Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-10-02 Architectural Review Board Agenda PacketARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD Regular Meeting Thursday, October 02, 2025 Council Chambers & Hybrid 8:30 AM Amended Agenda Amended agenda items appear below in RED   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. The meeting will be broadcast on Cable TV Channel 26, live on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen Media Center https://midpenmedia.org. Visit https://bit.ly/PApendingprojects to view project plans and details. Commissioner names, biographies, and archived agendas and reports are available at https://bit.ly/paloaltoARB. VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/96561891491) Meeting ID: 965 6189 1491 Phone: 1(669)900-6833   PUBLIC COMMENTS Public comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or an amount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutes after the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance to arb@PaloAlto.gov 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@PaloAlto.gov 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.  1 Regular Meeting October 02, 2025 Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the Board after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection at  www.paloalto.gov/agendas.   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. 340 Portage Avenue [24PLN-00322]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Major Architectural Review Approval for a Master Sign Program. The Proposed Project Includes Nine Signs. CEQA Status: Council Adopted Resolution No. 10123 Certifying a Final EIR for The Project (SCH#2021120444) on September 12, 2023. 3.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 156 California Avenue [24PLN-00100]: Consideration of a Major Architectural Review Application to Allow the Deconstruction of an Existing Grocery Story (Mollie Stone’s) and an Adjacent Vacant Parking Lot and Construction of a Mixed-Use Development with 18,719 Square Feet of Commercial Space and 382 Residential Rental Units, 20% of Which Would Be Provided at a Rate Affordable to Low Income. CEQA Status: An Environmental Impact Report is Currently Being Prepared in Accordance With the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Zoning District: Lot A- CC(2)(R)(P); Lot B- CC(2)(R). This item will not be heard at this meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 4.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for August 7, 2025 5.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for August 21, 2025  2 Regular Meeting October 02, 2025 Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the Board after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection at  www.paloalto.gov/agendas.   BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS AND AGENDAS Members of the public may not speak to the item(s).   ADJOURNMENT     3 Regular Meeting October 02, 2025 Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the Board after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection at  www.paloalto.gov/agendas.   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@PaloAlto.gov. 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@paloalto.gov. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service. Item No. 1. Page 1 of 2 Architectural Review Board Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: October 2, 2025 Report #: 2509-5251 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 Samuel Tavera (Samuel.Tavera@PaloAlto.gov) 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 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 October 16, 2025 2100 Geng Rd: Builder’s Remedy Early Hearing Tier 2 Wireless in public right-of-way (near 1661 Page Mill Rd) Continued from 9/18 RECENTLY SUBMITTED PROJECTS No new ARB projects were submitted since the last ARB meeting. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: 2025 Meeting Schedule & Assignments Attachment B: 2026 Tentative Meeting Schedule & Assignments Attachment C: Pending ARB Projects AUTHOR/TITLE: ARB Liaison1 & Contact Information   Steven Switzer, Historic Preservation Planner   (650) 329-2321   Steven.Switzer@PaloAlto.gov 1 Emails can be sent directly to the ARB at the following email: ARB@PaloAlto.gov Item 1 Item 1 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 6     Architectural Review Board 2025 Meeting Schedule & Assignments 8 4 9 3 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 CANCELED 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 CANCELED 6/19/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid CANCELED 7/3/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 7/17/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular Adcock & Jojarth 8/7/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 8/21/2025 8/28/2025 8:30 AM 12:00PM Hybrid In Person Regular Special 9/4/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 9/18/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 10/2/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular Rosenberg 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 2025 Ad Hoc Committee Assignments Assignments will be made by the ARB Chair January February March April May June 3/20 – Adcock & Rosenberg July August September October November December 7/17 – Chen & Hirsch 8/7 -Chen & Rosenberg 9/4 – Chen & Hirsch Item 1 Attachment A - 2025 Meeting Schedule & Assignments     Packet Pg. 7     DRAFT Architectural Review Board 2026 Meeting Schedule & Assignments 8 4 9 3 Tentative 2026 Meeting Schedule Meeting Dates Time Location Status Planned Absences 1/1/2026 8:30 AM Hybrid Cancelled 1/15/2026 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 2/5/2026 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 2/19/2026 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 3/5/2026 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 3/19/2026 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 4/2/2026 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 4/16/2026 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 5/7/2026 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 5/21/2026 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 6/4/2026 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 6/18/2026 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 7/2/2026 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 7/16/2026 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 8/6/2026 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 8/20/2026 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 9/3/2026 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 9/17/2026 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 10/1/2026 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 10/15/2026 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 11/5/2026 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 11/19/2026 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 12/3/2026 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 12/17/2026 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 2026 Ad Hoc Committee Assignments Assignments will be made by the ARB Chair January February March April May June July August September October November December Item 1 Attachment B - 2026 Tentative 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 Revised Plans Submitted 6/23 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 Item 1 Attachment C - Pending ARB Projects     Packet Pg. 9     Permit Type Filed Permit #Address Type Work Description Status/Notes TBD. Ad Hoc (Baltay, Chen) reported out 6/1 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 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) 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 Ad Hoc (Baltay, Adcock) Deemed Complete 12/22/24 Supplementary info req. ARB 10/2 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. Ad Hoc (Baltay, Chen) ARB 8/7 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. Resubmittal on 11/22/24 Deemed Complete 4/3/25 Supplementary info req. Item 1 Attachment C - Pending ARB Projects     Packet Pg. 10     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 NOI Sent 8/1/2024. Resubmittal on 11/22/24 Deemed Complete 12/25/24 Supplementary info req. 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. 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) NOI sent 1/16/25 Resubmittal 1/31/25 NOI Sent 2/21/25 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). NOI sent 1/09/25 Resubmittal 3/27/25 ARB 5/15 rec. to continue ARB 10/2 Item 1 Attachment C - Pending ARB Projects     Packet Pg. 11     Permit Type Filed Permit #Address Type Work Description Status/Notes Minor Architectural Review 12/03/24 24PLN-00339 2280 El Camino Real Restaurant Minor Board Level Architectural Review for the exterior and interior remodel of the existing Jack in the Box restaurant. Modification to the exterior of the building include the removal of the mansard roof, installation of new parapets, new finishes and branding panels. No increase in building footprint. NOI sent 1/22/25 Resubmittal 2/21/25 NOI sent 3/26/25 ARB 8/21 Site and Design & Conditional Use Permit 12/8/24 24PLN-00356 24PLN-00357 (Map) 2100 Geng Rd Housing – 137 Units Tentative Map/Subdivision and Site and Design & Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the transformation of an existing underutilized business park at 2100-2400 Geng Road into a new residential neighborhood with 137 multi-family townhome units and community space. Project site totals approximately 11-acres. NOI sent 1/24/25 Resubmittal on 4/16/25 NOI sent 5/22/25 Resubmittal on 7/25 ARB 10/16 Planned Home Rezoning 9/10/25 25PLN-00225 808 San Antonio Housing 175 units Rezoning to Planned Community/Planned Home Zoning to allow the merging of lots 800 and 808 San Antonio Road, to form an 0.88-acre site. The Project will be a 175-unit residential building with 26 BMR units. The project will include 2,294 square feet of commercial space at the ground floor. The building is designed as an 8-story building with two levels of subterranean construction. The project also includes an interior courtyard, exterior courtyard, and roof deck. Item 1 Attachment C - Pending ARB Projects     Packet Pg. 12     Item No. 2. Page 1 of 5 Architectural Review Board Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: October 2, 2025 Report #: 2508-5131 TITLE PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 340 Portage Avenue [24PLN-00322]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Major Architectural Review Approval for a Master Sign Program. The Proposed Project Includes Nine Signs. CEQA Status: Council Adopted Resolution No. 10123 Certifying a Final EIR for The Project (SCH#2021120444) on September 12, 2023. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Board (ARB): 1. Find the project to be in accordance with the previously certified EIR; and 2. Recommend that the Director of Planning and Development Services approve the Master Sign Program based on the findings in Attachment B and subject to the Conditions of Approval in Attachment C. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The proposed project includes a request for approval of a Major Architectural Review Application for a Master Sign Program for the property located at 200-400 Portage Avenue, providing signage for the mixed-use development approved in accordance with the Sobrato Development Agreement, which is currently under construction (the project). The project site is proposed to be rebranded as The Cannery Palo Alto and signage includes branding for the site as well as directory and tenant identification signage. Approval of a master sign program allows the occupants of a project to combine the total lawful sign coverage into one or more lawful signs in an integrated design concept and provides that subsequent individual signs may be erected without further design review. The ARB previously reviewed the subject master sign program project on May 15, 2025. An earlier staff report includes extensive background information, project analysis, and evaluation Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 13     Item No. 2. Page 2 of 5 of compliance with City codes and policies. That report is available online.1 A copy of the report without prior attachments is available in Attachment F. The purpose of this report is to restate the comments made by the ARB and detail the applicant’s response to those comments. The analysis section below builds upon the information contained in the earlier report and modified to reflect recent project changes. BACKGROUND A video recording of the May 15, 2025 ARB hearing is available online.2 The ARB’s comments and the applicant’s responses are summarized in the following table: ARB Comments/Direction Applicant Response Branding: Emphasize “The Cannery” as the primary identity rather than individual tenants. The project has been updated to include “The Cannery Palo Alto” in the Entry Identification (Type EI.1) signage. In addition, the applicant is proposing a new Freestanding Sign (Type EI.2) and a Tenant Identification Wall Sign (Type TI). These signs are designed to emphasize “The Cannery” as the primary destination, shifting focus away from individual tenants to highlight the overall identity of the site. EI (Entry Identification) signage: Exclude tenant names, redesign to function as directional signage only by displaying “The Cannery” with a directional arrow. The applicant has removed one of the two proposed Entry Identification Directory Signs (Type EI.1), thereby reducing the amount of signage dedicated to individual tenant identification. Additionally, “The Cannery Palo Alto” has been added as the prominent message at the top of the remaining EI.1 sign, shifting the emphasis from individual tenant spaces to a more cohesive and unified site identity. A separate monument sign branding the site as “the cannery” is provided in-lieu of a second directory sign. TI (Tenant Identification) signage: Retain “The Cannery Palo Alto” signage, consider Sign type TI has been modified to remove tenant identification and only includes 1 May 15, 2025, ARB Meeting Agenda Item 3: https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Public/CompiledDocument?meetingTemplateId=16743&compileOutputType=1 2 May 15, 2025, ARB Meeting Recording: https://youtube.com/watch?v=7br5Fa2WXN0?feature=share Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 14     Item No. 2. Page 3 of 5 proposing additional wall mounted tenant signage as TI.2. branding identification for “The Cannery”. No additional wall signage is planned for individual tenants; however small directional signs are provided. Signage Color and Font: Clarify rationale behind the selection of the orange color and explore alternative font options. The applicant has confirmed that the color palette was inspired by the vintage aesthetic of old canning jar labels, specifically the 1931 Sutter Packing Company label. The applicant has opted to retain the originally proposed letter font, with no alternative typeface included in the resubmitted project. ANALYSIS Staff reviewed the proposed project for conformance with relevant plans, policies, and regulations and finds that the project is mostly in conformance with these requirements as well as the Architectural Review findings, as discussed herein, and recommends that the ARB recommend approval of the project. Staff Analysis of Applicant Responses Overall, the design modifications are responsive to the ARB’s comments. The applicant has also addressed staff recommendations by redesigning the Directory Signs (Type EI) to comply with municipal code requirements with respect to directory and freestanding signs. Instead of the previously proposed two Directory Signs (Type EI.1 and EI.2), the applicant now proposes one Directory Sign (Type EI.1) and one Freestanding Sign (Type EI.2). A summary of the proposed signage is provided below: 340 Portage Avenue Signage Sign Type Code Compliance One Directory Sign (Type EI.1)Compliant One Freestanding Sign (Type EI.2) - new Compliant Two Parking Identification Wall Signs (Type PI)Compliant Two Directional Wall Signs (Type D2)Compliant One Tenant Identification Wall Sign (Type T1)Compliant Two Tenant Identification Awning Wall Signs (Type T2)Compliant Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans, and Guidelines5 The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the project site is Mixed-Use. The Mixed-Use designation is intended to promote pedestrian-oriented places that layer compatible land uses, 5 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online: bit.ly/PACompPlan2030 Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 15     Item No. 2. Page 4 of 5 public amenities and utilities together at various scales and intensities. The designation allows for multiple functions within the same building or adjacent to one another in the same general vicinity to foster a mix of uses that encourages people to live, work, play, and shop in close proximity. The site was redesignated to Mixed-Use in conjunction with the approval of the Sobrato Development Agreement, as set forth in Council Resolution No. 10123. The proposed directory, freestanding, tenant, and directional signage helps with wayfinding on the site and the Master Sign Program allows for consistency in the signage materials and colors across the site. The proposed project provides high quality signage for a historic Cannery building, consistent with Comprehensive Plan goals and policies related to high quality design. Specifically, the project is consistent with Policy L-6.10, which encourages high quality signage that is attractive, appropriate for the location, and balances visibility needs with aesthetic needs. A summary of the project’s consistency with the Comprehensive Plan is provided in the findings under ARB Finding #1 in Attachment B. Municipal Code Compliance7 Attachment D summarized the project’s consistency with applicable zoning standards. Staff finds that the proposed signage complies with all applicable codes. Although not applicable, the proposed signs are also consistent with the Context Based Design Criteria for the North Ventura District (PAMC 18.29.020) because the signs help define the primary entrances to the parking, buildings, businesses, and site overall. They improve wayfinding within the site for pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles. Consistency with Historic Eligibility The building at 340 Portage Avenue was deemed potentially eligible for the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR), but not currently listed. The approved Development Agreement and the associated Environmental Impact Report adopted by Council allowed for partial demolition of the existing cannery building, which was determined to result in a significant and unavoidable impact on this historic resource. The proposed demolition has occurred and, although the site will be reevaluated following the completion of construction in accordance with the conditions of approval, the site is not assumed to have retained integrity such that it is still eligible for listing. Nevertheless, the proposed signage on the building is removable and therefore, would not affect the historic character of the building. The proposed branding of the site as “The Cannery Palo Alto” celebrates the historic use of the site as the Bayside Canning Company Cannery. Consistency with Application Findings Staff finds that the proposed Master Sign Program establishes a unified and consistent approach to business identification signage. The revised signage is thoughtfully designed to align with the historic character of the site, while ensuring consistency in quality, placement, size, color, and illumination methods. Architectural Review findings are provided in Attachment 7 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: bit.ly/PAZoningCode Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 16     Item No. 2. Page 5 of 5 B and may be modified by the ARB as needed. Staff recommends that the Master Sign Program is consistent with the code and the ARB findings for approval. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least ten days in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Daily Post on September 16, 2025, which is 16 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on September 16, 2025, which is 16 days in advance of the meeting. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The subject project was analyzed in an Environmental Impact Report. The City Council certified a Final EIR for the project (SCH#2021120444) on September 12, 2023 (Resolution No. 10123). ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS In addition to the recommended action, the Architectural Review Board may: 1. Continue the project to a date (un)certain with specific direction; or 2. Recommend project denial based on revised findings. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Location Map Attachment B: Draft ARB Findings for Approval Attachment C: Draft Conditions of Approval Attachment D: Zoning Comparison Table Attachment E: Project Plans Attachment F: Staff Report May 15, 2025 Report Author & Contact Information ARB9 Liaison & Contact Information Kristina Dobkevicius, Associate Planner Steven Switzer, Historic Preservation Planner (650) 496-6945 (650) 329-2321 Kristina.Dobkevicius@PaloAlto.gov Steven.Switzer@PaloAlto.gov 9 Emails can be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@paloalto.gov Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 17     AMBERT AVENUE EL DORADO AVENUE LAMBERT AV ASH STREET BIRCH STREET PARK BOULEVARD PARK BOULEVAR ACACIA AVENUE PORTAGE AVENUE PENINSULA 3261 455 3239 411 401 415- 425 3111- 3159 210 220 230 336 340 370 380 360 200 3200 3180 3250 290 2 2773- 2781 110 2811- 2815 365 3225 435 3260 400 460 5 411 450 430 400 3197 3241 1 405 399 429 440 435 425 3200 3250 375 365 385 395 3201 3225 278 3275 320 3251 3290 268 270 280 271 281 3335 291 2799 129 149 3101 265 275 285 295 245 315 305 345 3040 3045 120 130 429 447 3350 292 300 295A 295B 305A 305B 420 GM -R4 PF XL RM-20 NV-MXM NV-MXH PC-5596; PC-5597 This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Assessment Parcel Palo Alto Assessment Parcel Palo Alto Assessment Parcel Outside Palo Alto abc Road Centerline Small Text (TC) Curb Face (RF) Pavement Edge (RF) Address Label Points (AP) Current Features abc Zone District Labels Zone Districts 0'122' Attachment A Location Map340 Portage Avenue CITYOF PALOALTOINCORPORATED 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 Altokpaulau, 2025-09-02 12:54:46 (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Meta\View.mdb) Item 2 Attachment A - Location Map     Packet Pg. 18     9 0 0 3 ATTACHMENT B ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL 340 Portage Avenue/24PLN-00322 The design and architecture of the proposed project, as conditioned, complies with the Findings for Architectural Review as required in PAMC Chapter 18.76. 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. The project is consistent with Finding #1 because: The design is consistent and compatible with the applicable elements of the City's Comprehensive Plan in that the proposed project is consistent with policy L-6.10: Encourage high quality signage that is attractive, energy-efficient, and appropriate for the location, and balances visibility needs with aesthetic needs. The design of the signs, materials, and colors are attractive and appropriate for the building and the surrounding area. 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. The project is consistent with Finding #2 because: The proposed signage design is appropriate for the historic building setting. The signage employs consistent materials and a cohesive color palette, resulting in a unified and visually coherent appearance across the entire site. Finding 3: The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. The project is consistent with Finding #3 because: The project incorporates high-quality materials, including durable paint finishes in Cannery Orange, Cannery Gray, White, Playground Red, Playground Gray, and Slightly Blue. Sign lettering will consist of face-lit, edge-lit push-through, or non-illuminated flat cut-out (FCO) matte acrylic letters, mounted on acrylic-faced metal panels or fabricated aluminum cabinets. The selected colors and materials are Item 2 Attachment B - Draft ARB Findings for Approval     Packet Pg. 19     9 0 0 3 thoughtfully chosen to complement the historic architecture of the building and integrate harmoniously with the surrounding context. Finding 4: The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and providing for elements that support the building's necessary operations (e.g. convenient vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.). The project is consistent with Finding #4 because: The intent of the signage design is to provide functional wayfinding throughout the site while enhancing pedestrian safety. The directory sign serves as pedestrian-scale wayfinding to the businesses from Park Boulevard and tenant identification signs help visitors easily recognize the businesses located within the buildings. Additionally, the directional parking signs positioned at each of the two garage entrances guide drivers toward the appropriate circulation routes, promoting safe and efficient on-site navigation. Finding 5: The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is appropriate to the site's functions, and utilizes to the extent practical, regional indigenous drought resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat that can be appropriately maintained. The project is consistent with Finding #5 because: Finding #5 is not applicable for this project. There is no landscaping that would be impacted by the proposed signage. Landscaping was previously reviewed and approved by Council as part of the Development Agreement (22PLN-00287). Finding 6: The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning. The project is consistent with Finding #6 because: The proposed signs are made of durable long-lasting materials. Although the signs are illuminated, lighting is the minimum necessary to provide for wayfinding after dark and is generally limited to the lettering itself, partially shielded by the materials. Item 2 Attachment B - Draft ARB Findings for Approval     Packet Pg. 20     ATTACHMENT C CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 340 Portage Avenue 24PLN-00322 _________________________________________________________________ PLANNING DIVISION 1. CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS. Construction and development shall conform to the approved plans entitled, "The Cannery Palo Alto, Master Sign Program, 340 Portage, Palo Alto, CA 94080” uploaded to the Palo Alto Online Permitting Services Citizen Portal on September 16, 2025, except as modified by these conditions of approval. 2. BUILDING PERMIT. Apply for a building permit and meet any and all conditions of the Planning, Transportation, and Building Departments. 3. BUILDING PERMIT PLAN SET. The ARB approval letter including all Department conditions of approval for the project shall be printed on the plans submitted for building permit. 4. COLORS AND MATERIALS. The final colors for the signage will align with the colors and materials approved by the architectural review board. 5. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS. All modifications to the approved project shall be submitted for review and approval prior to construction. If during the Building Permit review and construction phase, the project is modified by the applicant, it is the responsibility of the applicant to contact the Planning Division/project planner directly to obtain approval of the project modification. It is the applicant’s responsibility to highlight any proposed changes to the project and to bring it to the project planner’s attention. 6. INDEMNITY. To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City for its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice. 7. FINAL INSPECTION. A Planning Division Final inspection will be required to determine substantial compliance with the approved plans prior to the scheduling of a Building Division final. Any revisions during the building process must be approved by Planning. Contact your Project Planner, Kristina Dobkevicius at Kristina.Dobkevicius@PaloAlto.gov to schedule this inspection. BUILDING DIVISION At time of building permit submittal provide the following information: 8. Wall/building sign: Weight of each sign to be shown as part of plans. Sign attachment to building must include the building elements (i.e., concrete wall, metal studs, wood studs, etc.) with the correct mechanical anchorage type (i.e., Hilti TZ bolt for concrete, sheet metal screw #12 for sheet metal stud, lag screw for woods, etc.) with length and embedment length and listing (i.e, ICC ESR report), & quantities for each sign as minimum. If the sign is heavy enough (typically over 100 lbs or more), structural calculation may be required. If the sign is illuminated, include complete T24 sign form and electrical disconnect and panel information/schedule. Item 2 Attachment C - Draft Conditions of Approval     Packet Pg. 21     Accessibility - please make sure the sign does not protrude into the required walkway and sidewalk (width and head height) meeting the current accessible code. 9. Monument sign: Site plan and location of the monument sign. Size of sign. Sign framing and connections to the existing/new concrete foundation with the correct mechanical anchorage type (i.e., Hilti TZ bolt for concrete, etc.) with total length and embedment length and listing (i.e, ICC ESR report), & quantities for each sign as minimum. Include foundation details (width, length, and embedment) include the rebars. If the sign is illuminated, include complete T24 sign form and electrical disconnect and panel information/schedule. Show location of the electrical panel supply power to the sign. Submit structural design of the sign and its foundation due to gravity, wind, and seismic forces. Engineer plans must be included with design details. 10. Contact the Building Dept if you have any questions. Item 2 Attachment C - Draft Conditions of Approval     Packet Pg. 22     9 0 0 4 Attachment D Zoning Table 340 Portage Avenue Proposed Sign / Type PAMC 16.24 Compliance Allowed Dimensions/Height Existing Dimensions/Height Proposed Dimensions Directory Sign (Type EI.1) Yes 4 square feet plus 1.5 square feet for each additional tenant (8.5 square feet) N/A 8.5 square feet Freestanding Sign (Type EI.2)Yes 27 square feet/up to 5 feet N/A 16.67 square feet, 5 feet Parking Identification Wall Signs (Type PI) Yes 6 square feet/ 3 feet N/A Two, 5.8 square feet each/ 10.5 feet Parking Identification Directional Wall Signs (Type D2) Yes 135.8 square feet N/A Two, 49 square feet each Tenant Identification Wall Sign (Type T1) Yes 67.5 square feet N/A 30 square feet Tenant Identification Awning Wall Signs (Type T2) Yes 60 square feet N/A Two, 15 square feet each Item 2 Attachment D - Zoning Comparison Table     Packet Pg. 23     ATTACHMENT E Project Plans In order to reduce paper consumption, a limited number of hard copy project plans are provided to Architectural Review Board members for their review. The same plans are available to the public, at all hours of the day, via the following online resources. Directions to review Project plans online: 1. Go to: https://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning 2. Scroll down to find “340 Portage Ave” and open the record by clicking on the blue dot 3. Review the record details on the left side and open the “more details” option 4. Use the “Records Info” drop down menu and select “Attachments” 5. You will find links to the project plans and other important information Direct Link to Project Webpage: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Current- Planning/Projects/340-Portage-Avenue-Master-Sign-Program Item 2 Attachment E - Project Plans     Packet Pg. 24     Item No. 3. Page 1 of 9 Architectural Review Board Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: May 15, 2025 Report #: 2504-4501 TITLE PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 340 Portage Avenue [24PLN-00322]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Major Architectural Review Approval for a Master Sign Program. The Proposed Project Includes Nine Signs. CEQA Status: The City Council Certified a Final EIR for The Project (SCH#2021120444) on September 12, 2023 (Resolution No. 10123). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Kristina Dobkevicius at Kristina.Dobkevicius@PaloAlto.gov RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Board (ARB): 1. Recommend that the Director of Planning and Development Services approve the Master Sign Program based on the findings in Attachment B and subject to the Conditions of Approval in Attachment C. