Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-12-05 Architectural Review Board Agenda PacketARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD Regular Meeting Thursday, December 05, 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 ACTION ITEMS Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Ten (10) minutes, plus ten (10) minutes rebuttal. All others: Three (3) minutes per speaker. 2.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI‐JUDICIAL. 660 University Ave. [21PLN‐00341]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Planned Community/Planned Home Zoning (PC/PHZ) on Three Parcels (511 Byron St, 660 University Ave, and 680 University Ave/500 Middlefield Rd), Deconstruction of Existing Medical Office Buildings and Construction of a New Six‐Story Mixed‐Use Building with 66 Residential Rental Units and Approximately 9,100 sf of Office and a Two Level Below‐Grade Parking Garage. Environmental Assessment: Environmental Impact Report Circulated for Public Review Beginning on April 2, 2024 and Ending on May 17, 2024. Zoning District: RM‐20 (Multi‐ Family Residential). For More Information Contact the Project Planner, Emily Kallas, at Emily.Kallas@CityofPaloAlto.org. STUDY SESSION Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 3.Study Session to Review Potential Amendments to the Regulations for the El Camino Real Focus Area in Title 18 (Zoning Ordinance) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Implement Program 3.4E of the Adopted 2023‐2031 Housing Element. Environmental Assessment: On April 15, 2024, Council adopted Resolution No. 10155, approving an Addendum to the Comprehensive Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR). APPROVAL OF MINUTES Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 4.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for November 7, 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, December 05, 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 ACTION ITEMS Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Ten (10) minutes, plus ten (10) minutes rebuttal. All others: Three (3) minutes per speaker. 2.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI‐JUDICIAL. 660 University Ave. [21PLN‐00341]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Planned Community/Planned Home Zoning (PC/PHZ) on Three Parcels (511 Byron St, 660 University Ave, and 680 University Ave/500 Middlefield Rd), Deconstruction of Existing Medical Office Buildings and Construction of a New Six‐Story Mixed‐Use Building with 66 Residential Rental Units and Approximately 9,100 sf of Office and a Two Level Below‐Grade Parking Garage. Environmental Assessment: Environmental Impact Report Circulated for Public Review Beginning on April 2, 2024 and Ending on May 17, 2024. Zoning District: RM‐20 (Multi‐ Family Residential). For More Information Contact the Project Planner, Emily Kallas, at Emily.Kallas@CityofPaloAlto.org. STUDY SESSION Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 3.Study Session to Review Potential Amendments to the Regulations for the El Camino Real Focus Area in Title 18 (Zoning Ordinance) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Implement Program 3.4E of the Adopted 2023‐2031 Housing Element. Environmental Assessment: On April 15, 2024, Council adopted Resolution No. 10155, approving an Addendum to the Comprehensive Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR). APPROVAL OF MINUTES Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 4.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for November 7, 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, December 05, 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 ItemsACTION ITEMSPublic Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Ten (10) minutes, plus ten (10) minutes rebuttal. All others: Three(3) minutes per speaker.2.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI‐JUDICIAL. 660 University Ave. [21PLN‐00341]:Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Planned Community/PlannedHome Zoning (PC/PHZ) on Three Parcels (511 Byron St, 660 University Ave, and 680University Ave/500 Middlefield Rd), Deconstruction of Existing Medical Office Buildingsand Construction of a New Six‐Story Mixed‐Use Building with 66 Residential Rental Unitsand Approximately 9,100 sf of Office and a Two Level Below‐Grade Parking Garage.Environmental Assessment: Environmental Impact Report Circulated for Public ReviewBeginning on April 2, 2024 and Ending on May 17, 2024. Zoning District: RM‐20 (Multi‐Family Residential). For More Information Contact the Project Planner, Emily Kallas, atEmily.Kallas@CityofPaloAlto.org.STUDY SESSIONPublic Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.3.Study Session to Review Potential Amendments to the Regulations for the El Camino RealFocus Area in Title 18 (Zoning Ordinance) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to ImplementProgram 3.4E of the Adopted 2023‐2031 Housing Element. Environmental Assessment:On April 15, 2024, Council adopted Resolution No. 10155, approving an Addendum to theComprehensive Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR).APPROVAL OF MINUTES Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 4.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for November 7, 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, December 05, 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 ItemsACTION ITEMSPublic Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Ten (10) minutes, plus ten (10) minutes rebuttal. All others: Three(3) minutes per speaker.2.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI‐JUDICIAL. 660 University Ave. [21PLN‐00341]:Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Planned Community/PlannedHome Zoning (PC/PHZ) on Three Parcels (511 Byron St, 660 University Ave, and 680University Ave/500 Middlefield Rd), Deconstruction of Existing Medical Office Buildingsand Construction of a New Six‐Story Mixed‐Use Building with 66 Residential Rental Unitsand Approximately 9,100 sf of Office and a Two Level Below‐Grade Parking Garage.Environmental Assessment: Environmental Impact Report Circulated for Public ReviewBeginning on April 2, 2024 and Ending on May 17, 2024. Zoning District: RM‐20 (Multi‐Family Residential). For More Information Contact the Project Planner, Emily Kallas, atEmily.Kallas@CityofPaloAlto.org.STUDY SESSIONPublic Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.3.Study Session to Review Potential Amendments to the Regulations for the El Camino RealFocus Area in Title 18 (Zoning Ordinance) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to ImplementProgram 3.4E of the Adopted 2023‐2031 Housing Element. Environmental Assessment:On April 15, 2024, Council adopted Resolution No. 10155, approving an Addendum to theComprehensive Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR).APPROVAL OF MINUTESPublic Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.4.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for November 7, 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: December 5, 2024 Report #: 2411-3796 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. Item 1 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 5     Item No. 1. Page 2 of 2 UPCOMING ARB AGENDA ITEMS The following items are tentative and subject to change: MEETING DATE TOPICS December 19, 2024 •762 San Antonio: Builders Remedy (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 Adcock 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     Permit Type Filed Permit #Address Type Work Description Status/Notes Master Sign Program 11/7/24 24PLN-00322 340 Portage Av Mixed-Use Master Sign Program for the installation of 2 Project ID Monuments, 2 Entry ID's, 2 Parking ID's, 2 Directional Wall signs, 1 Brand/Tenant ID Wall sign, and 2 Tenant ID Canopy signs at The Cannery Palo Alto. Zoning District: RM-30 (Medium Density Multiple-Family Residence District). Environmental Assessment: Pending. Item 1 Attachment B: Pending ARB Projects     Packet Pg. 14     Item No. 2. Page 1 of 11 Architectural Review Board Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: December 5, 2024 Report #: 2410-3648 TITLE PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 660 University Ave. [21PLN-00341]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Planned Community/Planned Home Zoning (PC/PHZ) on Three Parcels (511 Byron St, 660 University Ave, and 680 University Ave/500 Middlefield Rd), Deconstruction of Existing Medical Office Buildings and Construction of a New Six-Story Mixed- Use Building with 66 Residential Rental Units and Approximately 9,100 sf of Office and a Two Level Below-Grade Parking Garage. Environmental Assessment: Environmental Impact Report Circulated for Public Review Beginning on April 2, 2024 and Ending on May 17, 2024. Zoning District: RM-20 (Multi-Family Residential). For More Information Contact the Project Planner, Emily Kallas, at Emily.Kallas@CityofPaloAlto.org. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following actions: 1. Consider the proposed project and provide comments; 2. Consider the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Attachment F); 3. Consider the Draft Findings (Attachment B); and 4. Recommend continuation of the project to a date (un)certain EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The applicant proposes to deconstruct two existing medical office buildings (9,216 square feet) at 511 Byron Street and 680 University and rezone three existing parcels (511 Byron Street, 660 University Avenue, and 680 University Avenue/500 Middlefield Road) from RM-20 to Planned Home Zoning (PHZ) in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 18.38 (Planning Community Zoning). The parcels would be merged under a separate application, and the resulting parcel would be redeveloped with a new six-story mixed-use building with 66 multi-family residential units and 9,115 square feet of office space, including ground floor resident common space and an office lobby. The project also includes a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to allow office use in the Multiple-Family Land Use Designation in limited circumstances. Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 15     Item No. 2. Page 2 of 11 The City and the public have reviewed multiple versions of the proposed project in various hearings, as described in the Background section below. The most recent ARB hearing on this project was on April 18, 2024. The ARB recommended approval of a 63-unit, four-story development. However, the applicant requested to delay the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) hearing on the project, stating their intent to redesign the project based on previous comments from Council, PTC, and the ARB. The design has since been modified to increase the unit count from 63 to 66 units, to modify the mix of units and their affordability level, and to maintain the full 24-foot special setback on Middlefield above grade. Because the proposed development plan for this PHZ has been substantially modified, the project is returning to the ARB for a recommendation on the revised design. This report focuses on changes made to the project since the previous ARB meeting. On May 14, 2024, the applicant submitted an SB 330 pre-application for an alternative project on this site in accordance with the Builder’s Remedy provision, followed by a formal application on September 3, 2024. The applicant elected to continue to pursue the PHZ project as the primary application. If the application is not approved, the applicant has the option of reverting to the Builder’s Remedy application. A Draft Environmental Impact Report circulated for a 45-day review period beginning on April 2, 2024, and ending on May 17, 2024. The Draft EIR found there are no significant and unavoidable environmental impacts. A response to comments and Final EIR is being prepared and will be ready prior to a decision on the project. The Final EIR will also consider the revisions made to the design. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project includes deconstruction of the existing medical office buildings (9,216 square feet of medical office use) and rezoning of three existing parcels (511 Byron St, 660 University Ave, and 680 University Ave/500 Middlefield Rd) from RM-20 to “Planned Home Zone” (PHZ). The parcels would be merged under a separate subdivision map process, and the resulting parcel would be redeveloped, providing a new six-story mixed-use building with 10,583 square feet of ground floor common space, 66 multiple-family residential units, and 9,115 square feet of office space. The office space is primarily located on the sixth floor, with a small ground floor lobby. The project also includes a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to allow office use in the Multiple-Family Land Use Designation in limited circumstances. Since the previous ARB review the project has been modified to provide more one to two- bedroom units and fewer studios as well as to increase the overall unit count from 63 to 66 units. The project now includes 38 studios, 24 one-bedroom, and six two-bedroom units. One more below market rate (BMR) unit is provided as a result of the total unit increase for a total of 14-units (20%), and three of the units are now proposed to be provided at a deeper level of affordability. The project now provides three of the units at a rate affordable to extremely-low income, three at very-low income, four at low-income, and four at moderate income levels. Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 16     Item No. 2. Page 3 of 11 The applicant intends to submit a separate application for a Parcel Map to merge the lots and to create a vertical condominium subdivision of the office space from the residential space. The office has been relocated from the ground level to the sixth level, leaving space on the ground floor for a lobby to support the sixth-floor office use as well as other residential amenities, including but not limited to a fitness room for resident use. Parking spaces for both uses would be provided in a two-story below-grade parking garage. Requested Entitlements, Findings and Purview: The following discretionary application is being requested and subject to ARB for review: •Planned Community (PC/PHZ): The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC 18.38. The application requires initial review by the PTC, followed by review by the ARB. Upon recommendation from the ARB, the draft ordinance for the project is presented along with the development plan to the PTC for recommendation to the City Council for final action. Planned Community is intended to accommodate all types of developments, including combinations of uses appropriately requiring flexibility under controlled conditions not otherwise attainable under other districts. The 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 Comprehensive Plan Amendment would be reviewed by the PTC and then forwarded to Council for decision in accordance with PAMC Chapter 19.04. BACKGROUND City Council initially held a prescreening to review a conceptual plan for the proposed project at this site on October 25, 2021.1 The applicant submitted a formal application for a substantially similar project on December 21, 2021. Following staff’s initial review, the applicant resubmitted plans in May 2022 and again in August 2022 responding to various department comments. Initial PTC Review PTC reviewed the project on November 16, 20222, and recommended that the project be forwarded to the ARB for review in accordance with the PC rezoning process. The PTC provided the following feedback on the conceptual plans: •Noted that the BMR units are the same rent regardless of size, which makes the smaller units somewhat less desirable; •Suggested increased setbacks, particularly on the Middlefield Special Setback side; •Suggested increasing the parking; and 1 October 25, 2021, Council Report: bit.ly/3NTpv3J 2 November 16, 2022, PTC Report: https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Public/CompiledDocument?meetingTemplateId=15500&compileOutputType =1 Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 17     Item No. 2. Page 4 of 11 •Expressed split opinions regarding the proposed office use, height, and overall size. Architectural Review Board Review On December 1, 2022,3 the ARB held a hearing to provide initial comments on the plans. Key comments on the plan included: •Noted safety concerns about the proposed vehicular access on Middlefield given its proximity to the intersection; •Noted privacy concerns for windows on ground floor units; and for balconies of all units •Suggested improving bike and pedestrian circulation, such as providing ground-level bike parking and providing a roof at the building entrances. •Suggested reducing the encroachment into the Middlefield Special Setback, particularly above grade •Suggested incorporating warmer and richer materials, and more clearly defining the architectural style •Recommended the design could be improved to better fit the “base, middle, top” typology •Asked for additional detail regarding tree protection •Asked for a loading space to be provided. Following this hearing, the applicant made modifications to the project design, including changing the parking garage driveway entry from Middlefield Road to Byron Street. Additional revisions were made in response to the FEMA suspension of processing for all LOMR-F (Letter of Map Revisions based on fill) applications. As a result, the applicant redesigned the project to meet all flood zone requirements, including but not limited to FEMA requirements for the percentage of commercial use in a mixed-use development as well as moving all ground floor residential units to upper levels. The applicant resubmitted in September 2023. The project modifications resulted in a revised transportation analysis and an updated arborist report, which were then incorporated into the Draft EIR prior to publication. Concurrently, relevant departments reviewed the revised plans and provided updated comments and conditions. The ARB reviewed the project on April 18, 2024,4 during the Draft EIR circulation period and recommended Council approve the project with conditions. In particular, the ARB asked for the following items to return to an Ad Hoc: •That the tree protection zone be 33 feet at grade level and 30 feet above grade level; that Conditions of approval be added to say that the arborist recommendation be 3 December 1, 2022, ARB Report: https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Public/CompiledDocument?meetingTemplateId=15521&compileOutputType =1 4 April 18, 2024, ARB Report: https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Public/CompiledDocument?meetingTemplateId=13830&compileOutputType =1 Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 18     Item No. 2. Page 5 of 11 followed; that the bond be increased to 200%; that the balconies be removed on the units projecting into the tree canopy. •Review the window design on the Byron Street elevation for unit E2 to provide more transparency; •Provide roof deck screening of a minimum of six feet high for the roof deck facing south; •Include greater specification of all materials include complete material specifications and samples, the corner details, reduce the LRV level of the white paint finish to 83 or less; •Revise the foundation design to maintain a 10-foot setback along Middlefield Road except that the stairs may encroach to the minimum degree necessary for access; and •Provide at least 25% of the long-term bicycle parking readily accessible at grade. Following this ARB hearing, the applicant requested to pull this item from the scheduled PTC hearing on June 12, 2024, in order to propose a revised design. The applicant submitted the revised design on October 1, 2024. ANALYSIS The proposed project is still being reviewed by various departments, and modifications to the draft conditions of approval are anticipated through the staff review and hearing process. The changes to the project ask for larger deviations from the Zoning Code, including the PC Special Requirements. Therefore, staff recommends that the ARB provide comments and continue the project to a date uncertain. The project will be modified in response to staff and ARB comments prior to a recommendation. Following a recommendation from the ARB, the project will be brought forth to the PTC for a recommendation and to Council for a decision on the project. Neighborhood Setting and Character The neighborhood includes several four-story buildings, and this site is about two blocks away from the 15-story office tower at 525 University. Though this building will be adjacent to one- and two-story buildings and the project proposes to protrude into the required daylight plane that would otherwise be required for the RM-20 zone district, a six-story building is appropriate to the urban context and based on the sites proximity to the downtown area. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans, and Guidelines5 The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the project site is Multiple-Family Residential, which prescribes a density range of eight to 40 dwelling units per acre (du/ac), with higher densities allowed where measurable community benefits will be derived, and services and facilities are available. The project proposes a density of 126.9 du/ac, where the previously reviewed project had a density of 123.5 du/ac. The applicant proposes that the affordable housing units would be considered a measurable community benefit, thereby allowing the higher density. 5 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online: bit.ly/PACompPlan2030 Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 19     Item No. 2. Page 6 of 11 The project is requesting a Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment to modify the allowable uses in the Multiple Family Land Use Designation. However, the proposed office use has been moved from the ground floor to the sixth floor. Due to the project’s location in the flood zone, a minimum amount of commercial floor area is required to provide below grade parking. Staff recommends the Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment apply to other properties in the vicinity which could redevelop in the future, since below grade parking is one of the Objective Design Standard requirements. Zoning Compliance6 In accordance with the PHZ process, the project proposes to deviate from the Zoning Development Standards in the following ways, as detailed further in Attachment C: •Proposed land use (allowing non-conforming medical office to remain); •Encroachment into the Special setback/front yard (Middlefield Road) setback (0 feet [below grade only] where a 24 foot setback is required) •Encroachment into the street side yard (University Avenue) setback (6 feet where 16 feet is required) as well as 0 feet below grade; •Encroachment into the street side rear yard (Byron Street) setback (10 feet where 16 feet is required) as well as 0 feet below grade; •Height (73’6” where 35 feet is allowed); •Increased Lot Coverage: approximately 12,000 square feet where approximately 9,000 square feet is allowed; •Increased Floor Area: approximately 66,700 square feet where approximately 11,260 is allowed; •Reduced Useable Open Space; •No off-street residential loading space; •Daylight plane encroachment; and •A 30% reduction in required parking spaces. •The deviations from height, setbacks, and daylight plane also do not meet the PC Special Requirements This list is similar to the prior project plans, though the extent of deviation from the base zoning standards has increased. Additionally, the prior plans included an encroachment in the Middlefield Road Special Setback. The project has been redesigned to meet the 24-foot special setback above grade, though the parking garage does encroach into it below grade. The prior plans also included a 4,642 square foot roof deck above the fourth floor for use by the residents. This has been revised to provide a smaller 1,146 square foot deck at the sixth floor for use by the office tenant. Overall, this change helps to address privacy concerns previously raised by the ARB; however, it reduces the open space provided for residential tenants. Height 6 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: bit.ly/PAZoningCode Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 20     Item No. 2. Page 7 of 11 The building would have a height of 73 feet 6 inches, plus allowable rooftop mechanical equipment and elevator overrun, where the RM-20 maximum building height is 30 feet, the PC Special Requirements maximum height is 35 feet, and the previous plans proposed 50 feet 8 inches plus roof deck amenities. This property is in a flood zone, with the base flood elevation 1 foot 9 inches above existing grade. As shown on plan sheet A3.1A, the proposed height accommodates a commercial plate height of 13 feet 6 inches on the ground floor and 14 feet on the sixth floor, and residential plate heights varying from 9 feet 9 inches to 12 feet 3 inches. Instead of a roof deck, the project now has a sixth-floor deck for the office that does not contribute to the building height. While this is significantly taller than what is allowed in the RM-20 zone, it is still reasonable within the surrounding context of PC properties. Lytton Gardens is four stories, with a maximum height of 40 feet, plus rooftop equipment. The Hamilton is four stories, with a maximum height of 44 feet, plus rooftop equipment. Daylight Plane The RM-20 daylight plane would normally apply to this site, as the proposed interior setback qualifies it to use that daylight plane rather than the PC Special Requirements daylight plane. The project protrudes at the 5th and 6th floors adjacent to the single-family house as shown on Sheet A3.3B (Attachment F). The project also protrudes at the 4th-6th floors adjacent to the two- story dental office. No section drawing has been provided to depict this. However, this will be required to be shown on the plan sets prior to final approval. Neighbors have raised this as a concern as compliance with the daylight plane would also increase the distance from the protected Oak tree’s foliage. Open Space Overall, the project reduced the proposed usable open space in relation to the previous proposal. The rooftop garden was eliminated, though residents now have access to the 735- square-foot ground floor common open space. The City’s multi-family standards require 75 square feet per unit of common open space. For private open space, most units have balconies, which meet the minimum size requirement of 50 feet or greater, however six of the units do not have balconies. With the exception of the Type D corner units, which would overlook the single-family house, it is not clear why some units have balconies and others do not. Additionally, the ARB recommended removal of the balconies (previously nine, now 12) proposed within the canopy of the protected Oak tree. This would reduce useable open space and make the project non-complying for private open space. Tree Protection The project has been designed to protect the existing 50-inch Coast Live Oak tree on the neighboring property. Three arborist reports have been prepared for this project, one by the applicant, another on behalf of the City for the purposes of the EIR, and another by the neighbors. The EIR technical report (Attachment F) includes a LIDAR root scan. The ARB previously recommended that the building be modified to be at least 33 feet away from the tree below grade, and 30 feet above grade, including removing the balconies that encroach into the 30-foot buffer. Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 21     Item No. 2. Page 8 of 11 The proposed plans increased the below grade distance to up to 36 feet where possible, however it is not possible to modify the garage ramps in a way that would accommodate this in some locations. The minimum distance is always at least 30 feet, consistent with the previously reviewed plans. The applicant has also chosen to keep the balconies in the Tree Protection Zone (TPZ). It is does not appear that there would be a significant benefit from the additional three feet of protection. The same Urban Forestry conditions of approval will apply: all mitigation measures in the EIR’s Arborist Report shall be followed, a security bond shall be put in place at the time of building permits for 200% of the appraised replacement value of the tree, and the tree is subject to a three-year monitoring period after construction is completed. Multi-Modal Access & Parking The proposed project requests a 30% parking reduction, providing 77 spaces when 111 are required. This exceeds the 20% reduction that would otherwise be allowed by the Zoning Code. The applicant has submitted a transportation demand management (TDM) plan, which will be reviewed and approved by the Office of Transportation in conjunction with this project. The project is located within walking distance of Downtown businesses. The site is 0.6 miles from the Caltrain station. There is a SamTrans bus stop at University Avenue and Middlefield Road and a VTA bus stop at Channing Avenue and Middlefield Road. This project is not located along a Safe Route to School, but future residents could easily access Webster Street, which is a Safe Route to School for Addison Elementary School and Greene Middle School. Because special setbacks are intended for future transportation improvements, the PTC discussion on November 16, 2022, included consideration of the feasibility of a bike lane on Middlefield Road. However, on this and nearby blocks of Middlefield Road there are many existing buildings that do not meet the special setback, and the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan does not identify this area for planned bicycle improvements. Therefore, potential for a future bike lane may be limited. Nevertheless, conformance with the special setback above grade will improve the feasibility of adding a bike lane in the future. Public Benefit The City Council considers the provision of affordable housing units as a public benefit in the context of the PHZ process7. The revised plans propose a deeper level of affordability than the previous proposal and provide one additional unit as below market rate. Fourteen of the units would now be provided as below-market rate units (20%), three of which at the Extreme-Low Income level. The prior plans did not include any units at the Extremely-Low Income level. Those provided four Very-Low Income units, four Low Income units, and five Moderate Income units. The Table below provides a breakdown of the proposed unit mix. When calculating whether a PHZ project provides the required percentage of affordable units, the City provides greater weight to units at deeper affordability levels. For the purpose of this report, the 7 June 23, 2020, Council report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas-minutes- reports/reports/city-manager-reports-cmrs/year-archive/2020/id-10715.pdf Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 22     Item No. 2. Page 9 of 11 Extremely-Low Income units been assigned the same weighted value as Very-Low Income, but the ARB, PTC, and Council may consider if it should be weighted more considerably. 660 UNIVERSITY BELOW MARKET RATE UNIT CALCULATION Income Level Area Median Income Weighted Value Number of Units % of Actual Units Weighted % Extremely- low Income 16-30%1.9 3 4.5%9% Very-low Income 31-50%1.9 3 4.5%9% Low Income 51-80%1.2 4 6.1%7% Below Market Rate Units Moderate Income 81-120%0.6 4 6.1%4% Typical Units Above Moderate & Market Rate 121% +0 52 TOTAL 66 21.2%28.2% The proposed mix is not distributed amongst the unit sizes in a way that currently meets the Zoning Code. The plans currently show 10 studio units, three one-bedroom units, and one two- bedroom unit. The Zoning Code requires eight studio units, five one-bedroom units, and one two-bedroom unit. Staff notes that this would be required to be modified prior to decision. 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 $4,093,094.24 plus the Public Art 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. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Daily Post on November 22, 2024, which is 12 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on November 20, 2024, which is 14 days in advance of the meeting. Public Comments Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 23     Item No. 2. Page 10 of 11 Neighbors at The Hamilton have been involved in this process, primarily through emails from attorneys Leigh Prince and Christopher Ream. Concerns are primarily regarding noise, traffic, disruption to existing neighbors, and protection of the neighboring Oak tree. One new comment letter was received prior to the publication of this report. It and all other comment letters are included in Attachment E. This new letter primarily summarized the project process up to this point, and questioned whether TDM plans are effective. Staff has also responded to questions regarding application processing, hearing dates, and comparing the PHZ project and process to the Builder’s Remedy project and process. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. A Draft Environmental Impact Report was circulated for a 45-day review period beginning on April 2, 2024, and ending on May 17, 2024. The Draft EIR found there are no significant and unavoidable environmental impacts. Any potentially significant impacts associated with the proposed project can be mitigated as further discussed in the document, see Attachment F. Several public comments were received during the circulation period. A response to comments and Final EIR is being prepared and will be ready prior to the City Council hearing. The Final EIR will also consider the revisions made to the design and analyze whether those modifications would not result in a new or more significant impact than what was analyzed in the Draft EIR. If no new significant impacts would occur as a result of the proposed modifications, a revised Draft EIR is not required. A Final EIR, including a complete response to comments, would be published prior to Council’s decision on the project. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS 1. Continue to a date (un)certain; or 2. Recommend denial of the project based on revised findings. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Location Map Attachment B: PC and ARB Findings Attachment C: Zoning Comparison Attachment D: Applicant’s Project Description Letter Attachment E: Public Comments Attachment F: Project Plans and Environmental Documents Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 24     Item No. 2. Page 11 of 11 Report Author & Contact Information ARB8 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 8 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 25     30 24 24 24 24 30 24 24 First United_Methodist Church Alain Pinel Realtor Lytton Gardens 50.0'200.0' 50.0'200.0' 200.0' 50.0' 200.0' 200.0' 100.0' 100.0' 250.0' 225.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 200.0' 152.5' 19.3'3.0' 47.7' 25.2' 67.0' 22.2' 100.0' 125.0' 140.0' 112.5'140.0' 112.5' 160.0' 112.5' 160.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 100.0' 100.0'100.0' 100.0' 100.0' 25.0' 100.0' 25.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0'100.0' 59.0' 100.0' 59.0' 100.0' 66.0'100.0' 66.0' 50.0' 125.0' 50.0' 125.0' 50.0' 95.0' 50.0' 95.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 100.0' 100.0' 100.0' 100.0' 147.5' 400.0' 174.7' 47.8' 3.0'19.3'22.2' 133.0' 150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5' 75.0' 125.0' 50.0' 150.0' 75.0' 150.0' 75.0' 151.5' 75.0' 151.5' 75.0' 48.5' 7.0'1.5' 150.0' 50.0' 143.0' 75.0' 125.0' 75.0' 125.0' 48.5' 82.0' 48.5' 82.0' 35.0' 100.0' 35.0' 100.0' 40.0' 100.0' 40.0' 100.0'100.0' 35.0' 100.0' 57.5' 125.0' 57.5' 125.0' 67.5' 125.0' 67.5' 125.0'50.0' 90.0' 75.0' 150.0' 75.0' 150.0' 151.5' 75.0' 151.5' 75.0' 151.5' 75.0' 151.5' 75.0' 151.5' 75.0' 151.5' 75.0' 151.5' 75.0' 151.5' 75.0' 151.5' 75.0' 151.5' 75.0' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 25.0' 50.0' 100.0' 100.0'75.0' 75.0' 578 642-652630-640 600-610 415 405 434 765 750-798 482 486 490 483 547 526 649 625523 518 610 600 616 624 630 511 517 524 500 680 725 478 499 489 435 428 422 416 724 425 555 530 575 555 536 518 720 500 498 755 515 537 543539 720 519 UNIVERSITY AVENUE UNI V E R S I T Y A V E N U E BYR O N S T R E E T MIDDLEFIELD ROAD FULTON STREET MIDDLEFIELD ROAD WEBSTER STREET FULTON STREET HAMILTON AVENUE RM-20 PC-4173 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 Current Features Search Polygon 0' 68' Attachment ALocation Map 660 University 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, 2024-03-21 09:04:52Attachment A. Location Map (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) Item 2 Attachment A: Location Map _660 University     Packet Pg. 26     ATTACHMENT C DRAFT PC AND ARB FINDINGS 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 2 Attachment B: PC and ARB Findings     Packet Pg. 27     6 1 0 8 ATTACHMENT C ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 660 University Avenue, 21PLN-00341 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.13 (RM-20 DISTRICT) AND PROPOSED Regulation Required RM-20 ARB Recommended Plans New Proposed Minimum/ Maximum Site Area, Width and Depth 8,500 sf area, 70 foot width, 100 foot depth 103 feet by 225 feet; 22,526 sf (0.52 acre) 103 feet by 225 feet; 22,526 sf (0.52 acre) Minimum Front Yard (Middlefield) 24 foot Special Setback along Middlefield Road 10 feet above grade 0 feet below grade 24 feet above grade 0 feet below grade Street Rear Yard (Byron) 16 feet 10 feet 0 feet below grade 10 feet 0 feet below grade Street Side Yard (University) 16 feet 6 feet 0 feet below grade 6 feet 0 feet below grade Interior Side Yard (for lots greater than 70 feet in width) 10 feet 19 feet 6 inches 2’2” below grade 19 feet 6 inches 2’2” below grade Max. Building Height 30 feet 50’8” at four story parapet 57’2” at roof deck 62’8” at elevator overrun 73’6” at six story parapet 82’ at elevator overrun Interior Side Yard Daylight Plane 10 feet at interior side lot line then 45 degree angle Partial 4th floor encroachment Partial 4th floor – 6th floor encroachment Max. Site Coverage 35% (plus an additional 5% for covered patios or overhangs) (7,884 + 1,126 = 9,010 sf) 58% (13,071 sf)53.3% (12,001 sf) Max. Total Floor Area Ratio 0.5:1 (11,263 sf) 2.18:1 (48,991 sf) Mixed-Use; Replacement Office: 9,115 sf Residential: 39,806 sf Other: 1,091 sf 2.96:1 (66,669 sf) Mixed-Use; Replacement Office: 9,115 sf Residential: 46,993 sf Other: 10,583 sf Residential Density 11 to 20 units per acre (5 to 10 units) 63 DU on 0.52 acre = 123.5 units per acre 66 DU on 0.52 acre = 126.9 units per acre Minimum Site Open Space 35% 7,884 sf 42% Ground level open space: 9,455 sf 49.7% Ground level open space: 11,189 sf Item 2 Attachment C: Zoning Table     Packet Pg. 28     6 1 0 8 Minimum Usable Open Space 150 sf per unit 9,450 sf Roof terrace: 4,642 sf Balconies: ~60 sf per unit (typical), 5,230 sf total Total ~156 per unit The office ground level deck area: ~1,120 sf does not count towards the residential open space requirement Ground level patio: 735 sf Balconies: ~60 sf per unit (typical), 5,623 sf total Total ~85 per unit The office 6th floor deck area: ~1,146 sf does not count towards the residential open space requirement Minimum Common Open Space 75 sf per unit Roof terrace: 4,642 sf 73.7 sf per unit Ground level patio: 735 sf 11.1 sf per unit Minimum Private Open Space 50 sf per unit 3 units do not have private open space All other units have balconies ranging from 60 sf to >400 sf 6 units do not have private open space All other units have balconies ranging from 60 sf to >400 sf *Bold indicates modification in comparison to base zoning Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.38.150 SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR PC Requirement when Adjacent to RE, R-1, R-2, RM or applicable PC district Proposed (b) The maximum height within 150 feet of any RE, R-1, R-2, RMD, RM, or applicable PC district shall be 35 feet 73’6” at six story parapet (c) A minimum interior yard of 10 feet shall be required, and a solid wall or fence between 5 and 8 feet in height shall be constructed and maintained along the common site line. Interior setback 19’6”, project shall include interior fence (d) A minimum street-side or front yard of 10 feet shall be required. For housing projects, the minimum yard requirement shall be at least as restrictive as the yard requirements of the most restrictive residential district opposite such site line. The minimum yard shall be planted and maintained as a landscaped screen, excluding areas required for access to the site. Setbacks on street frontages range from 6 ft to 20 ft above grade, all are 0 ft below grade (e) A maximum height established by a daylight plane beginning at a height of ten feet at the applicable side or rear site lines and increasing at a slope of three feet for each six feet of distance from the side or rear site lines until intersecting the height limit otherwise established for the PC district; for housing projects, the daylight planes may be identical to the daylight plane requirements of the most restrictive residential district abutting each such side or rear site line until intersecting the height limit otherwise established for the PC district. If the residential daylight plane, as allowed in this section, is selected, the setback regulations of the same adjoining residential district shall be imposed. Because the setback is over 6 feet, the project may use the RM-20 daylight plane. However, this project does not comply with PC or RM-20 daylight plane for the interior side Item 2 Attachment C: Zoning Table     Packet Pg. 29     6 1 0 8 Table 3: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 Off-Street Parking for Multiple-Family Residential Type ARB Recommended Plans New Proposed Office 14 regular/carpool 4 ADA = 8 spaces 22 provided, 40% reduction 13 regular/carpool 4 ADA = 8 spaces 21 provided, 43% reduction Housing 48 – Studio; 36 spaces 12 - 1-bedroom; 8 spaces 6 - 2-bedroom; 6 spaces Plus 5 unassigned ADA spaces that count as 10 towards the minimum parking requirement 60 provided, 10% reduction 46 stacker spaces Plus 5 unassigned ADA spaces that count as 10 towards the minimum parking requirement 56 provided, 24% reduction Vehicle Parking Total 22 Commercial 60 Residential 82 total, 20% reduction 21 Commercial 56 Residential 77 total, 30.6% reduction Loading Space for Office None Proposed None Proposed Loading Space for Residential None Proposed None Proposed Bicycle Parking Short Term 5 short term rack spaces 100 space long-term enclosure spaces, 80 residential, 20 office 5 short term rack spaces 100 space long-term enclosure spaces, 80 residential, 20 office Item 2 Attachment C: Zoning Table     Packet Pg. 30     349 Sutter Street San Francisco California 94108 KSH Architects | 349 Sutter Street San Francisco California 94108 | 415.954.1960 PROJECT DESCRIPTION – 660 UNIVERSITY AVE, PALO ALTO Located on a prominent site in Palo Alto, the 660 University project is situated on University Avenue between Middlefield Road and Byron Street. The project proposes a mixed-use 6-story building with two (2) levels of below-grade parking and includes the following: 9,115 square feet of office space on the ground and sixth floors; 66 residential units with an entry lobby; a shared fitness center for office and residential uses; and parking to service both uses. The residential and office entrances are located on University Avenue with recessed alcoves designed to welcome tenants, connected to the sidewalk grade via ramps and stairs. Separate elevators are also provided for each use and are accessible from the below grade parking levels. Natural finishes have been selected for the exterior of the building, including clear glass, board- formed concrete, simulated wood panels and horizontal siding. The residential and office elevator towers on University Avenue, as well as the stair towers on Middlefield Road and Byron Street, are expressed as sculptural forms highlighted by extensive landscaping at the edges of the site. Changes in plane, setbacks, and projecting balconies further contribute to the character and texture of the proposed building. Three parcels will be combined and two existing office buildings on the site will be demolished in order for this project to proceed. We are estimating that the approximate start date for construction will be 10/01/2026, and the approximate end date for construction will be 09/01/2027. On sheet A0.1 of this submittal package (Project Information), detailed information is provided regarding Land Use, FAR, Unit Counts, Building Area, Density, Parking Counts, Site Coverage, Open Space, Building Height and Setbacks, which is also summarized below for reference. Context The project is designed to be a high-quality addition to Palo Alto. Features include changes in plane, the expression of varied heights in the building volumes, material and color variation, recessed windows and projecting balconies with glass railings. In addition to the private balconies, a terrace for residents is proposed at the roof, to provide common open space. The project has taken steps to respond to the surrounding context of the site. The form of the building steps down toward the adjacent residence located at 524 Middlefield Road and responds to the context of the neighboring single-family use lot through setbacks along the common property line. The shared fence between the neighboring property and the site will be updated based on multiple discussions with the resident of 542 Middlefield Road, and the proposal has been received positively by the neighbor. To avoid heavy congestion along Middlefield Road, trash staging has been split along two streets; residential trash is staged on Byron Street, while office trash is staged on Middlefield Road. The vehicular entry to the parking garage is also located on Byron Street to avoid further congestion along Middlefield Road. The preservation of a large oak tree, located on an adjacent parcel, is incorporated into the design, and conforms to all recommendations and setbacks prescribed by a city approved arborist. An outdoor deck will also be constructed beneath Item 2 Attachment D: Project Description Letter     Packet Pg. 31     349 Sutter Street San Francisco California 94108 KSH Architects | 349 Sutter Street San Francisco California 94108 | 415.954.1960 the existing oak tree without disturbing the existing conditions of the root system. The team for this project successfully designed & constructed a similar project at 250 Bryant in Mountain View (3 stories with two levels of below grade parking) around an existing oak tree and has experience with this type of installation. The project front yard (Middlefield Rd) has a special 24 ft. setback that is required per the current zoning map. The design seeks to comply with the 24 ft. setback, but proposes added height in order to deliver the needed housing to Palo Alto. The setback area proposes a landscaped area trees to transition between the sidewalk and the building. Combined with the 12 ft. sidewalk width, both the proposed buildings is located 36 ft. from the face of the curb on Middlefield Road. The street side yard setback (University Ave.) requires a 16 ft. setback per zoning, or a 0-20’ setback on arterial roadways. The project proposes 6 ft setback is currently proposed, and combined with a 12 ft wide sidewalk, places the building 18 ft. from the face of curb on University Ave. Similarly, the street rear yard (Byron St) proposes a 10 ft setback where 16 ft is required. With the 10ft sidewalk width, the face of the proposed building is 20 ft. from the face of the curb on Byron Street. The interior side yard requires a 10 ft setback. In order to accommodate the existing oak tree canopy, our building proposes a 25.5 ft. minimum setback, and a 28.5 ft. maximum setback with additional insets. In addition, while the form of the building steps down to respond to the single family residence at 534 Middlefield Rd., it does not fully comply with the daylight plane condition. This is shown in 2/A3.3B in the drawing set. Open Space – 35% min. required The proposed design provides 11,189 SF (49.7%) ground level open space as well as the following: 735 SF of private (residential) common terrace area at the ground floor; 4,404 SF of private (residential) balcony area; 1,219 SF of private (residential) terrace area on the fourth floor (subdivided for the 2 units adjacent); and 1,146 SF of private (office) terrace area on the roof. In total, ~6,358 SF of private residential balcony & private/common terrace area is provided where 9,900 SF is required. The project proposes 6 units without private balconies. However, the other 60 units are provided with private balconies of minimum 60 square feet each. The ground floor terrace will provide a private space that allows for small and large gatherings, and acts as an extension of the indoor residential lounge directly adjacent. The office terrace is located along the rear setback. The proposal includes raised planters with planting to maintain privacy for office users. The layout obscures sight lines from the terrace towards the neighboring properties, with occupiable areas set away from the perimeter guardrail. Item 2 Attachment D: Project Description Letter     Packet Pg. 32     349 Sutter Street San Francisco California 94108 KSH Architects | 349 Sutter Street San Francisco California 94108 | 415.954.1960 FAR – 0.5:1 max, min. 11 units – max 20 units / acre The proposed office FAR is 0.875 & the proposed residential FAR is 2.085 (66 units for ~ 0.5 acres where 10 are allowed) for a combined proposed FAR of 2.96. This residential FAR calculation includes the proposed units, stairs, elevators, MEP rooms, lobby, and other residential amenities to support the residential units. The project seeks to exceed the allowable FAR in order to provide much needed housing within the downtown community. Jobs/Housing Ratio The existing combined office area (to be removed) on the subject parcels is 9,216 SF, of which 9,115 SF (~100 SF decrease) is proposed to be replaced within the current project. In addition, the project seeks to provide 66 new housing units (combination of studios, 1-BRs & 2-BRs) to the community. Parking With the proposed project being less than a mile from the University Ave. Caltrain station, the project has proposed a robust TDM plan to allow for a parking reduction of 30% overall. In addition, the residential parking is proposed primarily of independent mechanical stackers with pits (2 vehicles per stall) in order to limit the below grade scope to two levels and minimize the amount of below grade excavation and potential dewatering that may be required. Affordability The project sponsor is also including the housing affordability component for this project and was planning to distribute the 20% inclusionary requirement across three income levels. Here would be the breakdown of the 14 affordable units (20% of total unit count): Income Level A1 A3 B1 B2 C E1 H J Total Below Market Rate Units (20%, 14 total) Ext. – low income 1 1 1 3 Very – low income 1 1 1 3 Low Income 1 1 1 1 4 Moderate Income 1 1 1 1 4 Total 14 13 Unit Typology Studio: Unit Type A1-3, B1-4, C, F1 (431 – 521 SF) 1 Bedroom: Unit Type D1-2, E2, F2, G, H, J (570 – 877 SF) 2 Bedroom: Unit Type E1, F2 (840 – 871 SF) Item 2 Attachment D: Project Description Letter     Packet Pg. 33     349 Sutter Street San Francisco California 94108 KSH Architects | 349 Sutter Street San Francisco California 94108 | 415.954.1960 Unit Design A large variety of different unit plans will be provided, ranging from 431 SF to 877 SF. All but six units will be provided with at least one private balcony of minimum 60 SF. Two units at the fourth floor (2 studios + 1 1BR) provided with larger private terraces of at least ~375 SF each. Each unit will include a full-size ADA compliant bathroom & kitchen with a full-size stacking or side-by-side washer/dryer. Approximately 46% of the units will be 1BR & 2BR, with the remainder provided as studios. Floor Unit A1 Unit A2 Unit A3 Unit B1 Unit B2 Unit B3 Unit B4 Unit C Unit D1 Unit D2 Unit E1 Unit E2 Unit F1 Unit F2 Unit G Unit H Unit J Total per Floor Second 2 2 1 2 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 19 Third 1 3 1 2 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 19 Fourth 1 1 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 16 Fifth 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 12 Total per Unit 4 5 4 7 4 8 2 2 2 4 4 4 2 2 4 4 4 66 RM-20 Zoning compliance The proposed project requests City Council consideration of the following adjustments under a PC application, to approve 66 new units to the RM-20 district: 1. Increased height: The max building height allowed for RM-20 is 30’. The proposed project seeks to provide a 6-story building with max. 56’-2” height to the top of the occupied sixth floor (57’-11 ½” from grade), or 70’-2” height to top of the roof slab (71’-11 ½” from grade). 