Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-06-12 Planning & Transportation Commission Agenda PacketPLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Regular Meeting Wednesday, June 12, 2024 Council Chambers & Hybrid 6:00 PM Planning and Transportation Commission 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. Commissioner names, biographies, and archived agendas and minutes are available at http://bit.ly/PaloAltoPTC.  VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/91641559499) Meeting ID: 916 4155 9499    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 Planning.Commission@CityofPaloAlto.org and will be provided to the Commission 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 Planning.Commission@CityofPaloAlto.org at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Once received, the Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. To uphold strong cybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storage devices are not accepted. Signs and symbolic materials less than 2 feet by 3 feet are permitted provided that: (1) sticks, posts, poles or similar/other type of handle objects are strictly prohibited; (2) the items do not create a facility, fire, or safety hazard; and (3) persons with such items remain seated when displaying them and must not raise the items above shoulder level, obstruct the view or passage of other attendees, or otherwise disturb the business of the meeting. TIME ESTIMATES Listed times are estimates only and are subject to change at any time, including while the meeting is in progress. The Commission reserves the right to use more or less time on any item, to change the order of items and/or to continue items to another meeting. Particular items may be heard before or after the time estimated on the agenda. This may occur in order to best manage the time at a meeting or to adapt to the participation of the public. 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 Assignments ACTION ITEMS Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Fifteen (15) minutes, plus three (3) minutes rebuttal. All others: Five(5) minutes per speaker. 2.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI‐JUDICIAL. 660 University Ave. [21PLN‐00341]: Consideration of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), and Recommendation to Adopt a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and a Planned Community/Planned Home Zoning (PC/PHZ) Ordinance for the Redevelopment of Three Parcels (511 Byron St, 660 University Ave, 680 University Ave/500 Middlefield Rd) with a Four Story Mixed‐Use Building with Ground Floor Office (9,115 SF) and 63 Residential Rental Units (48 Studios, 12 1‐Bedroom, 3 2‐Bedroom), Including a Two Level Below‐Grade Parking Garage. The Project Includes a Future Parcel Map Application to Subdivide the Office Component from the Residential Component. Environmental Assessment: Environmental Impact Report Circulated for Public Review Beginning on April 2, 2024, and Ending on May 17, 2024. Zoning District: RM‐20 (Multi‐ Family Residential). For More Information Contact the Project Planner, Emily Kallas, at Emily.Kallas@CityofPaloAlto.org. 6:10 PM – 7:40 PM 3.4075 El Camino Way [23PLN‐00202, Palo Alto Commons]: Consideration of a Planned Community (PC) Project Amending an Existing PC (PC‐5116) to Allow Additions to an Existing 121 Unit Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility. The Additions Would Include 16 Assisted Living Units. Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: PC‐5116 (Planned Community).      7:40 PM – 9:10 PM COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS AND AGENDAS Members of the public may not speak to the item(s). ADJOURNMENT PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email, teleconference, or by phone. 1. W r i t t e n   p u b l i c   c o m m e n t s  m a y   b e   s u b m i t t e d   b y   e m a i l   t o planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org. 2. Spoken public comments using a computer will be accepted through the teleconference meeting. To address the Commission, 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 Commission, 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 Commission. 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: 916 4155 9499   Phone:1‐669‐900‐6833  Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329‐2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service. PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSIONRegular MeetingWednesday, June 12, 2024Council Chambers & Hybrid6:00 PMPlanning and Transportation Commission meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with theoption to attend by teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safetywhile still maintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose toparticipate from home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe andparticipate in the meeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged ifattending in person. The meeting will be broadcast on Cable TV Channel 26, live onYouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen MediaCenter https://midpenmedia.org. Commissioner names, biographies, and archived agendas andminutes are available at http://bit.ly/PaloAltoPTC. VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/91641559499)Meeting ID: 916 4155 9499    Phone: 1(669)900‐6833PUBLIC COMMENTSPublic comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or anamount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutesafter the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance toPlanning.Commission@CityofPaloAlto.org and will be provided to the Commission and availablefor inspection on the City’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you arereferencing in your subject line.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified aspresent at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson's presentation will be allowed up tofifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking membersagree not to speak individually. The Chair may limit Public Comments to thirty (30) minutes forall combined speakers. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak for Study Sessions andAction Items to two (2) minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers.PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted onlyby email to Planning.Commission@CityofPaloAlto.org at least 24 hours prior to the meeting.Once received, the Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. Touphold strong cybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storagedevices 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. TIME ESTIMATES Listed times are estimates only and are subject to change at any time, including while the meeting is in progress. The Commission reserves the right to use more or less time on any item, to change the order of items and/or to continue items to another meeting. Particular items may be heard before or after the time estimated on the agenda. This may occur in order to best manage the time at a meeting or to adapt to the participation of the public. 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 Assignments ACTION ITEMS Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Fifteen (15) minutes, plus three (3) minutes rebuttal. All others: Five(5) minutes per speaker. 2.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI‐JUDICIAL. 660 University Ave. [21PLN‐00341]: Consideration of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), and Recommendation to Adopt a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and a Planned Community/Planned Home Zoning (PC/PHZ) Ordinance for the Redevelopment of Three Parcels (511 Byron St, 660 University Ave, 680 University Ave/500 Middlefield Rd) with a Four Story Mixed‐Use Building with Ground Floor Office (9,115 SF) and 63 Residential Rental Units (48 Studios, 12 1‐Bedroom, 3 2‐Bedroom), Including a Two Level Below‐Grade Parking Garage. The Project Includes a Future Parcel Map Application to Subdivide the Office Component from the Residential Component. Environmental Assessment: Environmental Impact Report Circulated for Public Review Beginning on April 2, 2024, and Ending on May 17, 2024. Zoning District: RM‐20 (Multi‐ Family Residential). For More Information Contact the Project Planner, Emily Kallas, at Emily.Kallas@CityofPaloAlto.org. 6:10 PM – 7:40 PM 3.4075 El Camino Way [23PLN‐00202, Palo Alto Commons]: Consideration of a Planned Community (PC) Project Amending an Existing PC (PC‐5116) to Allow Additions to an Existing 121 Unit Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility. The Additions Would Include 16 Assisted Living Units. Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: PC‐5116 (Planned Community).      7:40 PM – 9:10 PM COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS AND AGENDAS Members of the public may not speak to the item(s). ADJOURNMENT PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email, teleconference, or by phone. 1. W r i t t e n   p u b l i c   c o m m e n t s  m a y   b e   s u b m i t t e d   b y   e m a i l   t o planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org. 2. Spoken public comments using a computer will be accepted through the teleconference meeting. To address the Commission, 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 Commission, 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 Commission. 