide comments on the project. There is no requirement to file within 180 days of the preliminary Architectural review, this is a voluntary review process that is completely separate from the Senate Bill 330 pre-application requirements for streamlining of a housing project. The 180 day time period for the original Senate Bill 330 pre-application they submitted lapsed. They filed a new compliant pre-application. I’ve attached the City’s response to that pre-application. The items for review on the pre- application are limited to select objective requirements as outlined in state code (i.e. if they submit the information, the application is deemed to comply). Following that pre-application, they submitted a formal application for Architectural review on 6/16. The information was made available on our pending project webpage and notices were mailed to all residents within a 600 foot radius of the site last week. I am happy to keep you informed on the project via e-mail as we move forward with the review. We also send notices to a 600 foot radius of the site prior to any future hearing and when a tentative decision is issued. I can ensure that notification goes to any interested parties via e-mail if you would like. I have not yet reviewed the application but will review and respond to the application within 30 days of the submittal. Regards, Claire Claire Raybould, AICP Senior Planner Planning and Development Services Department (650) 329-2116 | Claire.Raybould@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org NEW Parcel Report | Palo Alto Municipal Code | Online Permitting System | Planning Forms & Handouts | Planning Applications Mapped The City of Palo Alto is doing its part to reduce the spread of COVID-19. We have successfully transitioned most of our employees to a remote work environment. We remain available to you via email, phone, and virtual meetings during our normal business hours. From: R W <flyingrichard@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2022 4:20 PM To: Raybould, Claire <Claire.Raybould@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Gerhardt, Jodie <Jodie.Gerhardt@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Ketchum, Stanley <Stanley.Ketchum@CityofPaloAlto.org> Cc: Jue Cheng <peanutsjue@gmail.com>; Yogabear23 <yogabear23@aol.com>; Mj Wolf <mimi.wolf@gmail.com> Subject: Fw: 739 Sutter Ave project Hi, Claire/Jodie, I'd like to inquire about the status of 739 Sutter Ave(22PLN-00201) again, since it has been a while after the zoom meeting and the preliminary architecture review in last November. As to my understanding, application should be submitted within180 days after the ARB public hearing in Nov 18, 2021, is this still an active or valid case? Also, will the city planning send any update to the neighbors and community about this project? thanks Richard Item 2 Attachment H - Written Public Comments     Packet Pg. 91     ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: R W <flyingrichard@yahoo.com> To: Jodie Gerhardt <jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org>; Ketchum, Stanley <stanley.ketchum@cityofpaloalto.org> Cc: Jue Cheng <peanutsjue@gmail.com>; Yogabear23 <yogabear23@aol.com>; Mj Wolf <mimi.wolf@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 1, 2022, 10:41:48 AM PDT Subject: Re: 739 Sutter Ave project Hi, Jodie, Stan, Hope you are having a great weekend. Did the city receive any updated application on this project? I did not find any on the buildingeye website. thanks Richard On Friday, January 28, 2022, 09:01:43 AM PST, Ketchum, Stanley <stanley.ketchum@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote: Attached are the Agenda and the Zoom meeting link for the meeting to discuss the proposed housing project at 739 Sutter Ave. Meeting: Tuesday, February 1, 1:00 pm Zoom meeting link: https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/83303512275 From: R W <flyingrichard@yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2022 9:08 PM To: Ketchum, Stanley <Stanley.Ketchum@CityofPaloAlto.org> Cc: Gerhardt, Jodie <Jodie.Gerhardt@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Eric Muzzy <eric.muzzy@dahlingroup.com>; Grace Li <graceli_1999@yahoo.com>; mimi.wolf@gmail.com; yogabear23@aol.com; Padru Kang <padru.kang@dahlingroup.com>; Darian Rauschendorfer <darian.rauschendorfer@dahlingroup.com>; Kriselle Rodrigues <kriselle.rodrigues@dahlingroup.com>; Karen Law <karenhlaw@gmail.com>; Jue Cheng <peanutsjue@gmail.com>; Lily Zhao <lilyzhao68@gmail.com>; wangf22@hotmail.com; Lait, Jonathan <Jonathan.Lait@CityofPaloAlto.org>; French, Amy <Amy.French@CityofPaloAlto.org> Subject: Re: Zoom meeting to discuss proposed project at 739 Sutter Ave. Hi, Stan, Can you share the zoom link for this meeting as soon as possible? Also, can city publish such meeting notice anywhere appropriate? Neighborhood are anxiously asking about this meeting, and it's just 2 business days ahead. Item 2 Attachment H - Written Public Comments     Packet Pg. 92     Your speedy process is highly appreciated! On Saturday, January 22, 2022, 03:50:30 PM PST, R W <flyingrichard@yahoo.com> wrote: Hi, Stan, thanks for the notice. Can you share the zoom link as soon as possible? I have heard several friends are concerned with the traffic/security and privacy to the neighborhood. They would like to be informed and join the meeting too. It will be great to post the meeting notice publicly on newspaper/website, too. On Friday, January 21, 2022, 08:23:23 AM PST, Ketchum, Stanley <stanley.ketchum@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote: We will schedule the meeting for Tuesday, February 1 at 1:00 pm. A Zoom meeting invite will be sent in advance. Thanks, Stan From: Eric Muzzy <eric.muzzy@dahlingroup.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2022 12:32 PM To: Ketchum, Stanley <Stanley.Ketchum@CityofPaloAlto.org> Cc: Gerhardt, Jodie <Jodie.Gerhardt@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Grace Li <graceli_1999@yahoo.com>; mimi.wolf@gmail.com; yogabear23@aol.com; R W <flyingrichard@yahoo.com>; Padru Kang <padru.kang@dahlingroup.com>; Darian Rauschendorfer <Darian.Rauschendorfer@dahlingroup.com>; Kriselle Rodrigues <Kriselle.Rodrigues@dahlingroup.com> Subject: RE: Zoom meeting to discuss proposed project at 739 Sutter Ave. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi Stan, Jack is not available to attend on Wednesday. Hopefully Monday 1/31: 1-2:30 pm, or Tuesday 2/1: 1-3 pm will work for the rest of the group. Thank you, ERIC MUZZY DAHLIN GROUP ARCHITECTURE | PLANNING www.dahlingroup.com PASSION FOR PLACE ® From: Eric Muzzy Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2022 12:21 PM To: Ketchum, Stanley <Stanley.Ketchum@CityofPaloAlto.org> Cc: Gerhardt, Jodie <jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org>; Grace Li <graceli_1999@yahoo.com>; mimi.wolf@gmail.com; yogabear23@aol.com; R W <flyingrichard@yahoo.com>; Padru Kang <padru.kang@dahlingroup.com>; Darian Rauschendorfer <Darian.Rauschendorfer@dahlingroup.com>; Kriselle Rodrigues <Kriselle.Rodrigues@dahlingroup.com> Subject: RE: Zoom meeting to discuss proposed project at 739 Sutter Ave. Good afternoon Stan, Could you please share a meeting agenda and list of attendees? The following meeting times work for DAHLIN: Monday 1/31: 1-2:30 pm Tuesday 2/1: 1-3 pm Wednesday 2/2: 10am-noon, 1:30 – 2:30 pm Item 2 Attachment H - Written Public Comments     Packet Pg. 93     We are hoping that this meeting will include representatives from Fire and Public Works in addition to Planning, so that the project team has an opportunity to review preapplication comments and potential responses together. Thank you, ERIC MUZZY DAHLIN GROUP ARCHITECTURE | PLANNING www.dahlingroup.com PASSION FOR PLACE ® From: Grace Li <graceli_1999@yahoo.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2022 11:45 AM To: R W <flyingrichard@yahoo.com>; yogabear23@aol.com; mimi.wolf@gmail.com; Eric Muzzy <eric.muzzy@dahlingroup.com>; Ketchum, Stanley <Stanley.Ketchum@CityofPaloAlto.org> Cc: Gerhardt, Jodie <jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org> Subject: Re: Zoom meeting to discuss proposed project at 739 Sutter Ave. Alert: External Email Hi Stan, I am available at any time on those dates. Thank you. Grace On Wednesday, January 19, 2022, 09:44:49 AM PST, Ketchum, Stanley <stanley.ketchum@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote: Planning Staff is going to schedule a Zoom meeting to discuss the proposed residential project located at 739 Sutter Ave. The possible dates are Monday 1/31, Tuesday 2/1, or Wednesday 2/2 between 10:00 am and 3:00 pm. Please respond with two or three timeframes that you are available so we can pick a time that works for the most participants. Other individuals are welcome to participate. Thanks, Stan Item 2 Attachment H - Written Public Comments     Packet Pg. 94     Item 2 Attachment H - Written Public Comments     Packet Pg. 95     Item 2 Attachment H - Written Public Comments     Packet Pg. 96     Item 2 Attachment H - Written Public Comments     Packet Pg. 97     Item 2 Attachment H - Written Public Comments     Packet Pg. 98     From:Raybould, Claire To:jue cheng Cc:R W; Gerhardt, Jodie; Yogabear23; Mj Wolf; lilyzhao68@gmail.com; ni2qun2@gmail.com; karenhlaw@gmail.com; jeff_conrad@msn.com Subject:RE: 739 Sutter Ave project Date:Monday, July 18, 2022 9:12:30 AM Attachments:image001.png image002.png image003.jpg image004.png image005.png image006.png image007.png image012.png image008.png image009.png image010.jpg image011.png image013.png Thank you Jue, I’ve provided comments to the applicant late Friday. Sorry I haven’t had a chance to get the letter out to all of you. I plan to send an e-mail today to all those who have expressed and interest but I’ve been doing inspections this morning and have a few meetings before noon. A few thoughts on your e-mail: 1. The developer is proposing to remove the public utility easement along the rear of the property, which would allow for better privacy screening planting along that rear (some trees shown in their plan). Our utilities engineering and waste-gas-water division have confirmed that there are no active utilities in that easement anymore, so removal would be allowed 2. I think the plantings do warrant discussion, they are required to have privacy screening planting along that rear property line and I had commented on this in my comments as well. As proposed, I think that the trees could provide long-term screening, but agree that in the short-term the proposed plantings provide large gaps. That said, I don’t think the solution is just putting a bunch of additional trees in-between. If you put too many large trees too close together, they are not going to grow properly to serve their intended purpose. So I do think discussion is warranted to discuss the best solution and to understand what the neighbors’ preference would be. I will follow up later today with more details on the status of the project and notice of incompletion letter that was sent Friday. Regards, Claire Claire Raybould, AICP Senior Planner Planning and Development Services Department (650) 329-2116 | Claire.Raybould@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org NEW Parcel Report | Palo Alto Municipal Code | Online Permitting System | Planning Forms & Handouts | Planning Applications Mapped The City of Palo Alto is doing its part to reduce the spread of COVID-19. We have successfully transitioned most of our employees to a remote work environment. We remain available to you via email, phone, and virtual meetings during our normal business hours. From: jue cheng <peanutsjue@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, July 15, 2022 2:17 PM To: Raybould, Claire <Claire.Raybould@CityofPaloAlto.org> Cc: R W <flyingrichard@yahoo.com>; Gerhardt, Jodie <Jodie.Gerhardt@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Yogabear23 <yogabear23@aol.com>; Mj Wolf <mimi.wolf@gmail.com>; lilyzhao68@gmail.com; ni2qun2@gmail.com; karenhlaw@gmail.com; jeff_conrad@msn.com Subject: Re: 739 Sutter Ave project Hi Claire and Jodie, hope you all had a nice week. We would like to follow up on the previous email. Please kindly let us know if there is any update on the city's response to the formal application. We have been reading the plan and drawings for a while. I am not an architect, just trying to understand what is proposed in the plan and what would greatly impact the neighbors. One of our neighbors spent a lot of time and shared with us the thoughts based on the application. I would like to share a part of the discussions and the drawings here for your reference. The main concern / discussion here is about how a line of trees can better protect the existing neighbors' privacy along the San Carlos Ct. We hope our voice could reach out to the city and could bring this topic up to the discussions. Thank you, Jue Forwarding messages: ----------- Folks, I’ve added front elevations of Building 2 showing trees that are 20 , 30 , and 40 in height, relying mainly on the mature aspect ratio suggested in the Planting Plan on page 32 of the project file. I think what the drawings show is self-explanatory. A few things to keep in mind: The shapes of the tree crowns are pretty arbitrary; I wouldn’t take them too literally. The projection is orthographic, so the perspective is infinity. The actual impression in back yards on the southeast side of San Carlos Ct. would be quite different; shorter trees would probably provide better privacy than I imply. Item 2 Attachment H - Written Public Comments     Packet Pg. 99     The 12 lattice I’ve shown on top of the fence doesn’t currently exist, despite claims to the contrary—so it would need to be added by the developer to figure in the picture. One thing is pretty obvious: even with a distant perspective, the 30 trees provide pretty good privacy vertically. But the 24 spacing leaves huge gaps until the trees are quite mature. And I think it’s also obvious that the proposed 24 box trees, which I’d guess would be about 10 tall, wouldn’t do much of anything for a long time. As I’ve said, the developer should be able to provide better drawings. But what I’ve provided might at least serve as a basis for discussion. And I think discussion is indicated. On Fri, Jul 8, 2022 at 9:18 PM jue cheng <peanutsjue@gmail.com> wrote: Hi Claire, Just a kind follow up on the current status of 739 Sutter Ave project. Please kindly let us know if there are any updates on the city's response to the formal application. As one of the neighbors who live right next to the site, the deepest concern is the privacy issue. You may have noticed that houses along San Carlos Ct, and next to the west side of the site, are set on rather small lots, less than 5,000 sqft for each. We are all single story bungalows and the backyards are rather tiny as well. Across the fence, it is the 739 Sutter Ave project site. Looking at the current plan, we feel a huge threat to privacy. It looks like the rear 7 units are all 3-story high, and it is only 11 feet between the fence and the 3-story 7 units. Standing in our living room, looking at the backyard, we feel these units would look like just right above the fence. Other than the privacy issue, we are also concerned whether it's safe that all the entrances to the rear 7 units are along the 11-foot easement which is right across the fence of the San Carlos Ct neighbors. Currently we have 4 one-story one-bed-room units there. The traffic and noise are already significant. We don't know how many more traffics it will bring if 7 units. We look forward to hearing more responses from the city. Btw, I haven't received the notice yet and I believe my house should be within the 600 foot radius scope. Please kindly keep me in the loop when sending further updates. Thank you, and hope you have a great weekend. Jue Jue Cheng (746 San Carlos Ct) 312.493.7162 peanutsjue@gmail.com On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 7:56 PM jue cheng <peanutsjue@gmail.com> wrote: Claire, thanks for the detailed information. We really appreciate your further updates once the city starts the review. As neighbors who live close to the site, we are deeply concerned about the waivers and concessions this project asks for at the moment. We hope we could get our voice heard as well before the project moves further. Thank you for your understanding. I have copied a few neighbors who have been following this project for a while. Any updates, please kindly let us know. Best regards, Jue (San Carlos Ct) On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 4:37 PM Raybould, Claire <Claire.Raybould@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote: Richard, An application was filed on 6/16. The project is currently under review and the City has 30 days to provide comments on the project. There is no requirement to file within 180 days of the preliminary Architectural review, this is a voluntary review process that is completely separate from the Senate Bill 330 pre-application requirements for streamlining of a housing project. The 180 day time period for the original Senate Bill 330 pre-application they submitted lapsed. They filed a new compliant pre-application. I’ve attached the City’s response to that pre-application. The items for review on the pre-application are limited to select objective requirements as outlined in state code (i.e. if they submit the information, the application is deemed to comply). Following that pre-application, they submitted a formal application for Architectural review on 6/16. The information was made available on our pending project webpage and notices were mailed to all residents within a 600 foot radius of the site last week. I am happy to keep you informed on the project via e-mail as we move forward with the review. We also send notices to a 600 foot radius of the site prior to any future hearing and when a tentative decision is issued. I can ensure that notification goes to any interested parties via e-mail if you would like. I have not yet reviewed the application but will review and respond to the application within 30 days of the submittal. Regards, Claire Claire Raybould, AICP Senior Planner Planning and Development Services Department (650) 329-2116 | Claire.Raybould@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org Item 2 Attachment H - Written Public Comments     Packet Pg. 100     NEW Parcel Report | Palo Alto Municipal Code | Online Permitting System | Planning Forms & Handouts | Planning Applications Mapped The City of Palo Alto is doing its part to reduce the spread of COVID-19. We have successfully transitioned most of our employees to a remote work environment. We remain available to you via email, phone, and virtual meetings during our normal business hours. From: R W <flyingrichard@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2022 4:20 PM To: Raybould, Claire <Claire.Raybould@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Gerhardt, Jodie <Jodie.Gerhardt@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Ketchum, Stanley <Stanley.Ketchum@CityofPaloAlto.org> Cc: Jue Cheng <peanutsjue@gmail.com>; Yogabear23 <yogabear23@aol.com>; Mj Wolf <mimi.wolf@gmail.com> Subject: Fw: 739 Sutter Ave project Hi, Claire/Jodie, I'd like to inquire about the status of 739 Sutter Ave(22PLN-00201) again, since it has been a while after the zoom meeting and the preliminary architecture review in last November. As to my understanding, application should be submitted within180 days after the ARB public hearing in Nov 18, 2021, is this still an active or valid case? Also, will the city planning send any update to the neighbors and community about this project? thanks Richard ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: R W <flyingrichard@yahoo.com> To: Jodie Gerhardt <jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org>; Ketchum, Stanley <stanley.ketchum@cityofpaloalto.org> Cc: Jue Cheng <peanutsjue@gmail.com>; Yogabear23 <yogabear23@aol.com>; Mj Wolf <mimi.wolf@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 1, 2022, 10:41:48 AM PDT Subject: Re: 739 Sutter Ave project Hi, Jodie, Stan, Hope you are having a great weekend. Did the city receive any updated application on this project? I did not find any on the buildingeye website. thanks Richard On Friday, January 28, 2022, 09:01:43 AM PST, Ketchum, Stanley <stanley.ketchum@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote: Attached are the Agenda and the Zoom meeting link for the meeting to discuss the proposed housing project at 739 Sutter Ave. Meeting: Tuesday, February 1, 1:00 pm Zoom meeting link: https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/83303512275 From: R W <flyingrichard@yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2022 9:08 PM To: Ketchum, Stanley <Stanley.Ketchum@CityofPaloAlto.org> Cc: Gerhardt, Jodie <Jodie.Gerhardt@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Eric Muzzy <eric.muzzy@dahlingroup.com>; Grace Li <graceli_1999@yahoo.com>; mimi.wolf@gmail.com; yogabear23@aol.com; Padru Kang <padru.kang@dahlingroup.com>; Darian Rauschendorfer <darian.rauschendorfer@dahlingroup.com>; Kriselle Rodrigues <kriselle.rodrigues@dahlingroup.com>; Karen Law <karenhlaw@gmail.com>; Jue Cheng <peanutsjue@gmail.com>; Lily Zhao <lilyzhao68@gmail.com>; wangf22@hotmail.com; Lait, Jonathan <Jonathan.Lait@CityofPaloAlto.org>; French, Amy <Amy.French@CityofPaloAlto.org> Subject: Re: Zoom meeting to discuss proposed project at 739 Sutter Ave. Hi, Stan, Can you share the zoom link for this meeting as soon as possible? Also, can city publish such meeting notice anywhere appropriate? Neighborhood are anxiously asking about this meeting, and it's just 2 business days ahead. Your speedy process is highly appreciated! Item 2 Attachment H - Written Public Comments     Packet Pg. 101     On Saturday, January 22, 2022, 03:50:30 PM PST, R W <flyingrichard@yahoo.com> wrote: Hi, Stan, thanks for the notice. Can you share the zoom link as soon as possible? I have heard several friends are concerned with the traffic/security and privacy to the neighborhood. They would like to be informed and join the meeting too. It will be great to post the meeting notice publicly on newspaper/website, too. On Friday, January 21, 2022, 08:23:23 AM PST, Ketchum, Stanley <stanley.ketchum@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote: We will schedule the meeting for Tuesday, February 1 at 1:00 pm. A Zoom meeting invite will be sent in advance. Thanks, Stan From: Eric Muzzy <eric.muzzy@dahlingroup.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2022 12:32 PM To: Ketchum, Stanley <Stanley.Ketchum@CityofPaloAlto.org> Cc: Gerhardt, Jodie <Jodie.Gerhardt@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Grace Li <graceli_1999@yahoo.com>; mimi.wolf@gmail.com; yogabear23@aol.com; R W <flyingrichard@yahoo.com>; Padru Kang <padru.kang@dahlingroup.com>; Darian Rauschendorfer <Darian.Rauschendorfer@dahlingroup.com>; Kriselle Rodrigues <Kriselle.Rodrigues@dahlingroup.com> Subject: RE: Zoom meeting to discuss proposed project at 739 Sutter Ave. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi Stan, Jack is not available to attend on Wednesday. Hopefully Monday 1/31: 1-2:30 pm, or Tuesday 2/1: 1-3 pm will work for the rest of the group. Thank you, ERIC MUZZY DAHLIN GROUP ARCHITECTURE | PLANNING www.dahlingroup.com PASSION FOR PLACE ® From: Eric Muzzy Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2022 12:21 PM To: Ketchum, Stanley <Stanley.Ketchum@CityofPaloAlto.org> Cc: Gerhardt, Jodie <jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org>; Grace Li <graceli_1999@yahoo.com>; mimi.wolf@gmail.com; yogabear23@aol.com; R W <flyingrichard@yahoo.com>; Padru Kang <padru.kang@dahlingroup.com>; Darian Rauschendorfer <Darian.Rauschendorfer@dahlingroup.com>; Kriselle Rodrigues <Kriselle.Rodrigues@dahlingroup.com> Subject: RE: Zoom meeting to discuss proposed project at 739 Sutter Ave. Good afternoon Stan, Could you please share a meeting agenda and list of attendees? The following meeting times work for DAHLIN: Monday 1/31: 1-2:30 pm Tuesday 2/1: 1-3 pm Wednesday 2/2: 10am-noon, 1:30 – 2:30 pm We are hoping that this meeting will include representatives from Fire and Public Works in addition to Planning, so that the project team has an opportunity to review preapplication comments and potential responses together. Item 2 Attachment H - Written Public Comments     Packet Pg. 102     Thank you, ERIC MUZZY DAHLIN GROUP ARCHITECTURE | PLANNING www.dahlingroup.com PASSION FOR PLACE ® From: Grace Li <graceli_1999@yahoo.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2022 11:45 AM To: R W <flyingrichard@yahoo.com>; yogabear23@aol.com; mimi.wolf@gmail.com; Eric Muzzy <eric.muzzy@dahlingroup.com>; Ketchum, Stanley <Stanley.Ketchum@CityofPaloAlto.org> Cc: Gerhardt, Jodie <jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org> Subject: Re: Zoom meeting to discuss proposed project at 739 Sutter Ave. Alert: External Email Hi Stan, I am available at any time on those dates. Thank you. Grace On Wednesday, January 19, 2022, 09:44:49 AM PST, Ketchum, Stanley <stanley.ketchum@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote: Planning Staff is going to schedule a Zoom meeting to discuss the proposed residential project located at 739 Sutter Ave. The possible dates are Monday 1/31, Tuesday 2/1, or Wednesday 2/2 between 10:00 am and 3:00 pm. Please respond with two or three timeframes that you are available so we can pick a time that works for the most participants. Other individuals are welcome to participate. Thanks, Stan Item 2 Attachment H - Written Public Comments     Packet Pg. 103     From:Sam Gersten To:Raybould, Claire Subject:Re: 739 Sutter Avenue Date:Wednesday, July 20, 2022 6:03:51 PM Attachments:image009.png image012.png image002.png image004.png image006.jpg image008.png image011.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Thanks for forwarding - hoping this project can be quickly approved after these comments are addressed! On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 4:18 PM Raybould, Claire <Claire.Raybould@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote: Good afternoon all, I’m sending this e-mail because you have expressed an interest in the proposed project at 739 Sutter Avenue. Attached are the City’s comments sent to the applicant (attaching e-mail and in the e-mail are planning and other department comments). Please let me know if you have questions. Regards, Claire Claire Raybould, AICP Senior Planner Planning and Development Services Department (650) 329-2116 | Claire.Raybould@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org NEW Parcel Report | Palo Alto Municipal Code | Online Permitting System | Planning Forms & Handouts | Planning Applications Mapped The City of Palo Alto is doing its part to reduce the spread of COVID-19. We have successfully transitioned most of our employees to a remote work environment. We remain available to you via email, phone, and virtual meetings during our normal business hours. -- Sam Gersten sam.gersten@gmail.com | 718-570-7661 Item 2 Attachment H - Written Public Comments     Packet Pg. 104     From:Yogabear23 To:jue cheng; Raybould, Claire; Dave Samuels; Laurie Berger; R. W.; Lily Zhao; Mj Wolf; Wang Feng Subject:Re: 739 Sutter Ave project Date:Saturday, July 9, 2022 10:39:15 AM Attachments:image009.png image012.png image001.png image003.png image005.jpg image007.png image013.png I am committed to utilizing solar panels and want full access to available sunlight , unobstructed by oversized neighborhood development. We all have a duty to fight climate change for ourselves and our children. Respectfully Carolyn Garbarino Sent from the all new AOL app for iOS On Friday, July 8, 2022, 9:19 PM, jue cheng <peanutsjue@gmail.com> wrote: Hi Claire, Just a kind follow up on the current status of 739 Sutter Ave project. Please kindly let us know if there are any updates on the city's response to the formal application. As one of the neighbors who live right next to the site, the deepest concern is the privacy issue. You may have noticed that houses along San Carlos Ct, and next to the west side of the site, are set on rather small lots, less than 5,000 sqft for each. We are all single story bungalows and the backyards are rather tiny as well. Across the fence, it is the 739 Sutter Ave project site. Looking at the current plan, we feel a huge threat to privacy. It looks like the rear 7 units are all 3-story high, and it is only 11 feet between the fence and the 3-story 7 units. Standing in our living room, looking at the backyard, we feel these units would look like just right above the fence. Other than the privacy issue, we are also concerned whether it's safe that all the entrances to the rear 7 units are along the 11-foot easement which is right across the fence of the San Carlos Ct neighbors. Currently we have 4 one-story one-bed-room units there. The traffic and noise are already significant. We don't know how many more traffics it will bring if 7 units. We look forward to hearing more responses from the city. Btw, I haven't received the notice yet and I believe my house should be within the 600 foot radius scope. Please kindly keep me in the loop when sending further updates. Thank you, and hope you have a great weekend. Jue Jue Cheng (746 San Carlos Ct) 312.493.7162 peanutsjue@gmail.com On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 7:56 PM jue cheng <peanutsjue@gmail.com> wrote: Claire, thanks for the detailed information. We really appreciate your further updates once the city starts the review. As neighbors who live close to the site, we are deeply concerned about the waivers and concessions this project asks for at the moment. We hope we could get our voice heard as well before the project moves further. Thank you for your understanding. I have copied a few neighbors who have been following this project for a while. Any updates, please kindly let us know. Best regards, Jue (San Carlos Ct) On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 4:37 PM Raybould, Claire <Claire.Raybould@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote: Richard, An application was filed on 6/16. The project is currently under review and the City has 30 days to provide comments on the project. There is no requirement to file within 180 days of the preliminary Architectural review, this is a voluntary review process that is completely separate from the Senate Bill 330 pre-application requirements for streamlining of a housing project. The 180 day time period for the original Senate Bill 330 pre- application they submitted lapsed. They filed a new compliant