Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-11-07 Architectural Review Board Agenda PacketARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD Regular Meeting Thursday, November 07, 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. Board member names, biographies, and archived agendas and reports are available at https://bit.ly/paloaltoARB.  VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/96561891491) Meeting ID: 965 6189 1491    Phone: 1(669)900‐6833 PUBLIC COMMENTS Public comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or an amount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutes after the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance to arb@CityofPaloAlto.org and will be provided to the Board and available for inspection on the City’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you are referencing in your subject line. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson's presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. The Chair may limit Public Comments to thirty (30) minutes for all combined speakers. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak for Study Sessions and Action Items to two (2) minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers. PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted only by email to arb@CityofPaloAlto.org at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Once received, the Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. To uphold strong cybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storage devices are not accepted. 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.Director’s Report, Meeting Schedule, and Upcoming Agenda Items. STUDY SESSION Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 2.STUDY SESSION. 3150 El Camino Real [24PLN‐00231]: Request for Streamlined Housing Development Review to Allow Demolition of Two Existing Commercial Buildings and the Construction of a 368 unit Multi‐Family Residential Apartment Building. The Project would be Located on a 111,030 sf Lot to be Created from Five Existing Parcels at 3128 and 3150‐3160 El Camino Real. 74 Units Would be Deed Restricted to Serve Tenants at 50‐80% of Area Median Income. Zone District: Commercial Service (CS). Environmental Assessment: The Project is Being Reviewed for an Exemption under CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 (In‐Fill). ACTION ITEMS Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Ten (10) minutes, plus ten (10) minutes rebuttal. All others: Three (3) minutes per speaker. 3.PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI‐JUDICIAL: 70 Encina Avenue [24PLN‐00095]: Consideration of an Application to Rezone the Subject Property and an Adjacent Vacant Parcel to Planned Community/Planned Home Zoning, to Demolish a Surface Parking lot, and to Construct a New Three‐Story, 22,355 Square Foot Building with 10 Residential Condominium Units, Two of Which Would be Provided at Below Market Rate. Environmental Assessment: The City is Preparing an Exemption in Accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 (Comprehensive Plan Consistency). Zone District: CC (Community Commercial). For More Information Please Contact the Project Planner, Emily Kallas, at Emily.Kallas@Cityofpaloalto.org. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 4.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for October 3, 2024 5.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for October 17, 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, November 07, 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. Board member names, biographies, and archived agendas and reports are availableat https://bit.ly/paloaltoARB. VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/96561891491)Meeting ID: 965 6189 1491    Phone: 1(669)900‐6833PUBLIC COMMENTSPublic comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or anamount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutesafter the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance toarb@CityofPaloAlto.org and will be provided to the Board and available for inspection on theCity’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you are referencing in your subjectline.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified aspresent at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson's presentation will be allowed up tofifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking membersagree not to speak individually. The Chair may limit Public Comments to thirty (30) minutes forall combined speakers. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak for Study Sessions andAction Items to two (2) minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers.PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted onlyby email to arb@CityofPaloAlto.org at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Once received,the Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. To uphold strongcybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storage devices are notaccepted. 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.Director’s Report, Meeting Schedule, and Upcoming Agenda Items. STUDY SESSION Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 2.STUDY SESSION. 3150 El Camino Real [24PLN‐00231]: Request for Streamlined Housing Development Review to Allow Demolition of Two Existing Commercial Buildings and the Construction of a 368 unit Multi‐Family Residential Apartment Building. The Project would be Located on a 111,030 sf Lot to be Created from Five Existing Parcels at 3128 and 3150‐3160 El Camino Real. 74 Units Would be Deed Restricted to Serve Tenants at 50‐80% of Area Median Income. Zone District: Commercial Service (CS). Environmental Assessment: The Project is Being Reviewed for an Exemption under CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 (In‐Fill). ACTION ITEMS Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Ten (10) minutes, plus ten (10) minutes rebuttal. All others: Three (3) minutes per speaker. 3.PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI‐JUDICIAL: 70 Encina Avenue [24PLN‐00095]: Consideration of an Application to Rezone the Subject Property and an Adjacent Vacant Parcel to Planned Community/Planned Home Zoning, to Demolish a Surface Parking lot, and to Construct a New Three‐Story, 22,355 Square Foot Building with 10 Residential Condominium Units, Two of Which Would be Provided at Below Market Rate. Environmental Assessment: The City is Preparing an Exemption in Accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 (Comprehensive Plan Consistency). Zone District: CC (Community Commercial). For More Information Please Contact the Project Planner, Emily Kallas, at Emily.Kallas@Cityofpaloalto.org. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 4.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for October 3, 2024 5.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for October 17, 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, November 07, 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. Board member names, biographies, and archived agendas and reports are availableat https://bit.ly/paloaltoARB. VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/96561891491)Meeting ID: 965 6189 1491    Phone: 1(669)900‐6833PUBLIC COMMENTSPublic comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or anamount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutesafter the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance toarb@CityofPaloAlto.org and will be provided to the Board and available for inspection on theCity’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you are referencing in your subjectline.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified aspresent at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson's presentation will be allowed up tofifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking membersagree not to speak individually. The Chair may limit Public Comments to thirty (30) minutes forall combined speakers. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak for Study Sessions andAction Items to two (2) minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers.PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted onlyby email to arb@CityofPaloAlto.org at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Once received,the Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. To uphold strongcybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storage devices are notaccepted.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.Director’s Report, Meeting Schedule, and Upcoming Agenda Items.STUDY SESSIONPublic Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.2.STUDY SESSION. 3150 El Camino Real [24PLN‐00231]: Request for Streamlined HousingDevelopment Review to Allow Demolition of Two Existing Commercial Buildings and theConstruction of a 368 unit Multi‐Family Residential Apartment Building. The Projectwould be Located on a 111,030 sf Lot to be Created from Five Existing Parcels at 3128and 3150‐3160 El Camino Real. 74 Units Would be Deed Restricted to Serve Tenants at50‐80% of Area Median Income. Zone District: Commercial Service (CS). EnvironmentalAssessment: The Project is Being Reviewed for an Exemption under CEQA GuidelinesSection 15183 (In‐Fill).ACTION ITEMSPublic Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Ten (10) minutes, plus ten (10) minutes rebuttal. All others: Three(3) minutes per speaker.3.PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI‐JUDICIAL: 70 Encina Avenue [24PLN‐00095]: Consideration of anApplication to Rezone the Subject Property and an Adjacent Vacant Parcel to PlannedCommunity/Planned Home Zoning, to Demolish a Surface Parking lot, and to Construct aNew Three‐Story, 22,355 Square Foot Building with 10 Residential Condominium Units,Two of Which Would be Provided at Below Market Rate. Environmental Assessment: TheCity is Preparing an Exemption in Accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(Comprehensive Plan Consistency). Zone District: CC (Community Commercial). For MoreInformation Please Contact the Project Planner, Emily Kallas, atEmily.Kallas@Cityofpaloalto.org. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 4.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for October 3, 2024 5.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for October 17, 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, November 07, 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. Board member names, biographies, and archived agendas and reports are availableat https://bit.ly/paloaltoARB. VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/96561891491)Meeting ID: 965 6189 1491    Phone: 1(669)900‐6833PUBLIC COMMENTSPublic comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or anamount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutesafter the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance toarb@CityofPaloAlto.org and will be provided to the Board and available for inspection on theCity’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you are referencing in your subjectline.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified aspresent at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson's presentation will be allowed up tofifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking membersagree not to speak individually. The Chair may limit Public Comments to thirty (30) minutes forall combined speakers. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak for Study Sessions andAction Items to two (2) minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers.PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted onlyby email to arb@CityofPaloAlto.org at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Once received,the Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. To uphold strongcybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storage devices are notaccepted.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.Director’s Report, Meeting Schedule, and Upcoming Agenda Items.STUDY SESSIONPublic Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.2.STUDY SESSION. 3150 El Camino Real [24PLN‐00231]: Request for Streamlined HousingDevelopment Review to Allow Demolition of Two Existing Commercial Buildings and theConstruction of a 368 unit Multi‐Family Residential Apartment Building. The Projectwould be Located on a 111,030 sf Lot to be Created from Five Existing Parcels at 3128and 3150‐3160 El Camino Real. 74 Units Would be Deed Restricted to Serve Tenants at50‐80% of Area Median Income. Zone District: Commercial Service (CS). EnvironmentalAssessment: The Project is Being Reviewed for an Exemption under CEQA GuidelinesSection 15183 (In‐Fill).ACTION ITEMSPublic Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Ten (10) minutes, plus ten (10) minutes rebuttal. All others: Three(3) minutes per speaker.3.PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI‐JUDICIAL: 70 Encina Avenue [24PLN‐00095]: Consideration of anApplication to Rezone the Subject Property and an Adjacent Vacant Parcel to PlannedCommunity/Planned Home Zoning, to Demolish a Surface Parking lot, and to Construct aNew Three‐Story, 22,355 Square Foot Building with 10 Residential Condominium Units,Two of Which Would be Provided at Below Market Rate. Environmental Assessment: TheCity is Preparing an Exemption in Accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(Comprehensive Plan Consistency). Zone District: CC (Community Commercial). For MoreInformation Please Contact the Project Planner, Emily Kallas, atEmily.Kallas@Cityofpaloalto.org.APPROVAL OF MINUTESPublic Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.4.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for October 3, 20245.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for October 17, 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: November 7, 2024 Report #: 2410-3657 TITLE Director’s Report, Meeting Schedule, and Upcoming Agenda Items. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) review and comment as appropriate. BACKGROUND This document includes the following items: •ARB meeting schedule •Upcoming ARB agenda items •Recently submitted and pending projects subject to ARB review Board members are encouraged to contact Veronica Dao (Veronica.Dao@CityofPaloAlto.org) to notify staff of any planned absences one month in advance, if possible, to ensure the availability of an ARB quorum. 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. No action is required by the ARB for this item. UPCOMING ARB AGENDA ITEMS The following items are tentative and subject to change: Item 1 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 5     Item No. 1. Page 2 of 2 MEETING DATE TOPICS November 21, 2024 •3265 El Camino Real: PC Rezoning (2nd hearing) •824 San Antonio Road: Architectural Review (2nd hearing) •3950 Fabian Way: Girls Middle School (1st Hearing) RECENTLY SUBMITTED PROJECTS No new major ARB projects have been submitted. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: 2024 & 2025 Meeting Schedule & Assignments Attachment B: Pending ARB 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     ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD Pending ARB Projects The following projects will soon be reviewed by the ARB. For more information, visit the project webpages at bit.ly/PApendingprojects or via Building Eye at bit.ly/PABuildingEye. Permit Type Filed Permit #Address Type Work Description Status/Notes Major Architectural Review 9/16/20 20PLN-00202 250 Hamilton Ave Bridge 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. On-hold for redesign Major Architectural Review Zone Change 12/21/21 21PLN-00341 24PLN-00239 660 University 680 University Mixed-Use Planned Community (PC), to Combine 3 Parcels (511 Byron St, 660 University Ave, 680 University Ave/500 Middlefield Rd), Demolish Existing Buildings (9,216 SF Office) and Provide a New Four Story Mixed-Use Building with Ground Floor Office (9,115 SF) and Multi- Family Residential (all floors) Including a Two Level Below-Grade Parking Garage. Proposed Residential Proposed Residential (42,189 SF) Will Include 65 Units (47 Studios, 12 1-Bedroom, 6 2- Bedroom). NOI Sent. 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. ARB 1st formal 12/1/22, ARB recommended approval 4/22; Applicant is revising project plans Item 1 Attachment B: Pending ARB Projects     Packet Pg. 9     Permit Type Filed Permit #Address Type Work Description Status/Notes Major Architectural Review 6/8/23 23PLN-00136 23PLN-00277 (Map) 23PLN-00003 and -00195 – (SB 330) 24PLN-00230 (Code compliant version) 24PLN-00231 (Map) 3150 El Camino Real Housing – 380 units 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. Focus Area Compliant Application Filed 8/7/24; NOI Sent 9/7/24. Pending Resubmittal. Tentative ARB 11/7/2024. Ad Hoc (Rosenberg, Hirsch) Reported out 5/4 on SB 330 Ad Hoc (Rosenberg, Hirsch) Reported out on 8/17 Major Architectural Review 7/19/23 23PLN-00181 824 San Antonio Road Housing – 16 senior units, 12 convalescent units Request for Major Architectural Review to allow the Demolition of an existing 2-Story office building and the new construction of a 4- Story private residential senior living facility, including 15 independent dwelling units, 12 assisted living dwelling units and 1 owner occupied unit. Common space amenities on all floors, underground parking, and ground floor commercial space. Zoning District: CS (Commercial Services). 12/21/23 ARB hearing; Revised Plans resubmitted 9/25/24; Tentative ARB Scheduled 11/7. PC Amendment 8/9/23 23PLN-00202 4075 El Camino Way Commercial 16 convalescent units 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 Community Meeting in October. 2/28/24 and 6/12/24 PTC hearing, 7/18/24 ARB hearing, ARB 10/17/24, PTC & Council hearings TBD. Ad Hoc (Baltay, Chen) reported out 6/1 Item 1 Attachment B: Pending ARB Projects     Packet Pg. 10     Permit Type Filed Permit #Address Type Work Description Status/Notes Major Architectural Review 1/10/24 24PLN-00012 3265 El Camino Real Housing 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. 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 11/21/24. Ad Hoc (Rosenberg, Thompson) reported out 8/17 on prescreening Ad Hoc (Rosenberg, Hirsch) Major Architectural Review 3/6/24 24PLN-00064 640 Waverley Mixed-Use 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). NOI Sent 4/5/24. ARB 6/6/24. Pending Resubmittal; Preparing 15183 Exemption. Tentative ARB January 2025. Ad Hoc (Rosenberg, Hirsch) Minor Architectural Review 3/7/24 24PLN-00066 180 El Camino Real Restaurant 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) NOI Sent 4/10. Pending Resubmittal. Major Architectural Review – Builder’s Remedy 4/02/24 24PLN-00100 24PLN-00223 (Map) 156 California Mixed-Use 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 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 NOI Sent 5/2/2024; 60-day Formal Comments sent 6/1; Resubmitted, Request for Supplemental Info Sent 7/11; Pending Resubmittal. SB 330 Pre-app submitted 11/21/24 Item 1 Attachment B: Pending ARB Projects     Packet Pg. 11     Permit Type Filed Permit #Address Type Work Description Status/Notes 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) Ad Hoc (Baltay, Adcock) Zone Change 03/28/24 24PLN-00095 70 Encina Housing – 10 Units 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). NOI Sent 4/28/2024. PTC 9/11/24, Plans Pending Resubmittal, Tentative 1st ARB November 2024. ARB prelim 12/7 Ad Hoc (Hirsch, Adcock) Major Architectural Review – Builder’s Remedy 4/23/24 24PLN-00120 762 San Antonio Housing – 198 Units 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. NOI Sent 5/23/2024. Tentative ARB December 2024. Ad Hoc (Baltay, Chen) Streamlined Housing Development Review 5/28/24 24PLN-00152 24PLN-00023 (Prelim) 4335- 4345 El Camino Housing – 29 Units 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). NOI Sent 6/27/2024. ARB 9/19/24. Pending Resubmittal of Plans. Ad Hoc (Hirsch, Baltay) reviewed prelim Major Architectural Review – Builder’s Remedy 6/10/24 24PLN-00161 24PLN-00048 (SB 330) 3781 El Camino Real Housing – 177 units 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) NOI Sent 7/10/2024. Item 1 Attachment B: Pending ARB Projects     Packet Pg. 12     Permit Type Filed Permit #Address Type Work Description Status/Notes Major Architectural Review – Builder’s Remedy 6/10/24 24PLN-00162 24PLN-00047 (SB 330) 3606 El Camino Real Housing – 335 Units 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) NOI Sent 8/1/2024. Major Architectural Review – Builder’s Remedy 7/17/24 24PLN-00184 24PLN-00232 (Map) 3400 El Camino Real Housing – 231 units & Hotel – 92 rooms 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) NOI Sent 8/16/2024 and 9/12/2024; Pending Resubmittal. Minor Architectural Review & Conditional Use Permit 9/24/24 24PLN-00263 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. NOI Sent 10/24/2024. Streamlined Housing Development Review 10/08/24 24PLN-00280 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 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: Pending ARB Projects     Packet Pg. 13     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: November 7, 2024 Report #: 2409-3511 TITLE STUDY SESSION. 3150 El Camino Real [24PLN-00231]: Request for Streamlined Housing Development Review to Allow Demolition of Two Existing Commercial Buildings and Construction of a 368-Unit Multi-Family Residential Apartment Building, Including 74 Units Deed Restricted to Serve Tenants at 50-80% of Area Median Income. The Project would be Located on a 111,030-Square-Foot Lot to be Created from Five Existing Parcels at 3128 and 3150-3160 El Camino Real. Zone District: Commercial Service (CS). Environmental Assessment: The Project is Being Reviewed for an Exemption under CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 (In-fill). RECOMMENDATION Conduct a study session to provide feedback on any adjustments to the application that would result in closer adherence to the objective design standards contained in Chapter 18.24, Objective Standards, consistent with the streamlined review pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 18.77.073 for housing development projects. This project is subject to a Director’s decision and does not require a recommendation from the Architectural Review Board (ARB). EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The application includes 368 residential apartments across five existing lots, 74 of which will be deed restricted to 80% area median income (AMI) or lower, in accordance with the El Camino Real Focus Area requirements. The project site is located along El Camino Real between Page Mill Road and Hansen Way, adjacent to office and hotel uses. The project is a housing development project as defined in the Housing Accountability Act. The applicant separately submitted an application to develop the property as “Builder’s Remedy” project, but elected instead to pursue a project that complies with the City’s El Camino Real Focus Area development standards. If the application is not approved. The applicant has the option of reverting to the Builder’s Remedy application. The project specifies that 20% of the residential units will be rented at 50% to 80% AMI. The El Camino Real Focus Area is a local alternative to State Density Bonus Law which requires the project to comply with one of two options. In both cases the project must comply with the development standards set forth in Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 14     Item No. 2. Page 2 of 9 PAMC Chapter 18.16, except as modified by Chapter 18.14 for this focus area. However, the project may choose to comply with all of the objective design standards set forth in PAMC Chapter 18.24 and, accordingly, process the project in accordance with the Streamlined Development Review standards set forth in PAMC Section 18.77.073. Alternatively, the project can comply with the Design Intent Statements set forth in PAMC Chapter 18.24 instead of all of the objective design standards, and accordingly process the project in accordance with PAMC Section 18.77.070 for Architectural Review. The proposed project complies with all objective standards adopted by the City and is therefore being processed in accordance with the Streamlined Housing Development Review process. A location map for the proposed project is included as Attachment A and the project plans are included as Attachment G. The City, acting as the lead agency in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), is preparing a 15183 exemption to document that this infill project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Comprehensive Plan EIR. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project is a 368-unit apartment building at 3150 El Camino Real with associated amenities and a two-story, below-grade parking garage. All existing parcels abut El Camino Real. The existing commercial buildings (McDonalds and former Fish Market) would be demolished. The project includes amenity space (such as a pool, gym, roof decks, and lounges), landscaping, and associated site/utility improvements. The project complies with the Objective Design Standards and objective Development Standards set forth in PAMC Chapters 18.16 (as modified by 18.14 for focus area projects), and 18.24. Requested Entitlements, Findings, and Purview: The following discretionary application is being requested: •Streamlined Housing Development Review: As set forth in PAMC 18.77.073, Streamlined Housing Development Review applications require a study session with the ARB. The board’s feedback will be forwarded to the Planning & Development Services Director. Action by the Director is appealable to the City Council if filed within 14 days of the decision. Streamlined Housing Development projects are evaluated against specific findings. Both findings must be made in the affirmative to approve the project. Failure to make any finding requires project redesign or denial. Draft findings for this project are provided in Attachment B. The following discretionary application is being requested and is not subject to the ARB’s purview: •Vesting Tentative Map and Final Map for lot merger purposes: The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in Title 21 of the PAMC and California Government Code 66474. The process for approval of a Vesting Tentative Map for a lot merger is outlined in PAMC Section 21.13.020. Tentative maps require Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) review. The PTC reviews whether the amended subdivision is consistent with the Subdivision Map Act (Government Code 66474), Title 21 of the PAMC, the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, and other applicable provisions of the PAMC and State Law. The PTC’s recommendation is forwarded to the City Council for final approval. Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 15     Item No. 2. Page 3 of 9 The ARB’s purview of the formal application is limited by the following State law: •Housing Accountability Act (Government Code 65589.5): The project constitutes a “housing development project” under the Housing Accountability Act. The Housing Accountability Act Section 65589.5(j) requires that when a proposed housing development project complies with applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards, a local agency may only deny or reduce the density the project or reduce its density if the agency first finds that (1) the development would have a specific adverse impact on public health or safety unless disapproved, or approved at a lower density; and (2) there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact, other than the disapproval, or approval at a lower density. For purposes of the Housing Accountability Act, the receipt of a density bonus, incentive, concession, waiver, or reduction of development standards shall not constitute a valid basis on which to find a proposed housing development project is inconsistent with objective standards. BACKGROUND Project Information Owner:Stanford University/Acclaim Properties Architect:Studio T Square Representative:Gary Johnson; Mark Johnson Legal Counsel:N/A Property Information Address:3128 and 3150-3160 El Camino Real Neighborhood:Stanford Research Park across from Ventura Lot Dimensions & Area:142-20-079: 30 feet wide by 275 feet long; 142-20-080: 18 feet wide by 275 feet long; 142-20-035: 190 feet wide by 275 feet long; 142-20-054: 99 feet wide by 275 feet long; 142-20-055: 67 feet wide by 275 feet long; Resulting Merged Parcel Size: 422 feet wide by 275 feet long (111,030 sf; 2.55 acres) Housing Inventory Site:Yes; see further discussion below Located w/in a Plume:California-Olive-Emerson Plume Protected/Heritage Trees:None Historic Resource(s):Not Applicable Existing Improvement(s):16,124 square feet of eating and drinking facilities Existing Land Use(s):Eating and Drinking and Incidental Office Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North: Office/R&D (PC-4637) West: Office/R&D (RP) East: Personal Service (CS) South: Hotel (CS) Aerial View of Property: Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 16     Item No. 2. Page 4 of 9 Source: Google Maps Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans Comp. Plan Designation:Service Commercial (CS) Zoning Designation:Service Commercial Yes Yes Yes Baylands Master Plan/Guidelines (2008/2005) El Camino Real Guidelines (1976) Housing Development Project Downtown Urban Design Guidelines (1993) South El Camino Real Guidelines (2002) Utilizes Chapter 18.24 - Objective Standards Individual Review Guidelines (2005) Within 150 feet of Residential Use or District Context-Based Design Criteria applicable SOFA Phase 1 (2000)Within Airport Influence Area SOFA Phase 2 (2003) Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 17     Item No. 2. Page 5 of 9 Prior City Reviews & Action City Council:None PTC:None HRB:None ARB:None ANALYSIS The project is still being reviewed by all City departments and in accordance with CEQA. Therefore, revisions are anticipated prior to issuing a decision on the project. However, the purpose of this study session is to obtain feedback from the ARB and the public in order to allow time for the applicant to consider modifications to the design based on the ARB’s feedback. Neighborhood Setting and Character This property is located adjacent to Palo Alto Square to the north; the Parmani Hotel and the entry to the Stanford Research Park on Hansen Way to the south; the Clocktower Square Office Park to the west; and a mix of commercial and proposed residential uses to the east within the North Ventura neighborhood across El Camino Real. Palo Alto Square is comprised of two 10- story towers with four two-story structures, while the adjacent Parmani Hotel and Clocktower Square Office Park properties are comprised of two-story structures. Across El Camino Real is a variety of one- and two-story personal service businesses (private gyms). A five-story affordable housing project has been approved across El Camino Real at 3001/3017 El Camino Real, but has not yet been constructed. City-wide, the character of El Camino Real is continuing to transition from commercial uses to multi-family residential uses and continues to be an appropriate location to place high density housing. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans, and Guidelines1 The Comprehensive Plan includes Goals, Policies, and Programs that guide the physical form of the City. The Comprehensive Plan provides the basis for the City’s development regulations and is used by City staff to regulate building and development and make recommendations on projects. The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the project site is Service Commercial which does not prescribe a density range for properties that front El Camino Real. The project has a density of 144 dwelling units per acre on the project site, which complies with the multiple-family residential density range set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. On balance, the project is consistent with the policies in the Comprehensive Plan and therefore fulfills the goals as well. A detailed review of the project’s consistency with the Comprehensive Plan is provided in Attachment F. El Camino Real Focus Area (PAMC Chapter 18.14) In December 2023, the City Council adopted the El Camino Real Focus Area which established a local alternative to State Density Bonus Law along four properties on El Camino Real between 1 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Planning- Development-Services/Housing-Policies-Projects/2030-Comprehensive-Plan Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 18     Item No. 2. Page 6 of 9 Page Mill Road and Matadero Avenue. In addition to modifying base district standards such as height and floor area for certain zone districts, it also modified the Upper Story Stepback, Diversity of Housing Types, and Parking/Loading/Utilities requirements in the Objective Design Standards. Projects proposed in accordance with the Housing Focus Area cannot also utilize the provisions of State Density Bonus law, such as requesting concessions or waivers from development standards, however, they can qualify for the Streamlined Housing Development Review process under PAMC Section 18.77.73 if they comply with all base district development standards (as modified by the Focus Area) and the Objective Design Standards. Housing Element All parcels included in this proposed project are Housing Inventory Sites in the City’s adopted Housing Element. The five properties have a projected capacity of 29, 16, 179, 113, and 44, resulting in a consolidated capacity of 381 units for the site with a projected capacity of 77 low- income units. The 368-unit proposal with 74 inclusionary below market rate units (BMR) is 13 units below the anticipated capacity for the five sites combined and three below the anticipated capacity for low-income units. In preparing the Housing Element to meet the City’s required Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) of 6,086 units, the City planned for and analyzed a buffer, meaning that in identifying Housing Inventory Sites, the City planned for an additional 727 units, including a buffer of an additional 261 low and very low income units because actual development of housing projects across the City are dependent on numerous factors. In addition, the City will be able to count all housing developments, even ones not included in the Housing Element, toward fulfillment of the required RHNA. Therefore, although the project does not build to the full identified capacity for the site, the project still proposes a housing development project on a Housing Inventory Site and includes 74 inclusionary below market rate units on site, consistent with the City’s goals of providing housing, and particularly providing below market rate units. The difference in the number of units identified in the Housing Element and the units proposed in this project does not result in a Housing Element capacity below the required RHNA, therefore, re-designation of another Housing Inventory Site to accommodate this difference is not required. El Camino Real and South El Camino Real Design Guidelines The project is also subject to the El Camino Design Guidelines and South El Camino Design Guidelines. The El Camino Design Guidelines are largely not applicable to this project, as it is focused on car-centric commercial development. They also recommend limiting building colors to no more than three primary colors. The proposed building has three main body colors, consistent with this guideline. Accent colors and materials are provided in accordance with the Objective Design Standards. The project is generally consistent with the South El Camino Design Guidelines. However, the guidelines assume a ground floor commercial use and define ground floor glazing/transparency requirements based on this assumption which is not required for Housing Inventory Sites as noted in PAMC Section 18.14.020(b)(i). The guidelines also encourage defining corner elements. The project complies with the requirements set forth in the objective standards for corner elements; therefore, staff considers this project to be consistent with this guideline. Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 19     Item No. 2. Page 7 of 9 Zoning Compliance2 All of the subject parcels are zoned Service Commercial (CS). The project complies with the applicable development standards set forth in PAMC Chapter 18.14, except as modified in accordance with the El Camino Real Focus Area standards for Housing Inventory Sites as set forth in PAMC Chapter 18.14. A summary table showing the project’s consistency with applicable zoning standards is provided in Attachment C. Objective Design Standards In order to process this project in accordance with the streamlined housing development review standards, the project is required to comply with the Objective Design Standards set forth in PAMC Chapter 18.24. A summary of each standard and how the project complies with that standard is provided in Attachment E. Multi-Modal Access and Parking As a housing development project proposed in accordance with El Camino Real Focus Area, this project is required to provide one space per unit and no guest spaces are required. The applicant is proposing a two-story below grade parking structure which provides 428 resident parking spaces plus 27 guest spaces for a total of 455 parking stalls. This exceeds the requirement in PAMC Chapter 18.14. The applicant is also proposing 372 long term bike parking spaces where 368 are required, and 38 short-term bike parking spaces on site where 37 spaces are required. Access to and from the site occurs at a single driveway off El Camino Real which is designed to be a right-in, right-out only driveway. Any vehicle queueing is expected to occur on the project site out of the public right-of-way. There are no existing bike lanes on El Camino Real in the vicinity of the project, however, the planned improvements by Caltrans on El El Camino Real will add a bike lane on El Camino Real along the project frontage. The proposed design incorporates clear entrances near the public right of way that signal entries for bicyclists and pedestrians that will use El Camino Real to access the site. For residents, the bike lockers on site are placed close to the street or elevators so that travel distances are limited from the locker to the public right of way. Consistency with Application Findings The project is still being reviewed by all of the City departments and could not be approved until all applicable Findings are met. The Streamlined Development Review application findings for approval are included in Attachment B. FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT Processing of this application has limited fiscal impact. Applicants are responsible for staff and consultant costs of processing this application through payment of applicable fees per the City’s deposit-based cost recovery program. The project could impact local tax revenues due to the minor decrease in total retail area at the 2 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/paloalto/latest/overview Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 20     Item No. 2. Page 8 of 9 site. Due to the confidential nature of sales tax revenues, staff cannot report on the exact current sales tax revenues from the site. However, the McDonalds generates a relevatively small amount of sales tax for the City (in the tens of thousands) and the loss of this revenue is not significant to the overall budget, which is generally in the $35-$40 million range. The Fish Market ceased operations in 2023 and therefore is not currently generating sales tax revenue for the City. Historically this site generated sales tax in the same magnitude as the McDonalds site and was not a significant source of sales tax revenue for the City. Further, the proposed improvements is anticipated to increase the assessed value (AV) of the subject property), which will generate additional property tax for the City. Palo Alto receives approximately 9.4% of the additional property tax generated. Lastly, the project would be required to pay Development Impact Fees, which are currently estimated at $21,217,603.16 in addition to the public art in-lieu fee. 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 of the hearing. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Daily Post on October 25, 2024, which is 13 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on October 23, 2024, which is 15 days in advance of the meeting. Public Comments The owners of the Parmani Hotel next door raised a concern regarding access to the existing utilities (a transformer and an electric meter) along the shared property line between these two sites due to the location of the new building and fence on the 3150 El Camino Real site. Although the neighboring property owners have stated their intent to propose modifications to their property that could resolve this issue, no project has yet been proposed. Therefore, it is anticipated that the transformer that currently serves Parmani Hotel (3200 El Camino) as well as 3150, 3160, and 3170 El Camino Real, and that would continue to serve 3200 El Camino, would need to be relocated to ensure that utilities could continue to provide service to this transformer. Staff is still evaluating potential options to address this. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The subject project is being assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Specifically, a 15183 Exemption is being prepared and will need to be completed prior to issuance of a decision on the project and prior to any actions related to the Vesting Tentative Map. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Location Map Attachment B: Streamlined Development Review Application Findings Attachment C: Zoning Comparison Table Attachment D: Applicant’s Project Description Attachment E: Objective Design Standards Analysis Attachment F: Comprehensive Plan Consistency Analysis Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 21     Item No. 2. Page 9 of 9 Attachment G: Project Plans Report Author & Contact Information ARB3 Liaison & Contact Information Garrett Sauls, Principal Planner Steven Switzer, Historic Preservation Planner (650) 329-2147 (650) 329-2321 Garrett.Sauls@cityofpaloalto.org Steven.Switzer@cityofpaloalto.org 3 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 22     4 50 50 NO_SPECIAL_SETBACK_FOR_MIXEDUSE_HOTEL_USES_3200_ECR_PAMC20_08_20 1B 1C 1A 1 2A BLDG 5 3 BLDG 4 e BLDG 6 705.1' 1133.4' 199.7' 199.7' 50.0' 199.7' 50.0' 199.7' 50.0' 199.7' 50.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 49.9' 150.0' 49.9' 150.0' 149.8' 150.0' 10.0' 2 93.6' 55.0' 607' 21.0'28.8' 75.0' 60.0'93.6' 52.0' 144.3' 58.1' 68.3' 590.8' 705.1' 276.0' 100.0' 242.1' 29.5' 54.7' 26.3' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 115.7'119.7' 115.7' 139.5' 50.0' 139.5' 50.0' 139.6' 50.0' 139.6' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0'119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0'119.7' 50.0' 66.9' 200.0' 66.9' 200.0' 115.6'134.7' 50 50.0'119.7' 134.7' 50.0' 134.7' 50.0' 134.7' 50.0' 134.7' 50.0' 134.7' 50.0' 134.7' 50.0' 134.7' 50.0' 134.7' 50.0' 134.7' 50.0' 134.7' 50.0' 134.7' 50.0' 134.7' 50.0' 134.7' 134.7' 50.0' 134.7' 50.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 119.7' 65.7'119.7' 65.6' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7'50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 47.9' 150.0' 47.9' 150.0' 95.7' 150.0' 95.7' 150.0' 95.7' 150.0' 95.7' 150.0' 49.8' 200.0' 72.6' 200.0' 72.6' 115.6'134.7'115.7'134.7'115.6'134.7'115.6'134.7'115.6'134.7'115.7'134.7' ' 193.1' 274.7' 317.0' 216.1' 375.4' 208.0' 214.6' 259.4' 51.4' 214.6' 33.2' 213.9' 3 310.8' 166.7' 365.7' 157.4' 50.4' 41.6' 706.6' 498.2' 526.6' 375.4'216.1' 148.7' 51.0' 51.0' 148.7' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 150.0' 150.0' 99.8' 99.8' 199.7' 165.4 85.1 34.6 150.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 1 149.7' 149.7' 149.7' 115.7' 1 100.0'50.0' 85.1 199.7' 151.5' 275.2' 14.4' 108.7' 108.7' 52.8' 52.8' 98.8' 67.2' 166.4'166.4' 30.0' 30.0'18.0' 18.0' 275.2' 185.2' 190.0' 275.0' 275.0' 275.0' 275.0' 275.0' 119.5' 119.5' 119.5' 119.5' 119.5' 119.5' 119.5' 119.5' 119.5' 119.5' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 250.0' 20.0' 20.0' 78.5'78.5' 47.4' 113.8' 62.6'75.0' 28.8' 113.6'113.6' 113.6'113.6' 113.8' 47.4' 47.4' 47.4' 47.4' 47.4' 150.0' 69.3' 199.9' 50.0'65.2' 149.0' 150.0' 149.0' 150.0' 164.9 199.7 134.7' 200.0' 200.0' 109.85' 458.75' 239.70' 150.05' 129.85' 308.64' 129.85' 102.65' 129.85' 102.56 129.85' 205.99' 129.85' 206.05' 478.7' 109.8' 150.0' 21.8' 109.8' 19.8' 2904 425 455 2805 2825 3239 411 630 660 611 607 3111- 3159 336 340 370 380 360 3225 435 460 32953265 3255 33 572 582 592 604 31703160 3150 3300 602 450 3128 3200 420 412 461 451 431 421 411 405 399 429 440 435 425 3200 3250 375 365 385 395 3017 441 3201 3225 430 420 440 450 460 470 461 2875 411 421 431 471 470 456 450 440 441 451 461 430 2999 2951 2905 3001 406 408 412 400 700 850 600 620 431A 420 LAEL CAMINO REAL HANSEN WAY EL CAMINO REA HANSEN WAY ANSEN WAY ACACIA AVENUE PORTAGE AVENUE OLIVE AVENUE PEPPER AVENUE TREET PAGE MILL RO EL CAMINO REALEL CAMINO REAL EL CAMINO REALEL CAMINO REAL CN -4637 RM-3 R-1 CS CS RP CS(D) CPI This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Highlighted Features Special Setback Frontages Park School abc Building Roof Outline Underlying Lot Line abc Easement abc Lot Dimensions Zone Districts abc Zone District Labels City Jurisdictional Limits: Palo Alto City Boundary Tree 0' 148' 3150 El Camino Real CITY OF PALO ALTOINCORPORATED CALIFORNIA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f APRIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Altogsauls, 2024-10-04 07:45:59 (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) Item 2 Attachment A: Location Map     Packet Pg. 23     5 7 7 6 ATTACHMENT B STREAMLINED HOUSING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL In order for the Director to make a future decision, the project must comply with the following Findings for Streamlined Housing Development Review as required in Section 18.77.073 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. Finding #1: The application complies with all applicable and objective standards in the Comprehensive Plan, the Palo Alto Municipal Code, and other City plans or policies. Finding #2: Approving the application will not result in a specific, adverse, impact upon the public health or safety, which cannot feasibly be mitigated or avoided in a satisfactory manner. As used in this Section, a "specific, adverse impact" means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete. Item 2 Attachment B: Streamlined Housing Findings for Approval     Packet Pg. 24     5 7 7 7 ATTACHMENT C ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 3150 El Camino Real, 24PLN-00230 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.16 (CS DISTRICT) Exclusively Non-residential Development Standards Regulation Required Existing Proposed Minimum Site Area, width and depth None 111,030 square feet No change Minimum Front Yard 0-10 feet to create a 12 foot effective sidewalk width (1), (2), (8) 0-2 feet 4-foot Public Access Easement on El Camino Real – to create an effective 12- foot sidewalk Rear Yard 10 feet for residential portion Approx. 100 feet 12 feet Interior Side Yard None 10 feet adjacent to residential uses Approx. 10 to 40 feet 15 feet Street Side Yard 5 feet Not Applicable Not Applicable Build-to-lines 50% of frontage built to setback on El Camino Real 33% of side street built to setback(7) 0%80% of frontage built to setbacks Max. Site Coverage 70%* (77,721 square feet) ECR Focus Area Allowance 12.72% (14,124 square feet) 64.39% (71,489 square feet) Max. Building Height 85* feet ECR Focus Area Allowance 18-25 feet 79 feet and 8 inches Max. Floor Area Ratio (FAR)4.0* ECR Focus Area Allowance 0.15 (16,124 square feet) 3.99 (443,522 square feet) Max. Residential Density No maximum for sites on El Camino Real N/A 144 dwelling units/acre (1) No parking or loading space, whether required or optional, shall be located in the first 10 feet adjoining the street property line of any required yard. (2) Any minimum front, street side, or interior yard shall be planted and maintained as a landscaped screen excluding areas required for access to the site. A solid wall or fence between 5 and 8 feet in height shall be constructed along any common interior lot line.. (6) The initial height and slope shall be identical to those of the most restrictive residential zone abutting the site line in question. (7) 25 foot driveway access permitted regardless of frontage, build-to requirement does not apply to CC district. (8) A 12 foot sidewalk width is required along El Camino Real frontage 18.24 Contextual Design Criteria and Objective Design Standards. As further described in a separate attachment, the project shall comply with objective design standards that facilitate streamlined review. Item 2 Attachment C: Zoning Compliance     Packet Pg. 25     5 7 7 7 Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) for Multiple Family Residential* Type Required Existing Proposed Vehicle Parking 1 per unit* for a total of 368 parking spaces ECR Focus Area Allowance Unknown 428 parking spaces; 27 guest spaces Bicycle Parking 1 per unit long term (368) 1 per 10 units short term (37) None 1 per unit long term (372); 38 short term Loading Space 1 required for more than 50 units None 1 provided Item 2 Attachment C: Zoning Compliance     Packet Pg. 26     3150 ECR Project Description Letter 1) the scope of work to be done; • Demolition of two existing commercial buildings and surface parking lots • Construction of a 7-story above grade 368 for-rent apartment building (including 74 BMR units) with 455 parking stalls in a 2 level subterranean garage. 2) the existing and proposed uses; • Existing use – Commercial (Fish market & McDonald’s) • Proposed use – Multi-family Residential 3) the purpose of the proposed changes; • To redevelop the underutilized site for much needed housing 4) the design intent; • Outline a vision for a modern and sustainable community along El Camino Real in Palo Alto with its unique and well-proportioned building forms • Aim to create a series of dynamic urban spaces that integrates residential living with El Camino Real’s urban corridor vision. • Activate the street level with the use of enhanced materials and storefront glass with landscaping and amenities to encourage pedestrian and community interactions • Foster seamless connectivity with surrounding neighborhoods. Utilize plazas, wide sidewalk, bike lanes, public transit, and local amenities to promote a walkable, accessible environment • A community centric design with the inclusion of communal spaces, such as co-working space, multiple rooftop terraces and landscaped courtyards to promote social interaction among residents • Using sustainable materials and energy efficient technologies, such as EV chargers and solar panels, to minimize environmental impact and reduce operational costs • Provide a mix of residential unit types and BMR units to accommodate a diverse population, promoting an inclusive community • Use a palette of durable, aesthetically pleasing materials that enhance the visual appeal and longevity of the building. 5) materials, colors, and construction methods to be used; • Exterior materials include woodgrain fiber cement panel, cement plaster, metal panel, stone veneer, aluminum storefront, vinyl window, glass railing, perforated aluminum railing, aluminum trellis, aluminum sunshade and canopy. 6) Landscaping • The landscape design includes enhanced streetscape along El Camino Real with new street trees, accent paving, frontage plaza, outdoor pet amenities, two residential podium courtyards with swimming pool and spas, and roof terraces with outdoor barbeques and lounge spaces. Planting design primarily comprises of California Native drought tolerant species appropriate for the microclimate of the region. All planted areas are to be watered with an approved automatic underground irrigation system, and shall be designed to make efficient use of water through conservation techniques, and be in compliance with the State and Water District’s water conservation ordinance. Stormwater treatment planting areas are proposed to capture impervious surface and building roof runoffs per the City’s stormwater treatment requirements. 7) Lighting • Provide safe and adequate general illumination for exterior walkways, courtyards, roof decks and breezeways, including areas with high pedestrian and vehicular traffic. • Introduce a variety of fixture types, such as decorative floor lamps, catenary systems, low voltage strips, poles and bollards to achieve an optimum lighting design. • Use the minimum number of fixtures to achieve maximum efficiency, saving both budget and wattage. • Provide aesthetically pleasing accent lights for the trees, benches, art walls, entry portals, water features, building facades and other architectural elements. • All luminaires are code compliant, high-quality, energy-efficient LED lights with warm white color temperature, creating a pleasant environment for the tenants especially after dark. Item 2 Attachment D: Project Description     Packet Pg. 27     City of Palo Alto - Objecꢀve Design Standards Checklist Objective Design Standards Checklist – 08/08/2024 The Objecꢀve Design Standards Checklist is a tool to evaluate a project’s compliance with the Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 18.24). The Checklist is not the Zoning Ordinance. Applicants shall be responsible for meeꢀng the standards in the Zoning Ordinance. To simplify evaluaꢀon of the Zoning Ordinance, language in the Checklist may vary from the Zoning Ordinance. (Note: sf = square feet) If a standard is not applicable to applicant’s project, please write N/A in Applicant’s Jusꢀficaꢀon column. 18.24.020 Public Realm/Sidewalk Character Check Standard Sheet #Applicant’s Jusꢀficaꢀon (b)(1) Sidewalk Widths (A) In the following districts, public sidewalk width (curb to back of walk) is at least:The project is proposing a 12ꢁ sidewalk on ECR. See Sheet A-102. •Commercial Mixed-Use District: CN, CS, CC, CC(2), CD-C, CD-S, CD-N, PTOD: 10 ꢁA-102 A-102 • • El Camino Real: 12 ꢁ San Antonio Road, from Middlefield Road to East Charleston Road: 12 ꢁ☒And consists of: Pedestrian clear path width of 8 foot minimum: ______ feet 8-foot dimension shown on A-102. CompliesLandscape or furniture area width of 2 foot minimum: ____4__ feet Complies. Easement shown on VTPM-4 If the exisꢀng public sidewalk does not meet the minimum standard, a publicly accessible extension of the sidewalk, with corresponding public access easement, shall be provided.☒VTPM-4 Page 1 Item 2 Attachment E: Objective Design Standards Analysis     Packet Pg. 28     City of Palo Alto - Objecꢀve Design Standards Checklist Not applicable. There is no public sidewalk or walkway existing or proposed on site. (B) Public sidewalks or walkways connecꢀng through a development parcel (e.g. on a ☐through lot with a public access easement, leading to a commercial entry) must be at least 6 feet wide. N/A N/A Not applicable. No bicycle paths are proposed on or off-site (C) The width of walkways designed to provide bicycle access (e.g. pathway to bike racks/lockers) must be at least 12 feet wide, consisꢀng of: Pedestrian clear path width (8 feet min.): ____ ꢁ☐ Clear space/buffer – (2 feet min. on each side of path, ground cover is allowed): ____ ꢁ & ____ ꢁ Check Standard Sheet #Applicant’s Jusꢀficaꢀon (B)(2) Street Trees 1. One street tree provided for every 30 linear feet of public sidewalk length and located within six feet of the sidewalk. Complies. 13 street trees are provided along El Camino Real sidewalk. L1.1 & L2.1 a. Length of parcel frontage/public sidewalk length: ____ ꢁ403 ꢀ☒ b. Street Trees required (i.e. frontage/30 feet): ____ ꢁ c. Street Trees provided: ____ ꢁ 13.4 trees required 13 street trees provided (B)(3) Accent Paving Not applicable. This site is not located on University AvenueParcels abuꢂng University Avenue between Alma Street and Webster include accent paving along the project frontages, as indicated below:N/A N/A ☐ ☐ •Brick paving at corners Brick trim mid-block• Not applicable. This site is not located on California Avenue Parcel abuꢂng California Avenue between El Camino Real and Park Blvd include decoraꢀve glass accent paving along project frontages Page 2 Item 2 Attachment E: Objective Design Standards Analysis     Packet Pg. 29     City of Palo Alto - Objecꢀve Design Standards Checklist (B)(4) Mobility Infrastructure Complies. A-102 includes a 5’-9”(A) On-site micromobility infrastructure (e.g. bike racks/lockers) is located within 30 feet of the primary building entry and/or on a path leading to the primary building entry; OR ☒A-102 dimension from the bike café to the resident lobby entry. There is no existing micro-mobility infrastructure on site on in the right of way. Exisꢀng micromobility infrastructure (e.g. bike racks/lockers) is already located within 50 feet of project site and located in a public right-of-way.☐N/A A-102 N/A (B) Primary building entries shall provide at least one seaꢀng area or bench within 30 feet of building entry and/or path leading to building entry. On arterials (see Map T-5), except Downtown, seaꢀng areas or benches shall not be located between the sidewalk and the curb; OR Complies. A-102 shows a primary building entry with seating area along El Camino Real ☒ Exisꢀng seaꢀng areas or benches that are already located in the public right-of-way within 50 feet of the building entry.☐ 18.24.030 Site Access Check Standard Sheet #Applicant’s Jusꢀficaꢀon (b)(1) Through Lot Connecꢀons Through lots located more than 300 feet from an intersecꢀng street or pedestrian walkway shall provide a publicly accessible sidewalk or pedestrian walkway (with public access easements) connecꢀng the two streets. The site is not a through lot☐N/A (b)(2) Building Entries The project’s Primary Building Entries are right off ECR, as shown on sheet A-102. Primary Building Entries shall be located from a public right-of-way. If there is no ☒public right-of-way adjacent to the building, entries shall be located from a private street or Pedestrian Walkway. A-102 N/A (b)(3) Vehicle Access There are no alleys that provide access to the site. (A) Vehicle access shall be located on alleys or side streets when they abut the property.☐ Page 3 Item 2 Attachment E: Objective Design Standards Analysis     Packet Pg. 30     City of Palo Alto - Objecꢀve Design Standards Checklist Complies. Parking is below(B) Except for driveway access and short-term loading spaces (e.g. taxi), off-street parking, off-street vehicle loading (delivery trucks), and vehicular circulaꢀon areas are prohibited between the building and primary building frontage. grade. Loading and vehicular circulaꢀon areas are away from primary building frontage.☒A-102 Vehicle access on service alley on side of lot. Off-street vehicle loading and vehicular circulaꢀon areas located on service alley. (b)(4) Loading Docks and Service Areas Loading and service areas shall be integrated into building and landscape design and located to minimize impact on the pedestrian experience as follows: (A) Loading docks and service areas shall be located on façades that do not face a primary building frontage Complies. The loading does dock not face the primary building frontage. ☒A-102 Complies. The loading dock is not placed within the setback for the property. Additionally, the loading dock is screened from view with a door. (B) Loading docks and service areas located within setback areas shall be screened by a solid fence, or wall, or dense landscaping and separated from☐N/Apedestrian access to the primary building entry to avoid impeding pedestrian movement/safety. Page 4 Item 2 Attachment E: Objective Design Standards Analysis     Packet Pg. 31     City of Palo Alto - Objecꢀve Design Standards Checklist 18.24.040 Building Orientation and Setbacks Check Standard Sheet #Applicant’s Jusꢀficaꢀon (b)(1) Building Corner Elements (less than 40 feet in height) Corner buildings less than 40 feet in height and end units of townhouses or other aꢂached housing products that face the street shall include all of the following features on their secondary building frontage: (A), (B), and (C) are not applicable. The building is taller than 40 feet tall. (A) height and width of corner element shall have a raꢀo greater than 1.2:1. For townhomes, the width would be equal to the smaller side of one unit?N/A N/A a. Secondary building frontage height: _____ feet b. Secondary building frontage length: _____ feet c. Secondary building frontage height to width raꢀo: ___ (B) minimum of 15% fenestraꢀon area. ☐ a. Total secondary building frontage façade area: ___ sf b. Secondary building frontage façade fenestraꢀon area: ___ sf c. Percent of fenestraꢀon area _____ % ☐ ☐(C) At least one facade modulaꢀon with a minimum depth of 18 inches and a minimum width of two feet.N/A N/A (b)(2)(A) & (B) Treatment of Buildings Corners on Corner Lots (40+ feet in height) Corner Buildings 40 feet or taller in height shall include at least one of the following special features: (A) and (B) are not applicable as the property is not a corner lot A. Street wall is located at the minimum front yard setback or build-to line for a minimum aggregated length of 40 feet on both facades meeꢀng at the corner and includes one or more of the following building features: i. An entry to ground floor retail or primary building entrance located within 25☐feet of the corner of the building. Page 5 Item 2 Attachment E: Objective Design Standards Analysis     Packet Pg. 32     City of Palo Alto - Objecꢀve Design Standards Checklist ii. A different material applicaꢀon and/or fenestraꢀon paꢂern from the rest of the façade.