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: 916 4155 9499   Phone:1‐669‐900‐6833  Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329‐2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service. PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSIONRegular MeetingWednesday, June 12, 2024Council Chambers & Hybrid6:00 PMPlanning and Transportation Commission meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with theoption to attend by teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safetywhile still maintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose toparticipate from home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe andparticipate in the meeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged ifattending in person. The meeting will be broadcast on Cable TV Channel 26, live onYouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen MediaCenter https://midpenmedia.org. Commissioner names, biographies, and archived agendas andminutes are available at http://bit.ly/PaloAltoPTC. VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/91641559499)Meeting ID: 916 4155 9499    Phone: 1(669)900‐6833PUBLIC COMMENTSPublic comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or anamount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutesafter the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance toPlanning.Commission@CityofPaloAlto.org and will be provided to the Commission and availablefor inspection on the City’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you arereferencing in your subject line.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified aspresent at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson's presentation will be allowed up tofifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking membersagree not to speak individually. The Chair may limit Public Comments to thirty (30) minutes forall combined speakers. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak for Study Sessions andAction Items to two (2) minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers.PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted onlyby email to Planning.Commission@CityofPaloAlto.org at least 24 hours prior to the meeting.Once received, the Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. Touphold strong cybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storagedevices 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 notcreate a facility, fire, or safety hazard; and (3) persons with such items remain seated whendisplaying them and must not raise the items above shoulder level, obstruct the view orpassage of other attendees, or otherwise disturb the business of the meeting.TIME ESTIMATES Listed times are estimates only and are subject to change at any time, including while the meeting is in progress. The Commission reserves the right to use more or less time on any item, to change the order of items and/or to continue items to another meeting. Particular items may be heard before or after the time estimated on the agenda. This may occur in order to best manage the time at a meeting or to adapt to the participation of the public. 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 Assignments ACTION ITEMS Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Fifteen (15) minutes, plus three (3) minutes rebuttal. All others: Five(5) minutes per speaker. 2.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI‐JUDICIAL. 660 University Ave. [21PLN‐00341]: Consideration of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), and Recommendation to Adopt a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and a Planned Community/Planned Home Zoning (PC/PHZ) Ordinance for the Redevelopment of Three Parcels (511 Byron St, 660 University Ave, 680 University Ave/500 Middlefield Rd) with a Four Story Mixed‐Use Building with Ground Floor Office (9,115 SF) and 63 Residential Rental Units (48 Studios, 12 1‐Bedroom, 3 2‐Bedroom), Including a Two Level Below‐Grade Parking Garage. The Project Includes a Future Parcel Map Application to Subdivide the Office Component from the Residential Component. Environmental Assessment: Environmental Impact Report Circulated for Public Review Beginning on April 2, 2024, and Ending on May 17, 2024. Zoning District: RM‐20 (Multi‐ Family Residential). For More Information Contact the Project Planner, Emily Kallas, at Emily.Kallas@CityofPaloAlto.org. 6:10 PM – 7:40 PM 3.4075 El Camino Way [23PLN‐00202, Palo Alto Commons]: Consideration of a Planned Community (PC) Project Amending an Existing PC (PC‐5116) to Allow Additions to an Existing 121 Unit Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility. The Additions Would Include 16 Assisted Living Units. Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: PC‐5116 (Planned Community).      7:40 PM – 9:10 PM COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS AND AGENDAS Members of the public may not speak to the item(s). ADJOURNMENT PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email, teleconference, or by phone. 1. W r i t t e n   p u b l i c   c o m m e n t s  m a y   b e   s u b m i t t e d   b y   e m a i l   t o planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org. 2. Spoken public comments using a computer will be accepted through the teleconference meeting. To address the Commission, 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 Commission, 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 Commission. 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: 916 4155 9499   Phone:1‐669‐900‐6833  Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329‐2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service. PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSIONRegular MeetingWednesday, June 12, 2024Council Chambers & Hybrid6:00 PMPlanning and Transportation Commission meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with theoption to attend by teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safetywhile still maintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose toparticipate from home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe andparticipate in the meeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged ifattending in person. The meeting will be broadcast on Cable TV Channel 26, live onYouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen MediaCenter https://midpenmedia.org. Commissioner names, biographies, and archived agendas andminutes are available at http://bit.ly/PaloAltoPTC. VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/91641559499)Meeting ID: 916 4155 9499    Phone: 1(669)900‐6833PUBLIC COMMENTSPublic comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or anamount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutesafter the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance toPlanning.Commission@CityofPaloAlto.org and will be provided to the Commission and availablefor inspection on the City’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you arereferencing in your subject line.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified aspresent at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson's presentation will be allowed up tofifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking membersagree not to speak individually. The Chair may limit Public Comments to thirty (30) minutes forall combined speakers. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak for Study Sessions andAction Items to two (2) minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers.PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted onlyby email to Planning.Commission@CityofPaloAlto.org at least 24 hours prior to the meeting.Once received, the Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. Touphold strong cybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storagedevices 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 notcreate a facility, fire, or safety hazard; and (3) persons with such items remain seated whendisplaying them and must not raise the items above shoulder level, obstruct the view orpassage of other attendees, or otherwise disturb the business of the meeting.TIME ESTIMATESListed times are estimates only and are subject to change at any time, including while themeeting is in progress. The Commission reserves the right to use more or less time on any item,to change the order of items and/or to continue items to another meeting. Particular items maybe heard before or after the time estimated on the agenda. This may occur in order to bestmanage the time at a meeting or to adapt to the participation of the public.CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALLPUBLIC COMMENT Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker.AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONSThe Chair or Board majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management.CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS1.Director's Report, Meeting Schedule and AssignmentsACTION ITEMSPublic Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Fifteen (15) minutes, plus three (3) minutes rebuttal. All others:Five(5) minutes per speaker.2.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI‐JUDICIAL. 