2. Increased FAR: 0.5 to 2.96 as noted above, including increased density of 66 units from 10/0.5 acre allowed. 3. Reduced parking: 111 stalls are required (37 office + 72 residential including assigned + 2 unassigned ADA). The proposed project seeks to provide a minimum of 78 stalls utilizing a 30% TDM reduction. 4. Open Space: 9,900 SF of private and common residential open space is required. The proposed project seeks to provide less open space than required for the residential tenants (6,358 SF). 5. Daylight Plane: Allowance to not comply with the daylight plane condition adjacent to the single family residence at 534 Middlefield Rd. Item 2 Attachment D: Project Description Letter     Packet Pg. 34     660 University Avenue Development Issues An Executive Summary for ARB Meeting December 5, 2024 Need to consider the following: 1. Inadequacy of 78 stalls for 66 units plus businesses. 2. How brochures and passes get people out of their cars. 3. If we don’t know compliance for 2 years, there is no going back. 4. Insist on two-year data from previous TDM Specialists, Inc. to prove effectiveness. 5. History of This Project Nearby residents of the proposed 660 University development have been opposed to several aspects of the development and have made our objections known to every city committee that held a hearing. It started with shoe-horning in too much building on too small a property which was 4 stories tall with 70 units and size remains an issue. October 25, 2021 Council held a prescreening to review a conceptual plan for the proposed project on October 25, 2021. The formal PHZ application was submitted on December 21, 2021. Following staff’s initial review and subsequent resubmittal, the PTC reviewed the project on November 16, 2022 and recommended that the project be forward to the ARB for review in accordance with the PC rezoning process. December 1, 2022 The ARB reviewed the same plan set on December 1, 2022. Since this time, the applicant made significant modifications to the project, including changing the parking garage driveway entry from Middlefield Road to Byron Street, as well as removing residential uses from the ground floor to meet FEMA flood zone requirements and address ARB comments related to privacy for ground floor units. This submittal was received on September 1, 2023, ten months after the last public hearing. The plans have been further refined over three rounds of staff review in the last seven months to address various staff comments. Key comments from Board members and the applicant’s response to those comments are summarized in the Exhibit file found separately. Dec. 1, 2022 ARB Meeting A previous Architecture Review Board hearing listened to our objections and sent Smith Development away to make some amendments that would be more suitable for your board and nearby residents on Dec. 1, 2022. Key comments from Board members and the applicant’s response to those comments were summarized. Only change was drive-way moved to Byron St. all others were left alone. You can see Exhibit results separately. April 18, 2024 ARB Meeting Further recommendations by 3 Board members were adjustments be made to the plans. 1. Remove extended balconies from units B1, B1, and A2 from Historic Oak tree. 2. 6 foot screening on 4th floor roof deck to reduce noise and maintain privacy. 3. Inadequate parking remained an issue. 4. Consider the Draft Environmental Impact Report The purpose of this report is to restate the comments made by the Board and detail the applicant’s response to those comments. The analysis section below builds upon the information contained in the earlier report and has been modified to reflect recent project changes. Following the ARB’s recommendation, the project will return to the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) for a formal recommendation of a Planned Community Ordinance. Both of these recommendations will be forwarded to Council for a final decision. At that point the number of units was 63. 1 Item 2 Attachment E: Public Comments     Packet Pg. 35     Builder’s Remedy May 2024 6 stories and initially 110 units. The revised application that Smith Development submitted last month for its planned project 660 University Ave. calls for a six-story building with office space on the lowest and highest floors and then 66 apartments in between. The proposal is just the latest iteration of a downtown project that has already gone through multiple revisions since Smith first applied in 2021 under the “planned home zoning” process, which allows residential builders to negotiate with the city over zoning exemptions. The four-story project that the company had previously proposed was narrowly approved by the Architectural Review Board in April. While both the builder’s remedy and the PHZ applications are currently on file, the applicant has requested that the City place the Builder’s Remedy application on hold while the City continues to process the PHZ application November 26, 2024 ARB Meeting re: TDM Plan The Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan includes measures and programs to achieve a reduction in single-occupancy vehicle trips to the site by a minimum of 45%. New residents will have to sign an acknowledgment that they are aware there is a goal to reduce commuter trips and maximize use of all other sources. This is not a legal pledge. The TDM plan includes an annual monitoring plan to document their traffic. The first data will not be known until 2 years hence. In summary, a TDM plan sounds great, but it only works for Smith Development who will make too few parking places available for residents. With no adjacent streets permitting parking and limited parking on Byron, do you really think this will work? In TDM’s own words, “We have a proven track record of getting employees out of their cars. As projects are built and occupied, TDM Specialists can develop the, outreach, and campaigns necessary to implement and manage employee Commute Programs or parking management programs. The initial start-up, implementation, and ongoing management of the Commute Program are designed to meet employee benefits for businesses.” It is incumbent on this board to request some proven results that TDM has been able to achieve after two years before making any decision on this project. Exhibit Follows which shows various ARB directions with applicant’s responses. 2 Item 2 Attachment E: Public Comments     Packet Pg. 36     Exhibit File 3 Item 2 Attachment E: Public Comments     Packet Pg. 37     From:Kathleen Rotow To:Kallas, Emily Subject: Date: Re: 660 University Draft EIR - Now Circulating Wednesday, April 3, 2024 11:52:55 AM Attachments:image001.png image002.png Thanks Emily. I'm glad the review concluded that the Byron Ave entry and exit for this project made more sense than further slowing down Middlefield and University. It also keeps some of the inevitable noise from this project from disturbing the senior project across the street on University. On Wed, Apr 3, 2024 at 8:28ꢀAM Kallas, Emily <Emily.Kallas@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote: Hi Kathleen, After the initial ARB review, the driveway was relocated to the Byron frontage, to reduce potential conflict on Middlefield. Thanks, Emily Emily Kallas, AICP Planner Planning and Development Services Department (650) 617-3125 | emily.kallas@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org Parcel Report | Palo Alto Zoning Code | Online Permitting System | Planning Forms & Applications | Planning Applications Mapped Item 2 Attachment E: Public Comments     Packet Pg. 38     From: Kathleen Rotow <kathleenrotow@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 3, 2024 4:46 AM To: Kallas, Emily <Emily.Kallas@cityofpaloalto.org> Subject: Re: 660 University Draft EIR - Now Circulating CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Good Morning Emily, I have an initial question that you may be able to answer quickly. Given that I live within two blocks from the project on University Avenue, one of my concerns is the amount of additional traffic this project will generate on an already very congested corner. Probable additional traffic backups on both University Ave and Middlefield Ave. Will the entry and exits for parking be on University or Middlefield? Will there be any left turn entry into the parking for the project while heading west on University? Thank you, Kathleen Rotow Sent from my iPhone On Apr 2, 2024, at 5:58ꢀPM, Kallas, Emily <Emily.Kallas@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote: Good afternoon, This e-mail is to inform you that the Draft EIR for the 660 University project is now available here on our Planning Department website. The Notice of Availability is attached and has further information regarding the proposed project. The comment period for the Draft EIR begins today, Tuesday, April 2nd and will end on May 17, 2024. This e-mail is being provided to you because you are a neighboring jurisdiction, your agency has expressed an interest in the proposed project or because your agency may have an interest in the proposed project, or because you have been requested to be contacted regarding any project within the City of Palo Alto’s jurisdiction. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or to send comments. Item 2 Attachment E: Public Comments     Packet Pg. 39     Regards, Emily <image001.png> Emily Kallas, AICP Planner Planning and Development Services Department (650) 617-3125 | emily.kallas@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org <image002.png> Parcel Report | Palo Alto Zoning Code | Online Permitting System | Planning Forms & Applications | Planning Applications Mapped <660_University_NOA signed.pdf> Item 2 Attachment E: Public Comments     Packet Pg. 40     From: To: Christopher Ream Kallas, Emily Subject: Date: Importance: 660 University Project Wednesday, April 10, 2024 3:38:35 PM High CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Emily, Chris Ream here, the President of the Hamilton Homeowners Association. I intend to prepare a letter to the Architectural Review Board outlining The Hamilton’s objections to the planned project at 660 University, and I also intend to attend and comment at the ARB Hearing new week on April 18. I have done a quick review of the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR addresses many of the points I had previously brought up to the ARB along with some new points, including in particular, the danger of killing Tree #10 (the protected coastal oak) and the alternative of adding a fifth above-ground story to the building, and the alternative of eliminating the second floor of the underground garage. These are not shown in the developer’s current plans, but are obviously issues that need to be addressed at some point. My question is: Would it be proper for me to address in my letter to the ARB and at the Hearing points raised in the Draft EIR but not yet appearing in the developer’s plans. I will call you to have a brief discussion on this. Chris _________________________ Christopher Ream 555 Byron Street, #409 Palo Alto, CA 94301 1-650-424-0821 ream@reamlaw.com Item 2 Attachment E: Public Comments     Packet Pg. 41     From: To: Subject: Date: Mimi and Eric Carlson Christopher Ream; Kallas, Emily Re: 660 University Project Thursday, April 11, 2024 11:02:35 AM You don't often get email from mimianderic@hotmail.com. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Chris et al. Please note that the proposed project will create a traffic nightmare, espesciallly if the entrance is on Byron.- which is effectively a one wao street during the day. Eric Carlson From: Christopher Ream <ream@reamlaw.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2024 3:38 PM To: Kallas, Emily <Emily.Kallas@cityofpaloalto.org> Subject: 660 University Project Emily, Chris Ream here, the President of the Hamilton Homeowners Association. I intend to prepare a letter to the Architectural Review Board outlining The Hamilton’s objections to the planned project at 660 University, and I also intend to attend and comment at the ARB Hearing new week on April 18. I have done a quick review of the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR addresses many of the points I had previously brought up to the ARB along with some new points, including in particular, the danger of killing Tree #10 (the protected coastal oak) and the alternative of adding a fifth above-ground story to the building, and the alternative of eliminating the second floor of the underground garage. These are not shown in the developer’s current plans, but are obviously issues that need to be addressed at some point. My question is: Would it be proper for me to address in my letter to the ARB and at the Hearing points raised in the Draft EIR but not yet appearing in the developer’s plans. Item 2 Attachment E: Public Comments     Packet Pg. 42     I will call you to have a brief discussion on this. Chris _________________________ Christopher Ream 555 Byron Street, #409 Palo Alto, CA 94301 1-650-424-0821 ream@reamlaw.com Item 2 Attachment E: Public Comments     Packet Pg. 43     THE HAMILTON HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION Christopher Ream, President 555 Byron Street Palo Alto, California 94301 Telephone: 1-650-424-0821 Email: ream@reamlaw.com April 16, 2024 Via email: Emily.Kallas@CityofPaloAlto.org Re: 660 University Project Architectural Review Board Hearing on April 18, 2024 Draft EIR April 2024 Comments re Protection of the Coast Live Oak Tree Dear Emily, Please consider the comments in this letter as you continue to work on the Draft EIR for the 660 University Project and pass on these comments to members of the Architectural Review Board and to others where appropriate. There is an Attachment A and an Attachment B to this letter. The Hamilton is a senior living (55+) condominium development with 36 residential units and the average age of the residents in The Hamilton is mid-80’s. The Hamilton shares the same small block with the proposed development at 660 University Avenue. Lytton Gardens, Webster House and Webster House Health Center are within a block and directly across the street from the proposed development. Channing House is two blocks away. Because of this concentration of elderly citizens, the area is frequently referred to as “Senior Corner.” I am Christopher Ream. My wife Anne and I have been Palo Alto residents for 53 years and have been residents of The Hamilton for the past five years. The Hamilton community strongly opposes the proposed development at 660 University, and the Board of Directors of the Hamilton Homeowners Association (the “HHA”), with the support of its members/residents, has resolved to fight against the proposed development. I am the President of the HHA and am personally committed to significantly revising the proposed building that will materially adversely affect us and all of our neighbors. There is a majestic, beautiful Coast Live Oak tree (the “Tree”) in the middle of our block and is listed as Tree #10 on Applicant’s plans. Applicant’s arborist reports that the Tree’s trunk is 50 inches in diameter and its limbs stretch out 90 feet in diameter “in a mostly balanced canopy.” The Tree abuts the back property line of the 660 University project and so its limbs reach out approximately 45 feet over the project’s property, and its root structure is larger than that. The Tree brings shade and joy to us and everyone else on the block. The Tree is several hundred Item 2 Attachment E: Public Comments     Packet Pg. 44     660 University Project Ream Comments re Protection of the Coast Live Oak Tree April 16, 2024 Page 2 of 4 years old and is deemed a Protected Heritage Tree by the City of Palo Alto. Applicant’s arborist rates the Tree “High” for suitability for preservation. This proposed project puts this beautiful Tree in grave danger: “It is WLCA’s professional opinion that the tree’s vigor would be negatively impacted to a severe degree as a direct result of proposed site work as currently described on the 10/31/2023 set of plan sheets, resulting in tree #10 falling into a spiral of condition decline from which it cannot recover.” Walter Levison Consulting Arborist Impact Analysis dated 12/18/2023, p.6 Please see Attachment A to this letter for the full Impact Analysis by Walter Levison Consulting Arborist. Tree Protection Zone Applicant’s plans recite that the City’s Tree Technical Manual (TTM) ¶1.36 specifies a “Tree Protection Zone” (TPZ) for a protected tree with a radius equal to the ten times the trunk’s diameter. For the Tree, that would be 10 x 50” = 500” = 41 feet. Another rule is that the TPZ should be equal to the foliage, so here that would be a radius of 45 feet based upon the arborist’s report of a 90-foot canopy spread. I am not an arborist, but I am told that one common rule of thumb is that a tree’s roots are one and a half to three times wider than the canopy. For the Tree’s 45-foot limbs, that would be 67 to 135 feet of roots out under the parking lot where the new building would go. Robert Booty, arborist retained by Rincon Consultants on behalf of the City, reports that his LIDAR root scan of the existing asphalt parking lot at 600 University Avenue shows that the Tree’s roots are still dense and going out strong at his 51-foot scan, the furthest extent of his investigation. (See Attachment B.) Applicant has drawn a TPZ of only 30 feet on its plans and has the new building right next to and touching that 30 feet. That is 11 to 15 feet less than required. And the 30 feet is just what the building is supposed to look like – you don’t have to be an experienced contractor to know that there will be plenty of damaging construction work done on the exterior side of the two-story underground garage walls, and that will be much closer than 30 feet to the Tree. Robert Booty’s report points out that the roots are going to be sliced off at his scan of 31 feet. (See Attachment B.) Now, look up at the 2nd, 3rd and 4th floors, there are residential units with balconies sticking out 6 feet into the TPZ. Applicant’s arborist admits that pruning will be required, including a 17-inch limb. The Tree has to be pruned back to clear those balconies. Then be realistic: Applicant is going to prune the Tree even further back so that there is at least 5 feet of clearance between those balconies and the Tree. We are now cutting the Tree back to only 19 feet of foliage left. Item 2 Attachment E: Public Comments     Packet Pg. 45     660 University Project Ream Comments re Protection of the Coast Live Oak Tree April 16, 2024 Page 3 of 4 If 660 University is allowed to be built as now proposed, the Tree’s canopy will be severed on one side, disrupting the Tree’s balance, potentially allowing strong gravitational forces to push the Tree over. In addition, the roots needed to hold the Tree back from tipping over will have been cut and lost their gripping force. How soon will the Tree topple over and crash into The Hamilton and others. It would destroy the dental offices at 517 Byron, and badly injure and maybe kill anyone in those offices at the time. The neighborhood will lose this beautiful tree. The privacy of the seniors in the sixteen apartments in The Hamilton on that side of our development will be exposed to the 36 units with balconies on our side of the 660 University building as well as the noisy crowds on the roof top party deck. Security The Staff Report for the Architectural Review Board Hearing to be held April 18, 2024 reported that the Urban Forestry Section has requested that any building permit be conditioned upon the Applicant obtaining an appraisal of the replacement value of the Tree and posting security for that amount. What does that mean in this situation? It will be completely impossible to replace the Tree, thus how can anyone come up with a replacement value. And, if the Tree “dies” within three years of the completion of the project, then the money from the security will go into the Forestry Fund to plant trees elsewhere. So much for the owner of 517 Byron and thus the person who was the owner of the Tree and the one most damaged by its death. This might make sense if the permit was conditioned upon obtain an appraisal value using the Trunk Formula Method (TTM 6.45B) rather than the Replacement Cost Method (TTM 6.45A). Solution At the Architectural Review Board hearing in December 2022, everyone, including the Applicant’s architect and its landscaper actively agreed that the Tree had to be protected; but the Applicant did not suggest that a 41-45 foot TPZ should be observed. No, their answer was that they knew of a tree in Mountain View that has so far survived a small TPZ (although they did not say how long it has survived). One tree surviving for an unknown time is not a valid argument to ignore the universally accepted rule of a TPZ equal to 10 times the trunk’s diameter or the extent of the canopy. The only solution here to save this Protected Heritage Tree is that the proper 41-foot TPZ must be imposed and complied by both the proposed building and its construction. This is not an unfair burden on the Applicant: They have known all along that their 30-foot TPZ was in violation of TTM regulations, and that the building could not be constructed without violating even that reduced TPZ because of the necessity to have construction closer to the Tree than that artificial 30 feet. The first time they showed a TPZ on their plans was their C3 filing on October 6, 2022 when they showed a TPZ with a radius of 29’11-½” (strange number for a TPZ). C3_660 University Ave_PLAN1.pdf, p.24. This was later updated to the 30 feet we see now. Item 2 Attachment E: Public Comments     Packet Pg. 46     660 University Project Ream Comments re Protection of the Coast Live Oak Tree April 16, 2024 Page 4 of 4 Applicant’s arborist David L. Babby discusses the size of the TPZ in §5.3 of his Tree Protection Report, 660 University Avenue, February 7, 2024: “The CPA's Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) standard is a radial distance from the trunk equal to 10 times its diameter, which for oak #10, identifies a TPZ of 41 feet from the trunk. The proposed project establishes the TPZ to be 30 feet from the trunk, which equates to a multiplier of 7 times the trunk diameter (and 11 feet inside).” He then goes on to say that the small 30-foot TPZ only applies to the finished building and garage, and sets up an even smaller, undisclosed zone where all sorts of construction work can tear up the ground and destroy the Tree’s roots: “The architectural design substantially conforms to my recommendations provided in January 2021, which stipulates a minimum 30-foot setback from the oak's trunk to construct the future building and parking garage, and a minimum setback of 20 feet from the trunk for all ground disturbance beneath the existing asphalt surface. “Roots The 20-foot setback from #10's trunk for ground disturbance applies to any soil compaction, grading, subexcavation, overexcavation, trenching, drilling/auguring, storm drains, swales, etc.” In other words, once you are 20 feet or more from the Tree, you can go at it, tear up the ground and destroy the Tree’s roots anyway and as much as you want. It appears to me that the Applicant didn’t have a thought when they started about Palo Alto’s desire to protect its beautiful Heritage Trees. They just saw some land, put together plans to fill that land with rental opportunities, and moved forward. When they discovered that Palo Alto wanted to protect the Tree, they drew a TPZ to accommodate their plans, rather than drawing their plans to accommodate the Tree. As Chair David Hirsch so succinctly stated at the December, 2022 Architectural Review Board Hearing on this project: “This is too much building in too small of a space.” Thank you for your consideration,Christopher Ream Christopher Ream Item 2 Attachment E: Public Comments     Packet Pg. 47     Item 2 Attachment E: Public Comments     Packet Pg. 48     ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell (415) 203-0990 Email walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com Date: 12/18/2023 Impact Analysis of Proposed 660 University, Palo Alto Site Plan Project Work on One (1) Off-Site Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia) Specimen (Project Tree #10, Palo Alto City Tree Tag #1572) at 517 Byron Palo Alto, CA Mr. Chris Ream, President The Hamilton Homeowners Association 555 Byron Palo Alto, CA ream@reamlaw.com Dear Mr. Ream, The following written letter report is the single deliverable prepared by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) per your request as an association with members residing at The Hamilton, in close proximity to the proposed multi-story 660 University project. Background and Assignment The proposed private development project stated above proposes to demolish various existing office buildings and parking lot areas, and build an underground parking garage, with residential and commercial office facility directly over the garage footprint. WLCA’s assignment was to determine whether the site work as currently proposed per the set of plan sheets (dated October 2023) would cause severe or otherwise irreversible injury to the subject oak specimen to such as degree that it would be expected to fall into a spiral of decline from which it could not recover, as a direct result of the site work. WLCA visited the site on 12/13/2023 to archive digital images, create a tree map markup showing actual site-verified canopy dimensions (rough approx.), and confirm existing site conditions. The project encompasses three lots, 660 University, 680 University, and 511 Byron. An adjacent lot at 517 Byron just south of the proposed work area exhibits a relatively very large “veteran tree” coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) referenced by David L. Babby, author of the Tree Protection Report filed by the developer, as tree #10 (City tag #1572), a specimen in good overall condition (62% out of 100% possible) as visually assessed by WLCA, with a canopy spread that is equal to the largest coast live oak specimens ever assessed in the author’s entire 25 year professional consulting career (see digital images below in this report showing the 90 foot diameter canopy). WLCA reviewed the private development proposed plan sheets dated 10/31/2023 (planning resubmittal #5) which were downloaded from the City of Palo Alto website, and an arborist report by David Babby dated 11/19/2021, which does not actually contain any site plan sheets (Mr. Babby used a topographic survey sheet for his site tree map markup). Multiple marked-up tree location maps, color-coded by WLCA, show expected construction-related impacts in relation to the tree #10 existing canopy dripline and in relation to the standard tree protection zone (TPZ) of 10 x diameter as an offset radius from mainstem edge. These markups are attached to the end of this letter report for reference (view document using Adobe Pro, Adobe CS, or other paid form of Adobe Acrobat, to maintain the visibility of the color-coded markups). Digital images archived by WLCA in December 2023 are also included in this report for reference of pre-project conditions. 