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The applicant is requesting approval of a Master Sign Program for the property located at 340 Portage Avenue, known as The Cannery Palo Alto (the Project). The Master Sign Program includes seven sign types: 1. Type EI – Entry ID 2. Type PI – Parking ID 3. Type D2 – Directional Wall 4. Type T1 – Project/Tenant ID Wall 5. Type T2 – Tenant ID Canopy 6. Type PA – Parking Address 7. Type BA – Building Address The proposal includes a total of nine signs, including: 1. Two internally illuminated directory signs (Type EI); 2. Two internally illuminated parking identification wall signs (Type PI); 3. Two non-illuminated directional wall signs (Type D2); Item 3 Staff Report Packet Pg. 35 ATTACHMENT F Item 2 Attachment F - Staff Report May 15, 2025     Packet Pg. 25     Item No. 3. Page 2 of 9 4. One internally illuminated tenant identification wall sign (Type T1); and, 5. Two internally illuminated tenant identification awning wall signs (Type T2). In addition, the project includes building address signage (Type BA) and parking address signage (Type PA), but these signage types are not regulated under zoning. The proposed signage is appropriately scaled to complement the existing buildings and site context. The site will retain existing business-specific signage for the Playground Global tenant, while the proposed Master Sign Program serves to unify wayfinding signage across the property and provide consistency for new tenant signage, enhancing overall consistency and clarity. BACKGROUND Project Information Owner:Robert Tersini, Sobrato Development Owner Representative:Dustin Passalalpi Sign Company Representative:Mardeen Gordon, SignAge & ArtWorks Legal Counsel:Not Applicable Property Information Address:340 Portage Avenue Neighborhood:Ventura Lot Dimensions & Area:Various & 12.531 acres Housing Inventory Site:Yes; signage for approved uses has no impact on HIS Located w/in a Plume:Yes; COE Plume Area Protected/Heritage Trees:Not Applicable (trees are present; signs would have no impact on any trees on or near the property) Historic Resource(s):Yes, see discussion below Existing Improvement(s):142,744 square feet; 21 feet 2 inches; 1948 Existing Land Use(s):Research & Development, Commercial Recreation Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North: NV-MXH (North Ventura, High Density Mixed Use); existing uses include various commercial land uses West: NV-R2 (North Ventura Low Density Residential); existing uses are single-family residential East: PC-5600 (Planned Park and affordable housing as part of the development agreement); existing parking lot South: NV-MXM (North Ventura Medium Density Mixed Use); existing uses include various commercial and multi-family housing under construction Aerial View of Property: Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 36     Item 2 Attachment F - Staff Report May 15, 2025     Packet Pg. 26     Item No. 3. Page 3 of 9 Source: Google Satellite Maps Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans Comp. Plan Designation:Mixed Use Zoning Designation:PC-5596 and PC-5597 (Planned Community) Yes Yes Yes Baylands Master Plan/Guidelines (2008/2005) El Camino Real Guidelines (1976) Housing Development Project Downtown Urban Design Guidelines (1993) South El Camino Real Guidelines (2002) Utilizes Chapter 18.24 - Objective Standards Individual Review Guidelines (2005) Within 150 feet of Residential Use or District Context-Based Design Criteria applicable SOFA Phase 1 (2000)Within Airport Influence Area SOFA Phase 2 (2003) Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 37     Item 2 Attachment F - Staff Report May 15, 2025     Packet Pg. 27     Item No. 3. Page 4 of 9 Prior City Reviews & Action City Council:None PTC:None HRB:None ARB:None PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project includes a Master Sign Program for the proposed development under the Sobrato Development Agreement. The intent of the program is to establish a unified and consistent display of all business identification signage throughout the property. The Master Sign Program includes seven sign types: 1. Type EI – Entry ID 2. Type PI – Parking ID 3. Type D2 – Directional Wall 4. Type T1 – Project/Tenant ID Wall 5. Type T2 – Tenant ID Canopy 6. Type PA – Parking Address 7. Type BA – Building Address The project proposes the installation of nine new signs: •Two internally illuminated directory signs (Type EI); •Two internally illuminated parking identification wall signs (Type PI); •Two non-illuminated directional wall signs (Type D2); •One internally illuminated tenant identification wall sign (Type T1); Two internally illuminated tenant identification awning wall signs (Type T2). The proposed sign materials include paint finishes in Cannery Orange, Cannery Gray, White, Playground Red, Playground Gray, and Slightly Blue. Sign lettering will consist of face-lit, edge-lit push-through, or non-illuminated flat cut-out (FCO) matte acrylic letters, mounted on either acrylic-faced metal panels or fabricated aluminum cabinets. Requested Entitlements, Findings, and Purview: The following discretionary applications are being requested: •Architectural Review – Master Sign Program: In accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) section 16.20.030 "Master sign program" means a program allowing the occupants of a building or project including a number of buildings to combine the total lawful sign coverage into one or more lawful signs in an integrated design concept. The master sign program shall designate the sign locations and areas of all signs in the program, as well as typical sign designs, colors and faces. Pursuant to the approval of the Master Sign Program, subsequent individual signs may be erected without further Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 38     Item 2 Attachment F - Staff Report May 15, 2025     Packet Pg. 28     Item No. 3. Page 5 of 9 design review. The findings for a Master Sign Program are those for Major Architectural Review. ANALYSIS1 Staff reviewed the proposed project for conformance with relevant plans, policies, and regulations and finds that the project is mostly in conformance with these requirements as well as the Architectural Review findings as detailed further in this section. Staff notes the two directory signs along Park Boulevard will require minor modifications prior to approval in order to comply with the code requirements for directory signs as summarized below: 340 Portage Avenue Signs Sign Type Code Compliance (or Deviation) Two Directory Signs (Type EI)Signs currently exceed the allowed square footage by two square feet and do not include the directional arrows necessary to be considered directory signs. Two Parking Identification Wall Signs (Type PI)Compliant Two Directional Wall Signs (Type D2)Compliant One Tenant Identification Wall Sign (Type T1)Compliant Two Tenant Identification Awning Wall Signs (Type T2) Compliant Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans, and Guidelines2 The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the project site is Mixed Use. The Mixed Use designation is intended to promote pedestrian-oriented places that layer compatible land uses, public amenities and utilities together at various scales and intensities. The designation allows for multiple functions within the same building or adjacent to one another in the same general vicinity to foster a mix of uses that encourages people to live, work, play, and shop in close proximity. Most typically, mixed-use developments have retail on the ground floor and residences above. This category includes Live/Work, Retail/Office, Residential/Retail and Residential/Office development. The site was redesignated to Mixed Use in conjunction with the approval of the Sobrato Development Agreement. The proposed directory, tenant, and 1 The information provided in this section is based on analysis prepared by the report author prior to the public hearing. The Architectural Review Board in its review of the administrative record and based on public testimony may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to make alternative findings. A change to findings may result in a final action that is different from the staff recommended action in this report. 2 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online: bit.ly/PACompPlan2030 Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 39     Item 2 Attachment F - Staff Report May 15, 2025     Packet Pg. 29     Item No. 3. Page 6 of 9 directional signage helps with wayfinding on the site and the Master Sign Program allows for consistency in the signage materials and colors across the site. The proposed project would provide high quality signage for a historic Cannery building, consistent with Comprehensive Plan goals and policies related to high quality design. Specifically, the project is consistent with Policy L-6.10, which encourages high quality signage that is attractive, appropriate for the location, and balances visibility needs with aesthetic needs. A summary of the project’s consistency with the Comprehensive Plan is provided in the findings under ARB Finding #1 in Attachment B. Municipal Code Compliance3 Staff prepared a detailed review of the proposed project’s consistency with applicable zoning standards (Attached D), and found that the proposed project complies with all applicable codes. Although not applicable, the proposed signs are also consistent with the Context Based Design Criteria for the North Ventura District (PAMC 18.29.020) because the signs help define the primary entrances to the parking, buildings, businesses, and site overall. They improve wayfinding within the site for pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles. Directory Signs – Type EI Per PAMC 16.20.160, in all districts where group occupancies in office buildings are permitted, directory signs may be erected displaying the names of the occupants of a building who are engaged in a particular profession, business or the like. Such signs shall be situated at least two feet inside the property line and shall not exceed eight feet in height. Such signs may have an area of four-square feet, plus one and one-half square feet per name, in no event to exceed seventy-five square feet. The proposed directory signs do not currently meet the code for two reasons. The signs are currently approximately nine square feet where only seven square feet is allowed, and the signs do not currently have arrows on the signage to appropriately direct the viewer to the appropriate location. As a freestanding sign (versus a directory sign) the applicant would only be allowed to have one such signage along a frontage. The applicant has expressed their intent to modify the sign prior to approval to comply with the directory sign requirements to meet the code requirements, which will also allow for two such signs along the Park Boulevard frontage. Directory signs must also be less than eight feet in height, which the proposed signs comply with (at approximately four feet in height). Parking Identification Directional Signs – Type PI The two proposed parking identification signs, which read “PARKING,” indicate the entrances and exits to the garage and are classified as directional signage. Per PAMC 16.20.160, directional signage is limited to providing wayfinding information only and must not include 3 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: bit.ly/PAZoningCode Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 40     Item 2 Attachment F - Staff Report May 15, 2025     Packet Pg. 30     Item No. 3. Page 7 of 9 business names. Such signs are restricted to a maximum of six square feet in area and a height of three feet when located more than 20 feet from a property line. Each of the proposed signs is 5.8 square feet in area and 10.5 inches in height. Their size is appropriate in relation to the scale of the wall on which they are mounted and ensures clear visibility and legibility for drivers. Directional Wall Signs – Type D2 The two proposed directional wall signs will include both the tenant/business name and arrows indicating the direction to the respective business locations. Each Type D2 sign is 49 square feet in area and contributes to the overall signage for the building. The combined signage remains within the total maximum allowable area of 135.8 square feet, as determined by the 4,985- square-foot building face. Tenant Identification Wall Sign – Type T1 One proposed wall sign on the east elevation, which reads “THE CANNERY PALO ALTO,” reinforces and celebrates the project’s brand identity. It also has the potential to accommodate a single tenant logo on the primary elevation in the future. The sign is 30 square feet in area, well within the maximum allowable sign area of 67.5 square feet. Awning Wall Signs – Type T2 Two awning wall signs reading “TENANT ID” are proposed, each measuring 12.5 square feet. Both signs are smaller than the maximum allowable wall sign area. The proposed tenant identification signage will project above the existing entry canopies but will remain below the top edge of the wall to which it is attached. Address Identification Signs – Type BA and PA One proposed Building Address sign, reading “340,” measures one foot in height, three feet in length, and has a total area of three square feet. Additionally, one proposed Parking Address sign, reading “400,” measures 10.5 inches in height, two feet six inches in length, and covers an area of 2.37 square feet. Both signs are classified as Address Identification per PAMC Section 16.04.240. Each character meets the minimum requirements of four inches in height with a stroke width of at least one-half inch and are consistent with relevant size and illumination standards outlined in Section 502.1 of Chapter 5 of the California Building Code. This project does not account for existing individual business freestanding, wall, and projecting signs, which are calculated separately based on the frontage of each tenant space. Consistency with Historic Eligibility The building at 340 Portage Avenue was deemed potentially eligible for the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR), but not currently listed. The approved Development Agreement and the associated Environmental Impact Report adopted by Council allowed for partial demolition of the existing cannery building, which was determined to result in a significant and unavoidable impact on this historic resource. The proposed demolition has occurred and, Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 41     Item 2 Attachment F - Staff Report May 15, 2025     Packet Pg. 31     Item No. 3. Page 8 of 9 although the site will be reevaluated following the completion of construction in accordance with the conditions of approval, the site is not assumed to have retained integrity such that it is still eligible for listing. Nevertheless, the proposed signage on the building is removable and therefore would not have the potential to affect the historic character of the building. Consistency with Application Findings Staff finds that the proposed Master Sign Program establishes a unified and consistent approach to business identification signage. The signage is thoughtfully designed to align with the historic character of the site, while ensuring consistency in quality, placement, size, color, and illumination methods. The two proposed directory signs must be reduced in size by two square feet and arrows must be added to direct viewers to the correct buildings. The applicant has expressed their intent to modify these signs accordingly to align with the code prior to approval of the project. Architectural Review findings are provided in Attachment B and may be modified by the ARB as needed. Staff recommends that with the proposed modifications, the Master Sign Program is consistent with the code and the ARB findings for approval. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least ten days in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Daily Post on May 2, 2025, which is 13 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on April 30, 2025, which is 15 days in advance of the meeting. Public Comments As of the writing of this report, no project-related, public comments were received. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The subject project was analyzed in an Environmental Impact Report. The City Council certified a Final EIR for the project (SCH#2021120444) on September 12, 2023 (Resolution No. 10123). ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS In addition to the recommended action, the Architectural Review Board may: 1. Continue the project to a date (un)certain with specific direction; or 2. Recommend project denial based on revised findings. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Location Map Attachment B: Draft ARB Findings Attachment C: Draft Conditions of Approval Attachment D: Zoning Comparison Table Attachment E: Project Plans Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 42     Item 2 Attachment F - Staff Report May 15, 2025     Packet Pg. 32     Item No. 3. Page 9 of 9 Report Author & Contact Information ARB4 Liaison & Contact Information Kristina Dobkevicius, Associate Planner Steven Switzer, Historic Preservation Planner (650) 496-6945 (650) 329-2321 Kristina.Dobkevicius@PaloAlto.gov Steven.Switzer@PaloAlto.gov 4 Emails can be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@paloalto.gov Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 43     Item 2 Attachment F - Staff Report May 15, 2025     Packet Pg. 33     Item No. 3. Page 1 of 11 Architectural Review Board Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: October 2, 2025 Report #: 2509-5184 TITLE PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 156 California Avenue [24PLN-00100]: Consideration of a Major Architectural Review Application to Allow the Deconstruction of an Existing Grocery Story (Mollie Stone’s) and an Adjacent Vacant Parking Lot and Construction of a Mixed-Use Development with 18,719 Square Feet of Commercial Space and 382 Residential Rental Units, 20% of Which Would Be Provided at a Rate Affordable to Low Income. CEQA Status: An Environmental Impact Report is Currently Being Prepared in Accordance With the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Zoning District: Lot A- CC(2)(R)(P); Lot B- CC(2)(R). RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action: 1. Review and provide initial comments. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The proposed mixed-use project includes 382 residential rental units, twenty percent of which would be provided at a rate affordable to low-income households or below and approximately 18,720 square feet (sf) of commercial space, including ground floor retail (grocery store and other smaller retail spaces) and a rooftop restaurant. The project would be located on two existing parcels located at 164 California Avenue and on an adjacent unaddressed lot across Cambridge Avenue at the corner of Park Boulevard and Cambridge Avenue. The new development would replace an existing grocery store (existing Mollie Stone’s Grocery Store) and an adjacent surface parking lot. A separate tentative map to vertically subdivide the commercial uses from the residential uses has also been filed. The applicant filed a compliant pre-application in accordance with Senate Bill (SB) 330 on November 21, 2023. Therefore, the project analysis is based on the applicable standards at the time the compliant SB 330 pre-application was submitted. In addition, the project is considered a “builder’s remedy project” under the Housing Accountability Act (Government Code section 65589.5), as it existed in November 2023. Therefore, the project may not be denied on the Item 3 Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 34     Item No. 3. Page 2 of 11 basis of inconsistency with the zoning ordinance and general plan land use designation. The project is further afforded numerous protections detailed below. Builder’s remedy applications are still subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City issued a Notice of Preparation for an Environmental Impact Report on December 17, 2024, and is currently preparing a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The applicant has asserted that the project should be considered exempt from CEQA pursuant to the recently adopted Public Resources Code section 21080.66 (AB 130). At this time, staff does not concur with the applicant’s interpretation of that law. BACKGROUND Project Information Owner: Redco Development Architect: Studio Current Representative: Michaellle Williams, Studio Current Legal Counsel: Daniel Golub and Genna Yarkin, Holland and Knight Property Information Address:156-164 California Avenue Neighborhood:Evergreen Park Neighborhood Lot Dimensions & Area:Lot A: ~257x171 (irregular), 49,833 sf; Lot B: ~91x139 (irregular), 12,720 sf Housing Inventory Site:Lot B: Yes; 11 units (see further discussion below) Located w/in a Plume:Yes; California-Emerson-Plume (see further discussion below) Protected/Heritage Trees: Protected trees (see further discussion below) Historic Resource(s):Not Applicable Existing Improvement(s):Lot A: Mollie Stone’s Grocery Story, Single-story; constructed 1950 Lot B: Vacant surface parking lot Existing Land Use(s):Lot A: Retail; Lot B: Vacant Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North: Commercial and Single Family Residential Land Uses (CC[2] and RM-30 Zoning) West: Retail/Office Land Uses (CC[2][R] Zoning) East: Multi-family Residential Land Use (RM-30 Zoning) South: Retail/Office/Eating and Drinking Land Uses (CC[2][P] Zoning) Item 3 Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 35     Item No. 3. Page 3 of 11 Aerial View of Property: Source: Google Satellite Maps Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans Comp. Plan Designation:Community Commercial Zoning Designation:Lot At: CC(2)(R)(P); Lot B: CC(2)(R) Yes Yes Yes Baylands Master Plan/Guidelines (2008/2005) El Camino Real Guidelines (1976) Housing Development Project X Downtown Urban Design Guidelines (1993) South El Camino Real Guidelines (2002) Utilizes Chapter 18.24 - Objective Standards X Individual Review Guidelines (2005) Within 150 feet of Residential Use or District X Context-Based Design Criteria applicable SOFA Phase 1 (2000)Within Airport Influence Area SOFA Phase 2 (2003) Prior City Reviews & Action City Council:None PTC:None HRB:None ARB:None Item 3 Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 36     Item No. 3. Page 4 of 11 Project Description The proposed mixed-use project includes 382 residential rental units, twenty percent of which would be provided at a rate affordable to low-income households or below and approximately 18,720 square feet (sf) of commercial space, including ground floor retail (grocery store and other smaller retail spaces) and a rooftop restaurant. The project would be located on two existing parcels located at 164 California Avenue and on an adjacent unaddressed lot across Cambridge Avenue at the corner of Park Boulevard and Cambridge Avenue. The new development would replace an existing grocery store (existing Mollie Stone’s Grocery Store) and an adjacent surface parking lot. The project includes parking in a partial at grade parking garage with two levels of below grade parking on Lot A and in a surface level parking garage on Lot B. Access to both parking garages is provided from Cambridge Avenue. Attachment A includes a location map. Attachment G includes a summary from the applicant asserting their legal rights and Attachment H includes the project plans. Requested Entitlements, Findings, and Purview: The following discretionary application is being requested: Architectural Review – Major (AR): The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC Section 18.77.070. AR applications are reviewed by the ARB and recommendations are forwarded to the Planning and Development Services Director for action within five business days of the Board’s recommendation. Action by the Director is appealable to the City Council if filed within 14 days of the decision. Notwithstanding, the Director may instead forward a project directly to City Council for final action in accordance with PAMC Section 18.40.180. AR projects are evaluated against specific findings. All findings must be made in the affirmative to approve the project. Failure to make any one finding requires project redesign or denial. The findings to approve an AR application are provided in Attachment B. The findings for a decision on this project will be provided when the project returns to the ARB for a formal recommendation. The ARB’s purview of the formal application is limited by the following State laws: Housing Accountability Act (Government Code 65589.5): The project constitutes a “housing development project,” as well as “housing for very low, low-, or moderate- income households” under the Housing Accountability Act. The Housing Accountability Act Section 65589.5(d) states that a city cannot deny such a project or impose conditions of approval that would render it infeasible unless it makes specified findings. Among those findings is the finding that the project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety that cannot be mitigated. Because the project is a “builder’s remedy project,” the City may not deny the project on the basis that it is inconsistent with the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan land use designation. Item 3 Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 37     Item No. 3. Page 5 of 11 ANALYSIS The City is still evaluating the proposed project in accordance with all of the City’s goals, policies, and regulations across its departments in addition to evaluating the project in conformance with CEQA. Staff will provide a complete review of the project’s consistency with all applicable goals and policies as part of the next report once all review and the environmental analysis are complete. However, to facilitate input on the project design, preliminary conclusions of the project’s consistency with applicable plans, goals, and policies are provided in this report. Neighborhood Setting and Character The project site is located on and adjacent to California Avenue, a vibrant business district in Palo Alto adjacent to the California Avenue Caltrain Station. Adjacent uses include a mix of commercial and residential uses. California Avenue and Cambridge Avenue include commercial uses, primarily ground floor retail and retail-like uses, often with offices located above the ground floor. There are also multi-family residential uses across Park Boulevard and single- family residential uses along College Avenue behind Lot B. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans, and Guidelines1 The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the project site is Community Commercial, which states: “Larger shopping centers and districts that have a wider variety of goods and services than the neighborhood shopping areas…In some locations, residential and mixed-use projects may also locate in this category. Non-residential FARs range from 0.35 to 2.0. Consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s encouragement of housing near transit centers, higher density multi-family housing may be allowed in specific locations.” The project is located near a transit center and along the City’s California Avenue Business District and is therefore an appropriate location for high density mixed-use development with ground floor retail uses. The proposed non-residential floor area (0.66:1.0) is within the allowable floor area under the Comprehensive Plan land use designation. Further, part of the site is identified as a Housing Inventory Site under the adopted Housing Element. Therefore, the proposed uses are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, although the project exceeds the maximum density allowed for the site. The project site is not subject to any area plans or other adopted design guidelines. The proposed application was filed in accordance with the Builder’s Remedy provision in the Housing Accountability Act. This provision applies to jurisdictions where a compliant housing element has not been adopted by the jurisdiction and certified by the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). Although the City has an adopted and certified Housing Element as of August 2024, the compliant SB 330 pre-application, filed on November 21, 2023, froze development standards in effect at the time of the SB 330 pre-application submittal. Therefore, a project cannot be denied for inconsistency with a specific Comprehensive Plan 1 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online: bit.ly/PACompPlan2030 Item 3 Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 38     Item No. 3. Page 6 of 11 policy. Consistency with these policies is still evaluated in accordance with CEQA to determine whether inconsistency would result in a significant environmental Impact. Housing Element Consistency One of the two parcels on which the proposed project would be located is identified as a housing inventory site. The Housing Element anticipated the development of Lot B (listed in Appendix D of the Housing Element as APN 124-28-003) with 11 moderate-income units on this proposed site. The project exceeds the estimated capacity redeveloping the site, as well as an adjacent parcel, with a total of 382-units. Seventy-six (76) units are designated to be provided at below-market rates (BMR) at a rate affordable to low income. Zoning Compliance3 Attachments C and D include a summary of the project’s consistency with the applicable zoning standards for each lot. Additionally, Attachment E includes a summary of the project’s consistency with the objective design standards set forth in PAMC Chapter 18.24. Attachment G includes additional exhibits showing compliance with various objective standards. The project is inconsistent with the following CC (2) Zoning Development Standards (PAMC Chapter 18.16) on Lot A: Maximum Floor Area Ratio (7.43:1 where 2.0:1 total and 0.6:1 residential is allowed). Maximum Height (177 feet [plus mechanical screen] where 37 feet is allowed). Minimum Useable Open Space (20,345 square feet where 45,600 square feet [150 sf total per unit] is required). Minimum yard for lot line opposite a residential zone district (zero feet where 10 feet is required). Any minimum front, street side, or interior yard shall be planted and maintained as a landscaped screen excluding areas required for access to the site (no landscaping provided). Minimum Rear yard (Cambridge) (four feet, six inches feet for residential setback where 10-foot setback is required). Minimum yard for lot lines abutting or opposite residential districts or residential PC districts (four feet, seven inches where 10 feet is required).Density of 265.7 dwelling unit/acre where 34 dwelling units per acre is allowed 4 The Project is inconsistent with the following CC (2) Zoning Development Standards for Lot B: Maximum Floor Area Ratio (6.83:1.0 where 2.0:1 total and 1.5:1residential is allowed [increased for housing inventory site]). Maximum Height (120 feet where 35 feet is allowed). 3 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: bit.ly/PAZoningCode 4 In instances where no maximum density is defined, density is determined based on the allowable floor area and average unit size Item 3 Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 39     Item No. 3. Page 7 of 11 Minimum Street Side Yard Setback on Cambridge (minimum 3 feet, 3 inches where 5 feet is required). Minimum Interior Side Yard (adjacent residential on College Avenue when abutting a residential zone district (One foot where 10 feet is required). Minimum Usable Open Space (5,215 sf where 150 sf per unit [11,700 sf total] is required). Density of 267 dwelling units per acre where 52 dwelling units per acre is allowed The project is also inconsistent with the following Objective Design Standards (PAMC Chapter 18.24), as further detailed in Attachment E: 18.24.020(b)(2): One street tree provided for every 30 linear feet of public sidewalk length and located within six feet of the sidewalk (does not comply on four of the six frontages for Lots A and B). 18.42.020(b)(3): Parcel abutting California Avenue between El Camino Real and Park Boulevard include decorative glass accent paving along project frontages (Lot A).7 18.24.020(b)(4): Primary building entries shall provide at least one seating area or bench within 30 feet of building entry and/or path leading to building entry. On arterials (see Map T-5), except Downtown, seating areas or benches shall not be located between the sidewalk and the curb (Lot B). 18.24.030(b)(4): Loading Docks and service areas shall be located on facades that do not face a primary building frontage (Lot B). 18.24.050 (b)(1)(A): Upper floor stepbacks (Lot A and B). 18.24.050 (b)(1)(C): Daylight plane starting at 25 feet and at property line and a 45- degree angle (Lot B). 18.24.050(b)(2)(A-D): Privacy and Transition to Residential Uses (Lot B does not comply with A through D). 18.24.050(b)(3)(B): Buildings 150 to 250 feet in length, which face a public street, right- of-way, or publicly accessible path, shall have at least one vertical façade break with a minimum area greater than 64 square feet and a minimum width of 8 feet and minimum depth of 4 feet (California Avenue frontage Lot A) 18.24.050(b)(5): One type of housing proposed on Lot A (where two unique housing types are required on sites of greater than 1 acre in size) (Lot A). 18.24.060(c)(7): No more than 25% of the site frontage facing a street shall be devoted to garage openings, carports, surface parking, loading entries, or utilities access. On sites with less than 100 feet of frontage, no more than 25 feet (Lot A and B [sufficient information is not provided to confirm compliance for Lot A fronting Cambridge and Lot B fronting park Boulevard because exhibits in Attachment G do not include utilities access)) While the above inconsistencies are described for informational purposes, as noted above, they do not constitute a basis for denial of a Builder’s Remedy project. That said, it appears that some of these objective standards could be addressed through minor modifications to the plans 7 Staff notes that the applicant has expressed an intent to revise the plans to comply with this requirement Item 3 Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 40     Item No. 3. Page 8 of 11 or through conditions of approval of the project. For example, the addition of a bench near the entrance on Lot B or modifications to the window transparency on Lot B. Additionally, it should be noted that while Lot B does not strictly comply with 18.24.050(b)(2)(A), which requires landscape screening between the project and residential uses on an interior side or rear property line, the area above the second floor is not occupiable common space. This area is intended to be landscaped and therefore would provide some screening between the units and the abutting residential use on College Avenue. Multi-Modal Access The building is located within 270 feet of the California Avenue Caltrain Station and is located along California Avenue, which serves as a bicycle connection from Caltrain to the newly installed bicycle lanes on El Camino Real. Adjacent the Caltrain station, California Avenue also connects into a bicycle/pedestrian tunnel leading east under the Caltrain tracks, connecting riders and pedestrians into Downtown Palo Alto. Vehicular access to both lots is provided from Cambridge Avenue. California Avenue Street Closure Council recently adopted Resolutions 10219 and 10220, permanently closing a portion of California Avenue (from El Camino Real to Birch Street) to vehicular traffic. This area had been closed in accordance with temporary ordinances since 2020. This does not affect access immediately adjacent to the project site, which is located further east of the area closed to vehicular traffic. Parking Although the project is not required to provide vehicular parking in accordance with AB 2097, the proposed towers on Lot A include a partial at grade parking garage and two levels of below grade parking, providing a total of 277 spaces. On Lot B, a surface level parking garage includes 13 spaces. Bicycle parking is currently shown within multiple bicycle rooms on the ground floor of Lot A and Lot B and in the below grade parking garage as shown on sheets A3.4 and A3.3 of the plans, with access from Cambridge Avenue and Park Boulevard. On Lot A, three bicycle rooms located on the ground floor and each level of the below grade parking garage are shown to provide space for 80 bikes, 106 bikes, and 105 bikes respectively, for a total of 291 long-term bicycle parking spaces where 306 long term are required. The summary sheet on A3.15 indicates that short-term bicycle parking is provided (44 spaces) for Lot A, but the location of all of these short-term spaces is not indicated on the ground floor plans or site plan. On Lot B, the proposed bike parking areas holds 58 bikes, where 79 long term bike spaces are required. Eight short term bicycle parking spaces are also required. The plans indicate that 10 short term spaces are provided for Lot B, but no bicycle racks are shown on the plans. Sheet A1.2, project data, also shows that the project is complying, which is inconsistent with other plan sheets. One loading area per site is also provided for Lot A and B on site and several other loading spaces are shown on the plans within public right-of-way. On Lot B, a truck loading area is not required but is provided on the ground level and accessed from Park Boulevard. While not Item 3 Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 41     Item No. 3. Page 9 of 11 required, this loading area would be useful to provide for any deliveries associated with the retail use as well as to accommodate residential needs while minimizing impacts to the right-of- way. One car-sized loading space is required and is not shown. On Lot A one standard loading space is required and is provided at the rear of the proposed grocery story in a drive aisle off of New Mayfield Lane on the subject property. additional car-sized loading is required in accordance with the objective standards but is not shown on the plans. All loading proposed in the right-of-way needs to be removed from the plan set. Retail Preservation The plans indicate that the existing building is 15,000 sf. However, in staff’s review of previous building permits it appears that the existing building has 22,688 sf of ground floor retail. The project is proposing 18,719 sf of ground floor retail, only 18,346 sf of which is located on Lot A. Lot B is a housing element site and therefore not subject to the retail preservation requirements. However, Lot A does not meet the ground floor retail replacement requirements (PAMC Section 18.40.180), which would require that the project provide an additional 3,969 sf of retail on the ground floor to meet the code. Similar to above, while this inconsistency is described for informational purposes, it does not constitute a basis for denial of a Builder’s Remedy project. Refuse The refuse enclosure design as shown in the project plans is not acceptable to the City. The City is working with the applicant to identify an on-site solution to refuse storage and staging and to properly size refuse enclosures for the buildings to address the needs of the site. Staff believes, based on ongoing discussions, that an on-site staging solution is feasible to avoid impacts to public right-of-way. FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT Processing of this application has no fiscal impact as applicants are responsible for staff and consultant costs through applicable fees through the deposit-based cost recovery program. The project would be required to pay Development Impact Fees, which are currently estimated at $13,485,447.42 plus the applicable public art fee. Staff notes that this fee also does not include the citywide transportation fee, which requires payment of $10,037.58 per net new PM peak hour trip. This number is typically derived from the transportation report that is still being prepared for the project. This number also assumes a net decrease in overall commercial square footage of the site based on building permit plans on file with the City that show that the existing square footage of the building is higher than the plans reflect. Therefore, no fees associated with net new commercial square footage have been included. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least ten days in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Daily Post on September 19, 2025, which is 12 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on September 17, 2025, which is 14 days in advance of the meeting. Item 3 Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 42     Item No. 3. Page 10 of 11 Public Comments The City has received numerous comments from interested stakeholders, all of which are included in Attachment F of this report. Overall the comments included mixed feedback from members of the public, some of which expressed support for high-density housing development within this transit-oriented area and some of which expressed concerns about height, context within the neighborhood, and impacts associated with increased density (such as traffic). Staff also provide a brief update on the status of the project and environmental review and answered questions about the proposed scope of the project at the request of the Evergreen Park Neighborhood Association on April 12, 2025. As discussed further below, the City issued a Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report in December 2024 and received several comments from members of the public and one agency (the Native American Heritage Commission) during the scoping period. These are all included in Attachment F. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The subject project is being assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. Specifically, the City issued a Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for the proposed project (SCH # 2024120754) on December 17, 2024, beginning a 30-day scoping period for the project. The City received comments from 14 individuals and one agency, the Native American Heritage Commission, during the scoping period. The City has also received several comments from members of the project. All written public comments received to date are included in Attachment F. The applicant has asserted that the project should be considered exempt from CEQA pursuant to the recently adopted Public Resources Code section 21080.66 (AB 130). At this time, staff does not concur with the applicant’s interpretation of that law and is currently continuing to process the Environmental Impact Report. The City is currently in the process of consulting with Tamien Nation and Muwekma Ohlone Band of the SF Bay Area in accordance with tribal consultation under Assembly Bill 52. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Location Map Attachment B: Architectural Review Board Findings Attachment C: Zoning Consistency Analysis Lot A Attachment D: Zoning Consistency Analysis Lot B Attachment E: Objective Design Standards Consistency Analysis Attachment F: Public Comments Attachment G: Applicant Letter Asserting Legal Rights and Additional Exhibits Attachment H: Project Plans Item 3 Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 43     Item No. 3. Page 11 of 11 Report Author & Contact Information ARB5 Liaison & Contact Information Claire Raybould, Manager, Current Planning Steven Switzer, Historic Preservation Planner (650) 329-2116 (650) 329-2321 Claire.Raybould@PaloAlto.gov Steven.Switzer@PaloAlto.gov Item 3 Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 44     24 24 Molly Stone's Market Bldg 5 Bldg 3 Bldg 4 Bldg 6 Bldg 2 Bldg 1 Bldg 8 Bldg 7 Bldg F Bldg G Bldg H Bldg J Bldg K Bldg L Bldg M Bld Bldg D Bldg C Bldg B Bldg A Bldg E 130.0' 381.6' 140.0' 50.4' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0'99.9' 50.0' 100.0' 100.0' 99.9' 99.9' 110.0' 110.0' 96.0' 110.0' 96.0' 125.0'96.0' 110.0' 82.5'110.0' 82.5' 110.0' 250.0' 110.0' 250.0' 0.0' 50.0' 131.8' 50.0' 131.6' 50.0' 131.8' 131.5' 50.0' 131.6' 50.0' 100.0' 100.0' 100.0' 99.6' 150.0' 100.0' 150.0' 100.0' 131.1' 37.5' 131.2' 37.5' 130.9' 50.0' 131.1' 50.0' 131.2' 37.5' 131.3' 37.5'37.8' 131.5' 37.5' 131.4' 37.5' 131.3' 37.5' 131.4' 125.0' 38.5' 125.0' 38.5' 125.0' 38.5' 125.0' 38.5' 125.0' 50.0' 125.0' 50.0' 100.0' 14.1' 40.0' 110.0' 50.0' 400' 85.0' 100.0' 125.0' 92.0'125.0' 92.0' 90.5' 135.6' 100.0' 10.0'9.5' 133.5' 100.0' 40.0' 100.0' 40.0' 171.2' 257.7' 218.5' 121.5' 25.0' 135.0' 157.6' 287.9' 7.6' 200.7'150.0' 488.6' 125.0' 100.0'125.0' 100.1' 20.0' 10.0'25.1' 135.0' 45.0' 125.0' 59.2' 89.8' 59.0' 94.9' 51.7' 94.9' 51.5' 99.4' 75.3' 150.6' 75.3' 150.6' 75.3' 150.6' 75.3' 150.6'150.6' 50.2' 150.6'150.6' 50.2' 50.2' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0'150.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 95.6' 41.7' 95.2' 50.0' 95.2' 48.0'95.2' 48.0' 95.2' 47.7'95.2' 47.8' 45.4' 133.9' 45.2' 137.8' 95' 102.9' .7' 49.4' 99.4' .9' 52.7' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 125.0' 45.0' 125.0' 45.0' 125.0' 45.0' 125.0' 45.0' 25.0' 45.0' 125.0' 45.0' 0 100.4' 150.6' 100.4' 150.6' 95.3' 29.3' 95.0' 37.2' 95.0' 54.0'95.0' 54.0' 16 83.3' 100.4' 96.2' 5 100.7' 50.0'52.2' .4' 125.0' 45.0' 125.0' 45.0' 125.0' 45.0' 125.0' 45.0' 125.0' 45.0' 125.0' 45.0' 91.5' 112.9' 101.5' 112.5' 81.5' 112.9' 91.5' 112.5' 125.0' 45.0' 125.0' 45.0' 125.0' 45.0' 125.0' 45.0' 82.5' 82.5' 82.5' 82.5' 99.0' 26.0' 26.0' 99.0' 41.0' 41.0'41.0' 125.0' 84.0'62.9' 26.2' 26.2'26.2' 36.7' 45.5' 45.5' 125.0' 125.0' 46.5' 46.5' 126.0' 126.0' 89.0' 89.0' 89.0' 89.0' 57.5' 57.5' 67.5' 67.5' 2155 2363 220 245 285 145 2345-2349 Bldg 7 2339-2343 Bldg 8 2557 Bldg L 2559 Bldg M 2561 Bldg 200 220 260 299 250 350 2525-2433 Bldg B 2421 Bldg A 101-125 Bldg D 153 Bldg F 113-149 Bldg E 155 Bldg G 157 Bldg H 2401-2417 Bldg C 161 Bldg K 159 Bldg J 122 Bldg A 100-108 Bldg 7 2255-2259 Bldg 1 2261-2271 Bldg 2 2273-2283 Bldg 3 2301-2313 Bldg 4 2315-2325 Bldg 5 2327-2337 Bldg 6 2460 25012307- 2343 -309 267-271 201 263-267 2418- 2450 209 2179- 2185 2151- 2171 2185 2233- 2237 165 25 306 318 375 2350 310 275 301 299 276 255 261 277 230 290 206 265 261 240 164 250 240 210 2170 2145 2143 2125 230 211 221 231 2248 2250 2150 2157 111 121 2211 123 155 120 130 110 2210 2225 108 145 205 215217 249 251 3 141 Bldg F 2191 2195 BIRCH STREET NEW MAYFIELD LANE CAMBRIDGE AVENUE COLLEGE AVENUE PARK BOULEVARD CALIFORNIA AVENUE ALMA S PARK BOULEVARD SHERMAN AVENUE JACARANDA LANE PARK BOULEVARD ALMA STREET HIGH STREET WASHINGTON AVENUE NORTH CALIFORNIA AVENUE NUE NOGAL LANE PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS BOARD PENPF (R) CC (2)(P) CC (2) RM-40 RM-30R-2 CC (2 RM-20 (2)(R) CC (2)(R) PC-4127 ot C-6 Lot C-9 TraiLot C-1 Lot C-3 Parking Garage This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Project Site 0'138' Attachment A: Location Map 156-164 California Avenue Project CITYOF PALOALTOINCORPORATED CALI FORNIA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f APRIL 1 6 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto chodgki, 2025-09-12 12:20:08 (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) Califo r n i a Avenu e Caltra i n Statio n Item 3 Attachment A - Location Map     Packet Pg. 45     1 7 3 3 ATTACHMENT B ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL In order for the ARB to make a future recommendation of approval, the project must comply with the following Findings for Architectural Review as required in Chapter 18.76.020 of the PAMC. Finding #1: The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant design guides. Finding #2: The project has a unified and coherent design, that: a. creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community, b. preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site and the historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant, c. is consistent with the context-based design criteria of the applicable zone district, d. provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations, e. enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent residential areas. Finding #3: The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. Finding #4: The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and providing for elements that support the building’s necessary operations (e.g. convenient vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.). Finding #5: The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is appropriate to the site’s functions, and utilizes to the extent practical, regional indigenous drought resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat that can be appropriately maintained. Finding #6: The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning. Item 3 Attachment B - Architectural Review Board Findings     Packet Pg. 46     ATTACHMENT C ZONING COMPARISON TABLE LOT A, 24PLN-00100 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.16 (CC(2) DISTRICT) Mixed Use Development Standards Regulation Required Existing Proposed Minimum Site Area, width and depth No Requirement 1.144 (49,833 sf) No Change Minimum Front Yard (California Avenue) 0-10 feet to create an 8-12 foot effective sidewalk width (1), (2), (8) 0 feet below grade; 4’7” above grade 12 ft effective sidewalk provided Rear Yard (Cambridge) 10’ for residential portion; no requirement for commercial portion 4 feet, six inches for residential; 5 feet for commercial Rear Yard if abutting a residential zone district 10 feet Not Applicable Not Applicable Interior Side yard if abutting a residential zone district 10 feet Not Applicable Not Applicable Street Side Yard (Park Boulevard)5 feet 0 feet below grade; 4’7”-16’8” above grade (varies) Min. yard for lot lines abutting or opposite residential districts or residential PC districts 10 feet (2) 4 feet, seven inches Build-to-lines 50% of frontage built to setback on California; 33% of side street built to setback on Park Boulevard (7) Complies Density No Maximum Not Applicable 265.7 DU/AC Max. Site Coverage 100%Unclear 49,658 sf (99.6%) Minimum landscape open space 20%14,375 sf (28%) Max. Building Height 37 feet (4)1 story/height varies 177 feet (plus mechanical screen) Max. Residential Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 0.6:1 (29,900 sf)Not Applicable 422,872 sf (8.48 FAR) Maximum Nonresidential Floor Area (FAR)2.0:1 (99,666 sf)25,000 sf 33,114 sf (0.66 FAR) Total Mixed Use Floor Area Ratio (FAR)2:0:1 (99,666sf)25,000 sf 455,986 sf (9.15 FAR) Item 3 Attachment C - Zoning Consistency Analysis Lot A     Packet Pg. 47     Daylight Plane for lot lines abutting one or more residential zone districts other than an RM-40 or PC Zone None (6)Complies Not Applicable Common and Private Open Space 150 square feet private or common open space (45,600 square feet required) Not Applicable 12,323 square feet common open space 8,022 square feet private open space Total: 20,345 square feet Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.16 (CC(2) DISTRICT) continued Exclusively Non-residential Development Standards Topic Requirement Proposed Hours of Operation (18.16.040 (b)) Businesses with activities any time between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. shall be required to obtain a conditional use permit. The director may apply conditions of approval as are deemed necessary to assure compatibility with the nearby residentially zoned property Complies (requires CUP if late hour operation is requested) Office Use Restrictions (18.16.050) Total floor area of permitted office uses on a lot shall not exceed 25% of the lot area, provided a lot is permitted between 2,500 and 5,000 sf of office use. The maximum size may be increased with a CUP issued by the Director. Not Applicable Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) for Office* Type Required Proposed Vehicle Parking 1/250 sf retail 1/360 sf grocery 1 stall per studio 1 stall per 1 bedroom 2 stall per 2 bedroom 517 Required per city code; except that for projects within 0.5 mile from transit in accordance with AB 2097 no vehicular parking is required 310 proposed across both sites; 277 on Lot A (complies) Bicycle Parking Residential: 1 per unit LT 1/10 unit ST 304 units on Lot A= 334 Retail: 1/2,000 sf (20% long term and 80% short term) 186 provided on Lot A 291 long term provided Short term (Unclear, appears to be about 4 racks (8 stalls) shown on Sheet A3.4) Item 3 Attachment C - Zoning Consistency Analysis Lot A     Packet Pg. 48     17,462 sf on lot A= 9 total spaces (2 Long term and 7 short term) Total Bicycle parking required Lot A: 343 Required (306 long term; 37 short term) Loading Space 1 loading spaces for 10,000-100,000 sf 1 space provided Item 3 Attachment C - Zoning Consistency Analysis Lot A     Packet Pg. 49     ATTACHMENT D ZONING COMPARISON TABLE Lot B 156 California Avenue, 24PLN-00100 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.16 (CC(2) DISTRICT) Mixed Use Development Standards Regulation Required Existing Proposed Minimum Site Area, width and depth No Requirement 0.292 (12,720 sf)No Change Minimum Front Yard (Park Boulevard) 0-10 feet to create an 8-12 foot effective sidewalk width (1), (2), (8) 6 feet, 3 inches minimum (varies) Rear Yard 10’ for residential portion; no requirement for commercial portion Not Applicable (undeveloped)14 feet, 11 inches Rear Yard if abutting a residential zone district 10 feet Not Applicable Not Applicable Interior Side yard if abutting a residential zone district 10 feet Not applicable 1 foot Street Side Yard (Cambridge)5 feet Not Applicable 3 feet, 3 inches-10 feet, 10 inches (varies) Build-to-lines 50% of frontage built to setback on Park Boulevard; 33% of side street built to setback on Cambridge(7) Not Applicable Complies Density No maximum Not Applicable 267.1 DU/AC Max. Site Coverage 100 %Not Applicable 12,719 sf (100%) Minimum landscape open space 20%Not Applicable 2,790 (21%) Max. Building Height 35 feet (4)1 story 120 feet Max. Residential Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 0.6:1 (29,900 sf)Not Applicable 87,173 sf (6.8 FAR) Maximum Nonresidential Floor Area (FAR)2.0:1 (99,666 sf)Not Applicable 2,014 sf (0.15 FAR) Total Mixed Use Floor Area Ratio (FAR)2:0:1 (99,666sf)Not Applicable 89,187 sf (7.01 FAR) Item 3 Attachment D - Zoning Consistency Analysis Lot B     Packet Pg. 50     Daylight Plane for lot lines abutting one or more residential zone districts Daylight plane height and slope shall be identical to those of the most restrictive residential zoning district abutting the lot line. Abuts RM-30—no daylight plane required for lots of width 70 feet or greater Not Applicable Not Applicable (lot width is 90 feet) Usable Open Space 150 square feet common or private open space per unit 78 unitsx150=11,700 square feet required Not Applicable 5,215 square feet Landscape Open Space 20% required Not Applicable 2,689 square feet (21%) Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.16 (CC(2) DISTRICT) continued Exclusively Non-residential Development Standards Topic Requirement Proposed Hours of Operation (18.16.040 (b)) Businesses with activities any time between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. shall be required to obtain a conditional use permit. The director may apply conditions of approval as are deemed necessary to assure compatibility with the nearby residentially zoned property Unclear; unless a CUP is requested project is required to comply Office Use Restrictions (18.16.050) Total floor area of permitted office uses on a lot shall not exceed 25% of the lot area, provided a lot is permitted between 2,500 and 5,000 sf of office use. The maximum size may be increased with a CUP issued by the Director. Not Applicable Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) for Office* Type Required Existing Proposed Vehicle Parking None Required (0.5 mile of transit) 13 Bicycle Parking 1/2,000 sf (20% long term and 80% short term) Residential 1 per unit LT 1/10 unit ST Plans state that 58 long term and 10 short are provided; short term is not shown on the plans Item 3 Attachment D - Zoning Consistency Analysis Lot B     Packet Pg. 51     =78 LT and 8 ST Retail 1/2,000 sf (20% long term and 80% short term) 373 sf= 1 LT Total=79 long term and 8 short term required Loading Space 1 loading spaces for 10- 100,000 sf None required Item 3 Attachment D - Zoning Consistency Analysis Lot B     Packet Pg. 52     City of Palo Alto Objective Design Standards: Checklist Page 1 4 1 9 9 Objective Design Standards Checklist The Objective Design Standards Checklist is a tool to evaluate a project’s compliance with the Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 18.24). The Checklist is not the Zoning Ordinance. Applicants shall be responsible for meeting the standards in the Zoning Ordinance. To simplify evaluation of the Zoning Ordinance, language in the Checklist may vary from the Zoning Ordinance. (Note: sf = square feet) If a standard is not applicable to applicant’s project, please write N/A in Applicant’s Justification column. 18.24.020 Public Realm/Sidewalk Character Check Standard Sheet #Applicant’s Justification (b)(1) Sidewalk Widths (A) In the following districts, public sidewalk width (curb to back of walk) is at least: Commercial Mixed-Use District: CN, CS, CC, CC(2), CD-C, CD-S, CD-N, PTOD: 10 ft El Camino Real: 12 ft San Antonio Road, from Middlefield Road to East Charleston Road: 12 ft And consists of: Additional information needed. Not dimensioned in all instances but appears to comply Pedestrian clear path width of 8 foot minimum: ______ feet ☐ Landscape or furniture area width of 2 foot minimum: ______ feet ☐ If the existing public sidewalk does not meet the minimum standard, a publicly accessible extension of the sidewalk, with corresponding public access easement, shall be provided. ☐ (B) Public sidewalks or walkways connecting through a development parcel (e.g. on a through lot with a public access easement, leading to a commercial entry) must be at least 6 feet wide. Not applicable; not a through Lot (C) The width of walkways designed to provide bicycle access (e.g. pathway to bike racks/lockers) must be at least 12 feet wide, consisting of: Complies (accessed from ground floor on Park and Cambridge) Pedestrian clear path width (8 feet min.): __ft☒ Clear space/buffer – (2 feet min. on each side of path): ___ft Check Standard Sheet #Applicant’s Justification Item 3 Attachment E - Objective Design Standards Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 53     City of Palo Alto Objective Design Standards: Checklist Page 2 4 1 9 9 (B)(2) Street Trees 1. One street tree provided for every 30 linear feet of public sidewalk length and located within six feet of the sidewalk. (LOT A) a. Length of parcel frontage/public sidewalk length: California Avenue: 170 feet Park Boulevard: 238 feet Cambridge Avenue: 179 feet A3.4 b. Street Trees required (i.e. frontage/30 feet): California Avenue: 5.6 trees Park Boulevard: 8 trees Cambridge Avenue: 6 trees A3.4 ☐ c. Street Trees provided: California Avenue: 4 trees Park Boulevard: 6 trees Cambridge Avenue: 3 trees A3.4 Does not comply for Cambridge, Park, or California Avenue 1. One street tree provided for every 30 linear feet of public sidewalk length and located within six feet of the sidewalk. (LOT B) a. Length of parcel frontage/public sidewalk length: Park Boulevard: 78 feet Cambridge Avenue: 117 feet A3.4 b. Street Trees required (i.e. frontage/30 feet): Park Boulevard: 2.6 trees Cambridge Avenue: 4 trees A3.4 ☐ c. Street Trees provided: Park Boulevard: 1 tree Cambridge Avenue: 4 trees A3.4 Complies for Cambridge; does not comply for Park Boulevard (B)(3) Accent Paving ☐Parcels abutting University Avenue between Alma Street and Webster include accent paving along the project frontages, as indicated below: Not Applicable Item 3 Attachment E - Objective Design Standards Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 54     City of Palo Alto Objective Design Standards: Checklist Page 3 4 1 9 9 Brick paving at corners Brick trim mid-block ☐Parcel abutting California Avenue between El Camino Real and Park Blvd include decorative glass accent paving along project frontages Applies. Not provided, does not comply. (B)(4) Mobility Infrastructure ☒ (A) On-site micromobility infrastructure (e.g. bike racks/lockers) is located within 30 feet of the primary building entry and/or on a path leading to the primary building entry; OR A3.4 Complies Pic k O n e ☐Existing micromobility infrastructure (e.g. bike racks/lockers) is already located within 50 feet of project site and located in a public right-of-way. ☒ (B)Primary building entries shall provide at least one seating area or bench within 30 feet of building entry and/or path leading to building entry. On arterials (see Map T-5), except Downtown, seating areas or benches shall not be located between the sidewalk and the curb; OR Lot A complies; Lot B does not appear to comply. Pic k O n e ☐Existing seating areas or benches that are already located in the public right-of-way within 50 feet of the building entry. 18.24.030 Site Access Check Standard Sheet #Applicant’s Justification (b)(1) Through Lot Connections ☐ Through lots located more than 300 feet from an intersecting street or pedestrian walkway shall provide a publicly accessible sidewalk or pedestrian walkway (with public access easements) connecting the two streets. Not Applicable, neither Lot A or Lot B are a through lot (b)(2) Building Entries ☐ Primary Building Entries shall be located from a public right-of-way. If there is no public right-of-way adjacent to the building, entries shall be located from a private street or Pedestrian Walkway. A 4.2; A4.4- A4.5 Complies—access provided to different uses from Park, Item 3 Attachment E - Objective Design Standards Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 55     City of Palo Alto Objective Design Standards: Checklist Page 4 4 1 9 9 California Avenue and Cambridge (b)(3) Vehicle Access ☐(A) Vehicle access shall be located on alleys or side streets when they abut the property.Complies—access from Cambridge ☐ (B) Except for driveway access and short-term loading spaces (e.g. taxi), off-street parking, off-street vehicle loading (delivery trucks), and vehicular circulation areas are prohibited between the building and primary building frontage. A3.1 Complies No parking or circulation area is located between the building frontage and street. (b)(4) Loading Docks and Service Areas Loading and service areas shall be integrated into building and landscape design and located to minimize impact on the pedestrian experience as follows: ☒(A) Loading docks and service areas shall be located on façades that do not face a primary building frontage Does not comply (Lot B) ☒ (B) Loading docks and service areas located within setback areas shall be screened by a solid fence, or wall, or dense landscaping and separated from pedestrian access to the primary building entry to avoid impeding pedestrian movement/safety. Complies 18.24.040 Building Orientation and Setbacks Check Standard Sheet #Applicant’s Justification (b)(1) Building Corner Elements (less than 40 feet in height) Corner buildings less than 40 feet in height and end units of townhouses (all end units) or other attached housing products that face the street shall include all of the following features on their secondary building frontage (where B is the primary frontage): (A) height and width of corner element shall have a ratio greater than 1.2:1. a. Secondary building frontage height: ____feet b. Secondary building frontage length: ____ feetChe c k A l l ☐ c. Secondary building frontage height to width ratio: ____ Not Applicable (more than 40 feet in height) Item 3 Attachment E - Objective Design Standards Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 56     City of Palo Alto Objective Design Standards: Checklist Page 5 4 1 9 9 (B) minimum of 15 percent fenestration area. a. Total secondary building frontage façade area: ____ sf b. Secondary building frontage façade fenestration area: ___sf☐ c. Percent of fenestration area _____ % ☐(C) At least one facade modulation with a minimum depth of 18 inches and a minimum width of two feet. (b)(2)(A) & (B) Treatment of Buildings Corners on Corner Lots (40+ feet in height) Corner Buildings 40 feet or taller in height shall include at least one of the following special features: A. Street wall is located at the minimum front yard setback or build-to line for a minimum aggregated length of 40 feet on both facades meeting at the corner and includes one or more of the following building features: ☒i. An entry to ground floor retail or primary building entrance located within 25 feet of the corner of the building.A3.4 ☐ii. A different material application and/or fenestration pattern from the rest of the façade. Che c k O n e o r M o r e wit h i n A o r B ☐iii. A change in height of at least 4 feet greater or less than the height of the adjacent/abutting primary façade. B. An open space with a minimum dimension of 20 feet and minimum area of 450 square feet. The open space shall be at least one of the following ☐i. A publicly accessible open space/plaza. ☐ii. A space used for outdoor seating for public dining. Che c k O n e o r Mo r e w i t h i n A o r B ☐ iii. A residential Common Open Space adjacent to a common interior space (i.e. lobby, retail, etc.) and less than two feet above adjacent sidewalk grade. Fences and railing shall be a minimum 50% open/transparent. Complies with 18.24.040(b)(2)(A) (b)(3) Primary Building Entry The primary building entry meets at least one of the following standards: ☒A. Faces a public right-of-way. Comply; primary building entries on both Lots A and B face a public ROWChe c k On e o r Mo r e ☐B. Faces a publicly accessible pedestrian walkway. Item 3 Attachment E - Objective Design Standards Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 57     City of Palo Alto Objective Design Standards: Checklist Page 6 4 1 9 9 C. Is visible from a public right-of-way through a forecourt or front porch that meets the following standards: i. For residential buildings with fewer than seven units, building entry forecourts or front porch minimum dimensions of (min. 36 sf and min. dimension of 6 feet required): ___ sf and ___ ft. min. dimension ☐ ii. For commercial buildings or residential buildings with seven or more units, building entry forecourts or front porch minimum dimensions of (min. 100 sf and a min. width of 8 feet required): 100 sf and 8’2” min. width (b)(4) Ground Floor Residential Units A. Finished Floor Height for Ground Floor Units ☐ The finished floor of ground floor residential units, when adjacent to a public right-of- way, must be within the minimum and maximum heights according to setback distance from back of walk identified in Figure 2a and 2b of the Zoning Ordinance. Calculate minimum ground floor finished floor height: Does not apply; no ground floor units on Lot A or B ☐Setback adjacent to public right of way: 20 feet ☐ Minimum ground floor finished floor height: 0_ feet 𝒚 = ―𝟒 𝟏𝟓(𝒙)+ 𝟏𝟔 𝟑 where 𝑥 = setback length from back of walk, in feet and 𝑦 = ground floor finished floor height, in feet ☐Sites with slopes greater than 2% along building façade – Average height of finished floor: _____ feet Che c k A l l t h a t A p p l y ☐Sites located in flood zones – the minimum ground floor finished floor height shall be defined by FEMA, less flood zone elevation: _____ feet B. Setback Trees ☐Ground floor units with a setback greater than 15 feet must have at minimum an average of one tree per 40 linear feet of facade length, within the setback area. Item 3 Attachment E - Objective Design Standards Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 58     City of Palo Alto Objective Design Standards: Checklist Page 7 4 1 9 9 Setback length: 30 feet Amount of linear frontage: 25 feet Trees required: 1 tree Trees provided: 1 tree Does not apply; no ground floor units and setbacks are less than 15 feet C and D. Front Setback ☐C. Ground floor residential entries are setback a minimum of 10 feet from the back of public sidewalk; OR Does not apply; no ground floor units Pic k O n e ☐D. Where no minimum building setback is required, all ground floor residential units must be set back a minimum 5 feet from back of public sidewalk. Check Standard Sheet #Applicant’s Justification E. Unit Entry A minimum 80% of ground floor residential units that face a public right-of-way or publicly accessible path, or open space shall have a unit entry with direct access to the sidewalk, path, or open space for minimum. Does not apply; no ground floor residential units a. Total number of ground floor residential units facing a public right-of-way, publicly accessible path, or open space: 0 units b. 80% of total units in (a): ____ units ☒ c. Subset of number of units in (a) that have a unit entry with direct access to the sidewalk, path, or open space: ____ entries (b)(5) Front Yard Setback Character Required setbacks provide a hardscape and/or landscaped area to create a transition between public and private space. The following standards apply, based on intended use and exclusive of areas devoted to outdoor seating, front porches, door swing of building entries, and publicly accessible open space and meet the following: Missing numbers to show compliance but appears to comply Ch e ck All tha t Ap ply☒(A). Ground-floor retail or retail like uses have a minimum of 10% of the required setback as landscape or planters. Item 3 Attachment E - Objective Design Standards Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 59     City of Palo Alto Objective Design Standards: Checklist Page 8 4 1 9 9 i. Minimum setback area (setback x frontage x 10%): ___ sf Item 3 Attachment E - Objective Design Standards Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 60     City of Palo Alto Objective Design Standards: Checklist Page 8 4 1 9 9 ii. Landscape or planter area in required setback: ____ sf (B). Ground-floor residential uses have a minimum of 60% landscaped area in the required setback area. i. Minimum setback area (setback x frontage x 60%): _____ sf☒ ii. Landscape area in required setback: 500 sf (b)(6) Side Yard Setback Character (A) Each detached dwelling unit shall have at least one usable side yard, at least six feet wide, between the house and fence or other structure, to provide outdoor passage between the front and rear yards. Not Applicable 18.24.050 Building Massing Check Standard Sheet #Applicant’s Justification (b)(1) Upper Floor Step Backs and Daylight Planes (A) When the height of the subject building is more than 20 feet above the average height (i.e. average of low and high roof elevations) of an adjacent building(s), an upper floor step back shall start within two vertical feet of the average height of the adjacent building. The step back shall be a minimum depth of six feet along both the façade on the primary building frontage and the façade facing the adjacent building, and the step shall occur for a minimum of 70% of each façade length. i. Proposed building height: _____ feet ii. Average building height of the adjacent building(s): _____ feet ☐ iii. Building height where upper floor step back begins: ____ feet ☐(B) Notwithstanding, subsection (A), when adjacent to a single-story building, the upper floor step back shall occur between 33 and 37 feet in height. Lot A and B do not comply Item 3 Attachment E - Objective Design Standards Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 61     City of Palo Alto Objective Design Standards: Checklist Page 9 4 1 9 9 ☐ (C) If a project meets the following criteria, a daylight plane with an initial height of 25 feet above grade at the property line and a 45-degree angle shall be required. This daylight plane is required if all of these criteria are met: i. The project is not subject to a daylight plane requirement, pursuant to district regulations in Title 18; and ii. The project proposes a building which is more than 20 feet above the average height (i.e., average of low and high roof elevations) of an adjacent building(s); and iii. The project abuts residential units in the side or rear yard. Applies to Lot B; does not comply (b)(2) Privacy