660 University Ave. [21PLN‐00341]: Consideration ofan Environmental Impact Report (EIR), and Recommendation to Adopt a ComprehensivePlan Amendment and a Planned Community/Planned Home Zoning (PC/PHZ) Ordinancefor the Redevelopment of Three Parcels (511 Byron St, 660 University Ave, 680 UniversityAve/500 Middlefield Rd) with a Four Story Mixed‐Use Building with Ground Floor Office(9,115 SF) and 63 Residential Rental Units (48 Studios, 12 1‐Bedroom, 3 2‐Bedroom),Including a Two Level Below‐Grade Parking Garage. The Project Includes a Future ParcelMap Application to Subdivide the Office Component from the Residential Component.Environmental Assessment: Environmental Impact Report Circulated for Public ReviewBeginning on April 2, 2024, and Ending on May 17, 2024. Zoning District: RM‐20 (Multi‐Family Residential). For More Information Contact the Project Planner, Emily Kallas, atEmily.Kallas@CityofPaloAlto.org.6:10 PM – 7:40 PM3.4075 El Camino Way [23PLN‐00202, Palo Alto Commons]: Consideration of a PlannedCommunity (PC) Project Amending an Existing PC (PC‐5116) to Allow Additions to anExisting 121 Unit Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility. The Additions Would Include16 Assisted Living Units. Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: PC‐5116(Planned Community).      7:40 PM – 9:10 PMCOMMISSIONER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS ANDAGENDAS Members of the public may not speak to the item(s). ADJOURNMENT PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email, teleconference, or by phone. 1. W r i t t e n   p u b l i c   c o m m e n t s  m a y   b e   s u b m i t t e d   b y   e m a i l   t o planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org. 2. Spoken public comments using a computer will be accepted through the teleconference meeting. To address the Commission, 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 Commission, 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 Commission. 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: 916 4155 9499   Phone:1‐669‐900‐6833  Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329‐2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service. PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSIONRegular MeetingWednesday, June 12, 2024Council Chambers & Hybrid6:00 PMPlanning and Transportation Commission meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with theoption to attend by teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safetywhile still maintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose toparticipate from home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe andparticipate in the meeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged ifattending in person. The meeting will be broadcast on Cable TV Channel 26, live onYouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen MediaCenter https://midpenmedia.org. Commissioner names, biographies, and archived agendas andminutes are available at http://bit.ly/PaloAltoPTC. VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/91641559499)Meeting ID: 916 4155 9499    Phone: 1(669)900‐6833PUBLIC COMMENTSPublic comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or anamount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutesafter the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance toPlanning.Commission@CityofPaloAlto.org and will be provided to the Commission and availablefor inspection on the City’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you arereferencing in your subject line.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified aspresent at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson's presentation will be allowed up tofifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking membersagree not to speak individually. The Chair may limit Public Comments to thirty (30) minutes forall combined speakers. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak for Study Sessions andAction Items to two (2) minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers.PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted onlyby email to Planning.Commission@CityofPaloAlto.org at least 24 hours prior to the meeting.Once received, the Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. Touphold strong cybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storagedevices 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 notcreate a facility, fire, or safety hazard; and (3) persons with such items remain seated whendisplaying them and must not raise the items above shoulder level, obstruct the view orpassage of other attendees, or otherwise disturb the business of the meeting.TIME ESTIMATESListed times are estimates only and are subject to change at any time, including while themeeting is in progress. The Commission reserves the right to use more or less time on any item,to change the order of items and/or to continue items to another meeting. Particular items maybe heard before or after the time estimated on the agenda. This may occur in order to bestmanage the time at a meeting or to adapt to the participation of the public.CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALLPUBLIC COMMENT Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker.AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONSThe Chair or Board majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management.CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS1.Director's Report, Meeting Schedule and AssignmentsACTION ITEMSPublic Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Fifteen (15) minutes, plus three (3) minutes rebuttal. All others:Five(5) minutes per speaker.2.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI‐JUDICIAL. 660 University Ave. [21PLN‐00341]: Consideration ofan Environmental Impact Report (EIR), and Recommendation to Adopt a ComprehensivePlan Amendment and a Planned Community/Planned Home Zoning (PC/PHZ) Ordinancefor the Redevelopment of Three Parcels (511 Byron St, 660 University Ave, 680 UniversityAve/500 Middlefield Rd) with a Four Story Mixed‐Use Building with Ground Floor Office(9,115 SF) and 63 Residential Rental Units (48 Studios, 12 1‐Bedroom, 3 2‐Bedroom),Including a Two Level Below‐Grade Parking Garage. The Project Includes a Future ParcelMap Application to Subdivide the Office Component from the Residential Component.Environmental Assessment: Environmental Impact Report Circulated for Public ReviewBeginning on April 2, 2024, and Ending on May 17, 2024. Zoning District: RM‐20 (Multi‐Family Residential). For More Information Contact the Project Planner, Emily Kallas, atEmily.Kallas@CityofPaloAlto.org.6:10 PM – 7:40 PM3.4075 El Camino Way [23PLN‐00202, Palo Alto Commons]: Consideration of a PlannedCommunity (PC) Project Amending an Existing PC (PC‐5116) to Allow Additions to anExisting 121 Unit Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility. The Additions Would Include16 Assisted Living Units. Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: PC‐5116(Planned Community).      7:40 PM – 9:10 PMCOMMISSIONER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS ANDAGENDAS Members of the public may not speak to the item(s). ADJOURNMENT PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email, teleconference, or by phone. 1. W r i t t e n   p u b l i c   c o m m e n t s  m a y   b e   s u b m i t t e d   b y   e m a i l   t o planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org. 2. Spoken public comments using a computer will be accepted through the teleconference meeting. To address the Commission, 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 Commission, 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 Commission. 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: 916 4155 9499   Phone:1‐669‐900‐6833  Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329‐2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service. Item No. 1. Page 1 of 2 Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: June 12, 2024 Report #: 2405-3090 TITLE Director's Report, Meeting Schedule and Assignments RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) review and comment as appropriate. BACKGROUND This document includes the following items:  PTC Meeting Schedule  PTC Representative to City Council (Rotational Assignments)  Upcoming PTC Agenda Items Commissioners are encouraged to contact Veronica Dao (Veronica.Dao@CityofPaloAlto.org) to notify staff of any planned absences one month in advance, if possible, to ensure the availability of a PTC quorum. Commissioners are encouraged to contact Veronica Dao (Veronica.Dao@CityofPaloAlto.org) to notify staff of any planned absences one month in advance, if possible, to ensure the availability of a PTC quorum. PTC Representative to City Council is a rotational assignment where the designated commissioner represents the PTC’s affirmative and dissenting perspectives to Council for quasijudicial and legislative matters. Representatives are encouraged to review the City Council agendas (https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/City-Hall/City-Council/Council-Agendas-Minutes) for the months of their respective assignments to verify if attendance is needed or contact staff. Item 1 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 6     Item No. 1. Page 2 of 2 Prior PTC meetings are available online at https://midpenmedia.org/category/government/city- of-palo-alto/boards-and-commissions/planning-and-transportation-commission. UPCOMING PTC ITEMS June 26, 2024 830 Los Trancos Road Open Space Home Site and Design Review (PDS) Recommendations on changes to Palo Alto Municipal Code Title 18 (Zoning), Chapter 18.52 (Parking Regulations) on the topics - EVSE, parking, handicapped