1 of 12 Site Address: 660 University, Palo Alto, CA Iteration: 12/18/2023 Walter Levison  2023 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Life Member of the International Society of Arboriculture Item 2 Attachment E: Public Comments     Packet Pg. 49     ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell (415) 203-0990 Email walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com Basic Data Diameter: 50 inches, per Babby report. Spread: Approximately 90 feet total diameter, per David Babby report and WLCA. Health (Vigor): 70% per Babby, 80% per WLCA. Structure: 40% per Babby, 50% per WLCA. Overall Condition Rating: 50% (fair) per Babby, 62% (good) per WLCA. Live Twig Density and Live Foliar Density: Good. Additional Tree Information per WLCA’s Visual Tree Assessment (VTA) 12/13/2023 and Research Foliage hangs down to 15 to 25 feet above grade at 45 feet radius north of mainstem edge. Multiple mainstems exhibit wide angle saddle shaped (i.e.”normal”) attachment forks between 10 and 15 feet elevation above grade. These stems are somewhat upward oriented. Buttress root flares at root crown appear normal, though root system extent and condition are essentially unknowable due to hardscape presence over a large percentage of actual root zone. It is hypothesized that the actual extent of root1zone is at least 2x to 3x the 45 foot canopy radius in terms of lateral distance in most directions out from trunk , basedthon both Arboriculture 4 Edition (2004), and on WLCA’s past 25 years of construction site consulting experience with coast live oak specimens on older sites with older less-compacted root zone conditions, where historical building foundations and parking lot baserock base sections were constructed to far less strict standards than modern engineer specifications. There may be extensive rooting occurring out through various private lots that adjoin the 517 Byron lot on which tree #10 stands, with lateral woody roots extending from tree #10 underneath various retaining wall footings and building footings, out to underneath existing asphalt parking lot surfacing, etc. Per USGS local quadrangle soils map, tree #10 is growing in the “Qoa” unit, which is defined as an older alluvium (oa): a gravelly riparian soil that is derived from stream associated movements, and typically contains smooth rocky material that drains relatively well, and is excellent for development of deep, elongated native oak tree root systems (based on WLCA’s professional experience and research). This Palo Alto site probably has one of the best soils in the entire Bay Area in terms of allowing for fast growth of native oaks. See the digital images section of this report for an overlay map created by WLCA using various online sources and the USGS soil map shows how groundwater at this location is relatively high in elevation (25 foot groundwater contour), and shows existing roads, historical streams, and red dot plots where a past survey by others indicated locations of extremely old native valley oak specimens for reference. What this all means is that the proposed project site has very good growing conditions for native oaks with a high groundwater table elevation contour and gravelly alluvium soil associated with historical waterways which drains relatively quickly and may also exhibit relatively good aeration related to the larger material components of the soil. 1 Per Harris et. al. 2004. Arboriculture 4th Edition. Prentice Hall. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, USA. 2 of 12 Site Address: 660 University, Palo Alto, CA Iteration: 12/18/2023 Walter Levison  2023 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Life Member of the International Society of Arboriculture Item 2 Attachment E: Public Comments     Packet Pg. 50     ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell (415) 203-0990 Email walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com Expected Tree Root Zone and Canopy Impact Analysis / Based on October 2023 Set of Proposed Plan Sheets •Canopy: Expect 20 to 30% of canopy live wood and foliage to be removed to clear southward-extended balcony construction, garage vertical wall construction, foundation footing construction for main building structure, vertical exterior walls along the south side of the residential structure, and an additional +/- 10 feet of horizontal width required to be totally cleared up to roof peak elevations as a “construction corridor” airspace for exterior work, scaffold erection, and bucket lift machinery use (based on WLCA’s past projects to date, which required between 6 feet and 15 feet of horizontal clearance as construction corridors around building exterior walls, between soil surface grade and the roof peaks). Note that the curvilinear section of garage entry ramp, although it is below grade elevation, may actually require tall vertical machinery clearance directly above the proposed wall cut locations, resulting in further clearance pruning of the tree #10 northwest corner of canopy (not verified). This information is based on past projects overseen by WLCA involving underground parking garage retaining wall construction in the Bay Area. Total expected canopy loss will likely result in a remnant canopy with 20 to 25 feet of north, northeast, and northwest extension from mainstem base, whereas existing canopy is +/- 45 feet radial extension in those directions. Refer to the attached WLCA tree map markup for a graphic representation of the various impacts indicated as color-coded lines. •Roots: Expected subgrade work will encroach to within the City of Palo Alto “10 times diameter” tree protection zone on the north side of tree, inside which special methods/materials/monitoring is required for site construction work. Extent of root zone compromised by the various elements of proposed work (garage wall excavation using vertical shoring, landscape decking, landscape irrigation, landscape plant and tree installation, etc. is expected to be moderate to severe, depending on actual cut depths and depending on whether machinery and personnel are allowed to enter into the TPZ and compact the root zone in the north area of TPZ. Note that the actual extent of roots may or may not be 2x to 3x the tree canopy dripline radius distance northward from trunk, and is currently obscured by hardscape and not able to be verified in terms of lateral distance of growth. Critical Root Zone (i.e. “CRZ”) or “Tree Protection Zone”, in terms of structural root plate, lateral woody roots, and absorbing root mass retention during work on one or more sides of a tree, is ten times the diameter of trunk (10 x 50 inch diameter as noted in the David Babby report). Therefore, it is WLCA’s understanding that the required TPZ2work offset radius for tree #10 is approximately 10 x 50 inches = 41.6 feet radius ), unless site work at offset distances less than 10 x diameter is specifically authorized by City Urban Forestry Staff. Note that in the case of the 660 University project, the severe extent of clearance pruning creates a cumulative impact in terms of loss of tree condition, such that the combined root zone and canopy impacts are relatively severe or extremely severe (see attached WLCA markups showing deep excavation work impacts, for example, expected to within 30 feet offset from trunk, which is far less than the 41.6 foot official TPZ offset). 2 Reference the developer’s Tree Disclosure Statement, which notes that the official TPZ is 10 x diameter of trunk, per City of Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual (TTM) standards. Blue link to full TTM below shows up erroneously as a hyperlink to “Appendix A”, but is actually the full TTM document: APPENDIX A (cityofpaloalto.org) 3 of 12 Site Address: 660 University, Palo Alto, CA Iteration: 12/18/2023 Walter Levison  2023 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Life Member of the International Society of Arboriculture Item 2 Attachment E: Public Comments     Packet Pg. 51     ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell (415) 203-0990 Email walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com Note also that there is no guarantee that site work will be performed by the developer in a manner consistent with specific conditions of project approval as set forth by Palo Alto Urban Forestry Staff, even if those special conditions were mandated by the City. There is no way for an arborist monitoring site work, for instance, to be on site during every stage of the work. The arborist monitor, if retained to inspect site work near to tree #10 during the development phase of the project, would only be able to visibly inspect the site once a month or so, leaving him/her with a limited snapshot of what below-ground impacts occurred in relation to the tree #10 root zone. Soil Compaction within the CRZ/TPZ: Note that proposed driving of machinery, foot traffic, extensive landscape footing development, and extensive planting and (possibly also) extensive irrigation pipe trenching are expected to occur within the CRZ/TPZ of 41.6 feet radius from trunk edge of tree #10. Consulting Arborists will typically specify use of robust “ground protection” in these cases, covering the ground with a thick mat of geotextile overlaid with 6 or more inches of wood chips, and finally covered with steel trench plates or full sheets of exterior grade plywood strapped together with steel strap plates to create a soil buffer. But given that there is planned intense landscaping and decking, etc. to be developed in the area between the garage retaining wall and the south property line abutted up against the 517 Byron lot, WLCA expects that it would be virtually impossible for the developer to actually implement use of robust ground protection and maintain it for any length of time, without causing a major problem in terms of ground logistics (staging, storage, movement of tools and materials, performance of landscape related development between 517 Byron and the underground parking garage wall, etc.). Therefore, it is expected that soil compaction of a high degree will likely occur in the north section of the tree #10 root zone, within the CRZ/TPZ offset radius, causing additional reduction in overall tree health and structural condition as soil oxygen pore space is compacted and root zone root growing conditions end up suffering as a result of loss of oxygen pore spaces within the tree root growth section of the soil profile (i.e. mainly the uppermost two feet of the soil profile, but potentially down to 4 or 5 feet or more below soil surface grade elevation in native Palo Alto area historical riparian cobble type soils). •TRAQ Risk: The removal of 20% to 30% of the canopy of tree #10 for clearance as noted above, will cause southward lopsidedness of the currently-symmetrical canopy tree specimen of extremely large spread radius (45 feet radius), resulting in increased load forces acting on the north side (“tension” side) of the root system. The root system will have been compromised to an unknown degree during site work (underground parking garage wall excavation, landscape development, and possible adjustments to or demolition of the existing brick retaining wall that separates 517 Byron from the proposed 660 University project site. Risk of whole tree failure mode and impact with targets to the south of the mainstem location will be necessarily increased and elevated due to these site plan work activities. Risk of stem failure and impact with various ground targets will over time be increased and elevated, due to the required clearance pruning through the north side of the canopy to clear scaffolding, bucket lift machinery, balconies, and the new building exterior wall plus underground parking retaining wall work that requires vertical machinery airspace clearance. Very large diameter pruning cuts will be made to accomplish the work, ranging from3a few inches diameter each, up to 17 or more inches diameter each , on some stems that extend northward into the proposed project airspace area. Pruning cuts of this relatively large diameter will allow for fungal wood decay-causing pathogen entrance into the stems via these open cut wounds, resulting in extensive decay column formation over time that progresses down into the stems from the cut wounds. 3 David Babby’s arborist report notes that a 14” and a 17” diameter stem will require pruning. 4 of 12 Site Address: 660 University, Palo Alto, CA Iteration: 12/18/2023 Walter Levison  2023 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Life Member of the International Society of Arboriculture Item 2 Attachment E: Public Comments     Packet Pg. 52     ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell (415) 203-0990 Email walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com •Heritage Tree Designation in City of Palo Alto There are currently +/- eight (8) trees listed on the City heritage tree list maintained by the City. Per the following information, trees are apparently not required to meet any specific “approval criteria” in terms of species, size, condition, or other relevant parameters, to be selected as formal heritage tree specimens in City of Palo Alto, other than that the trees are native oak species or redwoods located on private property: (Excerpt from a City Staff Report Online): “In 1996, Council enacted the Tree Preservation Ordinance, Chapter 8.10 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, to preserve and maintain specified native oaks, redwoods, and heritage trees on private property, and to protect them from disfigurement or removal, except in certain circumstances. Section 8.10.090 of the ordinance allows persons to nominate a tree on their property forheritage tree status. After Council approval of such designation, the tree is added to the heritage tree listing, which includes specific location, overall size, and canopy spread. The list is maintained by the Department of Public Works and available to the public on the City’s Urban Forestry website. Once designated, a heritage tree is protected by the provisions of the Tree Preservation and Management Regulations, unless removed from the heritage tree list by subsequent Council action at the request of the property owner.” Per the above information, protected size tree #10 (City tree tag #1572) appears to be an excellent candidate for inclusion in the City’s heritage tree designation program which protects native oaks on private properties. It is a specimen in good overall condition, with exceptional size in terms of both mainstem diameter (est. 50 inches), and canopy spread (90 feet total diameter), with good vigor, good buttress root flares, and good saddle-shaped wide angle forks of mainstem attachment. •David Babby Report 11/19/2021 Page 6 Per page 6 of the developer’s arborist report by David Babby, tree #10 exhibits a “high” rating in terms of suitability for preservation (see below excerpt from page 6 of Babby report): 5 of 12 Site Address: 660 University, Palo Alto, CA Iteration: 12/18/2023 Walter Levison  2023 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Life Member of the International Society of Arboriculture Item 2 Attachment E: Public Comments     Packet Pg. 53     ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell (415) 203-0990 Email walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com Conclusion If the proposed 660 University site plan project were built out as currently proposed per the 10/31/2023 planning resubmittal #5 versions of the plan sheets, WLCA expects that tree #10 would experience relatively moderate to severe root loss, and relatively severe pruning, which combined as a cumulative below-ground and above-ground negative impact would necessarily result in loss of vigor (health) and structure to a severe degree. The tree’s safe and useful life expectancy in its current condition rating of “good” (+/- 62% overall condition rating) may be reduced as a result of site plan project work from (EXISTING: no-construction scenario) 50 to 100 years remaining, to (PROPOSED: post-construction scenario) 10 to 20 years remaining, or less, depending on the tree’s response to very significant project clearance canopy and root pruning as described above in this letter report. It is WLCA’s professional opinion that the tree’s vigor would be negatively impacted to a severe degree as a direct result of proposed site work as currently described on the 10/31/2023 set of plan sheets, resulting in tree #10 falling into a spiral of condition decline from which it cannot recover. There would also necessarily be a corresponding elevation of the TRAQ risk rating in terms of risk of whole tree and/or tree part failure and impact with various static and moving targets with moderate to high occupancy ratings within the target zone and a reasonable time frame such as 12 to 24 months, starting as of the proposed site construction completion date (this would need to be assessed at a future time, and is outside the scope of WLCA’s initial pre-project assignment). The tree is located in the an area known to have high water table elevations and gravelly (gravel-laden) riparian type alluvium soil that tends to support excellent native oak tree root growth in terms of both rooting depth and root lateral extension. It is highly recommended that this exceptionally large native oak specimen in good overall condition be designated by the City Council as a City of Palo Alto Heritage Tree on private land, and formally added to the list maintained by the City on their official website, with the added tree protection guarantees that this tree special protection status includes (tree specimens are typically nominated for such designation by the owner of the property on which the tree stands). Refer also to David Babby’s arborist report dated 11/19/202, page 6, which notes that tree #10 is rated as “high” suitability for preservation, appearing healthy and structurally stable per his assessment, presenting “good potential for contributing long-term to the site”. 6 of 12 Site Address: 660 University, Palo Alto, CA Iteration: 12/18/2023 Walter Levison  2023 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Life Member of the International Society of Arboriculture Item 2 Attachment E: Public Comments     Packet Pg. 54     ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell (415) 203-0990 Email walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com Digital Images by WLCA 12/13/2023 / Tree #10 Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) View of the relatively wide angle fork attachments between 10 and 15 feet elevation above grade at which the tree #10 codominant mainstems arise. These saddle shaped forms are normal and desirable from a structural stability standpoint. Although it is not “optimal” to have codominant mainstems forking in a tree, the best case scenario would be for all of the forks to exhibit wide saddle-shaped attachments like this tree. It is actually extremely unusual for a coast live oak to exhibit saddle-shaped forks at every bifurcation of the codominant mainstems. View looking eastward while standing on 517 Byron. Note the excellent buttress root flaring at the root crown of tree #10 which is considered normal and desirable. 7 of 12 Site Address: 660 University, Palo Alto, CA Iteration: 12/18/2023 Walter Levison  2023 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Life Member of the International Society of Arboriculture Item 2 Attachment E: Public Comments     Packet Pg. 55     ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell (415) 203-0990 Email walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com View of subject oak #10 looking northward from 517 Byron. 8 of 12 Site Address: 660 University, Palo Alto, CA Iteration: 12/18/2023 Walter Levison  2023 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Life Member of the International Society of Arboriculture Item 2 Attachment E: Public Comments     Packet Pg. 56     ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell (415) 203-0990 Email walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com View of oak #10 lower 50% of canopy/mainstem architecture, with the adjoining asphalt parking lot area west of 517 Byron visible at left half of the image. The root system is assumed to be extended through most or all adjoining lots surrounding 517 Byron (not verified), as is assumed to reach as much as 2x to 3x the 45 foot canopy radius (again, not verified, but very possible, per WLCA’s past experience with older oaks in Palo Alto and Menlo Park area, especially if the soil is a historical cobble-based riparian soil profile with fast drainage (not verified). 9 of 12 Site Address: 660 University, Palo Alto, CA Iteration: 12/18/2023 Walter Levison  2023 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Life Member of the International Society of Arboriculture Item 2 Attachment E: Public Comments     Packet Pg. 57     ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell (415) 203-0990 Email walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com Per WLCA’s multi-layer mockup created for a valley oak location comparison with groundwater depths and soil types, the tree #10 location has a 25 foot depth groundwater table, and nearby Palo Alto study-noted red dots which indicate very large older valley oak specimens surveyed in the past and included on internet maps for reference. The Qoa soil type at the 660 University site is defined as “older alluvium” (hence the “oa” designation): a Pleistocene soil of gravels, sand, and silt that is unconsolidated to consolidated, interspersed with alluvial materials from stream action. See next page of this report for the United States Geological Survey legend pertaining to this soil unit, clipped from the local Palo Alto soil map, obtained from USGS Menlo Park headquarters. 