and Transitions to Residential Uses When a building abuts a residential use on an interior side and/or rear property line, the building shall break down the abutting façade and maintain privacy by meeting all of the following: Does not apply to lot A; Applies on Lot B ☐ (A) Landscape Screening. A landscape screen that includes a row of trees with a minimum one tree per 25 linear feet and continuous shrubbery planting. This screening plant material shall be a minimum 72 inches (6 feet) in height when planted. Required trees shall be minimum 24” box size. Lot B does not comply ☐ (B) Façade Breaks. A minimum façade break of 4 feet in width, 2 feet in depth, and 32 square feet of area (i.e. 8 ft tall minimum) for every 36 to 40 feet of façade length Lot B does not comply Che c k A l l ☐ (C) Maximum Amount of Transparent Windows. Within 40 feet of an abutting structure, no more than 15% of the facing façade area shall be windows or other glazing. Additional windows are allowed in order to maintain light, if fixed and fully obscured Lot B does not comply ☐ (D) Windows. Within 30 feet of facing residential windows (except garage or common space windows) or private open space on an adjacent residential building, facing windows on the subject site shall meet the following: (i) Window sills at and above the 2nd floor shall be at least five feet above finished floor; or (ii) Windows shall have opaque or translucent glazing at or below five feet above finished floor; or (iii) Windows shall be angled up to 30 degrees (parallel to window) to face away from the adjacent privacy impacts; and (iv) Landscape screening shall be 24-inch box size or larger and eight+ feet Lot B does not comply Item 3 Attachment E - Objective Design Standards Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 62     City of Palo Alto Objective Design Standards: Checklist Page 10 4 1 9 9 height at planting; 50% evergreens; and located to align with proposed second floor windows at maturity. ☐ (E). Balconies: Within 30 feet of residential windows (except garage or common space windows) or private open space on an adjacent residential building, balconies and decks on the subject site shall be designed to prevent views: (i) No sight lines to the adjacent property window or open space are permitted within five feet above the balcony or deck flooring and a 45- degree angle downward from balcony railing. (ii) Submit section view of proposed balcony/deck and abutting residential windows and/or private open space. (iii) Provide balcony/deck design measure which may include: a. Minimum 85% solid railing b. Obscure glass railing c. Barrier with min. 18" horizontal depth from railing (e.g., landscape planter) Complies (not within 30 feet of residential windows) (b)(3)(A) & (B) Maximum Façade Length facing a street or public path Buildings 70 feet in length or greater and greater than 25 feet in height For building facades 70 feet in length or greater and facing a public street, right- of-way, or publicly accessible path shall not have a continuous façade plane greater than 70% of the façade length without an upper floor modulation, of at least 2 feet in depth façade length featuring continuous plane: ~90 feet Total Façade length: 90 feet ☐ Percent of façade length without upper floor modulation (a/b) (maximum 70%): % Park Boulevard Frontage Lot B Complies (See exhibits in Attachment G) Cambridge Avenue Lot B (not required (continuous plane is 62 feet, 1 inch); Complies Buildings 250 feet in length or greaterPic k O n e C a t e g o r y ☐ (A) Buildings 250 feet in length or greater, which face a public street, right-of- way, or publicly accessible path, shall have at least one vertical façade break with a minimum area greater than 400 square feet and a width greater than or equal to two times the depth Park Boulevard Frontage Lot A Complies (See Exhibits in Attachment G) Item 3 Attachment E - Objective Design Standards Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 63     City of Palo Alto Objective Design Standards: Checklist Page 11 4 1 9 9 Cambridge Avenue Frontage Lot A Complies (See Exhibits in Attachment G) a. Total Building length: Park Boulevard Frontage: 238 feet b. Number of vertical façade breaks: Park Boulevard Frontage: 1 break (34’’6” wide, depth (not dimensioned, most of lot); total area of 2,461.48 square feet Cambridge Avenue Frontage: 12’ wide, 6 ft depth, total area of 1,682 sf Buildings between 150 feet and 250 feet in length (B) Buildings 150 to 250 feet in length, which face a public street, right-of-way, or publicly accessible path, shall have at least one vertical façade break with a minimum area greater than 64 square feet and a minimum width of 8 feet and minimum depth of 4 feet. c. Total Building length: Cambridge Avenue Frontage (Lot A): 180 feet California Avenue Frontage (Lot A): 171 feet☒ d. Number of vertical façade breaks: Cambridge Avenue Frontage : 1 break; 12’ wide, 6 ft depth, total area of 1,682 sf California Avenue frontage: No vertical break provided Cambridge Avenue Frontage Lot A complies California Avenue Frontage Lot A does not comply Check Standard Sheet #Applicant’s Justification (b)(4) Special Conditions: Railroad Frontages All parcels with lot lines abutting railroad rights-of-way shall meet the following standards on the railroad-abutting façade(s): ☐(A) A minimum facade break of at least 10 feet in width and six feet in depth for every 60 feet of façade length. Ch e c k All ☐(B) For portions of a building 20 feet or greater in height shall not have a continuous façade length that exceeds 60 feet. Not applicable, does not abut railroad ROW Item 3 Attachment E - Objective Design Standards Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 64     City of Palo Alto Objective Design Standards: Checklist Page 12 4 1 9 9 (b)(5) Diversity of Housing Types Item 3 Attachment E - Objective Design Standards Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 65     City of Palo Alto Objective Design Standards: Checklist Page 12 4 1 9 9 ☐ A diversity of housing types (e.g. detached units, attached rowhouses/townhouses, condominiums or apartments, mixed use) are required for projects on large lots: Less than one acre lots: minimum 1 housing types 1 to 2-acre lots: minimum 2 housing types; or More than 2-acre lots: minimum 3 housing types Does not apply to Lot B; Lot A does not comply 18.24.060 Façade Design Check Two or More Standard Sheet #Applicant’s Justification (c)(1) Base-Middle-Top ☐ Buildings three stories or taller and on lots wider than 50 feet shall be designed to differentiate a defined base or ground floor, a middle or body, and a top, cornice, or parapet cap. Each of these elements shall be distinguished from one another for a minimum of 80% of the façade length through use of three or more of the following four techniques: ☒ i. Variation in Building Modulation: Building modulation shall extend for a minimum 80% of the façade length feet, and shall include one or more of the following building features. Complies on Lot A and B ☒a. Horizontal shifts. Changes in floor plates that protrude and/or recess with a minimum dimension of 2 feet from the primary facade. ☐ b. Upper floor step backs. A horizontal step back of upper-floor façades with a minimum 5 foot stepback from the primary façade for a minimum of 80% of the length of the façade Che c k o n e o r m o r e i f sel e c t e d ☒ c. Ground floor step back. A horizontal shift of the ground floor facade with a minimum depth of 2 feet for a minimum 80% of the length of the façade. Ground floor step backs shall not exceed the maximum setback requirements, where stated ☒ii. Variation in Façade Articulation: Façade articulation modulation shall include one or more of the following building features. Item 3 Attachment E - Objective Design Standards Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 66     City of Palo Alto Objective Design Standards: Checklist Page 13 4 1 9 9 ☒a. Horizontal and/or Vertical Recesses or Projections. Recesses or projections such as a pattern of recessed grouping of windows, recessed panels, bay windows or similar strategies. The recess or projection shall be a minimum 4 inches in depth. ☒ b. Horizontal and/or Vertical Projections. Projections such as shading, weather protection devices, decorative architectural details, or similar strategies. Ch e c k o n e o r m o r e i f sel e c t e d ☒ c. Datum Lines. Datum lines that continue the length of the building, such as parapets or cornices, with a minimum 4 inches in height or a minimum 2 inches in depth and include a change in material ☒iii. Variation in two of the following: ☒a. Fenestration Size ☐b. Fenestration Proportion ☒c. Fenestration Pattern Che c k t w o i f sel e c t e d ☒ d. Fenestration Depth or Projection ☒iv. Variation in two of the following: ☒a. Façade Material ☐b. Facade Material Size ☒c. Façade Texture and Pattern Che c k t w o i f sel e c t e d ☒d. Façade Color Variety of materials, textures and colors shown (c)(2) Façade Composition Building facades shall use a variety of strategies including building modulation, fenestration, and façade articulation to create visual interest and express a variety of scales through a variety of strategies. All facades shall include a minimum of three of the following façade articulation strategies to create visual interest: ☒A. Vertical and horizontal recesses such as a pattern of recessed grouping of windows or recessed panels. The recess shall be a minimum 4 inches in depth.Complies Lot A and B Che c k Thr e e o r Mo r e ☒B. Vertical and horizontal projections such as shading and weather protection devices or decorative architectural details. Projections shall be a minimum 4 inches in depth. Item 3 Attachment E - Objective Design Standards Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 67     City of Palo Alto Objective Design Standards: Checklist Page 14 4 1 9 9 ☒ C. Datum lines that continue the length of the building, such as cornices, with a minimum 4 inches in depth, or a minimum 2 inches in depth and include a change in material. ☐D. Balconies, habitable projections, or Juliet balconies (every 20 to 40 feet) with a minimum 4 inches in depth. ☐E. Screening devices such as lattices, louvers, shading devices, or perforated metal screens. ☐F. Use of fine-grained building materials, such as brick or wood shingles, not to exceed 8 inches in either height or width. ☐G. Incorporate a minimum of three colors, materials, and/or textures across the whole building. Multiple color and materials shown (c)(3) Compatible Rhythm and Pattern (A) Buildings shall express a vertical rhythm and pattern that reflects the size and scale of a housing unit and/or individual rooms and spaces. This may be achieved with building modulation to create vertically oriented façades (height greater than the width of the façade), façade articulation and fenestration repetitive vertically oriented patterns. Depending on the length of the façade, the following standards apply: ☐ i. For continuous façades less than 100 feet in length, the façade shall have vertically oriented patterns of vertical recesses or projections, façade articulation, and/or fenestration. -Applies to Lot B for façade facing Park Boulevard ii. For continuous façades 100 feet or greater in length, the façade shall include either: ☐ a. A vertical recess or change in façade plane with a minimum 2 feet deep vertical shift modulation for a minimum 4 feet in width to establish a vertical rhythm between 20 to 50 feet in width; OR Che c k O n e ☒b. A vertical recess or projection with a minimum depth of 2 feet that establishes the vertical rhythm between 10 to 16 feet in width A4.2 Complies (B) Residential mixed-use buildings ☒i. Vertical Patterns and Modulation: Façades shall use vertical patterns of building modulation, façade articulation, and fenestration. A4.2 Che c k O n e or M o r e ☐ii. Horizontal Patterns and Modulation: Façades that use horizontal articulation and fenestration patterns shall use a vertical massing strategy with a minimum 4 feet Item 3 Attachment E - Objective Design Standards Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 68     City of Palo Alto Objective Design Standards: Checklist Page 15 4 1 9 9 wide and 2 feet deep vertical shift in modulation at least once every 50 feet of façade length. (C) Storefronts ☒Storefront uses shall express a vertical rhythm not to exceed 30 to 50 feet in width.A4.2 Complies (c)(4) Emphasize Building Elements & Massing (A)(i) Building Entries within Façade Design. Primary building entries shall be scaled proportionally to the number of people served (amount of floor-area or number of units accessed). Building entries inclusive of doorway and façade plane shall meet the following minimum dimensions: ☐a. Individual residential entries: 5 feet in width ☐b. Shared residential entry, such as mixed-use buildings: 8 feet in width ☒c. Commercial building entry: 20 feet in width CompliesCh e c k A l l ☐d. Storefront entry: 6 feet in width (ii) Primary building entries (not inclusive of individual residential entries) shall include a façade modulation that includes at least one of the following: ☒a. Recess or projection from the primary façade plane (minimum 2 feet).Complies Ch e c k On e o r Mo r e ☒b. Weather protection that is a minimum 4 feet wide and 4 feet deep by recessing the entry, providing an awning or using a combination of these methods Complies; Upper floor overhang provides weather protection at the main entry (c)(5) Storefront/Retail Ground Floors A. Ground floor height shall be a minimum 14 feet floor-to-floor OR shall maintain a 2nd floor datum line of an abutting building. a. Ground floor height (minimum 14 feet): _~20_ feet; OR☒ b. Height of 2nd floor datum line of abutting building: _____ feet B. Transparency shall include a minimum 60 percent transparent glazing between 2 and 10 feet in height from sidewalk, providing unobstructed views into the commercial space. a. Façade area between 2 feet and 10 feet: _____ square feet b. Transparent glazing area between 2 feet and 10 feet: _____ square feet ☐ c. Percentage of transparent glazing (minimum 60%): _____ % Complies Item 3 Attachment E - Objective Design Standards Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 69     City of Palo Alto Objective Design Standards: Checklist Page 16 4 1 9 9 ☐C. If provided, bulkheads and solid base walls measure between 12 and 30 inches from finished grade D. Primary entries shall include weather protection by recessing the entry, providing an awning or using a combination of these methods. a. Weather protection width (minimum 6 feet): _____ feet☐ b. Weather protection depth (minimum 4 feet): _____ feet ☐ E. Awnings, canopies and weather protection: (i) When transom windows are above display windows, awnings, canopies and similar, weather protection elements shall be installed between transom and display windows. These elements should allow for light to enter the storefront through the transom windows and allow the weather protection feature to shade the display window. (ii) Awnings may be fixed or retractable (c)(6) Other Non-Residential Ground Floors ☒(A) Ground floor height must be a minimum 14 feet floor-to-floor OR match the 2nd floor datum line of an abutting building ☒Ground floor height (minimum 14 feet): _____ feet; OR Pic k On e ☐Height of 2nd floor datum line of abutting building: _____ feet (B) Minimum of 50% transparent glazing between 4 and 10 feet in height from sidewalk or terrace grade, providing unobstructed views into the commercial space Façade area between 4 feet and 10 feet: _____ square feet Transparent glazing area: _____ square feet ☒ Percentage of transparent glazing (minimum 50%): _____ % (C) Primary entries include weather protection that is a minimum 6 feet wide and 4 feet deep by recessing the entry, providing an awning or using a combination of these methods. Weather protection width (minimum 6 feet): _____ feet☒ Weather protection depth (minimum 4 feet): _____ feet Not applicable (all ground floor uses are retail) (c)(7) Parking/Loading/Utilities (A) Entry Size ☐ No more than 25% of the site frontage facing a street shall be devoted to garage openings, carports, surface parking, loading entries, or utilities access. On sites with less than 100 feet of frontage, no more than 25 feet. Unclear (provided diagrams only account for garage Item 3 Attachment E - Objective Design Standards Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 70     City of Palo Alto Objective Design Standards: Checklist Page 17 4 1 9 9 openings but do not account for utilities access) Complies on Park Boulevard and California Avenue for Lot A Complies on Cambridge Avenue for Lot B Site frontage: _____ feet Frontage devoted to garage openings, carports, surface parking, loading entries, or utilities access: _____feet Percent of frontage devoted to garage openings, carports, surface parking, loading entries, or utilities access _____ % (B) Above Ground Structured Parking ☒ Above grade structured parking levels facing a public right-of-way or publicly accessible open space/path, with the exception of vehicular alleys, must be lined with commercial or habitable uses with a minimum depth of 20 feet Applies and complies (see exhibits in Attachment G) (C)&(D) Partially Sub-Grade Structured Parking ☐Partially sub-grade parking must not have an exposed façade that exceeds 5 feet in height above abutting grade at back of sidewalk. ☐Partially sub-grade parking must be screened with continuous landscaping and shrubbery with minimum height of 3 feet and be located within 10 feet of the sub-grade parking. Applies; does not comply 18.24.070 Residential Entries Pick One or More (A – E) Standard Sheet #Applicant’s Justification (b)(1) Ground Floor Unit Entries Where ground floor residential unit entries are required, one or more of the following entry types shall be provided: ☐(A) Stoop Item 3 Attachment E - Objective Design Standards Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 71     City of Palo Alto Objective Design Standards: Checklist Page 18 4 1 9 9 ☐(i) Stoops provide entry access for a maximum of two ground floor units. ☐(ii) Stoop heights are within one step of finished floor height of adjacent unit. ☐(iii) Stoop entry landings are a minimum 5 feet in depthChe c k A l l i f Sel e c t e d ☐(iv) The maximum stoop height from the back of sidewalk grade is 5 feet. Not Applicable, ground floor residential unit entries not proposed or required Item 3 Attachment E - Objective Design Standards Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 72     City of Palo Alto Objective Design Standards: Checklist Page 18 4 1 9 9 ☐(B) Porch ☐(i) Porches provide entry access for a maximum of one ground floor unit. ☐(ii) Porch heights are within one step of finished floor height of adjacent unit. ☐(iii) Porches are large enough so a 6-foot by 6-foot square can fit inside Che c k A l l i f Sel e c t e d ☐(iv) The maximum porch height from the back of sidewalk grade is 5 feet. Not Applicable, ground floor residential unit entries not proposed or required ☐(C) Patio Entry ☐(i) Patio entries provide access for a maximum of two ground floor units. ☐(ii) Patio entries are large enough so a 5-foot by 5-foot square can fit inside of the patio for each unit ☐(iii) The patio shall include at least one of the following features to define the transition between public and private space: ☐a. Row of shrubs: not exceeding 42 inches in height located between the sidewalk and the patio. One gallon size and max 3 feet on center ☐b. Fence: not to exceed 36 inches in height located between the sidewalk and the patio with a gate or fence opening to provide access Che c k A l l i f S e l e c t e d Pic k O n e o r M o r e ☐ c. Metal, Wood, or Stone Wall: not to exceed 36 inches in height located between the sidewalk and the patio with gate or opening, AND a minimum 18-inch landscape strip is located between the wall and the abutting pedestrian way and entirely landscaped Not Applicable, ground floor residential unit entries not proposed or required ☐(D) Terrace ☐(i) Terraces provide entry access for multiple ground floor units. ☐(ii) Terraces are a maximum height of 30 inches above the grade of the back of the adjacent sidewalk or accessway. Che c k A l l i f Sel e c t e d ☐(iii) Walls, fences and hedges on Terraces are a maximum of 42 inches tall and have a minimum transparency of 40 percent. Not Applicable, ground floor residential unit entries not proposed or required ☐(E) Frontage Court ☐(i) Frontage courts provide entry access for multiple ground floor units. ☐(ii) The minimum frontage court width along a primary frontage is 25 feet. Ch e c k A l l i f Sel e c t e d ☐(iii) The maximum frontage court width along a primary frontage is 50% of the facade length or 80 feet, whichever is less. Not Applicable, ground floor residential unit entries not proposed or required Item 3 Attachment E - Objective Design Standards Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 73     City of Palo Alto Objective Design Standards: Checklist Page 19 4 1 9 9 ☐(iv) The minimum Frontage Court depth is 25 feet. ☐(v) The maximum Frontage Court depth is 50 feet or a ratio not to exceed 2:1 depth to width. 18.24.080 Open Space Check Standard Sheet #Applicant’s Justification (b)(1) Private Open Space ☐(A) Floor area includes clear space with a minimum dimension of a circle with a six- foot diameter. ☒(B) Minimum clear height dimension of 8’-6” feet. ☒(C) Directly accessible from a residential unit. ☐(D) Balconies are not located within the daylight plane. (b)(1)(E) Private Open Space - Ground Floor Patios ☐(i) RM-20 and RM-30 districts: Minimum 100 square feet of area, the least dimension of which is 8 feet for at least 75% of the area. Does not apply, not RM-20 or RM-30 ☐(ii) RM-40 districts: Minimum 80 square feet of area, the least dimension of which is 6 feet for at least 75% of the area Does not apply, not RM-40 ☐(iii) Street facing private open space on the ground floor shall meet the finished floor height for ground floor residential standards in section 18.24.040(b)(4) Does not apply; No private open space for individual units on ground floor (b)(2) Common Open Space ☒(A)&(B) Minimum 200 square feet of area. Area shall include a space with a minimum dimension of a circle with a 10-foot diameter. ☒(C) A minimum of 60% of the area shall be open to the sky and free of permanent weather protection or encroachments. Trellises and similar open-air features allowed ☐ (D) Notwithstanding subsection (1), courtyards enclosed on four sides shall have a minimum dimension of 40 feet and have a minimum courtyard width to building height ratio of 1:1.25 ☒(E) Common open space provides seating. Item 3 Attachment E - Objective Design Standards Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 74     City of Palo Alto Objective Design Standards: Checklist Page 20 4 1 9 9 ☒(F) Common open space has a minimum 20% of landscaping. ☐(G) Planting in above grade courtyards has minimum soil depth of 12 inches for ground cover, 20 inches for shrubs, and 36 inches for trees._ 18.24.090 Materials Check Standard Sheet #Applicant’s Justification ☐ (b)(1) Primary, secondary, and accent materials are allowed or prohibited as in the Residential and Residential Mixed-use Material List, which may be updated from time to time by the Director of Planning with a recommendation by the ARB. See webpage for list - https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/News-Articles/Planning-and-Development- Services/Multifamily-Mixed-Use-Objective-Standards Materials comply 18.24.100 Sustainability and Green Building Code Check Standard Sheet #Applicant’s Justification ☐ (b) See Chapter 16.14: California Green Building Standards additional requirements for green building and sustainable design. Notwithstanding Section 18.24.010(c), these regulations may not be modified through alternative compliance. A0.07 Project complies with GalGreen Tier 2 and is proposed to be all electric Item 3 Attachment E - Objective Design Standards Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 75     From:Berry Hatfield To:Raybould, Claire Subject:156 California Ave Project Date:Sunday, December 29, 2024 12:52:59 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi Claire, We received the NOP postcard for this project and wanted to comment that we support this type of development within the California Ave Business District and look forward to moreresidential units opening along California Ave. Sincerely, Berry Hatfield Berry Hatfield OwnerGAMELANDIA P: 650-382-2528 M: 917-620-5003 A: 290 California Ave, Ste A Palo Alto, CA 94306 W: www.gamelandia.fun E: berry@gamelandia.funSchedule a Meeting: https://calendly.com/gamelandia Item 3 Attachment F - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 76     From:Sukie Stanley To:Raybould, Claire Subject:156 California Ave proposal Date:Saturday, December 28, 2024 11:39:58 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Hello, As a long-time resident of Evergreen Park, I would like to register my horror at the thought of a 17-story building invading our neighborhood. I have been appreciative of the City’s efforts to preserve our neighborhood’s well- being in instituting controls on residential parking and traffic calming. This proposed building goes in the opposite direction. I actually never thought this proposal would be taken seriously. Thank you for asking for feedback. I understand the pressure to create housing for more people, and I could accept the use of the Mollie Stone property to accommodate a 3-story building (with underground parking), but please use larger commercial areas for buildings above that height. The tall structure being proposed in this residential area defies sensible, aesthetic planning. Sylvia Stanley 253 Oxford Ave p.s. I’m sure I’m not the first to suggest your efforts in re-zoning codes be directed to purchasing vacant commercial buildings for housing. Easier said than done, I suspect. Item 3 Attachment F - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 77     From:Jennifer Griffin To:Raybould, Claire Cc:grenna5000@yahoo.com Subject:Comments Concerning 156 California Avenue Proposed Construction Date:Saturday, December 28, 2024 9:43:37 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Ms Raybould, I am sending this email to express my concerns about the proposed high rise at 156 CaliforniaAvenue in Palo Alto. I am also very distressed to discover this is a Builders Remedy project.I think this project is too tall for the area. There is nothing this tall around the area. I don't think thisIs appropriate to have a building this tall so close to the historic Stanford University Area.I think the area around the campus should be kept low so as to not detract from the campus. I am very distressed that the city of San Jose allowed extremely tall buildings to be built on thePerimeter of the Winchester Mystery House so that no one can even see the house from theStreets adjacent. It is common practice in areas near Monticello and Mount Vernon and Williamsburg that the landsAdjacent not be built up to the extent that they become a distraction from the historic structuresThemselves. All three of these historic locations have bought land adjacent to protect the viewScapes of their historic structures. Stanford is a World Class UNESCO type historic location and should not have high rise structuresThat distract from the entire atmosphere of the campus. It is doubly upsetting that someoneWould be using something as disasterous as the Builders Remedy to try to build somethingThat would endanger the important viewscapes of Stanford University. Stanford University is too historic and precious to have the centuries old viewscapes of theUniversity be clogged up with a 17 story high rise, especially something spawned from aDisastrous Builders Remedy. Builders Remedy is not even currently legal in the state andWas highly questionable even before. It is an absolute travesty to have the eclectic and historic viewscapes of Stanford University beRuined by a 17 story Builders Remedy Project. Please do not allow this project to loom over the beautiful Stanford Campus and its historic views. Best regards, Jennifer GriffinCupertino, California Lifetime Peninsula and South Bay Resident who was born atStanford Hospital Item 3 Attachment F - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 78     From:david@drak.com To:Raybould, Claire Cc:Loretta Matheson; Robert Entriken; epna-discuss@googlegroups.com Subject:156-164 California Avenue Project Date:Sunday, January 12, 2025 2:01:54 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Claire— I grew up in Palo Alto and my wife and I have lived at 280 Oxford since 1991, raising our two kids there. We are a few blocks away from the proposed monstrosity of a tower on the Mollie Stones site. While we support additional housing in Palo Alto and along California Avenue, this project is completely outrageous. Several major problems: 1. The height of the building is well beyond anything in the area, and completely out of character with the neighborhood. It will cast shadows and allow sightlines into private backyards. Perhaps a max height of 50 feet would be appropriate, as the local residential neighborhood the proposed tower is embedded in is limited to about 30 feet. 2. The local infrastructure is inadequate, in many areas. For example, only a few years ago we had to implement Residential Permit Parking to keep cars clogging up the streets, the project does not seem to have anything like adequate parking. Also traffic flow in the area is already a bit tricky, adding this many more people will only make this worse. The jump in population from 380+ units is too rapid and too concentrated for the area. 3. The project seems to benefit mainly the developer and externalizes costs to the local neighbors. What is the developer doing to improve and contribute to the local area? A large project must provide real benefits. We get a few years of construction noise and disruption, plus a seriously degraded quality of life afterwards due to 1 and 2 above, for what – to replace a grocery store with a grocery store? Contrast to Stanford’s development of EVGR, with building that only go to ten stories in a sensible large complex with appropriate infrastructure and layout, plus major upgrades to traffic flows etc. along the way. The 156-164 California Avenue project is irresponsible and destructive. My neighbors feel similarly, and the next step is to mobilize them politically to oppose the project. Hopefully the city council will do the right thing and bring this project in line with the neighborhood scale and infrastructure. Best Regards, David & Loretta Item 3 Attachment F - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 79     From:David Shapiro To:david@drak.com Cc:Raybould, Claire; Loretta Matheson; Robert Entriken; epna-discuss@googlegroups.com Subject:Re: 156-164 California Avenue Project Date:Sunday, January 12, 2025 5:03:46 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Adding to the imminent effect of the new police station, the proposed building will increasetraffic through Evergreen Park, especially along Park Blvd including wrong-way violators of the one-way barrier. In addition to the other major objections to the size of this project, Iwould add that complete closure of Park Blvd at the current one-way barrier should be required for approval of anything near the current proposal's size. -David Shapiro@ 252 Stanford Ave since 1994. On Sun, Jan 12, 2025 at 1:56 PM <david@drak.com> wrote: Claire— I grew up in Palo Alto and my wife and I have lived at 280 Oxford since 1991, raising ourtwo kids there. We are a few blocks away from the proposed monstrosity of a tower on the Mollie Stones site. While we support additional housing in Palo Alto and along CaliforniaAvenue, this project is completely outrageous. Several major problems: 1. The height of the building is well beyond anything in the area, and completely out ofcharacter with the neighborhood. It will cast shadows and allow sightlines into private backyards. Perhaps a max height of 50 feet would be appropriate, as the localresidential neighborhood the proposed tower is embedded in is limited to about 30 feet.2. The local infrastructure is inadequate, in many areas. For example, only a few years ago we had to implement Residential Permit Parking to keep cars clogging up thestreets, the project does not seem to have anything like adequate parking. Also traffic flow in the area is already a bit tricky, adding this many more people will only makethis worse. The jump in population from 380+ units is too rapid and too concentrated for the area.3. The project seems to benefit mainly the developer and externalizes costs to the local neighbors. What is the developer doing to improve and contribute to the local area? A large project must provide real benefits. We get a few years of construction noise and disruption, plus a seriously degraded quality of life afterwards due to 1 and 2above, for what – to replace a grocery store with a grocery store? Contrast to Stanford’s development of EVGR, with building that only go to ten stories in a sensible large complex with appropriate infrastructure and layout, plus major upgrades totraffic flows etc. along the way. The 156-164 California Avenue project is irresponsible and Item 3 Attachment F - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 80     destructive. My neighbors feel similarly, and the next step is to mobilize them politically to oppose theproject. Hopefully the city council will do the right thing and bring this project in line with the neighborhood scale and infrastructure. Best Regards, David & Loretta -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "EPNA Discuss" group.To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to epna- discuss+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.To post to this group, send email to epna-discuss@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/epna-discuss/014601db653c%24d23c1e40%2476b45ac0%24%40drak.