parking and loading zones - that PTC pulled from its recommendations on May 29, 2024 PTC (PDS) July 10, 2024 Municipal Code cleanup Chapter 18.54 (Section 18.54.060) Chapter 2.31 (Section 2.31.040), Chapter 10.04, Chapter 10.32, and Chapter 10.64 updating regulations for pedestrians, bicyclists and bicycle parking facilities to comply with the current practices and California Vehicle Code (OOT) Rental Registry Program checklist session (PDS) August 14, 2024 Housing Incentive Program (HIP) to implement HE program 3.4 (PDS) Dark Skies and Bird Safe Design draft ordinance (PDS) Stream Corridor Ordinance update (PDS) ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: 2024 Meeting Schedule & Assignments AUTHOR/TITLE: Amy French, Chief Planning Official Item 1 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 7     Planning & Transportation Commission 2024 Meeting Schedule & Assignments 2024 Schedule Meeting Dates Time Location Status Planned Absences 1/10/2024 6:00 PM Hybrid Cancelled 1/31/2024 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 2/14/2024 6:00 PM Hybrid Canceled 2/28/2024 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 3/13/2024 5:00 PM Hybrid Special Joint Meeting w/ HRC 3/27/2024 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular Hechtman 4/10/2024 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 4/15/2024 5:30 PM Hybrid Joint Meeting w/ Council 4/24/2024 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 5/8/2024 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular Lu 5/29/2024 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 6/12/2024 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 6/26/2024 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 7/10/2024 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 7/31/2024 6:00 PM Hybrid Canceled 8/14/2024 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular Templeton 8/28/2024 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 9/11/2024 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 9/25/2024 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 10/9/2024 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 10/30/2024 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 11/13/2024 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 11/27/2024 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 12/11/2024 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 12/25/2024 6:00 PM Hybrid Cancelled 2024 Assignments - Council Representation (primary/backup) January February March April May June Cari Templeton Keith Reckdahl Bart Hechtman Doria Summa Bryna Chang George Lu Doria Summa Allen Akin Keith Reckdahl Cari Templeton George Lu Bryna Chang July August September October November December Allen Akin Bart Hechtman Doria Summa George Lu Bart Hechtman Keith Reckdahl Cari Templeton Bryna Chang George Lu Bart Hechtman Doria Summa Cari Templeton Item 1 Attachment A - PTC 2024 Schedule & Assignments     Packet Pg. 8     Item No. 2. Page 1 of 14 Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: June 12, 2024 Report #: 2402-2665 TITLE PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 660 University Ave. [21PLN-00341]: Consideration of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), and Recommendation to Adopt a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and a Planned Community/Planned Home Zoning (PC/PHZ) Ordinance for the Redevelopment of Three Parcels (511 Byron St, 660 University Ave, 680 University Ave/500 Middlefield Rd) with a Four Story Mixed-Use Building with Ground Floor Office (9,115 SF) and 63 Residential Rental Units (48 Studios, 12 1-Bedroom, 3 2-Bedroom), Including a Two Level Below-Grade Parking Garage. The Project Includes a Future Parcel Map Application to Subdivide the Office Component from the Residential Component. Environmental Assessment: Environmental Impact Report Circulated for Public Review Beginning on April 2, 2024, and Ending on May 17, 2024. Zoning District: RM-20 (Multi-Family Residential). For More Information Contact the Project Planner, Emily Kallas, at Emily.Kallas@CityofPaloAlto.org. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) take the following action(s): 1. Consider the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and public comments received prior to the end of the comment period (May 17, 2024) 2. Recommend Council approve the proposed project via adoption of the following: a. Resolution to certify the EIR and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) b.Resolution amending the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element to modify the allowable uses in the Multiple Family Land Use Designation c. PC/PHZ Ordinance describing the development plan and uses, public benefits, and incorporating a Record of Land Use Action with approval findings and conditions of approval EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 9     Item No. 2. Page 2 of 14 The applicant requests approval to redevelop three parcels (511 Byron St, 660 University Ave, and 680 University Ave/500 Middlefield Rd) for a mixed-use project. The project is to deconstruct the existing buildings (9,216 sf of medical office use) and rezone the project site to “Planned Home Zone” (PHZ) in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 18.38 (Planned Community Zoning). The parcels would be merged under a separate subdivision map application, and the resulting parcel would be redeveloped, providing a new four-story mixed-use building with 9,115 sf of ground floor office and 63 multiple-family residential units. The residential component will include 48 studios, 12 1-bedroom units, and three 2-bedroom units. The project requires a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to modify the uses allowed within the Multiple Family Residential land use designation. The applicant anticipates a Parcel Map to create a separate condominium for the office component and a separate condominium for the residential component. Parking spaces would be provided in a two-story below-grade parking garage. Thirteen of the units would be provided as below-market rate units (20%). This is comprised of four Very-Low Income, four Low Income, and five Moderate Income units. The PTC previously reviewed the project on November 16, 2022. The plans were modified substantially based on feedback from the PTC and Architectural Review Board (ARB). The analysis section below builds upon the information contained in the prior reports. The project is presented to the PTC for a formal recommendation to City Council of a draft Planned Community Ordinance and Resolutions for the approval of the requested Comprehensive Plan Amendment, EIR and MMRP. BACKGROUND The applicant is Lund Smith of Smith Development, working with KSH Architects, on behalf of the property owner Shachi Bahl, DMD. Property Information Address:511 Byron St., 660 University and 680 University Ave., 500 Middlefield Rd.; Lots to be combined and use 660 University Av. Neighborhood:Downtown/University South Lot Dimensions & Area:100 ft by 225 ft 2 inches, 22,526 sf Housing Inventory Site:Yes, 65 units Located w/in a Plume:No Protected/Heritage Trees: Protected street trees, Protected Oak tree overhanging from adjacent property. No Heritage trees. Historic Resource(s):No, DPR has been completed Flood Zone: AH46.9 Existing Improvement(s):511 Byron: 5,260 sf, two-story, built 1950 680 Byron: 3,955 sf, two-story, built 1950 Existing Land Use(s):Medical office and associated parking Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 10     Item No. 2. Page 3 of 14 Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North: Office (RM-30) West: Multi-family Senior Housing (Lytton Gardens) (PC) East: Medical Office, Single-Family Residence (RM-20) South: Office/Medical Office (RM-40) Special Setbacks:24 ft along Middlefield Road. Encroachments proposed. Aerial View of Property: Source: Google Satellite Maps Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans/Guidelines Comp. Plan Designation:Multiple Family Residential Zoning Designation:RM-20 (Multiple Family Residential 20 units per acre) Yes Yes Yes Baylands Master Plan/Guidelines (2008/2005) El Camino Real Guidelines (1976) Housing Development Project x Downtown Urban Design Guidelines (1993) x South El Camino Real Guidelines (2002) Utilizes Chapter 18.24 - Objective Standards Individual Review Guidelines (2005) Within 150 feet of Residential Use or District x Context-Based Design Criteria applicable x Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 11     Item No. 2. Page 4 of 14 SOFA Phase 1 (2000)Within Airport Influence Area SOFA Phase 2 (2003) Prior City Reviews & Action City Council held a Prescreening to review a conceptual plan for the proposed project on October 25, 2021. The formal PHZ application was submitted on December 21, 2021. Following staff’s initial review and subsequent resubmittal, the PTC reviewed the project on November 16, 2022, and recommended that the project be forwarded to the ARB for review in accordance with the PC rezoning process. The PTC provided comments on the project, particularly regarding affordability relative to unit size, the reduced setbacks, reduced parking; and expressed mixed opinions regarding the proposed office use, height, and overall size. The ARB reviewed the same plan set on December 1, 2022. In response to PTC and ARB comments, the applicant made significant modifications to the project, including changing the parking garage