10 of 12 Site Address: 660 University, Palo Alto, CA Iteration: 12/18/2023 Walter Levison  2023 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Life Member of the International Society of Arboriculture Item 2 Attachment E: Public Comments     Packet Pg. 58     ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell (415) 203-0990 Email walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com Above was excerpted from the USGS Quadrangle (soil unit map) which includes the City of Palo Alto area. Assumptions and Limiting Conditions Any legal description provided to the consultant/appraiser is assumed to be correct. Any titles and ownership to any property are assumed to be good and marketable. No responsibility is assumed for matters legal in character. Any and all property is appraised and evaluated as through free and clean, under responsible ownership and competent management. It is assumed that any property is not in violation of any applicable codes, ordinance, statutes, or other government regulations. Care has been taken to obtain all information from reliable sources. All data has been verified insofar as possible; however, the consultant/appraiser can neither guarantee nor be responsible for the accuracy of information provided by others. The consultant/appraiser shall not be required to give testimony or to attend court by reason of this report unless subsequent contractual arrangements are made, including payment of an additional fee for such services as described in the fee schedule and contract of engagement. Unless required by law otherwise, the possession of this report or a copy thereof does not imply right of publication or use for any other purpose by any other than the person to whom it is addressed, without the prior expressed written or verbal consent of the consultant/appraiser. Unless required by law otherwise, neither all nor any part of the contents of this report, nor copy thereof, shall be conveyed by anyone, including the client, to the public through advertising, public relations, news, sales, or other media, without the prior expressed conclusions, identity of the consultant/appraiser, or any reference to any professional society or institute or to any initiated designation conferred upon the consultant/appraiser as stated in his qualifications. This report and any values expressed herein represent the opinion of the consultant/appraiser, and the consultant’s/appraiser’s fee is in no way contingent upon the reporting of a specified value, a stipulated result, the occurrence of a subsequent event, nor upon any finding to be reported. Sketches, drawings, and photographs in this report, being intended for visual aids, are not necessarily to scale and should not be construed as engineering or architectural reports or surveys unless expressed otherwise. The reproduction of any information generated by engineers, architects, or other consultants on any sketches, drawings, or photographs is for the express purpose of coordination and ease of reference only. Inclusion of said information on any 11 of 12 Site Address: 660 University, Palo Alto, CA Iteration: 12/18/2023 Walter Levison  2023 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Life Member of the International Society of Arboriculture Item 2 Attachment E: Public Comments     Packet Pg. 59     ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell (415) 203-0990 Email walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com drawings or other documents does not constitute a representation by Walter Levison to the sufficiency or accuracy of said information. Unless expressed otherwise: • • • information contained in this report covers only those items that were examined and reflects the conditions of those items at the time of inspection; and the inspection is limited to ground-based visual examination of accessible items without climbing, dissection, excavation, probing, or coring. There is no warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied, that problems or deficiencies of the plants or property in question may not arise in the future. Loss or alteration of any part of this report invalidates the entire report. Arborist Disclosure Statement: Arborists are tree specialists who use their education, knowledge, training, and experience to examine trees, recommend measures to enhance the beauty and health of trees, and attempt to reduce the risk of living near trees. Clients may choose to accept or disregard the recommendations of the arborist, or to seek additional advice. Arborists cannot detect every condition that could possibly lead to the structural failure of a tree. Tree are living organisms that fail in ways we do not fully understand. Conditions are often hidden within trees and below ground. Arborist cannot guarantee that a tree will be healthy or safe under all circumstances, or for a specified period of time. Likewise, remedial treatments, like any medicine, cannot be guaranteed. Treatment, pruning, and removal of trees may involve considerations beyond the scope of the arborist’s services such as property boundaries, property ownership, site lines, disputes between neighbors, and other issues. Arborists cannot take such considerations into account unless complete and accurate information is disclosed to the arborist. An arborist should then be expected to reasonably rely upon the completeness and accuracy of the information provided. Trees can be managed, but they cannot be controlled. To live near trees is to accept some degree of risk. The only way to eliminate all risk associated with trees is to eliminate the trees. Certification I hereby certify that all the statements of fact in this report are true, complete, and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief, and are made in good faith. Signature of Consultant DIGITAL BADGES: ISA CERTIFIED ARBORIST CREDENTIAL: https://certificates.isa-arbor.com/f1918723-df46-48cc-ace2-c12625530fec#gs.v54om6 (Renewed through June, 2026) ISA TREE RISK ASSESSMENT QUALIFIED (TRAQ): https://certificates.isa-arbor.com/d180515f-ab75-440b-9c66-106005e3cf10?record_view=true#gs.hpb30w (Renewed through March, 2028) Attached: Tree Map Markups by WLCA 12/18/2023 (View Using Adobe or Adobe CS in Order to Allow for Full Visibility of the Markups Created Using Adobe Pro Software). 12 of 12 Site Address: 660 University, Palo Alto, CA Iteration: 12/18/2023 Walter Levison  2023 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Life Member of the International Society of Arboriculture Item 2 Attachment E: Public Comments     Packet Pg. 60     Item 2 Attachment E: Public Comments     Packet Pg. 61     Item 2 Attachment E: Public Comments     Packet Pg. 62     660 University Project Ream Comments re Protection of the Coast Live Oak Tree April 16, 2024 Aꢀachment B Item 2 Attachment E: Public Comments     Packet Pg. 63     Item 2 Attachment E: Public Comments     Packet Pg. 64     Item 2 Attachment E: Public Comments     Packet Pg. 65     May 23, 2023 Root Study Oak Tree #1572 660 University Avenue Palo Alto, California May 8, 2022 660 University Avenue Palo Alto, California. Scan #7 Line scan over parking lot 31 feet away from Oak tree #1572 Excavation point for below-ground garage. This involves this whole cross section. All roots will be removed; beginning with the following scans 7-12 Root Depth in inches Asphalt Thickness 34Robert Booty Registered Consulting Arborist 487 ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor www.arboristonsite.com Copyright 2022 Arborist OnSite Horticultural Consulting, Inc. Item 2 Attachment E: Public Comments     Packet Pg. 66     From:Christopher Ream To:Kallas, Emily Subject: Date: Attachments: 660 University, ARB Hearing Wednesday, April 17, 2024 12:27:59 AM 660 - Ream Letter re Tree - 20240416 w Attachments.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Emily, Please find attached my letter which I wish the Architectural Review Board will have a chance to review before the Hearing Thursday morning. Please share it with each Member and with anyone else for whom you think would be appropriate. Please point out to them that Walter Levison’s Impact Analysis is attached. Thank you. Chris _________________________ Christopher Ream 555 Byron Street, #409 Palo Alto, CA 94301 1-650-424-0821 ream@reamlaw.com Item 2 Attachment E: Public Comments     Packet Pg. 67     From: To: Kallas, Emily Kallas, Emily Subject: Date: FW: New Construction at 511 Byron Street, and more, Palo Alto Tuesday, May 21, 2024 4:22:00 PM From: Faith Brigel <faithwb3@yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2024 5:21 PM To: Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Lythcott-Haims, Julie <Julie.LythcottHaims@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Veenker, Vicki <Vicki.Veenker@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Lauing, Ed <Ed.Lauing@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Kou, Lydia <Lydia.Kou@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Tanaka, Greg <Greg.Tanaka@CityofPaloAlto.org> Cc: Faith Brigel <faithwb3@yahoo.com>; greg.stone@cityofpaloalto.org; Burt, Patrick <Pat.Burt@CityofPaloAlto.org> Subject: New Construction at 511 Byron Street, and more, Palo Alto Some people who received this message don't often get email from faithwb3@yahoo.com. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council of City of Palo Alto, This morning I attended an Architectural Review Board meeting to discuss the new construction that is being proposed for 511 Byron Street, 660 University Ave., 680 University Ave., and 500 Middlefield Road. Once all of these buildings will be demolished they will construct an immense four story, mixed usage of many offices and many residential rentals, and a two story basement for parking, though the parking spaces will be much reduced from what is needed. And I assume a lot of water will need to be drained since our water level is shallow. Their presentation talked about several of the other buildings in that area that are large, though not as large as this one: the Hamilton project, Lytton Gardens, The Webster House and there is the 3 story 2 condo on Webster and University Ave. There are already several large buildings in this area. And I think none of them have a two story basement. That intersection is already very congested. And there is rarely any parking on Byron Street. One person opposed to this project this morning stated that constructing this building into that area is like squeezing it into a lot that is much too small. I have owned the single, story Victorian that is more than 100 years old, for almost 40 years. My building was not mentioned this morning. And I will lose some of my daylight plan, which was also not mentioned. Byron Street and University Ave. in Item 2 Attachment E: Public Comments     Packet Pg. 68     that area has always been a quiet, professional area for the past 40 years. My building has a psychiatrist, and a psychologist. They work in my building because it is quiet. Adding many residential apartments with balconies to those structures will totally change the nature of this area. And I more than likely will lose at least some of my tenants, if not all of them. I understand that the State is requiring more housing. But a very large building with offices and apartments right downtown on University Ave. beside Middlefield is not a good spot for it. There should be some consideration for people like myself who have been in that area for many years- not just the developers who are not concerned that they are overbuilding the downtown area. I ask and hope that you who represent all of us on the City Council and will take into consideration all of us not just the developers. Thank you for your consideration, Faith W. Brigel Item 2 Attachment E: Public Comments     Packet Pg. 69     From: To: Mathews, Marley@DOT Kallas, Emily Cc:Luo, Yunsheng@DOT Subject: Date: 660 University Avenue Mixed-Use Project Caltrans Comment Wednesday, May 8, 2024 1:06:33 PM You don't often get email from marley.mathews@dot.ca.gov. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Hello Emily, Thank you for including Caltrans in this review of the 660 University Avenue Mixed-Use Project DIER. At this time, Caltrans has no comments on the material provided. Please note this correspondence does not indicate an official position by Caltrans on this project and is for informational purposes only. Please continue to include Caltrans in discussions regarding this Project to stay informed. We encourage multi-agency collaboration and welcome any potential opportunities. Any future material or correspondence regarding this Project can be submitted to LDR-D4@dot.ca.gov. Thank you, Marley Mathews Transportation Planner (she/her) D4 Caltrans 510-960-0841 Item 2 Attachment E: Public Comments     Packet Pg. 70     From:Gennifer Wehrmeyer To:Kallas, Emily Cc:CPRU-Dropbox; Shree Dharasker Subject: Date: VW File 34811 – Comments on DEIR for 660 University Avenue Mixed-Use Project Friday, May 17, 2024 4:14:49 PM Attachments:image001.png You don't often get email from gwehrmeyer@valleywater.org. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Emily, The Santa Clara Valley Water District (Valley Water) has reviewed Notice of Availability of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the 660 University Avenue Mixed-Use Project to merge three parcels to construct a four-story mixed-use building at 511 Bryon Street, 660 University Ave, and 680 University Ave/500 Middlefield Rd in Palo Alto, received on April 2, 2024, and has the following comments: 1. Valley Water does not have any right of way or facilities within the project site boundary; therefore, in accordance with Valley Water’s Water Resources Protection Ordinance, a Valley Water encroachment permit will not be requiredfor the project. 2. Valley Water previously commented on the Notice of Preparation (NOP) that underground structures should be designed for waterproofing that avoids theneed for permanent dewatering after construction is complete. As stated in Section 10-a, construction will involve excavation up to 38 feet below groundsurface, during which time dewatering will be used. It is unclear if dewatering willoccur after construction. Underground structures should be designed forwaterproofing and permanent dewatering should be avoided once construction is finished. 3. Valley Water records indicate that no active wells are located on the subject property. While Valley Water has records for most wells located in the County, itis always possible that a well exists that is not in the Valley Water’s records. Ifpreviously unknown wells are found on the subject property during development, they must be properly destroyed under permit from Valley Water or registeredwith Valley Water and protected from damage. For more information, please callthe Valley Water’s Well Ordinance Program Hotline at 408-630-2660. 4. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) 006085C0010H, effective May 18, 2009, the project site is within FEMA Flood Zone AH, an area with 1% annual chance of shallowflooding (usually areas of ponding), located between base flood elevations of 46feet and 47 feet. The project is required to follow the flood plain ordinance andnational flood insurance requirements. If you have any questions or need further information, you can reach me at gwehrmeyer@valleywater.org or at (408) 694-2069. Please reference Valley Water File 34811 on further correspondence regarding this project. Thank you, Gennifer Wehrmeyer ASSISTANT ENGINEER, CIVIL Item 2 Attachment E: Public Comments     Packet Pg. 71     Community Projects Review Unit Watershed Stewardship and Planning Division GWehrmeyer@valleywater.org Tel. (408) 630-2588 Cell. (408) 694-2069 SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 5750 Almaden Expressway, San Jose CA 95118 www.valleywater.org ..Clean Water Healthy Environment Flood Protection Item 2 Attachment E: Public Comments     Packet Pg. 72     If you need assistance reviewing the above documents, please contact the Project Planner or call the Planner-on- Duty at 650-617-3117 or email planner@cityofpaloalto.org Attachment D 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. Environmental Document NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Notice of Preparation for an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared by the City of Palo Alto for the project listed below. In accordance with CEQA Guideline Section 15073, this document will be available online for review during a minimum 30-day circulation period beginning November 4, 2022 and Ends on December 5, 2022. The environmental document is available at https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Events- Directory/Planning-and-Development-Services/660-University-Avenue Directions to review Project plans and environmental documents online: 1. Go to: bit.ly/PApendingprojects 2. Scroll down to find “660 University” 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/News-Articles/Planning-and-Development-Services/660- University-Avenue Item 2 Attachment F: Project Plans and Environmental Review     Packet Pg. 73     Item No. 3. Page 1 of 12 5 7 7 2 Architectural Review Board Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: December 5, 2024 Report #: 2410-3644 TITLE Study Session to Review Potential Amendments to the Regulations for the El Camino Real Focus Area in Title 18 (Zoning Ordinance) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Implement Program 3.4E of the Adopted 2023-2031 Housing Element. Environmental Assessment: On April 15, 2024, Council adopted Resolution No. 10155, approving an Addendum to the Comprehensive Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR). RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) conduct a study session to review a summary of issues and staff recommendations and provide feedback on potential changes to the geographic boundaries of, and development standards set forth in, the El Camino Real Focus Area in Title 18 (Zoning Ordinance) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC), with the objective of supporting housing production and affordability. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Adopted in December 2023, the El Camino Real Focus Area offers more generous development standards in a small portion of properties fronting El Camino Real near Page Mill Road in exchange for projects providing 20 percent of residential units at up to 80% of Area Median Income (AMI). The Focus Area developed as an alternative to State Density Bonus Law and Builder’s Remedy. This report discusses an approach for implementing Housing Element Program 3.4E, which calls for amendments to the El Camino Real Focus Area. This report asks the ARB to consider two changes to the El Camino Real Focus Area: (1) geographic expansion to add sites to the Focus Area, and (2) modifications to Focus Area development standards. The report introduces four tiers for expansion based on criteria such as lot size, Housing Element opportunity site status, developer interest, proximity to public transit, and adjacencies to R-1 zoning districts. Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 74     Item No. 3. Page 2 of 12 5 7 7 2 The report also considers modifications to Focus Area standards to allow for viable high-density residential and mixed-use projects that are contextually appropriate based on surrounding uses and proximity to transit and services. Different standards may apply to different portions of the Focus Area depending on this context. Staff asks the ARB to consider the following questions: 1. Which geographic expansion areas could offer developers the most viable options for housing production while ensuring compatibility with City design priorities, such as massing and height transitions? 2. Should development standards (particularly FAR, building height, and parking) be adjusted for different sections of the Focus Area? If so, depending on what factors? 3. How should the daylight plane and height transition be adjusted to accommodate both higher density development and light and air for lower density residential neighbors? 4. How should the stepback standard on El Camino Real be modified to allow more massing on the El Camino Real frontage? BACKGROUND El Camino Real Focus Area On December 18, 2023, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 5608 to rezone sites identified in the 2023-2032 Housing Element to meet the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) required under State law. This action implemented Program 1.1 of the Housing Element and included specific zoning changes to properties on El Camino Real south of Page Mill Road, known as the “El Camino Real Focus Area.” This area extends along the west side of El Camino Real, between Page Mill Road and Matadero Avenue, as shown in Figure 1. Within this Focus Area—and as an alternative to State Density Bonus Law—applicants may elect to utilize more generous development standards in exchange for providing 20% of units at up to 80% of Area Median Income. Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 75     Item No. 3. Page 3 of 12 5 7 7 2 Figure 1: Existing El Camino Real Focus Area The Focus Area was both a response to several proposed housing project applications submitted under State Density Bonus Law and Builder’s Remedy.1, and a proactive effort to create a set of regulations to encourage transit-oriented mixed-income housing in a way that allows for more predictability through compliance with the City’s design and development standards. More specifically, this Focus Area was identified as being well-suited for higher density housing developments for the following reasons: 1.Location: This location has excellent access to services, shopping, California Avenue, jobs, Stanford campus, public transit, and bicycle facilities. 2.Neighborhood Context: The Focus Area is primarily surrounded by commercial uses, with only a few areas adjacent to lower density residential neighborhoods (e.g., at Matadero Avenue). At Palo Alto Square, there are already taller buildings, with two approximately 140-foot office buildings located near the Page Mill Road intersection. The parcel sizes are larger and deeper than what are typically found on El Camino Real, creating opportunities for larger projects. 3.Community & Decision-Maker Input. In part for the aforementioned reasons, the Housing Element Working Group, City Council Housing Ad Hoc Committee, and the Planning & Transportation Commission had previously discussed creating a cohesive plan for this area as part of the Housing Element. 4.Motivated Property Owners: Several property owners/lessees within the Focus Area had expressed interest in residential or mixed-use development or submitted 1 The “Builder’s Remedy” section of the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) (Gov. Code Section 65589.5) currently includes the same affordability requirement as the Focus Area. However, Assembly Bill (AB) 1893, which goes into effect January 1, 2025, modifies the HAA to allow alternate and reduced affordability requirements, including for Builder’s Remedy applications that have already been submitted. Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 76     Item No. 3. Page 4 of 12 5 7 7 2 preliminary or formal planning applications. In the case of the applications, project proposals have included densities under State Density Bonus law and through the Builder’s Remedy process that far exceed base district regulations (see Figures 2 and 3 below). Figure 2: Builder’s Remedy Proposal for 3150 El Camino Real Figure 3: Builder’s Remedy Proposal for 3400 El Camino Real The El Camino Real Focus Area zoning became effective January 17, 2024. As a second step, the Housing Element anticipated further changes to the Focus Area, as detailed below. Housing Element Certification & Program 3.4E Council adopted the revised 2023-2032 Housing Element on April 15, 2024, and the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) certified the Housing Element on August 20, 2024. The Housing Element includes Program 3.4E to amend the El Camino Real Focus Area: E. Expand the geographic boundaries of the El Camino Real Focus Area (adopted in 2023) to incentivize housing production at appropriate locations. Increase building height and floor area ratios and apply other objective standards, such as transitional height restrictions, to address single family zoning district adjacencies. The proposed standards will be an alternative to the state density bonus. Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 77     Item No. 3. Page 5 of 12 5 7 7 2 The work effort described in this staff report represents the next step to expand the geographic reach of the Focus Area and adjust development standards to make sure that they are both viable for developers and maintain the City’s design priorities, especially around height and massing transitions. Stakeholder Meetings As part of this work effort, staff has been speaking with property owners and developers within the El Camino Real Focus Area and in other portions of El Camino Real where the Focus Area could apply to gauge the viability of the program, including the development standards and affordability requirements. Based on their feedback, staff is asking the ARB to provide feedback to staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) on potential amendments to existing development standards to encourage use of the program as an alternative to State Density Bonus Law. DISCUSSION Staff is looking for the ARB’s feedback in two areas: (1) criteria for geographic expansion, and (2) potential for modifications to development standards in existing and potential Focus Area boundaries. This analysis, illustrated in Attachment A, examines six criteria to divide clusters of sites into four tiers based on the following criteria: 1. Lot size and shape: The existing Focus Area sites represent some of the largest and deepest sites along the South El Camino Real corridor. Larger sites (above 0.5 acre) with deeper lots are more developable, allowing for garage circulation and floor plates that can accommodate double-loaded corridor housing development. Many sites in the middle of the El Camino Real corridor are just 5,000 square feet, which generally does not accommodate higher-density development with on-site parking. Attachment B highlights larger parcel sizes, including accounting for contiguous sites owned by the same property owners. 2. Consolidation opportunities: When the same property owner owns contiguous parcels, there is an opportunity for lot consolidation. Attachment A analyzes these opportunities based on parcel data and conversations with developers. 