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. Item 3 Attachment F - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 81     From:Deborah Goldeen To:David Shapiro Cc:david@drak.com; Raybould, Claire; Loretta Matheson; Robert Entriken; epna-discuss@googlegroups.com Subject:Re: 156-164 California Avenue Project Date:Sunday, January 12, 2025 5:18:19 PM You don't often get email from deborah.goldeen@sonic.net. Learn why this is important I agree with David Shapiro’s assessment that Park needs to be barricaded as a condition of further development. On Jan 12, 2025, at 5:03 PM, David Shapiro <dwshapiro@gmail.com> wrote:Adding to the imminent effect of the new police station, the proposed building will increase traffic through Evergreen Park, especially along Park Blvd includingwrong-way violators of the one-way barrier. In addition to the other major objections to the size of this project, I would add that complete closure of ParkBlvd at the current one-way barrier should be required for approval of anything near the current proposal's size. -David Shapiro@ 252 Stanford Ave since 1994. On Sun, Jan 12, 2025 at 1:56 PM <david@drak.com> wrote: Claire— I grew up in Palo Alto and my wife and I have lived at 280 Oxford since 1991,raising our two kids there. We are a few blocks away from the proposed monstrosity of a tower on the Mollie Stones site. While we support additionalhousing in Palo Alto and along California Avenue, this project is completely outrageous. Several major problems: 1. The height of the building is well beyond anything in the area, and completely out of character with the neighborhood. It will cast shadowsand allow sightlines into private backyards. Perhaps a max height of 50 feet would be appropriate, as the local residential neighborhood theproposed tower is embedded in is limited to about 30 feet. 2. The local infrastructure is inadequate, in many areas. For example, only afew years ago we had to implement Residential Permit Parking to keep cars clogging up the streets, the project does not seem to have anythinglike adequate parking. Also traffic flow in the area is already a bit tricky, adding this many more people will only make this worse. The jump inpopulation from 380+ units is too rapid and too concentrated for the area. 3. The project seems to benefit mainly the developer and externalizes coststo the local neighbors. What is the developer doing to improve and contribute to the local area? A large project must provide real benefits. Item 3 Attachment F - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 82     From:Aileen Yang To:David Shapiro Cc:david@drak.com; Raybould, Claire; Loretta Matheson; Robert Entriken; epna-discuss@googlegroups.com Subject:Re: 156-164 California Avenue Project Date:Sunday, January 12, 2025 5:29:21 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Totally agree! David! Not to mention all the pollution when the construction is going on! (for7-8 years??) Blessings! Aileen/Carl On Sun, Jan 12, 2025 at 5:03 PM David Shapiro <dwshapiro@gmail.com> wrote: Adding to the imminent effect of the new police station, the proposed building will increasetraffic through Evergreen Park, especially along Park Blvd including wrong-way violators of the one-way barrier. In addition to the other major objections to the size of this project, Iwould add that complete closure of Park Blvd at the current one-way barrier should be required for approval of anything near the current proposal's size. -David Shapiro@ 252 Stanford Ave since 1994. On Sun, Jan 12, 2025 at 1:56 PM <david@drak.com> wrote: Claire— I grew up in Palo Alto and my wife and I have lived at 280 Oxford since 1991, raising ourtwo kids there. We are a few blocks away from the proposed monstrosity of a tower on the Mollie Stones site. While we support additional housing in Palo Alto and alongCalifornia Avenue, this project is completely outrageous. Several major problems: 1. The height of the building is well beyond anything in the area, and completely outof character with the neighborhood. It will cast shadows and allow sightlines into private backyards. Perhaps a max height of 50 feet would be appropriate, as thelocal residential neighborhood the proposed tower is embedded in is limited to about 30 feet.2. The local infrastructure is inadequate, in many areas. For example, only a few years ago we had to implement Residential Permit Parking to keep cars clogging up thestreets, the project does not seem to have anything like adequate parking. Also traffic flow in the area is already a bit tricky, adding this many more people willonly make this worse. The jump in population from 380+ units is too rapid and too concentrated for the area.3. The project seems to benefit mainly the developer and externalizes costs to the local neighbors. What is the developer doing to improve and contribute to the localarea? A large project must provide real benefits. We get a few years of Item 3 Attachment F - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 83     From:Wolfgang Dueregger To:Aileen Yang Cc:David Shapiro; david@drak.com; Raybould, Claire; Loretta Matheson; epna-discuss@googlegroups.com Subject:Re: 156-164 California Avenue Project Date:Sunday, January 12, 2025 7:33:08 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi Aileen, both Davids and Loretta, mobilizing everybody (as David suggests) should happen sooner than later. and at the very least, write your opinion directly to city council or council members. Wolfgang On Sun, Jan 12, 2025 at 5:29 PM Aileen Yang <aileen.yang@gmail.com> wrote: Totally agree! David! Not to mention all the pollution when the construction is going on!(for 7-8 years??) Blessings! Aileen/Carl On Sun, Jan 12, 2025 at 5:03 PM David Shapiro <dwshapiro@gmail.com> wrote: Adding to the imminent effect of the new police station, the proposed building willincrease traffic through Evergreen Park, especially along Park Blvd including wrong-way violators of the one-way barrier. In addition to the other major objections to the size of thisproject, I would add that complete closure of Park Blvd at the current one-way barrier should be required for approval of anything near the current proposal's size. -David Shapiro@ 252 Stanford Ave since 1994. On Sun, Jan 12, 2025 at 1:56 PM <david@drak.com> wrote: Claire— I grew up in Palo Alto and my wife and I have lived at 280 Oxford since 1991, raisingour two kids there. We are a few blocks away from the proposed monstrosity of a tower on the Mollie Stones site. While we support additional housing in Palo Alto and alongCalifornia Avenue, this project is completely outrageous. Several major problems: 1. The height of the building is well beyond anything in the area, and completely outof character with the neighborhood. It will cast shadows and allow sightlines into Item 3 Attachment F - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 84     From:Adrienne Pierce To:david@drak.com Cc:Raybould, Claire; Loretta Matheson; Robert Entriken; epna-discuss@googlegroups.com Subject:Re: 156-164 California Avenue Project Date:Sunday, January 12, 2025 7:54:21 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi DavidI wanted to chime in as I strongly feel that we need more affordable housing. I don’t disagree with your main points and hope that the city and developer can take into considerations not only our concerns but have a forward looking development plan thatincludes improvements to the Cal Ave corridor and the other projects in the area e.g. police station, etc. There is a lot of potential for positive change creating a more diverse and thrivingneighborhood. Adrienne Sent from my iPhone On Jan 12, 2025, at 1:56 PM, david@drak.com wrote:Claire— I grew up in Palo Alto and my wife and I have lived at 280 Oxford since 1991, raising our two kids there. We are a few blocks away from the proposed monstrosity of a tower on the Mollie Stones site. While we support additional housing in Palo Alto and along California Avenue, this project is completely outrageous. Several major problems: 1. The height of the building is well beyond anything in the area, and completely out of character with the neighborhood. It will cast shadows and allow sightlines into private backyards. Perhaps a max height of 50 feet would be appropriate, as the local residential neighborhood the proposed tower is embedded in is limited to about 30 feet. 2. The local infrastructure is inadequate, in many areas. For example, only a few years ago we had to implement Residential Permit Parking to keep cars clogging up the streets, the project does not seem to have anything like adequate parking. Also traffic flow in the area is already a bit tricky, adding this many more people will only make this worse. The jump in population from 380+ units is too rapid and too concentrated for the area. 3. The project seems to benefit mainly the developer and externalizes costs to the local neighbors. What is the developer doing to improve and Item 3 Attachment F - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 85     From:Steve Tjiang To:Adrienne Pierce Cc:david@drak.com; Raybould, Claire; Loretta Matheson; Robert Entriken; epna-discuss@googlegroups.com Subject:Re: 156-164 California Avenue Project Date:Sunday, January 12, 2025 8:19:45 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. I am in agreement with Adrienne here. I think we clearly need more housing and I think theCalifornia Avenue area is a suitable place for denser housing. Thank you David for bringing up very good points as well. While I agree that a 17 story building is too high, I think the height needs to go up inevitably. Iwould hope the city and the developer recognize this as an opportunity to densify California avenue business district responsibly. I believe the developer has invoked the builder's remedygiving them the upper hand. The city is limited in its responses, even if the surrounding neighborhoods protest. Has the EPNA reached out to the developer? The following may be controversial: As for the lack of infrastructure. This is a bit of a conundrum. We are caught in a viciouscycle. Local citizens use the lack of infrastructure to block developments. Transportation planners say that there isn't enough density to support better infrastructure. My bias here isthat infrastructure means better public or private shared transit. Something is needed to break this vicious cycle. Building denser before expanding infrastructure may be the only way. On Sun, Jan 12, 2025 at 7:54 PM Adrienne Pierce <adrienne.pierce@gmail.com> wrote:Hi David I wanted to chime in as I strongly feel that we need more affordable housing. I don’t disagree with your main points and hope that the city and developer can take intoconsiderations not only our concerns but have a forward looking development plan that includes improvements to the Cal Ave corridor and the other projects in the area e.g. policestation, etc. There is a lot of potential for positive change creating a more diverse and thriving neighborhood. Adrienne Sent from my iPhone On Jan 12, 2025, at 1:56 PM, david@drak.com wrote: Item 3 Attachment F - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 86     From:Entriken, Robert To:epna-discuss@googlegroups.com Cc:Steve Tjiang; Adrienne Pierce; david@drak.com; Raybould, Claire; Loretta Matheson; Casper Vroemen; Bill Fitch Subject:Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: 156-164 California Avenue Project Date:Monday, January 13, 2025 2:31:18 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear EPNA Neighbors, I appreciate and share your energy about the redevelopment of 156-164 California Avenue. In fulldisclosure, my son Manuel and many others who I deeply care about, work at Mollie Stones. On 17 Dec 2024, the City issued a Notice of Preparations (NOP) for an Environmental Impact Report(EIR) of the project, offering 30 days for soliciting comments (until 16 Jan 2025). Since the project seemsto qualify for the State of California builders remedy, my understanding is that the EIR may be our onlyopportunity to comment on valid environmental concerns, like traffic handling and safety. It can be veryhelpful to offer constructive advice about how to address such concerns. Everyone is always welcome to send an e-mail to the City Council about this. However, the web pageinstructs NOP comments to be sent to: Attn: Claire Raybould, Interim Manager of Current Planning250 Hamilton AvenuePalo Alto, CA 94301Claire.Raybould@CityofPaloAlto.org I hope this is helpful. Best wishes, Bob ----156 - 164 California Avenue web pagehttps://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Current-Planning/Projects/156-California-Avenue ----Notice of Preparationhttps://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/planning-amp-development-services/new-development-projects/156-california/156-california-notice-of-preparation.pdf This Notice of Preparation (NOP) is sent pursuant to Section 15082 of the CEQA Guidelines to documentinitiation of the EIR process and solicit comments. Comments on the NOP are received from responsibleand trustee agencies and interested parties concerning the scope of issues to be addressed in the EIR. Technical Executive Electric Power Research Institute 3420 Hillview Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94304 Tel: 650/855-2198 | Cell: 650/353-8956 | Fax: 650/855-2002 Email: rentrike@epri.com Item 3 Attachment F - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 87     From:Kirsten Luehrs To:Raybould, Claire Subject:Giant building at Mollie stones site Date:Monday, January 13, 2025 3:11:12 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi Claire, I thought this project was dead so am surprised to hear it’s still on the table. 156-164 California Avenue, giant building. The project will cost me personally, a tremendous amount of money and will cause us harm in the form of stress, exposure to pollution and risk of injury. You see, we live on Stanford Avenue, very close to Park Boulevard (@231 Stanford Ave). There is a mini traffic circle at that intersection, that is already a hazard since people on Park just blow by it essentially all the time. Adding additional traffic here will increase the risk of bodily harm at this intersection and near it. Our home on Stanford Avenue will lose significant value when the traffic increases to the volumes dictated by the project. I’d guess a reduction of $500-800,000. Of course this would be a devastating blow for us. We’ve been working for over 20 years, way more than comfortable, to pay for our nest egg. Having that value wiped off of our net worth with the flick of a pen… not good at all. Then of course we will have to endure additional pollution, congestion, noise, etc both during construction and after. Perhaps fully blocking park boulevard at the one way block would help. But with no controls this plan is just causing harm to us. That’s all I can really say. I’m shocked this is still being entertained. I thought the city came up with a plan to address the state mandate. I don’t understand how a cowboy can come into a neighborhood and ruin lives like this. I thought the master plan for the city had housing along el Camino? Please help if you can. I’m happy to talk. 650-906-7740. Thanks, Kirsten Luehrs Sent from my iPhone Item 3 Attachment F - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 88     From:Brian Koss To:Raybould, Claire Subject:156-164 California Avenue Project Date:Monday, January 13, 2025 3:34:43 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Notice of Proposal Comments for 156-164 California Avenue Project. In am a proponent for additional housing and agree with denser housing around transit options but the scale of this development exceeds what would be considered reasonable in my opinion. Besides the visual scale of the project, the additional traffic will make movement by car far more difficult especially during the evening commute hours which are nearing unreasonable at the current level. Yet there does not seemto be any infrastructure improvements to the roads to accommodate the addition residents. Currently, it is hard to get out of the area using Park Blvd as traffic backs up sufficiently from traffic trying to merge onto Page Mill road to the point you can not pass the row of cars lined up on Park Blvd. The solution is to cut through the CaltrainParking and make a left onto Park Blvd from the parking lot exit. The parking garage is designed for 310 spaces but there are 386 dwelling units. Assuming 1.5 cars per unit as the number 579 cars will be added to the local neighborhood not including the employees or customers of Mollie Stones during theday. In the evening and on weekends there will be a lack of parking for nearly 269 cars. Doesn’t appear to be enough parking? Are they just going to expand the permit parking into the neighborhood? I understand it takes a LOT of money to build in this area and therefore, thedevelopers need to have a large number of dwelling units to make the costs work. But, the neighbors of the developers shouldn’t have to should the increase transportation grid lock and parking issues especially since they were just mitigated by the recent parking structure. We don’t know what the increased traffic hassles aregoing to be with the new Police station let alone adding another large development. Please descale this Project to something reasonable. Brian Koss & Ben Koss 390 College Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94306 Item 3 Attachment F - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 89     .çiC JL q (Z1.q1 - CHAIRPERSON Reginald Pagaling Churnash VICE-CHAIRPERSON Buffy McQuillen Yokayo Porno,Yuki, Nomloki SECRETARY Sara Dutschke Miwok PARLIAMENTARIAN Wayne Nelson tuiseño COMMISSIONER Isaac Bojorquez Ohlone-Costanoan COMMISSIONER Stanley Rodriguez Kumeyaay COMMISSIONER Laurena Bolden Serrano COMMISSIONER Reid Milanovich Cahuilla COMMISSIONER Bennae Calac Paurna-Yuima Band of Luiseno Indians ACTING EXECUTIVE SECRETARY Steven Quinn NAHC HEADQUARTERS 1550 Harbor Boulevard Suite 100 West Sacramento, California 95691 (916)373-3710 nahc@nahc.ca.gov NAHC.ca.gov STATE OF CALIFORNIA nvin Newcnm nvPrnnr NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION December 31,2024 Claire Raybould City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Floor 5 Palo Alto CA 94301 Re:2024120754 156 California Avenue Mixed Use Project,Santa Clara County Dear Ms.Raybould: The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC)has received the Notice of Preparation (NOP),Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR)or Early Consultation for the project referenced above.The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)(Pub.Resources Code §21000 et seq.),specifically Public Resources Code §21084.1,states that a project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource,is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment.(Pub.Resources Code §21084.1;Cal.Code Regs.,tit.14,§15064.5 (b)(CEQA Guidelines §15064.5 (b)).If there is substantial evidence,in light of the whole record before a lead agency,that a project may have a significant effect on the environment,an Environmental Impact Report (EIR)shall be prepared.(Pub.Resources Code §21080 (d);Cal.Code Regs.,tit.14,§SO64subd.(a)(1)(CEQA Guidelines §15064 (a)(1)). In order to determine whether a project will cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource,a lead agency will need to determine whether there are historical resources within the area of potential effect (APE). CEQA was amended significantly in 2014.Assembly Bill 52 (Gatto,Chapter 532,Statutes of 2014)tAB 52)amended CEQA to create a separate category of cultural resources,“tribal cultural resources”(Pub.Resources Code §21074)and provides that a project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment.(Pub.Resources Code §21084.2).Public agencies shall,when feasible,avoid damaging effects to any tribal cultural resource.(Pub.Resources Code §21084.3 (a)).AB 52 applies to any project for which a notice of preparation,a notice of negative declaration,or a mitigated negative declaration is filed on or after July 1,2015.If your project involves the adoption of or amendment to a general plan or a specific plan,or the designation or proposed designation of open space,on or after March 1, 2005,it may also be subject to Senate Bill 18 (Burton,Chapter 905,Statutes of 2004)(SB 18). Both SB 18 and AB 52 have tribal consultation requirements.If your project is also subject to the federal National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C.§432]et seq.)(NEPA),the tribal consultation requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (154 U.S.C.300101,36 C.F.R.§800 et seq.)may also apply. The NAHC recommends consultation with California Native American tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of your proposed project as early as possible in order to avoid inadvertent discoveries of Native American human remains and best protect tribal cultural resources.Below is a brief summary of portions of AB 52 and SB 18 as well as the NAHC’s recommendations for conducting cultural resources assessments. Consult your legal counsel about compliance with AB 52 and SB 18 as well as compliance with any other applicable laws. Page 1 of 5 Item 3 Attachment F - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 90     AB 52 AB 52 has added to CEQA the additional requirements listed below,along with many other requirements: 1.Fourteen Day Period to Provide Notice of Completion of an Application/Decision to Undertake a Proiect: Within fourteen (14)days of determining that an application for a project is complete or of a decision by a public agency to undertake a project,a lead agency shall provide formal notification to a designated contact of,or tribal representative of,traditionally and culturally affiliated California Native American tribes that have requested notice,to be accomplished by at least one written notice that includes: a.A brief description of the project. b.The lead agency contact information. c.Notification that the California Native American tribe has 30 days to request consultation.(Pub. Resources Code §21080.3.1 (d)). d.A “California Native American tribe”is defined as a Native American tribe located in California that is on the contact list maintained by the NAHC for the purposes of Chapter 905 of Statutes of 2004 (58 18). (Pub.Resources Code §21 073). 2.Begin Consultation Within 30 Days of Receiving a Tribe’s Request for Consultation and Before Releasing a Negative Declaration,Mitigated Negative Declaration,or Environmental Impact Report:A lead agency shall begin the consultation process within 30 days of receiving a request for consultation from a California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed project. (Pub.Resources Code §21080.3.1,subds.(d)and (e))and prior to the release of a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration or Environmental Impact Report.(Pub.Resources Code §21080.3.1(b)). a.For purposes of AB 52,consultation shall hove the same meaning as provided in Gov.Code §65352.4 (SB 18).(Pub.Resources Code §21080.3.1 (b)). 3.Mandatory Topics of Consultation If Requested by a Tribe:The following topics of consultation,if a tribe requests to discuss them,are mandatory topics of consultation: a.Alternatives to the project. b.Recommended mitigation measures. c.Significant effects.(Pub.Resources Code §21080.3.2 (a)). 4.Discretionary Topics of Consultation:The following topics are discretionary topics of consultation: a.Type of environmental review necessary. b.Significance of the tribal cultural resources. c.Significance of the project’s impacts on tribal cultural resources. ci.If necessary,project alternatives or appropriate measures for preservation or mitigation that the tribe may recommend to the lead agency.(Pub.Resources Code §21080.3.2 (a)). 5.Confidentiality of Information Submitted by a Tribe During the Environmental Review Process:With some exceptions,any information,including but not limited to,the location,description,and use of tribal cultural resources submitted by a California Native American tribe during the environmental review process shall not be included in the environmental document or otherwise disclosed by the lead agency or any other public agency to the public,consistent with Government Code §6254 (r)and §6254.10.Any information submitted by a California Native American tribe during the consultation or environmental review process shall be published in a confidential appendix to the environmental document unless the tribe that provided the information consents,in writing,to the disclosure of some or all of the information to the public.(Pub.Resources Code §21082.3 (c)(1)). 6.Discussion of Impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources in the Environmental Document:If a project may have a significant impact on a tribal cultural resource,the lead agency’s environmental document shall discuss both of the following: a.Whether the proposed project has a significant impact on an identified tribal cultural resource. b.Whether feasible alternatives or mitigation measures,including those measures that may be agreed to pursuant to Public Resources Code §21082.3,subdivision (a),avoid or substantially lessen the impact on the identified tribal cultural resource.(Pub.Resources Code §21082.3 (b)). Page 2 of 5 Item 3 Attachment F - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 91     7.Conclusion of Consultation:Consultation with a tribe shall be considered concluded when either of the following occurs: a.The parties agree to measures to mitigate or avoid a significant effect,if a significant effect exists,on a tribal cultural resource;or b.A party,acting in good faith and after reasonable effort,concludes that mutual agreement cannot be reached.(Pub.Resources Code §21080.3.2 (b)). 8.Recommending Mitigation Measures Agreed Upon in Consultation in the Environmental Document:Any mitigation measures agreed upon in the consultation conducted pursuant to Public Resources Code §21080.3.2 shall be recommended for inclusion in the environmental document and in an adopted mitigation monitoring and reporting program,if determined to avoid or lessen the impact pursuant to Public Resources Code §21082.3, subdivision (b),paragraph 2,and shall be fully enforceable.(Pub.Resources Code §21082.3 (a)). 9.Reguired Consideration of Feasible Mitigation:If mitigation measures recommended by the staff of the lead agency as a result of the consultation process are not included in the environmental document or if there are no agreed upon mitigation measures at the conclusion of consultation,or if consultation does not occur,and if substantial evidence demonstrates that a project will cause a significant effect to a tribal cultural resource,the lead agency shall consider feasible mitigation pursuant to Public Resources Code §21084.3 (b).(Pub.Resources Code §21082.3 (e)). 10.Examples of Mitigation Measures That,If Feasible,MaY Be Considered to Avoid or Minimize Significant Adverse Impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources: a.Avoidance and preservation of the resources in place,including,but not limited to: i.Planning and construction to avoid the resources and protect the cultural and natural context. ii.Planning greenspace,parks,or other open space,to incorporate the resources with culturally appropriate protection and management criteria. b.Treating the resource with culturally appropriate dignity,taking into account the tribal cultural values and meaning of the resource,including,but not limited to,the following: i.Protecting the cultural character and integrity of the resource. ii.Protecting the traditional use of the resource. iii.Protecting the confidentiality of the resource. c.Permanent conservation easements or other interests in real properly,with culturally appropriate management criteria for the purposes of preserving or utilizing the resources or places. d.Protecting the resource.(Pub.Resource Code §21084.3 (b)). e.Please note that a federally recognized California Native American tribe or a non-federally recognized California Native American tribe that is on the contact list maintained by the NAHC to protect a California prehistoric,archaeological,cultural,spiritual,or ceremonial place may acquire and hold conservation easements if the conservation easement is voluntarily conveyed.(Civ.Code §815.3 (c)). f.Please note that it is the policy of the state that Native American remains and associated grave artifacts shall be repatriated.(Pub.Resources Code §5097.991). 11.Prereguisites for Certifying an Environmental Impact Report or Adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration or Negative Declaration with a Significant Impact on an Identified Tribal Cultural Resource:An Environmental Impact Report may not be certified,nor may a mitigated negative declaration or a negative declaration be adopted unless one of the following occurs: a.The consultation process between the tribes and the lead agency has occurred as provided in Public Resources Code §21080.3.1 and §21080.3.2 and concluded pursuant to Public Resources Code §21080.3.2. b.The tribe that requested consultation failed to provide comments to the lead agency or otherwise failed to engage in the consultation process. c.The lead agency provided notice of the project to the tribe in compliance with Public Resources Code §21080.3.](d)and the tribe failed to request consultation within 30 days.(Pub.Resources Code §21082.3 (d)). Page 3 of 5 Item 3 Attachment F - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 92     The NAHC’s PowerPoint presentation titled,Tribal Consultation Under AB 52:Requirements and Best Practices”may be found online at:http://nahc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/AB52TribalConsultation CaIEPAPDF.pdf SB 18 SB 18 applies to local governments and requires local governments to contact,provide notice to,refer plans to,and consult with tribes prior to the adoption or amendment of a general plan or a specific plan,or the designation of open space.(Gov.Code §65352.3).Local governments should consult the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research’s “Tribal Consultation Guidelines,”which can be found online at: https://www.opr.ca.qov/docs/09 14 05 Updated Guidelines 922.pdf. Some of SB 18’s provisions include: 1.Tribal Consultation:If a local government considers a proposal to adopt or amend a general plan or a specific plan,or to designate open space it is required to contact the appropriate tribes identified by the NAHC by requesting a Tribal Consultation List.”If a tribe,once contacted,requests consultation the local government must consult with the tribe on the plan proposal.A tribe has 90 days from the date of receipt of notification to request consultation unless a shorter timeframe has been agreed to by the tribe.(Gov.Code §65352.3 (a)(2)). 2.No Statutory Time Limit on SB 18 Tribal Consultation.There is no statutory time limit on SB 18 tribal consultation. 3.Confidentiality:Consistent with the guidelines developed and adopted by the Office of Planning and Research pursuant to Gov.Code §65040.2,the city or county shall protect the confidentiality of the information concerning the specific identity,location,character,and use of places,features and objects described in Public Resources Code §5097.9 and §5097.993 that are within the city’s or county’s jurisdiction.(Gov.Code §65352.3 (b)). 4.Conclusion of SB 18 Tribal Consultation:Consultation should be concluded at the point in which: a.The parties to the consultation come to a mutual agreement concerning the appropriate measures for preservation or mitigation;or b.Either the local government or the tribe,acting in good faith and after reasonable effort,concludes that mutual agreement cannot be reached concerning the appropriate measures of preservation or mitigation.(Tribal Consultation Guidelines,Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (2005)at p.18). Agencies should be aware that neither AB 52 nor SB 1-8 precludes agencies from initiating tribal consultation with tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with their jurisdictions before the timeframes provided in AB 52 and SB 18.For that reason,we urge you to continue to request Native American Tribal Contact Lists and Sacred Lands File”searches from the NAHC.The request forms can be found online at:http://nahc.ca.gov/resources/torms/. NA HC Recommendations for Cultural Resources Assessments To adequately assess the existence and significance of tribal cultural resources and plan for avoidance,preservation in place,or barring both,mitigation of project-related impacts to tribal cultural resources,the NAHC recommends the following actions: 1.Contact the appropriate regional California Historical Research Information System (CHRIS)Center (https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=30331)for an archaeological records search.The records search will determine: a.If part or all of the APE has been previously surveyed for cultural resources. b.If any known cultural resources have already been recorded on or adjacent to the APE. c.If the probability is low,moderate,or high that cultural resources are located in the APE. d.If a survey is required to determine whether previously unrecorded cultural resources are present. 2.If an archaeological inventory survey is required,the final stage is the preparation of a professional report detailing the findings and recommendations of the records search and field survey. a.The final report containing site forms,site significance,and mitigation measures should be submitted immediately to the planning department.All information regarding site locations,Native American human remains,and associated funerary objects should be in a separate confidential addendum and not be made available for public disclosure. Page 4 of 5 Item 3 Attachment F - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 93     b.The final written report should be submitted within 3 months after work has been completed to the appropriate regional CHRIS center. 3.Contact the NAHC for: a.A Sacred Lands File search.Remember that tribes do not always record their sacred sites in the Sacred Lands File,nor are they required to do so.A Sacred Lands File search is not a substitute for consultation with tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the projects APE. b.A Native American Tribal Consultation List of appropriate tribes for consultation concerning the project site and to assist in planning for avoidance,preservation in place,or,failing both,mitigation measures. 4.Remember that the lack of surface evidence of archaeological resources (including tribal cultural resources) does not preclude their subsurface existence. a.Lead agencies should include in their mitigation and monitoring reporting program plan provisions for the identification and evaluation of inadvertently discovered archaeological resources per Cal.Code Regs.,tit.14,§15064.5(f)(CEQA Guidelines §15064.5(f)).In areas of identified archaeological sensitivity,a certified archaeologist and a culturally affiliated Native American with knowledge of cultural resources should monitor all ground-disturbing activities. b.Lead agencies should include in their mitigation and monitoring reporting program plans provisions for the disposition of recovered cultural items that are not burial associated in consultation with culturally affiliated Native Americans. c.Lead agencies should include in their mitigation and monitoring reporting program plans provisions for the treatment and disposition of inadvertently discovered Native American human remains.Health and Safety Code §7050.5,Public Resources Code §5097.98,and Cal.Code Regs.,tit.14,§15064.5, subdivisions (d)and (e)(CEQA Guidelines §15064.5,subds.