driveway entry from Middlefield Road to Byron Street, as well as removing residential uses from the ground floor to meet FEMA flood zone requirements and address ARB comments related to privacy for ground floor units. A revised submittal was received on September 1, 2023, ten months after the last public hearing. The plans were further refined over three rounds of staff review to address various staff comments. The most recent plan set is dated May 28, 2024. The ARB reviewed the project on April 18, 2024, and recommended items to be included in the conditions of approval, and reviewed by an Ad Hoc committee, which will be discussed later in this report. Some of these changes have been incorporated into the plan set. Links to the staff reports and minutes for the prior meetings are provided in footnotes. City Council:City Council held a project pre-screening October 25, 20211. PTC:The PTC held an initial hearing on November 16, 20222 to review the initial plans and recommended that the plans be forwarded to the ARB for review in accordance with the PTC process. HRB:None 1 Link to October 25, 2021 Council report: bit.ly/3NTpv3J, Minutes: bit.ly/3WTxbH0 2 Links to 11-16-22 PTC staff report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes- reports/agendas-minutes/planning-and-transportation-commission/2022/ptc-11.16.2022-660-university.pdf and minutes: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas- minutes/planning-and-transportation-commission/2022/ptc-11.16-draft-verbatim-minutes.pdf Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 12     Item No. 2. Page 5 of 14 ARB:The ARB held hearings December 1, 20223 to review the plans and continued the project to a date uncertain and April 18, 20244 to review the development plan. The ARB recommended Council approval of the development plan, and satisfaction of ARB Ad Hoc items via Conditions of Approval. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project includes deconstruction of the existing buildings (9,216 sf of medical office use), and rezoning to “Planned Home Zone” (PHZ) in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 18.38 (Planned Community Zoning). The parcels would be merged under a separate subdivision map application, and the resulting parcel would be redeveloped, providing a new four-story mixed-use building with 9,115 sf of ground floor office and 63 multiple-family residential units. The residential component will include 48 studios, 12 1-bedroom, and three 2- bedroom units. The applicant anticipates a Parcel Map to create a separate condominium for the office component and a separate condominium for the residential component. Parking spaces would be provided in a two-story below-grade parking garage. Thirteen of the units would be provided as below-market rate units (20%). This is comprised of four Very-Low Income, four Low Income, and five Moderate Income units. Requested Entitlements, Findings and Purview: The following discretionary applications are being requested and subject to PTC purview: •Planned Community (PC/PHZ): The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC 18.38. Planned Community is intended to accommodate all types of developments, including combinations of uses appropriately requiring flexibility under controlled conditions not otherwise attainable under other districts. The planned community district is particularly intended for unified, comprehensively planned developments that are of substantial public benefit and which conform with and enhance the policies and programs of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The application requires 3 Links to staff report and minutes: Staff report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas- minutes/architectural-review-board/2022/arb-12.01.2022-660-university.pdf and Minutes: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas- minutes/architectural-review-board/2022/arb-12.01.2022-minutes.pdf 4 Link to staff report of April 18, 2024: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas- minutes/architectural-review-board/2024/arb-4.18-660-university.pdf Minutes are unavailable Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 13     Item No. 2. Page 6 of 14 initial review by the Planning and Transportation Commission, followed by review by the Architectural Review Board (ARB). Upon recommendation from the ARB, the draft ordinance for the project is presented along with the development plan to the Planning and Transportation Commission for recommendation to the City Council for final action. •Comprehensive Plan Amendment: The steps for processing a request for a Comprehensive Plan amendment are set forth in PAMC 19.04. The PTC considers the amendment and forwards its recommendation to the City Council for final action. This is done in parallel with the PC application. As part of the Planned Community development application, the development plan requires Architectural Review. ANALYSIS Neighborhood Setting and Character The proposed project site is located at the northern end of Downtown, on the east side of University Avenue, and on the block frontage between Byron Street and Middlefield Road. The site faces Lytton Gardens senior apartments across University Avenue (on the west side) and is in a neighborhood with a mix of one- and two-story office buildings, single-family houses (some of which have been converted to office use), as well as The Hamilton senior condominiums, and the First United Methodist Church (on Hamilton Ave). Residents colloquially refer to the area as “Senior Corner” due to the two large senior residences. The two large senior apartment complexes are zoned PC and have residential densities of 104.3 and 30.5 du/ac, respectively. The other surrounding offices and houses are located on parcels zoned RM-20, -30, or -40. The office uses in the RM zones are considered “grandfathered” under PAMC 18.13.070 and are out of compliance with the Multiple Family Residential Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans and Guidelines5 The Comprehensive Plan includes Goals, Policies, and Programs that guide the physical form of the City. The Comprehensive Plan provides the basis for the City’s development regulations and is used by City staff to regulate building and development and make recommendations on projects. The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the project site is Multiple-Family Residential, which prescribes a density range of eight to 40 dwelling units per acre, with higher densities 5 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online: bit.ly/PACompPlan2030 Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 14     Item No. 2. Page 7 of 14 allowed where measurable community benefits will be derived, and services and facilities are available. The project has a density of 123.5 dwelling units per acre, and the Downtown location is sufficient to support this density. Further analysis is provided in the Findings (Attachment B). This project is within the boundaries of the Downtown Urban Design Guidelines, as a part of the “Residential Edge” and the Middlefield Road entrance to Downtown. The Guidelines for this area focus on sidewalk and landscaping design. The project includes retention, or replacement where needed, of existing street trees and includes landscape planters along the building within the street side setback. The Guidelines set forth a preference for a double row of street trees in this location. However, the landscape planters will be elevated compared to groundcover landscaping and would not provide sufficient room for tree plantings. The project’s sidewalk paving will be consistent with the Guidelines. The project site is designated Multi-family Residential. The Multi- family Residential land use designation states: “The permitted number of housing units will vary by area, depending on existing land use, proximity to major streets and public transit, distance to shopping and environmental problems. Net densities will range from 8 to 40 units and 8 to 90 persons per acre. Density should be on the lower end of the scale next to single-family residential areas. Densities higher than what is permitted may be allowed where measurable community benefits will be derived, services and facilities are available, and the net effect will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Population densities will range up to 2.25 persons per unit by 2030.” The applicant is requesting a Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment to modify the allowable uses in the Multiple Family Land Use Designation. The applicant proposes the flexibility to use the ground floor for commercial office or medical land uses; medical exists on the site today. Staff requests the PTC’s guidance on whether to limit the PC/PHZ ordinance to medical office – as it is currently drafted – or allow for the option to use this space for commercial office. Zoning Compliance6 As a PHZ project, the project deviates from the RM-20 Zoning Development Standards and Parking Standards in the following ways: •Proposed land use (allowing non-conforming medical office to remain) •Encroachment into the setbacks, including a Special Setback along Middlefield Rd •Height – 62’8” where 30 feet is allowed •Lot Coverage and Floor Area •Reduced Useable Open Space •No off-street residential loading space 6 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: bit.ly/PAZoningCode Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 15     Item No. 2. Page 8 of 