pre-application. I’ve attached the City’s response to that pre-application. The items for review on the pre-application are limited to select objective requirements as outlined in state code (i.e. if they submit the information, the application is deemed to comply). Following that pre-application, they submitted a formal application for Architectural review on 6/16. The information was made available on our pending project webpage and notices were mailed to all residents within a 600 foot radius of the site last week. I am happy to keep you informed on the project via e-mail as we move forward with the review. We also send notices to a 600 foot radius of the site prior to any future hearing and when a tentative decision is issued. I can ensure that notification goes to any interested parties via e-mail if you would like. I have not yet reviewed the application but will review and respond to the application within 30 days of the submittal. Regards, Claire Item 2 Attachment H - Written Public Comments     Packet Pg. 105     Claire Raybould, AICP Senior Planner Planning and Development Services Department (650) 329-2116 | Claire.Raybould@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org NEW Parcel Report | Palo Alto Municipal Code | Online Permitting System | Planning Forms & Handouts | Planning Applications Mapped The City of Palo Alto is doing its part to reduce the spread of COVID-19. We have successfully transitioned most of our employees to a remote work environment. We remain available to you via email, phone, and virtual meetings during our normal business hours. From: R W <flyingrichard@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2022 4:20 PM To: Raybould, Claire <Claire.Raybould@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Gerhardt, Jodie <Jodie.Gerhardt@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Ketchum, Stanley <Stanley.Ketchum@CityofPaloAlto.org> Cc: Jue Cheng <peanutsjue@gmail.com>; Yogabear23 <yogabear23@aol.com>; Mj Wolf <mimi.wolf@gmail.com> Subject: Fw: 739 Sutter Ave project Hi, Claire/Jodie, I'd like to inquire about the status of 739 Sutter Ave(22PLN-00201) again, since it has been a while after the zoom meeting and the preliminary architecture review in last November. As to my understanding, application should be submitted within180 days after the ARB public hearing in Nov 18, 2021, is this still an active or valid case? Also, will the city planning send any update to the neighbors and community about this project? thanks Richard ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: R W <flyingrichard@yahoo.com> To: Jodie Gerhardt <jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org>; Ketchum, Stanley <stanley.ketchum@cityofpaloalto.org> Cc: Jue Cheng <peanutsjue@gmail.com>; Yogabear23 <yogabear23@aol.com>; Mj Wolf <mimi.wolf@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 1, 2022, 10:41:48 AM PDT Subject: Re: 739 Sutter Ave project Hi, Jodie, Stan, Hope you are having a great weekend. Did the city receive any updated application on this project? I did not find any on the buildingeye website. thanks Item 2 Attachment H - Written Public Comments     Packet Pg. 106     Richard On Friday, January 28, 2022, 09:01:43 AM PST, Ketchum, Stanley <stanley.ketchum@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote: Attached are the Agenda and the Zoom meeting link for the meeting to discuss the proposed housing project at 739 Sutter Ave. Meeting: Tuesday, February 1, 1:00 pm Zoom meeting link: https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/83303512275 From: R W <flyingrichard@yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2022 9:08 PM To: Ketchum, Stanley <Stanley.Ketchum@CityofPaloAlto.org> Cc: Gerhardt, Jodie <Jodie.Gerhardt@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Eric Muzzy <eric.muzzy@dahlingroup.com>; Grace Li <graceli_1999@yahoo.com>; mimi.wolf@gmail.com; yogabear23@aol.com; Padru Kang <padru.kang@dahlingroup.com>; Darian Rauschendorfer <darian.rauschendorfer@dahlingroup.com>; Kriselle Rodrigues <kriselle.rodrigues@dahlingroup.com>; Karen Law <karenhlaw@gmail.com>; Jue Cheng <peanutsjue@gmail.com>; Lily Zhao <lilyzhao68@gmail.com>; wangf22@hotmail.com; Lait, Jonathan <Jonathan.Lait@CityofPaloAlto.org>; French, Amy <Amy.French@CityofPaloAlto.org> Subject: Re: Zoom meeting to discuss proposed project at 739 Sutter Ave. Hi, Stan, Can you share the zoom link for this meeting as soon as possible? Also, can city publish such meeting notice anywhere appropriate? Neighborhood are anxiously asking about this meeting, and it's just 2 business days ahead. Your speedy process is highly appreciated! On Saturday, January 22, 2022, 03:50:30 PM PST, R W <flyingrichard@yahoo.com> wrote: Hi, Stan, thanks for the notice. Can you share the zoom link as soon as possible? I have heard several friends are concerned with the traffic/security and privacy to the neighborhood. They would like to be informed and join the meeting too. It will be great to post the meeting notice publicly on newspaper/website, too. On Friday, January 21, 2022, 08:23:23 AM PST, Ketchum, Stanley <stanley.ketchum@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote: We will schedule the meeting for Tuesday, February 1 at 1:00 pm. A Zoom meeting invite will be sent in advance. Thanks, Stan From: Eric Muzzy <eric.muzzy@dahlingroup.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2022 12:32 PM To: Ketchum, Stanley <Stanley.Ketchum@CityofPaloAlto.org> Cc: Gerhardt, Jodie <Jodie.Gerhardt@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Grace Li <graceli_1999@yahoo.com>; mimi.wolf@gmail.com; yogabear23@aol.com; R W <flyingrichard@yahoo.com>; Padru Kang <padru.kang@dahlingroup.com>; Darian Rauschendorfer <Darian.Rauschendorfer@dahlingroup.com>; Kriselle Rodrigues Item 2 Attachment H - Written Public Comments     Packet Pg. 107     <Kriselle.Rodrigues@dahlingroup.com> Subject: RE: Zoom meeting to discuss proposed project at 739 Sutter Ave. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi Stan, Jack is not available to attend on Wednesday. Hopefully Monday 1/31: 1-2:30 pm, or Tuesday 2/1: 1-3 pm will work for the rest of the group. Thank you, ERIC MUZZY DAHLIN GROUP ARCHITECTURE | PLANNING www.dahlingroup.com PASSION FOR PLACE ® From: Eric Muzzy Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2022 12:21 PM To: Ketchum, Stanley <Stanley.Ketchum@CityofPaloAlto.org> Cc: Gerhardt, Jodie <jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org>; Grace Li <graceli_1999@yahoo.com>; mimi.wolf@gmail.com; yogabear23@aol.com; R W <flyingrichard@yahoo.com>; Padru Kang <padru.kang@dahlingroup.com>; Darian Rauschendorfer <Darian.Rauschendorfer@dahlingroup.com>; Kriselle Rodrigues <Kriselle.Rodrigues@dahlingroup.com> Subject: RE: Zoom meeting to discuss proposed project at 739 Sutter Ave. Good afternoon Stan, Could you please share a meeting agenda and list of attendees? The following meeting times work for DAHLIN: Monday 1/31: 1-2:30 pm Tuesday 2/1: 1-3 pm Wednesday 2/2: 10am-noon, 1:30 – 2:30 pm We are hoping that this meeting will include representatives from Fire and Public Works in addition to Planning, so that the project team has an opportunity to review preapplication comments and potential responses together. Thank you, ERIC MUZZY DAHLIN GROUP ARCHITECTURE | PLANNING www.dahlingroup.com PASSION FOR PLACE ® From: Grace Li <graceli_1999@yahoo.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2022 11:45 AM To: R W <flyingrichard@yahoo.com>; yogabear23@aol.com; mimi.wolf@gmail.com; Eric Muzzy <eric.muzzy@dahlingroup.com>; Ketchum, Stanley <Stanley.Ketchum@CityofPaloAlto.org> Cc: Gerhardt, Jodie <jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org> Subject: Re: Zoom meeting to discuss proposed project at 739 Sutter Ave. Alert: External Email Hi Stan, I am available at any time on those dates. Thank you. Item 2 Attachment H - Written Public Comments     Packet Pg. 108     From:Jeff Conrad To:Raybould, Claire Subject:RE: 739 Sutter Avenue Date:Monday, July 18, 2022 5:43:37 PM Attachments:image001.png image002.png image003.jpg image004.png image005.png image006.png image007.png image008.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Claire, Thanks so much for sending this. You folks seem to have done a pretty thorough job and have caught most of the major issues that the San Carlos Ct. residents and I have raised. For what it may be worth: I have a newer and cleaner version of the illustrations that Jue Cheng sent you on July 15; I’d be happy to send it to you if you wish. Although I think the reviewers are aware of the privacy issue, a picture is sometimes worth a thousand words. Jeff Conrad From: Raybould, Claire <Claire.Raybould@CityofPaloAlto.org> Sent: Monday, July 18, 2022 4:17 PM To: Raybould, Claire <Claire.Raybould@CityofPaloAlto.org> Subject: 739 Sutter Avenue Good afternoon all, I’m sending this e-mail because you have expressed an interest in the proposed project at 739 Sutter Avenue. Attached are the City’s comments sent to the applicant (attaching e-mail and in the e-mail are planning and other department comments). Please let me know if you have questions. Regards, Claire Claire Raybould, AICP Senior Planner Planning and Development Services Department (650) 329-2116 | Claire.Raybould@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org NEW Parcel Report | Palo Alto Municipal Code | Online Permitting System | Planning Forms & Handouts | Planning Applications Mapped The City of Palo Alto is doing its part to reduce the spread of COVID-19. We have successfully transitioned most of our employees to a remote work environment. We remain available to you via email, phone, and virtual meetings during our normal business hours. Item 2 Attachment H - Written Public Comments     Packet Pg. 109     From:Raybould, Claire To:Laurie Berger Cc:Edward Kraus Subject:RE: Palo Alto Project 21PLN-00222- 739 Sutter Date:Friday, June 24, 2022 8:16:18 AM Attachments:image001.jpg image002.png image003.png image004.jpg image005.png image006.png image007.png image009.png image010.png image008.png image011.png image019.jpg image020.png image021.png image022.png image023.png Hello Laurie, it looks like the project came in on 6/16 and was routed out for departments to review. I have not yet reviewed the application; we have a 30 day window to review and provide comments. Application # is 22PLN-00201. Here is a link to the project webpage. Regards, Claire Claire Raybould, AICP Senior Planner Planning and Development Services Department (650) 329-2116 | Claire.Raybould@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org NEW Parcel Report | Palo Alto Municipal Code | Online Permitting System | Planning Forms & Handouts | Planning Applications Mapped The City of Palo Alto is doing its part to reduce the spread of COVID-19. We have successfully transitioned most of our employees to a remote work environment. We remain available to you via email, phone, and virtual meetings during our normal business hours. From: Laurie Berger <lb@svlg.com> Sent: Monday, June 20, 2022 11:20 AM To: Raybould, Claire <Claire.Raybould@CityofPaloAlto.org> Cc: Edward Kraus <eak@svlg.com> Subject: RE: Palo Alto Project 21PLN-00222- 739 Sutter Hi Claire, I am following up to see if the formal application is on file. Please let me know the status. Thank you. Laurie Laurie Berger Silicon Valley Law Group 1 North Market St., Suite 200 San Jose, CA 95113 (408) 573-5700 Fax: (408) 573-5701 lb@svlg.com www.svlg.com The information contained in this email message is confidential, for the sole use of the intended recipient(s), and may be subject to the attorney-client or work product privileges. If you are not the intended recipient or the person named above as the recipient, any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you received this email transmission in error, please immediately notify the sender at "lb@svlg.com" and delete this message from your system. The foregoing name, telephone number, facsimile number and e-mail information is provided to the recipient for informational purposes only and is not intended to be the signature of the sender for purposes of binding the sender or Silicon Valley Law Group, or any client of the sender or the firm, to any contract or agreement under the Uniform Electronic Transaction Act or any similar law. From: Laurie Berger Sent: Tuesday, June 7, 2022 11:35 AM To: Raybould, Claire <Claire.Raybould@CityofPaloAlto.org> Subject: RE: Palo Alto Project 21PLN-00222- 739 Sutter Great – thank you for letting me know. Laurie Berger Item 2 Attachment H - Written Public Comments     Packet Pg. 110     Silicon Valley Law Group 1 North Market St., Suite 200 San Jose, CA 95113 (408) 573-5700 Fax: (408) 573-5701 lb@svlg.com www.svlg.com The information contained in this email message is confidential, for the sole use of the intended recipient(s), and may be subject to the attorney-client or work product privileges. If you are not the intended recipient or the person named above as the recipient, any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you received this email transmission in error, please immediately notify the sender at "lb@svlg.com" and delete this message from your system. The foregoing name, telephone number, facsimile number and e-mail information is provided to the recipient for informational purposes only and is not intended to be the signature of the sender for purposes of binding the sender or Silicon Valley Law Group, or any client of the sender or the firm, to any contract or agreement under the Uniform Electronic Transaction Act or any similar law. From: Raybould, Claire <Claire.Raybould@CityofPaloAlto.org> Sent: Tuesday, June 7, 2022 11:27 AM To: Laurie Berger <lb@svlg.com> Subject: RE: Palo Alto Project 21PLN-00222- 739 Sutter This was the website for the application they filed for a preliminary review in front of the ARB. Again, no formal application has been filed yet. Once the project is formally filed (scheduled to occur on 6/16) we will put a new webpage up within a couple of days of the filing that provides a summary of the project and links to the initial plans they submit. The plans and other information on the application will also be available immediately through building eye once the application is formally filed. Claire From: Laurie Berger <lb@svlg.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 7, 2022 10:49 AM To: Raybould, Claire <Claire.Raybould@CityofPaloAlto.org> Subject: RE: Palo Alto Project 21PLN-00222- 739 Sutter Claire, Is this link https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/News-Articles/Planning-and-Development-Services/739-Sutter-Avenue the correct link for information about the project? If there is another place with information, please let me know. Thank you. Laurie Laurie Berger Silicon Valley Law Group 1 North Market St., Suite 200 San Jose, CA 95113 (408) 573-5700 Fax: (408) 573-5701 lb@svlg.com www.svlg.com The information contained in this email message is confidential, for the sole use of the intended recipient(s), and may be subject to the attorney-client or work product privileges. If you are not the intended recipient or the person named above as the recipient, any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you received this email transmission in error, please immediately notify the sender at "lb@svlg.com" and delete this message from your system. The foregoing name, telephone number, facsimile number and e-mail information is provided to the recipient for informational purposes only and is not intended to be the signature of the sender for purposes of binding the sender or Silicon Valley Law Group, or any client of the sender or the firm, to any contract or agreement under the Uniform Electronic Transaction Act or any similar law. From: Laurie Berger Sent: Tuesday, June 7, 2022 10:20 AM To: Raybould, Claire <Claire.Raybould@CityofPaloAlto.org> Cc: Edward Kraus <eak@svlg.com> Subject: RE: Palo Alto Project 21PLN-00222- 739 Sutter Hi Claire, Thank you for the update. Best regards, Laurie Laurie Berger Silicon Valley Law Group 1 North Market St., Suite 200 San Jose, CA 95113 (408) 573-5700 Fax: (408) 573-5701 lb@svlg.com Item 2 Attachment H - Written Public Comments     Packet Pg. 111     You don't often get email from lb@svlg.com. Learn why this is important www.svlg.com The information contained in this email message is confidential, for the sole use of the intended recipient(s), and may be subject to the attorney-client or work product privileges. If you are not the intended recipient or the person named above as the recipient, any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you received this email transmission in error, please immediately notify the sender at "lb@svlg.com" and delete this message from your system. The foregoing name, telephone number, facsimile number and e-mail information is provided to the recipient for informational purposes only and is not intended to be the signature of the sender for purposes of binding the sender or Silicon Valley Law Group, or any client of the sender or the firm, to any contract or agreement under the Uniform Electronic Transaction Act or any similar law. From: Raybould, Claire <Claire.Raybould@CityofPaloAlto.org> Sent: Monday, June 6, 2022 12:31 PM To: Laurie Berger <lb@svlg.com> Cc: Edward Kraus <eak@svlg.com> Subject: RE: Palo Alto Project 21PLN-00222- 739 Sutter Hi Laurie, FYI I asked our admin and it sounds like 739 Sutter is currently scheduled for intake on 6/16. We will assess fees on that date; the day they pay the fees is the date we consider the project to be formally on file and route it for review. Once the formal application is on file we would send out a notice to a 600 ft radius to let them know it has been filed and to provide a contact for sending comments. The City provides a Notice of Incompletion or a Request for Supplemental Information within 30 days of filing. Notice of incompletion=there are items not provided that are required per the submittal checklist in order to evaluate the project’s compliance with the code Request for supplemental information=they provided all of the items to be deemed complete but revisions are needed for consistency with our code or other information is needed to evaluate consistency with other regulations (e.g. SB 330 requirements or CEQA requirements). Regards, Claire Claire Raybould, AICP Senior Planner Planning and Development Services Department (650) 329-2116 | Claire.Raybould@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org NEW Parcel Report | Palo Alto Municipal Code | Online Permitting System | Planning Forms & Handouts | Planning Applications Mapped The City of Palo Alto is doing its part to reduce the spread of COVID-19. We have successfully transitioned most of our employees to a remote work environment. We remain available to you via email, phone, and virtual meetings during our normal business hours. From: Laurie Berger <lb@svlg.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2022 3:26 PM To: Raybould, Claire <Claire.Raybould@CityofPaloAlto.org> Cc: Edward Kraus <eak@svlg.com> Subject: RE: Palo Alto Project 21PLN-00222- 739 Sutter Hi Claire, Thank you very much for the quick response and for the summary. It would be great if you could let me know when the appointment is scheduled as we want to track the status. I think you have answered all of my questions, but I will be in touch if we have anything further. Best regards, Laurie Laurie Berger Silicon Valley Law Group 1 North Market St., Suite 200 San Jose, CA 95113 (408) 573-5700 Fax: (408) 573-5701 lb@svlg.com www.svlg.com The information contained in this email message is confidential, for the sole use of the intended recipient(s), and may be subject to the attorney-client or work product privileges. If you are not the intended recipient or the person named above as the recipient, any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you received this email transmission in error, please immediately notify the sender at "lb@svlg.com" and delete this message from your system. The foregoing name, telephone number, facsimile number and e-mail information is provided to the recipient for informational purposes only and is not intended to be the signature of the sender for purposes of binding the sender or Silicon Valley Law Group, or any client of the sender or the firm, to any contract or agreement under the Uniform Electronic Transaction Act or any similar law. Item 2 Attachment H - Written Public Comments     Packet Pg. 112     From: Raybould, Claire <Claire.Raybould@CityofPaloAlto.org> Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2022 2:54 PM To: Laurie Berger <lb@svlg.com> Cc: Edward Kraus <eak@svlg.com> Subject: RE: Palo Alto Project 21PLN-00222- 739 Sutter Good afternoon Laurie, Here’s a quick summary on the status of the project: 1. Applicant applied for preliminary architectural review 8/5/21. This is not a formal application and no decision is issued in accordance with these types of applications. It’s an application to allow for a study session in front of the ARB in order to obtain architectural related feedback on the project. This is what the study session on 11/18 was. 2. Applicant filed an SB 330 pre-application on 10/5/21. We responded within 30 days (10/29) and indicated the application was not compliant with the requirements set forth in SB 330 (see attached). They provided additional information on 11/4/21 via e-mail and the application was deemed compliant as of that date. HOWEVER, the applicant did not then file a formal application within 180 days. Therefore the City required that the applicant file an SB 330 pre-application again if they wanted the City to process the project in accordance with SB 330. 3. Applicant refiled their SB 330 pre-application 5/12 (they submitted on 5/5 but didn’t pay the fees until 5/12) and City deemed that compliant on 5/13 (letter attached). 180 day period begins starting from the date the compliant pre-app is submitted, so they have 180 days to submit. 4. I just went into the system after you sent this to see if they have filed yet and it looks like they uploaded plans to our system this afternoon. Due to the volume of planning applications we receive, we require that applicants put their plans into the system and then schedule an intake appointment where we assess the fees; only once fees are paid do we consider plans to be formally submitted. The applicant has not scheduled their intake appointment yet and our appointments are usually a few weeks out, so the plans will not be considered formally submitted, and therefore would not be reviewed, until that appointment occurs. Once the appointment is set I’m happy to let you know. I’m not aware of anything that went to Council on January 3rd related to this project, so I assume that any discussion that occurred related to this project at Council was public comment from neighbors. At this time, because there is no application on file I’m not sure there is anything further for us to discuss. But I’m happy to answer any questions you have or discuss further with you once there is an application on file. Regards, Claire Claire Raybould, AICP Senior Planner Planning and Development Services Department (650) 329-2116 | Claire.Raybould@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org NEW Parcel Report | Palo Alto Municipal Code | Online Permitting System | Planning Forms & Handouts | Planning Applications Mapped The City of Palo Alto is doing its part to reduce the spread of COVID-19. We have successfully transitioned most of our employees to a remote work environment. We remain available to you via email, phone, and virtual meetings during our normal business hours. From: Stan Ketchum <sketchum@m-group.us> Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2022 2:22 PM To: Laurie Berger <lb@svlg.com> Cc: Edward Kraus <eak@svlg.com>; Raybould, Claire <Claire.Raybould@CityofPaloAlto.org> Subject: RE: Palo Alto Project 21PLN-00222- 739 Sutter CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi, Laurie. I no longer work for Palo Alto. I am copying Claire Reybold who is the Project Manager for the project in the Palo Alto Planning Division. Stan From: Laurie Berger <lb@svlg.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2022 1:58 PM To: Stan Ketchum <sketchum@m-group.us> Cc: Edward Kraus <eak@svlg.com> Subject: Palo Alto Project 21PLN-00222- 739 Sutter [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you know the content is safe. Be aware that the sending address can be faked or manipulated. Dear Mr. Ketchum, Our firm represents several homeowners who live near the proposed 739 Sutter 12-unit residential development. I would like to get an update on the status of this project. From the website, I see the project plans and a public hearing date from November 18, 2021, and it is my understanding the project was discussed at the City Council meeting on January 3, 2022. Please provide me with an update at your earliest convenience. It would be helpful if we could set up a time to discuss. I can be reached at (408) 573-5700. Item 2 Attachment H - Written Public Comments     Packet Pg. 113     You don't often get email from jeff_conrad@msn.com. Learn why this is important From:Jeff Conrad To:Raybould, Claire Subject:RE: 739 Sutter Project Date:Thursday, July 7, 2022 5:26:10 PM Attachments:image001.png image002.png image004.png image005.png image006.png image007.png image008.png image009.png Claire, Was anyone able to confirm my issue with the landscape drawings (pp. 30–33 of the file)? I sent messages to Dahlin and ANYI (the landscape architect) but haven’t heard back; suffice it to say that I am unimpressed by their sense of professionalism. As I understand it, Dahlin are a highly regarded firm, and submitting stuff like this makes them look bad. I think there’s a good chance the problem lies with the PDF-generating code of the project-management software; if that’s indeed the case, these folks should pass that along to the software supplier. Though I think full caps are stupid for almost anything because they’re hard to read—witness the original stay-home order from the county health officer in March 2020–that wasn’t the basis for my complaint. I learned drafting using a drawing board, and full caps were just the way it was done. I haven’t done it that way for decades because I want my notes to be read and understood. The issue is that the notes don’t display, period. The landscape plans for this project—especially the trees proposed for the front of Building 2—are essential to address privacy concerns, so it’s important to have easily readable drawings. Although the drawings can be read with a web browser, only a masochist would choose a browser over Acrobat. I realize that these are only preliminary plans, but they provide the only basis for public comment. Jeff Conrad 723 Sutter From: Raybould, Claire <Claire.Raybould@CityofPaloAlto.org> Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2022 9:51 PM To: jeff_conrad@msn.com Subject: RE: 739 Sutter Project Jeff, We do not review and provide comments on a plan set prior to submittal. We can’t review until plans are submitted and the fees are paid. These were the initial submittal plan sets. The City reviews and provides comments on the plans within the 30 day review period. Certainly if the information in the plans is illegible it would need to be fixed prior to moving forward to a hearing. The full caps for general notes on a plan set is fairly standard. As I’m reviewing the plans that we posted though I’m not seeing the issue you note. Are you using google chrome? Our Palo Alto website does not mesh well with other browser options and sometimes causes weird glitches like this so it’s possible that that’s the issue. Regards, Claire Claire Raybould, AICP Senior Planner Planning and Development Services Department (650) 329-2116 | Claire.Raybould@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org NEW Parcel Report | Palo Alto Municipal Code | Online Permitting System | Planning Forms & Handouts | Planning Applications Mapped The City of Palo Alto is doing its part to reduce the spread of COVID-19. We have successfully transitioned most of our employees to a remote work environment. We remain available to you via email, phone, and virtual meetings during our normal business hours. From: Jeff Conrad <jeff_conrad@msn.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2022 6:42 PM To: Raybould, Claire <Claire.Raybould@CityofPaloAlto.org> Subject: RE: 739 Sutter Project Claire, It now looks like the cause of the problem may be in the PDF generation. I am able to copy and paste the text from the landscape drawings and have it look OK. For example, the General Notes at the top of page 30 give GENERAL NOTES: 1. IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO FIELD VERIFY EXISTING CONDITIONS, THE LOCATION OF ALL TREES WITHIN THE LIMIT OF WORK, UTILITIES, AND Item 2 Attachment H - Written Public Comments     Packet Pg. 114     You don't often get email from jeff_conrad@msn.com. Learn why this is important ALL SITE ELEMENTS PRIOR TO BEGINNING THE WORK. 2. PERFORM ALL WORK IN CONFORMANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS AND OTHER APPLICABLE CODES, ORDINANCES AND REGULATIONS. OBSERVE ALL SETBACKS SHOWN ON THE PLANS AND AS OTHERWISE MAY BE REQUIRED. 3. THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT AND THE OWNER SHALL BE ADVISED 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE FOR PERFORMANCE OF SITE OBSERVATIONS. Aside from full caps being generally unreadable, it’s fine. So it should be possible for the submitter to fix the problem. Having no experience with the generating software, I cannot offer any suggestions on how to do this. Again, it’s inexcusable that something like this was submitted, and disappointing that it wasn’t caught. Perhaps no one reads these things. Jeff From: Raybould, Claire <Claire.Raybould@CityofPaloAlto.org> Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2022 8:02 AM To: jeff_conrad@msn.com Subject: RE: 739 Sutter Project Jeff, I confirmed with my admin a couple of days ago that notices have been mailed to a 600 ft radius of the project site following the project submittal to let adjacent residents/property owners know about the proposed development. This would have included 723 Sutter. I will ask her again and confirm what date those went out. I’m happy to keep you apprised of the project and any related hearings. Right now the project is under review by various city departments. The City has 30 days from 6/16 to provide comments on the initial plan sets that they submitted. Regards, Claire Claire Raybould, AICP Senior Planner Planning and Development Services Department (650) 329-2116 | Claire.Raybould@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org NEW Parcel Report | Palo Alto Municipal Code | Online Permitting System | Planning Forms & Handouts | Planning Applications Mapped The City of Palo Alto is doing its part to reduce the spread of COVID-19. We have successfully transitioned most of our employees to a remote work environment. We remain available to you via email, phone, and virtual meetings during our normal business hours. From: Jeff Conrad <jeff_conrad@msn.com> Sent: Monday, June 27, 2022 10:49 PM To: Raybould, Claire <Claire.Raybould@CityofPaloAlto.org> Subject: 739 Sutter Project CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Claire, After the February 1, 2022 (or thereabouts) Zoom meeting on the 739 Sutter Project, I requested to be notified of future developments—but I have received nothing in the mail or via email. I have heard similar comments from others involved in that meeting. I hereby request to be apprised of any future developments or meetings pertaining to this project. Jeff Conrad 723 Sutter Ave. Item 2 Attachment H - Written Public Comments     Packet Pg. 115     From:Laurie Berger To:Raybould, Claire Subject:RE: 739 Sutter Avenue Date:Thursday, March 2, 2023 10:46:29 AM Attachments:image002.png image003.png image005.png image006.png image007.png image008.png image009.png image010.png Hi Claire, I have been checking the website regularly and it does not look like anything has happened on this project since July 2022. Have you heard anything? Thank you. Laurie Laurie Berger Silicon Valley Law Group 1 North Market St., Suite 200 San Jose, CA 95113 (408) 573-5700 Fax: (408) 573-5701 lb@svlg.com www.svlg.com The information contained in this email message is confidential, for the sole use of the intended recipient(s), and may be subject to the attorney-client or work product privileges. If you are not the intended recipient or the person named above as the recipient, any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you received this email transmission in error, please immediately notify the sender at "lb@svlg.com" and delete this message from your system. The foregoing name, telephone number, facsimile number and e-mail information is provided to the recipient for informational purposes only and is not intended to be the signature of the sender for purposes of binding the sender or Silicon Valley Law Group, or any client of the sender or the firm, to any contract or agreement under the Uniform Electronic Transaction Act or any similar law. From: Laurie Berger Sent: Tuesday, November 1, 2022 2:34 PM To: Raybould, Claire <Claire.Raybould@CityofPaloAlto.org> Subject: RE: 739 Sutter Avenue Hi Claire, I am checking in to see if there is any news on this project. Please let me know the status. Thank you. Laurie Laurie Berger Silicon Valley Law Group 1 North Market St., Suite 200 San Jose, CA 95113 (408) 573-5700 Fax: (408) 573-5701 lb@svlg.com www.svlg.com The information contained in this email message is confidential, for the sole use of the intended recipient(s), and may be subject to the attorney-client or work product privileges. If you are not the intended recipient or the person named above as the recipient, any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you received this email transmission in error, please immediately notify the sender at "lb@svlg.com" and delete this message from your system. The foregoing name, telephone number, facsimile number and e-mail information is provided to the recipient for informational purposes only and is not intended to be the signature of the sender for purposes of binding the sender or Silicon Valley Law Group, or any client of the sender or the firm, to any contract or agreement under the Uniform Electronic Transaction Act or any similar law. From: Laurie Berger Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2022 2:44 PM To: Raybould, Claire <Claire.Raybould@CityofPaloAlto.org> Subject: RE: 739 Sutter Avenue Hi Claire, Thank you for the update. Best regards, Laurie Laurie Berger Item 2 Attachment H - Written Public Comments     Packet Pg. 116     Silicon Valley Law Group 1 North Market St., Suite 200 San Jose, CA 95113 (408) 573-5700 Fax: (408) 573-5701 lb@svlg.com www.svlg.com The information contained in this email message is confidential, for the sole use of the intended recipient(s), and may be subject to the attorney-client or work product privileges. If you are not the intended recipient or the person named above as the recipient, any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you received this email transmission in error, please immediately notify the sender at "lb@svlg.com" and delete this message from your system. The foregoing name, telephone number, facsimile number and e-mail information is provided to the recipient for informational purposes only and is not intended to be the signature of the sender for purposes of binding the sender or Silicon Valley Law Group, or any client of the sender or the firm, to any contract or agreement under the Uniform Electronic Transaction Act or any similar law. From: Raybould, Claire <Claire.Raybould@CityofPaloAlto.org> Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2022 1:15 PM To: Laurie Berger <lb@svlg.com> Subject: RE: 739 Sutter Avenue Hi Laurie, I have not received plans back since the first round of review. We’ve had some back and forth since the initial comments went out because it was unclear in the plans that they were trying to subdivide the lot for individual parcels (fee simple townhomes) versus a condominium subdivision. They are hoping to do fee simple it seems but their entire plan set was designed assuming a one lot condominium subdivision. So if they want to do a fee simple then they need to modify every single one of their waiver requests and indicate all the setbacks, FAR, etc. for each lot instead of designing assuming one existing parcel. The City has indicated to the applicant that if they pursue this option we do not agree that they can utilize a waiver to create substandard lots because clearly the waiver is not necessary to construct at the proposed density pursuant to the state density bonus law (since a condominium subdivision is clearly possible and would not require creating substandard lots). So they could go through a map exceptions process, which would go to our planning commission or council, or they can modify their request accordingly. I have not received a response from them on their proposed next steps since conveying this information a few weeks ago. Regards, Claire Claire Raybould, AICP Senior Planner Planning and Development Services Department (650) 329-2116 | Claire.Raybould@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org NEW Parcel Report | Palo Alto Municipal Code | Online Permitting System | Planning Forms & Handouts | Planning Applications Mapped The City of Palo Alto is doing its part to reduce the spread of COVID-19. We have successfully transitioned most of our employees to a remote work environment. We remain available to you via email, phone, and virtual meetings during our normal business hours. From: Laurie Berger <lb@svlg.com> Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2022 10:25 AM To: Raybould, Claire <Claire.Raybould@CityofPaloAlto.org> Subject: RE: 739 Sutter Avenue CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi Claire, I am following up – please let me know the status. Thank you. Laurie Laurie Berger Silicon Valley Law Group 1 North Market St., Suite 200 San Jose, CA 95113 (408) 573-5700 Fax: (408) 573-5701 lb@svlg.com www.svlg.com The information contained in this email message is confidential, for the sole use of the intended recipient(s), and may be subject to the attorney-client or work product privileges. If you are not the intended recipient or the person named above as the recipient, any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you received this email transmission in error, please immediately notify the sender at "lb@svlg.com" and delete this Item 2 Attachment H - Written Public Comments     Packet Pg. 117     message from your system. The foregoing name, telephone number, facsimile number and e-mail information is provided to the recipient for informational purposes only and is not intended to be the signature of the sender for purposes of binding the sender or Silicon Valley Law Group, or any client of the sender or the firm, to any contract or agreement under the Uniform Electronic Transaction Act or any similar law. From: Laurie Berger Sent: Thursday, September 8, 2022 11:24 AM To: 'Raybould, Claire' <Claire.Raybould@CityofPaloAlto.org> Subject: RE: 739 Sutter Avenue Hi Claire, Is there any news on this project? Please let me know the status. Thank you. Laurie Laurie Berger Silicon Valley Law Group 1 North Market St., Suite 200 San Jose, CA 95113 (408) 573-5700 Fax: (408) 573-5701 lb@svlg.com www.svlg.com The information contained in this email message is confidential, for the sole use of the intended recipient(s), and may be subject to the attorney-client or work product privileges. If you are not the intended recipient or the person named above as the recipient, any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you received this email transmission in error, please immediately notify the sender at "lb@svlg.com" and delete this message from your system. The foregoing name, telephone number, facsimile number and e-mail information is provided to the recipient for informational purposes only and is not intended to be the signature of the sender for purposes of binding the sender or Silicon Valley Law Group, or any client of the sender or the firm, to any contract or agreement under the Uniform Electronic Transaction Act or any similar law. From: Raybould, Claire <Claire.Raybould@CityofPaloAlto.org> Sent: Monday, July 18, 2022 4:17 PM To: Raybould, Claire <Claire.Raybould@CityofPaloAlto.org> Subject: 739 Sutter Avenue Good afternoon all, I’m sending this e-mail because you have expressed an interest in the proposed project at 739 Sutter Avenue. Attached are the City’s comments sent to the applicant (attaching e-mail and in the e-mail are planning and other department comments). Please let me know if you have questions. Regards, Claire Claire Raybould, AICP Senior Planner Planning and Development Services Department (650) 329-2116 | Claire.Raybould@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org NEW Parcel Report | Palo Alto Municipal Code | Online Permitting System | Planning Forms & Handouts | Planning Applications Mapped The City of Palo Alto is doing its part to reduce the spread of COVID-19. We have successfully transitioned most of our employees to a remote work environment. We remain available to you via email, phone, and virtual meetings during our normal business hours. Item 2 Attachment H - Written Public Comments     Packet Pg. 118     From:Jeff Conrad To:Raybould, Claire Subject:RE: 739 Sutter Ave Date:Thursday, April 13, 2023 4:47:40 PM Attachments:image001.png image002.png image004.png image005.png image006.png image007.png image008.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Claire, Thanks for the update. One initial question, though. The cover letter for the most recent submittal https://aca-prod.accela.com/paloalto/Cap/CapDetail.aspx? Module=Planning&TabName=Planning&capID1=22PLN&capID2=00000&capID3=00201&agencyCode=PALOALTO&IsToShowInspection=no refers to Exhibit C, an email from the Neighbor in support of this project and consenting to an easement. I cannot find this document; was it submitted separately? Jeff Conrad From: Raybould, Claire <Claire.Raybould@CityofPaloAlto.org> Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2023 9:01 AM To: Raybould, Claire <Claire.Raybould@CityofPaloAlto.org> Subject: 739 Sutter Ave Good afternoon, This e-mail is to inform you that plans for a proposed development at 739 Sutter Avenue have been resubmitted to the City and are available on the project webpage at: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/News-Articles/Planning-and-Development-Services/739-Sutter-Avenue-22PLN-00201 These plans are still under review by staff and no formal hearing date has been set at this time. If you have any comments on the revised design please feel free to contact me to provide any comments or if you have any questions. I do want to note that due to the delay in resubmitting plans (beyond the required 90-days set forth under state law), the SB 330 pre-application, which locks in development standards based on the date that a compliant Senate Bill 330 pre-application is filed, no longer applies to this project. The project is subject to the current objective requirements set forth in the Palo Alto Municipal Code. The applicant has expressed their intent to comply with the current process and requirements set forth in the zoning code with respect to ministerial review for housing projects that comply with the objective standards. This process still requires a single hearing in front of the Architectural Review Board. As part of its review, the City will be evaluating the project’s eligibility for this process and compliance with applicable objective standards set forth in the municipal code. Regards, Claire Claire Raybould, AICP Senior Planner Planning and Development Services Department (650) 329-2116 | Claire.Raybould@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org NEW Parcel Report | Palo Alto Municipal Code | Online Permitting System | Planning Forms & Handouts | Planning Applications Mapped The City of Palo Alto is doing its part to reduce the spread of COVID-19. We have successfully transitioned most of our employees to a remote work environment. We remain available to you via email, phone, and virtual meetings during our normal business hours. Item 2 Attachment H - Written Public Comments     Packet Pg. 119     From:jue cheng To:Raybould, Claire Subject:Re: 739 Sutter Ave Date:Thursday, April 13, 2023 10:57:41 PM Attachments:image009.png image012.png image002.png image004.png image008.png image011.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi Claire, thanks for keeping us updated on the project status. I am one of the owners of San Carlos Ct which is next to the rear Building 2. The developer is asking for waivers of the building height and step backs on the upper floors. All these raise huge privacy concerns and safety concerns to us who are very next to the project. The houses along San Carlos Ct are quite similar to each other - single floor, with a rather small backyard that is facing the project. The proposal mentioned 5 replacement trees along the fence and the mature size. I am more concerned about the initial size for now. Another question is about the procedures going forward. If the applicant only needs to have a single hearing in front of the ARB, would ARB have a public hearing from the neighbors? What does the timeline look like? Thank you, Jue Jue Cheng 746 San Carlos Ct, Palo Alto 312.493.7162 On Thu, Apr 13, 2023 at 9:00 AM Raybould, Claire <Claire.Raybould@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote: Good afternoon, This e-mail is to inform you that plans for a proposed development at 739 Sutter Avenue have been resubmitted to the City and are available on the project webpage at: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/News-Articles/Planning-and-Development-Services/739-Sutter-Avenue-22PLN-00201 These plans are still under review by staff and no formal hearing date has been set at this time. If you have any comments on the revised design please feel free to contact me to provide any comments or if you have any questions. I do want to note that due to the delay in resubmitting plans (beyond the required 90-days set forth under state law), the SB 330 pre-application, which locks in development standards based on the date that a compliant Senate Bill 330 pre-application is filed, no longer applies to this project. The project is subject to the current objective requirements set forth in the Palo Alto Municipal Code. The applicant has expressed their intent to comply with the current process and requirements set forth in the zoning code with respect to ministerial review for housing projects that comply with the objective standards. This process still requires a single hearing in front of the Architectural Review Board. As part of its review, the City will be evaluating the project’s eligibility for this process and compliance with applicable objective standards set forth in the municipal code. Regards, Claire Claire Raybould, AICP Senior Planner Planning and Development Services Department (650) 329-2116 | Claire.Raybould@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org NEW Parcel Report | Palo Alto Municipal Code | Online Permitting System | Planning Forms & Handouts | Planning Applications Mapped The City of Palo Alto is doing its part to reduce the spread of COVID-19. We have successfully transitioned most of our employees to a remote work environment. We remain available to you via email, phone, and virtual meetings during our normal business hours. Item 2 Attachment H - Written Public Comments     Packet Pg. 120     From:Laurie Berger To:Raybould, Claire Subject:RE: 739 Sutter Ave Date:Friday, April 14, 2023 2:13:27 PM Attachments:image002.png image003.png image005.png image006.png image007.png image008.png image010.png image011.png Thanks for getting back to me. I am free Wednesday. How about 11 a.m.? Laurie Berger Silicon Valley Law Group 1 North Market St., Suite 200 San Jose, CA 95113 (408) 573-5700 Fax: (408) 573-5701 lb@svlg.com www.svlg.com The information contained in this email message is confidential, for the sole use of the intended recipient(s), and may be subject to the attorney-client or work product privileges. If you are not the intended recipient or the person named above as the recipient, any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you received this email transmission in error, please immediately notify the sender at "lb@svlg.com" and delete this message from your system. The foregoing name, telephone number, facsimile number and e-mail information is provided to the recipient for informational purposes only and is not intended to be the signature of the sender for purposes of binding the sender or Silicon Valley Law Group, or any client of the sender or the firm, to any contract or agreement under the Uniform Electronic Transaction Act or any similar law. From: Raybould, Claire <Claire.Raybould@CityofPaloAlto.org> Sent: Friday, April 14, 2023 2:05 PM To: Laurie Berger <lb@svlg.com> Subject: RE: 739 Sutter Ave Hi Laurie, I’m booked solid through Tuesday but flexible next Wednesday. Is there a time next Wednesday that would work for you? Regards, Claire From: Laurie Berger <lb@svlg.com> Sent: Friday, April 14, 2023 1:43 PM To: Raybould, Claire <Claire.Raybould@CityofPaloAlto.org> Subject: RE: 739 Sutter Ave CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi Claire, Thank you for the update. I do have some questions. Are you available Monday or Tuesday for a short call? Best regards, Laurie Laurie Berger Silicon Valley Law Group 1 North Market St., Suite 200 San Jose, CA 95113 (408) 573-5700 Fax: (408) 573-5701 lb@svlg.com www.svlg.com The information contained in this email message is confidential, for the sole use of the intended recipient(s), and may be subject to the attorney-client or work product privileges. If you are not the intended recipient or the person named above as the recipient, any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you received this email transmission in error, please immediately notify the sender at "lb@svlg.com" and delete this message from your system. The foregoing name, telephone number, facsimile number and e-mail information is provided to the recipient for informational purposes only and is not intended to be the signature of the sender for purposes of binding the sender or Silicon Valley Law Group, or any client of the sender or the firm, to any contract or agreement under the Uniform Electronic Transaction Act or any similar law. From: Raybould, Claire <Claire.Raybould@CityofPaloAlto.org> Sent: Friday, April 14, 2023 9:05 AM To: Laurie Berger <lb@svlg.com> Subject: FW: 739 Sutter Ave I’m sorry Laurie, I think I typed your email out wrong and just got an automated response back. Please see below for the email I sent out to all those who have expressed interest in the 739 Sutter project. Item 2 Attachment H - Written Public Comments     Packet Pg. 121     Regards, Claire Claire Raybould, AICP Senior Planner Planning and Development Services Department (650) 329-2116 | Claire.Raybould@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org NEW Parcel Report | Palo Alto Municipal Code | Online Permitting System | Planning Forms & Handouts | Planning Applications Mapped The City of Palo Alto is doing its part to reduce the spread of COVID-19. We have successfully transitioned most of our employees to a remote work environment. We remain available to you via email, phone, and virtual meetings during our normal business hours. From: Raybould, Claire Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2023 9:01 AM To: Raybould, Claire <Claire.Raybould@CityofPaloAlto.org> Subject: 739 Sutter Ave Good afternoon, This e-mail is to inform you that plans for a proposed development at 739 Sutter Avenue have been resubmitted to the City and are available on the project webpage at: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/News-Articles/Planning-and-Development-Services/739-Sutter-Avenue-22PLN-00201 These plans are still under review by staff and no formal hearing date has been set at this time. If you have any comments on the revised design please feel free to contact me to provide any comments or if you have any questions. I do want to note that due to the delay in resubmitting plans (beyond the required 90-days set forth under state law), the SB 330 pre-application, which locks in development standards based on the date that a compliant Senate Bill 330 pre-application is filed, no longer applies to this project. The project is subject to the current objective requirements set forth in the Palo Alto Municipal Code. The applicant has expressed their intent to comply with the current process and requirements set forth in the zoning code with respect to ministerial review for housing projects that comply with the objective standards. This process still requires a single hearing in front of the Architectural Review Board. As part of its review, the City will be evaluating the project’s eligibility for this process and compliance with applicable objective standards set forth in the municipal code. Regards, Claire Claire Raybould, AICP Senior Planner Planning and Development Services Department (650) 329-2116 | Claire.Raybould@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org NEW Parcel Report | Palo Alto Municipal Code | Online Permitting System | Planning Forms & Handouts | Planning Applications Mapped The City of Palo Alto is doing its part to reduce the spread of COVID-19. We have successfully transitioned most of our employees to a remote work environment. We remain available to you via email, phone, and virtual meetings during our normal business hours. Item 2 Attachment H - Written Public Comments     Packet Pg. 122     From:Laurie Berger To:Raybould, Claire Cc:Edward Kraus Subject:RE: 739 Sutter Ave Date:Friday, May 26, 2023 12:10:59 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi Claire, I am following up on this project. I just left you a voicemail. I saw a few minutes ago that a Notice of Incomplete was sent today and on May 4, but now I don’t see those. Please let me know the status. Thank you. Laurie Laurie Berger Silicon Valley Law Group 1 North Market St., Suite 200 San Jose, CA 95113 (408) 573-5700 Fax: (408) 573-5701 lb@svlg.com www.svlg.com The information contained in this email message is confidential, for the sole use of the intended recipient(s), and may be subject to the attorney-client or work product privileges. If you are not the intended recipient or the person named above as the recipient, any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you received this email transmission in error, please immediately notify the sender at "lb@svlg.com" and delete this message from your system. The foregoing name, telephone number, facsimile number and e-mail information is provided to the recipient for informational purposes only and is not intended to be the signature of the sender for purposes of binding the sender or Silicon Valley Law Group, or any client of the sender or the firm, to any contract or agreement under the Uniform Electronic Transaction Act or any similar law. From: Raybould, Claire <Claire.Raybould@CityofPaloAlto.org> Sent: Monday, April 24, 2023 3:11 PM To: Laurie Berger <lb@svlg.com> Subject: Automatic reply: 739 Sutter Ave Thank you for your e-mail. I am out of the office with sick children and hopt to return 4/25. Warm regards, Claire Item 2 Attachment H - Written Public Comments     Packet Pg. 123     From:Raybould, Claire To:Yogabear23; Richard Jue Wang; Lily Zhao Subject:RE: 739 Sutter Project Date:Wednesday, July 12, 2023 10:46:00 AM Attachments:739 Sutter Avenue project status update.msg image009.png image010.png image012.png image001.png image002.png image004.png image005.png Good morning Carolyn, Please see again my email update from June 30th. There have been no updates since I sent that. I am still waiting on revised plans and, as previously noted, we will not be taking this forward to a hearing until the CEQA is complete so it’s probably going to be a few months before we schedule anything. We are utilizing a class 32 exemption under CEQA, but that exemption still requires a limited analysis focusing on traffic, noise, air quality, and water quality. In order to use the exemption the existing site needs to be evaluated to confirm it is not historic as well. So part of the scope for the city’s consultant also includes that evaluation. The project is eligible for streamlining as a housing project such that only one ARB hearing will be allowed. So that hearing won’t be scheduled until the project is close to being ready for a decision on the ARB. We are also limited by the number of hearings (which also includes neighborhood meetings) we are allowed to have between both the ARB application and the vesting tentative map application (which goes to PTC and council). So we are not scheduling any additional meetings/hearings on this project beyond the required. That said, sit down meetings just in my office to discuss are not limited by state code. So if you want to talk about the current design of the project and any comments/questions you have related to that we can schedule a meeting in my office discuss with you or you and a few neighbors. Regards, Claire Claire Raybould, AICP Senior Planner Planning and Development Services Department (650) 329-2116 | Claire.Raybould@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org NEW Parcel Report | Palo Alto Municipal Code | Online Permitting System | Planning Forms & Handouts | Planning Applications Mapped The City of Palo Alto is doing its part to reduce the spread of COVID-19. We have successfully transitioned most of our employees to a remote work environment. We remain available to you via email, phone, and virtual meetings during our normal business hours. From: Yogabear23 <yogabear23@aol.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2023 10:18 AM To: Raybould, Claire <Claire.Raybould@CityofPaloAlto.org>; yogabear23 <yogabear23@aol.com>; Richard Jue Wang <flyingrichard@yahoo.com>; Lily Zhao <lilyzhao68@gmail.com> Subject: 739 Sutter Project CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Good morning Claire. Please let me know when the next review of the 739 Sutter project with the Architectural Review Board is scheduled. It is not posted on the city website. Thank you. Carolyn Garbarino 6502831915. Sent from the all new AOL app for iOS Item 2 Attachment H - Written Public Comments     Packet Pg. 124     From:Laurie Berger To:Raybould, Claire Cc:Edward Kraus Subject:RE: 739 Sutter Avenue Date:Thursday, August 3, 2023 3:13:09 PM Attachments:image002.png image003.png image005.png image006.png image007.png image008.png image009.