(d)and (e))address the processes to be followed in the event of an inadvertent discovery of any Native American human remains and associated grave goods in a location other than a dedicated cemetery. If you have any questions or need additional information,please contact me at my email address: Mathew .Lin@NA HC .ca .ov. Sincerely, Mathew Lin Cultural Resources Analyst cc:State Clearinghouse Page 5 of 5 Item 3 Attachment F - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 94     1 Raybould, Claire Subject:FW: Support for Housing Project at 156 California Avenue     From: Vikas Kedia <kedia.vikas@gmail.com>   Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2024 6:56 PM  To: Raybould, Claire <Claire.Raybould@CityofPaloAlto.org>; chris.enslin@hboddevelopment.com; Council, City  <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; editor@paweekly.com  Subject: Support for Housing Project at 156 California Avenue    CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.       Dear Claire Raybould,    I am writing to express my strong support for the proposed housing project at 156 California Avenue in Palo Alto. As a  resident of this neighborhood, I believe that this project is crucial for promoting inclusivity and ensuring that Palo Alto  remains a diverse and vibrant community.    The high cost of living in Palo Alto has made it increasingly difficult for many individuals and families to afford housing.  By increasing the availability of housing, this project will help address the high demand and potentially lower rental costs  in the area, making it possible for a wider range of people to live and thrive in Palo Alto.    Furthermore, Palo Alto should not be an exclusive enclave for the wealthy. It is essential that our community reflects the  diversity of our society and offers opportunities for people from various economic backgrounds. This project represents  a step towards creating a more equitable and inclusive city where everyone has a chance to succeed. Additionally, I  believe that this development will set a positive precedent and encourage other similar projects, further addressing the  housing crisis in our city.    I live at 141 California Avenue, Apt B304, in Palo Alto, and I am available to meet with you to further discuss and help  you understand the detrimental effect of high rent on my life. I urge the City of Palo Alto to approve this project and  take a significant step toward addressing the housing crisis in our area.    Thank you for your attention to this important matter.    Sincerely,    Vikas Kedia     Ps: kindly confirm the receipt of this email so I can be sure it did not go to your junk folder       ‐‐     ‐‐  VK  Item 3 Attachment F - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 95     From:Raybould, Claire To:Michael Eager Subject:RE: Update on Mollie Stone project Date:Friday, May 16, 2025 8:17:00 AM Hi Michael, The only new update I have on the 156 California project is that they have expressed that they now plan to use different materials for construction (in lieu of wood framing) to reduce fire risk/need for additional fire flow during construction. We are continuing to move the draft environmental analysis forward. There is no current date set for a hearing, but I will update you as soon as there is one. I don't have any updates on state legislation related to Builder's Remedy. Please do let your neighbors know that there is a workshop next week on the 21t about cal ave improvements: https://www.paloalto.gov/Events-Directory/City-Manager/Cal-Ave.-Car-Free-Street-Project-Community-Workshop Claire Claire Raybould, AICP Manager, Current Planning Planning and Development Services Department (650) 329-2116 | Claire.Raybould@paloalto.gov www.cityofpaloalto.org Parcel Report | Palo Alto Zoning Code | Online Permitting System | Planning Forms & Applications | Planning Applications Mapped -----Original Message----- From: Michael Eager <eager@eagercon.com> Sent: Friday, May 16, 2025 3:08 AM To: Raybould, Claire <Claire.Raybould@paloalto.gov> Subject: Update on Mollie Stone project CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi Claire -- Again, thank you for joining us at the Evergreen Park Neighborhood Association (EPNA) meeting. The California Avenue Committee of the EPNA will be meeting on Saturday. Can you give me an update on the current status of the project which I can pass along? I understand that Becker's bill to update the Builder's Remedy law has been withdrawn because of legal issues. Do you know whether a revised version of the law is being written or if there are any other efforts to limit the Builder's Remedy? -- Michael Eager Item 3 Attachment F - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 96     From:Michelle To:Raybould, Claire Cc:Sean gmail Subject:156–164 California Avenue (24PLN-00100) Date:Monday, April 21, 2025 5:18:56 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Ms. Raybould, I’m writing to express support for the proposed redevelopment at 156–164 California Avenue (24PLN-00100). The transformation of this site into a mixed-use, multi-family development—including the retention of Mollie Stone’s grocery store—is a welcome step toward increasing housing and enhancing the vibrancy of the California Avenue area. The site’s proximity to Caltrain makes it an ideal location for higher-density development. It aligns well with the city’s goals of promoting transit-oriented housing and reducing cardependency. That said, I urge the City to ensure that the project includes thorough and proactive planning to address the inevitable impacts on traffic flow and parking availability inthe surrounding neighborhood. Without proper mitigation, these issues could significantly affect local residents and businesses. With thoughtful infrastructure and transportation planning in place, I believe this project has the potential to be a strong asset to the community. Sincerely, Michelle Sibly & Sean Bendall 301 Oxford Ave. Item 3 Attachment F - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 97     From:Michael Eager To:Raybould, Claire Subject:Re: Mollie Stone"s development Date:Wednesday, February 5, 2025 8:30:32 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi Claire -- Thanks for talking with me yesterday. Here is the short report I passed along to EPNA leadership: --- The project page can be found at https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Current-Planning/Projects/156- California-Avenue The project is being proposed using the Builder's Remedy provisions of state law. They planning department is reviewing the plans (working on the third revision) and submitting comments to the developer on all issues, including those exempted by the Builder's Remedy. The developer has responded to the required changes and some of the not-required comments. The Builder's Remedy law limits the number of public hearings on any project, so the planning dept is resolving all of their concerns before scheduling hearings. There is an EIR being developed and as I understand it, there will be an opportunity for comment on the EIR. Similar for CEQA. There is an Architectural Review Board hearing scheduled (don't recall when). Expectation is that final approval will be by the City Council. --- Please let me know if there is anything which I mis-remembered. We are planning a Evergreen Park Neighborhood Association meeting for March and would like to invite you to participate. Can you tell me when you might be available? On 2/4/25 11:19 AM, Raybould, Claire wrote: > Good afternoon Michael, > > Yes, I am the lead planner for this project. The most recent set of plans is available online here. I unfortunately won't be able to attend this meeting as I have two young kids and don't have alternative child care options on weekends. > > I'm more than happy to provide an update on this project though. Do you have time if I give you a call later this afternoon? > > Regards, > Claire > Item 3 Attachment F - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 98     > Claire Raybould, AICP > Interim Manager, Current Planning > Planning and Development Services Department> (650) 329-2116 | Claire.Raybould@cityofpaloalto.org> www.cityofpaloalto.org> >> Parcel Report | Palo Alto Zoning Code | Online Permitting System | Planning Forms & Applications | PlanningApplications Mapped>>>> -----Original Message-----> From: Michael Eager <eager@eagercon.com>> Sent: Monday, February 3, 2025 10:54 AM> To: Raybould, Claire <Claire.Raybould@CityofPaloAlto.org>> Subject: Mollie Stone's development>> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments andclicking on links.>> Hi -->> I'm a member of the Evergreen Park Neighborhood Association (EPNA), working on California Avenue issues.>> I understand that you are the lead planner for the proposed development at the current Mollie Stone site. Can yougive me an update which I can share with others in the neighborhood?>> We are planning a EPNA meeting for 3:00pm Saturday, February 15. Would you be able to attend this meeting?>> --> Michael Eager> --Michael Eager Item 3 Attachment F - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 99     www.epri.com Together...Shaping the Future of Electricity -- From: Bill Fitch <facehiker@gmail.com> Date: Monday, January 13, 2025 at 08:21 To: Casper Vroemen <cwvroemen@gmail.com> Cc: Steve Tjiang <steven.tjiang@gmail.com>, Adrienne Pierce<adrienne.pierce@gmail.com>, david@drak.com <david@drak.com>, claire.raybould@cityofpaloalto.org <claire.raybould@cityofpaloalto.org>, Loretta Matheson <virtualloretta@gmail.com>, Entriken, Robert <rentrike@epri.com>, epna- discuss@googlegroups.com <epna-discuss@googlegroups.com>Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: 156-164 California Avenue Project Thank you, Casper: I think Palo Alto should aspire to be a great city like the walkable cities of Europe. We are the financial and education capital of silicon valley for fuck sake. Build apartment buildings and insist on beauty. Invest in Caltrain. Thank you, Casper: I think Palo Alto should aspire to be a great city like the walkable cities of Europe. We are the financial and education capital of silicon valley for fuck sake. Build apartment buildings and insist on beauty. Invest in Caltrain. Move workers away from fireprone woodlands and away from one hour commutes. Bill On Jan 12, 2025, at 9:42 PM, Casper Vroemen <cwvroemen@gmail.com>wrote:I am in agreement too. It is bizarre that surrounding city’s such asMountain View have done such a good job in building high rise residential complexes, amongst others among El Camino that look modern and great, and Palo Alto has…..nothing. Walter Hays had 5 1st grade classes when my kids were there. They now have 2. Out high schools will be minimizedin a decade. Because seniors stay in their homes and no families except for the exceptionally wealthy move here. I just came back from Europe, where high tide makes great city centers without much congestion. People bike, walk, and take public transport. Parking is expensive. If any locationin Palo Alto is suitable for modern high rise housing, it is CalAve close to the train. The place doesn’t look attractive at all today. It can only get better. Yes, the current proposal is too high…but we need a starting point to save the future of Palo Alto. Casper On Jan 12, 2025, at 8:19 PM, Steve Tjiang <steven.tjiang@gmail.com> wrote: Item 3 Attachment F - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 100     From:Michael Knowles To:Raybould, Claire Cc:Dana Knowles Subject:156 - 164 California Avenue Project Date:Wednesday, January 8, 2025 11:34:46 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. My family and I have lived at 390 Oxford Avenue in the Evergreen Park neighborhood of PaloAlto for over 33 years. Our home is several blocks from the proposed project at 156-164 California Avenue. I am writing to express my disbelief and alarm over this proposed projectwhich includes a 17-story building. Not only would this be the tallest building between South San Francisco and San Jose, but it would be 3-4 times the 50 foot height limit for buildingswhich has been in place in Palo Alto since 1974. Saying nothing about the added traffic, environmental impact and strain on existing resources, this is obviously way beyond scale forour residential neighborhood. I support adding affordable housing in our community, but request that projects adhere to the sensible 50 foot height limit long established in ourcommunity. I trust the City Council will firmly reject this project. Respectfully, Mike Michael C. Knowles +1 (650) 888-8985 Item 3 Attachment F - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 101     From:Michael Knowles To:Raybould, Claire Cc:Dana Knowles Subject:156 - 164 California Avenue Project Date:Wednesday, January 8, 2025 11:34:46 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. My family and I have lived at 390 Oxford Avenue in the Evergreen Park neighborhood of PaloAlto for over 33 years. Our home is several blocks from the proposed project at 156-164 California Avenue. I am writing to express my disbelief and alarm over this proposed projectwhich includes a 17-story building. Not only would this be the tallest building between South San Francisco and San Jose, but it would be 3-4 times the 50 foot height limit for buildingswhich has been in place in Palo Alto since 1974. Saying nothing about the added traffic, environmental impact and strain on existing resources, this is obviously way beyond scale forour residential neighborhood. I support adding affordable housing in our community, but request that projects adhere to the sensible 50 foot height limit long established in ourcommunity. I trust the City Council will firmly reject this project. Respectfully, Mike Michael C. Knowles +1 (650) 888-8985 Item 3 Attachment F - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 102     From:Adrienne Pierce To:Deborah Goldeen; Raybould, Claire Cc:Lenita Wheeler; stuart_fiske@hotmail.com Subject:Re: Mollie Stones Towers Date:Saturday, April 19, 2025 3:13:39 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hello Claire,We didn't attend the meeting last week, it is a bit intimidating to be honest. When I expressed my opinion to Pat Burk during a campaign event last year, it was really not considered. I feel that Palo Alto should have housing options for everyone and that they need tobe affordable. I want our teachers, police officers, baristas, artists, single parents, elderly, crosswalk guards to be able to live and be a part of our community. If we wanted to live in Atherton or Woodside, we would have moved there. We value thediversity of a broader socio-economic community. Palo Alto has had years of "community concern" which is a way to be elitist and racist. While the proponents would say that they arenot like that, it doesn't matter much if your actions pursue the same results. Sincerely, Adrienne Pierce354 College Ave On Sat, Apr 19, 2025 at 2:43 PM Deborah Goldeen <deborah.goldeen@sonic.net> wrote: Claire - As I talk with neighbors who did not attend the EPNA meeting last Monday, I amhearing, “I don’t care about whether or not those towers are built.” I have cc’d one of those neighbors on this email. I suspect that as many people in the neighborhood don’t care as there are people who are setagainst them, but the city isn’t hearing from them. My only concern about those towers is the impact they will have on the Alta housing - California Park - that is directly across the street. If California Park can be rebuilt so it canhouse five times as many low income people, then, I’m thinking, the impact on that property might be worth it. But I could care less about my neighbors concerns. Deborah G., 2130 Birch St., 94306 -- 650-283-9202 | LinkedinRenewable Energy and Sustainability Item 3 Attachment F - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 103     560 Mission Street, Suite 1900 | San Francisco, CA 94105 | T 415.743.6900 | F 415.743.6910 Holland & Knight LLP | www.hklaw.com Daniel R. Golub +1 415-743-6976 Daniel.Golub@hklaw.com Genna Yarkin +1 415-743-6990 Genna.Yarkin@hklaw.com Atlanta | Austin | Birmingham | Boston | Century City | Charlotte | Chattanooga | Chicago | Dallas | Denver | Fort Lauderdale Houston | Jacksonville | Los Angeles | Miami | Nashville | Newport Beach | New York | Orlando | Philadelphia Portland | Richmond | San Francisco | Stamford | Tallahassee | Tampa | Tysons | Washington, D.C. | West Palm Beach October 17, 2024 Palo Alto Planning Department 250 Hamilton Avenue - 5th Floor Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: Resubmission for 156 N. California Avenue – App. 24PLN-00100 Dear All: This firm represents Midar Investment Co. LLC (the “Applicant”) in connection with its housing development application for 382 multifamily residential units under Application 24PLN-00100 (the “Project”) at 156 N. California Avenue (the “Project Site”). We are in receipt of the City’s comments evaluating the Project’s compliance with standards, dated May 31, 2024 (the “City Letter”). Concurrently with this letter, the Applicant is providing updated materials to address the City Letter. The purposes of this letter are: 1. To remind the City of its inability to deny the Project for noncompliance with many of the items identified in the City Letter; and 2. To serve as the Project’s State Density Bonus Law (“SDBL”) application. The City Cannot Deny the Project for Noncompliance with Development Standards The Applicant appreciates the City providing the City Letter, and understands that it did so pursuant to a requirement of the Housing Accountability Act (the “HAA”) to provide consistency/compliance comments within a certain timeframe. However, we wish to remind the City that as previously communicated, the Project is a “housing development project for very low, low- or moderate-income households” subject to Senate Bill 330 (“SB 330”) and protected by the the HAA,1 because more than two-thirds of its square footage is devoted to residential uses,2 and 20% of its units are provided at rents that are affordable to low income households. Pursuant to subdivision (d) of the HAA, the City “shall not disapprove” a protected affordable housing project, 1 Gov. Code § 65589.5. 2 Gov. Code § 65905(b)(3); Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(2). Item 3 Attachment G - Applicant Letter Asserting Legal Rights and Additional Exhibits     Packet Pg. 104     Palo Alto Planning Department October 17, 2024 Page 2 #511230852_v1 “unless it makes written findings, based on a preponderance of the evidence in the record, as to one of the” five permissible grounds for disapproval.3 Because the City lacked a substantially compliant Housing Element at the time the Project submitted a preliminary application under SB 330, the City is precluded from making a disapproval finding under HAA subdivision (d)(5).4 That same reasoning forecloses subdivision (d)(1), which likewise requires a substantially compliant Housing Element. Subdivisions (d)(3) and (d)(4) are similarly unavailable, because disapproval is not required by any state or federal laws, and because the Project site is not zoned for agriculture or resource preservation, nor surrounded by properties used for those purposes. That leaves only subdivision (d)(2) as a potential basis for denial, and the City is likewise unable to make a finding to deny on this basis.5 Government Code section 65589.5(d)(2) provides that this Project may only be denied if the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that it “would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety, and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact without rendering the development unaffordable to low- and moderate-income households[.]”6 For the purposes of 65589.5(d)(2) “[a] ‘specific, adverse impact’ means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete."7 Inconsistencies with a general plan designation or zoning ordinance do not constitute a qualifying grounds for a finding of a public health and safety impact.8 The HAA further specifies that in any litigation to challenge a potential denial or the City’s imposition of conditions that render the Project infeasible, the City has the burden of proof “to show that its decision is consistent with the findings as described in subdivision (d) [of the HAA], and that the findings are supported by a preponderance of the evidence in the record….”9 As evidenced by the City Letter addressing the Project’s consistency with City policies and standards, the preponderance of the evidence does not demonstrate, or even attempt to demonstrate, that the Project would have a specific, adverse impact.10 Many of the City’s inconsistency comments are related to land use regulations which do not constitute qualifying grounds for a public health and 3 See Gov. Code § 65589.5(d), emphasis added. 4 California Housing Defense Fund v. City of La Cañada Flintridge, Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. 23STCP02614, Order on Petitions For Writ of Mandate and Complaints for Declaratory Relief, (Mar. 4, 2024),at 1; Gov. Code § 65589.5(d). 5 Gov. Code § 65589.5(d)(2). 6 Gov. Code § 65589.5(d)(2). 7 Id. 8 Gov. Code § 65589.5(d)(2)(A). 9 Gov. Code § 65589.5(i). 10 Gov. Code § 65589.5(d)(2). Item 3 Attachment G - Applicant Letter Asserting Legal Rights and Additional Exhibits     Packet Pg. 105     Palo Alto Planning Department October 17, 2024 Page 3 #511230852_v1 safety impacts, and therefore, cannot be a legitimate basis for disapproval or apply standards that would reduce the proposed density or otherwise adversely affect Project viability or affordability. In addition to its lack of ability to deny the Project, the City also cannot apply requirements that would “lower density” or cause “a reduction of the percentage of a lot that may be occupied by a building or structure” if doing so would “have a substantial adverse effect on the viability or affordability of a housing development” that includes 20% low income housing, without making a finding under Govt. Code section 65589.5(d). For all of the above reasons, while the Applicant has made revisions to the Project and the enclosed materials in response to many of the City’s comments, in other cases the Applicant has declined to do so pursuant to state law protection. State Density Bonus Law Application As noted in previous communications, the Project is eligible for the protections of the SDBL, and has thus far reserved its right to identify requested benefits. While it continues to be the Applicant’s primary assertion that the City is prohibited from denying the Project for noncompliance with the herein-described requirements due to the applicability of the HAA inclusive of the Builder’s Remedy, the following waiver requests are also made in the alternative: • Waiver of setbacks – please see Exhibits J and K in the enclosed material for further details • Waiver of PAMC 18.24.040(b)(5) regarding front yard setback character – The project provides setbacks to create activated sidewalks with adequate landscaping space but if the project were required to comply with all setback standards, it would loose about 8,000SF dedicated to residential units. See Exhibit J. • Waiver of PAMC 18.24.050(b)(1)(A) and (b)(1)(C) regarding step backs and daylight planes – please see Exhibit L. • Waiver of PAMC 18.24.050(b)(5) requiring diversity of housing types – the Project proposes two apartment buildings and if required to provide other types of buildings such as townhomes or rowhomes, its density would be severely reduced, qualifying it for a waiver • Waiver of daylight planes – please see Exhibit L in the enclosed materials for further details • Waiver of 35-foot height maximum – the Project proposes 117 feet in order to meet its permitted density, and would loose many entire floors full of units if required to comply, qualifying it for a waiver of this requirement • Waiver of usable open space requirement – The project provides a wide variety of open space for users by utilizing the roof and podium decks throughout the project. However, Item 3 Attachment G - Applicant Letter Asserting Legal Rights and Additional Exhibits     Packet Pg. 106     Palo Alto Planning Department October 17, 2024 Page 4 #511230852_v1 the open space requirement of 150SF per unit on two lots with over 260DU per acre is not feasible without reducing density. To meet this requirement, approximately 91% of the lot coverage would need to be dedicated to open space on both parcels. Please see Exhibit M. We appreciate your attention to this matter, and we look forward to working with the City to bring the Project to fruition. Sincerely, HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP /s/ Daniel R. Golub Daniel R. Golub Genna Yarkin Item 3 Attachment G - Applicant Letter Asserting Legal Rights and Additional Exhibits     Packet Pg. 107     compliance with the PAMC Section 18.24.050(b)(1)(C) accordingly for that lot. • Provide façade length information to show compliance with PAMC Section 18.24.050(b)(3) for buildings 70 feet in length or greater and greater than 25 feet in height on all sides facing a street or publicly accessible path • 18.24.050 (b) (3) Maximum Façade Length. For portions of a building façade facing a public street, right-of-way, or publicly accessible path, any building greater than 25 feet in height and 70 feet in length shall not have a continuous façade plane greater than 70% of the façade length without an upper floor modulation, which can include bay windows. Upper floor façade modulations shall be a minimum two feet in depth, which can be a recess or a projection SC Response: Please refer to illustration below showing upper floor modulation. EXHIBIT B Podium Building B A Building length Upper floor above 25' with modulation > 2' in depth B A A A A A A A A B A A A A A AAAA A A 149'-6"6' 171-05 ' 6' Item 3 Attachment G - Applicant Letter Asserting Legal Rights and Additional Exhibits     Packet Pg. 108     Tower "A" Building B Building length A Non- continuous building facade <70% length of B B A Building length Upper floor above 25' with modulation > 2' in depth B A B A BA A AAA A A A A A A B A B A A A A A B Building length A Non- continuous building facade <70% length of B B A Building length Upper floor above 25' with modulation > 2' in depth Tower "B" Building 180'-9" 6' 68'-11 " 38'-2" 180'-9" 90'-6" 12' 9' 9' 6'6'12' 9' 75'-2" 33'-3" 122' 6' Item 3 Attachment G - Applicant Letter Asserting Legal Rights and Additional Exhibits     Packet Pg. 109     (3) Maximum Façade Length. (B) Buildings 150 to 250 feet in length, which face a public street, right-of-way, or publicly accessible path, shallhave at least one vertical façade break with a minimum area greater than 64 square feet and a minimum width of eight feet and minimum depth of four feet. 797 S F A - 1 B D341 A - S T A 1 A - S T A 2 A - A - E L E V A - E L E V A - S E L A - T R A 865 S F A - 2 B D R - A F F 350 671 S F A - 1 B D R 351720 S F A - 1 B D R 352653 S F A - 1 B D R 353 734 S F A - 1 B D R - A F F 354 A - B A A - B A A - B A R E 6' - 29' - 3 " 36' - 0"24' - 0"24' - 0"36' - 0"30' - 1"21' - 0" 38' - 0 " 8' 9' - 6 " 19' - 9 " 10' - 6 " 30' - 9 " 6' - 9 " 30' - 9 " 13' - 3 " 8' - 6 " 8' 15' - 3"25' - 6" 797 SF A - 1 BDR341915 SF A - 2 BDR342 534 SF A - ST - AFF 343 A - CRR A - ELEV A - ELEV 812 SF P - 1 BDR301759 SF P - 1 BDR302 675 SF P - 1 BDR - AFF 303 675 SF P - 1 BDR304 902 SF P - 2 BDR305 P - CRR P - STA 1 P - ELEVP - S EL A - BA A - BAA - BAR E P - BAP - BAP - BAP - BA P - BA 37' - 4 " 24' - 0"24' - 0"22' - 0" 7' - 0" 31' - 0" 25' - 0" 28' - 6"28' - 6" 24' - 6"36' - 0 " 21' - 0 " 29' - 0 " 18' - 0 " 38' - 0"30' - 5" 6' - 9"13' - 3"8' - 6"8' - 9" 25' - 6 " 25' - 6" 30' - 3" 6' - 6" 3" 25' - 7"65' - 0"17' - 0" 8' - 6"7' - 6"7' - 6" 24' - 6" 9' - 0"4' - 3" 39' - 0" 38' - 5" 11.29° 18' - 2 " 34' -6" PRO P E R T Y L I N E PRO P E R T Y L I N E PODIUM BUILDING TOWER "A" PRO P E R T Y L I N E TOWER "A" PRO P E R T Y L I N E 12'-0" 6' EXHIBIT C 1,6 8 2 . 6 8 ' PODIUM TOWER A RETAIL / COMMERCIAL N 51d 27' 10" W 257.75' S 33d 3 2 ' 0 0 " W 171.05 ' N 56d 24' 12" W 135.00' S 33d 3 2 ' 0 0 " W 25.00 ' N 56d 24' 12" W 121.52' S 33d 2 8 ' 1 0 " W 218.4 8 ' MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT  Provide information to show compliance with PAMC Section 18.24.050(b)(3)(B) for vertical façade break. On the exhibit please include dimensions SC Response: Please refer to illustration below showing compliance with vertical facade break 2,4 6 1 . 4 8 ' Item 3 Attachment G - Applicant Letter Asserting Legal Rights and Additional Exhibits     Packet Pg. 110     (c) Objective Design Standards (1) Base/Middle/Top (A) Buildings three stories or taller and on lots wider than 50 feet shall be designed to differentiate a defined base orground floor, a middle or body, and a top, cornice, or parapet cap. Each of these elements shall be distinguished from oneanother for a minimum of 80% of the façade length through use of three or more of the following four techniques: • Indicate/show how your buildings comply with PAMC Section 18.24.060(c)(1) to provide horizontal façade articulation between the base-middle-top in compliance with this code SC Response: Please refer to illustration below showing base-middle-top facade articulation 28 SFP - BA740 28 SFP - BA1471 19'-0" BA B PODIUM BUILDING 18.24.060 (ii) a. Variation in horizontal and/or vertical recessesor projections such as a pattern of recessed grouping of windows,recessed panels, or bay windows. The recess or projection shallbe a minimum four inches in depth. Primary Facade PODIUM EXHIBIT D 171.05'12'.2" 4' 1 FT PROJECTION PROP E R T Y L I N E PRO P E R T Y L I N E LOT "A"THIS PROJECT PODIUM BUILDING SEE LANDSCAPE TOWER "A" PARK AVE. Primary Facade PODIUM TOWER "A" PROP E R T Y L I N E PRO P E R T Y L I N E LOT "A"THIS PROJECT PODIUM BUILDING TOWER "A"GE PROP E R T Y L I N E PROP E R T Y L I N E LOT "B"THIS PROJECT TOWER "B" TOWER "B" GE CAMBRIDGE AVENUE PARK AVENUE CALIFORNIA AVENUE B 4' B 4' B 4' 3'( VARIES) 1'-6" 12' GE CAMBRIDGE AVENUE B 4' B 4' B 4' 19' 6' 19' Item 3 Attachment G - Applicant Letter Asserting Legal Rights and Additional Exhibits     Packet Pg. 111     EXHIBIT D 18.24.060 (ii) a. Variation in horizontal and/or vertical recesses or projections such as a pattern of recessed grouping of windows,recessed panels, or bay windows. The recess or projection shallbe a minimum four inches in depth. TOWER "A" TOWER "A"TOWER "B" CAMBRIDGE AVENUE B 4' B 4' B 4'4'-8" 6' 30'-8" B 4'6' 3' B 4' B 4'21'-1" Item 3 Attachment G - Applicant Letter Asserting Legal Rights and Additional Exhibits     Packet Pg. 112     • Provide information to show compliance with PAMC Section 18.24.060(C )(6) for other non- residential ground floors regarding minimum transparent glazing requirements 18.24.060 (6) Other Non-residential Ground Floors (A) Ground floor height shall be a minimum 14 feet floor-to-floor or shall match the 2nd floor datum line of an abuttingbuilding. (B) Transparency shall include a minimum 50% transparent glazing between four and ten feet in height from sidewalkor terrace grade. (C) Primary entries shall include weather protection that is a minimum six feet wide and four feet deep by recessing theentry, providing an awning or using a combination of these methods. SC Response: Please refer to illustration below showing compliance with 18.24.060 (6) .Level 210' -0" .Level 320' -0" .Level 430' -0" .Level 540' -0" .Level 650' -0" .Level 760' -0" .Level 870' -0" .Level 980' -0" .Level 1090' -0" .Level 11100' -0" Level 11.B105' -0" TOWER B ROOF120' -0" .Level 12110' -0" .Level 13120' -0" .Level 14130' -0" .Level 15140' -0" .Level 16150' -0" .Level 17160' -0" TOWER A ROOF177' -0" PRO P E R T Y L I N E PRO P E R T Y L I N E LOT "A"THIS PROJECT PODIUM BUILDING SEE LANDSCAPE TOWER "A"CAMBRIDGE AVENUE PRO P E R T Y L I N E PRO P E R T Y L I N E LOT "B"THIS PROJECT TOWER "B" 20' 2 PA R K I N G S T A L L loading tower B unloadzone 1 PARKING STALL covered zone double height roll-up door N51°27'10"W 90.76' N33 ° 3 2 ' 4 1 " E S33°28'10"W N51°27'10"W 257.75' N51°27'10"W 37.50' double height double height mail double height covered zone single height 2 PA R K I N G S T A L L loading tower B unload zone 1 PARKING STALL A - LEASINGOFFICE A - LOBBY A - ELEV 392 SF A - COFFEESHOP143 P - LOBBYP - ELEVP - S ELP - STA 1 B - LOADING B - TRASHROOM 873 SF B - RETAIL194 B - ELEV B - S EL B - STA 1 B - BIKE ROOM & REPAIR double height singl e heig h t double height B - UTILITY single height single height double height P - ST ELEP - STORE STA roll-up door A - BAR E single height A - BIKE ROOM & REPAIR carts carts 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 mail B - LOBBYENTRYRESIDENTIAL USE RESIDENTIAL USE B - R TRA single height double height A - FSAE A - CS WC triple height 19x3= 57 bike stalls mail double height single heightmail 50 bike stalls ELECTRICAL DASHED LINE INDICATES OH ABOOVE 8.24.0 (A) uilding (B) terra (B) terra (B) terra (B) terra (C) try, p (C) try, p (C) try, p (C) try, p (C) try, p (C) try, p (C) try, p EXHIBIT E 15'-4" 21'- 4 " 15'-6" 30'- 3 " 30' - 9 " 9'-7" P - LOBBY 9'-7" 4'-8 " 10'-2" 4'-6 " 8' 6'-3 " 8'-3" 4'-6 " 14' - 8 " 7'-7" CAMERA VIEWS SHOWING COMPLIANCE 18.24.060 (6) (C) - PRIMARY ENTRIES Item 3 Attachment G - Applicant Letter Asserting Legal Rights and Additional Exhibits     Packet Pg. 113     • Show compliance with PAMC Section 18.24.060(c )(7). It appears the Lot A complies, however, Lot B may not comply. Provide dimensions to verify for both lots. • 18.24.060 (C) (7) Parking/Loading/Utilities (A) Entry Size: No more than 25% of the site frontage facing a street should be devoted to garage openings, carports, surface parking, loading entries, or utilities access (on sites with less than 100 feet of frontage, no more than 25 feet) SC Response: Please refer to illustration below showing compliance with 18.24.060 (C) (7) Overall building length Garage opening Overall building length Garage opening EXHIBIT F 27' 178'-11" 25'-6" 117'-10" Item 3 Attachment G - Applicant Letter Asserting Legal Rights and Additional Exhibits     Packet Pg. 114     • Revise the project to comply with PAMC Section 18.24.060(c)(7)) which requires habitable uses adjacent public ROW where above grade structured parking is provided. Appears to comply on some facades, but not all for Lots A and B. SC Response: Please refer to illustration below showing compliance with 18.24.060 (C) (7) Retail and other uses EXHIBIT G Item 3 Attachment G - Applicant Letter Asserting Legal Rights and Additional Exhibits     Packet Pg. 115     Renderings • The renderings on Sheet A6.0 showing the 3D views of the podium seem to show the stairwells into the interior open up to above. How is this being waterproofed? Unclear what areas of this have been counted as floor area and what has not (see comments on floor area). SC Response: Please refer to the illustration below showing glazing. Also, the color coding the area counted towards the floor area. 16162 SF RESI 339 SF RES- SERVICE CORE 83 SF RES-UTILITY 176 SF RES- SERVICE CORE GREY SHADED AREA INDICATES ROOF 1705 SF 0.034338 glazing EXHIBIT H Item 3 Attachment G - Applicant Letter Asserting Legal Rights and Additional Exhibits     Packet Pg. 116     Table 4 Mixed Use and Residential Development Standards Chapter 18.16 NEIGHBORHOOD, COMMUNITY, AND SERVICE COMMERCIAL (CN, CC and CS) DISTRICTS HEIGHT 35 HEIGHT LIMIT @ PODIUM = LOSE 4 FLOORS = 90 UNITS LOST @ TOWER = LOSE14 FLOORS = 174 UNITS LOST LOT A - SITE AREA = 1.14 AC = 49658 SQFT FAR = 9.18 Total= 455,986 sqft RETAIL FAR Level 1 = .66 = 33114 SQFT Level 2 = .35 = 17409 SQFT Total = 1.01 = 50,523 SQFT RESI FAR TOTAL = 8.17 = 405,463 SQFT = 817% LOT B - SITE AREA = .292 AC = 12719 SQFT FAR = 7.01 Total 89,187 sqft RETAIL FAR LEVEL 1= .01 = 1098 SQFT LEVEL 2= .01 = 916 SQFT TOTAL = .02 = 2,014 SQFT RESI FAR TOTAL = 6.99 = 87,173 SQFT = 685% HEIGHT 35 HEIGHT LIMIT @ TOWER = LOSE 8 FLOORS = 68 UNITS LOST FAR @ 60% 304(PROVIDED) - 40(ALLOWED) = 264 UNITS LOST FAR @ 60% 78(PROVIDED) - 10(ALLOWED) = 68 UNITS LOST EXHIBIT IItem 3 Attachment G - Applicant Letter Asserting Legal Rights and Additional Exhibits     Packet Pg. 117     20' Public Easement for Alleys,Pedestrian Lanes, Streets, and PoleLines Per 2065 OR 392. S33°28'10"W 218.29' N51°27'10"W 257.75' S33 ° 3 2 ' 0 0 " W 1 7 1 . 