14 •Daylight plane encroachment adjacent to the 517 Byron dental office In the RM-20 zoning district, medical office and professional office are grandfathered uses, which would not normally be allowed to be retained for a redevelopment that changes the building footprint. As a part of the rezoning process, the applicant requests a text amendment allowing for office to be a permitted use within the land use designation. It is staff’s recommendation that an additional sentence be added to the verbiage for this designation allowing for housing development projects to include retention of existing commercial uses in connection with a PC zone, while also limiting office uses to medical office use. Height A majority of the building would have a height of 50’5”, with rooftop elevators extending the height to 62’8”, where the typical maximum building height is 30 ft. This property is in a flood zone, with the base flood elevation 1’6” above existing grade. The proposed height accommodates a commercial plate height of 13’6”, and residential plate heights varying from 9’9” to 11’3”. Above, rooftop deck amenities extend 10 ft above the majority of the roof, making the total maximum height of the building 57’ plus elevator overrun/rooftop equipment to a height of height to 62’8”. While this is significantly taller than what is allowed in the RM-20 zone, it is more comparable within the surrounding context of PC properties. Lytton Gardens is four stories, with a maximum height of 40 ft, plus rooftop equipment. The Hamilton is four stories, with a maximum height of 44 ft, plus rooftop equipment. The project meets the daylight plane requirements for the interior lot line where it abuts a single-family house. However, the RM-20 zoning code requires the daylight plane be applied to the entirety of that property line. The project exceeds the allowable lot coverage and floor area. The applicant asserts these increases are necessary to facilitate the high-density housing project. In the prior ARB and PTC meetings, the project generally received positive feedback for its overall size from appointed officials. Open Space Overall, the project includes a nearly the required amount of usable open space, but it is not allocated equitably for all units. The RM-20 zone requires 150 sf of open space per unit. This includes a minimum of 75 sf of common open space and 50 sf of private open space. The common rooftop garden proposes 4,642 sf, or 73.7 sf per unit. For private open space, most units have balconies, which meet the minimum size requirement of 50 ft or greater, however 3 of the studio units do not have balconies. The applicant has currently identified these three units as BMR units, but the City’s BMR guidelines require that BMR units be evenly distributed through the project and be similar in size and amenities to market rate units. The City is working with the applicant to refine the selection of units or to otherwise address this in the Conditions of Approval. Additionally, the ARB recommended removal of the balconies (9) proposed within the canopy of Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 16     Item No. 2. Page 9 of 14 the protected Oak tree. This would reduce useable open space and make the project non- complying for private open space. The applicant does not support this modification as discussed below. Special Setbacks At the prior PTC meeting, the Commission expressed concern over the encroachment into the Special Setback along Middlefield Road. The RM-20 setbacks would typically be a 24 ft special setback along Middlefield Road, 16 ft along the other two street frontages, and 10 ft along the interior property line. This applicant proposes setbacks of 10 ft along Byron St. and Middlefield Rd. and 6 ft along University Ave. While these setbacks are less than standard, the urban Downtown neighborhood and ground floor office use provide some context. The applicant has prepared an analysis of setbacks on Middlefield Rd. and University Ave (plan pages A1.1B and A1.1C). Although the Special Setback along Middlefield Rd. is 24 ft, most buildings are setback 15-22 ft, and some have a setback of as little as 7-12 ft. The proposed 10 ft setback is the same as the existing building at the corner, though it is on the low side of the surrounding context. On University Avenue, the proposed setback of 6 ft is less than the existing 12 ft setback. However, one block away beginning at Webster Street and heading southwest, the Downtown properties do not require any front setback. Additionally, the stair access to the garage, raised planters, as well as portions of the underground garage are within the setback area. This is typically not allowed by the RM-20 zoning. Along the interior property line, the minimum setback is 19’6” and it is larger closer to the Oak tree. The increased interior setback is beneficial to protect the neighboring Oak tree, and to provide privacy separation to the adjacent single-family home. The ARB accepted the 10 ft setback for the building. It is equivalent to the setback of the existing building. However, the ARB did not unanimously support the below grade encroachment. There are also raised planters and stair access to the below grade parking garage placed in the special setback as well. The ARB recommended an Ad Hoc condition of approval to “revise the foundation design to maintain a 10 ft setback along Middlefield Road except that the stairs may encroach to the minimum degree necessary for access.” The applicant does not consider this request feasible. The context of the Special Setback along Middlefield Road is arguably different than other locations. For the recently approved 800 San Antonio project, there was support from Staff, ARB, PTC, Council, and the community to maintain the special setback in preparation for a future San Antonio Road plan that could result in future multi-modal improvements along the corridor. The San Antonio Special Setback is also currently met by most existing properties. In contrast, there are many existing buildings encroaching into the Middlefield Road Special Setback, and there are no Council or PTC goals or priorities that make utilization of the special setback likely. Notwithstanding this perspective, some commissioners have expressed concern about this encroachment along Middlefield Road when the project was first presented to the PTC and in this regard, the applicant has made no revisions and maintains the request for a ten foot setback. Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 17     Item No. 2. Page 10 of 14 Affordability The applicant proposes to provide four Very-Low Income, four Low Income, and five Moderate Income units; 20.6% of the total 63 units. The PHZ process offers developers the option to provide affordable units as the “public benefit” of a PC project, as described in the September 21, 2020 Council staff report (Item 9 of Council agenda7). In this report, Option #2 is a weighted calculation to incentivize developers to provide deeper affordability. Table 1 below calculates weighted values for the BMR units provided equivalent to 24.4%. This is in excess of the minimum 20% required for a PHZ project. 660 University Below Market Rate Unit Calculation Income Level Area Median Income Weighted Value Number of Units % of Actual Units Weighted % Very-low Income 31-50%1.9 4 6.3%12% Low Income 51-80%1.2 4 6.3%8% Below Market Rate Units Moderate Income 81-120%0.6 5 7.9%5% Typical Units Above Moderate & Market Rate 121% +0 50 Total 63 20.6%24.4% However, the unit allocation is not ideal with 12 of the 13 BMR units being studio units. A more evenly distributed mix would include 10 studio units, 2 1-bedroom units, and 1 2-bedroom unit. Provided Below Market Rate Unit vs 20% Allocation Total Units BMR Units Provided %20% BMR Studio 48 12 25%9.6 1-bed 12 1 8%2.4 2-bed 3 0 0%0.6 Total 63 13 21%15 7 Link to September 21, 2020 Council meeting agenda item 9, report and minutes: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/City-Hall/City-Council/Council-Agendas-Minutes Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 18     Item No. 2. Page 11 of 14 Overall, this project will provide necessary rental housing units, at the prior PTC hearing it was noted that 63 units is approximately 1% of Palo Alto’s RHNA allocation. It will help the City work towards the stated housing goals and contribute as a gateway to the Downtown area. Multi-Modal Access & Parking The applicant requests a 20% parking reduction, providing 82 spaces when 103 is required. A transportation demand management (TDM) plan has been prepared (Attachment E). Some of the TDM policies include: •Transit subsidies are made available to all employees •Carpool/vanpool spaces for the office use •An information kiosk and webpages for multi-modal transportation options including clipper card discounts for low-income residents •On site bike repair tools for residents The TDM plan requires coordinators for both the office and residential components of the building, as well as annual user surveys, and annual monitoring reports submitted to the Office of Transportation. The project is located within walking distance of Downtown businesses. The site is 0.6 miles from the Caltrain station. There is a SamTrans bus stop at University Avenue and Middlefield Road and a VTA bus stop at Channing Avenue and Middlefield Road. This project is not located along a Safe Route to School, but future residents could easily access Webster Street, which is a Safe