Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-10-17 Architectural Review Board Agenda PacketARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD Regular Meeting Thursday, October 17, 2024 Council Chambers & Hybrid 8:30 AM Architectural Review Board 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. T h e   m e e t i n g   w i l l   b e   b r o a d c a s t   o n   C a b l e   T V   C h a n n e l   2 6 ,   l i v e   o n YouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen Media Center https://midpenmedia.org. Visit https://bit.ly/PApendingprojects to view project plans and details. Commissioner names, biographies, and archived agendas and reports are available at https://bit.ly/paloaltoARB.  VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/96561891491) Meeting ID: 965 6189 1491    Phone: 1(669)900‐6833 PUBLIC COMMENTS Public comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or an amount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutes after the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance to arb@CityofPaloAlto.org and will be provided to the Board and available for inspection on the City’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you are referencing in your subject line. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson's presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. The Chair may limit Public Comments to thirty (30) minutes for all combined speakers. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak for Study Sessions and Action Items to two (2) minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers. PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted only by email to arb@CityofPaloAlto.org at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Once received, the Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. To uphold strong cybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storage devices are not accepted. Signs and symbolic materials less than 2 feet by 3 feet are permitted provided that: (1) sticks, posts, poles or similar/other type of handle objects are strictly prohibited; (2) the items do not create a facility, fire, or safety hazard; and (3) persons with such items remain seated when displaying them and must not raise the items above shoulder level, obstruct the view or passage of other attendees, or otherwise disturb the business of the meeting. CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL PUBLIC COMMENT  Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS The Chair or Board majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management. CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS 1.Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2) Tentative Future Agenda Items and 3) Recently Submitted Projects ACTION ITEMS Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Ten (10) minutes, plus ten (10) minutes rebuttal. All others: Three (3) minutes per speaker. 2.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI‐JUDICIAL. 4075 El Camino Way [23PLN‐00202]:  Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for an Amendment to a Planned Community Zone District (PC‐5116) to Allow for Modifications to an Existing 121‐Unit Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility. The Additions Would Include 16 Additional Assisted Living Units and 172 Square Feet of Additional Support Space. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Modifications to Existing Facilities). Zoning District: PC‐5116 (Planned Community). For More Information Contact the Project Planner, Emily Kallas, at HYPERLINK "mailto:Emily.Kallas@Cityofpaloalto.org" \h Emily.Kallas@Cityofpaloalto.org. 3.PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI‐JUDICIAL. 762 San Antonio Road [24PLN‐00120]: Request for Consideration of a Major Architectural Review Application for the Demolition of Three Existing Commercial Buildings and Construction of a Seven‐Story Multi‐Family Residential Building Containing 198 Rental Apartments. Twenty Percent of the Units (40 Units) Would be Deed Restricted to Serve Tenants Meeting 60% of Area Median Income. The Project is Proposed in Accordance with California Government Code Section 65589.5(d)(5) “Builders Remedy". A Senate Bill 330 Pre‐Application was Filed January 9, 2024. Environmental Assessment: An Addendum to the Previously Certified Environmental Impact Report for the Housing Incentive Program Expansion and 788 San Antonio Mixed Use Project (SCH # 2019090070) is Being Prepared. Zoning District: (CS) AD. For More Information Contact the Project Planner Emily Kallas at Emily.Kallas@cityofpaloalto.org This item was publicly noticed but will be rescheduled and heard at a later date APPROVAL OF MINUTES Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 4.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for September 19, 2024 BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS AND AGENDAS Members of the public may not speak to the item(s). ADJOURNMENT PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email, teleconference, or by phone. 1. Written public comments may be submitted by email to arb@cityofpaloalto.org. 2. Spoken public comments using a computer will be accepted through the teleconference meeting. To address the Board, click on the link below to access a Zoom‐ based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully. You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in‐ browser. If using your browser, make sure you are using a current, up‐to‐date browser: Chrome 30, Firefox 27, Microsoft Edge 12, Safari 7. Certain functionality may be disabled in older browsers including Internet Explorer. You may be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify you that it is your turn to speak. When you wish to speak on an Agenda Item, click on “raise hand.” The Clerk will activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak. When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. A timer will be shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments. 3. Spoken public comments using a smart phone will be accepted  through the teleconference meeting. To address the Board, download the Zoom application onto your phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter the Meeting ID below. Please follow the instructions above. 4. Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the Board. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted. CLICK HERE TO JOIN    Meeting ID: 965 6189 1491   Phone: 1‐669‐900‐6833  Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329‐2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARDRegular MeetingThursday, October 17, 2024Council Chambers & Hybrid8:30 AMArchitectural Review Board meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with the option to attendby teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safety while stillmaintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose to participatefrom home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe and participate in themeeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged if attending inperson. T h e   m e e t i n g   w i l l   b e   b r o a d c a s t   o n   C a b l e   T V   C h a n n e l   2 6 ,   l i v e   o nYouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen MediaCenter https://midpenmedia.org. Visit https://bit.ly/PApendingprojects to view project plansand details. Commissioner names, biographies, and archived agendas and reports are availableat https://bit.ly/paloaltoARB. VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/96561891491)Meeting ID: 965 6189 1491    Phone: 1(669)900‐6833PUBLIC COMMENTSPublic comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or anamount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutesafter the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance toarb@CityofPaloAlto.org and will be provided to the Board and available for inspection on theCity’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you are referencing in your subjectline.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified aspresent at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson's presentation will be allowed up tofifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking membersagree not to speak individually. The Chair may limit Public Comments to thirty (30) minutes forall combined speakers. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak for Study Sessions andAction Items to two (2) minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers.PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted onlyby email to arb@CityofPaloAlto.org at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Once received,the Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. To uphold strongcybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storage devices are notaccepted. Signs and symbolic materials less than 2 feet by 3 feet are permitted provided that: (1) sticks, posts, poles or similar/other type of handle objects are strictly prohibited; (2) the items do not create a facility, fire, or safety hazard; and (3) persons with such items remain seated when displaying them and must not raise the items above shoulder level, obstruct the view or passage of other attendees, or otherwise disturb the business of the meeting. CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL PUBLIC COMMENT  Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS The Chair or Board majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management. CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS 1.Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2) Tentative Future Agenda Items and 3) Recently Submitted Projects ACTION ITEMS Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Ten (10) minutes, plus ten (10) minutes rebuttal. All others: Three (3) minutes per speaker. 2.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI‐JUDICIAL. 4075 El Camino Way [23PLN‐00202]:  Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for an Amendment to a Planned Community Zone District (PC‐5116) to Allow for Modifications to an Existing 121‐Unit Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility. The Additions Would Include 16 Additional Assisted Living Units and 172 Square Feet of Additional Support Space. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Modifications to Existing Facilities). Zoning District: PC‐5116 (Planned Community). For More Information Contact the Project Planner, Emily Kallas, at HYPERLINK "mailto:Emily.Kallas@Cityofpaloalto.org" \h Emily.Kallas@Cityofpaloalto.org. 3.PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI‐JUDICIAL. 762 San Antonio Road [24PLN‐00120]: Request for Consideration of a Major Architectural Review Application for the Demolition of Three Existing Commercial Buildings and Construction of a Seven‐Story Multi‐Family Residential Building Containing 198 Rental Apartments. Twenty Percent of the Units (40 Units) Would be Deed Restricted to Serve Tenants Meeting 60% of Area Median Income. The Project is Proposed in Accordance with California Government Code Section 65589.5(d)(5) “Builders Remedy". A Senate Bill 330 Pre‐Application was Filed January 9, 2024. Environmental Assessment: An Addendum to the Previously Certified Environmental Impact Report for the Housing Incentive Program Expansion and 788 San Antonio Mixed Use Project (SCH # 2019090070) is Being Prepared. Zoning District: (CS) AD. For More Information Contact the Project Planner Emily Kallas at Emily.Kallas@cityofpaloalto.org This item was publicly noticed but will be rescheduled and heard at a later date APPROVAL OF MINUTES Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 4.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for September 19, 2024 BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS AND AGENDAS Members of the public may not speak to the item(s). ADJOURNMENT PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email, teleconference, or by phone. 1. Written public comments may be submitted by email to arb@cityofpaloalto.org. 2. Spoken public comments using a computer will be accepted through the teleconference meeting. To address the Board, click on the link below to access a Zoom‐ based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully. You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in‐ browser. If using your browser, make sure you are using a current, up‐to‐date browser: Chrome 30, Firefox 27, Microsoft Edge 12, Safari 7. Certain functionality may be disabled in older browsers including Internet Explorer. You may be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify you that it is your turn to speak. When you wish to speak on an Agenda Item, click on “raise hand.” The Clerk will activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak. When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. A timer will be shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments. 3. Spoken public comments using a smart phone will be accepted  through the teleconference meeting. To address the Board, download the Zoom application onto your phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter the Meeting ID below. Please follow the instructions above. 4. Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the Board. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted. CLICK HERE TO JOIN    Meeting ID: 965 6189 1491   Phone: 1‐669‐900‐6833  Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329‐2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARDRegular MeetingThursday, October 17, 2024Council Chambers & Hybrid8:30 AMArchitectural Review Board meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with the option to attendby teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safety while stillmaintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose to participatefrom home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe and participate in themeeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged if attending inperson. T h e   m e e t i n g   w i l l   b e   b r o a d c a s t   o n   C a b l e   T V   C h a n n e l   2 6 ,   l i v e   o nYouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen MediaCenter https://midpenmedia.org. Visit https://bit.ly/PApendingprojects to view project plansand details. Commissioner names, biographies, and archived agendas and reports are availableat https://bit.ly/paloaltoARB. VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/96561891491)Meeting ID: 965 6189 1491    Phone: 1(669)900‐6833PUBLIC COMMENTSPublic comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or anamount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutesafter the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance toarb@CityofPaloAlto.org and will be provided to the Board and available for inspection on theCity’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you are referencing in your subjectline.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified aspresent at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson's presentation will be allowed up tofifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking membersagree not to speak individually. The Chair may limit Public Comments to thirty (30) minutes forall combined speakers. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak for Study Sessions andAction Items to two (2) minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers.PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted onlyby email to arb@CityofPaloAlto.org at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Once received,the Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. To uphold strongcybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storage devices are notaccepted.Signs and symbolic materials less than 2 feet by 3 feet are permitted provided that: (1) sticks,posts, poles or similar/other type of handle objects are strictly prohibited; (2) the items do notcreate a facility, fire, or safety hazard; and (3) persons with such items remain seated whendisplaying them and must not raise the items above shoulder level, obstruct the view orpassage of other attendees, or otherwise disturb the business of the meeting.CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALLPUBLIC COMMENT Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker.AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONSThe Chair or Board majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management.CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS1.Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2) Tentative FutureAgenda Items and 3) Recently Submitted ProjectsACTION ITEMSPublic Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Ten (10) minutes, plus ten (10) minutes rebuttal. All others: Three(3) minutes per speaker.2.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI‐JUDICIAL. 4075 El Camino Way [23PLN‐00202]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for an Amendment to a Planned CommunityZone District (PC‐5116) to Allow for Modifications to an Existing 121‐Unit Assisted Livingand Memory Care Facility. The Additions Would Include 16 Additional Assisted LivingUnits and 172 Square Feet of Additional Support Space. Environmental Assessment:Exempt from the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) inAccordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Modifications to Existing Facilities).Zoning District: PC‐5116 (Planned Community). For More Information Contact the ProjectPlanner, Emily Kallas, at HYPERLINK "mailto:Emily.Kallas@Cityofpaloalto.org" \hEmily.Kallas@Cityofpaloalto.org.3.PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI‐JUDICIAL. 762 San Antonio Road [24PLN‐00120]: Request forConsideration of a Major Architectural Review Application for the Demolition of ThreeExisting Commercial Buildings and Construction of a Seven‐Story Multi‐FamilyResidential Building Containing 198 Rental Apartments. Twenty Percent of the Units (40Units) Would be Deed Restricted to Serve Tenants Meeting 60% of Area Median Income.The Project is Proposed in Accordance with California Government Code Section65589.5(d)(5) “Builders Remedy". A Senate Bill 330 Pre‐Application was Filed January 9,2024. Environmental Assessment: An Addendum to the Previously CertifiedEnvironmental Impact Report for the Housing Incentive Program Expansion and 788 SanAntonio Mixed Use Project (SCH # 2019090070) is Being Prepared. Zoning District: (CS)AD. For More Information Contact the Project Planner Emily Kallas at Emily.Kallas@cityofpaloalto.org This item was publicly noticed but will be rescheduled and heard at a later date APPROVAL OF MINUTES Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 4.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for September 19, 2024 BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS AND AGENDAS Members of the public may not speak to the item(s). ADJOURNMENT PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email, teleconference, or by phone. 1. Written public comments may be submitted by email to arb@cityofpaloalto.org. 2. Spoken public comments using a computer will be accepted through the teleconference meeting. To address the Board, click on the link below to access a Zoom‐ based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully. You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in‐ browser. If using your browser, make sure you are using a current, up‐to‐date browser: Chrome 30, Firefox 27, Microsoft Edge 12, Safari 7. Certain functionality may be disabled in older browsers including Internet Explorer. You may be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify you that it is your turn to speak. When you wish to speak on an Agenda Item, click on “raise hand.” The Clerk will activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak. When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. A timer will be shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments. 3. Spoken public comments using a smart phone will be accepted  through the teleconference meeting. To address the Board, download the Zoom application onto your phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter the Meeting ID below. Please follow the instructions above. 4. Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the Board. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted. CLICK HERE TO JOIN    Meeting ID: 965 6189 1491   Phone: 1‐669‐900‐6833  Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329‐2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARDRegular MeetingThursday, October 17, 2024Council Chambers & Hybrid8:30 AMArchitectural Review Board meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with the option to attendby teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safety while stillmaintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose to participatefrom home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe and participate in themeeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged if attending inperson. T h e   m e e t i n g   w i l l   b e   b r o a d c a s t   o n   C a b l e   T V   C h a n n e l   2 6 ,   l i v e   o nYouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen MediaCenter https://midpenmedia.org. Visit https://bit.ly/PApendingprojects to view project plansand details. Commissioner names, biographies, and archived agendas and reports are availableat https://bit.ly/paloaltoARB. VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/96561891491)Meeting ID: 965 6189 1491    Phone: 1(669)900‐6833PUBLIC COMMENTSPublic comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or anamount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutesafter the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance toarb@CityofPaloAlto.org and will be provided to the Board and available for inspection on theCity’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you are referencing in your subjectline.