☐ ☐ iii. A change in height of at least 4 feet greater or less than the height of the adjacent/abuꢃng primary façade. B. An open space with a minimum dimension of 20 feet and minimum area of 450 sf. The open space shall be at least one of the following N/A ☐ ☐ i. A publicly accessible open space/plaza. ii. A space used for outdoor seaꢀng for public dining. iii. A residenꢀal Common Open Space adjacent to a common interior space (i.e. lobby, retail, etc.) and less than two feet above adjacent sidewalk grade. Fences and railing shall be a minimum 50% open/transparent. ☐ (b)(3) Primary Building Entry The primary building entry meets at least one of the following standards: ☒ ☒ A. Faces a public right-of-way.A-102 Located on the frontage of ECR A-102 Located on the frontage of ECRB. Faces a publicly accessible pedestrian walkway. C. Is visible from a public right-of-way through a forecourt or front porch that meets the following standards: ☒Not applicable. The project has more than seven units. i. For residenꢀal buildings with fewer than seven units, building entry forecourts or front porch minimum dimensions of (min. 36 sf and min. N/A dimension of 6 feet required): ___ sf and ___ ꢁ. min. dimension Page 6 Item 2 Attachment E: Objective Design Standards Analysis     Packet Pg. 33     City of Palo Alto - Objecꢀve Design Standards Checklist Complies. The building entry forecourts are 12’-4” x 15’-10” at the west lobby and 10’-0” x 10’-0” at the east lobby. ii. For commercial buildings or residenꢀal buildings with seven or more units, building entry forecourts or front porch minimum dimensions of (min. 100 sf and a min. width of 8 feet required): ___ sf and ___ ꢁ. min. width A-102 (b)(4) Ground Floor Residenꢀal Units A. Finished Floor Height for Ground Floor Units The finished floor of ground floor residenꢀal units, when adjacent to a public right-ofway, must be within the minimum and maximum heights according to setback distance from back of walk idenꢀfied in Figure 2a and 2b of the Zoning Ordinance. Calculate minimum (b)(4)(A), (B), (C), (D), and (E) are not applicable as there are no ground floor units which face a public right of way nor have entries from public sidewalks ☐ground floor finished floor height:N/A ☐ ☐ Setback adjacent to public right of way: ___ feet Minimum ground floor finished floor height: _____ feet ꢀꢀ ꢅꢆꢆꢇ ꢈꢁꢁꢁꢁ ꢁꢁꢁꢁ ꢂꢂ ꢃ ꢄꢉꢉ where ꢊꢊ = setback length from back of walk, in feet and ꢋꢋ = ground floor finished floor height, in feet Sites with slopes greater than 2% along building façade – Average height of finished floor: _____ feet☐ ☐Sites located in flood zones – the minimum ground floor finished floor height shall be defined by FEMA, less flood zone elevaꢀon: _____ feet B. Setback Trees Page 7 Item 2 Attachment E: Objective Design Standards Analysis     Packet Pg. 34     City of Palo Alto - Objecꢀve Design Standards Checklist Ground floor units with a setback greater than 15 feet must have at minimum an average N/Aof one tree per 40 linear feet of facade length, within the setback area. Facade length: ______ feet☐ Trees required: ____ tree(s) (i.e. façade length / 40) Trees provided: ____ tree(s) C and D. Front Setback C. Ground floor residenꢀal entries are setback a minimum of 10 feet from the☐ ☐ N/A N/A back of public sidewalk; OR D. Where no minimum building setback is required, all ground floor residenꢀal units must be set back a minimum 5 feet from back of public sidewalk. Check E. Unit Entry Standard Sheet #Applicant’s Jusꢀficaꢀon A minimum 80% of ground floor residenꢀal units that face a public right-of-way or publicly accessible path, or open space shall have a unit entry with direct access to the sidewalk, path, or open space for minimum. ☐N/A Page 8 Item 2 Attachment E: Objective Design Standards Analysis     Packet Pg. 35     City of Palo Alto - Objecꢀve Design Standards Checklist a. Total number of ground floor residenꢀal units facing a public right-of-way, publicly accessible path, or open space: ____ units b. 80% of total units in (a): ____ units c. Subset of number of units in (a) that have a unit entry with direct access to the sidewalk, path, or open space: ____ entries (b)(5) Front Yard Setback Character Required setbacks provide a hardscape and/or landscaped area to create a transiꢀon between public and private space. The following standards apply, based on intended use and exclusive of areas devoted to outdoor seaꢀng, front porches, door swing of building entries, and publicly accessible open space and meet the following: (A). Ground-floor retail or retail like uses have a minimum of 10% of the required Not applicable. Ground floor retail is not proposed in the building.N/Asetback as landscape or planters. ☐i. Minimum setback area (setback x frontage x 10%): ____ sf ii. Landscape or planter area in required setback: ____ sf Not applicable. The front yard setback overlaps with the required public access (B). Ground-floor residenꢀal uses have a minimum of 60% landscaped area in the required setback area. easement along El Camino Real in order to provide the effective 12 foot setback. Requiring planting within this area would conflict with the public access needed to be provided to create the ☐N/A sidewalk. Page 9 Item 2 Attachment E: Objective Design Standards Analysis     Packet Pg. 36     City of Palo Alto - Objecꢀve Design Standards Checklist i. Minimum setback area (setback x frontage x 60%): ____ sf ii. Landscape area in required setback: ____ sf (b)(6) Side Yard Setback Character Not applicable. All units are provided as one apartment building. (A) Each detached dwelling unit shall have at least one usable side yard, at least six feet wide, between the house and fence or other structure, to provide outdoor passage between the front and rear yards. ☐N/A 18.24.050 Building Massing Check Standard Sheet #Applicant’s Jusꢀficaꢀon (b)(1) Upper Floor Step Backs and Daylight Planes (A) When the height of the subject building is more than 20 feet above the average Complies. A-301 through A-304 provide enlarged floor plan details which demonstrate how each facade complies with the height (i.e. average of low and high roof elevaꢀons) of an adjacent building(s), an upper floor step back shall start within two verꢀcal feet of the average height of the adjacent building. The step back shall be a minimum depth of six feet along both the façade on the primary building frontage and the façade facing the adjacent building, and the step shall occur for a minimum of 70% of each façade length. A-301 – upper floor step back requirements. PAMC 18.14.020☒A-304 Table 3 modifies the starting point of the El Camino Real facing facade to start at 55 feet in height. Page 10 Item 2 Attachment E: Objective Design Standards Analysis     Packet Pg. 37     City of Palo Alto - Objecꢀve Design Standards Checklist i. Proposed building height: _____ feet A-401 79 feet to roof sheathing ii. Average building height of the adjacent building(s): _____ feet iii. Building height where upper floor step back begins: ____ feet Approx. 25’-0” A-401 & N. & W. Elevaꢀon – Approx. 55’-0” A-102 E. & S. Elevaꢀon – Approx. 20’-6” Not applicable. All adjacent buildings are two- or more stories tall. (B) Notwithstanding, subsecꢀon (A), when adjacent to a single-story building, the upper floor step back shall occur between 33 and 37 feet in height.☐ ☐ N/A Not applicable. 1) The project is not subject to a daylight plane based on the underlying zoning standards; 2) The project does propose a building that is 20 feet taller than an adjacent building; 3) The project does not abut residential units. Given that the project does not meet all three criteria, a daylight plane does not apply. (C) If a project meets the following criteria, a daylight plane with an iniꢀal height of 25 feet above grade at the property line and a 45-degree angle shall be required. This daylight plane is required if all of these criteria are met: i.The project is not subject to a daylight plane requirement, pursuant to district regulaꢀons in Title 18; and N/Aii.The project proposes a building which is more than 20 feet above the average height (i.e., average of low and high roof elevaꢀons) of an adjacent building(s); and iii.The project abuts residenꢀal units in the side or rear yard. (b)(2) Privacy and Transiꢀons to Residenꢀal Uses Page 11 Item 2 Attachment E: Objective Design Standards Analysis     Packet Pg. 38     City of Palo Alto - Objecꢀve Design Standards Checklist Not applicable. The building does not abut a residential use. When a building abuts a residenꢀal use on an interior side and/or rear property line, the building shall break down the abuꢃng façade and maintain privacy by meeꢀng all of the following:N/A (A) Landscape Screening. A landscape screen that includes a row of trees with a minimum one tree per 25 linear feet and conꢀnuous shrubbery planꢀng. This☐ ☐ ☐ screening plant material shall be a minimum 72 inches (6 feet) in height when planted. Required trees shall be minimum 24” box size. (B) Façade Breaks. A minimum façade break of 4 feet in width, 2 feet in depth, and 32 sf of area (i.e. 8 ꢁ tall minimum) for every 36 to 40 feet of façade length (C) Maximum Amount of Transparent Windows. Within 40 feet of an abuꢃng structure, no more than 15% of the facing façade area shall be windows or other glazing. Addiꢀonal windows are allowed in order to maintain light, if fixed and fully obscured (D) Windows. Within 30 feet of facing residenꢀal windows (except garage or common space windows) or private open space on an adjacent residenꢀal building, facing windows on the subject site shall meet the following: (i)Window sills at and above the 2nd floor shall be at least five feet above finished floor; or (ii)Windows shall have opaque or translucent glazing at or below five feet above finished floor; or (iii)Windows shall be angled up to 30 degrees (parallel to window) to face away from the adjacent privacy impacts; and (iv)Landscape screening shall be 24-inch box size or larger and eight+ feet height at planꢀng; 50% evergreens; and located to align with proposed second floor windows at maturity. Page 12 Item 2 Attachment E: Objective Design Standards Analysis     Packet Pg. 39     City of Palo Alto - Objecꢀve Design Standards Checklist (E). Balconies: Within 30 feet of residenꢀal windows (except garage or common space windows) or private open space on an adjacent residenꢀal building, balconies and decks on the subject site shall be designed to prevent views: (i) No sight lines to the adjacent property window or open space are permiꢂed within five feet above the balcony or deck flooring and a 45- degree angle downward from balcony railing. (ii) residenꢀal (iii) Provide balcony/deck design measure which may include: Submit secꢀon view of proposed balcony/deck and abuꢃng windows and/or private open space. a. Minimum 85% solid railing b. Obscure glass railing c. Barrier with min. 18" horizontal depth from railing (e.g. planter) (b)(3)(A) & (B) Maximum Façade Length - facing a street or public path Buildings 70 feet in length or greater and greater than 25 feet in height For building facades 70 feet in length or greater and facing a public street, right-of- way, or publicly accessible path shall not have a conꢀnuous façade plane greater than 70% of the façade length without an upper floor modulaꢀon, of at least 2 feet in depth Complies. Details 1 and 2 on sheet A-301 identify that the facade along El Camino Real incorporates upper floor modulations that are at least two feet deep across the whole front facade. A-301 ☒ 50.25 Largest façade length featuring conꢀnuous plane: _____ feet 308Total Façade length: _____ feet Percent of façade length without upper floor modulaꢀon (a/b) (maximum 16.33 70%): ____ % Page 13 Item 2 Attachment E: Objective Design Standards Analysis     Packet Pg. 40     City of Palo Alto - Objecꢀve Design Standards Checklist Buildings 250 feet in length or greater (A) Buildings 250 feet in length or greater, which face a public street, right-of-way, or publicly accessible path, shall have at least one verꢀcal façade break with a minimum area greater than 400 sf and a width greater than or equal to two ꢀmes the depth Complies. One major verꢀcal breaks of 1,020 SF area is provided for the front façade facing ECR.A-301 ☒ Total Building length: _____ feet A-301 A-301 A-301 306’-7” 2Number of verꢀcal façade breaks: ___ area Width: ____ feet, Depth: ____ feet, Area: ____ sf Break 1 – Width: 60’-1”, Depth: 16’-7”, Area: 1,020 sf Break 2 – Width: 21’-1”, Depth: 8’-4”, Area: 175 sf Buildings between 150 feet and 250 feet in length (B) Buildings 150 to 250 feet in length, which face a public street, right-of-way, or publicly accessible path, shall have at least one verꢀcal façade break with a minimum area greater than 64 sf and a minimum width of 8 feet and minimum depth of 4 feet. Not applicable. The building is larger than 250 feet in length. N/A ☐ Total Building length: _____ feet Number of verꢀcal façade breaks: ___ area Width: ____ feet, Depth: ____ feet, Area: ____ sf Check (b)(4) Special Condiꢀons: Railroad Frontages Standard Sheet #Applicant’s Jusꢀficaꢀon Page 14 Item 2 Attachment E: Objective Design Standards Analysis     Packet Pg. 41     City of Palo Alto - Objecꢀve Design Standards Checklist The parcel does not abut a railroad right of wayAll parcels with lot lines abuꢃng railroad rights-of-way shall meet the following standards on the N/Arailroad-abuꢃng façade(s): (A) A minimum facade break of at least 10 feet in width and six feet in depth for☐ ☐ every 60 feet of façade length. (B) For porꢀons of a building 20 feet or greater in height shall not have a conꢀnuous façade length that exceeds 60 feet. (b)(5) Diversity of Housing Types A diversity of housing types (e.g. detached units, aꢂached rowhouses/townhouses, condominiums or apartments, mixed use) are required for projects on large lots: Not applicable. Footnote (4) of PAMC 18.14.020 removed this requirement for El Camino Real Focus Area projects ☐N/A• • • Less than one acre lots: minimum 1 housing types 1 to 2-acre lots: minimum 2 housing types; or More than 2-acre lots: minimum 3 housing types 18.24.060 Façade Design Check Two or More Standard Sheet #Applicant’s Jusꢀficaꢀon (c)(1) Base-Middle-Top Buildings three stories or taller and on lots wider than 50 feet shall be designed to differenꢀate a defined base or ground floor, a middle or body, and a top, cornice, or parapet cap. Each of these elements shall be disꢀnguished from one another for a minimum of 80% of the façade length through use of three or more of the following four techniques:☒ ☒ i. Variaꢀon in Building Modulaꢀon: Building modulaꢀon shall extend for a minimum 80% of the façade length feet, and shall include one or more of the following building features. A-301 – A-304 Page 15 Item 2 Attachment E: Objective Design Standards Analysis     Packet Pg. 42     City of Palo Alto - Objecꢀve Design Standards Checklist a. Horizontal shiꢁs. Changes in floor plates that protrude and/or recess with a minimum dimension of 2 feet from the primary facade.Complies. A minimum of 6 foot step back is provided on 100% of the ECR facade. A-301 – A-304☒ b. Upper floor step backs. A horizontal step back of upper-floor façades with a minimum 5 foot stepback from the primary façade for a minimum of 80% of the length of the façade Complies. A minimum of 6 foot A-107 & step back is provided on 100% of the ECR facade.☒ ☐ A-301 – A-304 c. Ground floor step back. A horizontal shiꢁ of the ground floor facade with a minimum depth of 2 feet for a minimum 80% of the length of the façade. Ground floor step backs shall not exceed the maximum setback, where stated ii. Variaꢀon in Façade Arꢀculaꢀon: Façade arꢀculaꢀon modulaꢀon shall include one or more of the following building features.☒ Complies. Sheet A-302 to A-304 provide a pattern of recessed windows along each facade with a minimum two feet in depth. a. Horizontal and/or Verꢀcal Recesses or Projecꢀons. Recesses or projecꢀons such as a paꢂern of recessed grouping of windows, recessed panels, bay A-301 – A-304☒ ☐ windows or similar strategies. The recess or projecꢀon shall be a minimum 4 inches in depth. b. Horizontal and/or Verꢀcal Projecꢀons. Projecꢀons such as shading, weather protecꢀon devices, decoraꢀve architectural details, or similar strategies. Page 16 Item 2 Attachment E: Objective Design Standards Analysis     Packet Pg. 43     City of Palo Alto - Objecꢀve Design Standards Checklist c. Datum Lines. Datum lines that conꢀnue the length of the building, such as parapets or cornices, with a minimum 4 inches in height or a minimum 2 inches in depth and include a change in material ☐ ☒iii. Variaꢀon in two of the following: ☒Complies.There are at least five a. Fenestraꢀon Size A-301 – A-304 different types of window sizes provided. ☒Complies. There are at least four different types of b. Fenestraꢀon Proporꢀon A-301 – A-304 windows sizes incorporated into the design of the building. ☒Complies. There are at least three different window patterns on each facade. c. Fenestraꢀon Paꢂern A-301 – A-304 Page 17 Item 2 Attachment E: Objective Design Standards Analysis     Packet Pg. 44     City of Palo Alto - Objecꢀve Design Standards Checklist d. Fenestraꢀon Depth or Projecꢀon ☒iv. Variaꢀon in two of the following: a. Façade Material A-320 Complies. Each facade includes various materials that contribute to a coherent design across the whole building. ☒ ☒ ☒ Complies. Sheet A-320 identifies various materials which have various depths to their finishes. Complies. Sheet A-320 provide various materials which b. Facade Material Size A-320 A-320c. Façade Texture and Paꢂern incorporates smooth and rough textures and patterns Page 18 Item 2 Attachment E: Objective Design Standards Analysis     Packet Pg. 45     City of Palo Alto - Objecꢀve Design Standards Checklist ☒Complies. Sheet A-320 provides materials which incorporate various colors for the facade. d. Façade Color A-320 (c)(2) Façade Composiꢀon Building facades shall use a variety of strategies including building modulaꢀon, fenestraꢀon, and façade arꢀculaꢀon to create visual interest and express a variety of scales through a variety of strategies. All facades shall include a minimum of three of the following façade arꢀculaꢀon strategies to create visual interest: Complies. The project provides a paꢂern of verꢀcal recessed A. Verꢀcal and horizontal recesses such as a paꢂern of recessed grouping of windows or recessed panels. The recess shall be a minimum 4 inches in depth.☒A-301 – A-304 grouping of windows with min. 2’ in depth on all elevaꢀons.B. Verꢀcal and horizontal projecꢀons such as shading and weather protecꢀon devices or decoraꢀve architectural details. Projecꢀons shall be a minimum 4 inches in depth. ☐ C. Datum lines that conꢀnue the length of the building, such as cornices, with a minimum 4 inches in depth, or a minimum 2 inches in depth and include a change in material. ☐ ☒ Complies. All facadesD. Balconies, habitable projecꢀons, or Juliet balconies (every 20 to 40 feet) with a minimum 4 inches in depth. A-301 – A-304, A-105 have Balconies within every 20 to 40 feet that have a minimum depth of four inches. Page 19 Item 2 Attachment E: Objective Design Standards Analysis     Packet Pg. 46     City of Palo Alto - Objecꢀve Design Standards Checklist E. Screening devices such as laꢃces, louvers, shading devices, or☐ ☐ perforated metal screens. F. Use of fine-grained building materials, such as brick or wood shingles, not to exceed 8 inches in either height or width. G. Incorporate a minimum of three colors, materials, and/or textures across the whole building. Complies. All facades have at least three colors, materials, and/or textures. A-301 – A-304 ☒ (c)(3) Compaꢀble Rhythm and Paꢂern (A) Buildings shall express a verꢀcal rhythm and paꢂern that reflects the size and scale of a housing unit and/or individual rooms and spaces. This may be achieved with building modulaꢀon to create verꢀcally oriented façades (height greater than the width of the façade), façade arꢀculaꢀon and fenestraꢀon repeꢀꢀve verꢀcally oriented paꢂerns. Depending on the length of the façade, the following standards apply: Complies. ECR elevaꢀon has been broken down into i. For conꢀnuous façades less than 100 feet in length, the façade shall have A301 ☒verꢀcally oriented paꢂerns of verꢀcal recesses or projecꢀons, façade arꢀculaꢀon, and/or fenestraꢀon.secꢀons of façade that are less than 100 feet in length each, see sheet A-301. Each facade has arꢀculaꢀon and ii. For conꢀnuous façades 100 feet or greater in length, the façade shall include either:fenestraꢀons. a. A verꢀcal recess or change in façade plane with a minimum 2 feet deep verꢀcal shiꢁ modulaꢀon for a minimum 4 feet in width to establish a verꢀcal rhythm between 20 to 50 feet in Complies. Each elevaꢀon includes verꢀcal breaks with a ☒min. 2’ depth recess and width; OR A-301 – A-304 are provided between 20 to 50 feet to establish a vertical rhythm on each plane. Page 20 Item 2 Attachment E: Objective Design Standards Analysis     Packet Pg. 47     City of Palo Alto - Objecꢀve Design Standards Checklist b. A verꢀcal recess or projecꢀon with a minimum depth of 2 feet that establishes the verꢀcal rhythm between 10 to 16 feet in width☐ (B) Residenꢀal mixed-use buildings Not applicable. The project is not a mixed-use building. i. Verꢀcal Paꢁerns and Modulaꢀon: Façades shall use verꢀcal paꢁerns of building N/A N/A ☐modulaꢀon, façade arꢀculaꢀon, and fenestraꢀon. ii. Horizontal Paꢁerns and Modulaꢀon: Façades that use horizontal arꢀculaꢀon and fenestraꢀon paꢁerns shall use a verꢀcal massing strategy with a minimum 4 feet wide and 2 feet deep verꢀcal shiꢂ in modulaꢀon at least once every 50 feet of façade length. ☐ (C) Storefronts Not applicable. The project does not include commercial uses.☐Storefront uses must express a verꢀcal rhythm not to exceed 30 to 50 feet in width.N/A (c)(4) Emphasize Building Elements & Massing (A)(i) Building Entries within Façade Design. Primary building entries shall be scaled proporꢀonally to the number of people served (amount of floor-area or number of units accessed). Building entries shall meet the following minimum dimensions: ☐a. Individual residenꢀal entries: 5 feet in width N/A ☒b. Shared residenꢀal entry, such as mixed-use buildings: 8 feet in width A-102 Complies. All shared entries on El Camino Real have a min. eight feet in width. ☐ ☐ c. Commercial building entry: 20 feet in width d. Storefront entry: 6 feet in width N/A N/A (ii) Primary building entries (not inclusive of individual residenꢀal entries) shall include a façade modulaꢀon that includes at least one of the following: Page 21 Item 2 Attachment E: Objective Design Standards Analysis     Packet Pg. 48     City of Palo Alto - Objecꢀve Design Standards Checklist ☒ ☒ a. Recess or projecꢀon from the primary façade plane (minimum 2 feet).A-102 Complies. A two foot recess from the primary facade plane is provided at the ground floor. Complies. A minimum 4’ x 4’ recess as weather protecꢀon is provided at each building entry. b. Weather protecꢀon that is a minimum 4 feet wide and 4 feet deep by recessing the entry, providing an awning or using a combinaꢀon of these methods A-102, A-410 (c)(5) Storefront/Retail Ground Floors Not applicable. The project does not include ground floor commercial uses in the project. A. Ground floor height shall be a minimum 14 feet floor-to-floor OR shall maintain a 2nd floor datum line of an abuꢃng building. a. Ground floor height (minimum 14 feet): _____ feet; OR N/A ☐ b. Height of 2nd floor datum line of abuꢃng building: _____ feet B. Transparency shall include a minimum 60% transparent glazing between 2 and 10 feet in height from sidewalk, providing unobstructed views into the commercial space. a. Façade area between 2 feet and 10 feet: _____ sf N/A ☐ b. Transparent glazing area between 2 feet and 10 feet: _____ sf c. Percentage of transparent glazing (minimum 60%): _____ % C. If provided, bulkheads and solid base walls measure between 12 and 30 inches from finished grade☐ ☐ D. Primary entries shall include weather protecꢀon by recessing the entry, providing an awning or using a combinaꢀon of these methods.N/A a. Weather protecꢀon width (minimum 6 feet): _____ feet b. Weather protecꢀon depth (minimum 4 feet): _____ feet Page 22 Item 2 Attachment E: Objective Design Standards Analysis     Packet Pg. 49     City of Palo Alto - Objecꢀve Design Standards Checklist E. Awnings, canopies and weather protecꢀon: (i) When transom windows are above display windows, awnings, canopies and similar, weather protecꢀon elements shall be installed ☐between transom and display windows. These elements should allow for light to enter the storefront through the transom windows and allow the weather protecꢀon feature to shade the display window. (ii) Awnings may be fixed or retractable N/A (c)(6) Other Non-Residenꢀal Ground Floors (A) Ground floor height must be a minimum 14 feet floor-to-floor OR match the 2nd floor☐N/A N/A datum line of an abuꢃng building ☐ ☐ Ground floor height (minimum 14 feet): _____ feet; OR Height of 2nd floor datum line of abuꢃng building: _____ feet (B) Minimum of 50% transparent glazing between 4 and 10 feet in height from sidewalk or terrace grade, providing unobstructed views into the commercial space Façade area between 4 feet and 10 feet: _____ sf☐ ☐ Transparent glazing area: _____ sf Percentage of transparent glazing (minimum 50%): _____ % (C) Primary entries include weather protecꢀon that is a minimum 6 feet wide and 4 feet deep by recessing the entry, providing an awning or using a combinaꢀon of these methods. Weather protecꢀon width (minimum 6 feet): _____ feet N/A Weather protecꢀon depth (minimum 4 feet): _____ feet (c)(7) Parking/Loading/Uꢀliꢀes (A) Entry Size No more than 25% of the site frontage facing a street shall be devoted to garage openings,Complies. carports, surface parking, loading entries, or uꢀliꢀes access. On sites with less than 100 feet of frontage, no more than 25 feet.☒Site frontage: _____ feet A-102 A-102 403’-11” Frontage devoted to garage openings, carports, surface parking, loading entries, or uꢀliꢀes access: _____ feet 44’-10” + 10’-4” = 55’-2” Page 23 Item 2 Attachment E: Objective Design Standards Analysis     Packet Pg. 50     City of Palo Alto - Objecꢀve Design Standards Checklist Percent of frontage devoted to garage openings, carports, surface parking, loading A-102 14%entries, or uꢀliꢀes access _____ % (B) Above Ground Structured Parking Above grade structured parking levels facing a public right-of-way or publicly accessible open space/path, with the excepꢀon of vehicular alleys, must be lined with commercialor habitable uses with a minimum depth of 20 feet Not applicable. The project does not provide an above grade parking structure. N/A ☐ (C)&(D) Parꢀally Sub-Grade Structured Parking Parꢀally sub-grade parking must not have an exposed façade that exceeds 5 feet in height☐N/A N/A Not applicable. The project does not provide a sub- grade parking structure. above abuꢃng grade at back of sidewalk. Parꢀally sub-grade parking must be screened with conꢀnuous landscaping and shrubbery with minimum height of 3 feet and be located within 10 feet of the sub-grade parking.☐ 18.24.070 Residential Entries Pick One or More (A – E) Standard Sheet #Applicant’s Jusꢀficaꢀon (b)(1) Ground Floor Unit Entries Where ground floor residenꢀal unit entries are required, one or more of the following entry types shall be provided: Not applicable. Ground floor entries are not required to be provided for this building. Additionally, entries to residences are provided through interior hallways for the site rather than exterior entries on the outside of the building. ☐(A) Stoop ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ (i) Stoops provide entry access for a maximum of two ground floor units. (ii) Stoop heights are within one step of finished floor height of adjacent unit. (iii) Stoop entry landings are a minimum 5 feet in depth N/A (iv) The maximum stoop height from the back of sidewalk grade is 5 feet. Page 24 Item 2 Attachment E: Objective Design Standards Analysis     Packet Pg. 51     City of Palo Alto - Objecꢀve Design Standards Checklist ☐ ☐ (B) Porch ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ (i) Porches provide entry access for a maximum of one ground floor unit. (ii) Porch heights are within one step of finished floor height of adjacent unit. (iii) Porches are large enough so a 6-foot by 6-foot square can fit inside (iv) The maximum porch height from the back of sidewalk grade is 5 feet. N/A (C) Paꢀo Entry ☐(i) Paꢀo entries provide access for a maximum of two ground floor units.N/A (ii) Paꢀo entries are large enough so a 5-foot by 5-foot square can fit inside of the paꢀo for each unit☐ (iii) The paꢀo shall include at least one of the following features to define the☐transiꢀon between public and private space: a. Row of shrubs: not exceeding 42 inches in height located between☐ ☐ the sidewalk and the paꢀo. One gallon size and max 3 feet on center b. Fence: not to exceed 36 inches in height located between the sidewalk and the paꢀo with a gate or fence opening to provide access c. Metal, Wood, or Stone Wall: not to exceed 36 inches in height located between the sidewalk and the paꢀo with gate or opening, AND a minimum 18-inch landscape strip is located between the wall and the abuꢃng pedestrian way and enꢀrely landscaped ☐ ☐ ☐ (D) Terrace ☐(i) Terraces provide entry access for mulꢀple ground floor units.N/A (ii) Terraces are a maximum height of 30 inches above the grade of the back of the adjacent sidewalk or accessway.☐ (iii) Walls, fences and hedges on Terraces are a maximum of 42 inches tall and have a minimum transparency of 40%.☐ (E) Frontage Court Page 25 Item 2 Attachment E: Objective Design Standards Analysis     Packet Pg. 52     City of Palo Alto - Objecꢀve Design Standards Checklist ☐ ☐ (i) Frontage courts provide entry access for mulꢀple ground floor units. (ii) The minimum frontage court width along a primary frontage is 25 feet. N/A (iii) The maximum frontage court width along a primary frontage is 50% of the facade length or 80 feet, whichever is less.☐ ☐(iv) The minimum Frontage Court depth is 25 feet. (v) The maximum Frontage Court depth is 50 feet or a raꢀo not to exceed 2:1 depth to width.☐ 18.24.080 Open Space Check Standard Sheet #Applicant’s Jusꢀficaꢀon (b)(1) Private Open Space Complies. Detail 3 on sheet A-412 shows that all balconies have a minimum six foot clear circle dimension. (A) Floor area includes clear space with a minimum dimension of a circle with a six foot diameter. ☒A-201 Detail 2 and 5 on sheet A-412 shows that all balconies will have a minimum 8'6" clear height dimension. (B) Minimum clear height dimension of 8’-6” feet.A-401 & A-402 ☒ ☒Complies. All balconies are directly accessible from their respective units. (C) Directly accessible from a residenꢀal unit.A-102 – A-108 Page 26 Item 2 Attachment E: Objective Design Standards Analysis     Packet Pg. 53     City of Palo Alto - Objecꢀve Design Standards Checklist Not applicable. This project is not required to have a daylight plane. (C) Balconies are not located within the daylight plane.N/A ☐ (b)(1)(E) Private Open Space - Ground Floor Paꢀos (i) RM-20 and RM-30 districts: Minimum 100 sf of area, the least dimension of which is 8 feet for at least 75% of the area.☐ ☐ ☐ Not applicable. No properties are zoned RM. N/A N/A N/A (ii) RM-40 districts: Minimum 80 sf of area, the least dimension of which is 6 feet for at least 75% of the area Not applicable. No properties are zoned RM. (iii) Street facing private open space on the ground floor shall meet the finished floor height for ground floor residenꢀal standards in secꢀon 18.24.040(b)(4)Not applicable. Private open space does not face a street. (b)(2) Common Open Space Complies. All common open space areas are larger than 200 sf in area. Sheet A-201 includes the 10-foot diameter circle at each area. (A)&(B) Minimum 200 sf of area. Area shall include a space with a minimum dimension of a circle with a 10-foot diameter. ☒ ☒ ☒ A-201 Complies. All the common open(C) A minimum of 60% of the area shall be open to the sky and free of permanent weather protecꢀon or encroachments. Trellises and similar open-air features allowed designed to be openA-201 spaces are to the sky (D) Notwithstanding subsecꢀon (1), courtyards enclosed on four sides shall have a minimum dimension of 40 feet and have a minimum courtyard width to building height raꢀo of 1:1.25 Complies. Pool/Spa courtyard are A-402 provides awider than 40’. calculation confirming the courtyard widths achieve the 1:1.25 width to height ratio. A-402 Page 27 Item 2 Attachment E: Objective Design Standards Analysis     Packet Pg. 54     City of Palo Alto - Objecꢀve Design Standards Checklist ☒Complies. Sheet L1.3 , L5.1, and s(E) Common open space provides seaꢀng.L5.1 & L5.2 L5.2 show the proposed tables and chairs to be used in the common open spaces. ☒Complies. S heet L5.3 & L5.4 (F) Common open space has a minimum 20% of landscaping.A-201 demonstrate each common open space area has 20% minimum landscaping. (G) Planꢀng in above grade courtyards has minimum soil depth of 12 inches for ground cover, 20 inches for shrubs, and 36 inches for trees. Complies. Sheet L1.3 provides a typical raised planter soil volume diagram showing that minimum soil depth for ground cover, shrubs, and trees will be provided. ☒L1.3 Page 28 Item 2 Attachment E: Objective Design Standards Analysis     Packet Pg. 55     City of Palo Alto - Objecꢀve Design Standards Checklist 18.24.090 Materials Check Standard Sheet #Applicant’s Jusꢀficaꢀon (b)(1) Primary, secondary, and accent materials are allowed or prohibited as in the Residenꢀal and Residenꢀal Mixed-use Material List, which may be updated from ꢀme to ꢀme by the Director of Planning with a recommendaꢀon by the ARB. See webpage for list - hꢂps://www.cityofpaloalto.org/News-Arꢀcles/Planning-and-Development- Services/Mulꢀfamily-Mixed-Use-Objecꢀve-Standards Complies. All materials proposed are within the maximum % usage in the material list. ☒A-320 18.24.100 Sustainability and Green Building Code Check Standard Sheet #Applicant’s Jusꢀficaꢀon (b) See Chapter 16.14: California Green Building Standards addiꢀonal requirements for green building and sustainable design. Notwithstanding Secꢀon 18.24.010(c), these regulaꢀons may not be modified through alternaꢀve compliance. ☒ Page 29 Item 2 Attachment E: Objective Design Standards Analysis     Packet Pg. 56     5 7 8 0 ATTACHMENT F COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS Comp Plan Goals and Policies How project adheres or does not adhere to Comp Plan The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the site is Service Commercial. The project proposes high-density housing in an area designated for high-density housing. 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 redevelop five existing commercial properties into one multiple-family residential apartment building. The seven-story building is consistent with the heights and scale permitted in El Camino Real Focus Area and Objective Design Standards. Policy L-2.5 Support the creation of affordable housing units for middle to lower income level earners, such as City and school district employees, as feasible. This project includes 74 BMR units which will be provided on site at 50%-80% AMI (low income). Policy L-2.11 Encourage new development and redevelopment to incorporate greenery and natural features such as green rooftops, pocket parks, plazas and rain gardens. The proposed building includes three common open space amenity areas, and landscaped side yards, and pedestrian walkways. In accordance with the Objective Design Standards, the applicant has provided 13 street trees along the front property line facing El Camino Real. Policy L-6.1 Promote high-quality design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces. The proposed residential buildings are compatible with the allowances under the El Camino Real Focus Area for housing at this site. The proposed contemporary design is aesthetically pleasing and will provide housing immediately adjacent to the Stanford Research Park, the City’s primary job center. 