3. Developer interest: Property owners and developers who have submitted applications or contacted City staff to discuss potential housing developments demonstrate that there’s interest in sites and that a development may be viable. 4. Housing Element opportunity sites: Opportunity sites have already been evaluated in the Housing Element for appropriate site conditions for redevelopment and the most likely to develop during this Housing Element cycle. 5. Proximity to public transit: Based on City transit-oriented development policy in the Comprehensive Plan, locations near Caltrain offer opportunities for people to live near transit and services and reduce reliance on personal vehicles. Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 78     Item No. 3. Page 6 of 12 5 7 7 2 6. No R-1 zone adjacencies: The existing Focus Area generally does not abut R-1 zoning districts, with the exception of the Creekside Inn site. Because of potential impacts on existing low-density residential neighborhoods, areas considered for expansion should generally avoid adjacencies with R-1 zoned properties, or provide for transitions between lower and higher density development through height and massing regulations. Attachment A analyzes these criteria and places groups of sites into one of four tiers. Staff and consultants took a broad view of potential expansion areas for the El Camino Real Focus Area, examining all sites on South El Camino Real, from Stanford Avenue to the City’s southern border. Staff recommends that Tier 1 and 2 sites be considered for inclusion in the expanded Focus Area, potentially with reduced development standards. The majority of these sites lie within the northern half of the study area. Tier 3 and 4 sites are not recommended for consideration as expansion areas for the Focus Area, though sites could continue to redevelop using base district regulations and other applicable density bonus incentives, such as the Housing Incentive Program or State Density Bonus Law. This tiering system is a quantitative and qualitative analysis, considering both these criteria as well as planners’ professional perspectives and effort to create a zoning strategy that has continuity and ease of administration (i.e., contiguous parcels, appropriate height/density context). Generally, most sites within Tiers 1 and 2 meet at least four criteria, but these criteria carry different weights. For example, lot size is critical to supporting higher-density development if there is on-site parking, while proximity to transit is desirable. Designation as a Housing Element opportunity site is a helpful tool for highlighting viable sites, but developer interest is even more telling (and also a factor in identifying some opportunity sites). Tier 1: Most Appropriate for Focus Area Tier 1 sites have the highest potential for inclusion in the Focus Area with the current set of development standards. This includes sites closest to services, Caltrain, with developer interest and/or Housing Element opportunity site status, and some medium to large site sizes. This area includes the following locations: Intersection of California Avenue and El Camino Real: Closest access to services on California Avenue commercial core and the Caltrain station, no low density residential adjacencies, several housing element opportunity sites, some larger lot sizes, and some developer interest. South side of Matadero Avenue: Contiguous with existing Focus Area, development application submitted, consolidated site exceeds 2 acres, and no low density residential adjacencies. Tier 2: Moderately Appropriate for Focus Area Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 79     Item No. 3. Page 7 of 12 5 7 7 2 Tier 2 sites have moderate potential, where reduced development standards may be appropriate compared to the current Focus Area standards. Tier 2 includes sites with developer interest, often within 1 mile of Caltrain, and without low density residential adjacencies. This area includes the following locations: North of College Avenue: At the north end of the corridor, sites are well-located near services and transit, and there are several opportunity sites, but sites are very small. These sites may not be able to take advantage of the Focus Area development standards, unless developers do not include parking or are able to consolidate lots. North Ventura Area: East side of El Camino Real, contiguous with existing Focus Area, some larger sites with developer interest including opportunity sites, but also some low density residential zoning adjacencies. Note the recently adopted North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan zoning amendments already require 15% on-site affordable housing for both ownership and rental units, so the Focus Area needs to offer additional incentives (e.g., density and building height standards) to encourage the additional affordable housing requirement of 20%. Mid-Corridor: There are some pockets in the middle of the El Camino Real corridor that include some larger opportunity sites, including some where developers have expressed interest in housing development. These sites are further from transit and services, and may require more than 1:1 parking ratios. Southern Border: Within one mile of the San Antonio Caltrain station, there are several larger and deeper sites that are identified as Housing Element opportunity sites; generally, these sites do not abut low density residential zoning districts. Tier 3: Less Appropriate for Focus Area Tier 3 sites have lower potential for inclusion in the Focus Area, as they are generally less able to provide 20 percent on-site below-market rate housing and less conducive to higher development standards (unless projects do not provide on-site parking). This area includes the following locations: Mid-Corridor/El Camino Way: There are some other locations in the corridor, including around El Camino Way, where sites are generally smaller and shallower, and redevelopment at higher densities allowed by the Focus Area may not be viable without lot consolidation. Southern Border: Within one mile of the San Antonio Caltrain station, there are several larger sites that are identified as Housing Element opportunity sites; however, these sites abut lower density residential zoning districts, where height transition requirements would reduce development potential. Tier 4: Not Appropriate for Focus Area Expansion Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 80     Item No. 3. Page 8 of 12 5 7 7 2 Sites in Tier 4 have the lowest potential for inclusion in the Focus Area. They generally do not meet the criteria outlined above, since they are either not anticipated to redevelop or may not be appropriate for more generous development standards due to parcel size, location, and/or adjacencies. Most of these sites are located in the middle and southern part of the corridor. Many of these sites are located furthest from Caltrain and abut low density residential zoning districts. Tier 4 also includes sites that have recently been developed and condominium sites that are not expected to redevelop. Potential Modifications to El Camino Real Focus Area Development Standards City staff are looking for the ARB’s feedback on standards both for the expanded geographic area and regarding height transitions adjacent to low density residential zoning districts (typically R-1) in particular (for both the existing Focus Area and any expansion). Table 1 reports the existing El Camino Real Focus Area standards. The key standards include a maximum of 4.0 FAR, up to 85 feet building height, and 1 space per unit minimum parking requirement. Since there are several different base zoning districts in the Focus Area, the standards refer to base districts for other standards such as setbacks and landscape coverage. For the expanded Focus Area, City staff are considering modified standards—namely lower FAR and building height—for areas further from public transit and services, with more low density residential district adjacencies, and where the existing context is less conducive to seven- to eight- story buildings. However, at these lower levels, projects likely cannot bear the cost of 20% on-site affordable housing. Therefore, the on-site affordability requirement may need to be adjusted as well. Table 1: Existing and Potential El Camino Real Focus Area Development Standards Potential Changes Standards Existing (18.14.020, Table 3)Existing Focus Area Expansion Area Minimum Front Setback See base district regulations No change Same as existing focus area regulation Maximum FAR 4.0 (Total)No change Reduced for sites further from transit Maximum Site/Landscape Coverage See base district regulations, except permitted above the ground floor No change Same as existing focus area regulation Maximum Lot Coverage 70%No change Same as existing focus area regulation Maximum Density (du/ac) None No change Same as existing focus area regulation Maximum Height 85 feet No change Reduced for sites further from transit Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 81     Item No. 3. Page 9 of 12 5 7 7 2 Potential Changes Standards Existing (18.14.020, Table 3)Existing Focus Area Expansion Area Daylight Plane See base district regulations for standards for daylight planes No change Same as existing focus area regulation Height Transitions Within 100 feet of low density residential (RE, R-2, or RMD) or R-1 single family zone district property line: 35 feet Between 100 and 150 feet of low density or R-1 zone district property line: 45 feet Modifications recommended (see details below) For example: Within 75 feet of low density residential (RE, R-2, or RMD) or R-1 single family zone district property line: 35 feet Upper Story Step-Back El Camino Real frontage above 55 feet in height: minimum six-foot step-back from lower facade, for a minimum 70% of the facade length; and average setback from the property line for the entire facade shall be 20 feet. Reduce or eliminate stepback to allow for full height on the El Camino frontage Reduce or eliminate stepback to allow for full (reduced) height on the El Camino frontage Open Space 100-square-foot per unit (any combination of common and/or private) No change Same as existing focus area regulation Minimum Residential Parking one space per unit (Per AB 2097: zero space per unit within ½ mile of Caltrain) No change No change Other Development Standards See base district regulations No change Same as existing focus area regulation Design Criteria/Standards Architectural Review and compliance with either Objective Design Standards pursuant to Chapter 18.24 or Context-Based Design Criteria pursuant to base district regulations. No change Same as existing focus area regulation Height Transitions Based on feedback from developers, the height transition standard for sites abutting R-1 zoning districts, are too restrictive to allow for sufficient height and density otherwise allowed by the Focus Area standards. The current height transition standard requires a reduced building height limit of 35 feet within 100 feet of a R-1 zoning district boundary and 45 feet between 100 and Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 82     Item No. 3. Page 10 of 12 5 7 7 2 150 feet of the boundary. This is proving challenging for developers and will not work for smaller sites with depths of 150 feet or less in much of the potential Focus Area expansion areas. Moreover, this standard encroaches far beyond what the daylight plane allows. Table 1 suggests a modified standard to balance this height transition. Existing height transition and daylight plane standards applicable to El Camino Real Focus Area sites abutting the rear yard of an R-1 zoning district. Figure 4: Existing Daylight Plane & Height Transition Standard Height and daylight plane standards at the rear property line enable transitions between taller buildings and existing single-family homes by limiting the amount of building mass at the shared property line. In contrast, there is an opportunity to allow more massing on the El Camino Real frontage where there are no adjacencies. At 100 feet wide, El Camino Real can accommodate massing up to 85 feet without impacting light and air on neighbors. The existing upper story stepback standard limiting building height to 55 feet (see Figure 5) may be unnecessarily limiting. The City‘s objective design standards ensure that the even tall builders will not appear overly massive, by requiring facade breaks and articulation. Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 83     Item No. 3. Page 11 of 12 5 7 7 2 Figure 5: Existing Upper Story Stepback Standard (El Camino Real Frontage) Questions for ARB 1. Which geographic expansion areas could offer developers the most viable options for housing production while ensuring compatibility with City design priorities, such as massing and height transitions? 2. Should development standards (in particular FAR, building height, and parking) be adjusted for different sections of the Focus Area? If so, depending on what factors? 3. How should the daylight plane and height transition be adjusted to accommodate both higher density development and light and air for lower density residential neighbors? 4. How should the stepback standard on El Camino Real be modified to allow more massing on the El Camino Real frontage? Next Steps & Timeline City staff will report out the ARB’s feedback to the PTC at their upcoming study session tentatively scheduled for later in December 2024. Based on feedback from the ARB and PTC, City staff will prepare a draft ordinance, determine whether additional CEQA review is required, and discuss the potential standards with stakeholders. Subsequently, the ordinance and any CEQA review will be presented to the PTC and City Council for consideration, which is anticipated by June 2025. Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 84     Item No. 3. Page 12 of 12 5 7 7 2 Figure 2: Work Plan and Timeline STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT Notice of a study session for this project was published in the Daily Post on November 22, 2024, which is 13 days in advance of the meeting. City staff and consultants have met with eight property owners and/or developers on the El Camino Real corridor to explain the Focus Area program and solicit their feedback on existing and potential standards. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW On April 15, 2024, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 10155, approving an Addendum to the Comprehensive Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The addendum analyzed potential environmental impacts of the 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element. This includes implementation of Housing Element Program 3.4E and associated increase in housing production including the RHNA, Housing Element sites inventory, and other Housing Element programs. Specifically, Housing Element Program 3.4E indicates that an additional 500 units could be generated through expansion of the Focus Area. If proposed changes to the El Camino Real Focus Area are projected to exceed 500 units, staff and consultants will evaluate physical impacts of the changes and determine the appropriate level of CEQA review prior to consideration of an ordinance. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Potential Geographic Expansion, by Tier Attachment B: Consolidated Parcels, by Parcel Size Report Author & Contact Information ARB6 Liaison & Contact Information Jean Eisberg, Consultant Steven Switzer, Historic Preservation Planner jean@lexingtonplanning.com (650) 329-2321 Steven.Switzer@cityofpaloalto.org Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 85     StanfordUniversity Mountain View Los Altos Yale Street Jac a r a n d a Lan e She r m a n A v e n u e Ash Street El Camino Real Orme Street Bryant Street Ramos Way (Private) Hanover Street Columbia Street Deo d a r Stre e t Redw o o d C i r c l e Margarita Avenue Ha n s e n W a y Por t a g e Ave n u e Lam b e r t A v e n u e Par a d i s e W a y Fer n a n d o A v e n u e Oliv e A v e n u e Cam b r i d g e Ave n u e Ventura Avenue Gra n t Ave n u e Matadero Avenue Ma y b e l l A v e n u e Cur t n e r Ave n u e Ore g o n A v e n u e Wi l t o n Ave n u e Bar r o n A v e n u e High Street Rick e y s Way(Priv a t e ) Whitclem Drive Mil i t a r y W a y Cowper Street Bowdoin Street La Donna Street Whitsell Street Gle n b r o o k D r i v e Alma Street McGrego r Way Lane 66 Laguna Avenue Sta n f o r d A v e n u e La J e n n i f e r Wa y Amaranta Avenue JulieCourt Terman Drive Ga r y Cou r t Ara s t r a d e r o R o a d Wright Place Ramona Street MillerAvenue El CentroStreet La Calle Loma Verde Avenue Mackay Drive Cre e k s i d e D r i v e Suzanne D r i v e Monroe Drive Pena Court El CerritoRoad Du l u t h Circ l e South Court Irve n Co u r t El C a p i t a n Pla c e Silva Avenue Rinco n Circle Waverley Street Nels o n Cou r t Enc i n a Gra n d e Dri v e Tim l o t t Lan e Ynigo Way Lag u n a Oa k s Pla c e Florales Drive Sai n t Cla i r e Dri v e Ely P l a c e DartmouthStreet Los Pal o s Pla c e Ado b e Plac e Scripps Avenue Wellesley Street Am h e r s t Wa y Park Boulevard Ces a n o Cou r t Nelson Drive Josina Avenue Cypress Lane (Private) Kelly Way McKellar Lane Charleston Road Carlson Court Campana Drive ArbolDrive Mumford Place SolanaDrive San t a R i t a A v e n u e Wa s h i n g t o n Ave n u e No r t h C a l i f o r n i a A v e n u e Ne v a d a Ave n u e El Dorado Avenue Wilkie Way Jac o b s Cou r t (Pr i v a t e ) Geor g i a A v e n u e Car o l i n a L a n e Seale Avenue Aca c i a Ave n u e Cass Way Col o r a d o A v e n u e Lun d y Lan e El Verano Avenue Campesino Avenue Col l e g e Ave n u e Dra k e Wa y Los Robles Avenue West Charleston Road Cal i f o r n i a A v e n u e Eas t M e a d o w D r i v e Magnolia Drive Alg e r D r i v e Oberlin Street Dixon Place Tha i n Wa y Pag e M i l l R o a d Cornell Street Princeton Street Harvard Street Williams Street Kipling Street El C a r m e l o A v e n u e Scr i p p s Cou r t Pomona Avenue La Selva Drive Orinda Street Sha u n a Lan e Emerson Street Los Palo s Avenue BirchStreet Maybell Way La Mata Way Staunton Court Tennessee Lane Duncan P l a c e Cherry Oaks Place She r i d a n Ave n u e Amherst Street El Camino Way Tio g a Cou r t Lind e r o Drive Sha s t a Dri v e Dia b l o Cou r t Cer r i t o Wa y Fer n e A v e n u e Gre e n m e a d o w Wa y Carlson Circle Ma u r e e n Ave n u e Sta r r K i n g Circ l e We s t M e a d o w D r i v e Din a h ' s Cou r t Ilim a Cou r t Cow p e r Cou r t Juniper Lane(Private) KingArthur's Court Oregon Expressway Baker Avenue Silva Court Ox f o r d A v e n u e Ma r i o n Ave n u e Abel Avenue San J u d e Ave n u e Edl e e A v e n u e Mille r Cour t Rinconada Avenue Pep p e r Ave n u e Clemo Avenue Jam e s Roa d Coulombe Drive Manzana Lane Rambow Drive Parkside Drive Fai r m e d e Ave n u e Ilim a W a y Ruthelma Avenue Kendall Avenue Chi m a l u s D r i v e Laguna Way Hubbar t t D r i v e Donald D r i v e Pau l A v e n u e Cer e z a D r i v e Roosevelt Circle La Para Avenue Roble Ridge (Private) Willmar D r i v e Ben Lom o n d Dri v e 1/2 m i l e r a d i u s 1/2 mile radiusfrom San Antonio Station Close to California Ave. and Caltrain, some larger sites, no R-1 adjacencies [ 0’480’960’ El C a m i n o R e a l Fo c u s A r e a E x p a n s i o n vvv Original El Camino Real Focus Area v El Camino Real Focus Area NVCAP Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 City Limit Approved/Pending Housing Applications R-1 Zone Housing Element Sites vv v Small shallow sites and R-1 adjacencies Larger consolidated sites Mid-sized sites further from transit, no R-1 adjacencies Existing condos, R-1 adjacencies, furthest from transit Closest to San Antonio services and transit, larger sites Note: This illustration is a planning exercise and not intended to depict locations where development is necessarily anticipated. Item 3 Attachment A: ECR Focus Area Expansion Map     Packet Pg. 86     3939390338852951 2401 3255 3337 3505 35453457 3345 3727 3775 3781369137072701 3972 3300 2650 3127 3398 360635083450 5063632 505 38663790 3804 39603924 3111 505 2675 2310 2455 471 2805 2875 2999 2905 3128 31592755 30173001 3225 3929 3870 3876 3878 3890 389238943898 3239 3916 3305 3339 3150 3200 3516 35273401 3375 3636 36663626 3825 3877 38973839 3737 3886 440 3850 3770 3780 3740 3773 3777 3779 3783 360135853565 3567 3709 3705 3944 2700 2780 3500 3628 3731 3824 3911 3933 3295 3327 480 491 507 35693487 3630 3700 3333 3000 3170 3160 27902798 3460 3470 3533 3535 3481348934913483 3485 3864 39902500 38963872 490 3265 2825 2390 3875 3873 3871393395 2515 2600 2227 23312335 2275 2119482 2225 2045 2011 2029 209820802000 2071 2033 2001 2086 2280 22002100 2171 2091 21032111 21152127 478 484 22372209 2051 4802087 2073 207520772083 2107 2221 2233 23152325 2305 2137 2225 2123 501 StanfordUniversity Stanford Whitsell Street Yale Street Jacaranda Lane Sherman Avenue Ash Street Ramos Way (Private)California Avenue Margarita Avenue Hansen Way Portage Avenue Lambert Avenue Fernando Avenue Olive Avenue College Avenue Cambridge Avenue Grant Avenue Josina Avenue Wilton Avenue La DonnaStreet Oregon Expressway Lane 66 Matadero Avenue New Mayfield Lane Stanford Avenue EmmaCourt NogalLane MimosaLane SedroLane JulieCourt Peral Lane (none) Loma Verde Avenue Wellesley Street Park Boulevard El Camino Real Acacia Avenue Oberlin Street Cornell Street Princeton Street Harvard Street Williams Street TippawingoStreet Orinda Street Page Mill Road Birch Street Staunton Court Sheridan Avenue Chestnut Avenue Chimalus Drive Oxford Avenue Pepper Avenue Alma Street Kendall Avenue PC-4637 PF RM-30 CS CS R-1 CS (H) RM-40 PF CC (2)(R) NV-R4 RM-30 GM R-2 PF RM-15 NV-MXH NV-R3 PF (AS3) CN RP (L) CN CS (AS1) RP(L) R-2 CS CC (2)(R)(P) R-2 R-2 R-2 RM-30 RM-30 RM-30 CC(2)(R) CC(2)(R) CC(2)(R) PF (R) PF (R) PF (R) PF (R) PC-4127 RM-30 R-1 PF RM-15RM-15 RM-30 PF PC-4268 PC-2224 PC-3028 PC-4354 PC-2293 CC NV-MXL NV-R2 CSPC-4463 PF RM-40 R-1 RM-15 RM-30 CN R-2 CC (2) CC (2) PF PF PF PF RMD (NP) R-1 RP CC (2)(P) NV-MXMPC-4831 CN PC-5069 PTODRM-40 RM-40CC (2)(R) PTOD(R)CC (2)(R) CC (2) CC (2) CC(2) PF PF R-1 PC-4753 NV-R1 NV-MXM CS NV-MXH GM NV-MXL NV-PF This map is a product of City of Palo Alto GIS [ 0 250 500125Feet El Camino Real Focus Area ECR Focus Area Housing Element Sites Zoning City Limit ECR Frontage Parcels by Size Less than 0.25 acres 0.25 - 0.5 acres 0.5 - 1 acres 1 - 2 acres More than 2 acres Item 3 Attachment B: Consolidated Parcels by Parcel Size     Packet Pg. 87     406402401 431425419413407401 402408 428 455 414 4202 42104218 42304232 4240 420 439 4248 3981 460 4041 4168 4146 41434128 3945 478 4073 393939033885 420410 437 477 456 32553337350535453457 3345 3727 3775 378136913707 4216 4190 4170 41644156 564 502 539 541 533 555553 5614139 41374141 525 4141 3972 3300 502 506 4115 4101 4117 4127 4109 412141174111 4131 4139 510514518 521 3398 41024106411041084112413041264122 4132 412841244142 4146 4150 4144 4148 41524162 4166 4170 4164 4168 582 562 542 522 535531 537 551 559 557 41314135 4133 4104 360635083450 5063632 505 38663790 3804 39603924 4102 430 470 480 417427 475 483487 4180 4195 3225 41134111 4119 4131 41194115 4085 4125 3929 3870 3876 3878 3890 3892 38943898 3239 3916 3305 3339 3516 35273401 3375 3636 36663626 3825 3877 38973839 3941 3737 38863850 3770 3780 3740 3773 3777 3779 3783 360135853565 3567 3709 3705 40503944 4091 4075 450 446438 432426420414410 405 409435441 447 4206 4214 4222 4226 4236 4244 4200 4191 4193 3500 3628 3731 3824 3911 3933 4157 4044 3295 3327 480 491 520 4111 4135 4100 4239 580 35693487 3630 3700 522 3333 4161 3460 3470 4149 3533 3535 407405 473 457 3481348934913483 3485 41594151 4155 4153 3864 4173 4238 4218 4208 4206 4201 4211 4245 4228 4249 4075 40203990 4218 38963872 4192 4062 4068 3265 4157 504 506 508 510 512 514 516 524526 528 544546 548 550 584 586588 590 3981 3875 3873 3871393395 563 4238 4256 4230 4333 4291 4269 4261 4260 4329 4271 4279 4234 4290 4250 4273 4232 4335 4261 4226 4228 4249 Mountain View Los Altos El Camino Real Deodar Street AlmaVillageCircle (Private) Ventura Avenue Maybell Avenue Ryan Lane(Private) Curtner Avenue Barron Avenue Second Street Rickeys Way (Private) NobleStreet(Private)Magnolia Drive North East Meadow Drive Whitclem Drive Whitsell Street Military Way Pratt Lane (Private)Villa Vera(Private) TimlottCourt Lane66 La Jennifer Way Cashel Street(Private) Los Robles Avenue Starr King Circle Cole Court (Private) Georgia Avenue Miller Avenue George Hood Lane Charleston Road Arastradero Road Barclay Court Wilkie Court El Centro Street SilvaAvenue Victoria Place Suzanne Drive Monroe Drive WhitclemPlace Villa Real (Private) PenaCourt Newberry Court Suzanne Court Duluth Circle Darlington Court Irven Court Rickeys Lane (Private) Ely Place Encina Grande Drive Timlott Lane Creekside Drive Davenport Way Florales Drive La Donna Street Vista Avenue JosinaAvenue Park Boulevard WisteriaLane(Private) Wright Place CypressLane (Private) Kelly Way McKellar Lane ParksideDrive Hettinger Lane (Private) Campana Drive Arbol Drive Solana Drive Alma VillageLane (Private) Wilkie Way Carolina Lane Cass Way El Verano Avenue Amaranta Avenue LundyLane MadelineCourt(Private) West Charleston Road Magnolia Drive La Selva Drive Alta MesaAvenue Thain Way EmersonStreet Verdosa Drive San Jude Avenue Ventura Court Alma Street Tennessee Lane Maclane El Camino Way Lindero Drive Greenmeadow Way Los Palos Avenue Villa Vista(Private) West Meadow Drive Dinah's Court Magnolia Drive South Baker Avenue Abel Avenue Edlee Avenue Ben Lomond Drive Clemo Avenue James Road Ruthelma Avenue La Para Avenue Paul Avenue Cereza Drive Roosevelt Circle R-1 R-1 (10000) PF PC-2930 RM-15 PC-3023 CS RM-30 RM-15 RM-15 R-1 RM-30 CN R-1 (S) R-2 R-1 PF RM-15 RM-30 PF R-1R-2 R-1 CN RM-15 RM-15 CS (H) RM-30 PC-4190 PC-3041 PF RM-30 R-1 RM-30 PC-2218 PC-2656 RM-15 PC-5116 RM-30 RM-15 PC-3133 PC-4511 RM-15 RM-30 R-1 (7000) PF RM-30RM-40 R-1 (S) CS (L) PC-4448 CS CS (L) RM-40 RM-30 PC-5034 R-1 CS CS CS (AD) PC-4956 R-1 (8000) R-1 (10000) R-1 (8000) R-1 R-1 (8000)(S) R-1 (8000)(S) R-1 (8000) RM-15 RM-15 PC-3036 CS CS CS CS (H) RM-15 PF CN RM-30 R-2 RM-15 CS (L)(D) PF R-1 R-1 This map is a product of City of Palo Alto GIS [ 0 250 500125Feet El Camino Real Focus Area Housing Element Sites Zoning City Limit ECR Frontage Parcels by Size Less than 0.25 acres 0.25 - 0.5 acres 0.5 - 1 acres 1 - 2 acres More than 2 acres Item 3 Attachment B: Consolidated Parcels by Parcel Size     Packet Pg. 88     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: December 5, 2024 Report #: 2411-3815 TITLE Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for November 7, 2024 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) adopt the attached meeting minutes. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Minutes of November 7, 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. 89     Page 1 of 16 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 11/07/24 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MEETING DRAFT MINUTES: November 7, 2024 Council Chamber & Zoom 8:00 AM Call to Order / Roll Call The Architectural Review Board (ARB) of the City of Palo Alto met on November 7, 2024 in Council Chambers and virtual teleconference at 8:32 a.m. Present: Chair Kendra Rosenberg, Vice Chair Yingxi Chen, Board member Mousam Adcock, Board member Peter Baltay (arrived late 8:35 AM), Board member David Hirsch Absent: None. Note: No audio was available until 10:21 into the meeting. Oral Communications None (see above). Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions None (see above). City Official Reports 1. Director’s Report, Meeting Schedule, and Upcoming Agenda Items A slide presentation was provided outlining the Director’s Report, meeting schedule and upcoming agenda items. No audio was available for this portion of the video (see above). Study Session 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 110,030 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). Garret Sauls, Principal Planner, provided a slide presentation about the 3150 El Camino Real Streamlined Housing Project. No audio was available at the beginning of the presentation. The audio picked up as he was discussing the new streamlined entitlement process, background/process of the application, a background/process of the El Camino Real focus area standards, aerial image of the project location, a Item 4 Attachment A: Minutes of November 7, 2024     Packet Pg. 90     Page 2 of 16 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 11/07/24 high level overview of the application, overview of the site plan, the east and west elevations, material schemes, key considerations and study session recommendation. Gary Johnson, applicant, provided a description for the 3150 El Camino Real Residential project proposal. Chris Lee, architect from Studio T-Square, provided a slide presentation discussing the site context, zoning compliance, urban design concept, streetscape renderings, rendering of aerial view from north- east, ground level site plan, floor plan of level B1 (B2 similar), level 3 (level 4-5 similar) and level 7, site sections, rendering of north-west view from El Camino Real, north elevation, south elevation, west elevation, east elevation and colors and material. Paul Lettieri, landscape architect from Guzzardo Partnership, provided slides discussing the conceptual landscape plan and imagery. PUBLIC COMMENT Steve Levy, economist, discussed the extensive direct engagement involved in the project and financial feasibility. He hoped for continued engagement. He indicated that the Board should remember that the applicant would need to be satisfied after negotiation that the project would make sense for him, her or their organization. Rigo Gallardo, field representative for the Nor Cal Carpenter’s Union Local 405 in the South Bay, remarked that the project could help meet the community’s growing needs. He further indicated it would only succeed by being built by a responsible contractor who would prioritize responsible labor standards such as hiring apprentices from an accredited apprenticeship program and making sure the workforce has healthcare. Amie Ashton, executive director of Palo Alto Forward, voiced support of her organization of this project. Boardmember Adcock queried if the balconies and outdoor area on the first floor within the setback were compliant with the City’s zoning requirements. Principal Planner Sauls confirmed there were allowances for encroachments into that area. He recalled there to be a six-foot encroachment for balconies within those areas and it was ensured to conform to the standards. Boardmember Hirsch asked if the application for Parmani Hotel was being held back. He wanted to know if there had been any study of the line of trees in the back of the site and if they hoped to retain them. Principal Planner Sauls responded that project had expired from financial feasibility issues due to the pandemic. There were hopes of coming back to propose the same design in the future. He also noted the actual standards within the objective standards talk about adjacent buildings and it talks more about the existing context rather than the proposed context for these adjacent buildings. That is why there is not a scale or reference to that proposed project within this project in terms of how they are demonstrating compliance with that standard. He indicated there was an arborist’s report within the plan set that identified the impacts of those trees and he believed they were looking to replace them in accordance with the Tree Technical Manual. Item 4 Attachment A: Minutes of November 7, 2024     Packet Pg. 91     Page 3 of 16 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 11/07/24 Mr. Lettieri added there was a row of fairly poor conditioned blue gums along the back side that were proposed to be removed for safety reasons. Replacement trees were shown on the plans. They were on the adjacent property and the owner shared the same opinion about the trees being a potential fall risk. Boardmember Adcock queried how tall the fence was relative to the grading of the walkway area with the gate and fencing that wraps the three sides of the property on the back. She wanted to know if the gates on the end of the fence would be locked for resident use only. Mr. Lettieri replied the fence was six feet tall. He confirmed the gates would be locked for resident use only. Boardmember Baltay asked if some of the spaces on the main floor site plan could be converted to retail spaces in the future if the applicant wanted to convert them to that purpose. He questioned if it would be possible to condition the building now so it could be retail without having to go through a planning approval process. He wanted to know if it would be possible to condition this so those spaces could be retail in the future without receiving additional approvals if the Board so recommended. Principal Planner Sauls confirmed that was a possibility. He did not believe a planning approval process would be required provided they would be able to demonstrate their compliance with the parking requirements for the site. He did not think the applicant’s vision with the application was to have a commercial space within the building. He indicated from a process standpoint they would be required to get building permits from the building department. Having a condition on the project or not wouldn't necessarily preclude them from being able to do that in the future. Chair Rosenberg questioned if the parking requirement would be necessary since they were centrally located to significant hubs of public transportation. Vice Chair Chen queried if it would be possible to have tenant improvement to add more floor area if in the future it turned out to be retail space. Principal Planner Sauls replied that if they were creating a second floor level, they would need to evaluate how that FAR would increase for the site. Boardmember Hirsch asked for explanation as to how circulation would work between the lobby and the units in the distant areas. He thought it was confusing. He wondered if it would be possible to make a direct connection from the inside of the building. He made a suggestion that would be a more clear complete circulation. He wondered if it was reasonable for some of the balconies to be four to five feet from one another or if they could perhaps be alternated. He wondered about the sense of privacy. He suggested looking at all of them relative to each other to find some good schemes for creating privacy. Mr. Lee explained the walls between the lobby and the leasing office would be more transparent so they can go through the lobby to leasing, co-working or fitness easily. They envisioned most of the east side residents would use the east or west side lobby. They could also spill out to the street from the co- working and fitness spaces. He indicated the floor could be studied with the interior designers to see if they could achieve any improvement. He explained that the exiting of the dead-end corridor prevented making it a complete circulation due to building code. He assured that they would continue to explore that. He stated they did alternate the balconies. He thought elevation wise it would look better not to repeat every 20 feet. Item 4 Attachment A: Minutes of November 7, 2024     Packet Pg. 92     Page 4 of 16 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 11/07/24 Boardmember Adcock thought the same applied where there were elevators down the page to the units on the page south. Chair Rosenberg thought it looked like the balconies were all touching on floor level three on the south side façade. She wanted to know the intent would be for privacy screen between those. She asked if there would be a full height wall. Mr. Lee explained that level three was different because they provided a second level step back so that specific level had a larger balcony. They could put planters in between them for privacy and they could incorporate a glass wall between them. The typical balconies were separated by 10 feet. Boardmember Adcock queried what percentage had balconies. On the sixth floor where it said roof, she asked if it was balconies. She wanted to know the railing height. She suggested carrying the TPO roof outside of the metal perforated railing out a bit further. Mr. Lee did not have the exact number but other than the studio, most of the one to three-bedrooms were intended to have balconies unless there was a circumstance where they want to create some special element. Mr. Lee said the sixth floor roof area was not balconies because it was a large step back that they want to fence off as just a roof. Part of the deck was balconies but not all. The railing height was 42 inches. Chair Rosenberg asked for clarification on slide 8107 on floor plan level six whether it would bee divided into three separate balconies or going to be a roof. Mr. Lee indicated conceptually they wanted them to be balconies for the residents but they were still working on the detail and wanted to have some flexibility. They did not want the balcony to go all the way to the edge and they might have to do something to stop closer to the building line. Boardmember Baltay wanted to know how the process was in interpreting the standards. He asked how many times they came to them with something that did not quite meet the standard. He asked what the architect’s experience following the standards were. He asked if the additional drawings were difficult to do. Principal Planner Sauls confirmed some of the things were hard to distill. They were currently envisioning working through clarifying some of it in the next coming months. He added it was helpful to be able to have communication between the staff and the applicants. He recalled they only came to them with thee standard two or three times. Mr. Lee responded it was not too difficult to check the boxes. He felt some of the standards were a bit onerous and could lead to a repetitive pattern. They tried very hard to comply to it while creating some more dynamic module to it. He thought 90 percent of them made sense. He thought the additional drawings helped them to understand internally. Boardmember Hirsch mentioned that some of the references were to El Camino Real in the past rather than buildings coming up in the future. The references to vertical requirements seemed to be of little importance to this particular building and the way in which the horizontals actually work seemed to be more important to this building. He thought it was a feedback as they got into a building of this nature that the standards should be adjusted. Item 4 Attachment A: Minutes of November 7, 2024     Packet Pg. 93     Page 5 of 16 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 11/07/24 Principal Planner Sauls thought for large properties like this there was more space to play with putty. For smaller sites, there would likely be more challenges to conform with many of these standards. Boardmember Baltay wanted to hear from staff how they managed getting them to come off of the Builder’s Remedy project to something that was code compliant. Principal Planner Sauls replied there were a lot of conversations between him and the applicant. There was a lot of interest from the applicant side to want to process an application that would meet their standards and they were at the same time developing the focus area standards. There was a lot of communication between staff, the director and the applicant on how those standards could be molded to try to encourage as most significant amount of development within this specific corridor as possible. He thought having the checklist and objective design standards made it more simple to be able to check the boxes. He stated it helped projects move through the pipeline a little faster to go to the study session rather than come to the Board two or three times. Vice Chair Chen wanted explanation on the intent for having several loading areas on the site plan. She asked if the trash staging and Uber delivery area and the garage were gated. She observed there were a few parking spots that were only eight feet instead of eight feet two inches. She asked how many parking spaces would be located on A401, building section B. She wanted to know about the elevation change at several places on the site plan. She asked about the finish around the entry column. She wanted to know what material was intended for the column on sheet A331 of the main lobby at the west corner plaza. Mr. Lee indicated the light blue area on the driveway was moving and loading. They worked with a traffic engineer to ensure a loading truck could safely back in and turn out. The moving truck would schedule a time to go there to load. That area was also for trash pickup. They had two trash chutes. All the trash would collect from the basement and go through the ramp into that zone during only specific times so the trash truck could come in front loaded and turn out. The pink area was for passenger drop off. They wanted the area on the right side of the sheet to be a loading area but Public Work and Transportation did not agree because the bike lane on El Camino Real would make backing out to the street difficult. They tried several times to make that a secondary loading from another lobby. Right now that driveway would only be for the transformer service. They designed a decorative roll up door for the trash staging and Uber delivery area for full security when not in service. On the basement plan, the first garage area was not gated. Those were for guest parking. They did have a gate past a certain point. The bike parking on the upper side could be accessed by both guests and residents. He described the gates at the trash staging and Uber delivery areas and the garage. He stated the lower level would be lower than eight feet two inches. All the accessible parking would be provided at B1, the first level. They tried to make all the corners have accessible clearance at eight foot two or above. He said there would probably be six parking spots at A401, building section B and they would not be accessible. He explained there was a smooth transition from east to west of the El Camino Real sidewalk with a roughly four feet high difference and a gentle slope throughout the curbside. There was a temporary ramp placed but the location was being worked on with the interior designer to mitigate the visual connection to be more transparent. They needed a ramp or lift in between some of the functions. He stated the intent was to incorporate some water feature along with the structural column and the landscape seating area. Item 4 Attachment A: Minutes of November 7, 2024     Packet Pg. 94     Page 6 of 16 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 11/07/24 Mr. Lettieri added there would be an artist involved with column located on sheet A331 of the main lobby at the west corner plaza. It would be solid and they hoped to have water come down the column to a pool. Boardmember Adcock queried if the windows from the apartments were operable. She wanted to understand what would create the deep recesses on the front on the rendering on 410. She asked about architecture and materials of the balconies. She preferred they attempt to achieve the look with the clip-on balconies where the exterior material hides all of the edge structure. She observed in proportion to the overall elevation, the larger vertical seen on the rendering was better proportioned than what the detail would result in. She asked if the water would drain out the middle or dump out the side since they have stacked balconies. She wanted to ensure stacked drainage would be considered. Mr. Lee replied every unit would have a portion of operable windows but they have not identified which portion would be operable. On the rendering on 410, he explained some of the shadow was created by a shadow device. There was a balcony in the middle with at least a six foot recess. He explained they would mix and match the material on the balconies to incorporate them into some of the objective design standard. When a deeper recess vertical break was called for, they used a certain type of balcony to be different than the other type to coherently kind of bring the purpose for recess area with a different type of balcony. He explained the detail was still being developed but he believed the rendering would be more of the design intent moving forward. He indicated the bottom balconies would likely be shift flow but the internal balconies would be through internal drain. Principal Planner Sauls added the window may be slightly recessed about two to four inches but there was also a projecting panel element going beyond the façade creating a deeper visual. Boardmember Hirsch inquired if it had been discussed with the Transportation people how they would stack delivery vehicles as they came in. He wanted to know if putting the main entry in the center between the protruding shapes onto El Camino had been considered. Mr. Lee confirmed they worked with Transportation. They would increase the loading area quite a bit in order to accommodate all the activity. They will have a traffic engineer to put a template and work with trash management and their management team to put in an appropriate template to ensure all the loading and trash pickup could be managed. The management team would need a schedule to screen the activity. The trash pickup would be in the morning so at that time nobody would be scheduled to load. Moving tenants would need to obtain a timeframe to bring in a truck. There would be two loading bays and they felt that would be plenty. They would work with a signage consultant. He described the options considered for the entry and they consolidated them. Principal Planner Sauls added the image showed a clear access point for any vehicles coming to drop off packages to the main lobby and toward the leasing area. They would be outside the lane of travel. People would only be going in or out along the long driveway area but loading vans or delivery vehicles would be pulling off to the side to deliver packages. He noted the objective standards did not want to highlight driveways. If the idea was to have a vehicle-centric concept, an entry could be created but it would highlight where cars come in rather than potentially where people are coming in. Most of the standards tried to push the entries off to the side to be minimized in terms of the architectural designs. From a pedestrian standpoint, the intent is to create an inviting space. Item 4 Attachment A: Minutes of November 7, 2024     Packet Pg. 95     Page 7 of 16 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 11/07/24 Chair Rosenberg observed if there was a retail space, the co-working element would be the ideal spot as it would be centralized on the building. She asked for clarity on the colors shown on the renderings and mentioned the red shown on the trellis above the columns and the deeper recessed cutouts where the balconies were. She asked if the façade going back into the balconies would be the read material and not the wood wrapping around. Mr. Lee explained the material board that was submitted a year ago had been misplaced so they scrambled to bring some of the main material. They would supply the pain chips. He highlighted the vertical cultural stone element from the ground to the roof garden between the red and wood color. Principal Planner Sauls indicated the renderings showed the recessed portion would be cardinal red and that could also be seen down along the diagonal cut-in to the building. Vice Chair Chen wanted clarification on the lighter color being used. Mr. Lee reiterated these were not the real actual colors. The rendering represented the metal panel on the top level, not the exact color. The club room and the left side of the unit intended to use some of the metal color. Chair Rosenberg was overall pleased with the design. She thought the cohesion with the objective standards was successful. She appreciated the ins and outs of the building and the dynamic façade. She agreed that the lobby could be centrally located but she was fine with how it was angled. She appreciated the thoughtfulness to parking, bike parking, loading and unloading zones and the trash collection. She appreciated the landscape architect and thought it would be a dynamic project. She was personally not a fan of the red color. She agree there should be more thoughtfulness to the circulation between the main lobby and front corridor so attention should be paid to the possibility for a more cohesive circulation on the ground floor. Boardmember Adcock thought the building was well designed and the intent from the renderings was clear. Her main recommendation comment was to follow through with the details that match the rendering. She thought the deep recess windows and the balconies in front made the building a three- dimensionally intriguing shape. She agreed the first floor circulation needed some work. She stressed making the balconies as equitable as possible. She did not mind the shared continuous balconies as long as there was some privacy partition between them. Boardmember Hirsch described the elements he admired of the building and thought it was a prototype of something that could be considered for other buildings in the future. He hoped Planning would recognize the importance of those elements to the scale of the City. He thought all the articulation on the facades added to that. He felt the selection of materials and alternate faces of the building were well organized. He agreed the area being used for circulation needed much more work with the transportation engineer but aesthetically because it was being created as the main lobby. He suggested using enclosures to focus attention to the front instead of what goes on in the background with loading and unloading. Vice Chair Chen appreciated the well thought out site plan. She indicated there were minor internal circulation issues that needed to be improved. She liked the different amenity spaces provided in different levels and the multiple roof terrace. She thought the materials were high quality and compatible with the scale of the building. She suggested considering the clear glazing being used for the Item 4 Attachment A: Minutes of November 7, 2024     Packet Pg. 96     Page 8 of 16 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 11/07/24 long term bike storage because there were other projects with concern about the security for bicycle storage. She was personally not a fan of the red vertical walls along the El Camino Way. She thought they competed with the angled massing elements. She liked the design overall. Boardmember Baltay remarked it was an excellent project and everything should be done to approve it as fast as possible. He commented the site planning worked very well, the facades were well designed and the materials were high quality. The amenities and details would make it a good place to live. He suggested focusing on the details of the windows to get more depth on the installation, considering the suggestion made regarding the ground floor circulation and finding a way to make it so they could convert to retail without going through an approval process. Action Items 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. Boardmember Adcock, Vice Chair Chen, Boardmember Baltay and Boardmember Hirsch admitted to have visited the site. Boardmember Adcock had met with the architects on the projects a couple of weeks before. Vice Chair Chen met the