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified aspresent at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson's presentation will be allowed up tofifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking membersagree not to speak individually. The Chair may limit Public Comments to thirty (30) minutes forall combined speakers. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak for Study Sessions andAction Items to two (2) minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers.PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted onlyby email to arb@CityofPaloAlto.org at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Once received,the Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. To uphold strongcybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storage devices are notaccepted.Signs and symbolic materials less than 2 feet by 3 feet are permitted provided that: (1) sticks,posts, poles or similar/other type of handle objects are strictly prohibited; (2) the items do notcreate a facility, fire, or safety hazard; and (3) persons with such items remain seated whendisplaying them and must not raise the items above shoulder level, obstruct the view orpassage of other attendees, or otherwise disturb the business of the meeting.CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALLPUBLIC COMMENT Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker.AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONSThe Chair or Board majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management.CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS1.Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2) Tentative FutureAgenda Items and 3) Recently Submitted ProjectsACTION ITEMSPublic Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Ten (10) minutes, plus ten (10) minutes rebuttal. All others: Three(3) minutes per speaker.2.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI‐JUDICIAL. 4075 El Camino Way [23PLN‐00202]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for an Amendment to a Planned CommunityZone District (PC‐5116) to Allow for Modifications to an Existing 121‐Unit Assisted Livingand Memory Care Facility. The Additions Would Include 16 Additional Assisted LivingUnits and 172 Square Feet of Additional Support Space. Environmental Assessment:Exempt from the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) inAccordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Modifications to Existing Facilities).Zoning District: PC‐5116 (Planned Community). For More Information Contact the ProjectPlanner, Emily Kallas, at HYPERLINK "mailto:Emily.Kallas@Cityofpaloalto.org" \hEmily.Kallas@Cityofpaloalto.org.3.PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI‐JUDICIAL. 762 San Antonio Road [24PLN‐00120]: Request forConsideration of a Major Architectural Review Application for the Demolition of ThreeExisting Commercial Buildings and Construction of a Seven‐Story Multi‐FamilyResidential Building Containing 198 Rental Apartments. Twenty Percent of the Units (40Units) Would be Deed Restricted to Serve Tenants Meeting 60% of Area Median Income.The Project is Proposed in Accordance with California Government Code Section65589.5(d)(5) “Builders Remedy". A Senate Bill 330 Pre‐Application was Filed January 9,2024. Environmental Assessment: An Addendum to the Previously CertifiedEnvironmental Impact Report for the Housing Incentive Program Expansion and 788 SanAntonio Mixed Use Project (SCH # 2019090070) is Being Prepared. Zoning District: (CS)AD. For More Information Contact the Project Planner Emily Kallas atEmily.Kallas@cityofpaloalto.orgThis item was publicly noticed but will be rescheduled and heard at a later dateAPPROVAL OF MINUTESPublic Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.4.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for September 19, 2024BOARD 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: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: October 17, 2024 Report #: 2410-3598 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: 2024 & 2025 Meeting Schedule & Assignments Attachment B: Tentative Future Agenda Items and Recently Submitted Projects AUTHOR/TITLE: ARB Liaison1 & Contact Information Steven Switzer, Historic Preservation Planner (650) 329-2321 Steven.Switzer@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 2024 & 2025 Meeting Schedule & Assignments 2024 Meeting Schedule Meeting Dates Time Location Status Planned Absences 1/4/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Cancelled 1/18/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 2/1/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Cancelled 2/15/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 2/29/2024 9:00 AM Hybrid Retreat 3/7/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 3/21/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Canceled 4/4/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 4/18/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 5/2/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 5/16/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular Rosenberg 6/6/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular Chen 6/20/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular Adcock, Rosenberg 7/4/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Cancelled 7/18/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 8/1/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Canceled 8/15/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 9/5/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 9/19/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 10/3/2024 10:00 AM Hybrid Special 10/17/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 11/7/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 11/21/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 12/5/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 12/19/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 2024 Ad Hoc Committee Assignments Assignments will be made by the ARB Chair January February March April May June Hirsch, Adcock 4/4 Baltay, Hisrch 6/6 July August September October November December Hirsch, Adcock 8/15 Item 1 Attachment A: 2024 & 2025 Meeting Schedule & Assignments     Packet Pg. 7     Architectural Review Board 2024 & 2025 Meeting Schedule & Assignments 2025 Meeting Schedule Meeting Dates Time Location Status Planned Absences 1/2/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Cancelled 1/16/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 2/6/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 2/20/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 3/6/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 3/20/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 4/3/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 4/17/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 5/1/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 5/15/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 6/5/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 6/19/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 7/3/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 7/17/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 8/7/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 8/21/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 9/4/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 9/18/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 10/2/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 10/16/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 11/6/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 11/20/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 12/4/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 12/18/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular Item 1 Attachment A: 2024 & 2025 Meeting Schedule & Assignments     Packet Pg. 8     Palo Alto Architectural Review Board Tentative Future Agenda The following items are tentative and subject to change: Meeting Dates Topics November 7, 2024 •3150 El Camino Real: Streamlined Housing Development Review •70 Encina Avenue: PC Rezoning (1st hearing) November 21, 2024 •3265 El Camino Real: PC Rezoning (2nd hearing) •824 San Antonio Road: Architectural Review (2nd hearing) 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 CRAYBOU 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 9/26/19. Zoning District: PF. __ AR Major - Board Zone Change 12/21/21 21PLN- 00341 EKALLAS 660 University Mixed use ARB 1st formal 12/1/22, ARB recommended approval 4/22; Applicant is revising project plans - Planned Community (PC), to Combine 3 Parcels (511 Byron St, __ Item 1 Attachment B: Tentative Agenda and Future Projects     Packet Pg. 9     24PLN- 00239 680 University 660 University Ave, 680 University Ave/500 Middlefield Rd), Demolish Existing Buildings (9,216 SF Office) and Provide a New Four Story Mixed-Use Building with Ground Floor Office (9,115 SF) and Multi-Family Residential (all floors) Including a Two Level Below-Grade Parking Garage. Proposed Residential Proposed Residential (42,189 SF) Will Include 65 Units (47 Studios, 12 1-Bedroom, 6 2-Bedroom). On-hold, staff working on 660 University project. Request for Major Architectural Review to Allow SB330/Builder’s Remedy project and construct a new six (6) story mixed-use building. The proposal includes ground floor non-residential (5,670 SF), ground and sixth floor office (9,126 SF), multi-family residential (all floors), and a two level below-grade parking garage. Proposed residential will include 88 units with 20% on-site BMR. Major Architectural Review 6/8/2023 23PLN- 00136 23PLN- 00277 (Map) 23PLN- 00003 and - 00195 – (SB 330) 24PLN- 00230 (Code compliant version) 24PLN- 00231 (Map) GSAULS 3150 El Camino Real Housing - 380 units Focus Area Compliant Application Filed 8/7/24; NOI Sent 9/7/24. Pending Resubmittal. Tentative ARB 11/7/2024. 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 EKALLAS 824 San Antonio Road Housing – 16 senior units, 12 convalescent units 12/21/23 ARB hearing; Revised Plans resubmitted 9/25/24; Tentative ARB Scheduled 11/7. 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 ___ Item 1 Attachment B: Tentative Agenda and Future Projects     Packet Pg. 10     floor commercial space. Zoning District: CS (Commercial Services). PC Amendment 8/9/2023 23PLN- 00202 EKALLAS 4075 El Camino Way Commercial - 16 additional convalescent units Community Meeting in October. 2/28/24 and 6/12/24 PTC hearing, 7/18/24 ARB hearing, tentative 10/17/24, future PTC and Council hearings needed. 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 additions include 16 Additional Assisted Living Dwelling Units; 5 Studios and 9 One Bedrooms. Zoning District: PC-5116 Baltay, Chen reported out 6/1 Major Architectural Review 1/10/2024 24PLN- 00012 GSAULS 3265 El Camino Real Housing NOI Sent 1/10/24. PTC 4/10/24; ARB 4/22/24; Applicant submitted revised project 9/13/24 with 55 Units; Tentative ARB December 2024. Request for rezoning to Planned Community (PC)/Planned Home Zoning (PHZ). New construction of a 5-story 100% affordable multifamily housing development with 44 dwelling units and ground level lobby and parking. Zoning District: CS. Rosenberg, Thompson reported out 8/17 on prescreening Rosenberg/ Hirsch Major Architectural Review 3/6/2024 24PLN- 00064 CHODGKI 640 Waverley Mixed-Use NOI Sent 4/5/24. ARB 6/6/24. Pending Resubmittal; Preparing 15183 Exemption. Tentative ARB January 2025. Request for a Major Architectural Review Board application to allow the construction of a new four-story, mixed use commercial and residential building with below grade parking. The ARB held a preliminary review on 6/15/23. Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: CD-C(P). Rosenberg, Hirsch Minor - Board Level Architectural Review 3/7/2024 24PLN- 00066 THARRISO N 180 El Camino Real Restaurant NOI Sent 4/10. Pending Resubmittal. Minor Board Level Architectural Review to allow exterior upgrades for a restaurant tenant (Delarosa); to include new exterior pergola over seating and planters in existing location. New metal awnings over main entrance to replace existing acrylic and new metal awning at rear to replace existing fabric awning. New signage and replace existing light fixtures. Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: (CC) Major Architectural Review – Builder’s Remedy 4/02/2024 24PLN- 00100 24PLN- 00223 (Map) CHODGKI 156 California Mixed-Use NOI Sent 5/2/2024; 60-day Formal Comments sent 6/1; Resubmitted, Request for Supplemental Info Sent 7/11; Pending Resubmittal. Request for Major Architectural Review in accordance with California Government Code 65589.5(D)(5) “Builders Remedy" which proposes to redevelop two lots located at 156 California Avenue and Park Blvd. Lot A, 156 California Ave ( 1.14 ACRE) is situated at the corner of Park and Baltay, Adcock Item 1 Attachment B: Tentative Agenda and Future Projects     Packet Pg. 11     California, Lot B, Park Blvd. (0.29 ACRE) is at the corner of Park and Cambridge Avenue; the reinvention of both sites will include the conversion of an existing parking lot and Mollie Stone's Grocery Store into a Mixed Use Multi Family Development. This project consists of three integrated structures; (1) 7 Story Podium Building with 5 levels of TYPE IIIB Construction over 2 levels of TYPE I Construction, 15,000 square feet will be dedicated to the Mollie Stone Grocery Store, (1) 17 Story Tower, (1) 11 Story Tower, both Towers will be proposed and conceptualized as TYPE IV Mass Timber Construction. Environmental Assessment: Pending Zoning District: CC(2)(R)(P) and CC(2)(R) (Community Commercial) SB 330 Pre-app submitted 11/21/24 Zone Change 03/28/2024 24PLN- 00095 EKALLAS 70 Encina Housing- 10 Units NOI Sent 4/28/2024. PTC 9/11/24, Plans Pending Resubmittal, Tentative 1st ARB November 2024. Request for Planned Community Zone Change (PHZ) to allow construction of a new 3-story, 22,552 sf building (1.86 FAR); to include ten (10) residential condominium units organized around a common access court that provides both vehicular and pedestrian access and full site improvements to replace the existing surface parking area. Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: CC, (Community Commercial). ARB prelim held 12/7 Hirsch, Adcock Major Architectural Review – Builder’s Remedy 4/23/2024 24PLN- 00120 EKALLAS 762 San Antonio Housing -198 Units NOI Sent 5/23/2024. Tentative ARB October 2024. Request for Major Architectural Review to Allow CA GOV CODE 65589.5(D)(5) “Builders Remedy" which proposes the demolition of three existing commercial buildings and the construction of a 7-story multi-family residential building containing 198 rental apartments. This is 100% Residential Project. Environmental: Pending. Zoning District: (CS) AD. Baltay, Chen Housing- Streamlined Housing Development Review 5/28/2024 24PLN- 00152 24PLN- 00023 (Prelim) EKALLAS 4335- 4345 El Camino Housing-29 Units NOI Sent 6/27/2024. ARB 9/19/24. Pending Resubmittal of Plans. Request for Major Architectural Review to allow a housing development project on two noncontiguous lots (4335 & 4345 El Camino Real) including the demolition of an existing commercial building (4335 El Camino Real) and an existing motel building (4345 El Camino Real) and construction of 29 three-story attached residential townhome-style condominiums with associated utilities, private streets, landscaping, and amenities. Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: CS (Service Commercial). Hirsch, Baltay reviewed prelim Item 1 Attachment B: Tentative Agenda and Future Projects     Packet Pg. 12     Major Architectural Review – Builder’s Remedy 6/10/2024 24PLN- 00161 24PLN- 00048 (SB 330) SSWITZER 3781 EL CAMINO REAL Housing 177 units NOI Sent 7/10/2024. Request for Major Architectural Review to demolish multiple existing commercial and residential buildings located at 3727-3737 & 3773-3783 El Camino Real, 378-400 Madeline Court and 388 Curtner Avenue to construct a new seven-story multi-family residential housing development with 177 units. Two levels of above ground parking, rooftop terraces, and tenant amenities are proposed. Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: CN & RM-30. (Previous SB 330 and Builder’s Remedy: 24PLN-00048) Major Architectural Review – Builder’s Remedy 6/10/2024 24PLN- 00162 24PLN- 00047 (SB 330) GSAULS 3606 EL CAMINO REAL Housing; 335 Units NOI Sent 8/1/2024. Request for Major Architectural Review to demolish multiple existing vacant, commercial, and residential buildings located at 3508, 3516, 3626- 3632 El Camino Real, and 524, 528, 530 Kendall Avenue to construct a new seven-story, multi-family residential housing development project with 335 units. The new residential building will have a two levels of above ground parking, ground floor tenant amenities, and a rooftop terrace facing El Camino Real and Matadero Avenue. Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: CN, CS, RM-30, RM-40. For More Information (SB 330 and Builder’s Remedy: 24PLN-00047) Major Architectural Review – Builder’s Remedy 7/17/2024 24PLN- 00184 24PLN- 00232 (Map) GSAULS 3400 EL CAMINO REAL Housing (231 units) and Hotel (192 rooms) NOI Sent 8/16/2024 and 9/12/2024; Pending Resubmittal. Major Architectural Review of a Builder's Remedy application to demolish several low-rise retail and hotel buildings located at 3398, 3400, 3450 El Camino Real and 556 Matadero Avenue and replace them with three new seven-to-eight story residential towers, one new seven-story hotel, one new three story townhome, and two new underground parking garages. Three existing hotel buildings will remain with one being converted to residential units. 231 total residential units and 192 hotel rooms. Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: various (SB330) Minor Board Level Architectural Review and Conditional Use Permit 9/24/2024 24PLN- 00263 CHODGKI 3950 Fabian Way Private Education Request for Minor Board Level Architectural Review for exterior modifications to an existing 32,919 square foot, 2-story commercial building, site modifications and a new approximately 4200 sf addition to the North side. The project also includes a Request for a Conditional Use Permit for the change of use to private education to accommodate Girls Middle school. Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: GM. Streamlined Housing Development Review 10/08/2024 24PLN- 00280 CHODGKI 3997 Fabian Way Residential Request for Streamlined Housing Development Review to deconstruct two existing commercial buildings located at 3977 & 3963 Fabian Way and surface parking lot at 3997 Fabian Way to construct a new single structure of seven Item 1 Attachment B: Tentative Agenda and Future Projects     Packet Pg. 13     stories containing 295 multifamily residential rental apartment units (8% very low-income units – 19 units), 343 parking spaces, 295 secured bike parking spaces, open courtyards, several outdoor gathering spaces, a pool area, and a rooftop terrace. The project is proposed to comply with the City’s GM/ROLM Focus Area Development Standards and is proposed in accordance with State Density Bonus Law. Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: General Manufacturing (GM). (Housing Inventory Site & State Density Bonus Law) (Previous SB 330 Pre-Application: 24PLN-00111) Item 1 Attachment B: Tentative Agenda and Future Projects     Packet Pg. 14     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 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 Preliminary ARB hearing held 11/2; 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 addition using TDR and exempt floor area earned from ADA Upgrades. Preliminary Architectural Review 12/19/2023 23PLN- 00339 EKALLAS 1066 E Meadow Private School ARB Hearing 1/18/24; pending formal application. Request for Preliminary Architectural Review to Consider the Deconstruction of an Existing 35,000 Square Foot Commercial Building, and Construction of a new 2-Story, 46,000 sf School Building. It Will Contain Classrooms, Administrative Offices, and a Multi-Purpose Room. Site Improvements Include Parking, a Play Area, and a Rooftop Garden. Zoning District: ROLM Rosenberg, Adcock SB 330 Pre- Application 4/10/2024 24PLN- 00107 GSAULS 531 Stanford Housing SB 330 Pre-Application for a housing development project that proposes 30 new detached single-family homes and six new below- market-rate units in a standalone multi-family building on the approx. 1.18-acre project site at the intersection of Stanford Avenue and El Camino Real. 20% of the units would be deed restricted for lower-income households. Zoning: RM-30. Environmental Assessment: Pending. Item 1 Attachment B: Tentative Agenda and Future Projects     Packet Pg. 15     SB 330 Pre- Application 6/19/2024 24PLN- 00171 GSAULS 4015 Fabian SB 330 Pre-Application - Housing development project including demolition of existing structures and development of 100 residential apartment units with supporting use, including amenity spaces, lobby, leasing office, and a parking garage with one space per unit. Zoning District: GM (General Manufacturing). Proposed project consists of 100 for-rent residential apartment units with supporting use that include amenity spaces, lobby, leasing, and parking in a garage at one space per unit. SB 330 Pre- Application 7/8/2024 24PLN- 00181 JGERHAR 2300 Geng SB 330 Pre-Application - Housing development project including demolition of existing structures and development of 159 residential units located at 2100-2400 Geng Road. Zoning District: ROLM(E)(D)(AD). Item 1 Attachment B: Tentative Agenda and Future Projects     Packet Pg. 16     Item No. 2. Page 1 of 7 Architectural Review Board Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: October 17, 2024 Report #: 2408-3396 TITLE PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 4075 El Camino Way [23PLN-00202]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for an Amendment to a Planned Community Zone District (PC-5116) to Allow for Modifications to an Existing 121-Unit Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility. The Additions Would Include 16 Additional Assisted Living Units and 172 Square Feet of Additional Support Space. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Modifications to Existing Facilities). Zoning District: PC-5116 (Planned Community). For More Information Contact the Project Planner, Emily Kallas, at Emily.Kallas@Cityofpaloalto.org. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s): 1. Recommend approval of the proposed project to City Council based on findings and subject to conditions of approval. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The applicant requests approval for an amendment to the existing Planned Community (PC) Zone District (PC-5116) to allow a 16-unit addition to the rear of the existing 121-unit assisted living facility (Palo Alto Commons). A map showing the location of the proposed project is included in Attachment A. The project was previously reviewed by the ARB on July 18, 2024. The July 18, 2024 ARB staff report includes extensive background information, project analysis, and evaluation to City codes. A copy of the report, without attachments, is included as Attachment E. The Background section below summarizes the ARB’s comments at the previous hearing and the applicant’s response to those comments. The Analysis section below builds upon the information contained in the earlier report and has been modified to reflect the recent project changes. The revised project plans are included in Attachment F. Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 17     Item No. 2. Page 2 of 7 Following ARB review, the project would return to the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) for a formal recommendation. The ARB and PTC’s recommendations will then be forwarded to Council for a final decision. BACKGROUND The ARB held an initial hearing to review the project on July 18, 2024. A copy of the staff report without attachments is included as Attachment E. The full report is available online.1 At that hearing, the ARB provided comments on the proposed project and unanimously continued the project to a date uncertain. The ARB’s comments and the applicant’s response are summarized below and focused on improvements to parking/circulation, noise, and modifications to address neighbor’s comments on privacy concerns. Attachment F includes a link to the revised project plans. ARB Comments/Direction Applicant Response Summary Landscape Screening. The board encouraged the applicant to continue working with the neighbors to incorporate their input and preferences into the landscaping plan. The applicant held a neighborhood meeting on August 22, 2024, to discuss landscaping with individual neighbors. Based on feedback from neighboring residents, changes have been made to the landscape screening design, as discussed in further detail below. These have been incorporated into sheet A1.6 as well as other relevant plan sheets. Parking and TDM Plan. The ARB requested that the applicant prepare a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan and parking diagram (showing how spaces are allocated). They encouraged the property owner to consider assigning spaces between staff and visitors in addition to considering offsite parking/shuttles. A TDM plan has been prepared and is still under review with the Office of Transportation. A parking diagram showing the break-down of visitor, resident, and staff parking is included on sheet A2.8 Privacy Considerations. The ARB requested that the plans show the neighboring context on floor plans and encouraged the applicant to consider incorporating privacy measures, such as those set forth in the Objective Design Standards, to the new windows. Sheets A5.25-A5.27 have been added to the plans in Attachment F to show the proposed second and third floor windows with the context of the neighboring homes and approximate window locations. 1 The July 18, 2024 Architectural Review Board report for 4075 El Camino Way is available online at: https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=13877. A video recording is available online at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3QLQ2H5tEI Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 18     Item No. 2. Page 3 of 7 Most new windows are at a 45-degree angle or have five-foot sill heights in conformance with 18.24.050(2)(C) and (D). Noise Considerations. Review/refine noise study to address neighbor’s concern, dimension the distance from the neighbors, consider rotating the “noisy side” away from the neighbors. Modify existing equipment if needed. Since the meeting it was determined that the existing noise condition described by a neighbor was associated with a vent on the Avant building, not Palo Alto Commons. This is being evaluated separately from the proposed project. The existing rooftop equipment is in working order, and only three additional heat pump units are proposed. These units are quieter and will have minimal addition to the existing noise levels. The noise level will be within code allowances. A complete noise analysis to evaluate the proposed noise producing equipment is included in Attachment F. Because the proposed equipment’s noise level is so low, additional design modifications to reduce the noise were not considered further. Sheets A3.1-A3.3 dimension the distance of proposed noise producing equipment from the neighbor, new units are more than 55 feet from the nearest property line. ANALYSIS The project has been reviewed by all relevant departments for consistency with relevant City goals, policies, and regulations. Overall, staff finds the project to be consistent with the relevant plans and policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan and Municipal Code. Plan Set Modifications to Address ARB Comments The following is staff’s analysis of the proposed modifications to the plan sets in response to ARB comments. Landscape Screening and Privacy Considerations In response to ARB feedback, the applicant held a neighborhood meeting on August 22, 2024 to discuss landscaping with individual neighbors. Based on feedback from the meeting, eight deciduous trees have been proposed to fill gaps in the existing landscape screen per the Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 19     Item No. 2. Page 4 of 7 neighbor’s request to avoid the increase in shade that denser evergreen trees could provide. Sheet A1.6 of the plans in Attachment F show the revised landscaping plan. Additionally, most of the windows have been modified in response to ARB comments to either set the windows at a 45-degree angle from the neighboring property line or to increase the sill height of the windows in conformance with the Objective Design Standards for privacy adjacent to single-family neighborhoods. This modification to the angle of windows also increases the distance between the windows and the property line. Where angled windows could not be provided closest to the property line (14 feet and 3 inches to the property line) the windows were either removed or a 5-foot sill has been provided. The only exception to this is one third- floor unit shown on sheet A5.27, where the primary living space window is parallel to the property line. This window is approximately 21 feet from the property line and screened by an existing mature tree on the neighboring 4054 Wilkie Way property. The revised elevations are shown on sheets A5.25-A5.27 in Attachment F. Overall these modifications are responsive to ARB and neighbor concerns and improve the design. Parking and Transportation Demand Management Plan The applicant submitted a TDM plan to the City on September 11, 2024, which is currently being reviewed by the City’s Office of Transportation. The existing number of parking spaces is sufficient for the proposed number of units based on the Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.52 zoning requirements, the PC requirements, and per the Parking Study as explained in the prior ARB Staff Report; however, the TDM plan will ensure the spaces are being distributed amongst staff, visitors, and residents in an efficient manner that serves the community. A final TDM plan will be made available for the PTC’s review when the project returns to the PTC for a formal recommendation. Noise The new rooftop equipment is highlighted on sheets A3.1-A3.3 in Attachment F. Three new heat pump units are required. The noise study in the environmental analysis (attachment F) anticipated and analyzed these new heat pump units. Staff notes that at the prior ARB hearing a neighbor reported a noise complaint. In the time since that discussion, staff has determined that the noise the neighbor was referencing was coming from a vent on The Avant and is not associated with any of the existing rooftop equipment associated with Palo Alto Commons. The applicant is working to address this issue, however it is not related to the proposed scope of work. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans, and Guidelines2 2 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online: bit.ly/PACompPlan2030 Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 20     Item No. 2. Page 5 of 7 As detailed in the July 18, 2024 ARB staff report, the site has two Comprehensive Plan land use designations: Multiple-Family Residential, for a portion of the site adjacent to single-family, and Neighborhood Commercial for the portion towards El Camino Way. No change in the existing land use designation is proposed. The project includes the addition of senior living units to an existing senior facility. Therefore, no change is proposed to the existing land use. Attachment B includes a summary of the project’s consistency with relevant goals and policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. Zoning Compliance3 Attachment C provides a detailed review of the proposed project’s consistency with PC-5116, as well as the CN zoning standards for general comparison. Because the existing Planned Community zone district ties to the specific existing development, the proposed project modifications would be considered an amendment to the existing PC Ordinance. The following key modifications are proposed to the existing PC Ordinance and associated development plan: • The density and provided units would increase by 16 units; • The allowed lot coverage and floor area would increase to accommodate the approximately 6,890 square foot addition; • The minimum setback would decrease from 8 feet to 6 feet for the southwestern property line adjacent to Goodwill; and • The parking ratio provided would reduce from 0.46 spaces per unit (1.16 spaces per 2.5 beds) to 0.41 spaces per unit (1.01 spaces per 2.5 beds), as no additional spaces are being provided. However, this is consistent with the standard code requirement for this use, which is one space per 2.5 beds. Public Benefit The project provides additional assisted living units, providing services to more seniors who need a high level of care. Although these units are not considered as dwelling units towards the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), they provide a safe place to live for seniors. These units themselves are therefore proposed as the public benefit associated with this PC amendment. Consistency with Required Findings The ARB’s purview is to make a recommendation on the proposed project’s consistency with the Architectural Review findings. The project is consistent the Architectural Review Findings as detailed in Attachment B. Specifically, the project conforms with Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies. The proposed project is a modest expansion of the existing use, which is compatible with the neighborhood. The site is shared with an independent senior living apartment building, and other surrounding 3 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: bit.ly/PAZoningCode Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 21     Item No. 2. Page 6 of 7 uses are currently mostly one- to two-story single-family houses, as well as condominiums and the Goodwill store. The character of the neighborhood will remain the same, and improvements are being made to privacy landscaping bordering the single-family neighborhood. The proposed addition is consistent with the existing height and existing PC daylight plane, which combined with new landscaping, preservation of existing landscaping, and privacy measures for new windows, will maintain an appropriate mass and character adjacent to the residential neighborhood. The new assisted living and memory care units will provide an important service to seniors in the community. The project proposes high-quality materials in a variety of colors appropriate for a residential building, and the variety of colors helps break up the massing. The new sloped roof areas will also add visual interest and enhance the residential feel. The design is functional and proposes improvements to existing parking conditions through the implementation and monitoring of a TDM plan. FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT Processing of this application has no fiscal impact as applicants are responsible for staff and consultant costs through applicable fees through the deposit-based cost recovery program. The proposed addition requires payment of development impact fees, which are currently estimated at $382,000. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION, OUTREACH & COMMENTS 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 4, 2024, which is 13 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on October 2, 2024, which is 15 days in advance of the meeting. Public Comments The applicant held a neighborhood meeting on August 22, 2024, to discuss landscaping with individual neighbors. Since this meeting, some neighbors have reached out with additional specifics on their preferences for particular species and locations of planting. Palo Alto Commons is continuing to work on these requests. Additionally, staff also corresponded with neighbors regarding timeline, process, and code questions. This correspondence is included as Attachment D. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. The City, acting as the lead agency, has determined that the project is exempt from CEQA in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (existing facilities). Attachment F summarizes the project’s eligibility for a Class 1 exemption and why none of the exceptions to the exemptions apply to this project. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS In addition to the recommended action, the Architectural Review Board may instead: Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 22     Item No. 2. Page 7 of 7 1. Recommend approval of the project with modified findings or conditions; 2. Continue the project to a date (un)certain with specific direction; or 3. Recommend project denial based on revised findings. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Location Map Attachment B: Draft Record of Land Use Action Attachment C: Zoning Consistency Analysis Attachment D: Neighbor’s Correspondence Attachment E: July 18, 2024 ARB Report without Attachments Attachment F: Link to Project Plans and Environmental Analysis Report Author & Contact Information ARB4 Liaison & Contact Information Emily Kallas, AICP, Senior Planner Steven Switzer, Planner (650) 617-3125 (650) 329-2321 emily.kallas@cityofpaloalto.org steven.switzer@cityofpaloalto.org 4 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 23     Palo Alto 4075 El Camino Way PC-5116 Attachment A 4075 El Camino Way Location Zoning Map 0.17 () 0.35 0.7 Miles Item 2 Attachment A: Location Map     Packet Pg. 24     Item 2 Attachment A: Location Map     Packet Pg. 25     Page 1 of 11 4 1 8 1 APPROVAL NO. 2024-____ RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE ACTION FOR 4075 El Camino Way ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND PLANNED COMMUNITY 5116 to PLANNED COMMUNITY (PC) _______ (FILE NO. 23PLN-00202) On __________, the City Council of the City of Palo Alto (“City Council”) adopted Ordinance ____ approving an amendment to Planned Community (PC) 5116 to allow a 16-Unit addition to an existing 121 unit Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility (Palo Alto Commons). In approving the application, the Council make the following findings, determination and declarations: SECTION 1. Background. A. Irwin Partner Architects on Behalf of Wellquest Living Requests Approval of a an Ordinance Amending Planned Community Zone District 5116 (PC-5116) to allow a 16-Unit addition and 172 sf of support space to an existing 121-unit Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility. (“The Project”). B. The Project site is located on a 110,642 sf (2.54-acre) site on APN 132-43-177 located at 4075 El Camino Way. The Site is designated on the Comprehensive Plan land Use Map with a split land-use designation of Multi-family and Community Neighborhood and is Zoned Planned Community 5116. C. On August 7, 2023 City Council conducted a prescreening review of the proposed legislative actions in accordance with PAMC 18.79. D. On February 28, 2024 Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) reviewed the project held a duly noticed public hearing and recommended the project return to the PTC. On June 12, 2024 the PTC held a duly noticed public hearing and recommended that the applicant submit the proposed plans to the Architectural Review Board based on the conceptual design and proposed project in accordance with the Planning Community Rezoning process set forth in 18.38. E. Following PTC and staff review, on July 18, 2024 the ARB held a public hearing to review the project design and recommend modifications in accordance with the ARB findings for approval. On October 17, 2024 ARB held a duly noticed public hearing and recommended approval. F. On _______PTC held a duly noticed public hearing and recommend approval of the project and Ordinance _______ . G. On __________, City Council held a duly noticed public hearing, at which evidence was presented and all person were afforded an opportunity to be heard in accordance with the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Council’s Policies and Procedures. After hearing public testimony, the Council voted to _________the project subject to the conditions set forth in Section 6 of this Record of Land Use Action. SECTION 2. Environmental Review. On __________, the City Council, as the lead agency for the Project, has determined that the project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 because it includes minor modifications to an existing building that involves negligible expansion of use. A document analyzing the project’s Item 2 Attachment B: Draft Record of Land Use Action     Packet Pg. 26     Page 2 of 11 4 1 8 1 eligibility for a categorical exemption was prepared. The document is available on file with the Planning and Development Services department and on the project webpage. SECTION 3. Planned Community Findings Finding #1: The site is so situated, and the use or uses proposed for the site are of such characteristics that the application of general districts or combining districts will not provide sufficient flexibility to allow the proposed development. The project is consistent with Finding #1 because: The proposed project amends the existing Planned Community zoning in order to accommodate 16 additional Assisted Living units. Because the existing PC 5116 specifies the exact number of units to be constructed on the site (121), modification of the zoning ordinance is necessary to reflect the proposed unit count. Finding #2: Development of the site under the provisions of the PC planned community district will result in public benefits not otherwise attainable by application of the regulations of general districts or combining districts. In making the findings required by this section, the planning commission and city council, as appropriate, shall specifically cite the public benefits expected to result from use of the planned community district. The project is consistent with Finding #2 because: PC 5116 provides three public benefits offered for the existing Palo Alto Commons Development: 1) rental senior assisted housing (with provisions for aging in place); Roadway, pedestrian and bus stop improvements; and 3) A contribution of $1000,000 to Avenidas to be ear-marked for the age at home program for low-income seniors. development. Similar to the existing development, the public benefit for the proposed amendment would be addition of these 16 rental assisted living units, which will provide services to more seniors who need a high level of care. Although these units are not considered as dwelling units towards the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), they provide a safe place to live for seniors. Finding #3: The use or uses permitted, and the site development regulations applicable within the district shall be consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, and shall be compatible with existing and potential uses on adjoining sites or within the general vicinity. The project is consistent with Finding #3 because: This project is consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, as described further in Architectural Review Finding #1 below. The proposed project is a negligible expansion of the existing use, which is compatible with the neighborhood. The site is shared with an independent senior living apartment building, and other surrounding uses are currently mostly one- to two-story single-family houses, as well as condominiums and the Goodwill store. The character of the neighborhood will remain the same, and improvements are being made to privacy landscaping bordering the single-family neighborhood. SECTION 4. Architectural Review Findings 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. Item 2 Attachment B: Draft Record of Land Use Action     Packet Pg. 27     Page 3 of 11 4 1 8 1 The project is consistent with Finding #1 because: In conformance with the following Comp Plan Goals and Policies, the project will include high quality design compatible with surrounding development. 