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 seven story project complies with the massing transition requirements (such as the Upper Story Stepback) in the Objective Design Standards as well as the height and FAR allowances in the El Camino Real Focus Area. There is no residential development adjacent to this property. Policy T-1.19 Provide facilities that encourage and support bicycling and walking. The building includes sufficient short- and long- term bicycle parking. Item 2 Attachment F: Comprehensive Plan Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 57     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 Board members for their review. The same plans are available to the public, at all hours of the day, via the following online resources. Directions to review Project plans and environmental documents online: 1. Go to: bit.ly/PApendingprojects 2. Scroll down to find “3150 El Camino Real” and click the address link 3. On this project-specific webpage you will find a link to the project plans and other important information Direct Link to Project Webpage: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Current- Planning/Projects/3150-El-Camino-Real Materials Boards: Color and material boards will be available to view in chambers during the ARB hearing. Item 2 Attachment G: Project Plans     Packet Pg. 58     Item No. 3. Page 1 of 10 Architectural Review Board Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: November 7, 2024 Report #: 2410-3647 TITLE PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI-JUDICIAL: 70 Encina Avenue [24PLN-00095]: Consideration of an Application to Rezone the Subject Property and an Adjacent Vacant Parcel to Planned Community/Planned Home Zoning, to Demolish a Surface Parking lot, and to Construct a New Three-Story, 22,355 Square Foot Building with 10 Residential Condominium Units, Two of Which Would be Provided at Below Market Rate. Environmental Assessment: The City is Preparing an Exemption in Accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 (Comprehensive Plan Consistency). Zone District: CC (Community Commercial). For More Information Please Contact the Project Planner, Emily Kallas, at Emily.Kallas@Cityofpaloalto.org. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) provide comments on the draft project plans (Development Plan), Development Program Statement, and Development Schedule as provided in Attachments E and G and continue to a date uncertain. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On March 28, 2024, Hayes Group Architecture filed an application to rezone the subject property at 70 Encina and an adjacent vacant parcel from CC (Community Commercial) to Planned Community (PC)/Planned Home Zoning (PHZ).1 The project includes demolition of an existing surface parking lot on two contiguous parcels adjacent to the Town and Country Village Shopping Center (Town and Country) and construction of 10 condominium units, two of which would be provided as below market rate. A tentative map has not yet been filed, but would be required prior to issuance of a building permit to merge the two parcels and for the proposed 10-unit condominium subdivision. The application is subject to environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City, acting as the lead agency, is preparing an exemption in accordance with 1 Referred to in this report as "Planned Home Zoning (PHZ)” to emphasize the focus on housing as the benefit to the community. Still, PAMC Section 18.38, which outlines the requirement and process for Planned Community (PC) Zoning, remains the underlying code supporting application of this policy. Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 59     Item No. 3. Page 2 of 10 CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, which includes streamlining of infill projects consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The PHZ application process requires Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) initial review of a conceptual plan (occurred on September 11, 2024), followed by Architectural Review Board review of the development plan. Upon recommendation from the ARB, the project returns to the PTC for review of the draft PHZ ordinance and final recommendation on the development plan. The development plan, ordinance, and related documents are then presented to Council for a final decision. As this is an initial review, there are elements of the project that are still being evaluated in accordance with all relevant codes and policies set forth in the municipal code. By giving feedback early in the process, the applicants may revise the project as a part of the Architectural Review portion of the process. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant requests approval to rezone the subject properties from CC to PHZ; to demolish the existing surface parking lot; and to redevelop the site with a new multi-family residential development with 10 condominium units, two of which would be provided at below market rate, to 80-100% AMI. The building would be three stories (38 feet 9 inches tall) and 22,552 square feet with a 1.86:1.0 floor area ratio (FAR). The units would be organized around a common access court that provides both vehicular and pedestrian access from Encina Avenue. A location map of the project site is included as Attachment A. As a PHZ application, the project requests to deviate from the CC development standards with respect to setbacks, useable open space, landscaped open space, floor area ratio, and lot coverage. It is not required to meet the Objective Design Standards or Context Based Design Criteria because these requirements do not apply to Planned Community zone districts, however, if the ARB would like to see an analysis of the project’s compliance with these standards it could be requested. The development program statement and development schedule are included in Attachment E. The development plans are provided in Attachment G. Requested Entitlements, Findings, and Purview: The following discretionary applications are being requested and subject to ARB purview: •Planned Community/Planned Home Zoning: The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC Chapter 18.38 and is intended to accommodate all types of developments, including combinations of uses that requiring flexibility under controlled conditions and not otherwise attainable under other districts. The Planned Community zone district is particularly intended for unified, comprehensively planned developments that are of substantial public benefit and which conform with and enhance the policies and programs of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The application requires initial review of preliminary plan, development program statement, and schedule by the PTC, followed by review of the development plan by the ARB. Upon recommendation of a more detailed development plan from the ARB, a draft ordinance Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 60     Item No. 3. Page 3 of 10 for the project is presented along with the more detailed development plan to the PTC for recommendation to the City Council for final action. A tentative map and Final map would also be required prior to issuance of a building permit for the proposed project in order to merge the two parcels and to subdivide the parcel for a 10- unit condominium subdivision. BACKGROUND On February 3, 2020, Council unanimously endorsed using PHZ for housing and mixed-use housing projects to help spur housing production. In exchange for deviation from certain standards as allowed under the rezoning, if approved by Council, the project must generally include approximately 20% of the housing units as deed restricted at below market rate. The full Council staff report on this topic is available online.2 The project is proposed in accordance with the PHZ process, as detailed further below. Project Information Owner: Ed Storm Architect: Jeff Galbraith, Hayes Group Representative: Jeff Galbraith, Hayes Group Legal Counsel: Not Applicable Property Information Address:70 Encina Avenue and an unaddressed lot (APNS 120-34-006 and 120-34-007) Neighborhood:Adjacent to Town and Country Village Lot Dimensions & Area:Two parcels, 50 feet x 121.19 feet each; total area 12,119 square feet. Lots will be merged as a separate application. Housing Inventory Site:Yes, 4 units (APN 120-34-006) Located w/in a Plume:Not Applicable Protected/Heritage Trees:Not Applicable Historic Resource(s):Not Applicable Existing Improvement(s):Surface parking lot Existing Land Use(s):Vacant (formerly leased as surface parking for Town and Country) Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North: Office/Industrial (CS) West: Parking Lot (CC) East: Parking Lot (CC) South: Town and Country Village Shopping Center (CC) 2 The staff report for the September 21, 2020 Council hearing on Planned Home Zoning is available online at: https://bit.ly/PHZ-CouncilReport Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 61     Item No. 3. Page 4 of 10 Special Setbacks:Not Applicable Aerial View of Property: Source: Google Satellite Maps Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans/Guidelines Comp. Plan Designation:Regional/Community Commercial Zoning Designation:Community Commercial (CC) Yes Yes Yes Baylands Master Plan/Guidelines (2008/2005) El Camino Real Guidelines (1976) Housing Development Project x Downtown Urban Design Guidelines (1993) South El Camino Real Guidelines (2002) Utilizes Chapter 18.24 - Objective Standards Individual Review Guidelines (2005) Within 150 feet of Residential Use or District Context-Based Design Criteria applicable SOFA Phase 1 (2000)Within Airport Influence Area Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 62     Item No. 3. Page 5 of 10 SOFA Phase 2 (2003) None apply. The applicant requests approval to rezone the subject properties from CC to PHZ; to demolish the existing surface parking lot; and to redevelop the site with a new multi-family residential development with 10 condominium units, two of which would be provided at below market rate, to 80-100% AMI. The building would be three stories (38 feet 9 inches tall) and 22,355 square feet with a 1.84:1.0 floor area ratio (FAR). The units would be organized around a common access court that provides both vehicular and pedestrian access from Encina Avenue. A location map of the project site is included as Attachment A. •Planned Community/Planned Home Zoning: The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC Chapter 18.38 and is intended to accommodate all types of developments, including combinations of uses that requiring flexibility under controlled conditions and not otherwise attainable under other districts. The Planned Community zone district is particularly intended for unified, comprehensively planned developments that are of substantial public benefit and which conform with and enhance the policies and programs of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The application requires initial review of preliminary plan, development program statement, and schedule by the PTC, followed by review of the development plan by the ARB. Upon recommendation of a more detailed development plan from the ARB, a draft ordinance for the project is presented along with the more detailed development plan to the PTC for recommendation to the City Council for final action. Prior City Reviews & Action City Council:Prescreening, September 12, 2022 Report, Video PTC:September 11, 2024 Report, Video HRB:None ARB:Preliminary ARB, December 7, 2023 Report, Video Council held a prescreening on September 12, 2022, for the proposed rezoning of this property. The initial proposal included 20 condominium units in a five-story building. Council‘s feedback encouraged the applicants to work with the operators of Town and Country, Ellis Partners, and to scale down the building to better align with Town and Country. In response, the project was redesigned to a 10-unit, three-story development. The applicant filed a preliminary ARB application to obtain ARB feedback prior to submitting a formal application. The ARB provided the following feedback on December 7, 2023: •Encouraged more useable landscaped area; Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 63     Item No. 3. Page 6 of 10 •Expressed that the project needed a clearer relationship between this building and the adjacent shopping center, particularly on the sides and rear; •Encouraged further consideration of privacy between units and consideration of the project’s context with the adjacent parking lot, including views from public parking lot into the units; and •Some ARB members also voiced support for a denser building more similar to the Prescreening proposal. Following submittal of the formal application, the PTC held a public hearing on September 11, 2024. The PTC commented they: •Recognized the applicants’ work with Town and Country; •Supported the proposed height as appropriate •Supported the accessible units and the bedroom count as desirable for families; •Generally supported current design in terms of visual compatibility with Town and Country; •Expressed concern with limited amount of greenspace (consider living walls) and need for improved circulation; •Directed applicant to remove the proposed bulb-outs and entrance gate; and •Suggested that future CC&Rs should include a provision to prevent residents and guests from parking at Town and Country. ANALYSIS The proposed plans have been modified since the PTC hearing to address comments from the PTC, particularly with regards to the off-site improvements. Following this hearing, the applicant would further revise the plans to address comments from the ARB as well as various department comments. Per the PHZ/PC process, this project will require recommendations from the ARB and PTC, which would be forwarded to Council for a final decision. Neighborhood Setting and Character This property consists of two parcels located within the defined area of the Town and County Village Shopping Center (Town and Country), but that are not owned or leased by Town and Country. The sites were previously leased by Ellis Partners, the owner of Town and Country, and used to provide additional parking for that shopping center. Adjacent zoning and uses include Town and Country and its associated parking areas to the south, east, and west. The portion of Town and Country adjacent to the site is mostly developed with one-story structures, though the building height increases to two stories towards the eastern side of the building. To the north across Encina Avenue are CS zoned office buildings and further down the street is the LifeMoves Opportunity Center. The offices are one and two-story buildings. The Opportunity Center is five stories. Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 64     Item No. 3. Page 7 of 10 The project includes a building to be built along the rear property line with no setback between it and the existing parking lot /delivery drive aisle on the adjacent parcel. It is also not set back from the front property line. On the interior sides, the proposed five-foot setback is the minimum setback necessary for fire access. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans and Guidelines3 The Comprehensive Plan designation is Community Commercial, which allows primarily retail shopping centers, as well as residential and mixed-use projects in appropriate locations such as near transit centers. The project proposed an exclusively residential use within close proximity of the Palo Alto Caltrain Station and is therefore consistent with this Comprehensive Plan designation. One of the two parcels for this project is a housing inventory site with an anticipated capacity of 4 units, which this project exceeds. The project is located within the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code definitions of “Town and Country Shopping Center”, which is the area bound by Encina Avenue, El Camino Real, Embarcadero Road, and the railroad right-of-way. There are no additional area plans or design guidelines which further regulate development within these boundaries. There is a Master Facade Program for the existing Town and Country buildings, which regulate the appearance of new storefronts as the shopping center changes tenants. However, it stipulates that any future additions or projects at Town and Country would go through the standard review process. The following Comprehensive Plan Policies relate to Town and Country, including this project: •Policy L-4.13 In Town and Country Village, encourage a vibrant retail environment and urban greening. •Policy L-4.14 In Town and Country Village, encourage improvement of pedestrian, bicycle and auto circulation and landscaping improvements, including maintenance of existing oak trees and planting additional trees. •Policy B-6.6 Retain Town and Country Village as an attractive, local-serving retail center. This project does not directly conflict with any of these policies, and these policies do not discuss housing projects. Project modifications could be made to increase on-site greenery, improve internal and nearby circulation, and mitigate proposed tree removal. Overall, the project is consistent with the policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. A detailed review of the project’s consistency with the Comprehensive Plan is provided in Attachment D. Zoning Compliance4 Staff performed a detailed review of the proposed project’s consistency with applicable CC (18.16) and General (18.40) zoning development standards. A summary table is provided in 3 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online: bit.ly/PACompPlan2030 4 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: bit.ly/PAZoningCode Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 65     Item No. 3. Page 8 of 10 Attachment C. PAMC 18.38.150 lists Special Requirements for PC projects, however none of these apply to this project because the property is not within 150 ft of a residential zoning district. The proposed project requests the following deviations from the zoning requirements: •A floor area ratio of 1.84:1 where 0.5:1 is allowed; •Lot coverage of 58.6% where 50% maximum is allowed; •A reduced rear setback of 0 feet where 10 feet is required; and •Less than 150 sf of useable open space per unit. The lack of open space is of particular concern. Most units have one approximately 80-square- foot balcony where typically 150 square feet of combined common and private open space per unit is required. There is no useable common open space provided for this site. Consistency with Application Findings The PHZ and ARB Findings are provided for reference in Attachment B. For PHZ projects, the housing itself, and particularly the provision of affordable units, may be considered the public benefit of the proposed project. Staff is seeking ARB feedback, in particular, on the following: •Site circulation and internal order; •Relationship between the project, Town and Country, and the surrounding neighborhood; •Compatibility of materials as it relates to the neighborhood; and •Site landscaping and opportunities to increase site greenery. Multi-Modal Access & Parking The project site is within walking distance (0.5 mile) of the Palo Alto CalTrain station. At the end of Encina Avenue there is also an access gate to the Embarcadero Bike Path. In accordance with Assembly Bill (AB) 2097, because the project is located within one half mile of a major transit stop, no vehicular parking spaces are required. However, the proposed plan provides each unit with one or two parking spaces in a ground-level garage for a total of 16 parking spaces. In terms of multi-modal access, pedestrian access is provided through pedestrian gates flanking the main driveway, or along the five-foot side setbacks to doors that enter the garages of the units. Each garage will have one long-term bike storage space (wall rack or designated space in the garage). One short term bike rack is proposed in the public sidewalk. Although the City has allowed for short-term bicycle parking to be placed in the right-of-way in downtown areas on a case-by-case basis, particularly where existing developments built up to the lot line may preclude adding new short-term bicycle parking on site, new development should provide the required bicycle parking on site. Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 66     Item No. 3. Page 9 of 10 The project plans provided to the PTC at their September 11, 2024 meeting included two bulb outs into the Encina Avenue right-of-way, which were removed in response to Staff and PTC comments. However, the queuing issue has not been solved, and therefore any security gate will need to be placed further back on the property. This may affect the usability or feasibility of garages for the two units closest to the street. 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. This project is also subject to Development Impact Fees, currently estimated at $726,939.70 plus the Public Art fee. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION, OUTREACH AND COMMENTS As of the writing of this report, Ellis Partners provided a comment letter, which was added to their previous comment letters, all of which are provided in Attachment F. Ellis Partners provided comments on the plans presented to the PTC and had two main concerns: interruption of their current operations, and architectural compatibility. They note that that their existing refuse pick up, delivery, and cleaning schedules may be viewed as nuisances by future tenants. Particularly, the project site abuts a major delivery corridor for the shopping center. According to their letter, these activities begin as early as 4 am. They are also concerned guests of the future residents will park in the retail parking spaces, impacting their availability for retail patrons. In terms of architectural compatibility, they are concerned that the proposed building will be viewable from locations around the shopping center. They also believe the proposed materials are visually incompatible. In the newest letter, they highlight that these previous comments have not been addressed in the revised plans. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The City, acting as the lead agency, is currently analyzing the project in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Specifically, the City is preparing an analysis of the project in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, which evaluates the project’s consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and the Comprehensive Plan EIR. The 15183 exemption allows for streamlining of infill projects where the previous adopted EIR for a Comprehensive Plan has been adopted and adequately addresses the impacts of the proposed project. Plan level technical reports are being prepared to confirm that the Comprehensive Plan EIR, including any mitigation that would be addressed as required through that EIR, would adequately address the impacts of the proposed project. ATTACHMENTS A. Location Map B. Required Findings for Approval Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 67     Item No. 3. Page 10 of 10 C. Zoning Comparison Table D. Comprehensive Plan Consistency Analysis E. Applicant’s Project Description (program statement) and Development Schedule F. Public Comments G. Project Plans Report Author & Contact Information ARB5 Liaison & Contact Information Emily Kallas, AICP, Senior Planner Steven Switzer, Historic Preservation Planner (650) 617-3125 (650) 329-2321 emily.kallas@cityofpaloalto.org Steven.switzer@cityofpaloalto.org 5 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 68     3 Bldg 3 Bldg 1 Bldg 2 Bldg 4 50.0' 121.2' 50.0' 121.2' 121.2' 121.2' 56.0' 121.2' 56.0' 100.0' 121.2' 100.0' 121.2' 50.0' 121.2' 50.0' 121.2' 18.8' 535.5' 938.0' 10 100.0' 50.0' 121.2' 50.0' 121.2' 50.0' 121.2' 50.0' 121.2' 50.0' 121.2' 50.0' 121.2' 50.0' 121.2' 50.0' 121.2' 50.0' 121.2' 50.0' 121.2' 50.0' 121.2' 50.0' 121.2' 50.0' 121.2' 50.0' 121.2' 121.2' 121.2' 50.0' 50.0' 121.2' 100.0' 100.0' 121.2' 121.2' 182.3' 200.0' 121.1'14.3' 72.6' 137.4' 84.5' 112.3' 39.0' 48.0'43.5' 112.3' 82.2' 224.6' 212.7' 72.0' 51 75 63 44 87 98 67 81 855 25 ALMA STRE EL CAMINO REAL CAMINO REAL EMBARCADERO ROAD URBAN LANE ENUE ENCINA AVENUE CC CS CS 5 PAMF PARKING STRUCTURE This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Project Site 0' 71' Attachment A70 EncinaLocation Map CITY OF PALO ALTOINCORPORATED CALIFORNIA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f APRIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Altoekallas, 2024-09-04 15:59:55 (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) Item 3 Attachment A: 70 Encina_Location Map     Packet Pg. 69     5 8 9 3 ATTACHMENT B PC AND ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL 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. 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. 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. 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. Finding #2: The project has a unified and coherent design, that: a. creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community, b. preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site and the historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant, c. is consistent with the context-based design criteria of the applicable zone district, d. provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations, e. enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent residential areas. Finding #3: The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. Finding #4: The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and providing for elements that support the building’s necessary operations (e.g. convenient vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.). Finding #5: The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is appropriate to the site’s functions, and utilizes to the extent practical, regional indigenous drought resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat that can be appropriately maintained. Finding #6: The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning. Item 3 Attachment B: Findings for Approval     Packet Pg. 70     5 8 9 4 ATTACHMENT B ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 70 Encina Avenue, 24PLN-00095 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.16 (CC DISTRICT) Mixed Use and Residential Development Standards Regulation Required CC Residential Standards Proposed PHZ* Minimum Site Area, width, and depth No Requirement 100.0 feet by 121.19 feet 12,119 square feet Minimum Front Yard 0 feet 0 feet Rear Yard 10 feet 0 feet 3 inches Interior Side Yards No Requirement Varies, 0 feet – 5 feet Maximum Site Coverage 6,059 square feet 50% 7,108 square feet 58.64% Minimum Landscape/Open Space 3,630 square feet 30% 0%, no ground-level landscaping or qualifying open space Minimum Useable Open Space 150 square feet per unit 1500 square feet total Unit terraces vary 79 square feet – 155 square feet 950 square feet total Maximum Building Height 50 feet 38 feet 9 inches Residential Density No Requirement 28 du/acre (10 units) Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 1.25:1 15,150 square feet 1.84:1 22,355 square feet 100% residential Daylight Plane None Not Applicable •Bold indicates request for deviation from the existing zoning Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) for Office* Type Required Existing Proposed Vehicle Parking No parking required per AB 2097 Approximately 36 uncovered spaces 16 spaces Bicycle Parking 1 long term (LT) space per unit 1 short term space per 10 units=1 short term space None 1 LT space in each unit garage 2 ST spaces (currently proposed within public right-of-way) Item 3 Attachment C: Zoning Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 71     5 8 9 7 ATTACHMENT D DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies How project adheres or does not adhere to Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the site is Community Commercial. This designation allows higher density multi- family housing in a designation in appropriate locations. 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 redevelop an existing parking lot into a 10-unit condominium building. The proposed three-story height is appropriate to the area that contains mostly one- and two-story buildings with a five-story building approximately 200 feet away. Policy L-2.5 Support the creation of affordable housing units for middle to lower income level earners, such as City and school district employees, as feasible. This project includes two BMR units provided at a rate affordable to moderate income consistent with this policy. Policy L-2.11 Encourage new development and redevelopment to incorporate greenery and natural features such as green rooftops, pocket parks, plazas and rain gardens. The proposed building includes a central courtyard with seven trees and perimeter planter boxes with wall vines where feasible. Policy L-6.1 Promote high-quality design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces. The proposed residential building will meet the high-quality standards of the Architectural Review Board before it is recommended for approval. The proposed materials are high quality, but items such as site circulation, private and public open space, and privacy may need refinement. 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. This project would stand alone, surrounded by parking lot for the immediate future. Some units directly abut a parking aisle/delivery route, and is approximately 25 feet from the nearest shopping center building. The proposed three-story height does not propose an abrupt change from the existing one to two-story buildings at Town and Country. Program L2.4.4 Assess non-residential development potential in the Community Commercial, Service, Commercial and Downtown Commercial Districts (CC, CS and CD) and the Neighborhood Commercial District (CN), and convert non-retail commercial FAR to residential FAR, where appropriate. Conversion to residential capacity should not be considered in Town and Country Village. Although this property is adjacent to Town and Country, it does not include the conversion of retail to residential, and therefore conforms with this Program. Item 3 Attachment D: Comprehensive Plan Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 72     5 8 9 7 Policy L-4.12 Recognize and preserve Town and Country Village as an attractive retail center serving Palo Altans and residents of the wider region. Future development at this site should preserve its existing amenities, pedestrian scale and architectural character while also improving safe access for bicyclists and pedestrians and increasing the amount of bicycle parking. This property is not owned or leased by Town and Country Village and the property owners are not required to maintain the prior parking use. The proposed development would not impact current Town and Country Village amenities or character, and Town and Country is expected to be able to maintain their current operations. Policy L-4.13 In Town and Country Village, encourage a vibrant retail environment and urban greening. This project is not part of the Town and Country Village retail environment, however additional screening landscaping between the residential project and existing commercial uses could be added. Policy L-4.14 In Town and Country Village, encourage improvement of pedestrian, bicycle and auto circulation and landscaping improvements, including maintenance of existing oak trees and planting additional trees. This project proposes to remove existing trees and replace them through a combination of on- site trees and in-lieu payments. As noted above, this project includes minimal pedestrian circulation in and around the project site, but it is not part of the Town and Country Village Shopping Center circulation system. Policy B-6.6 Retain Town and Country Village as an attractive, local-serving retail center. This property is adjacent to Town and Country but not part of the retail center. The project scale and location is consistent with this policy as it does not overwhelm the one to two-story ranch style nature of the shopping center or otherwise detract for retail environment. Staff is working with the applicant and Town and Country to discuss how the project will be designed in a manner that will not conflict with the ongoing operations of the shopping center. Housing Element Housing Inventory Site (Capacity of 4)The proposed project provides 10 units, where the housing element assumed a capacity of 4 units (site was originally assumed as a mixed-use building for this site). Therefore, the project, as an exclusively residential project, exceeds the planned unit count for this site, consistent with goals and policies that encourage housing. Item 3 Attachment D: Comprehensive Plan Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 73     Aug. 30th, 2024 Emily Kallas / Jodie Gerhardt City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department 285 Hamilton St, 1st Floor Palo Alto, CA 94301 PROJECT DESCRIPTION RE: 70 ENCINA AVE – PLANNING REVIEW PROJECT DESCRIPTION Dear Ms. Kallas, On behalf of our client Stormland LLC., Hayes Group Architects submits this project description along with an application form, a set of design drawings and required documents to request planning review for entitlement. The site is comprised of two parcels totaling 12,120 SF located in the CC zone along Encina Avenue, behind the Town & Country shopping center. The site was previously used as a surface parking lot for the shopping center. Proposed Project The proposed project consists of a new 3-story, 22,355 SF building (1.84 FAR), and full site improvements to replace the existing surface parking area. The proposed design organizes 10 new 3- story townhouse style residential units around a common central courtyard. The front facade creates a strong edge along Encina Ave, with the building mass pulled back 3 feet at the ground floor behind raised planters. The building facades facing both interior side-yards are set back a minimum of 5 feet, with additional intermittent setbacks to break up the massing and accentuate the identity of each individual residential unit. The primary building materials exposed to public view are brick veneer (at the ground floor), board and batten, linear rainscreen siding, vertical slat screens, pre-finished glazing frames, clear glass, and standing seam metal roof. Project History Back in May of 2022 we submitted an application for a PHZ ‘Pre-Screening’ hearing for a larger project on the same parcel(s). That hearing was held on Sept 12, 2022. While the project received a warm reception by Council members, there was objection from the neighboring shopping center, mostly regarding the size and height of the proposed project. After reviewing the project with the neighbors and studying various alternative project configurations, we have determined to modify the project as follows: Item 3 Attachment E: Applicants Program Statement and Development Schedule     Packet Pg. 74     1. Reduction in height from five (5) stories to three (3). This greatly reduces visibility of the project from within the neighboring Town & Country shopping center. 