Route to School for Addison Elementary School and Greene Middle School. The ARB recommended that 25% of the bike parking spaces be moved to the ground level, so that some bike parking spaces were at ground level and some spaces were in the below grade garage. The applicants do not want to lose lobby space or leasable space to this purpose, and it is not required by the Zoning Code. Tree Protection Both the City and the applicant consider protecting the existing 50-inch Coast Live Oak tree a key part of this project. Three arborist reports have been prepared for this project, including a Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) root scan to “see” where the tree roots are located. The scan gives the location (including the depth) and the size of the roots. The plans maintain a minimum distance of 30 ft from the tree, though the tree protection zone (TPZ) for this tree is 41 ft. Per Urban Forestry staff review, the expected impacts of the proposed work are within acceptable parameters of industry standards, provided that all mitigation measures in the EIR’s Arborist Report are followed. Additionally, Urban Forestry staff included a Condition of Approval requiring a security bond for the tree, to further hold the applicant accountable for protecting the tree. This security bond, Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 19     Item No. 2. Page 12 of 14 put in place at the time of building permits, will be placed on the tree for 200% of the appraised replacement value of the tree as specified in the Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual. This is also subject to a three-year monitoring period after construction is completed. See the Draft RLUA Conditions #37-38 for full text of these conditions. The ARB recommended that the building be changed such that it is at least 33 ft away from the trunk of the tree below grade, and 30 ft above grade, including removing the balconies that encroach into the 30 ft. The applicant has attempted to meet this recommendation. Below grade, the building is at least 33 ft away where possible; however, it is not possible to rearrange the ramp to meet this and it is proposed to remain approximately 30 ft away. It is not clear that there would be a significant benefit to the protection of the tree to be slightly further away. The applicant team arborist has prepared a memo stating that the balconies encroaching into the 30 ft airspace will not impact the tree. It includes recommendations for tree maintenance and trimming and these recommendations are incorporated into the Condition of Approval 35-39. Other ARB Recommendations The ARB recommendations have been distributed throughout the report. The applicant has agreed to three additional recommendations and these items are incorporated into the plan set: •Review the window design on the Byron street elevation for units E2 to provide more transparency •Provide roof deck screening of a minimum of 6 feet high for the roof deck facing south. The applicant has proposed a 10 ft screen wall. •Include greater specification of all materials; include complete material specifications and samples, the corner details, reduce the LRV level of the white paint finish to 83 or less The third item is incorporated into the RLUA as Condition of Approval 3a, as the Ad Hoc will need to review the material specifications. FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT This action has no fiscal impact as applicants are responsible for staff and consultant costs through applicable fees through the deposit-based cost recovery program. 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 31, 2024, which is 12 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on May 29, 2024 which is 14 days in advance of the meeting. Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 20     Item No. 2. Page 13 of 14 Public Comments Neighbors at The Hamilton have been involved in this process, primarily through emails from attorneys Leigh Prince and Christopher Ream. Concerns are primarily regarding noise, traffic, disruption to existing neighbors, and protection of the neighboring Oak tree. Attachment E contains only project-relevant comment emails received since the previous ARB hearing and comments on the Draft EIR. The public comments8 received prior to and for the ARB hearing are viewable on the webpage. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. Specifically, the Draft Environmental Impact Report was circulated for a 45-day review period beginning on April 2, 2024, and ending on May 17, 2024. The EIR found there are no significant and unavoidable environmental impacts. An alternative to the proposed project was determined to be the environmentally superior alternative. However, this alternative does not substantially lessen or avoid significant environmental impacts compared to the proposed project. In addition, it is less desirable than the proposed project because it would require an additional story of height and return the circulation back to Middlefield Road. Accordingly, staff does not recommend proceeding with the environmentally superior alternative. It is not necessary under CEQA to choose the environmentally superior alternative when doing so would not substantially lessen or avoid significant environmental impacts. Any potentially significant impacts associated with the proposed project can be mitigated as further discussed in the document, viewable via Attachment H. Several public comments were received during the circulation period (Attachment E). A response to comments and Final EIR is being prepared and will be ready prior to the City Council hearing. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS In addition to the recommended action, the Planning and Transportation Commission may: 1. Continue the project to a date (un)certain; or 2. Recommend project denial based on revised findings. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Draft PC Ordinance Attachment B: Resolution for Comprehensive Plan Amendment and CEQA Documents 8 Link to public comments received for April 18 ARB hearing: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/2/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/architectural- review-board/2024/arb-4.18-public-comments-2.pdf Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 21     Item No. 2. Page 14 of 14 Attachment C: Zoning Comparison Table Attachment D: Applicant’s Letter on the Special Setback Attachment E: Public Comments on Draft EIR and Project Post-ARB Attachment F: Project Description Letter and Responses to ARB Comments Attachment G: Project Plans and Environmental Review Attachment H: Page with Links to Draft EIR and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Attachment I: Zoning Map of Vicinity AUTHOR/TITLE: Emily Kallas, Planner Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 22     1 4 6 1 7 Ordinance No. ____ Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (The Zoning Map) to Change the Classification of Property Located at 511 Byron Street – 680 University Avenue, from Low Density Multiple Family Residential (RM-20) to PC Planned Community Zone (PC-______) for the Construction of a Mixed-Use Structure with 62 Multifamily Residential Units. The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. Findings and Declarations. (a)On December 21, 2021, Architect Amanda Borden, on behalf of Smith Properties and Palo Alto Dental Research A Corp (“Applicant”) submitted an application for Rezoning to Planned Community/Planned Home Zoning (PHZ) and Major Architectural Review to redevelop the 511 Byron Street – 680 University Avenue project site with 63 rental residential units and 9,115 sf of office space (the “660 University Project”). (b)At the conclusion of a City Council pre-screening in October, 2021, the Applicant applied in December, 2021 to the City for approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, and a Planned Community Rezoning (The “Project”) for the .51 acre property at 511 Byron Street and 680 University Avenue (the “Project Site”). (c)Approval of the Planned Community Project would constitute a project under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, together with related state and local implementation guidelines promulgated thereunder (“CEQA”). (d)The City is the Lead Agency pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21067 as it has the principal responsibility to approve and regulate the Planned Community Project. (e)The City, in compliance with CEQA, prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Addendum to provide an assessment of the potential environmental consequences of approving and constructing the 660 University Project. (f)The Council is the decision-making body for approval of the Planned Community Project. SECTION 2. Amendment of Zoning Map. Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the “Zoning Map,” is hereby amended by changing the zoning of Subject Property from Service Commercial (CS) to “PC Planned Community Zone _____”. Item 2 Attachment A 660 University Draft PC Ordinance     Packet Pg. 23     2 4 6 1 7 SECTION 3. Project Description. The Project as a whole is described in the Project Plans. With respect to the Subject Property, the project comprises the uses included in this Ordinance, depicted on the Project Plans, incorporated by reference, including the following components: (a) Demolition of two existing medical office buildings, to facilitate the construction of 63 residential rental units. 