0 5 ' N56°24'12"W 135.00' S33 ° 3 2 ' 0 0 " W 2 5 . 0 0 ' N56°24'12"W 121.52' N51°27'10"W 333.08' S33 ° 3 2 ' 0 0 " W ramp go d o w n go up double height 43 bike stalls double height mail DRIV E W A Y 25' - 0 " DRIVEWAY24' - 0" DRI V E W A Y 25' - 0 " 25' - 6 " 24' - 0"24' - 0"20' - 0"13' - 0" 25' - 6 " 14' - 6 " 45' - 0 " 134' - 9 " double height sing l e h e i g h t 7 PARKING STALLS 5 PA R K I N G S T A L L S 2 PA R K I N G S T A L L S covered zone 19' - 9 " PROPOSED LOADING AREA FOR GROCERY STORE58' - 6" 24' - 0" DRIVEWAY25' - 6" single height LOADING PODIUM LOADING RETAIL A - LEASINGOFFICE A - LOBBY A - TRASHROOM A - STA 2 A - S EL A - STA 1 A - ELEV A - ELEV 392 SF A - COFFEESHOP143 A - BIKE ROOM& REPAIR P - LOBBY P - ELEVP - S ELP - STA 1 P - TRASHROOM P - STA 2 14352 SF P - GROCERYSTORE103 A - LOADINGA - UTILITY A - UTILITY inner radius outer radius 16' - 6"19' - 9 " single height double height P - ST ELE P - STORE STA roll-up door A - BAR E single height single height A - BIKE ROOM& REPAIR carts carts carts 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2627 28 29 30 31 32 3 PA R K I N G S T A L L S BEAM AS OCCURS 3334 24' - 5 " 17' - 0" DRIV E W A Y 24' - 0 " 16' - 9" 17' - 6 " 9' - 0 " 9' - 0 " 9' - 0 " 9' - 0 " 9' - 0 " 9' - 0 " 2' - 0 " 2' - 0 " 17' - 6 " VAR I E S 15' - 1 0 " 28' - 9"6' - 3"17' - 6"17' - 6"17' - 6" 69' - 3" 17' - 6"18' - 3" 20' - 8 " 11' - 7 " NEW MAYFIELD LANE SERVICE ALLEY EW M A Y F I E L D L A N E SE R V I C E A L L E Y (E) USPS PARKING # 200 N. CALIFORNIA AVE. DASHED LINE INDICATES OH ABOVE SERV I C E A C C E S S 40' - 4"46' - 9"21' - 2"67' - 3" 21' - 5 " LO 18' - 0 " SIDEWALK 12' - 2" SIDEWALK10' - 1" SETBACK4' - 9" VAR I E S 27' - 9 " SIDEWALK22' - 2" VAR I E S 11' - 7 " VAR I E S 4' - 7 " VARIES 6' - 5" DAS H E D L I N E I N D I C A T E S O H A B O V E DASHED LINE INDICATES OH ABOVE SETBACK4' - 7" VARI E S 16' - 8 " (E) PARKING 8' - 6" 9' - 0 " mail 200 SF A - FIRECOMMAND810 ENTRY 238' - 11 13' - 9 " 26' - 9 " 5' - 3 " 9' - 9 " 15' - 5 " 55' - 1 1 " 15' - 3 " 15' - 6 " 9' - 6 " 13' - 7 " 126' - 6 " 38' - 6 " 9' - 3"124' - 10"6' - 10"70' - 4"8' - 6"17' - 0" 45' - 6 " 178' - 1 1 " 118' - 0" PODIUM RESIDENTIAL USE GROCERYTRASH 11' - 5 " 110' - 3"100' - 6"8' - 0" 35' - 0"24' - 0"17' - 6"110' - 3" 110' - 3 " 5' - 0 " 9' - 0 " 16' - 6"24' - 6" BEAM AS OCCURS BEAM AS OCCURS 11' - 0" 6' - 7 " 10' - 9" RESIDENTIAL USE 24' - 2 " 126' - 6 " 19' - 6 " 19' - 9 " 104' - 6 " 23' - 9"8' - 0" 9' - 0" TOWER RESIDENTIAL USE 6' - 0" A - R TRA 3' - 0" 3' - 0 " 3' - 0"3' - 0" 3' - 0 " 3' - 0 " 3' - 0 " 3' - 0" double height double height 10' - 6" A - FSAE A - CS WC 7' - 6 " triple height19x3= 57 bike stalls 18' - 0" 6' - 0 " 14' - 1"5' - 5" 200 SF A - FIRE PUMP839 4' - 3"3' - 0 " ELECTRICAL ELECTRICAL ELECTRICAL A - UTILITY 13' - 7"19' - 9 " 9' - 6" 16' - 5 " 15' - 8 " 6' - 0 " 6' - 6 " 8' - 0 "9' - 0" 10' - 4 " [E] EASEMENT 20' - 0 " fro n t side re a r side Reqd: 0'-10' ft provided: 4'-6" - 14'-0" Reqd sidewalk: 8'-12' Existing: 22'-2" Reqd commercial : none Reqd : 5' provided: 4'-7" - 29' ne e d s w a i v e r 4 l e v e l s California Ave Per level: 6 units would loose 100 sqft eachTotal = 6x4 levels = 24x100 = 2,400 sqft lost LOT A - SETBACK @ GROUND FLOOR SECTION @ PODIUM SECTION @ PODIUM NE E D S W A I V E R FO R 4 L E V E L S PARK BOULEVARD PER LEVEL 5 UNITS WOULD LOSE 90 SQFT 5X4 LEVELS 20X90 = 1,800 SQFT LOST 4X4 LEVELS = 16 UNITS ONE BDR WILL BECOME STUIDIO 1X4 LEVELS= 4 UNITS 2 BDR WILL BECOME 1 BDR 1X4 LEVELS = 4 STUDIO WILL BECOME JUNIOR STUDIO3X4 LEVELS = 12 UNITS ONE BDR WILL BECOME STUIDIO 2X4 LEVELS= 8 UNITS 2 BDR WILL BECOME 1 BDR REQD: 10 ' PROVIDED: 4'-6" SECTION @ TOWER A RES UNITS PER LEVEL :6 UNITS WOULD LOSE 230 SQFT EACH TOTAL 6X14= 3, 266 SQFT LOST 5X14 LEVELS = 70 ONE BDR WILL BECOME STUDIO 1X14 LEVELS= 14 TWO BDR WILL BECOME ONE BDR @ GROUND LOSE 744 SQFT IMPACTS UTILITY @ LEVEL 2 LOSE 744 SQFT IMPACTS UTILITY AND 6 PARKING SPACES CAMBRIDGE FOR RESI PORTION OR MAYBE THERE IS AN ARGUMENT THAT SETBACK IS NOT REQD FOR A WIDER SIDEWALK AS THE EXISTING IS MORE THAN REQD WIDTH total @ ground and level 2 = 1,488 sqft and 6 parking spaces ne e d w a i v e r f o r a l l l e v e l s Setbacks @ Alley EXHIBIT JItem 3 Attachment G - Applicant Letter Asserting Legal Rights and Additional Exhibits     Packet Pg. 118     EXHIBIT K N51°27'10"W 90.76' N33 ° 3 2 ' 4 1 " E 1 3 3 . 8 6 ' 6°33'29"E 9.43' °33'00"E0.00' N56°33'29"W 100.02' S33°28'10"W 135.78' N51°27'10"W 37.50' 100' DRIV E W A Y 25' - 6 " 35' - 4"25' - 8" 2 PA R K I N G S T A L L loading tower B 19' - 8 " unload zone 1 PARKING STALL B - LOADING B - UTILITY B - TRASHROOM 873 SF B - RETAIL194 B - FIRECOMMAND 163 SF B - FIRE PUMP191 B - STA 2 B - ELEV B - S EL B - STA 1 B - BIKE ROOM& REPAIR double height single heigh t double heightB - UTILITY single height LOT "B" # 240 CAMBRIDGE AVE. 12345 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 HATCHED AREA INDICATES 10' EASEMENT 15' - 6"24' - 0" 39' - 5 " 27' - 8 " 18' - 1 " 25' - 6 " 17' - 6 " SETBACK1' - 2" VAR I E S 6' - 3 " 36' - 9 " VARIES10' - 10" VAR I E S 6' - 1 0 " VARIES3' - 2" 7' - 6 " 27' - 9"28' - 5"17' - 8"5' - 9" 18' - 1 " 11' - 8" 17' - 0 " 10' - 0" # 2 2 4 8 PA R K B L V D SIDEWALK 11' - 10" 11' - 1 0 " B - LOBBY 122' - 2 " 4' - 1 1 " 10' - 0 " 27' - 11" 26' - 6 " 30' - 3"8' - 6" 61' - 1 " 79' - 9"VARIES6' - 5" 86' - 2" 62' - 1 " 19' - 6 " 36' - 3 " 117' - 1 0 " VAR I E S 4 '-0 " RESIDENTIAL USE RESIDENTIAL USE VARIES7' - 9" 47' - 9"10' - 9"15' - 6" 3' - 3" 36' - 11"9' - 6"8' - 6"13' - 3"17' - 6" 5' - 0 " 21' - 5 " 3' - 0 " 3' - 0" B - R TRA single height double height 3' - 0"3' - 0"3' - 0 " mail double height single height mail 50 bike stalls B - BIKE ROOM& REPAIRtriple height9x3= 27 bike stalls ELECTRICAL ELECTRICAL 8' - 3" front rear sid e sid e LOT B - SETBACK @ GROUND LEVEL REQD 0'-10' PROVIDED 2'-9" - 6'-10" REQD 8'-12' EXISTING : 11'-10" REQD: 5' PROVIDED : 3'-4" - 10'-10" CAMBRIDGE NEED WAIVER FOR 2 LEVELS LOSE 115 SQFT - IMPACTS UTILITY AND 1 PARKING SPACE STREET SIDE SETBACK REAR SETBACK if 10ft is provided , total sqft lost 2, 900 sqft 7 one bed will become studio units LEVEL 3 - LOSE 500 SQFT ( 10 FT FRONT PROVIDED) LEVEL 4-10 - LOSE 300 SQFT PER LEVEL ( 10 FT FRONT PROVIDED) total sqft lost = 8x300 = 2,400 + 500 = 2,900 sqft Item 3 Attachment G - Applicant Letter Asserting Legal Rights and Additional Exhibits     Packet Pg. 119     EXHIBIT L Level 1 0' -0" Level 2 10' -0" Level 3 20' -0" Level 4 30' -0" Level 5 40' -0" Level 6 50' -0" Level 7 60' -0" Level 8 70' -0" Level 9 80' -0" Level 11-A 100' -0" Level 12 110' -0" Level 13 120' -0" Level 14 130' -0" Level 10 90' -0" Level 11-B 105' -0" TOWER B PARK BLVD LOT VE RETAIL LOADING TOWER B WINDOW WALL METAL PANELS WOOD PANELS GYM CO-WORK TO P O F T O W E R B 12 0 ' - 0 " METAL SCREEN INTEGRATED DOWNSPOUT TYP. INTE RIOR S I D E YARD D A Y L I G HT PL ANE NING 35' PARAPET MECHANICAL SCREENING 10' - 0 " Total units = 78 units Lost due to daylight plane = 58 units Item 3 Attachment G - Applicant Letter Asserting Legal Rights and Additional Exhibits     Packet Pg. 120     ILLUSTRATION "A" EXHIBIT M Rooftop equipment screened fromopen spaces Level 17160' -0".Level 17160' -0" TOWER A ROOF 177' -0" A - BAR1465 ROOF TOPEQUIPMENT ROOF TOPEQUIPMENT OUT DOORRESTAURANT SEATING OUT DOOR RESTAURANT SEATING RESIDENTIAL UNIT RESIDENTIAL UNIT ILLUSTRATION "B" See illustration "A" showing that no more than 25% of the rooftop is landscaped with raised beds See illustration "B" showing rooftop equipment screened from open spaces 1706 SF A - BAR1741 A - STA 1 A - STA 2 A - ELEV A - S EL A - TRA LOGGIA PLANTERS MECHANICAL AREA A - BAR E 27' - 0" A - BAR A - BAR A - BAR RESTAURANT SPACE KITCHEN LOBBY restroom corridor 10' - 9"7' - 3" 14' - 2 " 77' - 7 " 14' - 6"7' - 0"14' - 10"11' - 6"11' - 2" 4' - 11"9' - 7"7' - 0"9' - 7" 18' - 9 " OUTDOOR SEATINGOUTDOOR SEATING 7' - 3"10' - 9" A - ELEV restroomA - BAR A - BAR 23' - 9" 14' - 5 " 15' - 9 " 11' - 0" 9' - 0" 16' - 0 " 63' - 1 0 " 11,731.69 sf 135.22 sf 1,107.12 sf 60.33 sf 74.09 sf 71.34 sf 142.28 sf 46.37 sf TOWER A ILLUSTRATION SHOWING LESS THAN25% OF ROOF AREA IS LANDSCAPEWITH RAISED BEDS A - STA 1 9" 63 ROOF AREA PLANTERS RAISEDLANDSCAPE BED TOTAL ROOF TOP AREA = 11,731 SQFT LANDSCAPED AREA WITH RAISED BEDS = 1,636.63 SQFT( LESS THAN 25% OF ROOF AREA) Item 3 Attachment G - Applicant Letter Asserting Legal Rights and Additional Exhibits     Packet Pg. 121     EXHIBIT N 20' Public Easement for Alleys,Pedestrian Lanes, Streets, and PoleLines Per 2065 OR 392. N56°24'12"W S33 ° 3 2 ' 0 0 " W 2 5 . 0 0 ' N56°24'12"W 121.52' ramp go d o w n go up DRI V25 25' - 6 " 24' - 0"24' - 0"20' - 0"13' - 0" 25' - 6 " 14' - 6 " 45' - 0 " PROPOSED LOADING AREA FOR GROCERY STORE58' - 6" A - TRASH ROOM A - S EL A - LOADINGA - UTILITY A - UTILITY inner radius outer radius 1 carts 20 3334 24' - 5 " 17' - 0" 16' - 9" 17' - 6 " NEW MAYFIELD LANE SERVICE ALLEY NE W M A Y F I E L D L A N E SE R V I C E A L L E Y (E) USPS PARKING DASHED LINE INDICATES OH ABOVE (E) PARKING 9' - 9 " 45' - 6 " GROCETRAS 1624' - 6" TOWER RESIDENTIAL USE 3' - 0 " 3' - 0 " 3' - 0" double height 14' - 1"5' - 5" 200 SF A - FIRE PUMP839ELECTRICAL ELECTRICAL 10' - 4 " [E] EASEMENT 20' - 0 " Proposing to Dedicating 10'-4" towards widening the alley, to convert theExisting One way alley to Two way Existing 20' Public Easement for Alleys Proposed Loading Area For Grocery Store Exi s t i n g O n e W a y t o r e m a i n Proposed Project Existing Building Ex i s t i n g B u i l d i n g NE W M A Y F I E L D L A N E SE R V I C E A L L E Y EX I S T I N G O N E W A Y T O RE M A I N PROPOSED NEW MAYFIELD LANE SERVICE ALLEY ( TWO WAY) SITE PLAN SHOWING PROPOSED TWO WAY ALLEY PROPOSED LOADING AREA FOR THE GROCERY STORE 20' Public Easement for Alleys,Pedestrian Lanes, Streets, and PoleLines Per 2065 OR 392. N56°24'12"W S33 ° 3 2 ' 0 0 " W 2 5 . 0 0 ' N56°24'12"W 121.52' ramp go do w n go u p DRIV25 25' - 6 " 24' - 0"24' - 0"20' - 0"13' - 0" 25' - 6 " 14' - 6 " 45' - 0 " PROPOSED LOADING AREA FOR GROCERY STORE58' - 6" A - TRASHROOM A - S EL A - LOADINGA - UTILITY A - UTILITY inner radius outer radius 1 carts 20 3334 24' - 5 " 17' - 0" 16' - 9" 17' - 6 " NEW MAYFIELD LANE SERVICE ALLEY NE W M A Y F I E L D L A N E SE R V I C E A L L E Y (E) USPS PARKING DASHED LINE INDICATES OH ABOVE (E) PARKING 9' - 9 " 45' - 6 " GROCETRAS 1624' - 6" TOWER RESIDENTIAL USE 3' - 0 " 3' - 0 " 3' - 0" double height 14' - 1"5' - 5" 200 SF A - FIRE PUMP839ELECTRICAL ELECTRICAL 10' - 4 " [E] EASEMENT 20' - 0 "Existing 20' Public Easement for Alleys Proposed Loading Area For Grocery Store Exi s t i n g O n e W a y t o r e m a i n Proposed Project Existing Building Ex i s t i n g B u i l d i n g NE W M A Y F I E L D L A N E SE R V I C E A L L E Y EXISTING ONE WAY EX I S T I N G O N E W A Y NEW MAYFIELD LANE SERVICE ALLEY PROPOSED LOADING AREA FOR THE GROCERY STORE Exhibit showing proposed section of one way service alley to access the electrical utility which will be used as required to service it . (E) USPS PARKING Electrical Utility Illustration showing proposed setback to accommodate widening of the existing Service Alley and proposing part of the Existing one way Alley way to become a Two-way Alley SITE PLAN SHOWING PROPOSED SETBACK AT THE ALLEY PROPOSED SETBACK Item 3 Attachment G - Applicant Letter Asserting Legal Rights and Additional Exhibits     Packet Pg. 122     EXHIBIT O UP 38'24'24'24' 38' 36 ' 24 ' 24 ' 24 ' 18 ' 31 ' 22'-4"18'18'18'38' 4' accounted for private open space Item 3 Attachment G - Applicant Letter Asserting Legal Rights and Additional Exhibits     Packet Pg. 123     If you need assistance reviewing the above documents, please contact the Project Planner or call the Planner-on-Duty at 650-617-3117 or email planner@cityofpaloalto.org Project Plans In order to reduce paper consumption, a limited number of hard copy project plans are provided to Board members for their review. The same plans are available to the public, at all hours of the day, via the following online resources. Directions to review Project plans and environmental documents online: 1. Go to: bit.ly/PApendingprojects 2. Scroll down to find “156 California Avenue” 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.paloalto.gov/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Current- Planning/Projects/156-California-Avenue Materials Boards: Color and material boards will be available to view in chambers during the ARB hearing. Item 3 Attachment H - Project Plans     Packet Pg. 124     Item No. 4. Page 1 of 1 Architectural Review Board Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: October 2, 2025 Report #: 2509-5252 TITLE Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for August 7, 2025 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) adopt the meeting minutes. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Minutes of August 7, 2025 AUTHOR/TITLE: ARB Liaison1 & Contact Information   Steven Switzer, Historic Preservation Planner   (650) 329-2321   Steven.Switzer@PaloAlto.gov 1 Emails can be sent directly to the ARB at the following email: ARB@PaloAlto.gov Item 4 Item 4 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 125     Page 1 of 8 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 08/07/25 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MEETING Regular Meeting DRAFT MINUTES: Thursday, August 7, 2025 Council Chamber & Hybrid 8:30 AM Call to Order / Roll Call Present: Chair Kendra Rosenberg, Vice Chair Yingxi Chen, Board member David Hirsch, Board member Mousam Adcock, Board member Marton Jojarth Absent: None. CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL Chair Rosenberg called the meeting to order. Roll was called and a quorum was declared. PUBLIC COMMENT There were no requests to speak. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS No changes. CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS 1. Director's Report, Meeting Schedule, and Upcoming Agenda Items Steven Switzer, Historic Preservation Planner, provided a slide presentation including upcoming/recently submitted items, remaining 2025 meeting schedules and updates. ACTION ITEM 2. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 762 San Antonio Road [24PLN-00120]: Consideration of a Major Architectural Review Application to Demolish Three Existing Commercial Buildings and Construct a Seven-Story Multi-Family Residential Building Containing 197 Rental Apartments. Thirteen Percent of the Units (26 Units) Would be Deed Restricted to Serve Tenants Meeting 60% of Area Median Income or Below. The Project is Proposed in Accordance with California Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of August 7, 2025     Packet Pg. 126     Page 2 of 8 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 08/07/25 Government Code Section 65589.5(d)(5) “Builders Remedy." A Senate Bill 330 Pre-Application was Filed on January 9, 2024. CEQA Status: An Addendum to the Previously Certified Environmental Impact Report for the Housing Incentive Program Expansion and 788 San Antonio Mixed Use Project (SCH # 2019090070) is Being Prepared. Zoning District: (CS) AD. For More Information Contact the Project Planner Emily Kallas at Emily.Kallas@PaloAlto.gov. Chair Rosenberg asked for disclosures and who had visited the site. Boardmember Adcock visited the site the day before. Vice Chair Chen visited the site. Chair Rosenberg visited the site the day before and had nothing to disclose. Boardmember Jojarth visited the site. Boardmember Hirsch visited the site and had nothing to disclose. Emily Kallas, Senior Planner, provided a slide presentation including a background/process, project location, project overview, state law constraints, site plan, rendering and streetscape, proposed materials, key considerations, CEQA status, and recommendation. Chair Rosenberg asked if the recommendation to continue to a date uncertain was for CEQA. Ms. Kallas confirmed that to be the primary reason and encouraged the Committee to provide feedback, as well. Boardmember Adcock asked for clarification on “physically preclude construction”. Claire Raybould Manager of Current Planning, explained it is anything in the design that would preclude having the proposed density. It is not cost based. It shows a project cannot be done at the proposed density while including that consideration. In a lot of legislation under density bonus law, it has been interpreted to possibly also mean the actual square footage can be used as designed. It primarily looks at units and rentability of the units. Boardmember Jojarth asked for further clarification about the limits. Ms. Raybould explained under state density bonus law, there are limits on density based on the below market rate units being provided, the income level, and the percentage of the units provided. There is less limitation under Builder’s Remedy. Maddie Selah, Deputy City Attorney, added under state density bonus law, there is a complicated formula in terms of what the applicant is entitled to ask. In this case, the project is utilizing both state density bonus law and Builder’s Remedy so the City is limited in what it can require the applicant to change about the application. The Board was encouraged to offer feedback. Boardmember Adcock inquired about the limitation. Ms. Raybould stated under the new Builder’s Remedy law the applicant is utilizing, a seven-story building is allowed if it is consistent with the most appropriate zoning for a project of that size and density and meeting the objective standards except to the extent that a waiver is requested under street density bonus law. The city cannot come back and Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of August 7, 2025     Packet Pg. 127     Page 3 of 8 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 08/07/25 require changes to the project through conditions of approval to refine the design in a way that precludes that density. The Builder’s Remedy law does exceeding those objective standards but would open them up potentially to having certain conditions of approval be added to the project to refine the design still in a way that doesn't preclude the density. Deputy City Attorney Selah added because a project at the density proposed by this applicant would be allowed under the El Camino focus area standards, those are the objective standards being applied to the project. In the case that no set of objective standards within the City would allow the project as proposed, Builder's Remedy allows the applicant to aggregate a set of other objective standards under City standards. If and when the Board is hearing a project that falls into that category, the Board will be prepped for what the City is and is not allowed to require. Boardmember Jojarth wanted to know if the waivers being requested by the applicant are justified. Chair Rosenberg understood the applicants are allowed to have waivers and there is no limit to how many can be requested. Applicants can design the project as they see fit, request waivers, and there is no reason to deny them unless there is a significant health or safety standard. Ms. Raybould confirmed that to be right. Boardmember Jojarth asked if the waivers are approved or legal and the Board could not object. Deputy City Attorney Selah replied state law constrains what the City is allowed to require. If any of those waivers would run contrary to state or federal law or pose a significant health or safety threat, the City would have grounds to deny the waivers. There is no reason to believe that to be the case at this time. Boardmember Hirsch queried if planning intended to use the focus area details for the density, etc. regulations being proposed. Ms. Kallas answered this is not a rezoning application. State law says if anywhere in the City allows that density, height, or lot coverage, those are the objective design standards and development standards that can be applied when reviewing the project. Because the project is on the San Antonio Road Corridor and the San Antonio Road Area Plan is being developed, what will be allowed in the future on this corridor is under discussion and consideration and what is currently allowed may not be what is allowed in the future. Boardmember Hirsch questioned how that gets applied to the rest of the street if other projects are in process. Ms. Kallas explained there are a few Builder’s Remedy applications in the city and because we have an adopted housing element, no new Builder’s Remedy applications can be submitted. There are other processes that also allow for discretionary review of projects that exceed the allowable development standards. Matt Hengehold, Hengehold Trucks provided a background of the company and the project being proposed. Gary Johnson, Acclaim Companies joined in to share the vision, design, and community benefits of the proposed project. Mark Chris Lee, Architect at LEED AP, provided a slide presentation demonstrating a site plan, design, floor plan, elevation views, colors and materials, façade articulations and landscape design for the proposed project. Manuela King, Principal at RHHA Architects, joined the presentation describing the streetscape and landscape plan. PUBLIC COMMENTS Winter Dellenbach wanted clarification on how many inclusionary zoning units are being required and asked where the Feasibility Analysis and findings are. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of August 7, 2025     Packet Pg. 128     Page 4 of 8 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 08/07/25 Christopher Brosnan did not support the artificial turf dog run area and stated the project needs trees around it. Palm trees are not appropriate to the area. There should be a way to walk through the property as a pedestrian and public access to the rooftop. Mr. Brosnan opined the project is too big and mentioned issues with groundwater. Mr. Johnson responded the project provides 26 below market rate units in line with AB 1893. It is understood that that massing and height are an issue that need to be resolved while also balancing financial feasibility of the project. Palm trees will not be planted. The tree canopy will be replaced or increased. There is incentive to keep the artificial turf on the dog run clean and smell free. Groundwater level is at five to six feet below grade so parking will be put on grade rather than going subterranean. which also assists in the financial feasibility of the project. Ms. King explained the reasoning for using artificial turf on the dog run and plans to mitigate the smell. There will be trees in all areas that allow room for them. The only palms being proposed are some dwarf palms around the swimming pool in pots. Chair Rosenberg questioned if there capacity for a sprinkler system for the artificial turf. Ms. King replied that could be done. Boardmember Adcock had questions about the two-level parking area. Mr. Johnson explained in order to avoid disrupting traffic flow along San Antonio Road, access on Leghorn Street is being used. There are trash chutes and compactors in the garage that will be brought out three or four times a week for trash pickup along Leghorn Street. There is coordination with Mountain View to have trash picked up since a portion of Leghorn Street is in front of the project is in Mountain View. Parking will be assigned. There will be guest parking. Chair Rosenberg queried if there are any requirements for dual egress in case of fire. Boardmember Adcock stated there is not. Mr. Lee added fire and building code only requires exiting for people. Boardmember Adcock wanted clarification as to why the landscaping requirement on the roof could not be met. Ms. King replied the waiver being requested is for the seventh floor only. It does not meet the 20 percent planting area because it is a small terrace and space is needed for seating and for people to see the views from the seventh floor. Boardmember Adcock asked why waivers are being requested for things that seem accomplishable. Ms. King stated it is possible to increase the size of the planter on the seventh floor. Mr. Lee added irrigation on the roof provided some constraint. More could be done on the podium level on the roof. Providing more landscape could be looked into. Mr. Johnson said most units have their own balcony. There is a pool, spa, and a lot of outdoor area. Boardmember Adcock opined the waiver could be thought through a little more. Chair Rosenberg asked if only two oak trees are being removed and if there is a certain amount of planting being replaced. Ms. King responded only two oak trees are being removed. The design objective criteria for the square footage of landscape required is being met with the exception of the seventh floor terrace. The oak trees are existing along the street and there will be additional sidewalk and planting added. The street will be more landscaped than it currently is. Vice Chair Chen inquired if the amenity space of the building will be open to the public. Mr. Johnson stated it will be only used by the tenants of the building. Vice Chair Chen had questions about a corridor on the third floor. Mr. Lee answered it is one of the objective design standards to provide a step back on Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of August 7, 2025     Packet Pg. 129     Page 5 of 8 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 08/07/25 the podium to the upper level. Vice Chair Chen asked about the fitness center. Mr. Lee stated it is a double high space. There has not yet been work with the interior designer to fine tune the layout. If a mezzanine level is wanted, a spiral stair might be added. Vice Chair Chen queried if the roof area on the seventh floor would be accessible to the public. Mr. Johnson stated no roof area would be accessible to the public but would potentially be accessible to the community. Mr. Lee added it is not a roof deck but just roof area. Vice Chair Chen observed a couple more units could fit there. Chair Rosenberg asked if anything precluded landscaping those areas. Mr. Lee answered it could be landscaped or converted to a roof deck. That is not currently included in the amenity program but could fine tune it to see if the roof area could be better utilized. Boardmember Adcock wanted to know what is beyond the balcony. Mr. Lee said there was still work to be done with the landscape architect on that. Boardmember Adcock observed that edge protection should be considered. Mr. Johnson agreed. Vice Chair Chen had questions about the upper floor step back. Ms. Raybould stated it would need to comply with the objective standard or request a waiver from whatever the objective standard is as outlined and modified in the focus area standard. If the focus area does reference the neighboring building, that would also apply and a waiver would be needed. It is a 10-foot step back. There was a recent amendment that was not updated in the online code. It was previously a 6-foot setback. Vice Chair Chen stated packet page 45, 18.25.050B1 says "not only on the primary building frontage but also the facade facing the adjacent building." Ms. Raybould agreed to further evaluate that. Vice Chair Chen wanted clarification on the setback on the upper level facing Leghorn. Mr. Lee used a slide to describe the setback area. Ms. Raybould said the step back is not 6 feet which is the reason for the waiver. Mr. Lee added the façade was designed to be more dynamic. That is why the seventh story step back was not counted. Vice Chair Chen wanted to understand the calculation about the loss of 1800 square feet on packet page 36. Mr. Lee stated it was 70 percent minus 40 percent that was provided. Boardmember Adcock said it was aggregate of San Antonio and Leghorn. Boardmember Hirsch wondered if it would be possible to create a landscaped connection to the back of the building. Mr. Lee used a slide to describe the clubhouse design. The intention is to be able to go through the courtyard into either the south or north side. It was agreed to look at creating an access corridor on the north side of the building to get to the back side of the building. Boardmember Adcock suggested thinking through how the stairs and elevators come together on the front lobby and the Leghorn entrance. Mr. Johnson agreed to look at that. Chair Rosenberg opined any time there is a staircase, there should be an elevator and vice versa. Mr. Johnson agreed to look at the complete circulation of the building. Boardmember Jojarth inquired to what extent could the applicants be encouraged to not use waivers and if the waivers result in losing apartment space, take away some things not related to density. Ms. Kallas noted that the current plans do not have any ground floor residential units. If units were to be relocated to the ground floor, there is a lot of objective design standards that do not apply to the project that would. It is possible that could create different issues or needs for other waivers. Boardmember Jojarth suggested making the leasing office and work from home office single story to gain square footage. Deputy City Attorney Selah said the Board may encourage or ask the applicant to consider those suggestions. In terms of when the City is required to grant a requested waiver, it is not just square footage that has to be considered. The City is not allowed to require a redesign that would strip the Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of August 7, 2025     Packet Pg. 130     Page 6 of 8 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 08/07/25 amenities from the project. Boardmember Jojarth opined that the waivers being requested did not provide a lot of value. It would be easier to support the project if that could be addressed. Mr. Johnson agreed to try to reduce as many waivers as possible. Boardmember Jojarth asked how square footage would be lost by not having a balcony. Mr. Lee explained the intent was for that to be taken out. Ms. Raybould noted Staff is evaluating whether putting parking, loading, and utilities on the Leghorn or the San Antonio frontage. Boardmember Jojarth thought getting rid of one entrance by investing a little square footage would be a plus. Boardmember Adcock and Chair Rosenberg disagreed with Boardmember Jojarth's comment. Boardmember Hirsch inquired how deliveries get distributed. Mr. Lee answered there is a loading area at the Leghorn Street. Mr. Johnson added a fridge has been allocated toward food deliveries in the lobby. The tenant could meet the food deliverer in the lobby when called. Having food deliveries brought into the corridors is discouraged. Vice Chair Chen inquired about mail delivery. Mr. Lee responded there is a secondary lobby at Leghorn that could be used. The guest parking could allocate space for a small delivery car. Both options could be looked at. Boardmember Adcock asked about the intention of the wood-like screen. Mr. Lee replied it is aluminum material with printed wood texture. It will stop on the face of the leasing office on the south side. It will turn to the top level as the cover for the roof deck. On the ground level, it turns into a canopy texture. The wood screen is in front of the three levels of apartments. Boardmember Adcock asked about the spacing of the screens. Mr. Lee answered it would probably be 6 to 10 inches. It is mainly for articulation in front of the bedroom and not the living for less impact. Boardmember Adcock wanted to know how it is supported on the roof. Mr. Lee stated the screen element would need to have a bracket every other level for support. Boardmember Adcock inquired about the colors depicted in the rendering. Mr. Lee answered the darker color was intended to be for the vertical break but the three colors were the same. They are aluminum panels and are seamless when joined together. The white frame was intended to be a frame element. The orange wood color would be on the top. The contrast of white and dark color background was intended to make a three dimensional effect. Boardmember Adcock did not think the tiny sliver of color would be experienced much. Suggestion was made to wrap the corner of the pieces with the same color. Simplifying the color material palette would give a better overall feel of the building. Boardmember Hirsch stated the sun going around the building would create shadowed sections of the front and that amount of contrast might not be needed. Boardmember Adcock asked about the logic for the five different colored plasters. Mr. Lee replied the darker color would only be used in limited areas like combining the windows to create a bay window expression. Consideration could be considered to combining the two gray colors. Vice Chair Chen had questions about the materials for the parking garage. Mr. Lee answered the intention to cover it all but gaps might be left intentionally to play with the pattern modulation. Chair Rosenberg queried if balconies could be made larger. Mr. Johnson stated that could be explored. Chair Rosenberg inquired about the materials on the rear façade. Mr. Lee replied the white bars show shallower units. The white bars between the gray and white bars are balcony areas that have some Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of August 7, 2025     Packet Pg. 131     Page 7 of 8 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 08/07/25 vertical break. Chair Rosenberg asked about the five different colors on the board. Mr. Lee stated some of the gray colors would be consolidated. Chair Rosenberg asked about the vertical paneling going around the façade. Mr. Lee stated the current option is a perforated metal panel. Another option is a print-on fabric that could be looked into. It could incorporate the main door or exit on the panel. Boardmember Adcock pointed out that the two dark areas is where there is a recess but everything else is co-planer except for the area that bumps out on the three levels and past the 10-foot setback on sheet A104. Ms. Kallas agreed to look at the setbacks. Boardmember Jojarth wondered if there is a way to reduce the parapet for the middle section to make the building appear less tall. A more temporary shade solution like an umbrella might work better than a fixed canopy. Boardmember Adcock asked about the setback on the San Antonio side on the sixth floor plan. Mr. Lee said the blue crosshatch area should have a glass wall between them and would be further looked into. The intent is to capture the area as private balcony. Chair Rosenberg encouraged thoughtful space location assignments for parking, making elevators and staircases as appropriately located as possible, having a five-minute loading space near the mail area, expanding the elevator next to the moving truck area, increasing balcony size where possible along with privacy and safety, and landscaping the open spaces on the seventh floor. For the next submission, a rendering of the rear façade would be beneficial. Boardmember Adcock suggested making the lobby stairs nicer, landscaping the seventh floor terrace better and the step backs, and editing the materials with the pedestrian experience in mind. Vice Chair Chen advised making improvements in service and mail circulation, ride share, and circulation to the units, making the corner facing the step back on the third floor nicer, and having greenery on the roof area on the seventh floor or use it for backup for smaller units. Boardmember Jojarth supported all the colleague's comments and preferred reducing the building height is important, having one garage entrance, and having stairs close to the elevator and making them pleasant. Boardmember Hirsch appreciated the building and the details and supported the other colleague's comments. MOTION: Chair Rosenberg moved to continue to a date uncertain as per the CEQA commentary. The applicant is encouraged to take the Board's commentary into consideration. Boardmember Hirsch seconded the motion. VOTE: Passed 5-0. 