2. The reduction in height also results in a reduction in residential unit count from twenty units (20) to ten (10). The previous project configuration consisted of four (4) stories of residential area over one floor of parking and common area. The new configuration proposes two (2) stories of living area over individual private garages located at the ground level of each unit. 3. In an effort offset the financial impact of the reduced unit count, the project approach was changed from 'flat' (single story) units over a podium, to three-story town-house units, sometimes referred to as 'carriage units' since their ground floors consist of a private garage. This eliminates costly concrete construction at the ground level and minimizes interior common area. It also eliminates the need for common stairs and an elevator since all units are 'walk-up' units, accessed from grade level, and simplifies the configuration and cost of structural systems. 4. The now proposed ten (10) residential units are organized around a common access court that provides both vehicular and pedestrian access. This courtyard is 30 feet wide and roughly 80 feet long, mostly open to the sky, and is proposed to have pavers for the ground surface and include tall narrow trees to create a more natural and inviting environment with less focus on cars, and bollards to ensure protection of the pedestrian entry points to each unit. This concept is similar to the well-known and successful project: Fulton Grove, located at 421 to 457 Fulton Street in San Francisco, CA. 5. The proposed design incorporates numerous planting / green features throughout the building, contributing to enhancing the aesthetic appeal and softening the building façade. On December 7th 2024 this revised project direction was presented in a Preliminary ARB hearing. While opinions of board members varies widely, there was general consensus around the need to loosen up the vehicular entrance, the desire to activate the Encina street frontage, the need to provide some setback at the rear façade, and feedback from the fire department about the need to provide additional roof access provisions. We also attended a DRC meeting on January 17th 2024 and a formal PHZ application was submitted on March 17th 2024. In the formal submittal package we addressed comments received from the DRC as summarized below: 1. Vehicular Entry: The vehicular entry gate has been widened from the 14’ code minimum to 18 feet. The garage doors to the front units have also been pushed deeper into the site and the entry court width widened by 4 feet to create more maneuvering space. 2. Activate Encina Frontage: We have flipped the front unit layouts, so the stairways are on the front façade instead of being buried behind interior program. Locating a transitional semi-private space such stairs at the façade allows us to create more windows without concerns about visibility into more private spaces. 3. Rear Setback: The upper 2 stories have been set back 3’-9” from the rear property line. This breaks down the massing and allows us to introduce windows facing Town & Country, so the rear façade feels more open instead of closed. 4. Roof Access: We met several times with the Palo Alto Fire Department and established the need to provide ladder accessible paths to the roof at both the front and rear property lines. We also changed the side yards from private areas to common egress and access paths. Built-in roof access stairs have also been integrated into the architecture at both the front and rear facades. The front access is concealed behind the façade and connected to new front facing terraces. The rear access stairs are screened by a new vertical slat screen wall along the Item 3 Attachment E: Applicants Program Statement and Development Schedule     Packet Pg. 75     property line that also provides privacy for the new rear facing windows. The slats are spaced far enough apart to allow the passage of light and filtered visibility. Following additional coordination with several city departments we further revised our design as follows and submitted the revised package at the end of July 2024. 1. Rear bedroom (Unit ‘D’) egress window: after additional meetings with the fire dept., it was concluded that there should be 12ft of horizontal clearance for rescue ladders. We pushed the window inwards to obtain the clearance. 2. Subsurface transformer in a planted island: due to various constraints, we are proposing a planted utility island to also accommodate a subsurface transformer, please see the letter provided separately for a detailed discussion of this proposal. 3. Expanded refuse room: in order to satisfy the refuse room layout requested by the waste management dept., we expanded the room by approx.100 SF (from 144SF to 240SF) while relocating the fire backflow device on the front façade. 4. To brighten up the façade: we replaced the dark gray color rainscreen with a lighter (to match with the brick veneer on ground level) color to enhance the building façade appearance and also to address some comments/ concerns made from some of the board members during the preliminary ARB hearing. PHZ Summary As noted in the previous PHZ Program Statement, the use of a PHZ designation continues to be essential for the following reasons: a. The underlying Zoning designation of CC would only allow for an FAR of 0.6:1. This limited development potential severely hinders the number of housing units that can be built. Coupled with the high price of land it also further challenges the inclusion of affordable housing. Under these regulations the site would be limited to a maximum of 4 residential units atop fully or semi- underground parking. Application of PHZ regulations would allow for a significant increase in unit count as illustrated in the attached plans. The proposed residential design is supported with the surroundings as there are adjacent planned community and hospital buildings of much greater heights. b. The proposed uses in this project are limited to private residential condominiums, including support and amenity spaces related to residential use. Support and amenity spaces include usable open space, parking, shared circulation, utilities, and trash & recycling. c. The nature of all proposed uses is that of residential living and associated activities. Each residential unit will contain its own private kitchen and bathing facilities, with all parking concealed in fully enclosed private garages. Below is a schedule of unit types and sizes and anticipated sales prices. Please note that sales prices are based on an estimated sales price of $1,250 per occupied square foot, not including common areas such as parking and utilities etc. unit description BR# unit size (avg) quantity sales price (avg) 3 BEDROOM (1 CAR PARKING) 3BR 1,572 SF 1 $1,896,250 3 BEDROOM (1 CAR PARKING) 3BR 1,632 SF 1 $1,998.500 3 BEDROOM (2 CAR PARKING) 3BR 1,555 SF 6 $1,937,500 Item 3 Attachment E: Applicants Program Statement and Development Schedule     Packet Pg. 76     2 BEDROOM (1 CAR PARKING) 2BR 1,369 SF 2 $1,788,750 TOTAL: 10 Note: Sales prices shown above are for market rate units. Unit sizes represent livable area, not including ground floor garage and storage areas. 20% of units will be sold or rented as BMR units. Pricing for Below Market Rate units shall be established by the Director of Planning & Development Services in accordance with the City’s website. Expected Construction Timeline Construction Phase: Start Date End Date Overall Construction Schedule (start and completion date for entire project) Oct. 2025 Dec. 2026 Demolition 10/1/2025 10/15/2025 Site Preparation 10/1/2025 10/15/2025 Grading 10/16/2025 11/5/2025 Building Construction 11/6/2025 6/1/2026 Asphalt Paving 9/1/2026 9/4/2026 Architectural Coating 4/1/2026 12/31/2026 Other (e.g., Groundwater Dewatering): Other (e.g., Trenching/Utilities): 10/16/2025 12/1/2025 If you have any questions regarding the contents of this letter or the accompanying plans, please feel free to contact me by phone or email. Jeff Galbraith Principal Hayes Group Architects Inc. (650) 223-4026 jgalbraith@thehayesgroup.com Sincerely, Item 3 Attachment E: Applicants Program Statement and Development Schedule     Packet Pg. 77     October 30, 2024 Emily Kallas Senior Planner, City of Palo Alto Emily.Kallas@CityofPaloAlto.com (650) 617-3125 Dear Emily, We have carefully reviewed the latest submi,al from Storm Land LLC and The Hayes Group for Applica2on No. 24PLN-00095, which requests a Planned Home Zoning (PHZ) for the construc2on of a new 3-story residen2al condominium at 70 Encina. Town & Country Village (TCV) has reviewed all itera2ons of this applica2on and has par2cipated in all related public hearings to voice our concerns about the design, density, and opera2onal impact on TCV, its tenants, customers, and the community. Our concerns have been communicated through the following documents: • a le,er to the Palo Alto City Council dated September 8, 2022 • a le,er to the Architectural Review Board (ARB) dated December 2, 2023 • a le,er to Planning staff dated July 22, 2024 • a le,er to Planning staff dated September 3, 2024 Addi2onally, we have voiced these concerns in person at the City Council hearing on September 12, 2022, at the ARB Study Session on December 7, 2023, and the Planning and Transporta2on Commission (PTC) hearing on September 11, 2024. Feedback on Current Submial We are not reitera2ng herein our specific concerns for the aesthe2c and opera2onal impacts that we foresee this proposed project imposing on our property, our tenants and the community. Please refer to our prior le,ers for that detail. In the interest of simplicity and clarity, we are providing the a,ached matrix to highlight that the applicant has not addressed the overwhelming majority of the feedback that it has received at the last two hearings (ARB on December 7, 2023 and PTC on September 11, 2024). The feedback at these hearings was very clear and consistent and aligns with the concerns that we have con2nued to raise in our le,ers and at the prior hearings. We understand and support the City’s efforts to increase the local housing supply, however, given the limited 2me availability of City staff and the City’s Boards and Commissions, it feels inappropriate for the applicant to request con2nued expenditure of the City’s resources while largely ignoring the clear feedback they have received. Addi2onally, we feel that the most recent submi,al makes no effort to Item 3 Attachment F: Public Comments     Packet Pg. 78     Item 3 Attachment F: Public Comments     Packet Pg. 79     Feedback from PTC Applicant Response PTC Meeting - September 11, 2024 Cycle 3 Plans - Plan date 10.4.24 Bulb Outs beyond curb not supported Bulb out removed. Results in fewer trees since no trees have been added Concerns about sound and proximity of commercial services, recommends accoustic dampening added to design Concern not addressed in 10.4.24 plans Setbacks at property lines desired Concern not addressed in 10.4.24 plans Concerns about project being too dense for size of parcels Concern not addressed in 10.4.24 plans Insufficient greenspace and trees included Applicant removed the only added greenspace (bulb out). Project adds no new greenspace or added trees Gate at property line will be a traffic issue Concern not addressed in 10.4.24 plans Trash Pickup Room is too close to curb Concern not addressed in 10.4.24 plans Feedback from ARB Applicant Response ARB Study Session - December 7, 2024 Cycle 1 Plans - Plan date 3.8.24 Lack of setbacks at property lines raised as a concern Concern not addressed in 10.4.24 plans Trash room only accessible by leaving the property Minor updates made, still requires residents to leave property to access trash room. Windows facing each other in the courtyard is a privacy concern Minor window adjustments made. Submission still has a number of windows facing each other. Access to parking in northern two units is a problem, and would require multi-point turns to access Concern not addressed in 10.4.24 plans Gate at property line is a traffic and queuing issue Concern not addressed in 10.4.24 plans SUMMARY OF APPLICANT RESPONSES TO FEEDBACK FROM PTC & ARB 70 Encina - 24PLN-00095 - 10.4.24 Submittal Item 3 Attachment F: Public Comments     Packet Pg. 80     July 22, 2024 Emily Kallas Planner, City of Palo Alto Emily.Kallas@CityofPaloAlto.com (650) 617-3125 Dear Emily, As you proceed with your staff level review of application number 24PLN-00095, request for Planned Community Zone Change (PHZ) to allow construction of a new 3-story, 22,552 sf residential condominium building, we, as the owners and operators of Town & Country Village (“TCV”) wish to raise our continued concerns with regards to the proposed 70 Encina development. Our concerns and objections were previously communicated in our September 8, 2022, letter to the Palo Alto City Council, in our letter from December 2, 2023 to the Architectural Review Board (both attached) and we addressed these concerns in person at the City Council hearing on September 12, 2022 and at the Architectural Review Board (ARB) Study Session on December 7, 2023. We and our consultant architect, Randy Popp, have carefully reviewed the revised development plans, dated March 8, 2024. While we recognize that the applicant has made some minor changes to the proposal, our team and Mr. Popp believe that the vast majority of the concerns raised by the ARB on December 7, 2023 have gone completely ignored, notably the lack of a buffer between this zero lot line proposal and TCV and the lack of architectural compatibility for this sensitive setting. Furthermore, all the operational concerns that we have repeatedly raised about this problematic project remain unaddressed. Background We of course understand the critical need for new housing development in Palo Alto and throughout the region, but we request that you require the applicant to revise its proposal to address the concerns raised by the ARB as well as the aesthetic and operational impacts that we have continued to highlight over the last three years. We do not consider this ¼ acre site surrounded by our north parking lot to be a suitable housing site and feel that the ten luxury townhomes this project will create will do little to address the City’s housing shortage. Furthermore, the addition of these ten units does not justify the degradation of TCV, a unique and treasured community asset and source of significant sales taxes for the City of Palo Alto. As you may be aware, at the September 8, 2022, hearing, the City Council “asked the applicant to work with Town & Country to receive their support of the project and stated that consideration should be paid to how this development may affect the vitality of Town & Country. Council also wanted any project at 70 Encina to provide a better visual connection with Town & Country, such as through the use of materials.” Ever since that hearing, we have reviewed the prior revisions from the applicant and provided clear and consistent feedback to the applicant and to City staff in the hopes that the design would evolve in a manner that we can support and that is more appropriate and consistent with TCV’s architectural vocabulary, massing and operational considerations. Item 3 Attachment F: Public Comments     Packet Pg. 81     In terms of specific feedback on the most recent submittal, we are providing herein a summary of the impacts the proposed project would have on the operation of TCV and the potential areas of conflict it might create for our tenants and customers with the future occupants of the proposed development. Also attached is a letter from Randy Popp highlighting his concerns with the current design and the lack of architectural compatibility with TCV. TCV Operational Concerns 1. The Planning Department has expressed concern multiple times about parking at TCV, and while we comply with current code and issued approvals, our concern is that guest parking for the proposed residential development is going to spill into our adjacent lots and displace our customers. The proposed design includes no guest parking for ten residences and only provides an average of 1.4 spaces for these three-bedroom units. While we understand the desire to not build large parking facilities in Palo Alto, it is inevitable that future guests and residents will park on our property given its proximity. TCV will then be forced to police and tow guest parking for this development, and TCV will need to involve the City in repeated complaints about unauthorized use of our property. 2. This development will also result in an increase in vehicular traffic on our property. Given its design and orientation, residents and guests will likely use our property to drive through from Embarcadero, given Encina is sometimes hard to access by car via El Camino Real. As stated above, we believe the increase in traffic posed by the proposed development will create adverse impacts to our property and our patrons. TCV will be forced to involve the City in mitigation of neighbors using our property for path of travel. 3. Poke House, Asian Box, Antoine’s Cookies, Jamba Juice, Douce France, and Horsefeather will all be operating food and beverage facilities adjacent to the new residents, whose homes will be along on our primary service alley. Our concern is that residents will complain and try to impose on our tenants’ ability to operate. Each of these food service operations receive deliveries at early hours, and early morning businesses like Jamba Juice & Douce France will have employees and patrons arriving at the site early each day. Horsefeather will be utilizing a nearby outdoor patio until 10 PM at night, as allowed in their planning approval, which poses a potential conflict with residents who will likely complain to the City about the incompatibility of a these two nearly adjacent uses. 4. Since the proposed development abuts our rear service alleyway, we are concerned that residents will complain about off-hours deliveries, trash pickups, and other typical elements of commercial food operations. Employees occupy the service alleys adjacent to the residences at all hours of the day, and our concern is that residents will inevitably complain to the City about their presence, and the general operations of our tenants. The proposed development includes no buffer or setbacks to mitigate this and proposes high-end residential units directly adjacent to our active shopping center that has been operating for over 70 years in this location. Zoning Violations Beyond our concerns with the revised proposal, we would also like to remind you and others at the City of Palo Alto, that the owners of the subject site installed a chain link fence on or about November 2021, surrounding their portion of the parking lot. Based on conversations we had with planning staff in 2021, we were told that the installation of this fence was a clear zoning violation and that its installation would require an application by the 70 Encina property owners to modify prior planning approvals, factoring in changes in traffic flow and aesthetics. Since no such application has been filed, we have repeatedly reminded staff of this situation and now after nearly three years of weeds, pavement cracks and overall Item 3 Attachment F: Public Comments     Packet Pg. 82     blight, this situation remains unchanged, as a result of a lack of zoning enforcement (current condition photos attached). Given how meticulous City staff is in enforcing zoning codes and processes at TCV, it is quite surprising that the City is willing to process this new development application for a site that has a nearly three year old outstanding zoning violation that is blighting such an important community asset. Please see the recent photos of the site for reference. We respectfully request that you put this application on hold until the property in question is in full compliance with current zoning regulations and the blighted conditions are addressed. Thank you for your consideration of our concerns. We truly appreciate being included in the review process for this application and are hopeful that it can be revised to result in a project that is more appropriate for this important and sensitive setting. We have been the careful stewards of TCV since 2005 and would be devastated if this project as proposed were to be built in such a dense and incompatible configuration. Sincerely, Dean Rubinson Director of Development Ellis Partners LLC of behalf of CEP Town & Country Investors, LLC Cc: Jim Ellis, Ellis Partners Melinda Ellis Evers, Ellis Partners Mitchell Serrato, Ellis Partners Amy French, City of Palo Alto Attachments: Design Review Letter, Randolph Popp Architects - July 3, 2024 Current Photos Exhibit – July 22, 2024 Letter to Palo Alto City Council – September 8, 2022 Letter to Palo Alto Architectural Review Board – December 2, 2022 Item 3 Attachment F: Public Comments     Packet Pg. 83     P a g e | 1 of 2 3 July 2024 Dean J. Rubinson Partner, Director of Development Ellis Partners 111 Sutter Street, Suite 800 San Francisco, CA 94104 Re: Proposed Planned Home Zoning Project at 70 Encina Avenue Dean: I was excited to understand there was an updated package available for the proposal adjacent to Town & Country Village but after my review, I’m quite disappointed to find much of the constructive criticism the development team received when they presented to ARB on December 07, 2023 has not been addressed. In fact, in some areas, the impact has worsened. First and foremost, it still feels like more units are being squeezed into this property than can reasonably be accommodated. Board Member Chen mentioned this concern, and while I typically advocate for more density, in this particular case, I tend to agree with her perspective. A number of critical constraints and limitations have not been resolved as outlined below, and the overall design just feels too strained. The vehicular entry off of Encina has been widened. However, the interior courtyard space still seems to be too narrow, such that, as Board Member Hirsh pointed out, cars will have difficulty getting into and out of the garages. In particular, the first two stalls immediately adjacent to the entry will likely require multipoint turns to safely enter and exit. While this juggling is going on, other vehicles will not be able to enter or exit the property, potentially causing a queuing issue out on the street. At the opposite end of the drive aisle they have added an open weave CMU screen below a pair of outdoor terraces. Noise from the service drive, particularly in the early morning hours, will most certainly translate to the interior courtyard of the development, which will act like an echo chamber, creating an impact for all of the units, not just those adjacent to the service drive. Accessory to the above is the concern raised by Board Member Chen that interior-facing bedroom windows are directly aligned. This too is a byproduct of the excessive density they are trying to achieve. The impact is a very challenging privacy conflict. It’s unclear how this could be resolved without a significant retooling of the design. Another issue which has not been addressed but would require some significant reorganization is that the trash room is still only accessible by doors fronting on Encina. It’s difficult to understand how all of the townhomes will utilize this space efficiently and what the long-term impact of this will be for the most distant units. I personally can’t imagine walking my trash, recycling, and compost that distance on a regular (daily) basis. Both Board Members Rosenberg and Adcock raised valid concerns about the zero setback positioning of the massing at the 3 non-street frontage sides. Although there has been an attempt made to create some additional visual relief to the massing of the building, ultimately, Item 3 Attachment F: Public Comments     Packet Pg. 84     P a g e | 2 of 2 the concept remains essentially unchanged. In respect to the street-facing units, Board Member Baltay pointed out the potential for direct access via stoops on Encina. Rather than doing that, the design continues to exist as a ‘wall’ without addressing many of the objective design standards typically expected for the pedestrian-level street-facing portion of the building. It appears from some added sheets that additional work has been done relative to fire access. The result of this is the addition of a very intrusive stair configuration and a heavy screening element. I know from earlier conversations that you and I both feel this elevation is a primary component of the building because so much of it is visually accessible from the interior of Town & Country Village. This add-on is yet another element indicative of a density and massing which is greater than what the site can reasonably accommodate. Contextually, it increases the problematic nature of the development, which we know will continue to exist for decades as a singular building amid a large parking area. Turning to the elevations, materials, and color choices, Board Members Rosenberg and Baltay most vocally indicated they felt not enough deference was being paid to Town & Country Village. Board Member Chen suggested greater mass along Encina and a reduction in height closer to Town & Country Village. I’m ambivalent about the value of changing the massing to elevate height closer to Encina and feel that may not be productive on such a small site. In regards to architectural deference to Town & Country Village, the addition of a dark-colored rain screen is a positive step, but the beige sandstone-colored brick at the base of the building feels like an inappropriate approach regarding materials and color. I do not consider the current design to be successful concerning the important goal communicated by the ARB Members. In summary, I don’t believe this submittal addresses the concerns raised by the Board or in response to those identified by your team. I cannot see how, at this point, you might indicate your support for the proposal. I know that was the goal for the Council but we are just not there yet. Sincerely, Randy Popp Randolph Popp, Architect Item 3 Attachment F: Public Comments     Packet Pg. 85     Current Photos Exhibit - July 22, 2024 Page 1 Item 3 Attachment F: Public Comments     Packet Pg. 86     Current Photos Exhibit - July 22, 2024 Page 2 Item 3 Attachment F: Public Comments     Packet Pg. 87     Current Photos Exhibit - July 22, 2024 Page 3 Item 3 Attachment F: Public Comments     Packet Pg. 88     Item 3 Attachment F: Public Comments     Packet Pg. 89     Item 3 Attachment F: Public Comments     Packet Pg. 90     Item 3 Attachment F: Public Comments     Packet Pg. 91     P a g e | 1 of 4 8 September 2022 Sent via email: city.council@cityofpaloalto.org City of Palo Alto City Council Palo Alto City Hall 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: Proposed Planned Home Zoning Project at 70 Encina Avenue Honorable Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council Members, and Staff: In response to the proposal submitted for 70 Encina Avenue, Ellis Partners has retained my services to assist in their understanding of the project and its potential impact on Town & Country Village. Having practiced in this community for over 32 years including serving on the Architectural Review Board, I believe my insight and evaluation could be beneficial as a part of your review of the application. While I am typically a proponent of increasing the availability of housing, I do not feel the proposal offered for this particular site meets the standards our city has set in several critical areas. I’ll preface all of this by stating my general appreciation for the projects Hayes Architects has designed. I think they are a valuable local resource and have enhanced our environment through their work time and again. One notable example of their work was the thoughtful and compatible Trader Joe’s addition to Town & Country Village. However, with this project, their client is not Ellis Partners, and the design is not compatible with Town & Country Village. To support my evaluation of the proposal I have worked with a well-known and widely respected renderer who has developed additional dimensionally accurate views of the building using the information provided in the proposal package. I have attached those images to this letter and, without attempting to alter the building design, believe they represent a range of building heights to help illustrate how a more reasonable two- or three-story proposal might be viewed within the existing context. As we all know, a new development in Palo Alto is generally obligated to conform to the review standards of the Architectural Review Board and as such, must satisfy findings to be deemed approved. This project falls short in almost every category. Consistency with ARB Review Standards: • Promote orderly and harmonious development of the city Our Comprehensive Plan, Municipal Code, and Zoning regulations clearly define what is appropriate regarding orderly and harmonious development within the city. The project is located in the Community Commercial Zoning District which is designed to encourage retail and some commercial uses. Notably, residential use in this area is highly restricted through both Zoning and Comprehensive Plan policy. As can be seen in the attached renderings, a five-story structure, placed in a parking lot, and adjacent to primarily single-story structures, is jarring and out-of-context. • Enhance the desirability of residence or investment in the city Item 3 Attachment F: Public Comments     Packet Pg. 92     P a g e | 2 of 4 While there might be some convenience to living in this location, the proposed height and massing in this location is entirely inappropriate. While many would argue that we need housing in any format we can achieve it, I would argue that there are other more appropriate locations. Compromising to allow a PHZ project of this scale at this location sets precedent for ignoring development standards we have agreed are necessary to maintain aesthetic balance across Palo Alto. Indicating encouragement for this type of dramatic change here would result in far reaching impacts that will significantly alter our environment. • Encourage the attainment of the most desirable use of land and improvements Approving a project of this scale and character at