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi Claire, I am checking in to see if there have been any recent developments on this project. I see that an updated set of plans was submitted on 7/21/2023 and that responses to comments have been submitted. Also, I see that that it was marked as routed on 7/26/2023. Please give me an update regarding the status of the CEQA evaluation. Thank you. Laurie Laurie Berger Silicon Valley Law Group 1 North Market St., Suite 200 San Jose, CA 95113 (408) 573-5700 Fax: (408) 573-5701 lb@svlg.com www.svlg.com The information contained in this email message is confidential, for the sole use of the intended recipient(s), and may be subject to the attorney-client or work product privileges. If you are not the intended recipient or the person named above as the recipient, any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you received this email transmission in error, please immediately notify the sender at "lb@svlg.com" and delete this message from your system. The foregoing name, telephone number, facsimile number and e-mail information is provided to the recipient for informational purposes only and is not intended to be the signature of the sender for purposes of binding the sender or Silicon Valley Law Group, or any client of the sender or the firm, to any contract or agreement under the Uniform Electronic Transaction Act or any similar law. From: Raybould, Claire <Claire.Raybould@CityofPaloAlto.org> Sent: Monday, July 18, 2022 4:17 PM To: Raybould, Claire <Claire.Raybould@CityofPaloAlto.org> Subject: 739 Sutter Avenue Good afternoon all, I’m sending this e-mail because you have expressed an interest in the proposed project at 739 Sutter Avenue. Attached are the City’s comments sent to the applicant (attaching e-mail and in the e-mail are planning and other department comments). Please let me know if you have questions. Regards, Claire Claire Raybould, AICP Senior Planner Planning and Development Services Department (650) 329-2116 | Claire.Raybould@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org NEW Parcel Report | Palo Alto Municipal Code | Online Permitting System | Planning Forms & Handouts | Planning Applications Mapped The City of Palo Alto is doing its part to reduce the spread of COVID-19. We have successfully transitioned most of our employees to a remote work environment. We remain available to you via email, phone, and virtual meetings during our normal business hours. Item 2 Attachment H - Written Public Comments     Packet Pg. 125     From:Raybould, Claire To:Karen Law Subject:RE: 739 Sutter-Status Update/neighbor outreach Date:Thursday, August 24, 2023 12:36:00 PM Attachments:image018.png image019.png image021.png image022.png image023.png image025.png image026.png image027.png image028.png image029.png image003.png Hi Karen, Just wanted to follow up because I realized after finalizing my review of the plans that the visual they were showing was views up toward the AC. They separately provided a diagram for views from the deck down (clip below). Let me know if this answers your question or not. Here is a diagram too showing where trees would be planted and relationship with windows on neighboring properties. We had asked for this to be added in the last round. Regards, Claire From: Raybould, Claire Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2023 9:41 AM To: Karen Law <karenhlaw@gmail.com> Subject: RE: 739 Sutter-Status Update/neighbor outreach Hi Karen, Thanks for your email. I’m not sure I’m 100% clear on your comment about distance but In looking at the plans I see that the line-of-sight is drawn oddly/incorrectly. It should start at 5 feet up from edge of balcony and then be a 45 degree angle down from there to show code compliance. They are also required to have an oscure railing if within 30 feet of a neighboring residential building with windows (which they comply with). No measurement is provided for the deck (I can ask them to add that) but I measure it at about 15.5 feet from the property line (set back from the lower floors [which are 12 feet back] for line-of-sight and daylight plane compliance purposes). This visual perhaps shows the rear façade a bit better including the windows that would be obscured per our code requirements (in grey). No rooftop open space is planned on the rear building abutting the San Carlos ct properties. This shows the roof plan for that building. Item 2 Attachment H - Written Public Comments     Packet Pg. 126     Please feel free to contact me if you’d like to discuss further or have any comments you would like to convey to me. Regards, Claire Claire Raybould, AICP Senior Planner Planning and Development Services Department (650) 329-2116 | Claire.Raybould@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org NEW Parcel Report | Palo Alto Municipal Code | Online Permitting System | Planning Forms & Handouts | Planning Applications Mapped The City of Palo Alto is doing its part to reduce the spread of COVID-19. We have successfully transitioned most of our employees to a remote work environment. We remain available to you via email, phone, and virtual meetings during our normal business hours. From: Karen Law <karenhlaw@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2023 8:21 PM To: Raybould, Claire <Claire.Raybould@CityofPaloAlto.org> Subject: Re: 739 Sutter-Status Update/neighbor outreach CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi Claire, Appreciate your outreach. A question/comment: In the Cycle 3 plans, pages 33 and 52 suggest recessing of the 3rd floor decks to maintain the 45 degree line of sight. However, the plans don't seem to specify a distance, which would be needed to calculate line of sight. Page 33 does indicate a distance from the property edge to the A/C unit, but not to the deck railing. How far back is the developer committed to recessing the deck? Relatedly, can the developer confirm that the rear building (which abuts San Carlos Court properties and is already 6 feet over the maximum allowed height) will not have rooftop open space? Thanks, Karen On Thu, Aug 17, 2023 at 3:10 PM Raybould, Claire <Claire.Raybould@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote: All, You are receiving this e-mail because you have expressed an interest in the 739 Sutter project either during the prescreening process or in response to the formal application. This e-mail is to inform you that a Cycle 3 (3rd round) set of the formal application is currently under review. I have not yet completed my review of this set, but hope to do so in the next week. I’m anticipating that this project is likely to move forward to the ARB for review sometime in October though the hearing date is not Item 2 Attachment H - Written Public Comments     Packet Pg. 127     formally set yet. The timing will depend on the completion of the additional analyses to confirm that the project is eligible for a Class 32 (infill) exemption in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. This project is eligible for streamlined review under our objective standards because it is consistent with the standards except where waivers or concessions are requested in accordance with State Density Bonus Law. This means the project will only have one hearing before the ARB. The vesting tentative map will separately be subject to the Planning and Transportation Commission and Council’s review following the Architectural Review. To that end, now is the opportunity to provide any comments you have on the most recent set of plans. The plans are available on the project webpage here. Your feedback is helpful in informing the process and so that I can provide better context to the architectural review board members as part of my staff report on comments nearby residents have on the latest plans sets. Obviously if you don’t respond I will still summarize comments received to date. I’m happy to meet in person or via a virtual meeting if any of you individually or a few of you collectively want to set up a time to talk with me. I can find time in the next couple of weeks if desired. Regards, Claire Claire Raybould, AICP Senior Planner Planning and Development Services Department (650) 329-2116 | Claire.Raybould@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org NEW Parcel Report | Palo Alto Municipal Code | Online Permitting System | Planning Forms & Handouts | Planning Applications Mapped The City of Palo Alto is doing its part to reduce the spread of COVID-19. We have successfully transitioned most of our employees to a remote work environment. We remain available to you via email, phone, and virtual meetings during our normal business hours. Item 2 Attachment H - Written Public Comments     Packet Pg. 128     From:Laurie Berger To:Raybould, Claire Cc:Edward Kraus; Kou, Lydia; Stone, Greer; Burt, Patrick; Lauing, Ed; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Tanaka, Greg Subject:739 Sutter Avenue Residential Project, 21PLN-00222 Date:Wednesday, August 30, 2023 11:28:41 AM Attachments:Letter to City of Palo Alto August 30, 2023 (10637886xA1026).pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Claire, As we have discussed, this firm represents the San Carlos Court Neighborhood Association. Attached please find a letter setting forth our comments on the proposed 739 Sutter Avenue Residential Project, 21PLN-00222. My clients would like to schedule an in-person meeting with you to discuss the project. Please let me know when you are available. We appreciate your responsiveness to our questions over the past months and appreciate the opportunity meet with you. Please call me any questions. Best regards, Laurie Laurie Berger Silicon Valley Law Group 1 North Market St., Suite 200 San Jose, CA 95113 (408) 573-5700 Fax: (408) 573-5701 lb@svlg.com www.svlg.com The information contained in this email message is confidential, for the sole use of the intended recipient(s), and may be subject to the attorney-client or work product privileges. If you are not the intended recipient or the person named above as the recipient, any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you received this email transmission in error, please immediately notify the sender at "lb@svlg.com" and delete this message from your system. The foregoing name, telephone number, facsimile number and e-mail information is provided to the recipient for informational purposes only and is not intended to be the signature of the sender for purposes of binding the sender or Silicon Valley Law Group, or any client of the sender or the firm, to any contract or agreement under the Uniform Electronic Transaction Act or any similar law. Item 2 Attachment H - Written Public Comments     Packet Pg. 129     August 30, 2023 Via Federal Express & Electronic Mail: claire.raybould@cityofpaloalto.org Claire Raybould Senior Planner City of Palo Alto Planning and Development Services Department 250 Hamilton Ave, Palo Alto, CA 94301 RE: 739 Sutter Avenue Residential Project, 21PLN-00222 Dear Ms. Raybould: Silicon Valley Law Group (SVLG) has been retained by the San Carlos Court Neighborhood Association (SCCNA) to prepare this letter pertaining to a proposal to develop a 12-unit, three-story, over 35-foot-tall, multi-family residential project at 739 Sutter Avenue in Palo Alto (21PLN-00222 -density housing on said parcel (Assessor Parcel Number 125-35-200) and requests that the City deny the application. SCCNA also requests that the Project be reviewed under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as a project with potentially significant environmental impacts. A Class 32 Categorical Exemption, as you currently propose in your communications to SVLG and SCCNA, is not the appropriate CEQA document for a project that would result in potentially significant traffic, air quality, noise, water quality, historic, safety, and aesthetic impacts to the adjacent single-family residential uses on San Carlos Court. 1. The Project is Inconsistent with the Palo Alto Zoning Ordinance, General and Comprehensive Plans, Housing Element and the Sustainability and Climate Action Plan. We believe the design of the Project is inconsistent with the Palo Alto Zoning Ordinance, General and Comprehensive Plans, and 2023-2031 Housing Element, further disallowing the use of a Class 32 Categorical Exemption for the project. The Project includes inadequate driveway widths for adequate fire and emergency personnel access to the site, putting the project and all surrounding development in jeopardy should a fire occur. The lack of landscaping on the northwestern side of the project adjacent to the existing residential development on San Carlos Court is inconsistent with the Zoning Ordinance. The location of private open space areas on the top floors of the proposed structures appear very dangerous and unsafe, as well as intrusive to the Item 2 Attachment H - Written Public Comments     Packet Pg. 130     Letter to Claire Raybould August 30, 2023 Page 2 10637881.DOCX existing neighborhood. This Project creates significant privacy concerns given that the windows, sliding glass doors and decks of the Project face the San Carlos Court properties. In addition, the removal of existing trees creates privacy concerns. We would like additional information regarding the size of the new trees that will be planted. Further, the plan set shows no meaningful elevations of the back of the project to show exactly how intrusive the proposed 35-foot, 4.5-inch-tall residential buildings will be to the existing one- and two-story residences on San structure to respect the existing single-family neighborhood and backyards. Private open space areas are not shown in sufficient detail to give the public and decision-makers any indication of the severity of the intrusion to the neighborhood. There is no shade and shadow, daylight plane, or lighting analyses included in the application as required by the Zoning Ordinance. The plans do not appear to specify a distance to confirm the line of sight. It is also unclear how far back the developer is committed to recessing the decks and whether the rear building will have rooftop open space. We believe the health, safety, and welfare of the existing residents will be adversely affected by the Project as proposed. Therefore, an adequate evaluation of potentially significant impacts has not been completed all of which constitute a violation of CEQA. We must also point out that developments of this density and height do not currently exist in this area of the City and the Project is out of character for the neighborhood. 2. The Project Requires a Full CEQA Evaluation and does not qualify for a Class 32 Categorical Exemption There can be no question that an increase in multi-story high-density residential units on the Project site, all of which will be 3-bedroom, will result in additional traffic accessing the site and creating impacts on neighboring streets especially since the project is not transit- oriented, that is, located in an area of readily available transit or a Caltrain Station. This is especially true if the Project includes an inadequate amount of parking. Further, the plans for the site appear to show potential conflicts between automobile, pedestrian, and bicycle travel pathways. Bicycle parking is not shown on the site plan. Therefore, the Project has the potential to result in significant traffic, access, and safety impacts and mitigation is not provided. This is a violation of CEQA. Long-term noise impacts will be significant, especially with private open space areas and air conditioning/heating units ostensibly located on the back side of the northernmost building adjacent to existing single-family homes. Where and how will storm drainage and storage and waste collection facilities be located on such a densely developed site? Construction-related traffic, noise, and air quality impacts must also be evaluated in the CEQA document and feasible mitigation measures included in the project to protect the surrounding residents, especially children, from detrimental impacts. Toxic air contaminants and greenhouse gas emissions produced during construction could be significant and must be evaluated. The City has identified a need for a historic evaluation of the existing buildings on the project site Item 2 Attachment H - Written Public Comments     Packet Pg. 131     Letter to Claire Raybould August 30, 2023 Page 3 10637881.DOCX because they were built over 45 years ago. No such evaluation has been completed and impacts and mitigation measures must be included in a CEQA document. CEQA requires an analysis of the potential for the Project to cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding an environmental effect. This includes the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan, Comprehensive Plan, and Housing Element policies. As stated in the recently approved 2023-The single-family neighborhood site development regulations are intended to ensure that much of what Palo Alto cherishes in its residential areas, such as open space areas, attractive streetscapes with mature landscaping, and variety in architectural styles, are preserved and protected. policies that promote the protection of existing single-family residential neighborhoods, thus is inconsistent with the CEQA Guidelines. 3. The Project includes too many variances, waivers, and concessions. According to the most recent plans submitted by the applicant on July 21, 2023, the project requires no fewer than 14 waivers or concessions. This is excessive for a project that is . more variances, waivers, and concessions than allowed by City Ordinance and State Law. The drawings in the revised plan set that demonstrate all the proposed waivers are disturbing. It appears that the City is brushing aside many of the significant issues, including driveway widths, inadequate landscaping and open space, significant reduction in setbacks, light intrusion, density, parking, and building heights. For example, to reduce setbacks by more than half in the front and side yards makes the project not only significantly inconsistent with the existing neighborhood, but also creates a significant aesthetic impact to the existing single-family neighborhood. Coupled with the proposed increase in building heights, impacts to the surrounding neighborhood will be significant and property values of the homes on San Carlos Court will be detrimentally affected. Further, it does not make sense that constructing a shorter building will cost less than a taller structure, as stated in the revised plan set. The revised plan set does not include adequate justification for the proposed waivers. We cannot find an Exhibit B in the plan set that is suppose letter. document as well as the historical analysis prior to any approval actions for the project. In conclusion, we caution the City against allowing so many waivers for a project that will significantly affect the existing single-family neighborhoods. This practice is ill-advised because it ignores the regulations of the Zoning Ordinance, as well as many of the virtues of living in Palo Alto. We believe there is substantial evidence to show that the project is not consistent with a Class 32 Categorical Exemption as defined by Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines. For all Item 2 Attachment H - Written Public Comments     Packet Pg. 132     Letter to Claire Raybould August 30, 2023 Page 4 10637881.DOCX the above reasons, we request that the 739 Sutter Avenue project be placed on hold until an adequate CEQA document is prepared. Respectfully Submitted, SILICON VALLEY LAW GROUP ____________________________ Laurie Berger cc: San Carlos Court Neighborhood Association Ed Kraus, Silicon Valley Law Group Mayor Lydia Kou Vice Mayor Greer Stone Council Member Patrick Burt Council Member Ed Lauing Council Member Julie Lythcott-Haims Council Member Greg Tanaka Council Member Vicki Veenker Item 2 Attachment H - Written Public Comments     Packet Pg. 133     From:Raybould, Claire To:Laurie Berger Cc:City Mgr; Clerk, City Bcc:Lait, Jonathan Subject:RE: 739 Sutter Avenue Residential Project, 21PLN-00222 Date:Wednesday, August 30, 2023 3:49:00 PM Attachments:image006.png image007.png image009.png image001.png image011.png image013.png image014.png Good afternoon Laurie, Just wanted to confirm receipt of your e-mail/letter. I’m happy to have a meeting with your clients. Let me find a few possible times that work and get back to you. I do also want to note that the subject line of this email references the preliminary architectural review application, which was an application for a study session that is now complete. Following the study session, the applicant filed a formal application under 22PLN-00201. Regards, Claire Claire Raybould, AICP Senior Planner Planning and Development Services Department (650) 329-2116 | Claire.Raybould@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org NEW Parcel Report | Palo Alto Municipal Code | Online Permitting System | Planning Forms & Handouts | Planning Applications Mapped The City of Palo Alto is doing its part to reduce the spread of COVID-19. We have successfully transitioned most of our employees to a remote work environment. We remain available to you via email, phone, and virtual meetings during our normal business hours. From: Laurie Berger <lb@svlg.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2023 11:27 AM To: Raybould, Claire <Claire.Raybould@CityofPaloAlto.org> Cc: Edward Kraus <eak@svlg.com>; Kou, Lydia <Lydia.Kou@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Stone, Greer <Greer.Stone@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Burt, Patrick <Pat.Burt@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Lauing, Ed <Ed.Lauing@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Lythcott-Haims, Julie <Julie.LythcottHaims@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Tanaka, Greg <Greg.Tanaka@CityofPaloAlto.org> Subject: 739 Sutter Avenue Residential Project, 21PLN-00222 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Claire, As we have discussed, this firm represents the San Carlos Court Neighborhood Association. Attached please find a letter setting forth our comments on the proposed 739 Sutter Avenue Residential Project, 21PLN-00222. My clients would like to schedule an in-person meeting with you to discuss the project. Please let me know when you are available. We appreciate your responsiveness to our questions over the past months and appreciate the opportunity meet with you. Please call me any questions. Best regards, Laurie Laurie Berger Silicon Valley Law Group 1 North Market St., Suite 200 San Jose, CA 95113 (408) 573-5700 Fax: (408) 573-5701 lb@svlg.com www.svlg.com The information contained in this email message is confidential, for the sole use of the intended recipient(s), and may be subject to the attorney-client or work product privileges. If you are not the intended recipient or the person named above as the recipient, any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you received this email transmission in error, please immediately notify the sender at "lb@svlg.com" and delete this message from your system. The foregoing name, telephone number, facsimile number and e-mail information is provided to the recipient for informational purposes only and is not intended to be the signature of the sender for purposes of binding the sender or Silicon Valley Law Group, or any client of the sender or the firm, to any contract or agreement under the Uniform Electronic Transaction Act or any similar law. Item 2 Attachment H - Written Public Comments     Packet Pg. 134     From:Jeff Conrad To:Raybould, Claire Subject:739 Sutter Project: Building 2 Trees Date:Wednesday, September 13, 2023 4:45:26 PM Attachments:Bldg2ElevationsTrees+Hedge.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Claire, Here’s the rendering of the proposed trees at the rear of the 739 Sutter project that I did last July; I think you were sent something similar last fall, but it may not have included all the drawings or the bookmarks. I haven’t updated the side elevation of Building 2, but I’m not sure the changes are significant in this context. The proposed Podocarpus gracilior can be grown either as trees (as shown in the plans) or as part of a hedge. Trees ultimately provide a canopy and more shade; a hedge provides more screening, especially at ground level, but requires more plantings. I show several different scenarios, including The proposed 24 box trees at various stages of growth. An alternative 36 box as a hedge. The bookmarks panel provides a key to each rendering. I show both the proposed 12 setback and an alternative 16 setback. The former seems a questionable fit with the fence as well as the second story of Building 2. As was mentioned during the meeting (Mimi, I think), the trees would need continuing active pruning to prevent them from being in the face of anyone on the second story. This might also be true for preventing damage to the fence. A 16 setback seems a minimum for a reasonable fit for the trees at maturity; obviously, this would have a significant impact on the project. If the plantings were done as a hedge, it seems they would need to be heavily pruned below the level of the top of the fence; I am no arborist, so I don’t even know if this can be done. If done as a hedge without this pruning, the plantings would seem to need much greater setback from the fence, again leading to a greater setback of the building from the property. I’ve made the renderings based on websites of nurseries that sell Podocarpus gracilior in 24 box and larger sizes. Suffice it to say that there is considerable variation in initial sizes and shapes and indicated growth rates, so the renderings are rough estimates at best. I base the mature sizes on what’s shown in the landscape architect’s drawings: 40 height and 25 canopy width. My understanding is that your comments about problems when planting larger trees are well founded. Moreover, addressing any problems with trees that fail to take root could be difficult given the limited access afforded by the 12 setback. But I think it’s worth asking what might happen with trees in 36 box size or larger; if they don’t work, why do nurseries sell them? Item 2 Attachment H - Written Public Comments     Packet Pg. 135     It may well be that privacy issues are largely irrelevant under the density bonus law. I offer these renderings simply to illustrate that that the proposed trees afford no reasonable measure of privacy any time soon. Were these renderings superimposed on the picture on page 4 of the PDF that Jue Cheng submitted today, they would show that the trees would have little effect on the view from 746 San Carlos Ct. for many years. Jeff Conrad Item 2 Attachment H - Written Public Comments     Packet Pg. 136     Item 2 Attachment H - Written Public Comments     Packet Pg. 137     Item 2 Attachment H - Written Public Comments     Packet Pg. 138     Item 2 Attachment H - Written Public Comments     Packet Pg. 139     Item 2 Attachment H - Written Public Comments     Packet Pg. 140     Item 2 Attachment H - Written Public Comments     Packet Pg. 141     Item 2 Attachment H - Written Public Comments     Packet Pg. 142     Item 2 Attachment H - Written Public Comments     Packet Pg. 143     Item 2 Attachment H - Written Public Comments     Packet Pg. 144     Item 2 Attachment H - Written Public Comments     Packet Pg. 145     Item 2 Attachment H - Written Public Comments     Packet Pg. 146     Item 2 Attachment H - Written Public Comments     Packet Pg. 147     Item 2 Attachment H - Written Public Comments     Packet Pg. 148     Item 2 Attachment H - Written Public Comments     Packet Pg. 149     Item 2 Attachment H - Written Public Comments     Packet Pg. 150     Item 2 Attachment H - Written Public Comments     Packet Pg. 151     From:jue cheng To:Raybould, Claire Cc:Caroline Gabarino; Richard Jue Wang; Mj Wolf; jeff_conrad@msn.com; Laurie Berger; Lily Zhao; Karen Law Subject:9.12 meeting re 739 Sutter Ave project Date:Wednesday, September 13, 2023 10:35:25 AM Attachments:Sutter.docx (1).pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi Claire, thank you for the meeting yesterday. I would like to share the pictures that I showed yesterday during the meeting. I hope that can help the decision makers understand how deeply we are concerned about the Sutter Ave project, especially to the Plan 2, 7units, that are right above the San Carlos neighbors. Best, Jue Cheng (746 San Carlos Ct) 312.493.7162 peanutsjue@gmail.com Item 2 Attachment H - Written Public Comments     Packet Pg. 152     Item 2 Attachment H - Written Public Comments     Packet Pg. 153     Item 2 Attachment H - Written Public Comments     Packet Pg. 154     Item 2 Attachment H - Written Public Comments     Packet Pg. 155     Item 2 Attachment H - Written Public Comments     Packet Pg. 156     Item 2 Attachment H - Written Public Comments     Packet Pg. 157     Attachment I 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. The documentation to support the exemption, including all associated technical analyses are included on the project website Directions to review Project plans online: 1. Go to: bit.ly/PApendingprojects 2. Scroll down to find “739 Sutter 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/739-Sutter-Ave Materials Boards: Color and material boards will be available to view in chambers during the ARB hearing. Item 2 Attachment I - Project Plans & Environmental Documents     Packet Pg. 158     Item No. 3. Page 1 of 9 Architectural Review Board Staff Report From: Jonathan Lait, Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: November 2, 2023 Report #: 2310-2100 TITLE 2501 Embarcadero Way [22PLN-00367]: Consideration of a Site and Design Application to Allow the Construction of a Local Advanced Water Purification System at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP). The Proposed Project Includes 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: Council Previously Adopted an Addendum to the 2015 Environmental Impact Report for the City of Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Which Evaluated the Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Project. Zone District: PF (D) (Public Facility with Site and Design Combining District). For More Information Contact the Project Planner, Claire Raybould, at Claire.Raybould@Cityofpaloalto.org. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) provide feedback on the proposed project and continue to a date uncertain. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The application is a request for Site and Design Review for a proposed local advanced water purification system (AWPS). The purpose of the project is to improve the recycled water quality by reducing its average concentration of total dissolved solids (TDS) through the blending of reverse osmosis permeate with tertiary-treated recycled water. The project responds to Council’s expressed goal, as set forth in the Recycled Water Salinity Reduction Policy adopted in 2015, to reduce the TDS level of recycled water to 600 parts per million. It also responds to mitigation measure HYD-3d set forth in the corresponding adopted Environmental Impact Report, which requires the City to consider treatment options, such as reverse osmosis, to reduce the salinity of its recycled water and thus make its recycled water useable for irrigation of salt-sensitive species. Following the adoption of the EIR, the City coordinated with Valley Water and Mountain View to prepare a feasibility study and preliminary design report for a local advanced water purification system (AWPS), which was completed in 2017. The report was used as the basis for Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 159     Item No. 3. Page 2 of 9 preparing preliminary plans for the proposed project. In 2019 Council approved an agreement with Valley Water to further the design of the project. A location map for the proposed AWPS is included in Attachment A. A detailed project description is provided in Attachment D. BACKGROUND Project Information Owner:City of Palo Alto Engineer:Black and Veatch Representative:Tom Kapushinski, Senior Engineer, Public Works Department, Environmental Services Division Legal Counsel:Not Applicable (City) Property Information Address:2501 Embarcadero Way Neighborhood:Baylands Lot Dimensions & Area:Irregular (44,644,287 sf [~1,024 ac]) Housing Inventory Site:Not Applicable Located w/in a Plume:Not Applicable Protected/Heritage Trees:See Discussion Below Historic Resource(s):Not Applicable Existing Improvement(s):Existing RWQCP facilities generally range from one to three stories and include office areas, treatment areas, and tanks. Originally constructed in 1934 but several of the buildings and other structures have been upgraded or expanded on over the last ~90 years. Existing Land Use(s):Regional Water Quality Control Plant (Public Facility) Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North: Palo Alto Airport (PF Zoning) West: RWQCP (PF [D] Zoning) East: RWQCP (PF [D] Zoning) South: Office and Warehouse (ROLM [E][D][AD] and PC-3020) Aerial View of Property: Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 160     Item No. 3. Page 3 of 9 Source: Google Satellite Maps Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans Comp. Plan Designation:Major Institution/Special Facilities (MISP) Zoning Designation:Public Facility with Site and Design Combining District 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:See discussion below PTC:None HRB:None Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 161     Item No. 3. Page 4 of 9 ARB:None In September 2015 the City of Palo Alto City Council certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Palo Alto Recycled Water Project (SCH #2011062037). The EIR included Mitigation Measure HYD-3d, which requires the City to consider treatment options, such as reverse osmosis, to reduce the salinity of its recycled water and thus make its recycled water useable for irrigation of salt-sensitive species. Since that time, staff has presented updates and components of this project to Council as follows: On April 4, 2016, staff provided Council with an update on the recycled water EIR and collaboration work with Valley Water and Mountain View to expand the program and reduce TDS (CMR #6691).1 November 18, 2019 City Council approved the Valley Water Agreement to move forward with the design of the Local AWPS. The EIR Addendum for the proposed AWPS was also adopted at this hearing (CMR #10627). On March 8, 2021, City Council approved the design contract for the Local AWPS (CMR #11782) On September 12, 2022 City Council held a study session to hear an update on, and discuss, the proposed project (CMR # 14650) On October 16, 2023 City Council approved Staff to move forward with loan agreement and directed Staff to secure financing and solicit bids for a construction contract (CMR #2308-1863) The Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC) also held two study sessions on May 24, 2022 and December 13, 2022 to provide feedback on the project. Their feedback focus on the landscaping component, path alignment and external screening. Commissioners were generally supportive of the proposed design at the study session in December. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project consists of several structures and components, including: A reverse osmosis permeate storage tank; a small prefabricated electric building; and a pre-engineered open-air building. The open-air building covers a membrane filtration system, chemical storage/feed system components, and other ancillary components essential to the purification system. The facility would have a building footprint of approximately 15,544 sf. The open-air building will be constructed over a concrete deck in order to raise the equipment up out of the flood zone per FEMA requirements. The storage tank will be a 50 ft diameter circular tank with a sidewall height of 30 feet and a capacity of 350,000 gallons. The tank will be erected on a reinforced concrete mat type foundation supported by deep pile foundation. The 1 City Council Reports and Meeting Minutes are available online at: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/City-Clerk/Citys-Meeting-Agendas/Meeting-Agendas-and-Minutes Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 162     Item No. 3. Page 5 of 9 project will also include a blending station located in the basement of the RWQCP administration building and installation of yard piping inside the RWQCP. The project will be located on the northwest side of the RWQCP, abutting Embarcadero Road, partially outside the existing fence line but within the defined boundaries of the plant. The project also includes new landscaping, a new concrete screening wall, and revisions to the chain link fence surrounding the RWQCP to incorporate the area of the new AWPS (which would be inside the screening wall). A complete project description is included in Attachment D. Requested Entitlements, Findings and Purview: The applicant requests the following discretionary application: Site and Design Review: The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC 18.30(G). Site and Design applications are reviewed by the PTC and ARB, and recommendations are forward to the City Council for final action. Site and Design projects are evaluated against specific findings that include both the ARB findings (ARB purview) and Site and design findings (PTC purview). All findings must be made in the affirmative to approve the project. Failure to make any one finding requires project redesign or denial. The findings for ARB to approve a site and design application are provided in Attachment B. ANALYSIS2 Staff is still evaluating the project at this time and modifications are anticipated to provide all of the required elements of the submittal checklist and to show compliance with all applicable municipal code standards. Staff will provide a complete review of the project’s consistency with all applicable goals and policies as part of the next report. However, to facilitate input on the project design, preliminary conclusions of the project’s consistency with relevant guidelines, plans, and code requirements are provided herein. Neighborhood Setting and Character The proposed AWPS is located within the boundaries of the lease area of the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) but is just outside the current fence line where the plant abuts Embarcadero Road. Surrounding uses include office buildings to the west and public facilities to the north, east, and south. North across Embarcadero Road is the Palo Alto Airport. The RWQCP bounds the project to the northeast and southwest. An existing pedestrian trail abuts the site between the proposed project and Embarcadero Road. 2 The information provided in this section is based on analysis prepared by the report author prior to the public hearing. The Architectural Review Board in its review of the administrative record and based on public testimony may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to make alternative findings. A change to findings may result in a final action that is different from the staff recommended action in this report. Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 163     Item No. 3. Page 6 of 9 Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans and Guidelines3 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 major Institution/Special Facility which includes governmental and community service uses and lands that are publicly owned such as the subject property. The proposed AWPS within the area of the RWQCP boundaries is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use. Staff is still completing a thorough analysis of the project’s consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. Generally, the project is consistent with several goals of the Comprehensive Plan, including Policy N-4.17 of the Natural Element, which states “Improve source control, treatment, and distribution of recycled water, including reducing the salinity of recycled water, to maximize its use.” Baylands Design Guidelines The project is located within the Boundaries of the Baylands Nature Preserve. However, because it’s within the RWQCP boundaries, it is not located on land that is dedicated as parkland. Nevertheless, the project is subject to the Baylands Design Guidelines. Generally, the project appears consistent with the guidelines to the extent that they are applicable. However, the guidelines state: “Use only muted, natural colors. Choose materials and finishes that will weather without degrading. Avoid bright, reflective colors, including white.” Staff would appreciate board member feedback on the color selection for the roof materials and whether the color of the red is consistent with the design guidelines. The plans do not detail signage along the pedestrian path, but any signage proposed should be consistent with the design guidelines criteria. Airport Influence Area The project is located within the Airport Influence Area. Specifically, the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the Palo Alto Airport shows that the project area, and all of the RWQCP, is within the Turning Safety Zone. In the Turning Safety Zone, typically lower density uses are encouraged. The project does not conflict with any height restrictions in the plan. Zoning Compliance4 A detailed review of the proposed project’s consistency with applicable zoning standards is provided, to the extent feasible, in Attachment C. In some cases, the plans are unclear and modifications to the plans will be needed to show compliance with the code prior to the formal recommendation. 3 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online: bit.ly/PACompPlan2030 4 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: bit.ly/PAZoningCode Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 164     Item No. 3. Page 7 of 9 Trees The project plan indicates removal of 69 trees, approximately 30 of which are protected trees. 45 trees are proposed to remain. The project plans indicate a proposal to plant 24 replacement trees within the immediate vicinity. However, Public Works has indicated that these numbers are inaccurate and will incorporate more updated information into the next set of plans. Specifically, they indicated that following study sessions with the PRC and because a couple of trees fell in the more recent storms, only 60 trees are now planned for removal several of which are larger (25” or larger) trees (mainly eucalyptus). Most of existing trees are in fair/poor condition and belong to species considered invasive or non-native. They also noted that 56 trees are now planned to be planted. Urban Forestry has indicated that based on these updated numbers and tree canopy calculations, the project with these revisions, would comply. Lot Line Boundaries Based on City and County data, it appears that the proposed project would be constructed across two distinct parcels, including APN 008-06-001, which includes the majority of the RWQCP, and APN 008-05-005, which includes the Palo Alto Airport. Staff is currently conducting due diligence to confirm whether these parcel boundaries are accurate. If so, a lot line adjustment (certificate of compliance) would be required as a condition of approval to revise the parcel boundaries. Screening Wall A 10-foot-tall screening wall is proposed along the property boundary between the planting area and the proposed AWPS facility to screen equipment under the open-air canopy from the public right-of-way along Embarcadero. Under the existing conditions this wall may require a variance for the height. However, if the parcel boundaries change, a variance may no longer be required, depending on the setback from the parcel boundary. Multi-Modal Access & Parking The site would continue to be accessed from Embarcadero Way. No additional personnel are anticipated to operate the proposed project. Existing RWQCP staff would provide the necessary maintenance. Accordingly, no additional parking is proposed as part of the project. The proposed bicycle path would be modified but would continue to provide a paved pathway adjacent Embarcadero Road, similar to the existing condition. The design of the path and surrounding improvements accommodates feedback from the Parks and Recreation Commission. 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 Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 165     Item No. 3. Page 8 of 9 October 20, which is 12 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on October 18, which is 14 days in advance of the meeting. City Outreach and Coordination The City’s Public Works, Environmental Services Division has worked diligently on this project since Council’s adoption of the EIR for the Recycled Water Program. In addition to the study sessions with Council and the PRC, as noted above, they held the following meetings to obtain stakeholder feedback throughout the process. Kickoff meeting for the feasibility study was held June 2016 with Mountain View and Valley Water. The City, in coordination with Valley Water and Mountain View, held workshops at 50% completion (September 2016), 80% completion (December 2016), and 95% completion (January 2017). Preliminary Design workshop with Mountain View and Valley Water (October 2017) Quarterly Joint Recycled Water Meetings with Palo Alto Council Members, Mountain View Council Members and Valley Water Board Members Palo Alto hosted a community meeting on October 23, 2019 to inform the community and answer questions about the components of the funding Agreement between Palo Alto, Valley Water, and Mountain View, including partial funding for the AWPS/Local Plant. Members of the public approached staff during break-out sessions to get direct answers to questions. Most comments were focused on the Agreement terms and were overall supportive of the AWPS facility. With respect to Palo Alto itself, the open meetings on the budget process serve as the main vehicle for engaging the community on both new projects such as this and associated rate impacts. EIR Addendum was covered in this session. 30% Design workshop December 2021, 60% Design workshop January 2022 and 90% design workshop November 2022. Valley Water and Mountain View staff attended these workshops September 19, 2023 – Finance Committee Meeting to discuss Local AWPS project. Committee approved and recommended moving forward. 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. In 2015 Council adopted an EIR for the City of Palo Alto Recycled Water Project. The EIR included mitigation Measure MM HYD-3d, which required the City to consider treatment options, such as reverse osmosis, to reduce the salinity of its recycled water and thus make its recycled water useable for irrigation of salt-sensitive species. On November 18, 2019, in taking discretionary actions to further pursue this project, council adopted an EIR addendum that included more site-specific details associated with the proposed development. The adopted CEQA addendum is included in Attachment E. Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 166     Item No. 3. Page 9 of 9 ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Location Map Attachment B: ARB Findings Attachment C: Zoning Consistency Analysis Attachment D: Project Description Attachment E: Project Plans and CEQA Addendum AUTHOR/TITLE: Claire Raybould, Senior Planner Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 167     Operations_Building Sedimentation_Tanks Paint_Storage Chlorination_Station Incineration_Building Offices-stores Chlorine_Contact_Tank Aeration_Tanks Secondary_Clarifiers Reclamation_StorageAdministration_Building Flocculator_Clarifier Water_Reclamation_Tank Water_Reclamation_Tank Rossi Aircraft_(Chevron)_ZP Aircraft Maint__Shoreline Avionics 78.8' 253.4' 51.5' 84.5' 228.5' 83.0' 91.5' 98.6' 106.0' 140.5' 263.5' 68.5' 75.8' 292.5' 515.9'33.2'.2'564.0' 228.5' 291.1' 789.6' 515.9' 29.0' 206.0' 626.2' 168.2' 201.2' .2'33.2' 261.9' 160.1' 17.0' 253.2' 196.9' 234.7'195.5' 5.0' 206.5' 234.7' 22.2' 184.7' 9.6' 206.0' 5.0' 226.0' 2501 2478 2470 2468 2460 2450 2448 2438 2452 2454 2458 2462 2464 24762472 1840 820 1900 1903 2415 2417 2425 1905 90 EMBARCADERO ROAD EMBARCADERO WAY EMBARCADERO ROAD PC-3020 OLMD)(AD)Water Quality Control Plant 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 Parcels '091'0 Attachment A:Location Map2501 Embarcadero Way CITY OF PALO ALTOINCORPORATED CAL I F O R N I A P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P R I L 1 6 1 8 9 4 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto chodgki, 2023-10-18 08:40:52 (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) Item 3 Attachment A-Location Map     Packet Pg. 168     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 design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant design guides. Finding #2: The project has a unified and coherent design, that: a. creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community, b. preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site and the historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant, c. is consistent with the context-based design criteria of the applicable zone district, d. provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations, e. enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent residential areas. Finding #3: The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. Finding #4: The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and providing for elements that support the building’s necessary operations (e.g. convenient vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.). Finding #5: The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is appropriate to the site’s functions, and utilizes to the extent practical, regional indigenous drought resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat that can be appropriately maintained. Finding #6: The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning. Item 3 Attachment B - ARB Findings only     Packet Pg. 169     2 1 5 3 ATTACHMENT C ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 2501 Embarcadero Way, 22PLN-00367 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.28 (PF DISTRICT) Regulation Required Existing Proposed Minimum Site Area, width and depth None 44,566,185 (1023 ac)44,566,185 (1023 ac)1 Minimum Front Yard (Embarcadero Road) (2) 20 feet More than 50 feet 24 feet Rear Yard 10 feet More than 115 feet Unclear (more than 100 ft) Interior Side Yard 10 feet More than 80 feet Varies; 96 to 118 ft Special Setback 24 feet – see Chapter 20.08 & zoning maps Not applicable Not applicable Max. Site Coverage 30% (24,691 sf)0.87% 0.91% Max. Total Floor Area Ratio 1:1 (44,566.185 sf).0082: 1.0 (366,108 sf).0091: 1.0 (406,378 sf) Max. Building Height 50 ft or 35 ft when located within 150 ft of residentially zoned property Unknown 32 feet Daylight Plane None Not Applicable Not Applicable Employee Showers 0 required for new square footage greater than 9,999 sf Unclear 0 (facilities will be unmanned and maintained by existing RWQCP staff) 1. The project plans do not reflect a proposal to change the parcels; however, in staff’s review it appears that a lot line adjustment may be necessary which ultimately would increase the square footage of the parcel on which the project is located. Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) for Public Facilities* Type Required Existing Proposed Vehicle Parking To be determined by Director Unclear 0 (facilities will be unmanned and maintained by existing RWQCP staff) Bicycle Parking To be determined by Director Unclear 0 Loading Space To be determined by Director 0 0 Item 3 Attachment C - Zoning Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 170         Local Advanced Water Purification System ARB Major Submittal Prepared by City of Palo Alto September 2022 Item 3 Attachment D_Applicants Project Description     Packet Pg. 171       2                                                                                        MEMORANDUM FROM: Diego Martinez Garcia, Associate Engineer, City of Palo Alto Tom Kapushinski, Senior Engineer, City of Palo Alto TO: Architectural Review Board/ City of Palo Alto PROJECT: Local Advanced Water Purification System (AWPS) DATE: September 2022 SUBJECT: Project Written Description This project description summary is prepared for the City of Palo Alto (City) Architectural Review Board (ARB) site and design review of the Local Advanced Water Purification System (AWPS, proposed project) at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP), Palo Alto, California. 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. Introduction and Background of the Project   The City of Palo Alto owns and operates the RWQCP, which is an advanced treatment facility that provides wastewater treatment for the cities of Palo Alto, Mountain View, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Stanford and East Palo Alto Sanitary District. Currently, the RWQCP treats an average of 17 million gallons per day (MGD), much of the treated effluent is discharged into the Lower South Bay. The RWQCP produces and distributes approximately 230 million gallons per year of tertiary-treated recycled water to the City of Mountain View, several City-owned facilities and a commercial truck fill standpipe at the RWQCP. Following public concerns regarding the irrigation of redwood trees and other salt-sensitive species with recycled water, the City prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) focused on water quality issues and salinity impacts. On January 25, 2010, Council approved the Recycled Water Salinity Reduction Policy including a goal of reducing the recycled water total dissolved solids level to 600 parts per million. In 2017, Valley Water, Palo Alto, and Mountain View finalized a feasibility study and the preliminary design report for a local Advanced Water Purification System (Project). Currently, the Project is in design and construction is expected to begin in 2023. Item 3 Attachment D_Applicants Project Description     Packet Pg. 172       3    The Project will improve the recycled water quality by reducing its average concentration of total dissolved solids (TDS) from 800 milligrams per liter (mg/L) to 450 +- 50 mg/L through the blending of reverse osmosis permeate with tertiary-treated recycled water. Highly treated water produced by the Project would benefit landscapes currently irrigated with recycled water in Palo Alto, enable Palo Alto to expand its non-potable distribution system, and provide a first step toward small-scale potable water production for direct or indirect potable reuse in Palo Alto. Scope of Work   The Project will consist of the following elements: membrane filtration (microfiltration or ultrafiltration), reverse osmosis, chemical storage/feed systems, a permeate storage tank and ancillary components. The Project will be located outside the current fence on the northwest side of the RWQCP. The new facility will be a one-story concrete deck approximately 116 ft by 134 ft in area and will house membrane filtration, the reverse osmosis system, a majority of the chemical feed system, and other ancillary components. The facility would have a building footprint of approximately 15,544 square feet. The concrete deck foundation will consist of 258 piles for the main deck with a pile tip elevation of -30 ft. The Project includes an electrical building located on the western side of the main structure. For this building, an additional concrete deck 80 ft by 20 ft will be installed. The foundation of this smaller deck will consist of 48 piles with a pile tip elevation of - 30 ft. The main structure will be partially covered by a roof. The roof dimensions are 112 ft by 66 ft with a height of 32 ft. The Project also includes a reverse osmosis permeate tank that will be located northeast of the main structure and west of the former chlorine contact tank. The storage tank will be a 50 ft diameter circular tank with a nominal sidewall height of 30 ft. The storage tank capacity will be 350,000 gals. The tank will be erected on a reinforced concrete mat type foundation supported by deep pile foundation as designed by the tank supplier and installed by the Contractor The Project will also include a blending station located in the basement of the RWQCP Administration Building and installation of yard piping inside the RWQCP. Existing and Proposed Uses   The local AWPS will be located on currently undeveloped land in the western portion of the RWQCP area. The site includes a soil bed filter that removes odors from the Influent Pumping Station. The soil bed filter will be removed, and an odor control system will be installed next to the Influent Pumping Station. Several water and wastewater mains are in the site. The main structure was designed to consider an East Palo Alto Sanitary District easement. The Project includes the relocation of one 8-inch sewer line located onsite. The proposed local AWPS will be part of the RWQCP Recycled Water production system. Tertiary-treated recycled water will be conveyed from the current Chlorine Contact Tank into the membrane filtration. Reverse osmosis permeate will be pumped to a permeate storage tank. Permeate will be mixed with tertiary-treated recycled water and then sent to the recycled water system. The facility will not be permanently occupied and will have space for one operator to access as needed for routine operations and maintenance. Item 3 Attachment D_Applicants Project Description     Packet Pg. 173       4    Purpose of the Proposed Changes   The purpose of the changes to the site is to construct an AWPS to improve the recycled water quality by reducing its average concentration of total dissolved solids (TDS) from 800 milligrams per liter (mg/L) to 450 +- 50 mg/L through the blending of reverse osmosis permeate with tertiary-treated recycled water. Design Intent   The basis of design for the Project is to meet a maximum, instantaneous permeate production capacity of 1.125 MGD during the current first phase, expandable to 2.25 MGD in a future second phase. The Project is being designed to accommodate the future expansion with minimal civil/mechanical/electrical work by adding equipment to housekeeping pads. To account for future sea level rise in accordiance with the City of Palo Alto Sea Level Rise Policy, the finished grade elveation will be raised at the location of the Project. The top of concrete of the main Project structure will be set at 11.5 ft. To make up for the remainder of the required elevevation to keep rotating mechanical, electrical and instrumentation out of the flood plain and future sea level elevation, equipment will be placed on equipment pads as required to an elevation of 13.5 ft. The top of the new chemical containment wall will be at 13.5 ft. The main structure will sit approximately 3 to 4 feet higher than the surrounding terrain. The on- site grading is being designed to maintain a 2% or less slope in building access areas and 4% or less slope in operational maneuvering areas. Electrical, potable water and fire services supply will be independent from the existing RWQCP services and new connections will be needed from City of Palo Alto Utilities. The proposed architectural design addresses the City’s desire for a facility that blends into the surrounding environment but at the same time provides treatment for recycled water in an efficient way. The Project emphasizes functional and operation requirements needed for a facility such as the RWQCP, but also takes into consideration the existing pedestrian walkway and landscaping outside the RWQCP. The Project is being designed to address public views from outside the RWQCP perimeter by maintaining screening as much as possible given the severe space limitations on-site. Buildings, screen fencing/walls and canopies at the Project site will use materials, colors and design standards consistent with existing facilities. The following strategies have been implemented to define the inward facing and outward facing architectural solutions: a) Optimize the comfort and safety of the working environment beyond the minimum space requirements to achieve practical and functional solutions b) Use practical architectural forms, features, materials, finishes and colors to blend into the environment and be consistent with the existing RWQCP structures and in scale with surrounding area c) Utilize building materials that promote durability, longevity and ease of maintenance d) Consider material availability and sourcing to keep project costs and schedules in check Item 3 Attachment D_Applicants Project Description     Packet Pg. 174       5    Materials, Colors and Construction Methods   The Project building, canopy, fencing/walls and materials are selected to meet the RWQCP operational and safety requirements outlined in the project, governing CEQA documents, design criteria, and compliance with building codes and standards. Building forms, materials and colors are selected to meet Palo Alto Baylands Master Plan and the RWQCP CEQA document requirements for screening in Embarcadero Road, the adjacent business park and the pedestrian path. Canopy – The canopy will be over the microfiltration and reverse osmosis equipment, compressors, cartridge filters and blowers. The canopy will be approximately 66 ft wide, 116 ft long with a clearance of 25 ft and a maximum height of 32 ft. The canopy will be a pre- engineered metal building with purlin supports and a standing seam roof. The roof color will be colonial red, and the purlins will be painted cool zinc gray. Electrical building – The electrical building will be a pre-fabricated building that houses motor control centers (MCCs) and variable frequency drives (VFDs) as well as a small control room for SCADA equipment. The building is located west of the main structure and is 80 ft long by 20 ft wide with a height of 12.5 ft. The building is a prefabricated unit painted ANSI 70 Gray #5049. RO Permeate Tank – A 50 ft diameter tank, 30 ft tall tank made of glass-lined bolted steel painted forest green. The color was selected based on the manufacturer’s catalogue and provides continuity with the existing and new tree canopy around the RWQCP Item 3 Attachment D_Applicants Project Description     Packet Pg. 175       6    Chainlink security fence – An 8 feet high galvanized steel chain-link to meet RWQCP security specifications. Additionally, perimeter fencing solutions are developed to meet the project criteria of aesthetically screening the local AWPS from exterior public view. Concrete soundwall – To reduce sound coming from the pumping equipment inside the facility, a 10 feet high, precast concrete wall with precast concrete pilasters will be installed in certain sections of the perimeter. The wall’s exterior surface will have a wood plank texture with a horizontal board staggered pattern. The wall will be stained and will be coated with an anti- graffiti sealer. Colors and materials were selected to blend into the adjacent landscape plant screening material. Asphalt pedestrian path – A 5 feet wide asphalt pedestrian path with wood headerboard Construction Methods The Project will be constructed over a period of 18 months beginning in 2023 and continuing through 2024. Project construction will consist of soil bed filter removal, tree removal, sewer line relocation, excavation, pile installation, building construction, equipment installation, startup and testing. In parallel, pile excavation and site preparation for the permeate storage tank will take place. On the exterior, the perimeter wall foundation will be excavated and constructed. The Project will include new landscaping and tree replacement onsite. Inside the RWQCP, yard piping excavation, installation and fill will occur as well as work in the chemical storage tanks and basement of the Administration Building. Construction access will be from Embarcadero Way. The Project will be designed to be constructed without interruption to the current treatment operations, except during special circumstances such as piping and utility tie-ins. Landscaping Plan   The landscape design follows the requirements of the Palo Alto Baylands Master Plan and the requirements for the RWQCP to install and maintain landscaping around the facility to provide visual screening for visitors to the surrounding Baylands. The landscape solution is designed to:  Blend into the existing site and the existing Baylands planting layout and palette, Item 3 Attachment D_Applicants Project Description     Packet Pg. 176       7    creating an aesthetically pleasing facility.  