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 a split land use that includes both Multiple Family Residential and Neighborhood Commercial. The project maintains the existing use of Assisted Living. Land Use Element Policy L-1.3 Infill development in the urban service area should be compatible with its surroundings and the overall scale and character of the city to ensure a compact, efficient development pattern. This project proposes to expand an existing facility, in a manner that is compatible with the neighborhood and will improve the services provided. Policy L-2.11 Encourage new development and redevelopment to incorporate greenery and natural features such as green rooftops, pocket parks, plazas and rain gardens. As a part of the project, landscaping is being improved to provide better privacy and more greenery. Policy L-6.1 Promote high-quality design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces. The proposed building additions will meet the high-quality standards of the Architectural Review Board. Policy L-6.7 Where possible, avoid abrupt changes in scale and density between residential and non-residential areas and between residential areas of different densities. To promote compatibility and gradual transitions between land uses, place zoning district boundaries at mid-block locations rather than along streets wherever possible. The proposed addition does not add additional height to the building, which borders a single- family residential neighborhood. The new windows are proposed with privacy measures and privacy landscaping is being added to and/or maintained. As an amendment to a Planned Community, adoption of the zoning ordinance to allow for the proposed modifications to the development, and specifically the total number of units would ensure that the project is in compliance with the zoning ordinance in accordance with the provisions set forth in the municipal code. No other design guidelines or documents apply to this location. 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 Item 2 Attachment B: Draft Record of Land Use Action     Packet Pg. 28     Page 4 of 11 4 1 8 1 designations, e. enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent residential areas. The project is consistent with Finding #2 because: This project balances adding new units to the existing building, while making improvements to the existing operations. The new TDM plan will improve parking and vehicle circulation for occupants, visitors, and staff. The proposed addition is consistent with the existing height and existing PC daylight plane, which combined with new landscaping and privacy measures for new windows, will maintain an appropriate mass and character adjacent to the residential neighborhood. The new assisted living and memory care units will provide an important service to seniors in the community. Finding #3: The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. The project is consistent with Finding #3 because: The project proposes horizontal siding in a variety of colors, including gray, blue, and khaki, with brown awnings, and white railings. This palette is appropriate for a residential building, and the variety of colors helps break up the massing. The change from white trim to brown trim helps to visually minimize the height, while white emphasizes it. Existing balcony railings will remain, and balcony awnings will be replaced in the new color scheme. New sloped roof area will also add visual interest and enhance the residential feel. The corners will be finished in a manner that meets the requirements of the Architectural Review Board. Finding #4: The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and providing for elements that support the building’s necessary operations (e.g. convenient vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.). The project is consistent with Finding #4 because: Functional operations of this building is important because the building has multiple shifts of approximately 50 employees. The TDM plan will help manage parking on site and encourage staff and visitors to take alternative modes of transportation through provisions such as the addition of bicycle parking. Residents are not expected to drive vehicles. The existing number of parking spaces is sufficient for the proposed number of assisted living beds, consistent with the zoning code requirements. Finding #5: The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is appropriate to the site’s functions, and utilizes to the extent practical, regional indigenous drought resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat that can be appropriately maintained. The project is consistent with Finding #5 because: The project primarily maintains existing landscaping. No trees are proposed for removal. An additional 8 trees, four Tupelo and four Forest Pansey Redbud are proposed to fill gaps in the existing screening. While normally evergreen trees are preferred for privacy, deciduous trees are proposed at the request of neighbors who would like to minimize additional shade in their backyards. Proposed trees are low to medium water use. Windows on the new addition were also designed in a manner that respects privacy of adjacent neighbors including higher sill Item 2 Attachment B: Draft Record of Land Use Action     Packet Pg. 29     Page 5 of 11 4 1 8 1 heights and angling of windows to reduce views into neighboring yards. Finding #6: The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning. The project is consistent with Finding #6 because: In accordance with the City’s Green Building Regulations, the building will satisfy the requirements for CALGreen Mandatory + Tier 2. SECTION 5. Plan Approval. The plans submitted for Building Permit shall be in substantial conformance with those plans prepared by the applicant titled Palo Alto Commons, Wellquest Living, 4075 El Camino Way, Palo Alto, CA 94306, consisting of 79 pages, uploaded to Accela Citizen Access on October 4, 2024, except as modified to incorporate the conditions of approval in Section 6. A copy of these plans is on file in the Department of Planning and Community Development. The conditions of approval in Section 6 shall be printed on the cover sheet of the plan set submitted with the Building Permit application. SECTION 6. Conditions of Approval. PLANNING DIVISION 1.CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS: Construction and development shall conform to the approved plans entitled, " Palo Alto Commons, Wellquest Living, 4075 El Camino Way, Palo Alto, CA 94306” uploaded to the Palo Alto Online Permitting Services Citizen Portal on October 4, 2024, as modified by these conditions of approval. 2.BUILDING PERMIT: Apply for a building permit and meet any and all conditions as contained in this document. 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. 3.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. 4.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 one/two years period, the proposed use of the site or the construction of buildings has not commenced, the Planning entitlement shall expire. Application for a one year extension of this entitlement may be made prior to expiration. Item 2 Attachment B: Draft Record of Land Use Action     Packet Pg. 30     Page 6 of 11 4 1 8 1 5.LANDSCAPE PLAN. Plantings shall be installed in accordance with the approved plan set and shall be permanently maintained and replaced as necessary. a. The screening landscaping is developed in concert with neighbor preferences and Architectural Review findings. No screening landscaping shall be altered without approval from the Director of Planning and Development Services. 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 commercial property, a noise level more than eight dB above the local ambient at any point outside of the property plane. All noise producing equipment shall be located outside of required setbacks. 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.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. 9.TRASH ROOM. The trash room shall be used solely for the temporary storage of refuse and recycling that is disposed on a regular basis and shall be closed and locked during non-business hours. 10.REFUSE. All trash areas shall be effectively screened from view and covered and maintained in an orderly state to prevent water from entering into the garbage container. No outdoor storage is allowed/permitted unless designated on the approved plan set. Trash areas shall be maintained in a manner to discourage illegal dumping. 11.UTILITY LOCATIONS: In no case shall utilities be placed in a location that requires equipment and/or bollards to encroach into a required parking space. In no case shall a pipeline be placed within 10 feet of a proposed tree and/or tree designated to remain. 12.ESTIMATED IMPACT FEE: Development Impact Fees, currently estimated in the amount of $381,959.69 shall be paid prior to the issuance of the related building permit. Fees are subject to change per annual Municipal Fee Schedule. 13.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 Item 2 Attachment B: Draft Record of Land Use Action     Packet Pg. 31     Page 7 of 11 4 1 8 1 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. 14.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. 15.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, Emily Kallas at emily.kallas@cityofpaloalto.org to schedule this inspection. BUILDING 16. A building permit is required for the scope of work shown. 17. At building permit submit the following: a. Structural calculations b. Green building compliance c. T24 Energy calculations d. Complete MEP plans e. Accessible building elements (i.e, elevator, bathrooms, etc.) and onsite (i.e., accessible route from public sidewalk, bus stop, entrances, etc.) 18. Refer to this link for additional submittal requirements: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/3/development-services/building- division/checklists/simplified/c1-new-comm-shell-checklist-07062023.pdf PUBLIC WORKS ZERO WASTE Item 2 Attachment B: Draft Record of Land Use Action     Packet Pg. 32     Page 8 of 11 4 1 8 1 19. WellQuest will need to have the bins pulled out to within 25' of the gate. Otherwise GreenWaste of Palo Alto pull out charges will apply. Please add a note to the plans to specify how the bins will be pulled to the pick up area. 20. Ensure the refuse staging area can house three - 4 cubic yard bins plus three - 96 gallon carts. Please show bins and carts to scale in the staging area. 21. Refuse truck pull-out spot shall contain signage notifying tenants and other users that parking is not allowed during trash pickup days. 22. The following comments below are part of the Palo Alto Municipality Code. If your scope of work includes internal and external bins then cut-sheets for the color-coded internal and external containers, related color-coded millwork, and it’s colored signage must be included in the building plans prior to receiving approval from Zero Waste. Please see below for more details. As per Palo Alto Municipal Code 5.20.108 the site is required to have color-coded refuse containers, related color-coded millwork, and colored signage. The three refuse containers shall include recycle (blue container), compost (green container), and garbage (black container). Applicant shall present on the plan the locations and quantity of both (any) internal and external refuse containers, it’s millwork, along with the signage. This requirement applies to any external or internal refuse containers located in common areas such as entrances, conference rooms, open space, lobby, garage, mail room, gym, and etc. except for restrooms, copy area, and mother’s room. Millwork to store the color-coded refuse containers must have a minimum of four inches in height worth of color-coding, wrapping around the full width of the millwork. Signage must be color coded with photos or illustrations of commonly discarded items. Restrooms must have a green compost container for paper towels and an optional black landfill container if applicable. Copy area must have either a recycle bin only or all three refuse receptacles (green compost, blue recycle, and black landfill container). Mother’s room must minimally have a green compost container and black landfill container. Please refer to PAMC 5.20.108 and the Internal Container Guide. Examples of appropriate signage can be found in the Managing Zero Waste at Your Business Guide. Electronic copies of these signage can be found on the Zero Waste Palo Alto’s website, https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Public-Works/Zero-Waste/What-Goes- Where/Toolkit#section-2 and hard copies can be requested from the waste hauler, Greenwaste of Palo Alto, (650) 493-4894. PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING 23. 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. TRANSPORTATION Item 2 Attachment B: Draft Record of Land Use Action     Packet Pg. 33     Page 9 of 11 4 1 8 1 24. TDM PROGRAM AND ANNUAL REPORTING REQUIREMENT: The applicant shall abide by the Final Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan, entitled “Palo Alto Commons 4075 El Camino Way Transportation Demand Management Plan” uploaded to Accela on October 4, 2024” to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Development Services. The TDM plan includes measures and programs to achieve a reduction in single-occupancy vehicle trips to the site by a minimum of 20%, in conformance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The TDM plan includes an annual monitoring plan to document mode split and trips to the project site. The TDM annual report shall be submitted to the Chief Transportation Official. Monitoring and reporting requirements may be revised in the future if the minimum reduction is not achieved through the measures and programs initially implemented. Projects that do not achieve the required reduction may be subject to daily penalties as set forth in the City’s fee schedule. URBAN FORESTRY The following conditions and/or standard Municipal Code requirements are provided for supplemental guidance, recommendation and/or best practices. Any applicable items shall be addressed prior to any future related permit application such as a Building Permit, Excavation and Grading Permit, Certificate of Compliance, Street Work Permit, Encroachment Permit, etc 25.Show outline of tree protection fencing in a boxed off dashed line for tree to be protected as specified in the consulting Arborist report. 26.The owner and contractor shall implement all protection and inspection schedule measures, design recommendations and construction scheduling as stated in the TPR and/or 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. If called for, project arborist approval must be obtained and documented in the monthly activity report sent to the City. When required, the 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. 27. 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. 28. 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. 29.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 Item 2 Attachment B: Draft Record of Land Use Action     Packet Pg. 34     Page 10 of 11 4 1 8 1 around the tree canopy area shall not be altered. Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. 30. Prior to any site work, contractor must call Derek Sproat at 650-496-6985 to schedule an inspection of any required protective fencing. The fencing shall contain required warning sign and remain in place until final inspection of the project. 31. 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. SECTION 8. Term of Approval. The approval shall be valid for two years from the original date of approval. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: _____________________________ City Manager __________________________ ______________________________ Assistant City Attorney Director of Planning and Development Services Item 2 Attachment B: Draft Record of Land Use Action     Packet Pg. 35     Page 11 of 11 4 1 8 1 PLANS AND DRAWINGS REFERENCED: 1. Those plans prepared by the applicant titled Palo Alto Commons, Wellquest Living, 4075 El Camino Way, Palo Alto, CA 94306, consisting of 79 pages, uploaded to Accela Citizen Access on October 4, 2024, except as modified to incorporate the conditions of approval in Section 6. Item 2 Attachment B: Draft Record of Land Use Action     Packet Pg. 36     5 6 9 9 ATTACHMENT C ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 4075 El Camino Way, 23PLN-00202 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.16 (CN DISTRICT) AND EXISTING PCs (5116 AND 3775)(1) Exclusively Non-residential Development Standards Regulation Existing (PC 5116 and PC 3775)Proposed Site Area, width and depth 110,642 sf Irregularly shaped 110,642 sf Irregularly shaped Minimum Front Yard (El Camino Way) 14.5 ft 14.5 ft Rear Yard (Closest to Wilkie Way) 10 ft 10 ft Interior Side Yards N/A left 8 ft other sides N/A left 8 ft other sides 6 ft at proposed addition Street Side Yard (W. Meadow Drive) 20 ft 20 ft Build-to-lines Approximately 7.5 ft (2.3%) built to front setback Approx. 7.5 ft plus 2 corners (8.2%) built to street side setback No change, complies Max. Site Coverage 47.4% (52,470 sf)48.5% (53,668 sf) Max. Building Height 32 ft 5 in 32 ft 5 in New addition max height 28 ft Max. Floor Area Ratio (FAR)0.43:1 (47,500 sf) Independent Senior Living (The Avant) 0.76:1 (83,511 sf) Assisted Living (Palo Alto Commons) 1.18:1 (131,011 sf) total 0.43:1 (47,500 sf) Independent Senior Living (The Avant) 0.82:1 (90,379 sf) Assisted Living (Palo Alto Commons) 1.25:1 (137,906 sf) total Daylight Plane for lot lines abutting one or more residential zone districts other than an RM-40 or PC Zone (2) Complies Complies (1) PC 3775 is for Palo Alto Commons, PC 5116 is for The Avant. (2) The initial height and slope shall be identical to those of the most restrictive residential zone abutting the site line in question. Item 2 Attachment C: Zoning Comparison Table     Packet Pg. 37     5 6 9 9 Table 2: PARKING CONFORMANCE WITH ZONING CODE Type Chapter 18.52 (For Reference Only) Existing PC Proposed Vehicle Parking 0.75 per Senior Housing Unit (33 spaces) 1 per 2.5 beds Assisted Living (57 spaces) 41 spaces Independent Senior Living (The Avant) 57 spaces Assisted Living (Palo Alto Commons) 41 spaces Independent Senior Living (The Avant) 57 spaces Assisted Living (Palo Alto Commons) Complies Bicycle Parking None per Senior Housing Unit 1 per 25 beds Assisted Living (2 LT) None 4 short term 2 long term Loading Space 1 loading space for 10,000-99,999 sf. 2 required for 100,000- 199,999 sf. None No change Item 2 Attachment C: Zoning Comparison Table     Packet Pg. 38     1 Kallas, Emily From:James Porter <jporter992003@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, October 7, 2024 9:55 PM To:Charlene Kussner; Yangsze Choo; Tim Davis; Lily Lee Cc:dbowman@ipaoc.com; Kevin Ji; Kallas, Emily; ntelusca@gmail.com; Jenny Chen; Grace (Yan Feng) Wang Subject:Re: Palo Alto Commons Community Outreach Meeting: Tree Screening Discussion CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.    Thanks Tim and Charlene, Just a few additional considerations from 4080 Wilkie Way. - Our family is 100% supportive of evergreen trees. - Denser foliage is better - 40 feet height is preferable. We noted some tree suggestions that were 20 feet. This seems to low to obscure the addition at all - Also could you look at shade tolerant evergreens as we note that the addition may shade the newly planted tree significantly given its position? We are looking forward to the other tree recommendations. Thanks, James Porter On Monday, October 7, 2024 at 04:58:17 PM PDT, Lily Lee <lee_lilyning@yahoo.com> wrote: Thank you Tim, This information is very helpful! Lily On Monday, October 7, 2024 at 09:45:27 AM PDT, Tim Davis <tim@wilsondavisassociates.com> wrote: Good morning everyone, See my responses to the questions below in Red. 1. I thought Charlene said we would be given 3 tree options to review. Will you send us another proposed species to review? I will research and provide an additional evergreen tree species. 