3. Chair and Vice Chair Elections Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of August 7, 2025     Packet Pg. 132     Page 8 of 8 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 08/07/25 Mr. Switzer provided a slide presentation including the Architectural Review Board by-laws and recommended process. Chair Rosenberg nominated Vice Chair Chen to be chair seconded by Boardmember Adcock. Vice Chair Chen accepted. VOTE: Passed 5-0 Vice Chair Chen nominated Boardmember Adcock as vice chair seconded by Boardmember Hirsch. Boardmember Adcock accepted. VOTE: Passed 5-0 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 4. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for May 15, 2025 Chair Rosenberg recommended to approve the minutes as written seconded by Vice Chair Chen. VOTE: Passed 4-0-1, Boardmember Jojarth abstaining 5. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for July 3, 2025 Boardmember Adcock indicated the comment on page 84, second paragraph from the motion should say "stair facing Page Mill" instead of "site facing Page Mill". Chair Rosenberg recommended to approve the minutes as written with the exception of the comment noted on page 84 changing the word site to stair seconded by Vice Chair Chen. VOTE: Passed 5-0 BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS OR AGENDA ITEMS Chair Rosenberg announced former Boardmember Baltay would be honored via email offline. Chair Rosenberg clarified the intention was to imply Builder's Remedy projects, not SB 330 projects in a comment made earlier in the meeting. ADJOURNMENT Chair Rosenberg adjourned the meeting at 11:15 AM Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of August 7, 2025     Packet Pg. 133     Item No. 5. Page 1 of 1 Architectural Review Board Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: October 2, 2025 Report #: 2509-5253 TITLE Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for August 21, 2025 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) adopt the meeting minutes. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Minutes of August 21, 2025 AUTHOR/TITLE: ARB Liaison1 & Contact Information   Steven Switzer, Historic Preservation Planner   (650) 329-2321   Steven.Switzer@PaloAlto.gov 1 Emails can be sent directly to the ARB at the following email: ARB@PaloAlto.gov Item 5 Item 5 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 134     Page 1 of 10 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 08/21/25 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MEETING Regular Meeting DRAFT MINUTES: Thursday, August 21, 2025 Council Chamber & Hybrid 8:30 AM Call to Order / Roll Call Present: Chair Yingxi Chen, Vice Chair Mousam Adcock, Board member David Hirsch, Board member Mousam Kendra Rosenberg, Board member Marton Jojarth Absent: None CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL Chair Chen called the meeting to order. Roll was called with five present. PUBLIC COMMENT There were no requests to speak. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS No changes. CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS 1. Director's Report, Meeting Schedule, and Upcoming Agenda Items Steven Switzer, Historic Preservation Planner, provided a slide presentation including upcoming/recently submitted items, 2025 meeting schedules, and updates. Boardmember Hirsch asked for comments on the proposed project for Forest. Mr. Switzer responded a planned home rezoning prescreening went to Council earlier in the month for 332 Forest Avenue. ACTION ITEM 2. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 660 University Ave. [21PLN-00341]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Planned Home Zoning (PHZ) on 3 Parcels (511 Byron St, 660 Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of August 21, 2025     Packet Pg. 135     Page 2 of 10 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 08/21/25 University Ave, 680 University Ave/500 Middlefield Rd), to Demolish Existing Buildings (9,216 SF Office) and Provide a New Six Story Mixed-Use Building with Approximately 1,900 sf of Office and 70 Multi-Family Residential Units. The Project Includes a Future Parcel Map Application to Subdivide the Office Component from the Residential Component. CEQA Status: A Draft Environmental Impact Report Circulated for Public Review Beginning on April 2, 2024, and Ending on May 17, 2024. The City published a Final EIR in March 2025. The City is Preparing a Revised Final EIR. Zoning District: RM-20 (Multi-Family Residential). All members had nothing to disclose and visited the site. Emily Kallas, Senior Planner, provided a slide presentation including a project overview; background/process; major changes since December; elevations compared to prior ARB on University, Byron, Middlefield, and interior side; key considerations; height and daylight plane comparisons; CEQA; and recommended motion for ARB. Vice Chair Adcock queried if making the sixth floor offices residential increased the overall square footage of the whole building. Ms. Kallas stated the building design in December was 67,166 square feet and the current proposal is 68,738. Vice Chair Adcock asked about the decks. Ms. Kallas answered 97 square feet is the average size of the decks and there are a handful of units that do not have decks. Boardmember Jojarth inquired if the daylight plane encroachment is withing the zoning code. Ms. Kallas explained as a part of the planned home zoning process, the development standards are proposed by the applicant for consideration by the ARB and PTC. The decision is made by Council. The daylight plane is a request for an allowance. Boardmember Jojarth asked if the balconies in the setback are part of the code. Ms. Kallas answered the code allows for balconies to protrude into setbacks. Boardmember Jojarth wanted to know if there is a basis in the code allowing for less open space. Ms. Kallas replied it is part of the PHC request. Ted Korth, Korth Sunseri Hagey Architects, provided a slide presentation including a history of the project, aerial view of the sites, existing photographs of buildings on site, a site plan, depiction of different setbacks existing on Middlefield Road, photograph showing comparison of project presented in December 2024 and current proposed project, current design from the view of Middlefield Road and University Avenue, view from University Avenue at Byron showing the entrance to the residential portion of the project and public art that will be incorporated into the design of the exterior of the building, view from Byron, view from Middlefield Road showing the building stepping back, prior and current proposed building uses, previous and current sections, ad hoc committee conditions of approval and responses, ground floorplan, basement floorplan, previous and current unit count, unit plans, elevations, area available for a retrofit in the future, and building section. PUBLIC COMMENT Carol Gilbert requested the ARB hold the developer to no balconies on the units impacting the Heritage Oak, adequate parking, recognition of impact on neighbors for noise and safety, do not hold out further options to rework fitness room, and a plan Smith, Palo Alto, and the neighbors can all live with. Stephen Levy asked the Board to support the Staff recommendation to move the project forward. Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of August 21, 2025     Packet Pg. 136     Page 3 of 10 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 08/21/25 Faith W. expressed issues with the appearance of the building, the height of the building, lack of a traffic analysis, and parking. Ali S. spoke on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition stating it is important the project does not get further delayed. Chistopher Ream speaking on behalf of 7 (Kay B, Dennis B, Francis P, Maria P, Dick S, Peggy S, Anne R) provided a slide presentation addressing issues with the Coast Live Oak Tree, insufficient parking, the Middlefield Road setback, the daylight plane, and safety with balconies on University Avenue. It was indicated this is too much building in too small of a space. Nounou T. opposed the project and wanted to know what impact mitigations the planners have for parking, noise, sound, mess, construction vehicles and how long the project will take. Boyd Smith, Smith Development, was in agreement with saving the oak tree. The arborists involved agree on the steps being taken to preserve the tree and urged not to get caught in the cycle of the non- tree experts debating the health and vitality of the tree. Boardmember Rosenberg wanted to know the reason for the insistence of the balconies at the oak trees and how many units have balconies. Mr. Smith stated it is because there is no further impact on the tree. Every unit has a balcony. There would be an exception for the units not having balconies. Boardmember Rosenberg asked if there were considers about those units being considered substandard. Mr. Smith stated not having a balcony would make it a substandard unit. Boardmember Rosenberg inquired if there is any plan with the arborist for how far back the oak trees would need to be trimmed away from the balconies. Mr. Smith replied the trimming would occur to make room for the scaffolding. Within that room is where the balcony would go. The arborist would supervise the tree trimming and keep it from intruding on the balcony. There is no plan to cut it five feet away from the balconies. Boardmember Rosenberg had questions about the TPZ zone and the intention of the foundation. David L. Babby, Arbor Recourses, explained the initial phase of pruning would occur to achieve clearance for the building and scaffolding. The balconies will be erected within that void. A second phase of pruning will occur as needed under direct supervision of Mr. Babby. The City arborist can be involved. Each cut will be highly selective and minimized to achieve clearance. The 20-foot root zone was recommended at the very onset of the project when Mr. Babby was brought on by Smith Development to evaluate a tree protection zone and appropriate setback for the canopy and the root area. That was done prior to preparing the design. Through the progress of this design development and the hearings over the course of the last four years, it has been elected to establish a 30-foot zone retaining even more roots. The roots will be cut up to the wall. Mr. Babby recommended limiting two feet behind the wall. Conversation on establishing the shoring system is still in discussion with the contractor. Boardmember Rosenberg wanted understanding of the City reserved area at the corner. Mr. Korth answered it was to be made available for a potential new traffic signal light structure. There was no known expectation to have a transformer in that area. It was ensured that if someone had to extend a foundation to support a large pole or something similar it would be possible to accommodate that. Three parking spots would be lost in that case. There are no current plans for that by the City. Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of August 21, 2025     Packet Pg. 137     Page 4 of 10 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 08/21/25 Boardmember Rosenberg had questions about balcony rails. Mr. Korth said the details could be developed to accommodate a drink rail. The railings along University do not extend beyond the property line. Vice Chair Adcock questioned if there was consideration of setting the upper levels of the building back to align with the basement so there was space for the balconies around the tree instead of encroaching toward the tree. Mr. Korth replied the 30-foot diameter line is a tree protection zone for the area below grade. It is not an extruded shape that goes all the way up the tree. That setback is encroaching with a six-foot area where they are trimming it for the scaffolding. The balconies are adjacent to the tree. If the balconies were not installed, the tree would still need to be trimmed back the six-foot dimension in order to construct the building. In the prior version, there was a long linear terrace that faced the Hamilton which was opposed so the building was extended out to the face of it in order to have the units planned out well. Vice Chair Adcock asked about the Middlefield Setback. Mr. Korth answered the stair projects out about 10 feet from the face of the building so is 14 feet back. The thought was that if somebody extended the road, there would always be a setback between the proposed building and the roadway. Vice Chair Adcock asked if the roof of the basement is designed to be physically traffic rated. Mr. Korth responded that necessity has not been defined. It could be done if needed. Ms. Kallas stated there are no current set plans for the uses of the setbacks. The purpose of special setbacks has been to reserve space for future transportation improvements. The City's expectation of the setbacks needs to be considered by the ARB. The intent of the PTC comments was whether the below grade impacts the ability to use the space even though the improvements are not above grade. Boardmember Hirsch opined it would be better for Planning to say how they would look to clarify the future of the corner of the building. Ms. Kallas said Staff is under the impression that the intent of that space is to potentially accommodate something like a streetlight or traffic signal. Boardmember Hirsch asked if a potential bicycle lane might be possible. Ms. Kallas agreed that was possible. Jennifer Armer, Assistant Director, added there are no specific plans. It is uncertain as to whether the need would be for relocation of a traffic signal that would need some sort of foundation and stabilization or whether the space would be for wider sidewalks, bike lanes or something else. When looking at an application asking for exceptions to the standard regulations, there is need to balance between the potential impacts and benefits of that modification. Boardmember Hirsch questioned if there are any structural details showing exactly how the foundation works and relative to the outside of the building itself. Lund Smith, applicant team, stated the takeaway following the PTC meeting was to have the ability to potentially have some section of the corner that would accommodate future traffic signal, streetlights, or maybe some utilities unknown. It cannot be built structurally to something that has no definition. Boardmember Hirsch asked about the foundation affecting the tree. Amanda Borden, Korth Sunseri Hagey Architects, explained there will be a map foundation. It is not known exactly how the shoring will be installed but there will be a full secant cutoff wall estimated at about two to two-and-a-half feet depth to be installed with the soldiering and shoring support. The foundation wall was moved about five feet further from the tree within the root zone since December. The soldier piers are estimated to be 24 to 30 inches in depth. There are portions of the ramp below grade that are at 30 feet but no permanent foundation within the 30 feet. Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of August 21, 2025     Packet Pg. 138     Page 5 of 10 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 08/21/25 Vice Chair Adcock asked how the balconies are getting clipped on. Ms. Borden replied the intent is that there will be a modular system that will be pre-built. They can be installed from the two sides. That is why a larger footprint than the scaffolding is not needed to install the balconies. The intent is that the space needed to install the balconies from the side would be the same space that is already occupied by the scaffolding to construct the walls of the building. Vice Chair Adcock asked about crane operation. Ms. Borden said the contractor has put together some preliminary construction logistics plans. That will be developed further with the City with Public Works and Transportation. The balconies will probably be constructed differently depending on which side of the building they are on based on the site access. Some balconies probably will be craned in and constructed in different ways depending on the location on the building. The contractors can support the scaffolding off the buildings so they do not need to touch the ground below. Vice Chair Adcock inquired about the ceiling height on the sixth floor and why the extra three feet. Ms. Borden responded the slab is typically stepped at the roof level to accommodate drainage. Extra space is needed to accommodate that. The primary deck will be stepped down lower than the finished roof surface to accommodate sloped drainage. Boardmember Jojarth queried how the bike room would be accessed. Ms. Borden explained there is a ramp off Byron that is part of the loading and trash area and can accommodate residential move ins. There is a ramp at the front entry and a short stair which some people with lighter bikes can go up to reach the elevator. There is a ramp going down into the parking garage that reaches the elevator. There is additional bike parking in the garage below grade. The request in previous hearings was to have a substantial amount of bike parking at the first floor for those that are using the bikes frequently. Boardmember Jojarth asked if there is data from similar building in Palo Alto or Mountain View regarding the amount of parking spaces needed. Ms. Borden in previous proposals, 20 to 30 percent reduction in parking was proposed. This project only proposes a 13 percent reduction. Mr. L. Smith added there is a substantial reductio in parking in downtown locations. It is anticipated the building will have people who work downtown and can walk to work. The building is located near the train and other transportation methods. There is data in the TDM plan and elsewhere to look for reduction in parking. Boardmember Jojarth inquired about the reason to increase parking spaces. Mr. L. Smith stated the reduction in office space, other constraints, and marketability were reasons. Boardmember Jojarth wanted to know if there was consideration of increasing the parking spaces more in view of the potential loss of three spaces due to the easement in the corner. Mr. Smith responded a block and a half closer to Caltrain, no parking would have to be provided at all and felt there is an abundance of parking. Boardmember Jojarth queried where the Amazon delivery truck or Uber is expected to park. Ms. Borden stated there are two loading stalls identified on Byron Street that are also for trash staging pick up. Smaller vehicles can pull onsite into the trash loading area. Boardmember Jojarth had concerns about delivery parking. Ms. Borden explained the two loading stalls together are about 20 feet in length and should be enough for most delivery trucks to pull in. They would block the driveway to the trash staging room but that is only needed to be used during trash pickup times. The two spaces are on Byron Street. Boardmember Jojarth observed parking spaces are being reduced for the purpose of the development. Ms. Borden confirmed that. Boardmember Jojarth asked if consideration has been made to utilize space on Middlefield Road. Ms. Borden stated it was heavily discouraged to have any vehicle access from Middlefield. Boardmember Jojarth saw temporary parking as a problem. Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of August 21, 2025     Packet Pg. 139     Page 6 of 10 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 08/21/25 Chair Chen wanted clarification about the daylight plane requirement. Ms. Kallas said the daylight plan requirements are based on the zoning and this block is zoned RM20 meaning that the daylight plane applies across the entire property line. As a part of their PHZ request, the applicant is acknowledging and proposing that the daylight plan exception is appropriate because the adjacent use is not residential. Under the base zoning, the daylight plane applies because it is based on zoning and not based on land use. Chair Chen had questions about the increase in the number of units and balconies. Ms. Borden responded in previous proposals, a balcony was not provided at every unit. There was where balconies were removed based on feedback received from ARB the first round. Based on feedback from PTC, the planners, and other members, decision was made to maintain at least one balcony at every unit. The size of the units is in response to PTC comments about the size, variety, and making the building function as a diverse place. Chair Chen asked about the trash collection route for the office trash. Ms. Borden replied the office trash will be 96 gallons and will be wheeled out to Middlefield adjacent to the single family residents. It will go through the fitness center through the outdoor terrace past the transformers. Chair Chen questioned why the office bike room was at the corner of the building instead of closer to the office elevator. Ms. Borden answered the corners of the garage are the places where parking is not allowed so the intent is to utilize that space for non-vehicle areas. Chair Chen inquired about the building services between the residential and office elevator in basement level P1. Ms. Borden explained the intent was to build in the space required for electrical equipment so parking is not lost in the future. Vice Chair Adcock recommended aligning the building above grade with the edge of the parking garage to avoid having balconies encroach in the tree zone. Providing every unit with a balcony is a step closer to being as equitable as possible. Boardmember Hirsch recommended an area on the A2.1 site plan for bike parking instead of the cellar or lobby and asked if a laundry was being provided. Mr. Smith replied every unit has a laundry. Boardmember Hirsch wanted to recommend no balconies in the area of the tree, was not happy with the look of the north end of the building on the R4 drawing, thought the glass walls for the penthouse were strange, and had concern with the amount of glass in the balconies suggesting tinting the glass. Boardmember Rosenberg liked the corner on the north end of the building, had concern with the glass on the top floor apartments and advised having permanently installed curtains in those specific apartments, did not think every apartment has to have a balcony, believed the applicants goal with maintaining the tree aligns with the neighbor's goal, wanted more understanding of the shoring method, felt satisfied with the balconies on University but would appreciate adding a drink rail, advised the applicant to be as respectful as possible to the neighbors regarding construction, would like PTC to be clear about the possible scope, appreciated the height setback, and advised maintaining the parking as much as possible. Boardmember Jojarth advised making the glass less transparent and thought the building would look better without the balconies, and encouraged having as much parking in the building as feasible. Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of August 21, 2025     Packet Pg. 140     Page 7 of 10 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 08/21/25 Chair Chen suggested eliminating or reducing the balconies in the tree protection zone, appreciated the amount of parking, appreciated the additional setback on the Middlefield side, and appreciated the applicant proceeding with the PHZ route and engaging with the City to develop and application allowing feedback. MOTION: Vice Chair Adcock moved to recommend: a. Remove the balconies within the H2 units on the 2nd -6th floor (5 units) facing the oak tree or stepping the units back to reduce the encroachment into the TPZ if balconies are provided within the 30-ft radius of the tree. Chair Chen seconded the motion. Amendment to add more ground floor short term bicycle parking. Straw poll – no 3-2. VOTE: Passed 3-2. Hirsch, Jojarth No Boardmember Hirsch thought it would be a good idea to increase the parking and it is unfortunate that the exterior of the building is being compromised but was in agreement that the project should proceed. Boardmember Jojarth supported proceeding with the project but felt there were important details that required clarification before approval. 3. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 2280 El Camino Real [24PLN-00339]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Major Architectural Review to Allow Façade Modifications to an Existing Restaurant, Jack in the Box. CEQA Status: Exempt from the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Existing Facilities). Zoning District: Neighborhood Commercial (CN). Boardmember Rosenberg has visited the site since high school and the week before. Vice Chair Adcock, Chair Chen, Boardmember Jojarth, and Boardmember Hirsch all visited the site. Kristina Dobkevicius, Associate Planner, provided a slide presentation including the project location, proposed project, proposed changes, proposed color and material scheme, key considerations, and the recommendation. Boardmember Rosenberg asked about the elevations. Ms. Dobkevicius stated the proposed height will be 24 feet 8 inches. Boardmember Rosenberg asked if the recommendation was to reduce the upper two red panels and keep the lower two. Ms. Dobkevicius confirmed that to be correct. Vice Chair Adcock asked for some clarification. Ms. Dobkevicius said the Staff recommendation is to remove the branding panels along El Camino and Cambridge Avenue. Boardmember Hirsch asked about the extension of the roof over the eating area. Ms. Dobkevicius answered the area is shown on the elevation drawings. Boardmember Hirsch wanted information about the language of the regulation about height of signage. Ms. Dobkevicius provided a slide regarding the Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of August 21, 2025     Packet Pg. 141     Page 8 of 10 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 08/21/25 language about signage regulation. Boardmember Hirsch inquired if the regulations apply to freestanding buildings. Ms. Dobkevicius confirmed that to be correct. Size limits are reduced to two- thirds of the maximum allowable per the sign ordinance. Boardmember Hirsch asked if there are similar buildings to make comparisons. Mr. Switzer stated the Panda Express across the street is a standalone building. Chair Chen wanted to confirm no new signage is being proposed or approved. Ms. Dobkevicius confirmed that to be correct. The initial design included signage but Staff had comments regarding the signage location, size, and color so the applicant chose to remove the signage from the proposal. Staff believes the purpose of the panels that exceed the rest of the height of the building is to primarily put the signage in the future. Signage will need a minor Staff level review. Boardmember Jojarth asked for a definition of the sign. Ms. Dobkevicius agreed the way the sign was shown in the rendering looks like one big sign. Assistant Director Armer added the renderings are inconsistent with the plans and the signage has been removed. Boardmember Jojarth observed that even though the writing is not on the sign, the huge red box stands for Jack-in-the-Box. Vice Chair Adcock agreed it is branding and not a sign. Boardmember Rosenberg stated that according to Stanford Shopping Center, the sign codes are specific and have to do with the application itself. It is calculated by the perimeter signage of the sign, not what is in the background. Mr. Switzer added the amount of the red area that would be allowed on the façade is what is in the purview of the Board. Boardmember Rosenberg pointed out the elevation rendering slide and asked where the red façade is. Ms. Dobkevicius stated there is no red on the façade. The only red are the panels in the corner. Vice Chair Adcock asked about the intent of the lights on the elevations. Ms. Dobkevicius did not know the intent. Vice Chair Adcock wanted to know the height of the mechanical units behind the parapet wall. Ms. Dobkevicius answered the existing elevation showed a height of 20 feet 9 inches. The mansard roof screens the equipment. The equipment protrudes a little bit over the existing roof line. Vice Chair Adcock wanted to know why the extra 4 feet is needed on A4.0. Ms. Dobkevicius explained there is the outside seating area with the drive through and this portion is connected with the primary building with the roof overhang. Number 22 is the existing eave height for the first floor. The roof is probably restricting the panel location so two same size panels are being put on top of each other to create the branding. Assistant Director Armer added Staff's recommendation is that it be reduced in height. How that is implemented can be worked out. Boardmember Jojarth observed having proper renderings would have made the meeting more effective. Assistant Director Armer shared there are times when reviewing projects Staff provides comments and try to provide complete drawings. There comes a point when it is important to keep the project moving through the process even when the plans are not fully responsive to the Staff comments. Staff hoped the information provided and clarification in the Staff report would help the Board understand what is proposed. The Board could identify concerns and recommend changes so there is opportunity for the project to move forward with specific direction. Mr. Switzer added conditions of approval or an ad hoc committee could review the minor items that need to be fixed for the inconsistencies in the plan set. Boardmember Rosenberg opined the project is a great improvement to the existing design but there are questions yet to be answered. Vice Chair Adcock felt the Board could recommend approval with some conditions Staff could work through with the applicant. Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of August 21, 2025     Packet Pg. 142     Page 9 of 10 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 08/21/25 Boardmember Jojarth agreed it is an improvement over the existing design. The red is an issue. The building is not of high aesthetic quality and does not use high quality integrated materials. It does not incorporate textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. The design is generic. Boardmember Jojarth thought the design could be significantly improved to enhance the City. Boardmember Hirsch favored the design as proposed along with the color and the sign but the sign may not answer the present signage code for the City. Boardmember Rosenberg found that the stone façade was an improvement and agreed that the red was favorable. If the red panels were removed, the Jack-in-the-Box signs would be placed back on the building. Boardmember Jojarth thought one option would be to significantly reduce the red, suggested thinking about a different color for the windows rather than aluminum, suggested using a different material for the soffit, and suggested using a higher grade cement or stucco for the masonry wall and Hardie panel. The design with different boxes looks messy and suggestion was made to make the façade more balanced. Chair Chen agreed that the parapet heights were messy, supported Staff's suggestion on lowering the branding panels, and had questions about the exterior lighting. Boardmember Rosenberg asked to take a straw poll regarding allowing the project to be seen through an ad hoc. Boardmember Jojarth was nominated to be on the ad hoc. Vice Chair Adcock and Chair Chen agreed with having an ad hoc. Boardmember Hirsch was comfortable with the project coming to a subcommittee instead of the full Board. MOTION: Boardmember Rosenberg moved to seek to recommend approval with and Ad Hoc to review the following items: 1. Clarify materials to the underside of the eave. 2. Lighting to accentuate the soffit feature. 3. Design lighting to accentuate the façade instead of the upper portions. 4. Revisions to both areas of red paneling while maintaining the height of the overall building height of 22 feet. 5. Provide more consistency with the parapet heights. 6. Renderings shall be provided consistent with the elevations. 7. Clarify the materials of the detached covered eating area for consistency with the main building. Vice Chair Adcock seconded the motion. VOTE: Passed 4-1, Hirsch No Boardmember Hirsch objected to the red box top and limiting the height of the corner element. Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of August 21, 2025     Packet Pg. 143     Page 10 of 10 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 08/21/25 Boardmembers Jojarth and Rosenberg agreed to be on the ad hoc committee. Assistant Director Armer stated efforts would be made to have the applicant attend the ad hoc meeting. Chair Chen announced Vice Chair Adcock had to leave to the chamber. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 4. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for July 17, 2025 Boardmember Hirsch wanted to change the word "removable" to "movable" on page 208. Chair Chen added in the first paragraph on page 208 wanted it to be more clear that Vice Chair Chen inquired if the gas heater could be on the linear instead of along the edge. MOTION: Boardmember Rosenberg moved to approve the minutes with the edits to Vice Chair Chen's and Boardmember Hirsch's comments. Boardmember Hirsch seconded the motion. VOTE: Passed 3-0-1, Jojarth Abstain, Adcock Absent BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS OR AGENDA ITEMS Chair Chen announced having attended the San Antonio Area Plan first community meeting. There will be three meetings in a three-year timeline. The group will come before the ARB in September. ADJOURNMENT Vice Chair Chen adjourned the meeting at 12:37pm. Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of August 21, 2025     Packet Pg. 144