this location will result in unintended consequences for this street and Town & Country Village. The likelihood of other projects similar to this being developed in the near future is slim (Ellis Partners has a long-term ground lease) so this would remain an isolated anomaly for the foreseeable future. Based on current Zoning and Comprehensive Plan Policies, which indicate the most desirable use of the site is retail/commercial, the land use change necessary to achieve this type of development at this site would create a condition that is not in harmony with the existing surrounding development or what can be reasonably be anticipated for the future. • Enhance the desirability of living conditions upon the immediate site or in adjacent areas It is challenging to understand how an isolated, purely residential project, could be considered compatible with the adjacent properties. If a coordinated effort here was able to allow a significant land area to be developed for residential use, there might be enough benefit to the nearby retail to balance the visual impact it would cause. At that scale, it could be large enough to allow for transitions to the adjacent context in a way this small parcel cannot. The dimensions of this project site within the context of the single-story and parking lot adjacent uses allows for no reasonable transition to a building at the height proposed. The limited number of units possible simply does not outweigh the negative aesthetic impact the proposal creates. Additionally, the limited setbacks proposed, and overall building layout, will make any future adjacent project even more difficult to accommodate. • Promote visual environments which are of high aesthetic quality and variety and which, at the same time, are considerate of each other. As stated above, the scale of this project, exaggerated by the boxy massing, represents no acknowledgment of the adjacent environment and is inconsiderate of the low-slung Hacienda style. It is common practice for projects to terrace, or step back, from edges that border on parcels with lesser height. As this site is bordered by single-story and parking lot adjacent uses, the only possible approach would include a significant reduction in overall height. A more appropriate approach, as suggested in the attached images, might be a revised two- or three- story proposal that could transition from the adjacent single-story context and would then be more consistent with nearby 2-story structures. Consistency with Findings for Approval (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. As outlined in the letter provided by Land Use Attorney Leigh Prince, this project is inconsistent with both the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning regulations. This Finding cannot be made. Item 3 Attachment F: Public Comments     Packet Pg. 93     P a g e | 3 of 4 (2) The project has a unified and coherent design, that: (C) Is consistent with the context-based design criteria of the applicable zone district The project is inconsistent with context-based design criteria for the district within which it is proposed. Notably, the FAR is significantly in excess of what would reasonably be anticipated. This Finding cannot be made. (2) The project has a unified and coherent design, that: (D) Provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass, and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations The project does not provide a harmonious transition in scale, mass, or character to the adjacent land uses and land-use designations. The project proposes a 5-story 55-foot high square stucco building amidst parking and adjacent to Town & Country Village, which is primarily a single-story Hacienda style collection of structures. As the images I provided show, the contrast between the two is severe and there seems to be no attempt toward transition. This Finding cannot be made. (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. While acknowledging this is a preliminary proposal, my evaluation is that the current design does not suggest it will strive to be of the highest aesthetic quality, using high-quality integrated materials, or incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. Although the immediate context is eclectic, the predominant style is the low-slung architecture of the Town & Country Village. Departing from that in the manner proposed will not unify or allow for a transition that could satisfy this requirement. This Finding cannot be made. (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. Due in large part to the 86.5% site coverage proposed the minimal landscape design does not truly enhance the building or its surroundings. It appears to be only modestly appropriate to the site’s function and does not appear to represent a desirable habitat. This Finding cannot be made. Consistency with Objective Standards When evaluated in the context of the adopted Objective Design Standards for the CC Zoning District, and consistent with other requirements listed above, it seems important to understand the direction outlined in Section 18.24.050 Building Massing (underlining added for emphasis): (A) Intent To create buildings that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area through the consideration of building scale, massing, and bulk. Massing should create a human-scale environment that is of high aesthetic quality and accommodates a variety of uses and design features. Building massing should include elements that: Item 3 Attachment F: Public Comments     Packet Pg. 94     P a g e | 4 of 4 - Are consistent in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations - Provide harmonious transitions between adjacent properties The project as proposed does not reflect consideration of this Standard and significant modification would be needed in the form of step-back/terracing and height reduction to conform to the many requirements the Palo Alto regulations describe. Note that these are similar and related to the other obligations described above and as I have repeatedly stated, the 5-story box is in no way compatible or consistent with Town & Country Village. Critique of the submitted documents A further critique of the submitted documents yields other problematic concerns. The lowest level of the building, which is primarily a parking garage, is an entirely solid wall for virtually all of the perimeter. While modestly appropriate along Encina, the remainder of the building, which is viewable from all sides, lacks articulation or character at the pedestrian level. The rendered representation of the building provided by the applicant, both in elevation and perspective, fails to fully clarify the character of this building relative to its context. I think it is important to note that the 2-foot-tall parapet as shown would not be sufficient to screen typical roof- mounted equipment that would need to be placed there. A more common screen height would be closer to 5-7 feet, pushing the total visual height of the building to somewhere in the neighborhood of 60 feet. That height will be approximately 40 feet more than the Town & Country building it is most adjacent to and similarly in contrast to the single-story buildings on the opposite side of Encina. The multi-story buildings shown in the renderings are misleading in that they are far from the project site at a distance of roughly 300 feet (the length of a football field). In closing, I believe there are many other housing opportunity sites that might be appropriate for this type of development but find the proposal presented for this site to be impossible to support based on established standards for review and approval. Sincerely, Randy Popp Randolph Popp, Architect Item 3 Attachment F: Public Comments     Packet Pg. 95     70 Encina Avenue – Study Illustrations View A Key Plan Five Level Three Level Two Level Item 3 Attachment F: Public Comments     Packet Pg. 96     70 Encina Avenue – Study Illustrations View B Key Plan Five Level Three Level Two Level Item 3 Attachment F: Public Comments     Packet Pg. 97     70 Encina Avenue – Study Illustrations View C Key Plan Five Level Three Level Two Level Item 3 Attachment F: Public Comments     Packet Pg. 98     70 Encina Avenue – Study Illustrations View D Key Plan Five Level Three Level Two Level Item 3 Attachment F: Public Comments     Packet Pg. 99     70 Encina Avenue – Study Illustrations View E Key Plan Five Level Three Level Two Level Item 3 Attachment F: Public Comments     Packet Pg. 100     WILLIAM L . McCLURE JOHN L . FLEGEL DAN K . SIEGEL JENNIFER H . FRIEDMAN MINDIE S . ROMANOWSKY LEIGH F . PRINCE DAVID L . ACH GREGORY K . KLINGSPORN NICOLAS A . FLEGEL KRISTINA A . F E N TON CARA E . S I L V E R K I M B E R L Y J . B R U M M E R CAMAS J. STEINMETZ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ BRITTNEY L . STANDLEY CHRISTIAN D . PETRANGELO JOSEPH H . FELDMAN JORGENSON, SIEGEL, McCLURE & FLEGEL, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1100 ALMA STREET , SUITE 210 MENLO PARK , CALIFORNIA 94025-3392 (650) 324-9300 FACSIMILE (650) 324-0227 www.jsmf.com September 7, 2022 OF COUNSEL K E N T M I T C H E L L _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ RETIRED JOHN D . JORGENSON M A R G A R E T A . S L O A N DIANE S . GREENBERG _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ DECEASED MARVIN S . SIEGEL (1936 - 2012) JOHN R .COSGROVE (1932 - 2017) Sent via email: City.Council@cityofpaloalto.org City of Palo Alto City Council Palo Alto City Hall 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: Proposed Planned Home Zoning Project at 70 Encina Avenue Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members: Town and Country Village (“Town and Country”) is a specialty retail shopping center that was originally completed in the 1950s. Since acquiring Town and Country, Ellis Partners has been committed to retaining the original character of early western-style architecture with red tile roofs, heavy wood beam and column-supported covered walkways and stately oaks growing throughout. Over the years, Ellis Partners has completed renovations to Town and Country, including the construction of Trader Joe’s. These renovations have preserved the low-slung character of Town and Country, while increasing its appeal as one of Palo Alto’s primary retail destinations. Recently, a Planned Home Zoning (“PHZ”) project was proposed at 70 Encina Avenue (“project site”). The project site was previously used and permitted by the City of Palo Alto (“City”) as a part of Town and Country for parking (although in recent months the owner has fenced off the project site without City approval). The current proposal would rezone the project site from Community Commercial (“CC”) to PHZ to allow the development of a 55-foot high five-story condominium building. This proposed project is not only out of character with the adjacent Town and Country buildings, but it is also inconsistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Approving the proposed project, even at a more palatable height and scale, would require more than rezoning the project site to PHZ, it would require a Comprehensive Plan amendment and a zoning text amendment. As a result, Ellis Partners opposes the project because as proposed it would detract from this important and iconic pedestrian-oriented retail destination. Item 3 Attachment F: Public Comments     Packet Pg. 101     City of Palo Alto City Council Planned Home Zoning Project at 70 Encina September 7, 2022 Page 2 Town and Country Village Includes the Project Site Town and Country is defined as all properties zoned CC and bounded by El Camino Real, Embarcadero Road, Encina Avenue and Southern Pacific right-of-way – this includes the project site. See Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.16.030. Town and Country was originally constructed in phases between 1952 and 1958 including one and two-story buildings, an extensive parking lot, trees and landscaping. From the 1950s to the present (approx. 70 years), the City has considered Town and Country by these boundaries. A recent Planning Commission staff report dated February 10, 2021, included figures showing Town and Country. These figures illustrate how the City and the community at large understand Town and Country – as including the project site. Figures Showing Town and Country Residential is Inconsistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan does not support the rezoning of the project site, which has historically been part of Town and Country, from its current CC zoning to PHZ zoning. Comprehensive Plan Policy B-6.6 provides that Town and County should be retained as an attractive, local-serving retail center. Most importantly, Comprehensive Plan Policy L2.4.4 provides that “Conversion to residential capacity should not be considered in Town and Country Village.” Rezoning the project site to allow a residential condominium building would violate these Comprehensive Plan policies. As a result, the finding needed to approve the proposed project and rezone to PHZ – that the proposed use would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan – cannot be made. Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.36.060. If there is a strong desire to alter the long-standing policy regarding preserving Town and Country for low-density retail, approving a PHZ rezoning to allow housing, even at a more palatable height and scale, would require approving a Comprehensive Plan amendment to change the language that housing should not be considered at Town and Country. In addition, a zoning text amendment would be needed to carve out the project site from the definition of Town and Country in Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.16.030. Such a significant policy shift should not be undertaken lightly as it may have lasting and precedent setting impacts on Town and Country, potentially undermining this iconic retail center and further eroding the City’s dwindling retail uses. It is Ellis Partners’ firm belief that the City Council cannot make the required finding to rezone, absent a Comprehensive Plan amendment and a zoning text amendment. As it currently stands, the Comprehensive Plan provides that residential capacity should not be considered at this location and Town and Country should be retrained as a local serving retail center. Item 3 Attachment F: Public Comments     Packet Pg. 102     City of Palo Alto City Council Planned Home Zoning Project at 70 Encina September 7, 2022 Page 3 Neither Consistent with Nor a Reasonable Modification to Existing Zoning The existing CC zoning for the proposed project site would not allow the development of the proposed project. Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.16.040 provides that in the CC zone residential is permitted, but only as part of a mixed-use development or on sites designated as housing inventory sites. The proposed project site is not listed as a housing inventory site (in fact it was administratively removed from the list of potential sites in this Housing Element cycle). In addition, while adding housing would make Town and Country mixed-use as a whole, the premise of the applicant’s proposal is founded on separating itself from Town and Country. Therefore, to be permitted the project itself would have to be mixed-use and it is not. Further, the City Council’s policy direction regarding the PHZ has been to look for reasonable modifications to the existing zoning. This project proposes a significant departure from the existing zoning. It proposes a project that is substantially different from and not compatible with Town and Country. See Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.38.060 requiring the Council to find the project would be compatible with existing and potential uses on adjoining sites or within the general vicinity. 1. Floor Area Ratio - The maximum allowable floor area ratio (“FAR”) is 0.35 for Town and Country. The maximum FAR for mixed-use development for Town and Country is limited to 0.50 provided that no more than 0.15 shall be residential. The project has proposed a FAR of 2.4 for residential only, far in excess of both the underlying zoning and the existing surrounding retail center. To put it into perspective, the proposed FAR is 6.8 times larger than the allowable FAR for retail and 16 times larger than the allowable FAR for residential in a mixed-use project. 2. Site Coverage – The maximum site coverage is 50 percent. The project proposes a site coverage of 86.5% or 36.5% percent more than allowable under the existing zoning or allowed for any of the surrounding Town and Country uses. 3. Height – Although the maximum allowable height is 50 feet in the CC zoning district, the majority of buildings in Town and Country are a blend of one and two stories approximately 18 to 24 feet in height. Thus, 55-feet and five stories is a significant departure from the low-slung character of the retail center. The proposed project would be the first and likely only building of this type and magnitude for the foreseeable future at Town and Country making it incompatible with the surrounding uses. Given the established retail uses, existing zoning regulations and long-term ground lease, Ellis Partners does not anticipate any significant change to Town and Country, and certainly nothing that would be compatible with the height and scale of the proposed project. Furthermore, the City’s Comprehensive Plan programs and policies speak to transitions in scale between developments (Policy L-1.3) and discouraging abrupt changes in scale and density (Policy L-6.7 and Program L6.7.1). The proposed project provides no transition and is an abrupt change in scale from Town and Country buildings and parking which would surround it. Conclusion Ellis Partners appreciates the significant amount of time and resources these pre-screening applications consume and thanks City staff and the Council for their time and attention to this matter. Ellis Partners understands the City’s need to plan for housing; however, housing development of this height and scale is not appropriate at Town and Country and if approved as Item 3 Attachment F: Public Comments     Packet Pg. 103     City of Palo Alto City Council Planned Home Zoning Project at 70 Encina September 7, 2022 Page 4 proposed would undermine the look and feel of this iconic retail center. Thus, Ellis Partners respectfully requests that the City Council not to support moving this project forward as proposed. Sincerely, Leigh F. Prince Leigh F. Prince cc: Jonathan Lait, Planning Director (Jonathan.Lait@cityofpaloalto.org) Item 3 Attachment F: Public Comments     Packet Pg. 104     152454300.2 December 2, 2023 Sent via email: arb@cityofpaloalto.org City of Palo Alto City Architectural Review Board Palo Alto City Hall 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: Proposed Planned Home Zoning Project at 70 Encina Avenue Dear Chair Baltay, Vice-Chair Rosenberg, and Members of the Palo Alto Architectural Review Board: Town & Country Village is appreciative of the reduced scale and concept modifications represented in the submitted design but continues to be concerned about the proposed project at 70 Encina Avenue. We have been the thoughtful stewards of Town & Country Village as an important community asset for nearly 20 years and throughout our ownership we have been focused on preserving and protecting this unique neighborhood treasure in a manner that is entirely consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and all the City’s design guidelines. The proposed project, however, does not preserve and protect this community treasure and is wholly inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Comprehensive Plan Policy L-2.4, Program L2.4.4, states explicitly “Conversion to residential capacity should not be considered in Town and Country Village.” Although the 70 Encina parcels have no buildings on them and have existed for 70 years as parking for the center, this site is clearly listed under the Municipal Code as within the boundary of Town & Country Village. As such, when considering this project, we hope you will focus your attention on weighing the relative value of the zoning code concessions you are being asked to evaluate and the impact of the project on the Town & Country Village as a whole. We clearly understand there is a housing crisis and appreciate the City’s efforts to mitigate the deficit in Palo Alto by identifying locations for 6,086 potential new housing units (plus an additional 780 units to act as a “buffer”) within the city per the 6th Cycle Housing Element, with the majority (3465) being at moderate or below moderate-income levels. However, it seems inconsistent with the City’s housing goals to allow 10 luxury condominiums to take precedence over the continued preservation of a valued, historical neighborhood center at a location where the Comprehensive Plan specifically prohibits housing. As a reminder, the Comprehensive Plan, when speaking about the future of Town & Country Village in Policy L-4.12, states that proposed developments should, “recognize and preserve Town and Country Village as an attractive retail center serving Palo Altans and residents of the wider region. Future development at this site should preserve its existing amenities, pedestrian scale, and architectural character.” While we appreciate the applicant’s decision to reduce the scale of the project, which previously towered over the primarily single-story Town & Country Village, we continue to believe that the latest iteration is still lacking consistency within this important and sensitive setting and as proposed, would most certainly not contribute to the preservation of “its existing amenities, pedestrian scale, and architectural character. Item 3 Attachment F: Public Comments     Packet Pg. 105     152454300.2 While we understand that the application is proposed as a PHZ/PC, which allows the City some leeway to depart from current zoning standards established for these parcels, it is essential to remember, as stated in the staff report, that “a planned community district is particularly intended for unified, comprehensively planned developments that are of substantial public benefit and which conform with and enhance the policies and programs of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan.” The proposed project, even though scaled down, is not a unified, comprehensively planned development – it will exist as a small one-off residential development within the Town & Country Village shopping center parking lot. It does not provide substantial public benefit – likely providing a mere two affordable units amongst eight condos likely costing over $1.5 million each. It does not enhance the policies and programs of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan but rather, stands in direct opposition to those policies and programs. We consider this proposal to be inappropriate in its attempt to use the PHZ/PC process. As proposed it will certainly result in a dramatic degradation of the community treasure that has been carefully protected for decades and that we have been working to preserve since 2005. The City Council, at the September 12, 2022 hearing clearly recognized the risk of this project adversely impacting Town & Country Village. As stated in the Staff Report, “they asked the applicant to work with Town & Country to receive their support of the project, and stated that consideration should be paid to how this development may affect the vitality of Town & County. Council also wanted any project at 70 Encina to provide a better visual connection with Town & Country, such as through the use of materials.” We encourage you to respond to this application in a manner that aligns with the City Council’s direction to achieve Town & Country support, limits conflict with the Comprehensive Plan, and aligns fully with the intent of the PHZ/PC process. As the proposed project does not yet achieve any of these, we respectfully request that you provide the applicant with such feedback. The proposal you are being asked to evaluate will have a lasting adverse impact if approved in its current form. We appreciate your partnership in maintaining Town & Country’s unique character, scale, and architectural charm for the future. Below is a more detailed evaluation provided in consultation with Randy Popp, an Architect and former Chair of the ARB, who we have asked to advise us in evaluating this design proposal, its consistency with City design guidelines, and the impact it would have on Town & Country Village. Also provided below is a list of significant operational concerns this proposal raises. Thank you for your careful consideration, Dean Rubinson Director of Development Ellis Partners LLC Architectural Review Findings: Regardless of the concessions granted through the PHZ regulations, the role of ARB is to ensure that all required Architectural Findings (PAMC 18.76.020(d)) must be met by the applicant. We find that it is inconsistent with the following criteria: Item 3 Attachment F: Public Comments     Packet Pg. 106     152454300.2 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. This project site was not intended to be developed as residential. While current changes in policy may make this project seem desirable, any departure from established plans or codes should provide significant community benefit, far beyond the enrichment of the development team. Furthermore, the proposal should seek to achieve the greatest possible alignment with all other established aspects of zoning regulations and policy. 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. A sense of order and desirability of the environment for the general community is not accomplished through the proposed design. The current proposal does not support or enhance the requirements for a desirable retail environment, as further explained in the operational section below. 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. The proposed project does not integrate into the existing historic character of Town & Country Village. Due to its proximity, the proposed project should seek to achieve greater compatibility in its design, massing, and use of materials. The submitted design stands in stark contrast to the historic character of Town & Country and must be substantially modified to meet this Finding. c. Is consistent with the context-based design criteria of the applicable zone district. N/A - we are not aware of any context-based design criteria for this site. d. Provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations. While the applicant has reduced the scale, the proposed project is still inconsistent with adjacent architectural character and land use. Town & Country Village has a distinct scale and design vocabulary, (roof slope, materials, deep overhangs at comfortable pedestrian walkways, etc.) and we feel the current proposal is incompatible with the historic nature of the center. e. Enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent residential areas. The design does not enhance living conditions on the site. The intensive operational needs of a thriving neighborhood center include receiving deliveries, handling trash, well-lit customer parking, and the like. We believe that residents would find these necessary operational demands to be Item 3 Attachment F: Public Comments     Packet Pg. 107     152454300.2 unpalatable. Until the proposal can achieve mitigation of these existing necessary constraints, the application should be returned for modification. 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. As stated before, we do not find the current design to be compatible with the current historic design, massing, or character of Town & Country Village. 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.). We feel the proposed development will result in a net-negative to the safety and ease of access for pedestrians and bicycle traffic. The added vehicular traffic, loss of parking for retail use, and minimal setbacks combine to create an unmitigated series of impacts. Additionally, given the tight constraints of the site and the density of the proposed development, there is serious concern for the impact to retail vehicular access at an already constrained site, and certainly represents reduced access for operational needs. 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 current proposal has the property fully developed leaving little to no room for the required landscaping necessary to achieve compliance with this Finding. The project landscape design does not provide the necessary transition to the adjacent Center design. In addition, please note that the proposed development represents a net loss to the existing tree canopy. Currently, the canopy coverage on the site is approximately 2170 square feet across 8 existing trees, while the proposed development includes 7 replacement trees with limited growth potential for a proposed approximate canopy of 550 square feet. 6. The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning. We have yet to fully understand how this proposal achieves compliance with this Finding. As stated previously, the bar for approval should be set high due to the concessions being requested for approval of this proposal at this site. Operational Review Findings: Given that the proposed project stands in contrast to the City’s planning documents, it is not surprising that if approved it will likely create several significant impacts on the pedestrian, vehicular and other operational aspects of Town & Country Village: Item 3 Attachment F: Public Comments     Packet Pg. 108     152454300.2 1) It is incompatible to locate residences within the parking lot of a busy commercial shopping center. Our shopping center receives tenants’ deliveries throughout the day and frequently these are more intense in the early morning hours before the center opens to customers. Additionally, certain dining tenants operate into the late evening hours which might impact potential new residences within the vicinity. Lastly, we have trash and recycling serviced daily, immediately proximate to the proposed development. While these operations are consistent with City codes and existing approvals, residents will almost certainly find them incompatible with their residential use. We would ask that you carefully consider these concerns in your evaluation of the project to avoid creating a cycle of complaints that cannot be resolved. 2) Given the density of the proposed development, we foresee constraints on parking and pedestrian access. The current proposal allows for no space for potential residents’ visitors, service vendors, or deliveries. With Encina Avenue already fully parked during the day, and with all our parking stalls restricted for our retail and restaurant uses at the Center, we feel the added traffic and parking load on Encina Avenue and the surrounding area would be untenable. The project should be designed in anticipation of all these needs, as would be required of any other proposal brought forward. Item 3 Attachment F: Public Comments     Packet Pg. 109     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 Board members for their review. The same plans are available to the public, at all hours of the day, via the following online resources. Directions to review Project plans and environmental documents online: 1. Go to: bit.ly/PApendingprojects 2. Scroll down to find “70 Encina” and click the address link 3. On this project-specific webpage you will find a link to the project plans and other important information Direct Link to Project Webpage: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Current- Planning/Projects/70-Encina-Ave Item 3 Attachment G: Project Plans (Development Plan)     Packet Pg. 110     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: November 7, 2024 Report #: 2410-3652 TITLE Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for October 3, 2024 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) adopt the attached meeting minutes. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Minutes of October 3, 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. 111     Page 1 of 14 Architectural Review Board Special Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 10/03/24 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD SPECIAL MEETING DRAFT MINUTES: October 3, 2024 Council Chamber & Zoom 10:00 AM Call to Order / Roll Call The Architectural Review Board (ARB) of the City of Palo Alto met on October 3, 2024 in Council Chambers and virtual teleconference at 10:03 AM Present: Chair Kendra Rosenberg, Vice Chair Yingxi Chen, Boardmember Mousam Adcock, Boardmember Peter Baltay, Boardmember David Hirsch Absent: None. Oral Communications None. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions None. City Official Reports 1. Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2) Tentative Future Agenda items and 3) Recently Submitted Projects Claire Raybould, Interim Manager Current Planning, provided a slide presentation outlining tentative future agenda items, pending ARB projects and a potential new project. She added October 17 to the future agenda items as the date 762 San Antonio Road was planned to be brought forward for an early hearing and then 4075 El Camino Way planned community rezoning would be brought forward for zoning amendment which would be the second hearing for that project asking for a recommendation. She introduced Steven Switzer who would be taking over as the liaison to the Architectural Review Board starting at the next hearing. Boardmember Adcock announced she would be recusing herself from 3950 Fabian Way as it was a project of her office. Female remarked an email would be sent prior to that meeting to confirm there would be a quorum. Study Session Item 4 Attachment A: Minutes of October 3, 2024     Packet Pg. 112     Page 2 of 14 Architectural Review Board Special Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 10/03/24 2. Study Session to Review Potential Amendments to the Regulations for the Housing Incentive Program (HIP) in Title 18 (Zoning Ordinance) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Implement Program 3.4 of the Adopted 2023‐2031 Housing Element. Chair Rosenberg, Vice Chair Chen and Boardmember Adcock had nothing to disclose. Boardmembers Baltay and Hirsch disclosed a passionate interest in the project. Jean Eisberg, Lexington Planning consultant, and Ryan Call, Keyser Marston consultant, gave a joint slide presentation that included an agenda and meeting purpose, city vs. state density bonus programs, Housing Incentive Program (HIP) overview, Program 3.4: modify HIP, map of HIP areas: existing and proposed, State Density Bonus Law, state vs. local density bonus, ensuring the HIP is a real incentive compared to the State Density Bonus Law, process, test sites, RM-30 zoning standards (pre-January 2024 updates), summary of findings – existing zoning standards (type of development supported by zoning), financial feasibility approach, summary of findings – existing zoning standards, zoning changes to enhance feasibility, example: RM-30 zone site testing, example: resulting program RM-30 zoning district, summary of findings – potential HIP zoning standards, example: CN zone site testing, example: resulting program (N zoning district), potential HIP changes to improve feasibility, comparison of density bonus options, PTC feedback (9/25/24 study session), built example: 588 Webster St. (downtown mixed- use w/office, built example 3705-3709 El Camino Real (100% affordable), built example 3225 El Camino (workforce housing; PF/WH zone) and ARB discussion: potential HIP modifications. PUBLIC COMMENT Stephen Levy commented that financial feasibility was critical in allowing applicants to bring projects forward and that changes were currently needed at least on the prototype small projects. He hoped the Board would move forward quickly with the proposal. He requested the Board to ask the consultants to model the large apartment projects to make sure that the focus area and GM and ROLM changes make projects feasible, going for large modifications and measuring the additional cost of time delay. Amie Ashton, Executive Director of Palo Alto Forward, declared the changes to be essential to get the projects that are wanted and needed to meet the housing element commitment. She advised extending HIP to more parcels, eliminating parking minimums and allowing more FAR to create flexibility. Manuel Salazar spoke on behalf of SV@Home expressing support for the proposed amendments. He urged the Board to carefully monitor how the program is implemented alongside the State Density Bonus Law. Boardmember Baltay mentioned discussing FAR, height limitations, parking and landscaping. Boardmember Adcock wanted to understand PTC's recommendation on defining retail preservation requirements on South El Camino Real. Female answered that was based on a concern about whether those nodes are clearly enough defined in the South El Camino Real design guidelines. They were looking to have some additional information to make sure that those really were the correct locations. There was additional discussion by the PTC about whether those lined up with areas that generally had vacancies or office since those design guidelines were adopted back in 2002. Item 4 Attachment A: Minutes of October 3, 2024     Packet Pg. 113     Page 3 of 14 Architectural Review Board Special Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 10/03/24 Vice Chair Chen asked for clarification about the retail preservation requirement revision mentioned on packet page 34. Ms. Raybould explained it was generally encouraged to be on the ground floor but was allowed on two floors. Chair Rosenberg thought there might be a way they could incentivize retail having some height bonus. Boardmember Hirsch questioned what determines the exact size of a potential mixed development. He wanted to know if the townhouse discussion referred to individual or multiple dwelling type townhouses. He added if a site is over an acre it changes into a two or three prototypologies. He asked if that had been part of the study. Chair Rosenberg explained that a lot of the examples were smaller sites and focused on one type of housing. They have rules and regulations about mixing the typology when the property gets above a certain size. Ms. Eisberg responded only one site was tested (packet page 50 and 51) in the ROLM that was exactly 1 acre. They only looked at an apartment configuration. Based on the City's standard, going beyond one acre is when there is more than one housing type. They were trying to maximize the development envelope. Kaiser Marston thought their units were a little bit small so they increased them to make them more financially feasible and realistic. If they tested multiple development typologies, on this site they could have done both typologies. It would have reduced their development intensity. The idea for this particular zone in the ROLM in that new focus area was not to allow townhomes. Mr. Call remarked part of the exercise was determining how to increase the feasibility of the development program on the site by allowing things like more generous building height and setbacks. The other challenge was knowing the City was very sensitive to significant changes in building height and setbacks and so they often strive for as much efficiency as possible and in all of the site layouts they did. He thought mixed typologies on a site was a great way to balance absorption demand in the city and introduce different folks that would be in that development. That only comes with extremely flexible zoning regulation that allows a low quantity of townhomes to be complemented with a high-density podium or wrapped housing typology on a larger site. Most of the site studies were in the 5000 to 10,000 square feet which meant introducing multiple typologies could be cost prohibitive. Where flats and the stacking of apartments was studied, they looked at having a mix of three, two and one bedrooms units and, in some cases, studios. Smaller unit types are often heavily impacted by parking requirements. When looking at townhomes specifically, they looked at the typical Bay Area family products and some very narrow prototypes that were seen in some of the more dense cities with very small lots to see what the max unit count would be using the townhome product. They looked at one unit per townhouse. He commented they were trying to figure out what the threshold was for feasibility on these small parcels. They studied products that were more typical to the typologies found in the Bay Area in the Greater Bay Area market. They went with a family of townhome product types, some that were small and very narrow at 12 and a half feet wide and then with the other prototypes that were based on the 16-foot and 22-foot modules. Those are some of the tools that Kaiser Marston can do an analysis and find comparable sales, development costs and do their feasibility analysis. It does not mean their recommendations for reduced setbacks or increased building height will preclude a great architect Item 4 Attachment A: Minutes of October 3, 2024     Packet Pg. 114     Page 4 of 14 Architectural Review Board Special Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 10/03/24 coming in and introducing new typologies. They are advocating for greater flexibility for those creative solutions. Boardmember Hirsch hoped there would be an opportunity to expand to the mixed larger scale. He mentioned a project that had that opportunity the previous week and asked them to look into it and determine if it should have been a mixed use project. Boardmember Baltay explained the current code requires more than one type of housing on larger than one acre lots. The lot Boardmember Hirsch brought up was a question of whether it's one acre, bigger or smaller. He did not see any discussion about changing that requirement. He asked how that was addressing what recommendations we should make about the zoning code for HIP properties. Boardmember Hirsch advised it leads to a discussion about how waivers could be utilized versus trade- offs. Boardmember Baltay clarified that Mr. Call was suggesting that loosening zoning would make it more feasible to have the two types he talking about. He thought focusing on giving them recommendations of how to encourage the housing they were trying to get, they would get multiple types. He opined they should flat out eliminate FAR requirements. Other zoning has stepped in which really covers why FAR was originally created. Chair Rosenberg stated if they were to eliminate FAR, they should make sure to clearly define the open space. Boardmember Adcock agreed with Chair Rosenberg's comment. She wondered if the open space requirement be only on the rooftop if FAR is eliminated. Chair Rosenberg cautioned that limiting open space to the rooftop terrace could present privacy concerns with neighbors. She would want to have a feasible discussion on open space. Vice Chair Chen agreed with Boardmember Baltay's comment regarding the limitation requirements and they could control FAR in another way. She wanted to know if they limit the building height to 60-foot how they would allow them to build an FAR to a maximum of 3.5. Boardmember Baltay responded the intention of FAR was originally to control the bulk of buildings but there are now other regulations that do that. It is the daylight plane that affects the neighbors. Chair Rosenberg agreed with the overall sentiment but cautioned that one of the benefits of a lot of these buildings is that there is a space to be outside. Boardmember Baltay shared Chair Rosenberg's sentiment about being careful with parking, open space and landscaping. Chair Rosenberg advised allowing for the concept of a podium and saying the open space is 20 or 30 percent based on the different zoning typologies but allowing that space to be either at ground level or at the podium. She was hesitant to say it would all be on the roof. Boardmember Hirsch mentioned a diagram of the daylight plane on page 25 with a dimension from the base of the B dimension which is the initial height of 25 feet. He pointed out there was no dimension for the distance between buildings so the open space and usable outdoor space was in question. Item 4 Attachment A: Minutes of October 3, 2024     Packet Pg. 115     Page 5 of 14 Architectural Review Board Special Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 10/03/24 Boardmember Baltay commented the daylight plane needed to be adjusted. Chair Rosenberg understood the B height where the daylight plane begins on packet page 25 was changing from zone to zone. Ms. Eisberg clarified that the diagram on packet page 25 was codified in 18.24 of the municipal code in the objective standards. That daylight plane would apply when no daylight plane was otherwise applicable to a site with a lower-height building adjacent. The example that was shown was a modification to an existing standard. If someone invoked the HIP to raise the height to potentially 16 fet initially to get the second story at the confronting property line. Chair Rosenberg commented she would like to take a straw poll if the Board felt comfortable eliminating FAR understanding they would be relying more heavily on daylight planes, height limitations and open space requirements. Boardmember Adcock was in favor of that with a more robust open space requirement clarification. Vice Chair Chen was reluctant to agree with that because there were a lot of smarter people in town that could work around it. Boardmember Hirsch expressed he would rather throw it back at the consultants and see if they would give it consideration and preferred not making such a broad statement without asking for more research. He was in favor but with hesitation. Boardmember Baltay supported getting rid of FAR but agreed with Boardmember Adcock's comment stating it would have to be done carefully with guardrails. Chair Rosenberg wanted the Board's thoughts on height and daylight plane. She wondered if they could recommend that the 18.24 municipal code on packet page 25 remain the default with the exception of being next to a low-density residential property in which case then it might default over to the 16 foot height with the 45 degrees as being proposed. Ms. Eisberg remarked the daylight planes that were identified as being problematic were adjacent to the lower-density districts that have a more aggressive daylight plane that starts at the 10-foot height. Boardmember Hirsch was concerned about a three-story height stoop level arrangement where there was a duplex on an upper floor and a floor through apartment on the lower floor ending up with a facade that is approximately 50 feet high and a stoop in front of it to get to the second level as the setback would not work with a daylight plane. Boardmember Adcock felt like what was being proposed was too low in the majority of areas, particularly in RM 30 where it is 40 foot. She appreciated that the parapet was proposed to be removed from the height limit. She thought it should get at least another five feet. Boardmember Baltay generally supported the recommended height limit increases. He thought the standard 50-foot limit would be better changed to 55. He brought up Chair Rosenberg's comment regarding conditioning the extra height on having retail on the ground floor to encourage retail preservation. He recommended a blanket change to the height limit to 55 feet. Chair Rosenberg asked if there was a height maximum on the parapets. Item 4 Attachment A: Minutes of October 3, 2024     Packet Pg. 116     Page 6 of 14 Architectural Review Board Special Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 10/03/24 Ms. Raybould did not know if there was a height maximum on the parapets but if they were to remove it they would want that. Boardmember Baltay described how he thought removing it would add unnecessary complexity to the design. Chair Rosenberg was not opposed to ignoring the parapet wall to an extent but felt like it would need to be stepped back or meshed. She felt like that would affect volume going against the daylight plane and height limit requirements. The question would be if they want to maintain the recommendations of the PTC that the parapet is not included or include it but give them five feet extra. Boardmember Baltay advised giving extra space. Ms. Raybould thought the proposed change came from the changes that were made to the focus area regulations. They did change the definition of height but the way the code was wording was railings and parapets shall be excluded from height calculations in table three only to the extent they are required for health and safety standards in titles 15 and 16 of the code basically limited to the OSHA standards for height. Boardmember Baltay remarked that when you have an exception about OSHA standards then the planning staff is governing making the call and they are not building professionals so it is putting planning mixed into technical details of building. Chair Rosenberg suggested saying the height goes to the top of the roof and up to a 42-inch parapet could be added beyond the height limit. Vice Chair Chen remarked that assumed that all the buildings had a flat roof so it would depend on where it is measured from. She agreed with Boardmember Baltay that their role was to make sure the overall building massing would be compatible. She thought it made sense to include the parapet wall height. She was not sure if a additional five foot height was enough because it was more commercial area and based on the tablet the FAR allowed was 3.5. She asked for CC2 if they would still consider six foot high enough. Chair Rosenberg commented they were in agreement with everything proposed by the consultants and were looking to add an additional five feet to account for the potential grade changes from one side of a site to another and to include those parapets and not allow those to extend beyond the height limit. They wanted to regulate the exterior envelope of the building and give more freedom to the inside. Boardmember Baltay thought 65 was the right number for CC2. Chair Rosenberg thought 60 feet was appropriate for what they have and the 65-foot height limit was a step in the right direction. Boardmember Baltay recommended that staff sell changing the definition of grade changes in the parapet heights to the Planning Commission and Council. Boardmember Hirsch asked how this would deal with a somewhat larger site. Chair Rosenberg was inclined to just keep it the same height for now for ease of development. Item 4 Attachment A: Minutes of October 3, 2024     Packet Pg. 117     Page 7 of 14 Architectural Review Board Special Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 10/03/24 Boardmember Baltay responded nobody is proposing daylight planes or setback at height along El Camino so that is where the height limit is important. Sixty-five feet is a six story building and that is what they want to plan for. Boardmember Hirsch queried how penthouses were dealt with. Boardmember Baltay advised he could be persuaded to eliminate height limits and just rely on daylight planes. Mr. Call explained that in terms of building code, there are typologies in terms of construction they see all day long. In an instance where there is a podium and housing construction on top of that, the max wood frame seen above the podium would be five stories. The podium could be one or two stories depending on how it houses parking. If it has two levels of structured parking, it would be a 20 to 22 foot podium. This is a common typology seen throughout the entire Bay Area for that particular type of construction. Another common typology is if structured parking is wrapped where parking is not vertically stacked but the parking is wrapped by the housing. Then you will see a lower building that maxes out at the five stories, which would be in the 50 to 55 foot range. Another important consideration is for retail heights. Tenants that are going to pay rent that might cover the construction of that space expect and 18-foot floor to floor for retail and maybe a 16 1/2 minimum. If looking at Class A retail tenants, flexibility is desired to have a higher retail level. If looking at a very dense project on a somewhat smaller site, then flexibility to have a two story podium is desired. When looking at the 65 foot height limit, that will accommodate 4 stories over 2 story podium comfortably but will not allow the developer that 5th story. They are looking at ways to compete against the state density bonus laws. The more the building height rules can be aligned with the maximum efficiency within a typology, the closer you will be to incentivizing folks to embrace the HIP versus going to state density. Another difference from older cities it in this area of California there is a massive cost threshold between the high rise construction, which is triggered after the top floor exceeds 75 feet in height. The predominant construction typology is what will basically be seen. Under that height limit will be wood frame, either type three or type five, over podium or in a wrapped configuration on the ground. If you start to get into the high rise, which has different exiting requirements and construction requirements, those buildings usually go up quite a bit more looking at 10, 11 or 12 stories to start getting feasibility. If they focus on the construction typologies that comfortably live under that high rise, efficiency will be found. Foreseeing a penthouse to have that setback at that that upper level could add a lot of cost to a project. A lot of cities have required setbacks at the upper levels and oftentimes that is one of the first things a developer will waive using the state density bonus laws. Boardmember Hirsch noted almost all of the major buildings in downtown Redwood City are taller than that. He asked if they examined their prototypes and have some knowledge of the construction cost for buildings like that. He thought they would be having to fight with developers who want to build that kind of density into projects. He did not favor it. He preferred a five or six-story building with a lot of articulation but there are a lot of buildings in Redwood City that violate that. Mr. Call advocated that as they set the height limits, they take into consideration what the natural efficiency is of the typologies that live under that high rise threshold. If their objective design standards could be set around an efficient building product which either allows four or five stories above a podium then he thought there was a chance at getting developers to embrace the HIP. If they go with a 65-foot height limit that includes the parapet and it is a strong retail address and that developer wants to do a Item 4 Attachment A: Minutes of October 3, 2024     Packet Pg. 118     Page 8 of 14 Architectural Review Board Special Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 10/03/24 proper 18 foot floor to floor on the residential, then they'll have a 4-story opportunity above that retail space but they are keeping them from doing that level with that height limit set at 60 to 65. He added going into the high-rise territory was a difficult move for developers and he did not know if they needed to design their odds around that but designing the odds around the building code allowances for type 5 or type 3 construction was important. Boardmember Baltay wanted clarification that Mr. Call thought 60 feet would be adequate to anticipate 4 stories above a 2-story podium. Mr. Call preferred top of structure for the height limit requirement because it would allow an architect to have more freedom in how the massing is articulated and the building is not flat top. If the parapet height is restricted to 65 feet, it is more restrictive in terms of architectural expression. Boardmember Baltay wanted to know if Mr. Call thought going 5 feet further than the 60-foot limit was an improvement. Mr. Call explained those recommendations were based on feedback through the process from the City. He opined allowing up to five stories over a two story podium would open up a bigger door for development solutions on the smaller parcels, especially in commercial districts. He stated 75 feet would not be an atypical height for that kind of product where you have a 2-story podium plus 5 stories wood-framed construction. He added one benefit of Palo Alto was that land values and rent were extremely high so there was support for going with the four-story over two-story podium. Chair Rosenberg encouraged the Board members to maintain keeping the fabric of the community and City in mind when thinking about the height limits. Boardmember Baltay stood behind the thought of adding five feet to the recommendations based on justification for parapets and grading and leave the measurement top of building to the ground. Boardmember Hirsch mentioned they had been looking at buildings in which the parking was not entirely underground to levels of parking below grade so that was another consideration. Chair Rosenberg argued that it would be up to the developer if they want to go two stories below grade and leaving the option of taking the 65-foot height limit and put all of it as housing. She was unsure about encouraging a two-story podium of parking and mechanical for all of the units as it detaches the buildings from the sidewalk. Vice Chair Chen asked for thoughts on raising it from 10 to 16. Chair Rosenberg felt the 16 feet at 45 degrees next to residential could be across the board for every one of the zonings especially knowing there were ADU laws allowing 16-foot buildings right next door 4 feet from the property line and then having the default of the 18.24 municipal code if it is not next to residential. Boardmember Baltay remarked it was a significant impact on an R1 property when it was next to what would be an RM 30 apartment building or townhouse. Keeping the daylight plane at 10 feet would be a significant impact on the ability to create housing. He thought 16 feet was a fair compromise if there were good guardrails for privacy protection which was where landscaping would come in. Vice Chair Chen opined it would be a huge privacy impact to all the adjacent R1 buildings. Item 4 Attachment A: Minutes of October 3, 2024     Packet Pg. 119     Page 9 of 14 Architectural Review Board Special Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 10/03/24 Boardmember Baltay responded they were trying to drive builders to use the State Density Bonus Law which would lessen the impact. He stated they should establish a tight control of the daylight plane, landscaping requirements and additional privacy requirements. He believed they should require a maximum of one parking space per unit regardless of the size of the unit, consider having no parking requirement for studio size unit and some overlay requirement of additional parking for services uses. He thought this would achieve Palo Alto's goals of reduction of parking, traffic and load on the infrastructure. Chair Rosenberg did not think they should ever have a maximum of parking. She agreed with the recommendation of meeting the state standards on the minimum parking requirements. She thought they could reduce the minimum but was hesitant to impose a maximum. Boardmember Baltay agreed with going with one parking space per unit, provide additional service required spaces for services and visitors and he suggested having no parking requirement for commercial uses. Chair Rosenberg asked if there were concerns that reducing the parking requirements might encourage microunit studios. Chair Rosenberg was amenable to not having parking spaces for studies making sure that each unit is counted in the required minimum parking for service spaces. Boardmember Baltay supported that idea. His goal was to reduce the amount of parking required. He thought the parking drove the projects beyond what is reasonable. Boardmember Hirsch opined that people who are developing some commercial space are going to want to have parking nearby and when it is a mix of housing and commercial it would cause a big problem with the commercial tenants. Boardmember Baltay observed that many developers use the excuse of being required to provide parking as a reason why they cannot provide retail or commercial stuff. Chair Rosenberg was concerned that limiting it to one space per unit would result in a reduction in micro and efficiency units. She encouraged less parking in the higher density units and either having a half a space for a studio or eliminating the parking space for studios with a higher count for the service units. Vice Chair Chen did not want to result in nobody renting or buying the house due to lack of parking. She thought parking requirements should be based on the size of the units. Chair Rosenberg asked if they wanted to try and define the 20 units of service parking spaces. Boardmember Baltay advised leaving that to the pros. Vice Chair Chen explained that based on a study by Boardmember Hirsch and her, there were some design guidelines for the ratio being one per three units to provide guest parking. She suggested starting from there. Chair Rosenberg was comfortable with allowing for open space to either be at ground level or podium. She supported allowing rooftop terraces but was hesitant to allow open space to be only on the rooftop. Item 4 Attachment A: Minutes of October 3, 2024     Packet Pg. 120     Page 10 of 14 Architectural Review Board Special Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 10/03/24 Boardmember Baltay recalled the objective standards put significant guardrails against rooftop open space close to the edges. Vice Chair Chen queried if they should include height for the stairs if there is roof access. Ms. Raybould responded the staircase is typically included in the measurement of height. The elevator overrun is not. Chair Rosenberg advised the simple solution would be adding a caveat that there is an exemption for one staircase access and one elevator access to the height limitation. Boardmember Baltay thought more study was needed to decide how to regulate that but was in favor of projections into the height limit for access features provided they were not nominally visible from the ground. He would look to the consultants to do studies on the best way to accomplish that. Boardmember Hirsch remarked it is usually shorter dimension, the height is less at the perimeter. Boardmember Baltay suggested allowing those things to project into the height limit but not the daylight plane would ensure protection from impacting the neighbors. Chair Rosenberg commented a chimney of a staircase projecting 10 feet above at the front would be undesirable. She liked the concept of the daylight plane if it continued off beyond the height limit as long as the daylight plane continuance was respected. She would want some sort of setbacks. Boardmember Baltay agreed some exception would be needed for access to the rooftop things if allowed for open space. Ms. Raybould explained that as part of the objective standard changes some changes were made to the general standards and exceptions under 18.40.230 for rooftop gardens with an allowance for stairs with the exception that it had to be set back from the edges of the building. Vice Chair Chen suggested saying it is only limited to staircase and elevators. Boardmember Hirsch thought a half a space of parking per efficiency unit would be a better choice. Chair Rosenberg argued that the floor square footage of an efficiency space was equivalent to a one bedroom. Not requiring it at all might encourage more efficiency spaces and not taxing a three-bedroom unit with a parking space might encourage those. The highest tax of parking space per square footage of habitable unit is the one bedroom. It will result in fewer one bedrooms but more efficiencies and two and three bedrooms. Mr. Call suggested consideration of a requirement for one space per unit but then allow building management to dictate the allotment. Chair Rosenberg agreed that flexibility of management of renting or not renting is completely up to whoever's running the building. Boardmember Hirsch thought they had to also be conscious of the marketplace, which is why he suggested at least a half for the efficiency is a good idea. Item 4 Attachment A: Minutes of October 3, 2024     Packet Pg. 121     Page 11 of 14 Architectural Review Board Special Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 10/03/24 Chair Rosenberg asked if they want to follow the open space recommendations that each type has its own system or create a more uniform voice on what open space is required. Boardmember Baltay was inclined to stick with the staff recommendations on open space. He preferred having no reduction in the amount of open space required and that open space could be provided anywhere on the property. Chair Rosenberg thought it needed to indicate either ground or podium. She thought putting it all on the roof would restrict floor area. Boardmember Baltay remarked that was the reason for having a landscape requirement even if there was no setback requirement. Boardmember Hirsch asked where the objective standards come in. Ms. Raybould answered the landscaped areas typically count toward open space once the minimum requirement has been met. Ms. Eisberg explained only the commercial districts allow open space on the roof and the objective standards created a series of design standards for those