2. The descriptions are related to Santa Barbara conditions. I was just at Santa Barbara 2 weeks ago. Conditions are not the same as here. Could you please give us information about how the trees would do in the local environment? I'm interested in how quickly they would grow in our environment and how long hardy, resistant to insects/disease, drought tolerant, etc. they would be in our environment. I noticed that the landscape architect is from San Bernardino. Perhaps they could communicate with local arborists? I will in a separate email ask the Santa Clara County extension agents and Canopy nonprofit (which Item 2 Attachment D: Neighbor Comments     Packet Pg. 39     2 works with the City of Palo Alto) and cc you. The trees selected were chosen from my reaching out to Moon Valley Nursery northern California location for trees that they grow, and that would be compatible with the Palo Alto location. The Water Use Calculations of Landscape Species (WUCOLS) put out by UC Davis and used by California Landscape Architects for drought tolerance indicate that both species are compatible in the Palo Alto area as a medium water use tree. 3. I like that the Hymenosporum flavum is evergreen. That will maximize the screening effect. However, the Cercis canadensis is deciduous. Would you suggest some evergreen trees instead? The choice of the Cercis was to provide a small tree with colorful foliage to offset the large amount of green foliage. We can substitute the Cercis occidentalis for the Cercis canadensis, Which is a native variety, however the location that we are proposing is not a suitable location for a native species. 4. I noticed that neither species is native. Native plants that are well-adapted to our local environment can often be more sustainable and support the local ecosystem. Could you suggest some native species? The existing environment would not be suitable for native trees. The existing plant material is not a native plant palette and the existing irrigation would be too much for native plants and if reduce the irrigation so as not to over water the native plants you will stress the non-native plants and risk losing them or vice versa. Cheers! Tim Davis, ASLA Wilson Davis Associates 2825 Litchfield Dr. Riverside, CA 92503 Ph. (951) 353-2436 ext. 1001 Cell (951) 255-0402 tim@wilsondavisassociates.com “The bitterness of poor quality is remembered long after the sweetness of low price has faded from memory” From: Charlene Kussner <charlene@wqliving.com> Sent: Monday, October 7, 2024 8:05 AM To: Yangsze Choo <yangszechoo@gmail.com>; Lily Lee <lee_lilyning@yahoo.com> Cc: Tim Davis <tim@wilsondavisassociates.com>; dbowman@ipaoc.com; Kevin Ji <kevinji2021@gmail.com>; Emily Kallas <emily.kallas@cityofpaloalto.org>; JamesYahoo Porter <jporter992003@yahoo.com>; ntelusca@gmail.com; Jenny Chen <jennyslchen@yahoo.com>; Grace (Yan Feng) Wang <yanfengwang2@yahoo.com> Subject: RE: Fw: Palo Alto Commons Community Outreach Meeting: Tree Screening Discussion Item 2 Attachment D: Neighbor Comments     Packet Pg. 40     3 Thank you for this response. We will incorporate into our plans. Charlene Kussner | V.P. of Development & Asset Management   charlene@wqliving.com   C: 951.757.2571     Corporate Office: 185 South State Street, Suite 1300, Salt Lake City, UT 84111   CA Office: Wellquest of Menifee Lakes, 29914 Antelope Road, Menifee CA 92586    “All that I have seen teaches me to trust the Creator for all I have not seen.”  Ralph Waldo Emerson    THIS MESSAGE CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION AND IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE INDIVIDUAL(S) NAMED. IF YOU ARE NOT THE NAMED ADDRESSEE(S) YOU SHOULD NOT DISSEMINATE, DISTRIBUTE OR COPY THIS E-MAIL. PLEASE NOTIFY THE SENDER IMMEDIATELY BY E-MAIL IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS E-MAIL BY MISTAKE AND DELETE THIS E-MAIL FROM YOUR SYSTEM. E-MAIL TRANSMISSION CANNOT BE GUARANTEED TO BE SECURE OR ERROR-FREE AS INFORMATION COULD BE INTERCEPTED, CORRUPTLOST, DESTROYED, ARRIVE LATE OR INCOMPLETE, OR CONTAIN VIRUSES. THE SENDER THEREFORE DOES NOT ACCEPT LIABILITY FOR ANY ERRORS OR OMISSIONS IN THE CONTENTS OF THIS MESSAGE, WHICH ARISE AS A RESULT OF E-MAIL TRANSMISSION. VERIFICATION IS REQUIRED PLEASE REQUEST A HARD-COPY VERSION. COPYRIGHT 2018. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED BY WELLQUEST LIVING,LLC, AND ITS AFFILIATES.              From: Yangsze Choo <yangszechoo@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, October 6, 2024 9:54 PM To: Lily Lee <lee_lilyning@yahoo.com> Cc: Charlene Kussner <charlene@wqliving.com>; tim@wilsondavisassociates.com; dbowman@ipaoc.com; Kevin Ji <kevinji2021@gmail.com>; Emily Kallas <emily.kallas@cityofpaloalto.org>; JamesYahoo Porter <jporter992003@yahoo.com>; ntelusca@gmail.com; Jenny Chen <jennyslchen@yahoo.com>; Grace (Yan Item 2 Attachment D: Neighbor Comments     Packet Pg. 41     4 Feng) Wang <yanfengwang2@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: Fw: Palo Alto Commons Community Outreach Meeting: Tree Screening Discussion CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi Charlene and Tim, We are the residents of 4076 Wilkie Way, and we would like to have a tree at the fenceline with 4076 Wilkie. More screening is preferred by us, especially if it is evergreen. Best wishes, Natalie On Sun, Oct 6, 2024 at 9:49 PM Lily Lee <lee_lilyning@yahoo.com> wrote: Hello Charlene and Tim, Thank you for sending the draft revised landscape plan. I have several comments: 1. I thought Charlene said we would be given 3 tree options to review. Will you send us another proposed species to review? 2. The descriptions are related to Santa Barbara conditions. I was just at Santa Barbara 2 weeks ago. Conditions are not the same as here. Could you please give us information about how the trees would do in the local environment? I'm interested in how quickly they would grow in our environment and how long hardy, resistent to insects/disease, drought tolerant, etc. they would be in our environment. I noticed that the landscape architect is from San Bernardino. Perhaps they could communicate with local arborists? I will in a separate email ask the Santa Clara County extension agents and Canopy nonprofit (which works with the City of Palo Alto) and cc you. 3. I like that the hymenosporum flavum is evergreen. That will maximize the screening effect. However, the cercic canadensis is deciduous. Would you suggest some evergreen trees instead? 4. I noticed that neither species is native. Native plants that are well-adapted to our local environment can often be more sustainable and support the local ecosystem. Could you suggest some native species? Thank you for considering my comments. Feel free to call if you would like to talk more. Item 2 Attachment D: Neighbor Comments     Packet Pg. 42     5 Lily Lee 4080 Wilkie Way 650-815-9759 ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Charlene Kussner <charlene@wqliving.com> Date: Fri, Aug 30, 2024 at 7:46 AM Subject: Palo Alto Commons Community Outreach Meeting: Tree Screening Discussion To: Kevinji2021@gmail.com <Kevinji2021@gmail.com>, jennyslchen@yahoo.com <jennyslchen@yahoo.com>, tee_lilyning@yahoo.com <tee_lilyning@yahoo.com>, yanfengwang2@yahoo.com <yanfengwang2@yahoo.com> Cc: Daniel Bowman <dbowman@ipaoc.com>, Tim Davis <tim@wilsondavisassociates.com> Good Morning Neighbors on Wilkie Way~ Thank you for coming to the Community meeting last week to discuss planting trees to add more privacy/screening the building from your rear yards. As we discussed, some residents wanted trees against the building and some did not want added shade in their rear yards. We have added some trees up against the building, to screen the new units from view. These trees do not add any significant shade impacts, and there is only one tree which adds just a little shade at the fence line, at 4076 Wilkie Way address. We can certainly remove this tree if no added shade is requested. We appreciate your feedback on this matter. Please see the attached exhibits as you requested: 3D landscape rendering showing new trees and the building Landscape Plan with added trees for privacy, screening Updated Shadow Studies based on adding these trees. I am here and available for further dialog on this matter. Item 2 Attachment D: Neighbor Comments     Packet Pg. 43     6 Charlene Kussner | V.P. of Development & Asset Management   charlene@wqliving.com   C: 951.757.2571     Corporate Office: 185 South State Street, Suite 1300, Salt Lake City, UT 84111   CA Office: Wellquest of Menifee Lakes, 29914 Antelope Road, Menifee CA 92586    “All that I have seen teaches me to trust the Creator for all I have not seen.”  Ralph Waldo Emerson    THIS MESSAGE CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION AND IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE INDIVIDUAL(S) NAMED. IF YOU ARE NOT THE NAMED ADDRESSEE(S) YOU SHOULD NOT DISSEMINATE, DISTRIBUTE OR COPY THIS E-MAIL. PLEASE NOTIFY THE SENDERIMMEDIATELY BY E-MAIL IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS E-MAIL BY MISTAKE AND DELETE THIS E-MAIL FROM YOUR SYSTEM. E-MAIL TRANSMISSION CANNOT BE GUARANTEED TO BE SECURE OR ERROR-FREE AS INFORMATION COULD BE INTERCEPTED, CORRU LOST, DESTROYED, ARRIVE LATE OR INCOMPLETE, OR CONTAIN VIRUSES. THE SENDER THEREFORE DOES NOT ACCEPT LIABILITY FOR ANY ERRORS OR OMISSIONS IN THE CONTENTS OF THIS MESSAGE, WHICH ARISE AS A RESULT OF E-MAIL TRANSMISSIONVERIFICATION IS REQUIRED PLEASE REQUEST A HARD-COPY VERSION. COPYRIGHT 2018. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED BY WELLQUEST LIVING,LLC, AND ITS AFFILIATES.              Item 2 Attachment D: Neighbor Comments     Packet Pg. 44     1 Kallas, Emily From:Charlene Kussner <charlene@wqliving.com> Sent:Monday, September 23, 2024 11:11 AM To:Kallas, Emily Cc:Daniel Bowman; Steve Sandholtz; Stephen Reller; Li Li Subject:FW: Palo Alto Commons Community Outreach Meeting updates CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.    HI Emily, I have followed up a couple times with our neighbors, this has been our only response to date. (below) Avant Pipe/Exhaust update: We are working with our contractor, Vance Brown, to increase the exhaust pipe size to 5 inches, and then extend the pipe away from the resident property, around the corner of the building towards our courtyard. This should solve the issue, I have left two messages for that resident, Huibin Tang, with no response. I will document the new piping with photos and video prior to the Oct. 17th ARB meeting. Thank you! Charlene Kussner  |   V.P. of Development & Asset Management    charlene@wqliving.com C: 951.757.2571 Corporate Office: 185 South State Street, Suite 1300, Salt Lake City, UT 84111 CA Office: Wellquest of Menifee Lakes, 29914 Antelope Road, Menifee CA 92586   “All that I have seen teaches me to trust the Creator for all I have not seen.” Ralph Waldo Emerson    THIS MESSAGE CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION AND IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE INDIVIDUAL(S) NAMED. IF YOU ARE NOT THE NAMED ADDRESSEE(S) YOU SHOULD NOT DISSEMINATE, DISTRIBUTE OR COPY THIS E‐MAIL. PLEASE NOTIFY THE SENDER IMMEDIATELY BY E‐MAIL IF YOU  HAVE RECEIVED THIS E‐MAIL BY MISTAKE AND DELETE THIS E‐MAIL FROM YOUR SYSTEM. E‐MAIL TRANSMISSION CANNOT BE GUARANTEED TO BE SECURE OR ERROR‐FREE AS INFORMATION COULD BE INTERCEPTED, CORRUPTED, LOST, DESTROYED, ARRIVE LATE OR INCOMPLETE, OR CONTAIN  VIRUSES. THE SENDER THEREFORE DOES NOT ACCEPT LIABILITY FOR ANY ERRORS OR OMISSIONS IN THE CONTENTS OF THIS MESSAGE, WHICH ARISE AS A RESULT OF E‐MAIL TRANSMISSION. IF VERIFICATION IS REQUIRED PLEASE REQUEST A HARD‐COPY VERSION. COPYRIGHT 2018. ALL RIGHTS  RESERVED BY WELLQUEST LIVING,LLC, AND ITS AFFILIATES.                  From: Kevin Ji <kevinji2021@gmail.com>   Sent: Sunday, September 22, 2024 9:42 PM  To: Charlene Kussner <charlene@wqliving.com>  Subject: Re: Palo Alto Commons Community Outreach Meeting: Tree Screening Discussion    Item 2 Attachment D: Neighbor Comments     Packet Pg. 45     2 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.     Hi Charlene,      Thanks for reaching out. GIve me a couple days to chat with the neighbors and I'll circle back with you.     Sincerely,     Kevin    On Thu, Sep 19, 2024 at 2:57 PM Charlene Kussner <charlene@wqliving.com> wrote:  HI Kevin, just following up on this. Any further comments we need to incorporate? Please let me know.    Thanks so much~    Charlene Kussner  |   V.P. of Development & Asset Management         charlene@wqliving.com   C: 951.757.2571     Corporate Office: 185 South State Street, Suite 1300, Salt Lake City, UT 84111   CA Office: Wellquest of Menifee Lakes, 29914 Antelope Road, Menifee CA 92586     “All that I have seen teaches me to trust the Creator for all I have not seen.”  Ralph Waldo Emerson     THIS MESSAGE CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION AND IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE INDIVIDUAL(S) NAMED. IF YOU ARE NOT THE NAMED ADDRESSEE(S) YOU SHOULD NOT DISSEMINATE, DISTRIBUTE OR COPY THIS E‐MAIL. PLEASE NOTIFY THE SENDER IMMEDIATELY BY E‐MAIL IF YOU  HAVE RECEIVED THIS E‐MAIL BY MISTAKE AND DELETE THIS E‐MAIL FROM YOUR SYSTEM. E‐MAIL TRANSMISSION CANNOT BE GUARANTEED TO BE SECURE OR ERROR‐FREE AS INFORMATION COULD BE INTERCEPTED, CORRUPTED, LOST, DESTROYED, ARRIVE LATE OR INCOMPLETE, OR CONTAIN  VIRUSES. THE SENDER THEREFORE DOES NOT ACCEPT LIABILITY FOR ANY ERRORS OR OMISSIONS IN THE CONTENTS OF THIS MESSAGE, WHICH ARISE AS A RESULT OF E‐MAIL TRANSMISSION. IF VERIFICATION IS REQUIRED PLEASE REQUEST A HARD‐COPY VERSION. COPYRIGHT 2018. ALL RIGHTS  RESERVED BY WELLQUEST LIVING,LLC, AND ITS AFFILIATES.                 Item 2 Attachment D: Neighbor Comments     Packet Pg. 46     3            From: Daniel Bowman <dbowman@ipaoc.com>   Sent: Monday, September 9, 2024 9:43 AM  To: Charlene Kussner <charlene@wqliving.com>; Kevin Ji <kevinji2021@gmail.com>  Cc: Tim Davis <tim@wilsondavisassociates.com>; jennyslchen@yahoo.com; tee_lilyning@yahoo.com;  yanfengwang2@yahoo.com  Subject: RE: Palo Alto Commons Community Outreach Meeting: Tree Screening Discussion     CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.      Kevin,     The existing shade plans are on the sheets above the proposed shade plans. It is the one without the green and red  areas. Green being the impact from the added trees and red being the impact from the building areas.     Below is the square footages for the proposed added shade at the dates and times that are on the shade plans. Since  the sun is always moving, these times are a snapshot of the shadows throughout the year. Dec 21 having the most  shade impact during the year and June 21 having the least shade impact. 3 times are taken at noon and 1 at 4pm near  sunset (at sunset its 100% shade by definition).      The area of all of the properties along Wilkie Way is 57,110 sf. So the worst case shade impact of these times would  add shade to 0.29% of the property areas. All of which will be on roofs for that time (dec 21st at 4 pm).        Square Footages of Shade Impact on Neighbor’s Property  Dates and Times Area of Added Shade  From building addition From proposed trees  Item 2 Attachment D: Neighbor Comments     Packet Pg. 47     4 March 21st at 12 PM 0 sf 28 sf  June 21st at 12 PM 0 sf 0 sf  Dec 21st at 12 PM  43 sf  (37 sf on roofs)  86 sf  Dec 21st at 4 PM  157 sf  (all on roofs)  7 sf  (all on roofs)             DANIEL BOWMAN, NCARB  IRWIN PARTNERS ARCHITECTS  245 Fischer Avenue, Suite B2 Costa Mesa, CA 92626  714.557.2448 | dbowman@ipaoc.com | ipaoc.com        From: Charlene Kussner <charlene@wqliving.com>   Sent: Monday, September 9, 2024 7:40 AM  To: Kevin Ji <kevinji2021@gmail.com>; Daniel Bowman <dbowman@ipaoc.com>  Cc: Tim Davis <tim@wilsondavisassociates.com>; jennyslchen@yahoo.com; tee_lilyning@yahoo.com;  yanfengwang2@yahoo.com  Subject: RE: Palo Alto Commons Community Outreach Meeting: Tree Screening Discussion     Yes, we do. Daniel can send to you this morning.    Charlene Kussner  |   V.P. of Development & Asset Management       Item 2 Attachment D: Neighbor Comments     Packet Pg. 48     5   charlene@wqliving.com   C: 951.757.2571     Corporate Office: 185 South State Street, Suite 1300, Salt Lake City, UT 84111   CA Office: Wellquest of Menifee Lakes, 29914 Antelope Road, Menifee CA 92586     “All that I have seen teaches me to trust the Creator for all I have not seen.”  Ralph Waldo Emerson     THIS MESSAGE CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION AND IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE INDIVIDUAL(S) NAMED. IF YOU ARE NOT THE NAMED ADDRESSEE(S) YOU SHOULD NOT DISSEMINATE, DISTRIBUTE OR COPY THIS E‐MAIL. PLEASE NOTIFY THE SENDER IMMEDIATELY BY E‐MAIL IF YOU  HAVE RECEIVED THIS E‐MAIL BY MISTAKE AND DELETE THIS E‐MAIL FROM YOUR SYSTEM. E‐MAIL TRANSMISSION CANNOT BE GUARANTEED TO BE SECURE OR ERROR‐FREE AS INFORMATION COULD BE INTERCEPTED, CORRUPTED, LOST, DESTROYED, ARRIVE LATE OR INCOMPLETE, OR CONTAIN  VIRUSES. THE SENDER THEREFORE DOES NOT ACCEPT LIABILITY FOR ANY ERRORS OR OMISSIONS IN THE CONTENTS OF THIS MESSAGE, WHICH ARISE AS A RESULT OF E‐MAIL TRANSMISSION. IF VERIFICATION IS REQUIRED PLEASE REQUEST A HARD‐COPY VERSION. COPYRIGHT 2018. ALL RIGHTS  RESERVED BY WELLQUEST LIVING,LLC, AND ITS AFFILIATES.                            From: Kevin Ji <kevinji2021@gmail.com>   Sent: Saturday, September 7, 2024 10:21 AM  To: Daniel Bowman <dbowman@ipaoc.com>  Cc: Tim Davis <tim@wilsondavisassociates.com>; Charlene Kussner <charlene@wqliving.com>;  jennyslchen@yahoo.com; tee_lilyning@yahoo.com; yanfengwang2@yahoo.com  Subject: Re: Palo Alto Commons Community Outreach Meeting: Tree Screening Discussion     CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.       Hi All,       Item 2 Attachment D: Neighbor Comments     Packet Pg. 49     6 Thanks for this information. I was wondering if you have a shade analysis not against what is being proposed  to be built, but what is currently there. Is there any way we can get the square footage of new shade caused  by the new construction? It is hard to measure this with these paper print outs.      Thanks,      Kevin     On Wed, Sep 4, 2024 at 9:37 AM Daniel Bowman <dbowman@ipaoc.com> wrote:  The shadow study drawings are on 11x17 sheets. If you print it on 8 1/2x11 (standard) you can either scale it down  50% (so the scale of the drawing would be 1”=100’) or you can print it on two 8 1/2x11 sheets to keep it at 1”=50’.     Sheet 1:                                                               Sheet 2:               DANIEL BOWMAN, NCARB  IRWIN PARTNERS ARCHITECTS  245 Fischer Avenue, Suite B2 Costa Mesa, CA 92626  714.557.2448 | dbowman@ipaoc.com | ipaoc.com  Item 2 Attachment D: Neighbor Comments     Packet Pg. 50     7       From: Tim Davis <tim@wilsondavisassociates.com>   Sent: Wednesday, September 4, 2024 8:03 AM  To: charlene@wqliving.com; Kevin Ji <kevinji2021@gmail.com>  Cc: jennyslchen@yahoo.com; tee_lilyning@yahoo.com; yanfengwang2@yahoo.com; Daniel Bowman  <dbowman@ipaoc.com>  Subject: RE: Palo Alto Commons Community Outreach Meeting: Tree Screening Discussion     Charlene,  Here are the tree descriptions. As for the height when planted that would depend on the size of the tree we  intend to install. Most likely it will take 5‐10 years to provide the privacy they are hoping for.     Cheers!     Tim Davis, ASLA  Wilson Davis Associates  2825 Litchfield Dr.  Riverside, CA 92503  Ph. (951) 353‐2436 ext. 1001  Cell (951) 255‐0402  tim@wilsondavisassociates.com  “The bitterness of poor quality is remembered long after the sweetness of low price has faded from memory”     From: Charlene Kussner <charlene@wqliving.com>   Sent: Wednesday, September 4, 2024 6:53 AM  To: Kevin Ji <kevinji2021@gmail.com>  Cc: jennyslchen@yahoo.com; tee_lilyning@yahoo.com; yanfengwang2@yahoo.com; Daniel Bowman  <dbowman@ipaoc.com>; Tim Davis <tim@wilsondavisassociates.com>  Subject: RE: Palo Alto Commons Community Outreach Meeting: Tree Screening Discussion  Item 2 Attachment D: Neighbor Comments     Packet Pg. 51     8    Good Morning! Thank you for your response.    Daniel and Tim can provide these answers for you.    Charlene Kussner  |   V.P. of Development & Asset Management         charlene@wqliving.com   C: 951.757.2571     Corporate Office: 185 South State Street, Suite 1300, Salt Lake City, UT 84111   CA Office: Wellquest of Menifee Lakes, 29914 Antelope Road, Menifee CA 92586     “All that I have seen teaches me to trust the Creator for all I have not seen.”  Ralph Waldo Emerson     THIS MESSAGE CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION AND IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE INDIVIDUAL(S) NAMED. IF YOU ARE NOT THE NAMED ADDRESSEE(S) YOU SHOULD NOT DISSEMINATE, DISTRIBUTE OR COPY THIS E‐MAIL. PLEASE NOTIFY THE SENDER IMMEDIATELY BY E‐MAIL IF YOU  HAVE RECEIVED THIS E‐MAIL BY MISTAKE AND DELETE THIS E‐MAIL FROM YOUR SYSTEM. E‐MAIL TRANSMISSION CANNOT BE GUARANTEED TO BE SECURE OR ERROR‐FREE AS INFORMATION COULD BE INTERCEPTED, CORRUPTED, LOST, DESTROYED, ARRIVE LATE OR INCOMPLETE, OR CONTAIN  VIRUSES. THE SENDER THEREFORE DOES NOT ACCEPT LIABILITY FOR ANY ERRORS OR OMISSIONS IN THE CONTENTS OF THIS MESSAGE, WHICH ARISE AS A RESULT OF E‐MAIL TRANSMISSION. IF VERIFICATION IS REQUIRED PLEASE REQUEST A HARD‐COPY VERSION. COPYRIGHT 2018. ALL RIGHTS  RESERVED BY WELLQUEST LIVING,LLC, AND ITS AFFILIATES.                            From: Kevin Ji <kevinji2021@gmail.com>   Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2024 11:12 PM  To: Charlene Kussner <charlene@wqliving.com>  Item 2 Attachment D: Neighbor Comments     Packet Pg. 52     9 Cc: jennyslchen@yahoo.com; tee_lilyning@yahoo.com; yanfengwang2@yahoo.com; Daniel Bowman  <dbowman@ipaoc.com>; Tim Davis <tim@wilsondavisassociates.com>  Subject: Re: Palo Alto Commons Community Outreach Meeting: Tree Screening Discussion     CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.       Hi Charlene,       Thanks for sending this over to me. I had a couple of follow up questions.      1. Can you help me understand the scaling on the shadow study? I see that it says 1" = 50'. But how large of  a surface is this printed out on? If I were to print this out on a standard letter size paper, I imagine it would  be much smaller than if I were to print it out on a large poster board size.   2. Can you attach the blow up on the information about these trees? The information on the plant schedule  and the species is too small to see on a computer.   