Take advantage of existing healthy mature screening, transition to denser shrubs along the fenceline and move to smaller shrubs and native grasses towards the road.  Combine perimeter fencing solutions and layered plant materials to screen the Project and ancillary structures  Maintain safety and site security. The planting design considers the right balance of plant material and path alignment to provide vehicles, cyclists and pedestrian traffic adequate visibility to each other and safe sight distance.  Provide a plant palette that will be low-maintenance, low water use, visually interesting in foliage color, texture and blooms, and locally adapted to the climate. Lighting Design Criteria   Lightning levels will be provided following the recommended levels suggested by the Illumination Engineering Society (IES) handbook. Lighting fixtures types are to be suitable for the environments where installed and will be installed in a serviceable and accessible location for routine maintenance. Light sources for the entire project will be LED. Indoor location will be provided with lighting fixtures than ensure all passages and exits remain illuminated in the event of power failure. Under the canopy ceiling mounted and pendant mounted fixtures will be installed. For outdoor locations but inside the RWQCP, pole mounted fixtures will be installed with heights as required to maintain lightning illumination levels in the area similar to other structures at the RWQCP. Pole heights and locations are considered to address maintenance issues for the City to replace or repair fixtures. The project does not include any modification to the lightning located outside the perimeter wall along Embarcadero Road. Egress and emergency lighting systems are provided in conformance with NFPA 101 (Life Safety Code). LED type exit signs will be placed inside the facilities as well. Item 3 Attachment D_Applicants Project Description     Packet Pg. 177     Attachment E Project Plans Project plans are available to the public online. Hardcopies of the plans have been provided to Board members. Environmental Review Council previously adopted an Addendum to the 2015 Environmental Impact Report which evaluated the specific details of the proposed project. The Addendum is available on the project webpage. Directions to review Project plans online: 1. Go to: bit.ly/PApendingprojects 2. Scroll down to find “2501 Embarcadero Way” and click the address link 3. On this project specific webpage you will find a link to the project plans and other important information Direct Link to Project Webpage: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Current- Planning/Projects/2501-Embarcadero-Way Item 3 Attachment E - Project Plans     Packet Pg. 178     Item No. 4. Page 1 of 1 Architectural Review Board Staff Report From: Jonathan Lait, Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: November 2, 2023 Report #: 2310-2145 TITLE Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for October 5, 2023 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) adopt the attached meeting minutes. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Minutes of October 5, 2023 AUTHOR/TITLE: ARB Liaison1 & Contact Information Claire Raybould, AICP, Senior Planner (650) 329-2116 Claire.Raybould@CityofPaloAlto.org 1 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@CityofPaloAlto.org. Item 4 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 179     Page 1 of 28 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 10/05/23 2 7 8 8 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD DRAFT MINUTES: October 5, 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, Boardmember Adcock 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. Chair Baltay commented that Boardmember Hirsch would be making a statement at the end of the 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 Senior Planner Raybould reported there are several packed future agendas and requested the Board let her know their status for the December 21, 2023 meeting, and that the January 4, 2024 meeting is scheduled to be canceled. Vice Chair Rosenberg requested that the future meeting dates listed at the end of the agenda include dates for a month or two out so she can confirm her calendar for the holidays. Ms. Raybould stated there is an upcoming preliminary review for 616 Ramona, and they will be using transferred development rights in the downtown area. The November 2nd Agenda has a study session for the Local advanced Water Purification System at the regional water quality control plant and a housing project at 793 Sutter. November 16 will be the second study session for the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP). There were no new projects added to the upcoming projects list since the last meeting. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of October 5, 2023     Packet Pg. 180     Page 2 of 28 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 10/05/23 2 7 8 8 Vice Chair Rosenberg read that the 3000 El Camino project listed there had been a report out and she didn’t recall there being a report and requested that be updated. Ms. Raybould stated staff had held off on that report due to attorney conversations surrounding that project, and staff is still determining the most appropriate path forward. Chair Baltay asked if 3400 El Camino Real project should have a subcommittee since it is an SB 330 Builders Remedy application and inquired about its status. Ms. Raybould answered that it is a SB 330 pre-application in the very preliminary stage. They filed an SB 330 pre-application and have not yet filed a formal application. Staff’s plans for the project are still very vague as the applicant submitted two very different plans under SB 330, which was when it was initially reviewed. Manager of Current Planning Jodie Gerhardt stated this is the Creekside Inn property and staff is still in discussions with the applicant because they don’t believe they have a compliant SB 330 application, the project under SB 330 is required to have two-thirds housing and it currently doesn’t appear to meet that requirement. Chair Baltay asked if she saw any value to assigning an ad hoc committee at this stage of the process. Ms. Gerhardt responded not at this point. She believed there will be some changes that could happen, and the implementation of the Housing Element will be moving forward which could potentially change the zone of the area; new projects would also be required to adhere to those requirements as well. It is a changing environment. Chair Baltay reported that at a previous engagement he had the opportunity to speak with former Planning Director Lait who mentioned there is a need to come up with revised guidelines for parklets in Palo Alto. Chair Baltay volunteered an ARB ad hoc subcommittee to help in that process and asked if any Boardmembers had an interest in serving on the committee with him. Boardmember Chen expressed an interest in serving on the ad hoc subcommittee. Ms. Gerhardt expressed that was a great idea and she, with Amy French, recently attended a Regional meeting in the City of Campbell where they showed them their parklets. They have two specific designs that were preauthorized and three parklets currently under construction. She could provide them as good examples for the ad hoc committee. Los Gatos also has examples. Chair Baltay commented that he would reach out to her separately and they could set the schedule for the ad hoc to meet and moved on to the Action Item. Boardmember Adcock stated that she was advised that she might consider recusing herself for the Stanford Shopping Center item and requested the ARB’s opinion, as she didn’t believe there was a conflict. She does projects at Stanford University but nothing on Stanford lands that are leased to other entities. Chair Baltay stated that was an individual decision and the ARB could not weigh in and requested staff’s opinion. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of October 5, 2023     Packet Pg. 181     Page 3 of 28 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 10/05/23 2 7 8 8 Ms. Raybould stated that it was at the advice of the City Attorney and it was determined that it would be most appropriate for Boardmember Adcock to recuse herself in compliance with State Law. Ms. Gerhardt commented that she has a housing presentation before the first Action Item unless the ARB wanted to change the Agenda. With regards to Boardmember Adcock’s situation for the first Action item, staff believes there is a conflict. She can choose to stay, but that could potentially jeopardize the approval of the project if someone else believed there was a need for her to be recused. Boardmember Adcock stated that none of her projects have anything to do with Stanford Shopping Center, however, after the housing presentation she will recuse herself. Ms. Gerhardt asked if the Board wanted her to wait on the housing presentation. Chair Baltay apologized for having missed the item and requested staff provide their presentation. Boardmember Hirsch inquired if it would be possible to receive more information to help the Board decide when it’s necessary to recuse themselves. Ms. Gerhardt explained that it is a personal choice for each Boardmember, and staff wouldn’t necessarily disclose personal information about a Boardmember choosing to recuse themselves, however if there were a generic question for the attorney, she could find that out. Boardmember Hirsch said it might be helpful if the attorney could explain the language within the law as to why it would be necessary. Ms. Raybould commented that within the law it states that “for a source of income that is non-profit organization, a conflict exists where the non-profit owns real property that is a subject of the decision even if they are not the named applicant”. If, as a Boardmember, they obtained income from a certain non-profit, under State Law, staff believes a conflict exists if that source of income is a named applicant for an application, or the underlying landowner for that application. In this case, Stanford is the real property owner. Chair Baltay stated he did not want to continue the discussion and requested staff discuss it and decide if they need to bring it to the Board as a whole to provide an answer at a later date. In today’s situation, he was not willing to jeopardize the Board’s standing and the City’s advice should be taken seriously. 2. Staff Presentation Providing a Summary of State Housing Laws for Multi-family Housing Projects. Chair Baltay called for staff’s presentation. Manager of Current Planning Jodie Gerhardt explained that this presentation was about recent State Housing laws and Palo Alto’s Streamlined Process that came out of the recent changes. There have been many changes in recent years, even those in the planning profession are trying to keep up. In order to combat the State’s housing crisis, the legislature passed a number of laws aimed at increasing the supply of housing. The one’s reflected in the presentation including the Housing Element (HE) and Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), the Housing Accountability Act, SB 330, and State Density Bonus Law and how they apply to Palo Alto’s Objective Standards, and Palo Alto’s Streamlined Process. The Housing Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of October 5, 2023     Packet Pg. 182     Page 4 of 28 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 10/05/23 2 7 8 8 Element must be updated every eight years, and a major component is RHNA. The 2023-2031 RHNA requires California to plan for a total of 2.5 million new housing units, which is a significant increase from the3 1.8 million units that were required in the 2019-2025 RHNA Plan. Palo Alto’s RHNA is 6.086 units which makes them eligible for a number of state funding programs if they are able to fulfill the State’s requirement. Additionally, compliance would ensure that Palo Alto maintains local control. Other housing laws kick in if they are not able to comply with RHNA. The deadline to submit an updated Housing Element to California’s Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) was January 31, 2023. Council adopted Palo Alto’s Housing Element on May 8, 2023. Builder’s Remedy is a streamlining tool that provides housing development projects with at least 20% affordable housing that is not in conformance with a jurisdiction’s zoning or Comprehensive Plan. Because the HE has not yet been approved by HCD, it puts the city in a grey area in which Builder’s Remedy could potentially be possible. Without an HCD-certified housing element, the city has limited ability to deny such a project. Currently there are three such pending projects, the Creekside project, McDonalds/fish market project, and a project on Fabian (next to the JCC) are the three pending projects. The next deadline is January 1, 2024, for upzoning HE properties to allow housing. Staff have already started that portion of that process at the most recent City Council meeting. Housing Development Projects (HDP) means a use consisting of any of the following: residential units only, transitional or supportive housing, and mixed-use developments consisting of resident and non- residential uses with at least two-thirds of the square footage designated for residential use. The housing consultant Jean Eisberg put together different handouts regarding the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) which passed in 1982 but has become more significant in recent years. The City cannot deny a project, reduce its density, or otherwise make a project infeasible, when the HDP complies with all objective standards. There are also hand-outs for Senate Bill (SB) 330. The most noteworthy change is that an applicant can freeze development standards and fees for 180 days for SB 330 compliant pre-application, based on the date an SB 330 application is submitted. New zoning codes put in place would not apply to that project. When they get to the formal stage, there can be up to 20% tweaks to the project and still remain in freeze status. Other parts of SB 330 compliant projects include the five hearing limit, including appeals, for projects that are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning. SB 330 prohibits cities from enforcing subjective design standards established after January 1, 2020. Existing standards may continue to be applied. Cities cannot reduce height, density, or floor area ration, increase open space, lot size, setbacks, or frontage; or limit maximum lot coverage. The City may add objective condition. It requires the replacement of any existing units and/or demolished “protected” residential units with at least the same number of units/bedrooms. Once a project specific California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is adopted, there are reduced timelines the City has to take action against an application, designed to ensure a project continues moving forward. State Density Bonus Law (SDBL) allows developers to increase the density of their projects in exchange for providing affordable housing units: up to 50% bonus for projects that include at least 15% of very low income housing, up to 50% bonus for projects that include 24% low income units, up to 80% bonus for projects that are 100% affordable. These bonuses are in combination with the 15% affordable that the City already requires. The projects that meet those requirements are eligible for the bonus, without having to build additional units. Any project that qualifies for the Density Bonus can take advantage of concessions and waivers. Waivers are unlimited and generally for physical constraints such as height limits, daylight plane, setbacks, and most design standards. Concessions are for financial limitations and projects are allowed one to four concessions dependent upon the affordability of the project. Ground floor retail requirements or decreasing required open space could Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of October 5, 2023     Packet Pg. 183     Page 5 of 28 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 10/05/23 2 7 8 8 be examples of possible concessions. Reduced parking would be another concession. Object Design standards went into effect in July of 2022. That information can be found on the City’s website. The entry point for the Objective Design Standards applicability is for multi-family projects, mixed use projects which require 2/3’s of the project be for residential, and transitional and supportive housing, but are limited by the zones that allow multifamily housing (RMs, Cs, CDs, ROLMs, PTOD, PF). When staff redid the Objective Design Standards (ODS), they also built a new streamlined process. HDP’s must meet entry points, but they also have to meet ODS, and any area plans in order to qualify for the streamlined process. If a project does not meet the entry points or the ODS, they can opt into the discretionary review which is the standard ARB process, however they then would weigh themselves against the context based design criteria. City Council chose to continue using those, and there are the ARB findings, and up to three hearings. In the streamlined process there are two findings: 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, and 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 the 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. Assembly Bill (AB) 2097 parking exemptions applies to all projects in the city; however, hotels and event centers must still provide parking requirements. If a housing project is within a half mile of a major public transit, then parking does not have to be provided. Major public transit is defined as Caltrain stops and intersecting buses, but those must have a fifteen minute headway. There are many buses on El Camino, there are not frequent buses on Page Mill and other intersecting streets. Because of that, the only areas that apply to the parking exceptions are those within a half mile radius of the University and Cal Ave CalTran stations; San Antonio CalTran station also seeps into the city’s area. If they do provide parking staff would apply the same ratio’s for Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) and Electric Vehicle (EV) parking. Staff are also working on the Transit Demand Management (TDM) program regulations in which developers can purchase train passes in lieu of providing parking. Chair Baltay opened the item to Board questions only as discussions are not allowed on informational items. Boardmember Hirsch commented that all of the information was impressive and inquired when the Board will get copies of all of the information. Ms. Raybould stated they would send it to him that day. Vice Chair Rosenberg commented it was a great presentation and she may have questions in the future. Boardmember Adcock commented that a PDF copy would be great and inquired if she could get a copy of the Objective Standards that was created in 2020. Ms. Gerhardt commented that staff have worked their way through most of the projects that came before those, and they are starting to get into the projects in which Objective Design Standards apply. Staff are on the cusp of that, so in their staff reports they will make sure the Board is aware of which side the line the project is on. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of October 5, 2023     Packet Pg. 184     Page 6 of 28 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 10/05/23 2 7 8 8 Ms. Raybould commented that she was unaware of any projects that are not subject to the Objective Standards. Boardmember Chen inquired if the Bonus Density Law applied added units or added floor area to units. Ms. Gerhardt responded that it could be applied to either. If they had a density restriction, then it is first based on that. If there is not a density restriction, it becomes more based on Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and how many units could be fit in that FAR and then calculating the number from that. It gets complicated quickly. Boardmember Chen commented there are three areas of Housing Development categories, one being transitional and supportive housing and inquired if the transitional housing was also a mixed use, would it meet those requirements. Ms. Gerhardt stated she would have to get back to her on that answer. Boardmember Chen if the standard ARB process always included three meetings or if that was new. Ms. Raybould stated that it has always been that process. Chair Baltay inquired if the implementation of a daylight plane is considered downzoning. Ms. Gerhardt stated that would be a grey area as there are varying daylight planes. Chair Baltay stated then it would be subjective. Ms. Raybould responded if it affects density. Chair Baltay stated that theoretically everything effects density and daylight planes are important; and that with objective standards projects are still required to comply with design guidelines and area plans and posed the question of those being subjective. Ms. Raybould clarified that it’s only to the extent that they are objective. Chair Baltay asked how that determination is published or made clear, what is the objective portion of those standards and how does an applicant know that. Ms. Raybould stated that was a good question and staff are currently trying to work on that. Chair Baltay inquired regarding AB 2097 and a property being within a half mile of public transit if that applied to the entire property or any corner of the property. Ms. Gerhardt answered that she believed it was 75% of the property needed to be within a half mile of the transit station. There are maps online that are detailed enough to show that. Chair Baltay questioned if those maps are published at what that half mile radius zone is. Ms. Gerhardt replied she was unsure if staff had placed those maps on the internet, however staff have access to them and are available to the public at the asking. Ms. Raybould stated at the development center staff can assist anyone in looking at GIS online. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of October 5, 2023     Packet Pg. 185     Page 7 of 28 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 10/05/23 2 7 8 8 Chair Baltay thanked staff for the presentation. Action Items 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). Chair Baltay asked if any of the Boardmembers wanted to recuse themselves. Boardmember Adcock stated she would recuse herself for the item. Chair Baltay introduced the item located at 180 El Camino Real [23PLN-00155] and asked for Boardmember disclosures. Vice Chair Rosenberg stated she visited the site, reviewed previous items, and familiarized herself with the project. Boardmember Chen stated she visited the site and reviewed the previous meeting videos. Chair Baltay disclosed he visited the site and was on the Board for the previous meetings and noted that Boardmember Hirsch had stepped away and he would ask him once he returned. Tamara Harrison, with Michael Baker International, provided the staff report as the contract planner for staff. The location is 180 El Camino Real and is for Restoration Hardware modifications. Chair Baltay requested Boardmember Hirsch’s disclosures. Boardmember Hirsch stated he had no disclosures to report. Ms. Harrison continued and stated the project is for a new three-story standalone building that is currently under construction at the site. The site is located within the Stanford Shopping Center, subject to the Master Tenant façade and sign program and the Master program requires that tenants in free standing buildings require City review. Restoration Hardware will be located at the Sand Hill Road and Shopping Center Way entrance and the applicant seeks to modify the previously approved exterior façade of the building. The building was previously approved as part of the Macy’s Men’s Redevelopment project [19PLN-00110) on February 20, 2020. The applicant now proposes to modify the exterior façade of the building to a lighter color palette, remove various large light sconces, remove green walls and green fixtures, and have proposed to modify the door pulls and add Italian Limestone trim/cap in various areas of the building. Ms. Harrison showed slides for each elevation with both the previously approved elevation design and the current proposed changes. On the north elevation they are proposing to remove the green wall on the third level and add Italian trim around the outside of the patio balcony area and to remove the large light wall sconces for lighting. The south elevation has the same proposed changes as the north Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of October 5, 2023     Packet Pg. 186     Page 8 of 28 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 10/05/23 2 7 8 8 elevation. The east elevation is split into two sections on the upper floor. Additionally, the green walls have been proposed for removal, and there are alternate landscaping features that are being proposed. There are eight light sconces that have been proposed for removal, and they are requesting to replace the green columns with potted plants. The west elevation also shows the implementation of the Italian Limestone trim cap, four light sconces to be removed and reduced landscaping on both the top level and the lower level of the elevation. They are also proposing new door pulls on the entrance doors. A slide depicted the new proposed colors shown next to the previously approved color schemes. Key considerations for the project included ARB findings and the Master Tenant Façade and Signage (MTFS) program. Staff recommends that the ARB 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. Chair Baltay requested the applicants presentation. Michael Avellone with RH provided the applicant’s presentation and showed slides depicting the changes to the building. With the original approval being several years ago, the applicants wanted to take the opportunity to update the building in the company’s future color palette, the massing and the majority of the building and landscaping will remain the same. They retained the character defining features such as the awnings, balconies, and heritage olive trees around the perimeter of the building. The three changes include a stoned parapet cap of Italian Limestone, which compliments the new light velvety finish of the Mediterranean style light plaster, which is a lime based cementitious plaster composed of local sand and seashell aggregate from the Monterey area. They are looking to update the exterior metal color to a light warm champagne color. They have removed molding features around windows to enhance the plaster and it’s workmanship. The finishes on the interior are also being updated to complement the exterior finishes, which complements the product assortment for the gallery. The side elevations have been updated to remove the sconce lighting. For a more maintenance free building they are proposing to remove the hedging that was proposed on the back elevation of the building to screen the mechanical walls on the third floor. They are open to the ARB’s feedback and looking to provide a more resilient building and final product by finishing those walls with the plaster being used on the rest of the exterior. Their design intent is to define the Palo Alto building as the next generation by not pulling in the old details from past buildings. Chair Baltay thanked the applicant and opened the item to Public Comment. PUBLIC COMMENT Ms. Dao stated there are no public comments. Chair Baltay closed the meeting to public comment and inquired if there are any Board questions for staff or the applicant. Chair Baltay inquired where the champagne color sample was and if it is included on the material board. Vice Chair Rosenberg held up the material board. Chair Baltay asked the applicant why they chose to remove the light sconces instead of changing the style. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of October 5, 2023     Packet Pg. 187     Page 9 of 28 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 10/05/23 2 7 8 8 Mr. Avellone responded that they view those as the old design and architecture of their buildings, and they require a lot of maintenance and waterproofing into the building. Their intent is to create a more resilient building. Chair Baltay commented that light fixture is part of Restoration Hardware sales and asked if they are discontinuing the sale of light fixtures. Mr. Avellone replied they are not. Boardmember Hirsch commented that the assumption is the lighting of the building in the evenings will be internally sourced and asked how it works with no windows on the side that is facing the shopping center. Mr. Avellone responded that they had retained the architectural lighting on the building, which includes building up lights and a cornice up light from the previous approval. The sconces were more decorative than useful, and the large sconces are not an RH product and not supportive for the company. Boardmember Hirsch inquired about the perimeter hedging. Mr. Avellone explained the perimeter hedging would remain. It is the third story hedging they propose to remove. Boardmember Hirsch inquired if the courtyard was still intended to have product and how that would work after hours. Mr. Avellone answered that the store staff would close the gates each evening. Boardmember Hirsch commented he did not see anything regarding gates in the hedging. Mr. Avellone stated that the gates were approved at the previous meeting and the only change would be painting them to match the new façade. Boardmember Hirsch asked if they would repeat the metal coloring of the awnings. Mr. Avellone stated that was correct. Boardmember Hirsch inquired if the top floor dining stayed lit during night hours. Mr. Avellone responded that the area is lit during open hours of the evening and there is a night setting for the light fixtures along the perimeter of the building. The majority of the internal lights would be off during closing hours. Boardmember Hirsch asked if the furniture at the entrance of the building would remain overnight. Mr. Avellone answered that was correct, the furniture would remain. Boardmember Hirsch inquired how they proposed to protect that from potential vandalism. Mr. Avellone stated they cover the furniture during bad weather and have looked into ways to discreetly anchor the furniture down and are working with the mall security who will also be monitoring the area. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of October 5, 2023     Packet Pg. 188     Page 10 of 28 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 10/05/23 2 7 8 8 Vice Chair Rosenberg thanked the applicant for the presentation and inquired if they have an LRV of the new plaster color. Mr. Avellone replied they have one for the metal color, not the plaster color. The LRV for the metal siding is 36.66. He can provide that for the plaster. Vice Chair Rosenberg asked if the updating of the door handles would be just a style change. Mr. Avellone stated that was correct, there is a style change to the pull handles. There is a change in the color with a minimal change to the style, it is still a large bar pull. Vice Chair Rosenberg inquired if removing the green walls on the upper level was to provide easier maintenance on the building. Mr. Avellone responded that was correct. Vice Chair Rosenberg asked Mr. Avellone to explain why they kept the uplighting on the sides of the building but chose to remove the sconces. Mr. Avellone explained the uplighting is to highlight the architecture of the building, capped with the stepped corners lighting. The sconces often create large shadows on the building, which diminishes the intent to highlight the architecture. They are looking to move into a more contemporary design with all of their buildings moving forward. Vice Chair Rosenberg commented that a lot of the windows and doors appear to be operable on the first and second floor and asked if they actually are operable or are designed to look as if they do. Mr. Avellone answered they are fixed and made to look like doors. Vice Chair Rosenberg asked if they were concerned about people being confused and trying to open the wrong doors. Mr. Avellone replied that is part of the reason they no longer make them operable. They removed the hardware on the inside of the building so people don’t think they are operable while on the sales floor. Vice Chair Rosenberg requested clarification on which doors are operable. Mr. Avellone stated the entry façade on the ground floor, the large 25’ opening, bi-fold open on both the rear and the front of the building. All of the entries on the north and south sides of the building on both levels one and two are fixed. Every opening on the terrace level is operable, three on each side. They are all fixed on the rear of the building, with the exception of the main level 25’ door. Vice Chair Rosenberg noted that on Sheet RH6.1 – North Elevation, it does show that one of the side doors still has the swing operation. Mr. Avellone said yes that was correct, it is still a swing door. Boardmember Chen commented she visited the site the previous day and noticed work on the west side of the building and inquired if what she saw was going to be the final finish or if there was still more work to do. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of October 5, 2023     Packet Pg. 189     Page 11 of 28 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 10/05/23 2 7 8 8 Mr. Avellone stated that was very indicative of what the final result will be, the trellis changes still need to be completed, but the plaster and the store front and the awnings would be indicative of the changes being requested. Chair Baltay noted there were no further questions and returned the item for Board comments. Vice Chair Rosenberg commented that these were significant changes from what was originally submitted and approved. She finds the project to be very aesthetically pleasing and it’s a beautiful creamy color without being too bright. She would still like to know the LRV number for the plaster but based on the samples in the Chambers for the review, Vice Chair Rosenberg felt they did a good job in finding a balance between being lighter without being stark. Her two concerns include that the green walls on the top floor provided an aesthetic break up in shadow and textures of the vertical features on the upper level. Now that the building is white, it makes those elements much more noticeable. Additionally, she understands removing some of the sconces, and even changing some of the fixtures. The wall sconces provided wayfinding, safety, and a warm look to the building. There are a lot of doors on the building, her preference would be to keep some of the sconces to highlight where the entries to the building are located. Boardmember Hirsch stated he agreed with Vice Chair Rosenberg’s comments about the building being elegant, and they answered his questions regarding the uplighting. He agreed it’s a terrible idea to have the shadows on a building that the sconces produce. Removing the sconces was a good idea. There is a connection between the ground level greenery and the green wall on the upper level and didn’t feel the green wall was out of place, but that is a choice matter for the designers. It works well on the opposite side to not have the greenery wall. Every step along the way advances the design and he felt the changes were a significant improvement. It’s interesting that can look at their past store’s and each time they are able to do a little bit better than the previous stores. The elegance is continuing to grow with each building they renovate. Boardmember Hirsch thanked the applicant for the presentation and the sequence of interesting design. Boardmember Chen thanked the presentation and commented that the lighter pallet in her opinion was a good move, and it makes the building more elegant and more attractive, particularly on the rendering of the night view. Her concern is with the champaign color of the metal hardware. She believed the colors are too close to each other; there could be more contrast between the metal and the plaster on the walls. During the daylight hours the sun will make the building appear even more bright, a subtle contrast between the trellis and the wall is necessary and would add even more detail. It would also be nice if they could reconsider keeping the green wall on the upper level. It would soften the building and eliminate what could end up looking like a big blank wall, particularly with the added greenery in the landscape on the ground level. She agreed with Vice Chair Rosenberg about keeping some of the lighting fixtures. All of their buildings are like a showcase of their products, if they were to choose some of their own fixtures for the exterior of the walls, it could be a selling point and good example of what you have to offer potential clients. Chair Baltay commented that he finds he agrees with what has been said by his colleagues. If this had come to them originally with the lighter color, they would have approved the project. They would have been more concerned with the bulkiness of the building. When they originally approved the project, one Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of October 5, 2023     Packet Pg. 190     Page 12 of 28 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 10/05/23 2 7 8 8 of the things the ARB appreciated was the greenery on the top level, as it reduced the apparent bulk. The light fixtures helped to define more texture and diverted the attention from large blank walls and suggested they keep some of them and replace them with something similar in scale. The contrasting trim was also something he appreciated from the original plans. He agreed they should consider a higher contrast on the trim. Having a lighter color on the trim accentuates the blankness of the walls without the sconces. He believes the color should come back to a subcommittee and the green walls and the light fixtures should remain as approved. Boardmember Chen requested clarification of Chair Baltay’s request and asked if the applicant could choose the style of the sconces or was his request to keep the same sconces in the same locations. Chair Baltay stated it’s quite reasonable to say they want to upgrade the building and they can absolutely choose a different style. He is excited to see what Restoration Hardware could come up with and doesn’t feel that needs to be brought back to the subcommittee. He’s looking for compatibility with the community, large light colored buildings are something they have a difficult time with. He agreed he would like to see the LRV of the plaster siding as well. Boardmember Hirsch stated for consensus purposes he agrees that in looking at RH-2 that the bulk of the upper part of the building is emphasized way too much and the planting on the upper level could really reduce the appearance of that bulkiness. He also agreed with Boardmember Chen’s comments about having more contrast between the metal and plaster siding, and Chair Baltay’s point that those changes could be done through a committee rather than returning to the ARB. Chair Baltay stated they only thing he felt the ARB was not in consensus with was the light fixtures. He suggested they could keep light fixtures of a similar scale with a new design and that wouldn’t need to be returned to a subcommittee. It’s also possible to come up with a different design element, however, feels that should return to an ad hoc committee. Vice Chair Rosenberg stated she’s not as concerned about the removal of the sconces on the sides of the building as she is on the entry façades. She was interested in hearing the Board’s thoughts on the applicant removing the side fixtures and finding replacements for the front and rear elevations. She suggested they keep the four fixtures on RH 5 and RH7 façades. On RH6 and RH8, she felt they could remove all of them. Chair Baltay agreed that on the RH 6 side there are many oak trees, and those sconces typically are not visible. He believes the opposite side is very visible and he’s not comfortable with having no fixtures. The right two fixtures seem to him to be tacked on and applied. He could support no fixtures on the north elevation, not the south. Boardmember Chen agreed with removing the ones on the north elevation and replacing the fixtures on the south elevation. Boardmember Hirsch stated he was okay with that suggestion. Vice Chair Rosenberg requested clarification of Chair Baltay’s comment about the right fixtures on the south side. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of October 5, 2023     Packet Pg. 191     Page 13 of 28 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 10/05/23 2 7 8 8 Chair Baltay responded that his suggestion was that he wasn’t sure if light fixtures were the best design solution on the right hand side, but he didn’t want to home in on that detail, as the review was to them wanting to remove the fixture. The option is to approve that request or not. He was inclined to say keep the fixtures on the south façade and believed it’s better to have them than not have them. Chair Baltay asked the applicant if they had any comments regarding the ARB’s feedback pertaining to keeping the greenery, keep the bulk of the light fixtures or come back with a different design element that affects the same thing, and provide a different color for the contrasting metal. Mr. Avellone commented that they are understanding of keeping the greenery, which makes sense for the bulk of the building and new color, regarding the light fixtures, whatever they decide, they would do a symmetrical layout on both the north and south side of the building. They would not return with something on the south side that they had omitted on the north side. Regarding the metal, it is a complimentary and custom finish to the plaster. He believes that looking at a building that is in progress without landscaping, furniture and décor within the building causes the building to stand out more. It’s supposed to enhance the plaster and blend in. Chair Baltay inquired if they had already purchased those elements in that color or would it be possible to make that change. Mr. Avellone stated they have already purchased the paint for the large mockups that they’ve done and applying it to the metal is already in process. MOTION: Moved by Chair Baltay, seconded by Vice Chair Rosenberg, to approve the project with the following conditions: the existing greenery from the previous design be retained on the upper levels; the light fixtures be retained but may be modified to provide a revised style of a similar scale. The color of the metal trim around the windows and the canopy should be changed to a higher contrast and to have that return to an ad hoc committee for review approval. Vice Chair Rosenberg stated she would like to make a friendly amendment. FRIENDLY AMENDMENT Vice Chair Rosenberg stated she doesn’t believe they need to maintain the vertical green walls, only the top two on the upper level. She only heard concern about the two on the upper level as depicted in sheet RH7 on the left and right. Chair Baltay agreed that is acceptable. The Board is looking for them to retain the greenery on the upper two greenery walls on the left and right. Boardmember Hirsch commented they should not exclude the fixtures on only one elevation. Chair Baltay stated that the applicant made comment to that effect and asked Vice Chair Rosenberg if she was okay with removing the sentence about the north elevation. Vice Chair Rosenberg agreed she was fine with that. VOTE: 4-0-1 (Adcock Abstained by Recusal) Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of October 5, 2023     Packet Pg. 192     Page 14 of 28 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 10/05/23 2 7 8 8 Chair Baltay assigned Boardmember Chen and Vice Chair Rosenberg to the ad hoc committee for this project. The ARB took a short break. All members of the Board returned from break. 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. Chair Baltay introduced the item at 420 Acacia and asked for Boardmember disclosures. Boardmember Hirsch commented no. Chair Baltay reaffirmed no disclosures. Vice Chair Rosenberg stated she visited the site. Chair Baltay stated he visited the site. Boardmember Chen stated she visited the site. Boardmember Adcock stated she visited the site. Chair Baltay requested staff’s presentation. Senior Planner Claire Raybould provided staff’s presentation for 420 Acacia [23PLN-00058] and stated it is the City’s first Streamlined housing development review project. The project is located in the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP) future planning area. The land use is fairly unique as there is split zoning and split land use on the site. The majority of the site is zoned RM 30 for multifamily residential and a small portion at the rear of the parcel is zoned R-1 single family residential. The land use aligns with those. The RM 30 zoned area also has a multifamily land use designation and the R-1 portion has a land use designation of single family residential. The project proposes to construct sixteen unit multifamily with two units affordable to medium income on a .8 acre parcel that has surrounding uses of single family along Olive Avenue at the rear and nonresidential uses such as office and gym on Acacia across the Acacia, and an approved 129 unit multifamily affordable housing project adjacent the site along El Camino and Acacia. Additionally, the existing Cannery building 200-404 Portage sits to the east of the site at the end Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of October 5, 2023     Packet Pg. 193     Page 15 of 28 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 10/05/23 2 7 8 8 of Acacia. The project is proposing to utilize State Density Bonus. They are eligible for one concession which they are planning to use for the landscaping for the rooftop open space, as well as unlimited waivers which are proposed to be used for height, floor area, lot coverage, front setback, private street width, finished floor height, and for the daylight plane for the fixtures on the rooftop open space. This exact details are included in the staff report. Key consideration includes the project is a housing development project in accordance with the Housing Accountability Act, it is also subject to SB 330, they submitted a compliant SB 330 pre-application in January 2023, which freezes the development standards. This was after the Objective Standards were adopted, so the project is complying with the Objective Standards. It is subject to the Street and Light Housing development review. The code in the Streamline Housing Development review states that the ARB should be looking at the project and looking at opportunities for minor improvements for better consistency with the Objective Standards. To address that, staff indicated some areas where they believe there could be some improvements for better consistency of those standards. Staff is open to hearing the ARBs thoughts on that. Staff is asking the ARB to conduct a study session to provide feedback on whether minor adjustments to the application would result in better adherence to the contextual design criteria or objective design standards contained in Chapter 18.24, consistent with the streamlined review pursuant to the new code section 18.77.073 for housing development projects. Ms. Raybould noted that in terms of next steps, following the ARB’s review, staff would look for hopefully some revisions to the plans to address some of the concerns raised by the ARB and then issue a decision on the project, following that the applicant also has a vesting tentative map on file since these are ‘for sale’ units. That vesting tentative map would follow and go before the Planning Commission and City Council for review and decision. Staff recommended the ARB to hear from the applicant as well. Chair Baltay asked if anyone on the Board has questions for staff. Boardmember Hirsch commented that they were at one point working on standards for townhomes, and requested why the project is not being reviewed relative to townhome standards. Ms. Raybould explained staff are looking at potential changes to the code, however, they are not able to apply things that are in the code at this time. Boardmember Hirsch confirmed they applied the general objective standards that were in place prior to looking at town homes and asked if they would be inserting townhomes once they became official. Ms. Gerhardt explained that at the time they approved the ODS, they had already heard the townhouse question and had the consulting architect look at the design standards to see if a townhouse project could fit within those standards and the answer was yes, it could. Staff feels like the current standards can be applicable to townhouses, but they could also be refined. Boardmember Hirsch noted within the detail of this project conflicts can been seen, as staff pointed out, and the ARB was hoping they could see how the ODS would apply and revise them as they see they no longer work or are not appropriate. Ms. Raybould answered staff began looking at the things they may want to revise in the code, and this is the very first project since the ODS was completed, so staff was hoping that through this process they could highlight things in the code they feel may need to be changed or refined to be a possible alternative Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of October 5, 2023     Packet Pg. 194     Page 16 of 28 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 10/05/23 2 7 8 8 to townhomes, or in just generally applying to project. To date, they have to apply the standards that were in the code as of January 4, 2023. Boardmember Chen requested clarification on the required setback, or the buildable area for the project, referencing Sheet 8.6, there are red dashed lines and black dashed lines, a line called the R-1, a line for the RM-30 designation boundary and asked what the limitation is to the buildable area. Ms. Raybould stated that this project is unique in that it has the land use split with the multiple land use designations, specifically in the R1 land use designation, they are only allowed to do single family residential. They’ve designed the project to stay outside of the R1 area and stay within the multifamily RM 30 boundaries. That produced a greater setback than what is otherwise required, but it aligned because it also had to maintain a daylight plane. In doing so, they also aligned with the R1 daylight plan requirement. Boardmember Adcock thanked Ms. Raybould for the presentation and referred to Page 54 of the document regarding the landscaping concession being requested and asked if the required document was provided by the developer that supports the cost reduction that’s achieved through the concession. Ms. Raybould answered that was provided and requested some time to locate it if the ARB wanted to move on. Boardmember Hirsch asked if there was any possibility within the zoning to do spot zoning revisions, as it would simplify the project considerably. Ms. Raybould explained that if they site is rezoned, the developer would no longer be eligible for the Streamlined process that they have proposed, thus choosing not to rezone. State Density Bonus and SB 330 cannot be used if property is being rezoned. Boardmember Adcock referred to Page 63 of the report and inquired about the highlight Section XII, treatment of buried archeological and asked if that was intentional. Ms. Raybould apologized and stated she should have noted that there an At Places Memorandum for the project, as there was an accidental draft version of the conditions of approval that she had been working from that had other standard conditions that were not relevant. The At Places Memo is in the packet, however staff has also updated the conditions of approval for the project. Chair Baltay referenced Packet page 76, checklist item B-1 and inquired why the treatment of corner buildings less than forty feet in height and the end unit of townhouses didn’t apply to the end unit of the townhomes. Ms. Raybould answered because it’s not on a corner. Chair Baltay recalled in doing those standards that it was either the corners of the buildings forty feet in height, or the end units of townhouses. It’s very unlikely you would put the end unit of a townhouse on a corner. Ms. Raybould replied it’s under treatment of building corners, on corner lots. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of October 5, 2023     Packet Pg. 195     Page 17 of 28 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 10/05/23 2 7 8 8 Chair Baltay reiterated that the intention was for that to apply to end units whether they were on a corner or not. That being the case, he asked if those would need to apply. Ms. Raybould requested that he repeat his question. Chair Baltay stated that if it is the case that it be applied to end units, those units would need to have the design standards and the height to width standard is the one that jumps out at him. It’s potentially a conflict on units that are required to be low at the same time. Chair Baltay brought that to his colleagues attention the project and suggested there is a potential issue with the standards. Vice Chair Rosenberg referenced Packet page 76, the first item under 18.24.040, B1 “Treatment of corner buildings” and said it’s not a corner lot, it’s ‘a corner building that is less than forty feet in height, and end units of townhomes or other attachment housing projects that face the street shall include all of the following features on their secondary building frontage’. Vice Chair Rosenberg asked staff if the items in the applicant’s justification are items the applicants write in and staff prints it or are the reviewed by staff? Ms. Raybould answered that those were written in the document by herself. Vice Chair Rosenberg noted that earlier the report stated that the applicant states that this requirement is not objective, but subjective, and expressed frustration because the City has Objective Standards and found it interesting that the applicant was fighting as to if an item on the Objective Standards is actually objective. That’s a determination made by the City, Staff, and the Board. They should adhere or not adhere. Ms. Gerhardt reinforced that those comments were the reason they were before the Board and stated that the check list in the code language is an abbreviated version. Vice Chair Rosenberg inquired the height of the buildings. Ms. Raybould answered they are maximum forty-four feet, and she had misinterpreted the code thinking it only applied to buildings on street corners and acknowledged Vice Chair Rosenberg’s point that the code also be applied to this project. Chair Baltay mentioned that not all the buildings are over forty feet and the one in question is three stories, twenty something feet. Ms. Gerhardt stated there are two different code sections based on height. If buildings are over forty feet tall, it is not clear if the code applies to the end of townhouses. (crosstalk) Chair Baltay stated this was a question session and asked if the ARB had any further questions of staff and inquired if they had found the answer to Boardmember Adcock’s earlier question. Vice Chair Rosenberg wanted to further note the zoning issue on the project that with Building B it’s unit #5 and with Building C, those units have to be shorter because they about the residential zoned strip on the back side of the property and questioned if the daylight plane was being imposed. Chair Baltay commented there are several regulations requiring those units to be lower. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of October 5, 2023     Packet Pg. 196     Page 18 of 28 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 10/05/23 2 7 8 8 Ms. Raybould confirmed there is a daylight plane on the R-1 shown on the drawing. Vice Chair Rosenberg questioned the intent with the code for Building B because the end unit is under forty feet in height and the rest of the building is over forty feet in height. Ms. Gerhardt responded by reading the specific code text and clarified that the building does not face a street, therefore it is not applicable in this case. Chair Baltay expressed concern that this will become an issue for future projects because the intention is to make the buildings have the appearance of being vertical, rather than seeing conflict such as two-story townhouses that require parking; also noting this ties into Boardmember Hirsch’s previous comment that the Objective Standards were not designed with townhomes in mind, it’s an area that needs refining to mitigate applicant confusion. Ms. Raybould reported as to Boardmember Adcock’s previous question, the cost estimate is $4,250 per home or $68,000 for the project as a whole; there were concerns with respect to long-term maintenance of the common area because these units are for sale, causing it to be unclear if the Homeowner’s Association or the resident’s would assume the maintenance of a drip system. Boardmember Adcock commented that in reference to the appearance of a loophole in the code, has staff considered that the applicant is getting the additional height and the building orientation and setbacks waiver? Ms. Raybould responded that if it doesn’t apply, it doesn’t apply. It’s not a waiver they are requesting if the building is over forty feet, however she understood her point. Boardmember Hirsch requested clarification on which drawings as the site plan on A-6 show no connection to the entry street for access to the garage. There is a drawing on C-3 that shows the proposed condition to access the garage, which would have impact on the public street being used. Ms. Raybould stated that the street is not public, it is a private shared easement between the two property owners. On A-6 there is a very light dashed line around the easement location and references it as “Access easement for adjoining property”, and it shows the existing condition on that site, however Council recently approved that project so several of the drawings are showing what staff expects will be that shared access point. Chair Baltay invited the applicant to make a presentation. Mr. Josh Vrotsos, with Dividend Homes, thanked Ms. Raybould’s diligence in getting the project before the ARB as quickly as she has and introduced Ritu Raj Sharma of the Dahlin Group, the architect for the project. Mr. Ritu Raj Sharma, architect, first addressed the Board’s concerns with applicant’s approach to objective standards, explaining that sometimes objective standards set the path forward, and pose limits on what can be done. This was an interesting split site with many different zones around it. It is a small site with distinct edges, and they had to consider the edges in order to determine what their options were for the project. They stayed out of the residential R1 zone which they felt helped to create a buffer against the neighborhood, which also allowed them to have two story units on that edge. They limited the open space Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of October 5, 2023     Packet Pg. 197     Page 19 of 28 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 10/05/23 2 7 8 8 for the two story units by not having open space in the units which helped facilitate more ground level open space and helped with privacy concerns from the R-1 zone. The Units fronting Acacia are side turned with the two single story end units being the residential view versus a three story building and complies with daylight plane requirements for R-1 zones. The access easement was worked out collaboratively with the Sobrato project. The street side units have the paseo’s and porches on the street side which mitigates any concerns of there being a residential project crammed into a small space between large buildings. There is a mix of two and three story units with five different unit types, two units are provided for below market rate (BMR), a mix of tandem and two car garages and the units are a mix of two and three bedrooms, ranging from 1400 square feet (SF) to 2100 SF. They’ve incorporated step backs, roof decks, clean materials, articulation through massing and changes in material to create a contextual look that suits the current and future environment. Mr. Sharma continued with slides of material information, views of the different varying elevations from the neighbors, and invited the ARB to ask questions and thanked the staff for their work. Chair Baltay opened the hearing to Public Comments and was met with they were interested in hearing the questions from the Board to the applicant. Boardmember Adcock posed a question about the screen material being used between the units and it was not included on the material board. Mr. Sharma stated they had not yet determined what that would be, the intent is for the owner to decide if they want a privacy screen built into the roof decks on the upper levels. Boardmember Adcock inquired if that was going to be left up to the owner, one of the requirements of townhomes is nothing is built between the property between one home and the next. Mr. Sharma responded they had not decided if there would be a screen or not. Boardmember Adcock referenced between Building A and B on Sheet A-13, also show as the end unit elevation on Sheet A-8, and inquired about the change from the darker siding to the stucco below and it being higher than the rest of the units and what the applicants intent was and if it was a result of the additional height waiver, and if so, how did they plan to join the two materials; additionally, there is a vertical while line which is unclear to her on both buildings, but best seen on Building B on Sheet A-8 on the south elevation there appears to be a gap between two units . Ron Cariaga commented there is no gap between the two units, other than a covered air gap. The additional height on the soffit of the end unit is a higher plate height on the first floor of the two story unit of ten feet. It’s 9 feet over 10 feet on the two story units and 9 feet for each level on the three story units. Boardmember Adcock referenced Sheet A-31 the left section with the similar soffit and inquired what the material is on the soffit; additionally, there is a wood trim on the upper left Detail 9 that was not listed on the renderings, inquiring which one is correct. Mr. Sharma stated the material for the soffit would be shiplap, and they will revise the detail of the wood trim, it’s supposed to be a metal trim. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of October 5, 2023     Packet Pg. 198     Page 20 of 28 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 10/05/23 2 7 8 8 Boardmember Adcock commented that the rending looks cleaner than the detail. Boardmember Hirsch asked for a description of the garage door locations of the opposing units in Buildings C and D and the width of the driveway. He believed he saw twenty-two feet. Mr. Sharma answered twenty-two feet is the drivable surface. There’s a four foot difference on either side so he thought it was either twenty or twenty-one feet. Boardmember Chen stated it’s on the C-3 sheet. There’s a twenty two foot driveway plus four feet aprons on either side. Boardmember Hirsch thought planning had concerns with the street width itself. Ms. Raybould clarified the door to door is slightly different than what they would consider to be the street width, which also for the purpose of calculating the total floor area because staff does reduce the street width, but that doesn’t include the aprons. Boardmember Hirsch referenced Building A, South elevation along the paseo, the canopy detailing appears to be incomplete and inquired if the canopy extends from the building and wraps around the corner on the two story unit. Generally, canopies turn corners when they are on one. Ron Cariaga stated on Page A-13, it wraps around the corner, but the extend out is shorter by about six inches. Boardmember Hirsch commented there needs to be coordination if the intent is to cut it off at the end of the building, and inquired about the projections above the roofline and some being white while others are dark, listed Building A, south elevation on A-7. Mr. Sharma explained those are stair towers and the intent was to breakup everything being white. Boardmember Hirsch inquired about the daylight plan issues surrounding the stair towers. Ms. Raybould stated the applicant is requesting a waiver under the rooftop open space requirement for a 45 degree angle from the edge of the bottom of the rooftop open space moving inward. The applicant is requesting a waiver for the guardrail, parapet, and a couple of stair towers which encroach the 45- degree angle. They did centralize the other stairwells. Boardmember Hirsch questioned the design intent on some of the elevations with the smaller buildings not aligning with the larger buildings, referencing Building B on Sheet A-8, there’s a window on one side and there isn’t a roofline on the adjacent lower material. Mr. Sharma explained that was intentional to break up the mass on the front of the building. Boardmember Hirsch stated on the smaller building the canopy doesn’t extend out beyond the line of the face of the lower brown section. Additionally, he didn’t understand the east elevation of Building D. Ron Cariaga explained those were accent panels. Mr. Sharma stated those also were to break the massing and add additional color. Boardmember Chen inquired how the applicant intended on solving the guest parking for the project. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of October 5, 2023     Packet Pg. 199     Page 21 of 28 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 10/05/23 2 7 8 8 Mr. Sharma stated the city does not have a guest ratio for multifamily units. Boardmember Chen asked if they gave it any thought? Mr. Sharma answered there is on-street parking on Acacia in comparison about 5 units down from the building. Boardmember Chen referenced Sheet A-34, the pedestrian circulation sheet, and inquired how Building A residents would access the trash enclosure. Mr. Sharma stated the last unit could go through their backyard. The other residents would go through the alley side of the building. They assume the residents will have cans that will come out of the garages, but that hadn’t yet finalized that detail. The safer route would be they could use the paseo’s too. Boardmember Chen clarified that the rest of the building would go down the driveway between Building A and B. Mr. Sharma replied that residents could do what she suggested, or they could use the paseo. Boardmember Chen referenced the walkway behind Building C and inquired if that was intended for the residents of Building C only. Mr. Sharma explained there are meter closets on the outside of the two story building, so the utility folks would also be using it, but staff expressed concerns about other people mistaking it for a shared walkway while the car next door was backing out, which is why the pedestrian route was routed through the top end of the project, and it’s just for the end unit. Boardmember Chen questioned the applicants design intent with the trash enclosure roof slope as it is the only sloped roof in the project. Mr. Sharma answered that it had to do with ventilation for fire safety for potential combustion. It’s low and on the backside of the property they did not feel it would be an issue. Ms. Raybould noted there is also a daylight plane requirement for accessory structures, there has to be a certain height of the structure, but it also has to meet a daylight plane. Boardmember Hirsch requested clarification of the finished floor height under the Density bonus waiver, two feet versus two-feet-eight. Mr. Sharma stated that as per the Objective Standards there is a floating scale as to how far the building is from a sidewalk variant on how raised the building is from grade, and based on step requirements, how many steps are required leading down to the sidewalk and into the garages. Chair Baltay opened the hearing to public comments. PUBLIC COMMENT Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of October 5, 2023     Packet Pg. 200     Page 22 of 28 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 10/05/23 2 7 8 8 Ms. Dao stated there was one speaker care from Yugen Lockhart Mr. Yugen Lockhart provided comments as an Olive Avenue resident stated he has spoken to the applicants, and he supports the project, however expressed concerns with the trash enclosure being in one of the resident’s backyard and requested that if it stayed there, their request would be for rubber gaskets and soft closed hinges on all the metal doors, to mitigate banging and clashing and creating an audible nuisance. They appreciate that Building C is stepped down however there is a big grey wall created by the façade of the second level going up to the third and expressed an interest in there being some type of wood feature as part of that story’s massing to break those edges. He appreciates the non-standard situation of Acacia being very industrial and trying to match the Charities building and the Sobrato project. The Square look is appealing on the Acacia side of the street. A more residential feeling on the back side overlooking the R-1 zone would also be appreciated. He likes the idea of the rooftop area and offered the suggestion of building some horizontal trellises to break up the sun beating down on the residents during the hot part of the days. Please make sure there is adequate draining as that property is prone to flooding, and with the slope tends to run off in the residential area. Chair Baltay closed the hearing to Public comment and brought it back to the Board for discussion. Boardmember Adcock requested clarification as the applicant responded there were trash bins in the garages that would come out, however a trash enclosure had also been mentioned. Ms. Raybould answered there would not be individual trash service with bins in their garages, there is a community trash area in an enclosure. In previous iterations of the project, it was determined there would be too many bins along the frontage of the property that they wouldn’t be able to fit individual trash service along the frontage. Staff required the trash enclosure and for clarification, the property would be responsible, by means of an HOA or maintenance, for taking the three bins of trash from the enclosure to the street for pickup service. Chair Baltay stated there will be more questions regarding the trash when Boardmember Adcock finishes her comments. Boardmember Adcock commented that the path between Building C and the residential R-1 neighborhood has an alley feel to the area and feels it should be a discussion. There is a 3 foot difference between the first floor planned width and the second floor planned width on Building A. It goes from twenty eight feet to twenty five feet which creates a three foot ledge that could be a waterproofing concern. The units with outdoor space on the first floor are not consistent in showing which units have gates. Privacy is a concern for townhouses as they are units that are individually sold, consideration should be given towards substantial height of the roof decks and barriers between the units. Boardmember Chen thanked the applicant for the presentation and commented she agreed with Boardmember Adcock’s comments regarding the trash circulation for the enclosure and suggested the applicant work to resolve some of those issues. In regard to the resident pathways, Boardmember Chen asked staff if using different pavers to designate residents paths is allowed, she recalled it being used in Alma Village. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of October 5, 2023     Packet Pg. 201     Page 23 of 28 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 10/05/23 2 7 8 8 Ms. Raybould stated that it is allowed, but it is not required, and she didn’t know that there would be space to provide a separate pedestrian pathway, nor would it necessarily safe to paint a pedestrian pathway that goes across everyone’s garages. Boardmember Chen inquired about Building C, with the boundaries between the R-1 and RM 30, and what the zoning requirements are for the rear yard daylight plan starting from the setback or the property line. Ms. Raybould explained for the R-1 zoning is being treated based on the RM 30 zoning because the areas within the RM 30 zone are subject to the RM 30 zone and that district standard is to measure ten feet up at the property line and a 45 degree angle in. Boardmember Chen is concerned about the alley that’s created behind Building C that abuts the R-1 neighborhood. If it is only going to be used by one unit, consideration should be given to treating it as described on Building A and the unit that accesses the trash from their patio. That would also allow a private yard in back. The elevation materials need more defined details of treatment, and Boardmember Chen suggested raising the plate height of the windowsill to five plus feet for the two story end unit facing R-1, in Sheet A-17 Building A west elevation. This well prevent them from being able to look into the R-1 neighbor’s back yard. Chair Baltay and Ms. Raybould both stated those are all shown as opaque windows. Ms. Raybould apologized and stated she thought it was in the actual printed plans. Chair Baltay suggested it be translucent glazing, which is not opaque. Ms. Gerhardt rephrased it to obscured, and added they were asking for frosting, it didn’t have to be black out windows, it just needed to be frosted. Vice Chair Rosenberg appreciated the applicants presentation and the public speaker and commented that the overall stepped heights and the fact that they are townhouses are pretty respectful to the location. It’s a nice transition from the property on El Camino and the residential. The zoning was handled in a clever manner. The R-1 strip was a great way to add a buffer to the residential area. She agrees the pathways are hit and miss, the path for Building A going to the trash doesn’t exist and that works well. The one from unit 15 is the one unit that needs a pathway. Landscaping could be used to create privacy along that path. More details about the rear fence material, length, and height would be helpful in reviewing appropriate light screening. Clarity on the number of patios would be helpful. She’s concerned about the trash enclosure and maybe a solution could be having two driveways with two trash enclosures. The mailboxes could be split as well. Particularly since it’s already a concern for staff. Soft joints for the trash enclosures are a great idea to minimize noise. The roof terraces are in a good location however she sees no way a three foot tall parapet can be acceptable between the units. It’s a safety hazard and there needs to be privacy and should be a permanent fixture, not optional by the residents. Additionally, that material would need to be added to the material board. Vice Chair Rosenberg suggested they consider having a sloped roof on units four and five of the building that abuts the residential neighborhood. It would give that side a more single family appearance and would complement the trash enclosure. A way to get the water back into the water table from the patio could be to make the patio permeable pavers. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of October 5, 2023     Packet Pg. 202     Page 24 of 28 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 10/05/23 2 7 8 8 It's a quick and easy solution. The pathway that goes from the front units of Building B stops at unit 5 would benefit from a connection that continued around to the trash enclosure. Chair Baltay commented that he agreed with much of what Vice Chair Rosenberg said and finds overall that it is excellent site planning. They did a great job in building something that transitions into such a varying space. It’s compatible, there are a good number of units, and it will be a great addition to the community. They did a great job respecting the neighbors and at a high level the project works well. He believes there’s a greater grade change on the site that what staff indicated on the drawings. The back of the property that abuts the houses on olive has a large berm with plants, and behind the berm the grade is significantly lower than the grade of the site itself, by at least two feet, possibly three. The importance of that detail is that’s where the daylight plane measurements should actually start. It begins at the existing grade of the back property line. The drawings indicate the daylight plane begins at the grade of the project. That could potentially impact the rear neighbors significantly. They had a great surveyor involved; however, the elevations are missing from the drawings. There are plus or minus details on the drainage plan but that’s all that’s listed. Staff will need to follow up with receiving that information. Chair Baltay is concerned about two of the roof decks that abut the Olive Avenue side. There will be privacy impacts to those neighbors. The back units on both Buildings A and C have roof decks that can potentially see into those yards and there should be some type of buffer to include landscaping, planters or high walls. The Objective Standards don’t seem to have any requirements surrounding that topic and his recollection was there had been considerable discussion on the topic of balconies and how close they could be to the edge, their overlooking views. Ms. Raybould apologized and stated that it seemed like there was something missing from the list. However, it still wouldn’t have applied to this project because those standards require privacy elements for decks within 40-feet of other windows and in both scenarios, there were no decks within that area. Staff will revisit the Objective Standards check list and fix the missing item. Chair Baltay stated it is important to make sure that’s documented. Additionally, he recalled there being a list of materials created by the Director of Planning considered high quality pre-approved materials that would be updated by the ARB. This project is requesting fiber cement panels, and he doesn’t recall that being directly allowed. Ms. Gerhardt stated there is a list of approved materials, she believes the one this projects falls under is ‘fiber enforced cement siding and panels’ is allowed for 100% of the façade area. Chair Baltay thought they had any other information on texture detailing was allowed. He echoed Vice Chair Rosenberg regarding the pitched roof on the back of Buildings C and on the lower units of Buildings A and B. It would provide a roof eave which would likely save the project money and is a better view for the residential neighborhood. He believes the trash collection circulation doesn’t work. Vice Chair Rosenberg suggestion of creating two driveways and splitting the trash location into two mad a lot of sense. Again, something else he saw that wasn’t mentioned in the objective standards and it’s an issue that comes up often. Ms. Raybould commented that she asked the applicant to indicate the distance, everything was 200 feet or less, which is suggested was appropriate in general discussion. With that in mind, she didn’t comment on the trash any further. She agreed they could ask the applicant to consider the trash circulation more, Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of October 5, 2023     Packet Pg. 203     Page 25 of 28 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 10/05/23 2 7 8 8 however, she was not clear on where there would be ample space to add another trash enclosure without conflicting with storm water drainage, easements, transformers, or bike parking. Trash enclosures are required because individual trash service requires each unit to have a bin for trash, compost, and recycling. When they lined all the bins, they exceeded the length of the frontage because all the bins would have to be pulled to Acacia for pickup. Zero Waste were the folks who said they needed to have a trash enclosure. Chair Baltay stated that he felt this was a conflict with what is allowed in the City. Most townhomes don’t try to do this. Boardmember Hirsch stated they did some research on this and what comes to mind is Arbor Real, their trash is brought out to the street and there are thirty or more bins that are lined up on each side of the street on garbage day. Some of those people have to then drag their bins back to their residence within the property. There are better ways to handle trash than that. However, he believes that the Board is reaching a consensus that there is an issue of garbage on this particular site. Chair Baltay asked Boardmember Chen if she discovered anything enlightening from the ad hoc committee related to trash circulation. Boardmember Chen commented they noticed the problem but really didn’t find any solutions, but noticed some communities such as Mountainview, pushed their bins in front of their garage. In that case she’s not sure what the minimum requirement would be from garage to garage. Ms. Raybould stated that historically that was happening but more and more the trash companies weren’t willing to take on the liabilities of navigating through the tight properties to pick up at each garage. The noise of backing out of dead end aisles is also a concern and they won’t pick those up either. Chair Baltay questioned how the trash in the trash enclosures would be picked up. Ms. Raybould stated she envisioned putting a requirement into the vesting tentative map that the CCNRs require a maintenance person to bring the trash out unless they assign someone in the HOA to handle that. Chair Baltay stated there aren’t any regulations and their hands are tied, this is a chance for them to solve the problem because everything they’ve discussed is not satisfactory. One trash bin for all isn’t going to work well and he had doubts that an HOA was going to want to have the expense of an ongoing maintenance person. He encouraged the applicant to resolve the problem. Boardmember Hirsch commented that he agreed it’s not sufficient for there to be only one trash bin and it’s horrible for one unit to take their trash 200 feet through the property. He suggested shifting Building C at the far end, to gain the space to add an additional enclosure. He believes there needs to be fencing on the rear of the property overlooking the residential area and the ARB is going to need to collectively review the material used for any privacy element. In general, he hoped the project would return to the ARB. Ms. Raybould confirmed that the project would not be reviewed again by the ARB. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of October 5, 2023     Packet Pg. 204     Page 26 of 28 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 10/05/23 2 7 8 8 Boardmember Hirsch finds the elevations interesting. The mail has a similar issue to the trash in terms of being accessible. Putting it at the drive in is a legitimate suggestion to solve that. The center paseo is a shift in the circulation in front of unit 6 of Building B and everyone who uses the paseo will be walking right in front of their door and window. It’s a privacy issue for that unit. The furniture in this area is a mistake. That’s used for larger buildings. The seating should be contained to the common areas where they cook out or gather. There are ways to create courtyards in such a manner that still maintains privacy for the residents abutting the common areas. He encouraged them to work on that area to make it cohesive both socially and functionally. He agreed with continuing the pathway around the corner to the trash area, however, that wouldn’t be necessary if they added a second trash enclosure. The detailing of the façades is very good, and they did a good job with the elevations. He liked they way they work and the materials that they used; the varying materials is nice to see versus each unit looking different. The site plan has been very will done along with the planning of the apartments. It’s exciting to see the residents have choices regarding floor plans and window treatments. He appreciated the Board comments regarding the alignments of the finishes and the privacy fencing. He disagrees with the comments about sloping roofs, this isn’t a sloping roofs project and is rectangular in all aspect. If he were to get another presentation, he would love to hear the details of how the materials meet the other materials on the façades. He believes it’s going to be a great project and he’s looking forward to seeing it completed. Boardmember Adcock added she believes there is room for improvement with the trash circulation and on the pathways leading towards the trash area(s) should they add another one particularly the two units in Building C. Boardmember Chen explained she sketched out an alternate site plan in which she separated building B or eliminating it and adding the units split between Building C and D, they could have the buildings in a loops style format in which the garbage service would be able to pick up trash at the individual garages. In doing so they could use the trash enclosure space as a common patio space. Chair Baltay inquired if staff were looking for a motion. Ms. Raybould answered they were not looking for a motion. The ARB can make comments, however a lot of what she was hearing was not related to Objective Standards. The only one she noted was the request for staff to review closely and ensure the correct elevations were being used to determine the daylight plane. With regard to the privacy screen, staff were not aware that it might not be added, and it doesn’t seem like it’s a detail that is shown on the plan, and relevant to the design and what had been reviewed. While there is no requirement for the screening, it was proposed on the plan therefore staff would expect that to be constructed. Boardmember Adcock stated that Vice Chair Rosenberg had mentioned not having the screening could be a security concern and Chair Baltay added that safety is definitely objective. Boardmember Adcock asked if it would be appropriate to add a condition of approval for the concession that was being requested and recommended that every unit have a hose bib in each terrace so that if the residents choose to do their own planting, they have some way to water the plants, even if landscaping is not provided per the concession that they are requesting. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of October 5, 2023     Packet Pg. 205     Page 27 of 28 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 10/05/23 2 7 8 8 Chair Baltay commented that was a great suggestion and asked staff if they could recommend that as a condition of approval. Ms. Raybould stated it is a good suggestion, however, they have no requirements related to that. It is something staff could suggest to the applicant. They have stated they were agreeable to putting in removable planters or something of that nature on the rooftop. Mr. Josh Vrotsos, with Dividend Homes, explained they had a lot of concerns regarding adding hose bibs on the rooftop decks because if someone leaves it on, it becomes a huge water intrusion issue. Particularly with construction litigation for condominiums. It opens the developer up to a lot of liability. He loves the idea of landscaping both for privacy and aesthetics. He believed potted plants would be a better way to go. Chair Baltay moved on to the next item on the agenda. Approval of Minutes 5. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for August 17, 2023. Chair Baltay asked for comments or a motion. MOTION: Vice Chair Rosenberg, seconded by Boardmember Hirsch, to approve the meeting minutes for August 17, 2023 as written. VOTE: 4-0-1 (ABSTAIN by Adcock) 6. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for September 7, 2023. Chair Baltay asked for comments or a motion. MOTION: Vice Chair Rosenberg, seconded by Boardmember Chen, to approve the meeting minutes for September 7, 2023 as noted. FRIENDLY AMENDMENT Boardmember Adcock noted when she read the minutes that “lead” was used in the minutes when she felt they were referencing LEED. Vice Chair Rosenberg and Boardmember Chen accepted the friendly amendment. VOTE: 4-0-1 (ABSTAIN by Adcock) Boardmember Questions, Comments or Announcements Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of October 5, 2023     Packet Pg. 206     Page 28 of 28 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 10/05/23 2 7 8 8 Chair Baltay stated Boardmember Hirsch has a statement to make. Boardmember Hirsch commented the information that was provided in Staff’s Presentation was impressive. He had been thinking about the housing issue and he feels like they are lacking urban design. In that he means the pieces that go beyond planning. He said that in imagining the new construction on parking lots in the downtown area, there are issues about how that’s done that don’t necessarily apply to what planning requires. Diagrams can be utilized to really get a sense of how things would look. That requires an architectural point of view. Site access, parking scheme alternatives, commercial requirement locations, community open space consideration, related neighborhood impacts, special zoning considerations for unique sites, public utility requirements and costs, affordable housing considerations, these are all mentioned in the Housing Element in more of mathematical way and then need conceptual planning in urban design. Other City’s have separate organizations that deal with those and the development, so they get something like a high line in New York, which is dealt with as a completely different structure within the City. It strikes him that every time they do something in planning, they are missing an opportunity and that was demonstrated in the Hamilton Avenue project. It’s something that could be looked at from a design standpoint in creating something unique. Something like insisting on daylight in garages. Those types of aspects of urban design needs to be addressed, as it will have an affect on the city as a whole. Additionally, the financial considerations and possibilities need to be considered so that if a building is built on a parking lot that is owned by the City and leased to the developer, what is the return? Could there be a significantly higher number of affordable housing units, and should that be considered? Instead, the City asked affordable housing developers to consider the sites downtown and didn’t say, what happens if we find a private developer and negotiate a deal with a long term lease, for a higher number of affordable units. Adjournment Chair Baltay adjourned the meeting at 12:18 p.m. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of October 5, 2023     Packet Pg. 207