architect on October 3 and the information was all covered in the package and drawing set. Chair Rosenberg had met with the architect. She clarified each person met individually. Boardmember Baltay met with the architect but did not learn anything not in public record. Boardmember Hirsch talked with the architect and with Dean Rubinson whose company owns the shopping center. Emily Kallas, Senior Planner, provided a slide presentation about the 70 Encina Avenue Planning Home Zoning Project including a background/process of the project, project location, project overview, site and floor plan, renderings compared to preliminary plans including west, south and eastern elevations, neighborhood renderings, key considerations, public comments from Ellis Partners and recommendations. Boardmember Adcock queried if PCH applied to the zoning or if it was PC making its own zoning and if the zoning had been developed. Claire Raybould, Interim Manager of Current Planning, replied it would be a PC application creating its own zoning. The CC development standards were provided for reference. The PC process would included coming to the Architectural Review Board for review of the development plan then they would Item 4 Attachment A: Minutes of November 7, 2024     Packet Pg. 97     Page 9 of 16 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 11/07/24 return to the Planning and Transportation Commission with a proposed ordinance that aligns with that development plan. Boardmember Baltay recalled having seen the project twice before, once as a study session and that it was a five-story proposal at first. He observed this had been in the planning process for about two years. Planner Kallas replied it was one time before for a preliminary Architecture Review Board which was a separate application prior to receiving this. The five-story proposal was a City Council pre-screening. She confirmed it had been in the planning process about two years. Boardmember Adcock asked if that would make this meeting number one or two. Planner Kallas explained as this was not a streamlined housing project, there would not formally be a limit in the number of meetings. In terms of the typical process, it would go to Council, PTC, ARB, ARB, PTC, Council but due to the redesigns between the initial Council meeting and the PTC meeting, the applicant chose to have a preliminary Architecture Review Board meeting. Boardmember Hirsch inquired how the site was defined as unrelated to the parking lot and being developed separately. Planner Kallas explained the property was not owned by the same owners who own the rest of the land that is leased to Town and Country for the shopping center. It was sold to the current property owner who was choosing to develop it. The parking for Town and Country did still meet the zoning parking requirements without these two parcels. A lot merger would be included as a part of the project. Boardmember Adcock queried if the two lots were within the Town and Country development plan boundary. She presumed the other properties that were part of the parking lot could be sold individually in the future. She wanted to know how the housing element would allocate the number of potential development of the lots using the housing element umbrella. Planner Kallas responded that Town and Country does not have a development plan. There was a master sign program and a master facade program which regulated mainly the appearance of the existing buildings and did not regulate future development. The zoning code and comprehensive plan did refer to the Town and Country Shopping Center as being bound by Encina Avenue, Embarcadero Road, El Camino Real and the Caltrain Right-Of-Way. However, they felt this project would need to be designed in a way that does not impact the operation of the shopping center. Ms. Raybould thought theoretically they could be sold off separately but a number of the other parcels were owned by Town and Country and therefore they would have control over the use of those parcels. She explained the way that the housing element site allocation worked was assuming a mixed use project because that was what was allowed in the base zoning and also based on the zoning regulations. That was the capacity based on those restrictions under the PC ordinance and proposal. It could be higher, especially as it's not proposed as a mixed use project in which case they would need to rezone. The housing element site itself would be allowed to develop as fully residential but the other site not identified as a housing inventory site would have to comply with the mixed use requirements. Boardmember Hirsch queried what happened to the parking that had been on this lot prior to it being separated. Item 4 Attachment A: Minutes of November 7, 2024     Packet Pg. 98     Page 10 of 16 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 11/07/24 Planner Kallas explained the property had. already been taken out of the parking stock for Town and Country. There was a fence around the project. Those spaces were not counted towards Town and Country's parking requirements and there were enough parking spaces based on the zoning code. Ed Storm, Storm Land Group, discussed a background of the project. He indicated they had only been opposed by Town and Country Shopping Center and he did not think they could ever satisfy their conditions. He stressed this was an opportunity to build the housing the City wants and was surprised how difficult it had been to get the support of the City. He hoped they would look to being partners in getting the housing built. Jeff Galbraith, Hayes Group Architects, provided a slide presentation about the project to include the process/planning review timeline, comparison of preliminary and current proposed photos, front façade changes, rear façade changes, site façade changes, visibility from Town and Country, comments about vehicular access, electrical service/transformer location and window privacy, proposed plan changes – ground floor and front façade, turning radius studies – front and rear units, proposed plans – second and third floors and proposed plans – third floor window privacy changes. PUBLIC COMMENT Herb Borock discussed reasons he did not believe the item had been properly brought before the Board. He opined the only way the project could be elevated would be with proper environmental review. Dean Rubinson, Director of Development for Ellis Partners, spoke about the various concerns about the impact of the project. He mentioned his organization having sent a letter from their council clarifying their official position on considerations and risks of future legal action regarding the project. Randy Popp, critic hired by Ellis Partners to help them evaluate the project adjacent to the property of Town and Country Village, mentioned a letter he had sent that contained his concerns and was included in the packet. He discussed his various concerns. He hoped clear direction from the Board would help reinforce the need for changes to create a project the could be appreciated as a success. Amie Ashton, executive director of Palo Alto Forward, spoke of her organizations support of the project and urged the Board to provide concise, productive comments to keep the project moving. Mr. Galbraith appreciated all of the feedback received from the Board as well as from Town and Country and had been thoughtful about how to process those and figure out how to incorporate the solutions that address them. He mentioned the concerns about noise related to lack of setbacks and buffers and indicated that how the façade was constructed would make a difference. There are codes in place that dictate the noise levels that are acceptable within residential units. As part of the project moving forward, there would be acoustical studies that measure onsite noise. They would have consultants help inform them about how to develop those façades, how to specify glazing and so forth. He stated the issues were very manageable. Chair Rosenberg asked for clarification from staff on the notes of noise complaint concerns by Town and Country. She queried if there would be triple pane glazing. She was confused why Town and Country Village was worried that their 4 AM productivity would negatively impact the tenants of the building. She asked the Town and Country representative if the concern was that complaints from the tenants would negatively impact how they were able to do business or might be restrictive. She asked how many Item 4 Attachment A: Minutes of November 7, 2024     Packet Pg. 99     Page 11 of 16 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 11/07/24 spaces of guest parking would be provided. She wanted to know if there was any consideration for deliveries and if there was potentially designated space on Encina that would be loading and unloading only. Mr. Galbraith again explained an acoustical engineer would measure on-site noise levels. They would leave physical measuring devices in place that would produce a report looking at the proximity of the noise sources to the project and return to them with recommendations to meet the requirements. He reiterated that the project is designed so the exterior places are located around the central courtyard. He stated that the things that tend to be the biggest noise contributors are the train and truck traffic on El Camino Real. He did not see any objection to designating a space as loading and unloading along Encina Avenue if the City was open to it. Mr. Rubinson remarked they knew if housing was put right next to them, there would be complaints. They were trying to highlight that there would be conflicts. It could be handled with better glazing or buffers. They were not concerned about them as tenants but as neighbors. The same related to parking. He stated that as guests come to the property, there would be no guest parking and they would park on their property and they would have to put violations on their cars and work with the City to resolve another conflict. They were trying to highlight for the ARB that parking would be a future conflict. Planner Kallas replied that Palo Alto does not have a standard for guest parking. Parking is only based on the number of bedrooms per unit. This project would be within the AB 2097 boundaries that limit the ability to require any parking. She clarified the City required loading spaces for more than 50 housing units and this project was below that threshold. When a loading space is required, it is preferred to be onsite loading. They would likely not support converting and existing public parking space to a loading space that would restrict its current use as a regular parking space. Ms. Raybould noted there is a bike path at the end of Encina and she thought they would want to ensure potential rights in that right-of-way would be preserved for future bike connections. Boardmember Hirsch queried if this project would be going through an environmental quality review. Planner Kallas confirmed that as noted in the staff report the project was currently under review. They anticipated preparing 15-183 exemption allowing for projects consistent with the comprehensive plan to be exempt from a CEQA review, such as an MND or EIR, when it meets other requirements and does not create a significant impact. Boardmember Baltay inquired if there was any residential use adjacent to Town and Country that would be acceptable to Mr. Rubinson. He asked for clarification of Town and Country’s ability to add housing in the future. Mr. Rubinson thought they were suggesting that an appropriately designed residential project with appropriate scale, noise buffers and parking would be appropriate here. Planner Kallas remarked any future development at Town and Country would need to meet the zoning code and comprehensive plan policies and would be treated like any other application. It would be regulated by floor area requirements, parking requirements, etc., unless it went through some type of rezoning. Comprehensive plan policies encouraged preservation of the existing retail use and shopping center. Item 4 Attachment A: Minutes of November 7, 2024     Packet Pg. 100     Page 12 of 16 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 11/07/24 Chair Rosenberg asked about the ownership of the two parcels highlighted on page 69. She mentioned a car wash in the corner that is not considered a part of Town and Country even though it was technically within the same island of land between the streets as they were defined and if its operation would be at odds with any of the uses of Town and Country. Ms. Raybould answered all of the areas bounded by Encina, El Camino and Embarcadero are part of Town and Country but each parcel is looked at individually in terms of floor area, lot coverage, everything. Many of the parcels adjacent to this were owned by Town and Country, not just leased. These two parcels happened to have been in a long-term lease for many years but were no longer being leased. She clarified the car wash is theoretically part of Town and Country as defined by the zoning code and comprehensive plan. They did not opine that the use of the car wash would be at odds with any of the uses of Town and Country and she thought that was the argument that comes up in the letter from Ellis Partners that stated the residential use would be in conflict. They spoke to that in the main body of the staff report as well as Attachment D. Boardmember Adcock inquired how this was different than housing above retail on University Avenue. Planner Kallas thought that was a good point and could be a basis of discussion for the Board. Ms. Raybould added that with respect to noise, there were building code requirements for interior residential units that had to be met. As the applicant considered the design of their own project, they would need to ensure that they were taking into account all the existing noise levels when making their determination of whether it met building code requirements for noise on the interior. Boardmember Hirsch questioned if the qualified urban uses had been examined and if they felt they would pass that kind of criteria. He did not think a parking lot filled with cars was a qualified urban use. He mentioned the Coordinated Area Plan and did not opine this was appropriate. He was concerned that the environmental issues of the neighborhood were not conducive to housing. Planner Kallas explained the CEQA definition of qualified urbanized use was any developed use. This property as a parking lot and the surrounding buildings would be considered an urban use. Boardmember Adcock asked what density and size of housing Mr. Rubinson find appropriate. Mr. Rubinson thought in terms of the parking impacts, any project should address the reality of parking behavior and not just the code requirements. If they were going to design their own project, they would put the amount of parking needed for the residents and guests in addition to maintaining retail parking. They have evolved in terms of residential use if it was instituted in an appropriate way. They believe the CEQA and zoning analyses were not appropriate and did not permit housing without a change in the comp plan, which specifically said Town and Country should not be converted to residential uses. With the appropriate zoning change, parking and buffers, he thought the scale could change along the area. Chair Rosenberg inquired about the operational hours of Town and Country Village. She asked if overnight parking was allowed at Town and Country Village. Mr. Rubinson understood at 4 AM the Palo Alto trash trucks arrive because they have deliveries that start at 6 or 7 AM. Staff arrives at 7 AM and they open to the public at 10 AM. Office tenants and people working at restaurants arrive earlier. He stated overnight parking was not allowed at Town and Country Village and if someone used their parking lot illegally they would be responsible for having them towed Item 4 Attachment A: Minutes of November 7, 2024     Packet Pg. 101     Page 13 of 16 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 11/07/24 as the City did not police the parking lot. He clarified they do not own any of the land. They have a 70 plus year ground lease on all of Town and Country Village except the two parcels. The had leased those on an annual basis. Boardmember Adcock wanted clarification about the zoning violation with the fence. Planner Kallas responded a fence currently surrounded the two lots. The initial fence had been put up without permission from the City. All fences on commercial properties required a minor staff level architectural review. After this was brought to their attention, it was ensured that they went through the process to get a permitted fence and that fence was currently in place. Boardmember Baltay wanted clarification on Boardmember Hirsch’s previous comments regarding the appropriateness of the site for housing. Boardmember Hirsch pointed out that the fact that the property would be developed and could remain a parking lot and he did not feel the particular surrounding satisfied their comp plan requirements for environment for housing. He thought there should be comprehensive planning for the whole site to answer issues of the comp plan. He thought that this should be an overlay district allowing some variation on the zoning to allow a larger amount of housing without discussing the site planning of that housing. He opined this would interrupt the possibility of creating a uniform design for this entire site as a special overlay district. Boardmember Adcock agreed it would be great if the entire Encina Avenue was developed as housing but that was not the project before them. To negatively comment on this project because he wanted more in the future did not make sense to her. If this project was developed and built and in the future the parcels on that street could be sold to other developers who could develop housing as long as the parking requirement per code was met. Boardmember Hirsch stated just because the property happened to be a different kind of property than what was around it did not mean the City could not say they would prefer to have an organized, unified design concept for the whole site recognizing the shopping center, its entry and its design and create one significant design for the whole block. This property could allow for significantly greater density of housing than 10 units. Boardmember Adcock pointed out that Town and Country would not support more density. Chair Rosenberg opined that attempting to add higher density residential would exacerbate Town and Country’s issues. She maintained it was outside their scope to come up with a cohesive plan to get the stretch of properties together. The question at hand was if the project being presented to them was an appropriate project. She pointed out the accessibility to amenities. Boardmember Baltay wanted the building to step back more from Town and Country. He did not think the architect did a whole lot on the back to try to match Town and Country and clearly had not stepped it back but he was struck that what defined Town and Country was messy urban vitality and he thought this building would contribute to that. Vice Chair Chen agreed with Boardmember Baltay’s comments. She thought it was a good location for housing, an appropriate transition and could be a demonstration to result in future developments. Item 4 Attachment A: Minutes of November 7, 2024     Packet Pg. 102     Page 14 of 16 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 11/07/24 Boardmember Hirsch opined that the outdoor relationship was what brought life to the property. He was not opposing the project as a design. He thought the parking issue and the interior of it was difficult and needed five or six more widths to be a reasonable townhouse. He added unless there was an overall scheme for this site, all the rooms facing outward would face parking and was an unfriendly environment. Boardmember Adcock pointed out the plan addressed that with the stairs on the perimeter for each of the units and the living areas face inward. She opined a two car garage was plenty for a two to three bedroom house. It was a small development with few cars and the width would not be a big impact. She thought it would be better to forego the tree at the end and get vine planting and wider garage doors. Chair Rosenberg explained how she found the project to be introverted. She wished for more ingress and egress toward Town and Country. Based on the confinements of the site, she felt it was appropriate. She mentioned a block of the rear elevation that was the same height as the lower side slope of the sloped roofs and wondered why the back portion was not lowered to that height. She did not think it was fair to preclude any potential future development because they want adequate parking for it. There were different options for that. She would like for the City to provide more reassurance regarding the spillover to Town and Country. She suggested possibly selling parking passes for overnight parking. She thanked the applicant for responding to the Board’s previous commentary. She appreciated the stair circulation being moved to the exterior and the activation of the front façade by having more windows facing the front that were less private. Boardmember Adcock appreciated them responding to the Board’s comments. She thought the layout of the fire access was thoughtful. She appreciated the overall design. She felt the side elevations were improved without the fence. She urged them to see if they could do a wider gate instead of the other door at the last two units in the back. She suggested putting restrictions on whoever buys the units that they would not be allowed to park next door. She supported moving forward. Boardmember Baltay wondered why they should not vote on the project at that time. Planner Kallas indicated that they typically wait until the CEQA analysis has been completed to ask for a formal recommendation. It had not been done thus they were asking for a continuation. Boardmember Baltay supported continuing it in order to allow members of the public the opportunity to sit with the architect. Chair Rosenberg commented she would appreciate a second look at the very last podium and seeing if the height could be brought down to be in alignment with the white portions of the building. Ken Hayes, Hayes Group Architects, stated in the past they had projects that were moved along with a requirement to work out with staff if any revisions needed to be made. He asked if there was a way to say if CEQA was completed they could be affirmed and the staff could address any remaining comment. Ms. Raybould answered the ARB cannot make a recommendation without considering the findings of the environmental analysis. Chair Rosenberg requested staff speed the process as much as possible and that they have a truncated review in terms of noting that ARB did not have comments from this hearing when it comes back and that what was being reviewed at that time would be the CEQA analysis and anything pertinent to that. Item 4 Attachment A: Minutes of November 7, 2024     Packet Pg. 103     Page 15 of 16 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 11/07/24 MOTION: Chair Rosenberg moved to continue to a date uncertain as expediently as possible. It was seconded by Vice Chair Chen: VOTE: Motion carried 5-0. Approval of Minutes 4. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for October 3, 2024 Vice Chair Chen requested an adjustment on packet page 117, paragraph 6 changing “6 feet high” to “60 feet high”. Boardmember Hirsch mentioned packet page 113 and 122 and requested changing “female” to “person”. Chair Rosenberg preferred to get the person’s name if possible. Boardmember Baltay indicated that it was inappropriate to identify the sex when the person is unknown. Boardmember Hirsch suggested using “unnamed person”. Vice Chair Chen agreed they could rewatch and if it was one of the Board members they could fill it in and if not change it to “unnamed person”. MOTION: Chair Rosenberg moved to approve Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for October 3, 2024, with the mentioned adjustments, seconded by Vice Chair Chen. VOTE: Motion carried 5-0. 5. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for October 17, 2024 MOTION: Chair Rosenberg moved to approve Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for October 17, 2024, as written, seconded by Boardmember Adcock. VOTE: Motion carried 5-0. Board Member Questions, Comments, Announcements Or Future Meetings And Agendas Boardmember Baltay mentioned talking about the cell phone tower at the beginning of the meeting. He had made comments at the public City Council meeting. He stated they were all aware of the outcome of that. Chair Rosenberg added this was partially to the work plan presented to City Council that was approved for the future year and the one item added was review of the cell phone tower so they were to add that to the work plan. She did not yet know how that was defined and in what capacity. It was added in hopes to see it in 2025. She wanted to review what was done previously by the ARB when they are received. Boardmember Hirsch added they had worked diligently on the spacing of the items on the poles, the perimeter, the organization of the interconnections of pieces within it and the dimension from the Item 4 Attachment A: Minutes of November 7, 2024     Packet Pg. 104     Page 16 of 16 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 11/07/24 ground up to the base of anything that is put on the pole. He stated it would be useful to have that information to review. Adjournment Chair Rosenberg adjourned the meeting at 12:26 p.m. Item 4 Attachment A: Minutes of November 7, 2024     Packet Pg. 105