3. What are the growing schedules of these trees? How tall will they start out as and how long will it take  them to grow to a height where it will actually provide shade/privacy?      Thanks,      Kevin     On Fri, Aug 30, 2024 at 7:46 AM Charlene Kussner <charlene@wqliving.com> wrote:  Good Morning Neighbors on Wilkie Way~    Thank you for coming to the Community meeting last week to discuss planting trees to add more privacy/screening the building from your rear yards.  As we discussed, some residents wanted trees against the building and some did not want added shade in their rear yards.   Item 2 Attachment D: Neighbor Comments     Packet Pg. 53     10   We have added some trees up against the building, to screen the new units from view. These trees do not add any significant shade impacts, and there is only one tree which adds just a little shade at the fence line, at 4076 Wilkie Way address. We can certainly remove this tree if no added shade is requested.    We appreciate your feedback on this matter.    Please see the attached exhibits as you requested:  3D landscape rendering showing new trees and the building  Landscape Plan with added trees for privacy, screening  Updated Shadow Studies based on adding these trees.    I am here and available for further dialog on this matter.    Charlene Kussner  |   V.P. of Development & Asset Management         charlene@wqliving.com   C: 951.757.2571     Corporate Office: 185 South State Street, Suite 1300, Salt Lake City, UT 84111   CA Office: Wellquest of Menifee Lakes, 29914 Antelope Road, Menifee CA 92586     “All that I have seen teaches me to trust the Creator for all I have not seen.”  Ralph Waldo Emerson     THIS MESSAGE CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION AND IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE INDIVIDUAL(S) NAMED. IF YOU ARE NOT THE NAMED ADDRESSEE(S) YOU SHOULD NOT DISSEMINATE, DISTRIBUTE OR COPY THIS E‐MAIL. PLEASE NOTIFY THE SENDER IMMEDIATELY BY E‐MAIL IF YOU  HAVE RECEIVED THIS E‐MAIL BY MISTAKE AND DELETE THIS E‐MAIL FROM YOUR SYSTEM. E‐MAIL TRANSMISSION CANNOT BE GUARANTEED TO BE SECURE OR ERROR‐FREE AS INFORMATION COULD BE INTERCEPTED, CORRUPTED, LOST, DESTROYED, ARRIVE LATE OR INCOMPLETE, OR CONTAIN  VIRUSES. THE SENDER THEREFORE DOES NOT ACCEPT LIABILITY FOR ANY ERRORS OR OMISSIONS IN THE CONTENTS OF THIS MESSAGE, WHICH ARISE AS A RESULT OF E‐MAIL TRANSMISSION. IF VERIFICATION IS REQUIRED PLEASE REQUEST A HARD‐COPY VERSION. COPYRIGHT 2018. ALL RIGHTS  RESERVED BY WELLQUEST LIVING,LLC, AND ITS AFFILIATES.  Item 2 Attachment D: Neighbor Comments     Packet Pg. 54     11                            Item 2 Attachment D: Neighbor Comments     Packet Pg. 55     From:Lily Lee To:Kevin Ji; Kallas, Emily Subject:Re: Palo Alto Commons project - Timeline? Applicable landscaping/privacy requirements? Date:Tuesday, September 24, 2024 9:49:49 PM Attachments:image006.png image004.png image003.png image002.png image001.png image007.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi Emioly, Thank you for this information. I was wondering if this is still the plan? Lily On Wednesday, August 28, 2024 at 11:29:38 AM PDT, Kallas, Emily <emily.kallas@cityofpaloalto.org>wrote: Hi Lily, Yes, that timeline is accurate to the process. Currently, assuming the fastest possible timeline, it would look like this: ARB 10/17 – this is tentatively scheduled and likely to remain on this date PTC 11/13 Council 12/16 – this is the last one of 2024 There’s a lot of factors that go into this, but this at least gives a sense of what is possible. Many items, such as review of the TDM plan, could delay this schedule. This schedule would not be affected by the election, but if it becomes certain that the PTC would be in 2024 and Council would be in 2025, then any PTC members who win the Council election may choose to recuse themselves from the PTC vote since they can only vote once as either PTC or Council. Thanks,Emily Emily Kallas, AICP Item 2 Attachment D: Neighbor Comments     Packet Pg. 56     Planner Planning and Development Services Department (650) 617-3125 | emily.kallas@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org Parcel Report | Palo Alto Zoning Code | Online Permitting System | Planning Forms & Applications | Planning Applications Mapped From: Lily Lee <lee_lilyning@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 4:59 PM To: Kevin Ji <kevinji2021@gmail.com>; Kallas, Emily <Emily.Kallas@cityofpaloalto.org> Subject: Re: Palo Alto Commons project - Timeline? Applicable landscaping/privacy requirements? CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of openingattachments and clicking on links. Hi Emily, Thank you for your speedy and substantive response! I am attaching the 1st fil as a Word doc. I'm sorry this link did not work for you. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IX-3UxhfHq1EfNYf3d4tordXKVtnTwQYT1oCoOkLozg/edit?usp=sharing On Monday, August 26, 2024 at 09:19:42 AM PDT, Kallas, Emily <emily.kallas@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote: Item 2 Attachment D: Neighbor Comments     Packet Pg. 57     Hi Lily, I’m happy to provide a project update, and please feel free to share my response with other neighbors. 1. Thank you for sending over the documents, unfortunately I was only able to open 2nd link with the meeting notes, and not the 1st link? If you could please download it and resend it as a Word doc, that would be great. 2. In terms of the 2nd link, thank you very much for the summary since I was unable to attend the meeting. I have a couple additional notes to add: The Planning Dept. would also prefer screening landscaping to be evergreen, however we are open to neighbor preferences. The allowed residential fence height is 7 ft (not 6 ft, also this is inclusive of any lattice). 8 ft is allowed where residential abuts non-residential, and with Staff approval. It would be possible to rebuild the 8ft fence, though it cannot be any taller. There may be Fire Code/egress issues with only having 5ft sill windows in a unit, I will follow up on this. Secondary windows may have a 5ft sill, but I believe each sleeping room is required to have at least 1 egress window. 3. Yes, we are currently anticipating the project will go back to the ARB in October. It is tentativelyscheduled for 10/17, though this is subject to change. It does not make sense to return to ARB until wehave the revised landscape design, since the ARB specifically asked for that. 4. As a Planned Community Project, the project is not required to meet the code requirements of PAMC 18.24 or 18.40. However, those are starting points for the ARB, PTC, and Council to use to determine if what the applicants are asking for is reasonable and should be approved. Thanks, Emily Emily Kallas, AICP Planner Planning and Development Services Department (650) 617-3125 | emily.kallas@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org Item 2 Attachment D: Neighbor Comments     Packet Pg. 58     Parcel Report | Palo Alto Zoning Code | Online Permitting System | Planning Forms & Applications | Planning Applications Mapped From: Lily Lee <lee_lilyning@yahoo.com> Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2024 3:53 PMTo: Kallas, Emily <Emily.Kallas@cityofpaloalto.org>; Kevin Ji <kevinji2021@gmail.com>Subject: Palo Alto Commons project - Timeline? Applicable landscaping/privacy requirements? CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi Emily, I hope you are well! Some neighbors have requested more information about the bigger picture timeline. I drafted a summary to help them. Would you mind reviewing this and making any corrections or additions? I hope all of us will be less confused that way: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IX-3UxhfHq1EfNYf3d4tordXKVtnTwQYT1oCoOkLozg/edit?usp=sharing Also, Charlene told me that she expects to go back to the ARB in 45 days, which means October. I thought they would revise the landscape plan first based on the comments that we gave them. But maybe they do not think they need to make much change? In addition, here are some notes I took from the 8/22 meeting. I asked the neighbors to add/edit based on what theyremember from the meeting. I may not have remembered correctly what Charlene said about a back fence heightrestrictions and the option for increasing the height if a request for a special permit is granted. I would appreciateyour help with making sure I have the right information about that too. 2024-08-22 Landscape architects Mtg Item 2 Attachment D: Neighbor Comments     Packet Pg. 59     2024-08-22 Landscape architects Mtg Wellquest Living meeting with Landscape Architects Plans to expand Palo Alto Commons 8/22, 6 pm, 4071 El Camino... Finally, thank you for the 2 links below. I wanted to clarify - does that mean that the 2 links I looked up do not apply to this project? 18.40.260 Visual Screening and Landscaping Item 2 Attachment D: Neighbor Comments     Packet Pg. 60     18.40.260 Visual Screening and Landscaping Legal publisher offering ordinance codification services for local governments, specializing in providing codes ... And this? 18.40.130 Landscaping 18.40.130 Landscaping Item 2 Attachment D: Neighbor Comments     Packet Pg. 61     Legal publisher offering ordinance codification services for local governments, specializing in providing codes ... I know you are busy. Please do not feel any urgency to respond this week (or even next week) to these questions. But maybe in the next month, if you have some quiet time, I would appreciate your advice. You can respond piece by piece as you have time. And if it is easier for you, of course, call any time. Again, thank you very much for your help! I have learned a lot from you! Lily 650-815-9749 ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Kallas, Emily <emily.kallas@cityofpaloalto.org> To: Lily Lee <lee_lilyning@yahoo.com>; Kevin Ji <kevinji2021@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, July 22, 2024 at 09:29:30 AM PDT Subject: RE: Summary of Board Member Baltay's conversation with Wilkie Way residents Hi Lily, Thank you for the summary. The existing privacy standards are located in two places: 18.24.050(b)(2) Privacy and Transitions to Residential Uses. I would specifically look at subsection (D) – the section starting with “Windows: within 30 feet of facing residential windows…” Individual Review Guidelines Guideline 5 (pages 14-15). These are the ones the PTC cited, though the ARB discussed/determined 18.24 would be more appropriate to apply. Thanks, Emily Emily Kallas, AICP Planner Planning and Development Services Department (650) 617-3125 | emily.kallas@cityofpaloalto.org Item 2 Attachment D: Neighbor Comments     Packet Pg. 62     www.cityofpaloalto.org Parcel Report | Palo Alto Zoning Code | Online Permitting System | Planning Forms & Applications | Planning Applications Mapped From: Lily Lee <lee_lilyning@yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2024 6:20 PM To: Kallas, Emily <Emily.Kallas@cityofpaloalto.org>; Kevin Ji <kevinji2021@gmail.com>Subject: Summary of Board Member Baltay's conversation with Wilkie Way residents CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi Emily, Thank you for helping us understand the process. You requested a Summary of Board Member Baltay'sconversation with Wilkie Way residents. As I said he reiterated several things he said during the meeting. I did nottake notes, but below is what I remember. Kevin, plese add/correct: He thanked us for our input. He said the ARB is taking our concerns seriously and that is why it asked the applicant to come back with many additional tasks and changes in design. He appreciated Kevin's thorough research. Although he does not agree with some of Kevin's interpretation, using the existing code and other guidelines is the best way to influence the process. In that spirit, he recommended looking at the existing privacy standards, which is what he asked the applicant to apply. He said the ARB takes seriously the impacts on parking, noise, privacy, and visual impact. That is why it went beyond usual requirements to recommend no noise producing equipment in the 10 foot setback. Emily, is this what he was talking about? 18.40.260 Visual Screening and Landscaping Item 2 Attachment D: Neighbor Comments     Packet Pg. 63     18.40.260 Visual Screening and Landscaping Legal publisher offering ordinance codification services for local governments, specializing in providing codes ... And this? 18.40.130 Landscaping Item 2 Attachment D: Neighbor Comments     Packet Pg. 64     18.40.130 Landscaping Legal publisher offering ordinance codification services for local governments, specializing in providing codes ... Thank you again! Lily We removed a file from this message Your organization's email policy doesn't permit this type of file. If you need it, please contact your administrator. Item 2 Attachment D: Neighbor Comments     Packet Pg. 65     File Details image006.emz (1783 bytes) © 2003 - 2019 Mimecast Services Limited. We removed a file from this message Your organization's email policy doesn't permit this type of file. If you need it, please contact your administrator. Item 2 Attachment D: Neighbor Comments     Packet Pg. 66     File Details image008.emz (1547 bytes) © 2003 - 2019 Mimecast Services Limited. Item 2 Attachment D: Neighbor Comments     Packet Pg. 67     Item No. 2. Page 1 of 9 Architectural Review Board Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: July 18, 2024 Report #: 2405-3099 TITLE 4075 El Camino Way [23PLN-00202, Palo Alto Commons]: Consideration of an Amendment to a Planned Community Zone District (PC-5116) to allow additions to an existing 121 unit Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility. The additions would include 16 Assisted Living Units and 172 sf of support space. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Modifications to Existing Facilities). Zoning District: PC-5116 (Planned Community) RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s): 1. Review and provide initial comments and continue to a date uncertain. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The subject project proposes to add 16 assisted living units and 172 sf of support space to an existing 121-unit facility (Palo Alto Commons). Palo Alto Commons was built as a Planned Community Development (PC), with Ordinance 3775. It is located on the same parcel as a 44-unit independent senior living building, The Avant, which was constructed in accordance with PC Ordinance 5116, amending PC-3775 (Attachment H). The PC-5116 would need to be amended to allow for increases in density, floor area, and lot coverage for the 16 additional units and support space. The additions would be consistent with the existing building height and daylight plane. This proposed Amendment has been previously reviewed by City Council and the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) to provide early feedback. Following an ARB recommendation, it would return to the PTC for a recommendation and be forwarded to Council for a final decision. The purpose of this report is to consider and provide feedback on the project as it relates to the ARB findings for approval and taking into account feedback from Council and the PTC. The Item 2 Attachment E: July 18, 2024 ARB Staff Report Without Attachments     Packet Pg. 68     Item No. 2. Page 2 of 9 application is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, which includes modifications to existing facilities. BACKGROUND Project Information Owner: Stephen Reller, R and M Properties Architect: Daniel Bowman, IPAOC Representative: Charlene Kussner, WellQuest Living Legal Counsel: Frank Petrilli, Coblentz Patch Duffy & Bass LLP Property Information Address:4075 El Camino Way Neighborhood:Ventura Lot Dimensions & Area:110,642 sf, irregular shaped lot Housing Inventory Site:No Located w/in a Plume:No Protected/Heritage Trees:Yes, street trees Historic Resource(s):No Existing Improvement(s):Palo Alto Commons: 83,511 sf, 3 stories, 32’6” height, built 1989 The Avant: 47,500 sf, 3 stories, built 2014 Existing Land Use(s):Senior Assisted Living, Senior Independent Living Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North: Single Family Residential (R-1) West: Multi-Family Residential (RM-20) East: Multi-Family Residential (RM-20), Goodwill Store, and Preschool (CN) South: Animal Care, Retail, Mixed-Use (CN) Special Setbacks:No Aerial View of Property: Item 2 Attachment E: July 18, 2024 ARB Staff Report Without Attachments     Packet Pg. 69     Item No. 2. Page 3 of 9 Source: Google Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans/Guidelines Comp. Plan Designation:Multiple-Family Residential (MF), Neighborhood Commercial (CN) Zoning Designation:Planned Community (PC-5116) 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 X Context-Based Design Criteria applicable X SOFA Phase 1 (2000)Within Airport Influence Area SOFA Phase 2 (2003) Prior City Reviews & Action City Council:Prescreening: August 7, 20231 1 The staff report for the August 7, 2023 is available online at: https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=12606 Item 2 Attachment E: July 18, 2024 ARB Staff Report Without Attachments     Packet Pg. 70     Item No. 2. Page 4 of 9 PTC:Initial Review: February 28, 20242 and June 12, 20243 HRB:None ARB:None The City Council reviewed a Prescreening application for this project on August 7, 2023. At this time, the project contained 14 units. Overall, councilmembers expressed support for the concept plans. The PTC held a public hearing to consider the project on February 28, 2024. During the hearing, commissioners provided comments with respect to uncertainty about the daylight plane, asked for more information on the parking, and asked for a noise study. reviewed the project. A video recording of the PTC meeting is available online: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x31bhPueFFk. On June 12, 2024, the PTC reviewed the 16- unit proposal and recommended that the project be forwarded to the ARB. The PTC asked that the ARB consider the following items in particular in its review of the project: 1. The feasibility and relative benefit to the Wilkie Way residents of, increasing the setback for newly constructed units to 20 ft to meet 18.38.150 2. The use of privacy glazing and screening, or alternative locations for windows, similar to the IR Guidelines, for windows facing Wilkie Way residences 3. How noise can be further mitigated, such as insulated windows 4. How landscaping can be used for privacy purposes Project Description The proposed project includes 16 additional units and two ground floor additions for a total of 172 sf of new office/administrative space. The 10 foot setback adjacent to the R-1 neighborhood is maintained, with the units added to existing “stepbacks” on this side and in other notches around the building. The new units range in size from 319 sf to 738 sf. Since the initial plans, the upper floor additions have been moved back, to approximately 12 ft from the property line for the second floor and approximately 20 ft for the third floor. A location map is included in Attachment A. The project plans are provided in Attachment I. ANALYSIS The project plans presented to the ARB at this time are consistent with the plans that were presented to the PTC. The applicant intends to revise the plans following this hearing to address comments from both the PTC and ARB as well as department comments from various departments. 2 The staff report for the February 28, 2024 PTC hearing is available online at: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/2/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/planning-and- transportation-commission/2024/ptc-2.28-public-agenda-2.pdf 3 The staff report for the June 12, 2024 PTC hearing is available online at: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/2/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/planning-and- transportation-commission/2024/ptc-6.12-public-agenda-2.pdf Item 2 Attachment E: July 18, 2024 ARB Staff Report Without Attachments     Packet Pg. 71     Item No. 2. Page 5 of 9 Neighborhood Setting and Character Adjacent uses include The Avant Independent Living facility on the same parcel, and multifamily residential (RM-20) to the west, single-family (R-1) residential to the north, and the Goodwill store (CN) to the east. Across El Camino Way, West Meadow Drive, and El Camino Real there are other multi-family and commercial uses. Heights in the area range from one to three stories and include a variety of architectural styles. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans and Guidelines4 The site has a Comprehensive Plan land use designation that includes both Multiple-Family Residential, for a portion of the site adjacent to single-family, and Neighborhood Commercial for the portion towards El Camino Way. Multiple-Family Residential land use designation permits densities ranging from 8 to 40 units and 8 to 90 persons per acre and indicates that densities should be on the lower end of the scale next to single-family residential areas. Neighborhood Commercial land use designation includes shopping centers as well as street-front stores serving the immediate neighborhood. Higher density residential and mixed-use projects may be allowed in specific locations. Although assisted living is considered a commercial use under State and Local Code, the project provides senior living facilities that align with the multiple-family and neighborhood commercial land use designations. The project includes the addition of senior living units to an existing facility. Therefore, no change is proposed to the existing land use. This project would support the following policies: •Policy L-1.3 Infill development in the urban service area should be compatible with its surroundings and the overall scale and character of the city to ensure a compact, efficient development pattern •Policy L-1.6 Encourage land uses that address the needs of the community and manage change and development to benefit the community •Policy L-2.3: As a key component of a diverse, inclusive community, allow and encourage a mix of housing types and sizes, integrated into neighborhoods and designed for greater affordability, particularly smaller housing types, such as studios, co-housing, cottages, clustered housing, accessory dwelling units and senior housing. •Policy L-2.8 When considering infill redevelopment, work to minimize displacement of existing residents. •Policy L-2.9 Facilitate reuse of existing buildings 4 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online: bit.ly/PACompPlan2030 Item 2 Attachment E: July 18, 2024 ARB Staff Report Without Attachments     Packet Pg. 72     Item No. 2. Page 6 of 9 Zoning Compliance5 Attachment B provides a detailed review of the proposed project’s consistency with PC-5116, as well as the CN zoning standards for comparison. Because the existing Planned Community zone district ties to the specific existing development, the proposed project modifications would be considered an amendment to the existing PC Ordinance. The following key modifications are proposed to the existing PC Ordinance and associated development plan: •The density and provided units would increase by 16 units •The allowed lot coverage and floor area would increase to accommodate the approximately 6,890 sf addition •The minimum setback would decrease from 8 feet to 6 feet for the property line adjacent to Goodwill •The parking ratio provided would reduce from 0.47 spaces per unit to 0.41 spaces per unit, as no additional spaces are being provided. However, this is consistent with the standard code requirement for this use, which is one space per 2.5 beds. Daylight Plane The PTC discussed at length which daylight plane should apply to this project: either the 3:6 daylight plane as required by PAMC 18.38 (Special Requirements) or the 45-degree angle R-1 daylight plane (PAMC 18.12.040) and PC-3775. If this project was for a new commercial development, staff would apply PAMC 18.38.150, as this is the required daylight plane for commercial projects. See Code language below: “Sites sharing any lot line with one or more sites in any RE, R-1, R-2, RM or any residential PC district shall be subject to a maximum height established by a daylight plane beginning at a height of ten feet at the applicable side or rear site lines and increasing at a slope of three feet for each six feet of distance from the side or rear site lines until intersecting the height limit otherwise established for the PC district; provided, however, that for a use where the gross floor area excluding any area used exclusively for parking purposes, is at least sixty percent residential, the daylight planes may be identical to the daylight plane requirements of the most restrictive residential district abutting each such side or rear site line until intersecting the height limit otherwise established for the PC district. If the residential daylight plane, as allowed in this section, is selected, the setback regulations of the same adjoining residential district shall be imposed.” However, given the buildable area for this site was well documented in the 1987 PC Ordinance, the 45 degree daylight plane has been established for this site. For review purposes, both daylight 5 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: bit.ly/PAZoningCode Item 2 Attachment E: July 18, 2024 ARB Staff Report Without Attachments     Packet Pg. 73     Item No. 2. Page 7 of 9 planes are shown in the plan set on page A5.7. The proposed addition does not encroach into the 45-degree daylight plane. Most of the additions and parts of the existing building would encroach into the 3:6 daylight plane. Multi-Modal Access & Parking Hexagon Transportation Consultants prepared a parking study (Attachment D), which the City’s Office of Transportation has reviewed. The study reflects an observation of the peak parking over three days in March. The study shows that with the gate open, there is adequate parking, as fewer cars entered the site than there are parking spaces. The study looked only at on-site conditions and did not observe off-site parking, such as on-street parking. In researching the existing conditions, staff found that the original 1987 PC Ordinance requires a commuter program for employees, including distributing information regarding public transportation options, providing or reimbursing transit passes, and carpool coordination. There is currently no record of this being implemented; therefore, staff is requiring the applicant to submit a new TDM plan to implement, improve, and monitor these requirements. The TDM plan is currently being prepared and must be reviewed and approved by the City’s Office of Transportation prior to a decision on the proposed project. The applicant has also attempted to improve parking conditions on site. They sent a letter to all residents and visitors (Attachment F) explaining parking options for staff and visitors. However, it is currently not clear to staff how visitors can access the parking garage, as most parking is behind a gate that requires a member of the Palo Alto Commons staff to open. This project is located on the VTA 22 bus line, but is not within walking distance of a CalTrain station or other public transportation. Bike parking has not been finalized by the Office of Transportation, however the project includes four short term and two long term bike parking spaces. The current building has no bike parking. Response to PTC Motion The PTC asked the ARB to consider the following items in their motion: 1. Consider the feasibility, and relative benefit to the Wilkie Way residents of, increasing the setback for newly constructed units to 20 ft to meet 18.38.150. Out of the 16 proposed units, three are on the first floor, and do not face the Wilkie Way neighborhood. Seven are on the second floor, setback approximately 12 feet in most locations. There are also six units in the third-floor addition, currently at 19-21 ft stepped back depending on the unit. Therefore, this would primarily affect units on the second floor. The increase in the setback from approximately 12 feet to 20 feet would be a significant modification and may result in a loss of units or create smaller units. However, the applicant has not provided details that illustrate this impact. Item 2 Attachment E: July 18, 2024 ARB Staff Report Without Attachments     Packet Pg. 74     Item No. 2. Page 8 of 9 2. Consider use of privacy glazing and screening, or alternative locations for windows, similar to the IR Guidelines, for windows facing Wilkie Way residences. Privacy should be balanced with the recognition that most of these units only have one or two windows, and the residents spend many more hours of the day in their homes than a typical resident. Windows have been angled away from direct views when possible, but 7 of the 14 second and third floor units have at least one window facing towards a Wilkie Way property line, and four of them are setback 12’3”-12’7”. As discussed in #4 below, landscaping may be a suitable option where the windows cannot be reduced or moved, however, the applicant and neighbors have some reservations about this solution. 3. Consider how noise can be further mitigated, such as insulated windows This consideration primarily focused on a discussion of how noise from seniors living at the facility may impact Wilkie Way residents based on a neighbor’s comment that they can occasional hear residents at Palo Alto Commons. Although the PTC included this in their motion, there were mixed feelings about the need for adding measures to the project to address this. Staff would not recommend applying measures to address this concern. Not only would any analysis of this be speculative, but Assembly Bill 1307 specifically indicates that social noise generated by residents is not an impact that may be considered under CEQA. Therefore, the Noise Study prepared for the project focused on mechanical equipment noise, and found there would be no noticeable increase in operational noise as a result of the project (which includes the addition of new HVAC units). 4. Consider how landscaping can be used for privacy purposes There is existing mature landscaping along the property line, and two additional screen trees are proposed with the project. Neighbors are mixed on the use of screening landscaping, as they feel it contributes to shade in their yards. FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT The applicant is responsible for staff and consultant costs to process this application in accordance with applicable fees through the City’s deposit-based recovery program. The applicant will also be required to pay development impact fees for any additional square footage added to the site. 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 July 5, 2024, which is 13 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on July 3, 2024, which is 11 in advance of the meeting. Public Comments Eighteen neighbors commented at the June 12, 2024 PTC meeting and spoke both in favor of and against the project. A summary of their comments is as follows: Item 2 Attachment E: July 18, 2024 ARB Staff Report Without Attachments     Packet Pg. 75     Item No. 2. Page 9 of 9 •Several individuals, some of whom are current residents of The Avant spoke of the services Palo Alto Commons provides to the community, including a high level of care for those who need it. •Wilkie Way neighbors spoke about visitors parking on Wilkie Way, and the inaccessibility of the current parking conditions. They also expressed concerns about privacy impacts. •Some neighbors would prefer the 3:6 daylight plane and/or a 20ft setback be used for the new units As of publishing this report, no additional emails have been received. Prior emails are available on the project webpage and in Public Comments to the PTC meetings and prior Staff Reports. 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. A Categorical Exemption is being prepared in accordance with CEQA Guideline Section 15301 (Existing Facilities). ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Location Map Attachment B: Zoning Comparison Table Attachment C: Parking Study Attachment D: Noise Study Attachment E: Applicant’s Letter Regarding Daylight Plane Attachment F: Applicant’s Letter Regarding Parking Attachment G: Applicant’s Letter Regarding Public Benefits Attachment H: PC Ordinance 5116 and 3775 Attachment I: Link to Project Plans Report Author & Contact Information ARB6Liaison & Contact Information Emily Kallas, AICP, Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (650) 617-3125 (650) 329-2575 emily.kallas@cityofpaloalto.org jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org 6 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org Item 2 Attachment E: July 18, 2024 ARB Staff Report Without Attachments     Packet Pg. 76     If you need assistance reviewing the above documents, please contact the Project Planner or call the Planner-on-Duty at 650-617-3117 or email planner@cityofpaloalto.org Project Plans In order to reduce paper consumption, a limited number of hard copy project plans are provided to Council members for their review. The same plans are available to the public, at all hours of the day, via the following online resources. Directions to Review Project Plans and Environmental Document Online: 1. Go to: bit.ly/PApendingprojects 2. Scroll down to find “4075 El Camino” and click the address link 3. Click on “Tell me more about 4075 El Camino Way” 4. 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/4075-El-Camino-Way Item 2 Attachment F: Project Plans and Environmental Analysis     Packet Pg. 77     Item No. 3. Page 1 of 1 Architectural Review Board Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: October 17, 2024 Report #: 2408-3397 TITLE PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI-JUDICIAL. 762 San Antonio Road [24PLN-00120]: Request for Consideration of a Major Architectural Review Application for the Demolition of Three Existing Commercial Buildings and Construction of a Seven-Story Multi-Family Residential Building Containing 198 Rental Apartments. Twenty Percent of the Units (40 Units) Would be Deed Restricted to Serve Tenants Meeting 60% of Area Median Income. The Project is Proposed in Accordance with California Government Code Section 65589.5(d)(5) “Builders Remedy". A Senate Bill 330 Pre-Application was Filed January 9, 2024. Environmental Assessment: An Addendum to the Previously Certified Environmental Impact Report for the Housing Incentive Program Expansion and 788 San Antonio Mixed Use Project (SCH # 2019090070) is Being Prepared. Zoning District: (CS) AD. For More Information Contact the Project Planner Emily Kallas at Emily.Kallas@cityofpaloalto.org. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Although this project was publicly noticed for this hearing, it will be rescheduled and publicly noticed for a later hearing date. No ARB motion is required. Report Author & Contact Information ARB1 Liaison & Contact Information Emily Kallas, AICP, Senior Planner Steven Switzer, Planner (650) 617-3125 (650) 329-2321 emily.kallas@cityofpaloalto.org steven.switzer@cityofpaloalto.org 1 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 78     Item No. 4. Page 1 of 1 Architectural Review Board Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: October 17, 2024 Report #: 2410-3602 TITLE Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for September 19, 2024 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) adopt the attached meeting minutes. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Minutes of September 19, 2024 AUTHOR/TITLE: ARB Liaison1 & Contact Information Steven Switzer, Historic Preservation Planner (650) 329-2321 Steven.Switzer@CityofPaloAlto.org 1 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@CityofPaloAlto.org. Item 4 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 79     Page 1 of 9 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 09/19/24 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD DRAFT MINUTES: September 19, 2024 Council Chamber & Zoom 8:30 AM Call to Order / Roll Call The Architectural Review Board (ARB) of the City of Palo Alto met on September 5, 2024, in Council Chambers and virtual teleconference at 8:37 a.m. Present: Chair Kendra Rosenberg, Vice Chair Yingxi Chen, Boardmember Mousam Adcock, Boardmember Peter Baltay, Boardmember David Hirsch Absent: None. Oral Communications There were no requests to speak. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions There were no changes. City Official Reports 1. Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2) Tentative Future Agenda items and 3) Recently Submitted Projects Manager of Current Planning/ARB Liaison Jodie Gerhardt stated there are about 10 builder's remedy projects on 8 different sites. She reviewed some of those projects. Two projects have turned in SB 330s and have the possibility of filing a builder's remedy. The attorneys are working with City Council to see how to react to the individual applications. Action Item 2. 4335-4345 El Camino Real [24PLN-00152]: Request for Streamlined Housing Development Review to Allow the Development of 29 Three-Story Attached Residential Townhome Condominium Units and Associated Site Improvements on Two Non-Contiguous Lots. The Project Would Replace Existing Commercial and Motel Uses. The project Includes 4 Units at Below Market Rate and Accordingly Requests Waivers and Concessions Pursuant to State Density Bonus Law. A Compliant Senate Bill 330 Pre-Application Was Submitted on January 22, 2024. Environmental Assessment: The City is Preparing a Class 32 Exemption (Infill Development). Zoning District: CS (Service Commercial). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Emily Kallas at Emily.Kallas@cityofpaloalto.org. Item 4 Attachment A: Minutes of September 19, 2024     Packet Pg. 80     Page 2 of 9 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 09/19/24 Chair Rosenberg asked for disclosures. Boardmembers Baltay and Hirsch disclosed that they visited the site. Chair Rosenberg also visited the site and noted there were letters received via email in regard to this project. Vice Chair Chen was not able to visit the site but passes the site frequently and also did a Google Street View. Boardmember Adcock visited the site. She stated the second email noted an attachment that was not included. Planner Emily Kallas explained the streamlined housing entitlement process. This is the one ARB study session to receive feedback to help meet the intent of the objective standards with the waivers. After this it is approved as a Director's decision. The project is on two parcels at the intersection of Cesano Court and El Camino Real, in the CS Zoning District. There are two pockets of trees that are considered common open space for the condominiums across Cesano Court. The proposed project includes demolition of the existing commercial and hotel buildings and construction of 29 condominium units, 8 in one property and 21 on the other, each with 2-car garages. Each unit has 3 to 4 bedrooms. Four units will be provided at BMR plus 0.35 paid in in-lieu fees. There is a vesting tentative map under review. The townhomes are three stories with a fourth-floor balcony/deck area. The project includes three outdoor amenity areas. The applicants are requesting waivers to deviate from some of the objective design standards. She presented a site plan, floor plans and elevations, and material schemes. There are certain items not currently being met that could be addressed through requesting additional waivers or making changes to the plans, including privacy landscape requirements at the property line, seating near the entrance, 15% fenestration area for each end unit of townhouses facing the street, the horizontal shift not met on the left elevation of Building 3, and unit type 4 individual entry width of 5 feet not met. Ms. Kallas presented a list of waivers requested: to provide no retail or retail-like uses (determined not eligible for a waiver because it does not preclude the proposed density; however, it can be requested as a concession), to reduce the side yard setback to 4'8", to reduce the rear setback to 0 feet for refuse enclosure and 8 feet for units, to waive the 30% build-to line along Cesano Court, to reduce the number of required street trees by 5, to reduce the height of ground-floor finished floor by 0.6 to 1.2 feet, and to reduce privacy restrictions on windows and balconies adjacent to residential buildings. In terms of environmental review, a Class 32 exemption for infill development is being prepared. The staff recommendation is that the ARB conduct a study session to provide feedback on whether minor adjustments can bring the project into closer adherence with the objective design standards. Chair Rosenberg reiterated that this project is subject to the Director's decision and does not require a recommendation from the ARB. John Hickey, Vice President of Development with SummerHill Homes, added that Ms. Kallas recently raised a couple of points that had not been identified previously as requiring a waiver. He felt some of those could be addressed and others may still request a waiver. He wanted comments from the ARB to hopefully incorporate as much as possible into the project. He reviewed the proposal again, noting that the buildings were configured to provide an activated pedestrian-friendly street presence along El Camino and Cesano Court. Vehicle circulation is provided through two entry points from Cesano, and each unit will have its own attached private two-car garage. Bike storage for the residents will be in the garages, and there will be guest parking throughout the site on both parcels. There will also be trees planted between the garages to provide greenscape on that side of the building. Item 4 Attachment A: Minutes of September 19, 2024     Packet Pg. 81     Page 3 of 9 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 09/19/24 Jennifer Mastro, STG Architects, explained the townhouses have been designed in the contemporary architecture style, using variations in the roofline and massing to provide overall visual interest and human scale at the street level. She presented the views from the street, showing the variety of roof types. There will be landscaping between the entries and the public sidewalk. Public trees will be planted on the edge of the sidewalk as well as private on-site streets. The high-quality exterior finishes include plaster with 20/30 light sand finish, 8-inch smooth fiber cement siding, smooth fiber cement panels, and brick veneer at all entries, providing different levels of articulation. The roofing will be composition shingle roofing, with steel and wood railings used for the balconies and decks. The intent is to combine simple but refined materials with contemporary roof forms and building massing to develop an urban-suburban style. Roman De Sota, R3 Studios Landscape Architects, spoke about the proposed plant palette, trying to find a balance between native and nonnative species and low-light-tolerant species but also plants that are low water use, to screen the sides of building, to provide shade, and to prevent undesirable