rooftops. Boardmember Baltay was in favor of allowing some open space on rooftop type areas in all housing developments provided the design guidelines for privacy protection was met. Chair Rosenberg suggested having up to 50 percent of the open space requirement on rooftop terraces. Boardmember Baltay wanted the professionals to check if that number would be the right amount. Chair Rosenberg thought having the requirement for open space at ground/podium level would force developers to make sure a minimum of 50 percent of open space would be required at ground or podium level. Ms. Raybould did not recall changing anything in the objective standards about the requirements of open space in terms of how much open space but they did put standards in on what was defined as open space, making sure it is large enough and meeting certain dimension requirements. There were a lot of references to ensure privacy, especially if it was placed in a rooftop setting. She thought they had some allowances for rooftop in some of the RM districts. Ms. Eisberg saw some standards in 18.40.230 which regulate rooftop gardens including the exemptions on the height limit, landscaping requirements at the rooftop, noise and performance standards. Female thought they heard direction from the Board of some interest to allow some of the open space to be on the roof but concern about privacy and having some of the open space on the ground level or podium, at least through landscaping. She agreed to look into this more based on that direction. Chair Rosenberg felt a reduction in retail requirements would allow easier development of these properties but she also supported incentivization. She though the potential of adding an extra height if going retail was a moot point with increasing everything by five feet anyway. She asked if the Board was comfortable with the reduction in retail requirements that had been proposed if there ideas for how to incentivize it back as not a requirement but as something that could be a benefit. Item 4 Attachment A: Minutes of October 3, 2024     Packet Pg. 122     Page 12 of 14 Architectural Review Board Special Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 10/03/24 Boardmember Baltay stressed the importance of the ground floor of these buildings activating the pedestrian way and not just be a wall with parking. He thought it could be retail or just the lobby to the building, the mailroom or a bicycle storage area. He the ground floor retail thing was trying to restructure society and put stores where nobody wants to run a business. His goal was to activate the frontage so it is seen that people live and work there. Chair Rosenberg thought having some sort of activation was important and questioned how that would be accomplished and how to prohibit parking from being adjacently facing the streetscape. Boardmember Hirsch opined commercial wants to be on street frontage so that poses a problem. He thought commercial has to be based on population that needs it nearby. He wished for a better way to determine something like that. He said small shopping centers were nice to have. Individual buildings separate from population or from other commercial do not generally work well. Chair Rosenberg agreed with Boardmember Hirsch's comments. She thought the reduction of retail requirements was appropriate but she was concerned if it was basically parking all the way up to sidewalk space and street facing space. She wanted the Board to figure out a way to come up with an idea that says how they can help prohibit this parking from just being concrete walls on sidewalks with parking on the other side. The goal was activating the streetscape and could be accomplished with things like mail rooms or bike rooms maintaining a buffer zone of activated space on streetscape ground floor level. Boardmember Baltay added regulating how the parking podium is constructed changes the economics of the project. There cannot be a ground floor podium because the front 20 feet or so has to be something else. It makes the building process more complicated. He thought the right regulation was to say something like no parking within 20 feet of frontage. Chair Rosenberg asked if the distance was the requirement the wanted to put in place or could they just say no parking is the immediate forefront of a building at street facing and let them figure that out. A 10-foot mail room would provide the buffer. She would hesitate to say 20 feet if they can come up with a creative solution. She suggested keeping the open ended regulation of saying there must be a buffer of some type of activated space between parking and streetscape. Boardmember Baltay suggested letting Planning staff know their concern was somehow activating the frontage with something other than parking. Chair Rosenberg was less concerned if it was a corner lot than the front side. The longer side could be activated and the short side might go all the way out to the edge. Boardmember Baltay felt they should be conscious of the fact that it was a distinct negative for builders and they want staff to hear from them that they are aware of that and think it is important. Boardmember Hirsch did not think the podium should face the street. Chair Rosenberg agreed the Board was unanimous on that but did not have language to regulate exactly how it should be done. Item 4 Attachment A: Minutes of October 3, 2024     Packet Pg. 123     Page 13 of 14 Architectural Review Board Special Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 10/03/24 Mr. Call added the podium is not necessarily just parking. It could have residential units, retail or the mail room. It is simply type one construction. He agreed it was important. He appreciated flexibility on the side streets. Boardmember Baltay advised that to reduce the cost and complexity of underground parking two requirements that factor is how the ramps that go down into the spaces are designed and making dewatering requirements less difficult. Boardmember Hirsch wondered why buildings were being allowed to be so close to each other on San Antonio Road. Chair Rosenberg thought the developers would have to deal with that when they have zero setback limitations. Boardmember Baltay opined that is why they put the daylight plane guardrails in. Vice Chair Chen questioned the timeline of the permitting process between the HIP and the State Density Bonus Plan. Ms. Eisberg responded there are no prescribed timelines for the housing incentive program or the State Density Bonus Law. There is a 30-day completeness review for both projects. The way the Housing Incentive Program was originally devised, there was a requirement for architectural review, which meant up to three hearings with the ARB. Since the adoption of HIP, they have the objective design standards and the streamlined review process. Now a project that is requesting HIP can also be eligible for the streamlined review if the project is meeting the objective standards. That means only one study session with the ARB. Vice Chair Chen was curious about the meaning of the proposed area on the map on packet page 67. Ms. Eisberg explained the housing element program 3.4 was specific about how this extends. It would only apply in certain commercial districts and has been proposed to be added to the GM ROLM focus area on the eastern side of the city and all of the housing inventory sites. This could capture both the existing parcels that are eligible and proposed parcels could capture sites that have been recently redeveloped or that we wouldn't expect to develop as housing. It is not intended to suggest that a housing development project might happen there. Chair Rosenberg summarized the final thoughts of the ARB for the staff. 1. On FAR, they were in favor of eliminating a maximum FAR and they would like to rely on daylight planes, setbacks and height limits to determine the floor areas that can be done. 2. They were comfortable with the municipal code standard of 25 feet at a 45 degree angle for the majority of properties. However, if the property is adjacent to any low-density residential neighborhood, a low two story building or any of the residential units, that limit should be restricted to a 16-foot height limit at 45 degrees per the packet recommendation. They would also like to include an additional five-foot height bonus across the board to what is being shown in the packet to account for parapet walls and grade changes. That five-foot height limit should be the maximum height, including parapet walls. The rooftop elevators and staircases should be Item 4 Attachment A: Minutes of October 3, 2024     Packet Pg. 124     Page 14 of 14 Architectural Review Board Special Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 10/03/24 exempt from the height restriction per the objective standards codes that were previously reviewed approved. 3. Regarding parking, the Board is amenable to half a space required per studio/efficiency apartment and one space required for all other units. They wanted to request that PTC and staff review an appropriate ratio number for requirement of service parking spaces per units in a building. They thought the one to three ratio from the townhouse study was too restrictive. That recommendation was based on the impact on the building design and construction and not parking need. They would like to see setback limits for parking from streetscape to maintain an activated sidewalk space and streetscape. They do not have firm size requirements or percentage lengths but they want to make sure the primary streetscape stays activated. 4. Regarding open space requirements, they were amenable to the percentages that were requested for each of the zoning types. They were amenable to rooftop terraces following the previously stated objective standards reviewed for that. They want to maintain privacy standards. They were amenable to being either at ground or podium level. They wanted to see at least 50 percent at ground podium level and beyond that could be more open for interpretation. 5. They were comfortable reducing any retail requirements per the packet. They wanted to make sure the streetscape stays activated. They would leave the capacity of that up to the developer and City Staff. She asked that staff provide a follow-up after the next PTC hearing. She would sit in on that meeting and bring it back to the Board. She wanted to know what happens next. Female agreed to do that. Approval of Minutes 3. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for September 5, 2024 Chair Rosenberg requested changing the word "pain" to "paint" on packet page 78. Vice Chair Chen requested changing "grass floor area" to "gross floor area" on packet page 76. MOTION: Chair Rosenberg moved to approve the minutes as written with the two adjustments, seconded by Boardmember Hirsch. VOTE: Motion carried 4-0. Board Member Questions, Comments, Announcements Or Future Meetings And Agendas None. Adjournment Chair Rosenberg adjourned the meeting at 1:09 PM Item 4 Attachment A: Minutes of October 3, 2024     Packet Pg. 125     Item No. 5. Page 1 of 1 Architectural Review Board Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: November 7, 2024 Report #: 2410-3653 TITLE Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for October 17, 2024 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) adopt the attached meeting minutes. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Minutes of October 17, 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 5 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 126     Page 1 of 8 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 10/17/24 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MEETING DRAFT MINUTES: October 17, 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 October 17, 2024 in Council Chambers and virtual teleconference at 8:43 AM. Present: Chair Kendra Rosenberg, Vice Chair Yingxi Chen, Boardmember Mousam Adcock, Boardmember Peter Baltay (late), Boardmember Hirsch Absent: None. Oral Communications None. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Steven Switzer, Historic Preservation Planner/new ARB Liaison, announced that the public hearing for 762 San Antonio Road would be rescheduled for a later time. Chair Rosenberg discussed some minor procedural changes that were developed in the pre-hearing meeting. City Official Reports 1. Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2) Tentative Future Agenda items and 3) Recently Submitted Projects Mr. Switzer gave a slide presentation providing details on the 5 upcoming meetings left in the year, a new project at 3997 Fabian Way and tentative meeting dates for the following year. He asked the Board members to reach out to staff, him or Veronica Dao if they had any upcoming planned absences. Chair Rosenberg indicated there were a few SB330/Builder's Remedy projects still in the works but there would be no more after those. SB330s would continue but Builder's Remedy's would not. Boardmember Hirsch queried if reviewers would be assigned to see those projects when they come in. Chair Rosenberg opined that once they were a few weeks out on the agenda they should start doing the ad hoc or prereview. Study Session Item 5 Attachment A: Minutes of October 17, 2024     Packet Pg. 127     Page 2 of 8 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 10/17/24 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 Emily.Kallas@Cityofpaloalto.org Chair Rosenberg advised that this was the second time the project was brought before the Board. She asked for a raise of hand from anyone who has visited the site and all members raised their hand and there were no disclosures. Emily Kallas, Project Planner, gave a slide presentation about 4075 El Camino Ways with a project overview, project location, background/process, key considerations, landscape screening, parking and TDM plan, privacy measures for windows facing Wilkie Way, noise mitigation, neighbor comments, environmental review and recommended motion. Boardmember Baltay wanted to confirm that because this was a PC amendment that the final decision would to go City Council. Chair Rosenberg confirmed that comment to be correct. Daniel Bowman, project architect, gave a slide presentation showing images of the existing courtyard for the phase 1 renovation showing the color scheme, outlining the requests of the amendment to the existing PC, images of the proposed addition locations, existing photos, updated landscape plan, privacy screening, shadow study – March and June 21 and December 21, color scheme, 3D elevations and balcony removal. PUBLIC COMMENT Natalie Chu wanted evergreen trees for more privacy. She requested having the parking situation on Wilkie Way addressed complaining that her and her neighbors' driveways were often blocked by cars by healthcare workers and Goodwill staff. Yanfeng Wang spoke about having excessive shade cover from the Common blocking sunshine in her backyard, parking issues and noise from the AC. Kevin Ji had submitted written comments that he hoped the ARB would take into consideration. He also mentioned the engagement model with the applicant where he was invited to talk about shade and other issues. He was able to provide feedback and asked to be provided an example of what would be shown to the ARB but did not get that opportunity and was just told to show up at the ARB meeting. He remarked that the existing noise issue had not been resolved. He was concerned about parking issues. He highlighted having the setback removed would reduce the high to low density transitions which are part of the municipal code. He opposed having additional shade in his backyard. He felt the 10 foot setback with a 45 degree angle was more aggressive against the neighborhood than normal building would be. Item 5 Attachment A: Minutes of October 17, 2024     Packet Pg. 128     Page 3 of 8 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 10/17/24 Mona expressed strong opposition for the Palo Alto Commons expansion. She hoped the ARB had seen an email she sent. She felt the design was a violation to municipal code 18-7202A. She had issue with the height of the building, excessive shading of her yard and privacy issue. Jayashree Divekar was in agreement with the other public commenters. She remarked that privacy was the biggest issue. Tree roots destroyed her concrete in her backyard. She mentioned the parking issues. She opposed the expansion completely. She advised that her property value would be diminishing because of this project. Charlene Kussner, WellQuest Living, advised they had met extensively with Wilkie Way neighbors. Four neighbors attended the last minute that was mostly about landscape screening and ways to rework the building to offer privacy, which they want to cooperate with. In response to the comment that they have not been responsive to email communication, she described email outreaches she had sent to the neighbors. She remarked they were taking all of the requests into consideration but not all of the neighbors were in agreement. They completed their TDM plan and had been working in cooperation with that plan incentivizing carpooling and encouraging staff to park in their garage in response to the parking issues. Noise studies had been done for the PAC building that all fell below approved levels. They were working with one resident for a solution to mitigate noise coming from the pool and spa pump. She reiterated that they want to be a good neighbor and were working to address the issues. Mr. Bowman added the reason the daylight plane was 10 feet and then 45 degrees was per municipal code, PCs pulled from the adjacent property in this instance and the adjacent property daylight plane is the 10 to 45 degrees. Boardmember Adcock was curious if the parking study included people who were not employees. Ms. Kussner responded they only had about four residents who use outside care providers so the TDM was for staff parking use. Their studies have shown they are adequately parked for residents and guest parking. Chair Rosenberg asked if they had a process or procedure in place for when someone does come as an attendant. She wanted to know if there was any sort of parking pass or something on Wilkie Way that may be explored for the neighbors to get free parking passes for their own street. Ms. Kussner explained signage has been placed in the parking lot and at the garage entry where the gate is. They have a call box there and the procedure is to actually park in the garage or in front of the garage. Ms. Kallas advised there are residential parking permit programs in some neighborhoods in Palo Alto but not on Wilkie Way. That would be a separate project through the Office of Transportation that would require Council approval. She would have to look into the exact process. Boardmember Hirsch asked for clarification of the daylight plane issues. Ms. Kallas responded the daylight planes that the neighbor was referencing was the 10 foot and 45 degree angle daylight plane that was adopted as a part of the original PC for Palo Alto Commons that had been determined to be applicable to this property under the existing zoning. The three foot rise for six foot run angle was required for new planned community projects adjacent to single family Item 5 Attachment A: Minutes of October 17, 2024     Packet Pg. 129     Page 4 of 8 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 10/17/24 residences. They took the existing planned community regulation into account while looking at the proposed addition. Boardmember Baltay questioned if the original PC approval stipulated that the building had to conform to a daylight plane or just stipulate the design of the building. His understanding was that this was different from the original building; therefore, it would be a change to the current zoning standard. He wanted to know the process for getting past the gate for parking when visiting a resident. Ms. Kallas stated in the approved plans for the Palo Alto Commons building, the plans had daylight plane diagrams that show the 10 foot and 45 degree angle. The planned community zoning typically approves the building that was built which is why the addition was a PC amendment. Female added this would be a change to the zoning designation since the site had custom regulations and the previously approved zone did not include the additional units. When staff reviewed a project like this, they look for it to be consistent with the existing buildings on site but because of the custom zoning, it does allow for the options for doing things that might not have been allowed with what the previous zoning had been or other standard zoning. Ms. Kussner explained there were signs in the parking lot with a phone number to the receptionist. As the gate is approached, there is a sign on the wall with those instruction and there is a call box to the left hand side. She confirmed that the 79 spaces were for visitors and guests as the majority of residents did not have vehicles. She commented that during the process of the Planning Commission and ARB, the parking policies had been revamped and strengthened. All of their employees had gone through a checklist on the Human Resources software where they read and agreed to a memo. It has also been handed out to the resident's families and staff. Chair Rosenberg asked if a visiting nurse or healthcare provider would park in staff or visitor parking. Ms. Kussner responded they have been alerted to park behind the gate in the garage. Boardmember Hirsch asked if there was a communication with the neighbors when they called to complain that someone was parking in front of their house and how would they deal with the cars coming into the community for the construction project. Ms. Kussner answered that they do communicate with the neighbors about the parking. They have hosted public outreach meetings. She pointed out that it is a public street and they believe a lot of the traffic pattern is from Goodwill. She commented a few spots were taken for construction activities but they have cleaned out their garage and have finished with phase one of the construction project. There is now ample parking in their garage for staff and visiting nurses/care providers. For the construction project, they plan to use the Avant parking for their staff if they have to offset any needs under the garage. The contractor has been parking a majority of the staff offsite and shuttling in construction workers. She advised the phase two scope was less invasive than phase one. Vice Chair Chen wanted to know how many staff were onsite per daily and if there was designated parking for them behind the gate. Ms. Kussner responded their heaviest shift was late morning to late afternoon with upwards of 50 staff members. She explained there were no number assignments but they had allocated a certain area for staff parking and then for residents and guests closer to the building. Item 5 Attachment A: Minutes of October 17, 2024     Packet Pg. 130     Page 5 of 8 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 10/17/24 Boardmember Adcock queried if the proposed 57 was updated because of the additional 16 units. Ms. Kussner confirmed that was correct and there was a parking study completed by a third-party consultant of the City. Chair Rosenberg asked if there were any further comments by staff regarding the noise issue that had been discussed in the pre-hearing that was coming from the pool pump from the Avant that was being mitigated by piping. She understood the new heat pumps would be 53 decibels. Ms. Kallas remarked they had email and verbal conversations with code enforcement staff about the noise and it is ongoing. She confirmed the new heat pumps were 53 decibels. Boardmember Baltay recalled the source of the noise issue was onto the Palo Alto Commons building. Ms. Kallas said they reviewed the photos provided by that neighbor and determined the source of noise was from the Avant building. She added that mitigation is ongoing and other planning staff would need to review the improvement proposal in more detail. Vice Chair Chen wanted to know what existing plants were in the courtyard other than the grass. She asked if the 30 feet required by code for window privacy was window to window distance or if windows include to open space. Ms. Kussner explained there is a center grass area with some smaller trees that had been recently planted. They had to remove a tree due to illness but do not plan to remove other trees. There is a 200+ year oak on the Avant side that the owner built around to protect. She described a variety of trees, shrubs and flowering annuals to enhance the look and feel of the courtyard. They have a third-party landscape subcontractor onsite who monitors and corrects drip irrigation. Ms. Kallas remarked it would be window to window. Boardmember Baltay pointed out the code says 30 feet window to window and there is a window facing the neighbors that is 21 feet from the property line. He asked what the distance was to the nearest window. He wanted clarification that the window complied with the objective standards. He inquired if the specified tree was a native plant. Mr. Bowman answered the nearest window to that would be 20 feet past the property line so the nearest window would be 40 feet. That information was found on sheet 5.27. Ms. Kallas confirmed the window did comply with the objective standards. Ms. Kussner replied the landscape architect provided an alternative native species tree but was not sure it would be successful with the existing tree line based on the root structure and canopy. He recommended a non-native primary tree because it would be viable and well-suited to the tree line and canopy. If the neighbors want a native tree species in that area they would accommodate them. Tim Davis commented the native species would either be an oak or an incense cedar that would be very large trees that would impact the shade aspect. Introducing a native plant into that environment would not be conducive to one or the other because in order to successfully grow a native plant there would need to be a lot less water usage and they would be planting in a turf area which needs more water. Item 5 Attachment A: Minutes of October 17, 2024     Packet Pg. 131     Page 6 of 8 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 10/17/24 Chair Rosenberg mentioned commentary from a neighbor about the root structure of existing trees impacting her property and wanted explanation of the difference between sweet shade versus oak and cedar root structure. Mr. Davis explained most oak trees are wide spread canopy trees and the root structure would extend to the edge of the canopy over time. The sweet shade was more narrow and upright so would not have as wide of a root spread. They would be planting the sweet shade closer to their building and not close to the property line. He added this would provide screening of the residents yards versus additional shade. Boardmember Baltay recalled the Architectural Review Board required the use of native species and wanted to know if there was some language that provided variation to that. Chair Rosenberg agreed with Boardmember Baltay's comment and wondered about the neighbors' thoughts about oaks versus sweet shades. Ms. Kallas remarked the exact language of the finding is landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is appropriate to the site's function and utilizes, to the extent practical, regional, indigenous, drought-resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat that can be appropriately maintained. In this case where the screening situation is sensitive, it may be appropriate for the ARB to consider what would thrive best in the setting. Ms. Kussner added they took the emails and meeting notes and landed on most residents not wanting more shade in their backyard so did not want to impact that additionally so they worked with them on where they would like to see the tree location, the height, the foliage and the spread. Boardmember Adcock asked if the email from one neighbor who preferred extension of the fencing and vine growth instead of trees had been addressed. Ms. Kallas replied that was addressed by email. The maximum fence height of seven feet per the municipal code is inclusive of any sort of trellis structure. Therefore, a tall vine that is required to be supported by the trellis structure would not be allowed per the fence code. Boardmember Hirsch inquired how they would assure the neighbors that they would maintain the plantings. Ms. Kussner stated they would be open to conditioning the project to maintain privacy and screening in perpetuity. Vice Chair Chen wanted to know how fast the specified trees would grow and if they could require them to be planted at a certain height. Ms. Kallas responded it was typical for them to require new screening landscaping to be planted at the 24-inch box size and be at least 8 feet tall at the time of final inspection. She would double check and ensure that was included in the draft conditions of approval. Female added planting trees at a larger size is possible but is not the best way in terms of the long-term health of the tree. Boardmember Hirsch mentioned a comment in one of the letters about the color scheme. Item 5 Attachment A: Minutes of October 17, 2024     Packet Pg. 132     Page 7 of 8 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 10/17/24 Chair Rosenberg thought the new updated blue was more pleasant. Boardmember Adcock appreciated the composition of the colors. Boardmember Baltay, Boardmember Hirsch and Vice Chair Chen expressed support the color selection. Chair Rosenberg encouraged the applicant to continue with the strides they were taking in terms of the parking situation. Boardmember Baltay pointed out that some of the pressure was from the underparked Goodwill store as it has a lot of retail and employee traffic. Also, a lot of ADUs and additional uses on their property increased density. He advised the neighbors have the option of petitioning City Council to get a residential permit parking program. He thought Palo Alto Commons had adequate parking but that it was not properly utilized. He wanted to see staff aggressively work through the TDM program to make it work. They needed to make the garage more welcoming. He suggested getting rid of the gate as it was a hassle and adding more signage to direct people to the garage. Chair Rosenberg thought the 18 spots of surface parking was a stopping point and that people that visited often were used to the gate. She argued that the gate was helpful being a long-term memory facility. She agreed that the garage looked imposing and the use of lighting or vine planting could make it more inviting. Boardmember Adcock suggested having a regular update of the parking policies. Chair Rosenberg wanted the Board's opinions on the sweet shade versus oak, native versus non-native. She commended the applicant on the sun shadow studies. Boardmembers Baltay and Adcock supported the tree the professional recommends. Boardmember Adcock commended the applicant on the windows. Chair Rosenberg appreciated the zigzag shape on diminishing the impact on the neighbors. Boardmember Baltay supported the level of privacy impact the applicant had achieved through compliance with their objective standards. He mentioned a section called zoning compliance on packet page 21 that he strongly supported and wanted to see the Board support the rationale for this amendment change. Chair Rosenberg was in agreement with Boardmember Baltay's comments. MOTION: Boardmember Baltay moved recommending approval of the proposed project as presented to City Council based on findings subject to approval, seconded by Boardmember Adcock. VOTE: Motion carried 5-0. Approval of Minutes 3. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for September 19, 2024 MOTION: Chair Rosenberg moved to approve Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for September 19, 2024, as written, seconded by Vice Chair Chen. Item 5 Attachment A: Minutes of October 17, 2024     Packet Pg. 133     Page 8 of 8 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 10/17/24 VOTE: Motion carried 5-0. Board Member Questions, Comments, Announcements Or Future Meetings And Agendas Boardmember Baltay mentioned the upcoming City Council meeting where the ARB workplan would be presented and a memo to colleagues modifying the way cell phone tower applications are reviewed. He thought the Chair should request to have someone there to address the position of the ARB on both items. Chair Rosenberg responded that she would be in attendance for the ARB portion of the City Council meeting. Adjournment Chair Rosenberg adjourned the meeting at 10:15 AM Item 5 Attachment A: Minutes of October 17, 2024     Packet Pg. 134