views. the amenity space next to Building 1 is a small outdoor space that has several uses, enhanced by a textured treatment of concrete, an electric barbecue counter, communal table, string lights, and a conversation area with a table. In and around that would be lush planting of native and nonnative species, remaining cognizant about the shade in the area. The second amenity space next to Building 3 faces Cesano Court. There is a pergola, seating area, tables, modern Adirondack chairs, and lounge seating. In front, specimen trees, such as native California oak trees, were proposed. The other amenity space to the northeast of Building 3 is another electric barbeque area. Because there is a trash enclosure adjacent, there is also a decorative perforated metal screen. PUBLIC COMMENT There were no requests to speak. Boardmember Adcock asked for clarification on the concessions. She noted the landscape screening toward the condominiums on the Mountain View side was not one of the waivers and questioned how that was being addressed. Regarding the interior streets being 32 feet, she asked how the dimensions were taken and why it exceeded standards. Ms. Pallas noted the suggestion was that the concession could be used for not having a retail component to the project. The landscape screening was identified as something that needs to be addressed as the project is not complete yet. Mr. Hickey explained the street measurement was because of an ordinance requiring 32-foot-wide private streets in Palo Alto. The measurement was taken from face of building to face of building, so it is not the travel-way itself. The intent was that the front door side will be used as the pedestrian side. The private streets are not designed to be pedestrian streets. Chair Rosenberg questioned why the retail component would be a concession rather than a waiver because with the townhome configuration, a retail component would preclude additional units. She clarified where the side and rear setbacks were intended to be reduced, including the portions that belong to the neighboring condominium and cannot be developed. She asked if it was possible that in the future those portions could be sold independently. She questioned the 8'11" setback and whether it was the bulk façade of the building. Item 4 Attachment A: Minutes of September 19, 2024     Packet Pg. 82     Page 4 of 9 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 09/19/24 Ms. Pallas explained that the retail waiver related to the density and number of units rather than the architectural style of the units. She replied that the sale of those portions of land would require unanimous approval of all of the condo owners and would potentially bring that project out of conformance for usable open space requirements. Mr. Hickey added that those portions would require a subdivision map or parcel map to create a separate legal parcel, which would be nonconforming and therefore unable to be created as a separate parcel for individual sale. He explained that the 8'11" was the second and third floors of the building, which are set further back than the 4'8" stoop on the ground floor. Chair Rosenberg asked for an explanation of the waiver for 30% build-to. She confirmed that the end of Street C was not able to be a through street and that the bike path suggested by the public could not be placed as the property there was not owned by this applicant. Ms. Pallas explained that normally there would be a 30% build-to to the setback, but on the right side of the property along Cesano Court, there was the amenity space, the driveway, and fire and transformers. Boardmember Adcock suggested that people living on one side could cross over and use the other amenities. Mr. Hickey agreed, noting it would be a single HOA serving the entire project. Vice Chair Chen asked about the trash collection for Parcel 1 as it was noted that on Parcel 3 the trash bin would be pulled out from the corner. Mr. Hickey showed how the bins would be pulled out to the street for Parcel 1, with the HOA paying an additional pullout fee to waste collection to pull out and push in the bins. Chair Rosenberg discussed the last two waivers. Regarding the request to reduce the number of street trees, she asked why the last few trees could not be included. She questioned the waiver to reduce restrictions on windows and balconies adjacent to residential buildings. Mr. De Sota stated the remaining trees were unable to be added due to utilities and the water treatment area and storm drain line, especially along El Camino. The small purple trees were pushed back to clear the storm drain line. Ms. Kallas clarified there was an additional tree from when the staff report was published, so the deficit is four trees rather than five. Mr. Hickey added that the objective standard does not provide an exception for driveways, where it is impossible to plant trees. He pointed out utility infrastructure and a crosswalk that prevented planting. Ms. Kallas explained that waiver six was in regard to Building 4 facing the apartments. Mr. Hickey added the applicant was taking a look at the issue of 15% requirement for each of the buildings and not as an average and was confident they would be able to address it. Vice Chair Chen noted the proposed building would be 10 feet or so from the property line and asked how far away from the property line the facing apartment is. She questioned the requirement for the bench location and how it works. Item 4 Attachment A: Minutes of September 19, 2024     Packet Pg. 83     Page 5 of 9 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 09/19/24 Mr. Hickey answered the distance from window to window was very close to 30 feet but had not been verified with a survey. The bench requirement had also not been looked at yet, but he expected to be able to comply. Ms. Kallas explained the code states, "Primary building entry shall provide at least one exterior seating area or bench within 30 feet of building entry or path leading to building entry." For this style of building, there is not a primary entrance compared to an apartment building, and Staff is still looking at whether the amenity space would qualify. Boardmember Adcock did not feel the amenity space made sense as the bench requirement is for public use. Vice Chair Chen asked whether there were any revisions on the left elevation of Building 3 where it did not meet the horizontal shift requirements. She questioned if the windows at the top of the buildings were dormers and if they were accessible. Mr. Hickey stated the horizontal shift would be addressed but had not been looked at yet. The constraint was that it looked out onto the amenity space, with some limits in terms of how far out it could go without encroaching onto that space. He explained the windows were faux dormers, actually the back side of the fourth-floor balcony. The windows are blackened glass, and it is fully enclosed, not an accessible space. They were included to elevate the interest of the roofline. Chair Rosenberg questioned if that enclosed area was counted as square footage. Ms. Mastro clarified that it was unconditioned attic space. Boardmember Adcock asked if there could be a ladder up to a storage space in there. Ms. Mastro noted there would need to be an attic access to that space but it was not designed structurally for anything to be stored there. Vice Chair Chen asked about the roof assembly. She stated the thickness of the roof deck seemed to be double height as compared to the floor assembly below. She pointed out areas on the first floor plan that counted toward FAR and questioned if they were accessible. Ms. Mastro explained usually 24 inches was allowed for floor assembly as well as potentially ducts running through the area to feed the floors below. The questioned first-floor areas were not accessible, just a projection on the outside of the building to create articulation. Chair Rosenberg suggested the area of projection could become a closet and asked if it could fit a hot water heater or furnace. Mr. Hickey stated share wall concerns may preclude that use but could look at whether structurally a door could be added there. Vice Chair Chen asked for thoughts about the different roof slopes. Ms. Mastro responded that there were extensive discussions with the Fire District on accessing these buildings for fire purpose. The 3:12 coming from the rear side of the building was a request from Fire so they are able to access the rear side of the building with equipment. Similarly, around the front and to Item 4 Attachment A: Minutes of September 19, 2024     Packet Pg. 84     Page 6 of 9 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 09/19/24 the highest points of the roof, they had requested a 5:12 maximum slope to get out to the roof over the deck space. Boardmember Adcock noted areas of switching from 3:12 to 4:12, making framing more complicated than it needs to be, for example on the upper right of the plan. Boardmember Baltay asked why the ground-floor units facing El Camino Real cannot be raised another foot. Ryan Hansen explained the streets are going in the opposite direction so there is an adverse reaction of pushing the building up from the back of walk along El Camino but too great of a difference to catch up on the street side without physical risers in the garage that would encroach into the minimum clearance space unless there was a waiver. Chair Rosenberg asked the amount of the difference. Mr. Hickey responded that Building 2 was 2/10 of a foot off and for Building 5, a little over a foot short. Boardmember Baltay suggested it was frequently a benefit to the residents to be somewhat elevated from the grade. Mr. Hickey felt it depended on the context and stated he would rely more on landscaping than grade separation for privacy. Boardmember Baltay stated there was a letter from the public about a bicycle path. He asked Staff to explain what that bicycle path is. Ms. Pallas answered that the comment arose from when a different project was proposed on this property and went to a Council prescreening. There is a bike lane multiuse path behind the Mountain View apartments. It aligns with the common use parcel on Cesano Court, slightly north of this project site. There was further discussion about the path, with Mr. Hickey giving his opinion that the only way to use that land was through eminent domain, which Ms. Pallas clarified is not an option in a streamlined housing project. Boardmember Hirsch noted that the amenity spaces did not include any playground equipment and suggested changing one of the outdoor barbecue areas to an area for children. He also discussed that the project is over an acre, which in the code would require two different types of housing typologies. He felt the project was well done and would be a pleasant addition to the street but that there should be more units on this site and add to the Housing Element requirement. He spoke more about the need for more housing. Ms. Pallas explained that in terms of housing typology, these are currently two separate parcels separated by a public street. Each lot is less than an acre, so one housing type is required per lot. Regarding the Housing Element, certain elements like the size of the units, which are 3- to 4-bedrooms, may serve the community in a different way than providing more but smaller units would. Boardmember Hirsch noted that if the Board were voting on this, he would vote against it only because it should have had a multiple dwelling building on the smaller lot. Item 4 Attachment A: Minutes of September 19, 2024     Packet Pg. 85     Page 7 of 9 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 09/19/24 There was further discussion about this issue and whether this was considered one or two parcels. Boardmember Adcock specified that the language of the objective standard says "A diversity of housing types…are required for projects on larger lots." She felt the lot was the question at hand because technically the applicant could have submitted two separate projects rather than one application with two separate lots. Chair Rosenberg asked if this should come back as two separate projects. Boardmember Baltay wanted to see the Planning Staff be more aggressive promoting overall city policies and objectives. He felt it was debatable whether this was considered one project or two but the Staff has never enforced this particular aspect of objective standards. He agreed that Palo Alto needed more housing and this was one tool the Planning Department could and should use to get greater density of housing. Boardmember Hirsch added that the larger number of units on a property, the greater the possibility of affordable housing. Chair Rosenberg felt this was an extremely appropriate site for townhouses and the City needs more family-oriented housing. There was further discussion about the type of project suitable for this location. Boardmember Adcock stated the townhomes had space for families, including multigenerational families. She noted it was missing the Housing Element numbers and was using more than the buffer percentage in terms of units it would provide, which she did not totally agree with, but did not feel that arguing whether this was the right type of development would push the need for housing forward. Vice Chair Chen understood the need for more units in town but also wanted to balance the needs of different groups of people, whether families or individuals. Boardmember Hirsch noted he was not expecting a change today but wanted to be more aware of the opportunity to work with a variety of densities. Planning Manager Gerhardt thought this was a good discussion about the need for housing in the City of Palo Alto. She noted Staff was very mindful in using the buffer the Housing Element allows for issues like this and tracking those numbers. Staff has interpreted the code in this case to say that there are two lots, each under an acre, and therefore only one housing type is required. Discussions about changing the objective standard should be tabled for another hearing. Boardmember Hirsch restated his opinion that this was not two separate projects. Chair Rosenberg redirected the discussion to questions related to the architecture and aesthetic of the buildings. She asked for input regarding the exterior elevations, specifically along El Camino and how they relate to Cesano Court. Boardmember Adcock had questions regarding massing and finishes. She noted there were three separate boards that were very similar in terms of color schemes. She asked the architect about the logic and strategy on those. She felt they were so similar that it felt like an apartment building with a few different paint colors of very similar tones. Item 4 Attachment A: Minutes of September 19, 2024     Packet Pg. 86     Page 8 of 9 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 09/19/24 Ms. Mastro explained the architects wanted to create a cohesive look for the five buildings within the same color palette but keep them distinct from one another. She stated the body colors are used on the stucco and on the siding and believed it provided the differentiation the applicant was looking for. The decision was made to do color schemes per building and not per individual unit. Different-colored entry doors could be explored. Mr. Hickey added that different options were explored, and this was the look that was preferred by the developers. He also explained that often colors that look very similar in one light end up being very different colors and vice versa. He explained which scheme was for which buildings. Boardmember Adcock questioned the perforated metal panels on L-9.2. Regarding the rooftop decks, she asked the material of the horizontal slat balcony edge and if that turns the corner when separating between units. Mr. De Sota responded that the enlargement on L-2.2 showed the metal panels behind the barbecue. It would transition from more open to opaque at the bottom as shown on the elevation. Ms. Mastro responded that it is horizontal slats along the rear piece of the deck, and then as it turns the corner, it transitions to horizontal siding because it is not able to having the slat railing there going perpendicular to the roof slope. There is also a 4-foot wall between balconies. Boardmember Baltay stated there were guidelines for what Palo Alto would like to see regarding privacy and balconies. Boardmember Adcock added that a townhome is like a private home and then to be on the balcony and only 2 feet from the neighbor feels less private. Chair Rosenberg closed the comment portion of the meeting. The Board took a 10-minute break before returning for internal discussion. Boardmember Adcock thought this type of housing was needed in Palo Alto for families. As far as the overall design layout, she felt the frontage on El Camino was nice but was unsure so many colors were needed. She was interested in some more accent colors on doors or porches. She was disappointed the dormer was a fake window and did not feel it added enough interest to make it worthwhile. She recommended Staff look into landscape screening on the Mountain View side. She felt there was enough space in the layouts to have a step between the garage and first level to elevate the floor. She felt the bike path was a lost opportunity. Boardmember Hirsch suggested a fence with planting to provide privacy. He described another project that took advantage of tight spaces by using narrow walkways. He repeated his request for consideration of children's play equipment. He agreed that it was a waste not to use the dormer windows as a light well. He suggested the step-up elevation for the first floor be carried out to the front of the house. He was happy with the subtle differences in color and scale changes but thought front door color changes would create more individuality. He was less concerned about the trees and felt the bike path was not something that could be solved with this project. He was not concerned about the side elevations and the amount of glazing. He felt it was an elegant project even though he disagreed with the use of the smaller site. Item 4 Attachment A: Minutes of September 19, 2024     Packet Pg. 87     Page 9 of 9 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 09/19/24 Boardmember Baltay stated this was one of the best townhouse projects he has seen. Regarding the compliance with objective standards, he wanted to see two items considered more. One was the question of privacy adjacent to the apartments on the Mountain View border. He felt the best solution was greater landscaping and did not think it would be fair to the residents to have translucent glazing on the windows there. The second item was the ground-floor elevation, which he felt could and should meet the objective standard. He believed it needed more complexity of construction and that there was room to get the stairs in there. He was disappointed in the fake roof dormers and felt they should be eliminated. He thought the roof forms were overly complex and could be tightened up a little, but he liked that each unit had separate roof pieces. He recommended stronger trim pieces around groupings of windows. He noted the colors met the standards but were boring and needed some accents. Vice Chair Chen thought the site plan was successful overall, fitting as many townhomes as possible on the site while still providing gathering space. She thought the materials and colors were very carefully selected and stood out from the neighboring buildings. Regarding the waivers, she did not have concern about the windows facing the apartment buildings and agreed that they should not have obscured glass on that side. She thought the waiver to reduce the height of the ground floor finish could be solved. She suggested to work on the left elevation of Building 3 to have the horizontal variations. She agreed with previous comments about the fake dormers and also suggested simplifying the roofline. Considering privacy between units, she wanted to see taller screening between the units on the rooftop. Chair Rosenberg noted there was a lot of agreement on these items. The ground floor needs to be reevaluated. The privacy screen was not too much of an issue. She echoed Boardmember Hirsch's commentary about the play structure. She agreed that the roofs were chaotic and could be cleaned up. She noted there was a split vote on the color scheme but felt the colors were nice. She encouraged accenting the doors for more variation. She felt the location was great and loved the idea of the townhomes here. There was no vote as this was a study session. Board Member Questions, Comments, Announcements Or Future Meetings And Agendas Manager of Current Planning/ARB Liaison Jodie Gerhardt explained there were no decisions on the ARB Awards today but wanted the Board to start thinking about it. She presented the bylaws, stating that every five years there will be design awards for outstanding projects. She noted that the criteria and number of awards was up to the ARB. She discussed the amount of awards presented in the past and also showed the carryover list from the 2020 awards cycle and the list of new projects. A list of about 100 to 200 projects will be reviewed. She discussed the process going forward. She planned to come back in a month with the list of eligible projects. Chair Rosenberg encouraged board members to think about categories and how the awards ceremony should highlight and showcase buildings. Boardmember Baltay suggested adding a residential category to get public interest. There was further discussion about this. Adjournment Chair Rosenberg adjourned the meeting at 11:40 a.m. Item 4 Attachment A: Minutes of September 19, 2024     Packet Pg. 88