13 of these units shall be provided at below market rates (BMR) in accordance with the City’s BMR guidelines (4 units affordable to Very-Low Income households (4 studio units), 4 units affordable to Low Income households (4 studio units), and 5 units affordable to Moderate Income households (3 studio units, 1 one-bedroom)). SECTION 4. Land Uses (a) The following land uses shall be permitted: (1)Multiple family residential, subject to BMR requirements stated in the Project Description. (2)Accessory Facilities and uses customarily incidental to permitted uses (3)Home Occupations, when accessory to permitted residential uses. (4)Medical Office, not to exceed 9,115 square feet, as depicted in the Project Plans. SECTION 5.Site Development Regulations and Development Schedule (a)Development Standards: Development standards for the Subject Property shall be those conforming to the Project Plans. (b) Parking and Loading Requirements: The Owner shall provide parking and loading as set forth in the Project Plans. (c) Modifications to the Development Plan, Land Uses and Site Development Regulations: Once the project has been constructed consistent with the approved Development Plan, any modifications to the exterior design of the Development Plan or any new construction not specifically permitted by the Development Plan or the site development regulations contained in Section 6 (a) – (b) above shall require an amendment to this Planned Community zone. Any use not specifically permitted by this ordinance shall require an amendment to the PC ordinance. Item 2 Attachment A 660 University Draft PC Ordinance     Packet Pg. 24     3 4 6 1 7 (g) Development Schedule: Construction of the project shall commence within two years of the effective date of this ordinance. Prior to expiration of this timeline, the Owner may seek a one year extension from the Director of Planning and Development Services. All construction and development of the project shall be complete within 3 years of the start of construction. (a) Public Benefits Development of the Project Site under the provisions of the PC Planned Community District will result in public benefits not otherwise attainable by application of the regulations of general districts or combining districts. The public benefits are provided by the Project include deed-restricted BMR units in excess of the minimum otherwise required, as stated in the project description. (b) Monitoring of Conditions and Public Benefits: Not later than three (3) years following issuance of a certificate of occupancy and at least every three (3) years thereafter, the Owner shall request that the City review the for compliance with the PC district regulations and the conditions of the ordinance under which the district was created, as applicable only to the Subject Property. The applicant shall provide adequate funding to reimburse the City for these costs. If conditions or benefits are found deficient by staff, the applicant shall correct such conditions in not more than 90 days from notice by the City. If correction is not made within the prescribed timeframe, the Director of Planning and Development Services will schedule review of the project before the Planning and Transportation Commission and Council to determine appropriate remedies, fines or other actions. SECTION 6. Additional Conditions and Findings for Project Approval The Record of Land Use Action attached hereto as Exhibit B is incorporated as if set forth fully herein. SECTION 7. Environmental Review An EIR for the Project was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. The City Council adopted Resolution No. ____ certifying the adequacy of the EIR. SECTION 8. Effective Date This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day after the date of its adoption (second reading). INTRODUCED: PASSED: Item 2 Attachment A 660 University Draft PC Ordinance     Packet Pg. 25     4 4 6 1 7 AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: ATTEST:APPROVED: __________________________ City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: __________________________ Assistant City Attorney _________________________ Mayor _________________________ City Manager __________________________ Director of Planning and Development Services Exhibit A: Subject Property Plat and Legal Description Exhibit B: Record of Land Use Action Item 2 Attachment A 660 University Draft PC Ordinance     Packet Pg. 26     Page 1 of 17 4 6 1 6 APPROVAL NO. 2024-____ RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE ACTION FOR 511 BYRON STREET, 660 UNIVERSITY AVENUE, 680 UNIVERSITY AVENUE/500 MIDDLEFIELD ROAD: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND PLANNED COMMUNITY REZONING [FILE NO 21PLN-00341] On DATE, the City Council of the City of Palo Alto (“City Council”) approved a Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment and Planned Community Rezoning, making the following findings, determinations, and declarations: SECTION 1. Background. A. On December 21, 2021 Architect Amanda Borden, on behalf of Smith Properties and Palo Alto Dental Research A Corp (“Applicant”) applied for a Planned Community Rezoning and Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment to construct a four Story Mixed-Use building with Ground Floor Office (9,115 SF) and 63 multi- family residential rental units with 48 studios, 12 1-bedroom units and 3 two-bedroom units (42,189 sf) and a two level below-grade parking garage. This project also includes a Request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to allow Medical Office in to replace existing Medical Office abutting Middlefield Road in the Multiple Family Residential Land Use Designation. B. The project site consist of three existing parcels located at 511 Byron Street, 660 University Avenue, and 680 University-500 Middlefield (APNs 120-03-042, 120-03-043, 120-03-044) totaling 0.52 acres. Existing improvements include two existing medical office buildings totaling 9,216 sf, and associated parking. C. On October 25, 2021 Council conducted a prescreening review of the proposed legislative actions in accordance with PAMC 18.79 D. On November 16, 2022 the Planning and Transportation Commission held a duly noticed public hearing and recommended that the applicant submit the proposed plans to the Architectural Review Board based on the conceptual design and proposed project in accordance with the Planned Community Rezoning process. After responding the ARB and PTC comments, the plans were resubmitted in October and December 2023, and February and May 2024. E. Following the Planning and Transportation Commission’s initial review, the Architectural Review Board held a duly noticed public hearing on December 1, 2022 to provide feedback and allow for public comment on the proposed project. On April 18, 2024 the ARB held a duly noticed public hearing and recommended approval of the proposed project. F. On June 12, 2042 the PTC reviewed the project design and the EIR, and recommended approval. G. On _________, the City Council reviewed the request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Planned Community rezoning. After hearing public testimony, the Council voted to approve/adopt: •Resolution _______adopting the EIR and making findings of overriding consideration; •Resolution _______amending the Comprehensive Plan Text; and •Ordinance________ amending the zoning of the proposed resulting parcel to Planned Community Item 2 Attachment A-1 Record of Land Use Action (Combine with Attachment A)     Packet Pg. 27     Page 2 of 17 4 6 1 6 •This Record of Land Use Action H. This application is subject to the conditions set forth in Section 6 of this Record of Land Use Action. SECTION 2. Environmental Review. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) the City prepared an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) for the 660 University Avenue Mixed-Use Project to provide an assessment of the potential environmental consequences of approving and constructing the Project. A Draft EIR was circulated for public review for a 45-day period from April 2, 2024, through May 17, 2024. A Final EIR was prepared to respond to comments and published on _______. The City Council certified and made related findings by Resolution No ________on ________, prior to approval of the decision that is the subject of this RLUA. All mitigation measures as stated in the approved Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) have been incorporated into the conditions of approval. The MMRP is included in Exhibit A of this Record of Land Use Action. SECTION 3. PLANNED COMMUNITY FINDINGS Finding #1: The site is so situated, and the use or uses proposed for the site are of such characteristics that the application of general districts or combining districts will not provide sufficient flexibility to allow the proposed development. The project is consistent with Finding #1 because: The proposed project includes a density of units for the site that exceed what is allowed by the RM-20 zoning. It has street frontage on three sides, and a protected Oak tree overhanging the fourth side, which results in larger setbacks and a smaller buildable area than other lots of a similar size. Finding #2: Development of the site under the provisions of the PC planned community district will result in public benefits not otherwise attainable by application of the regulations of general districts or combining districts. In making the findings required by this section, the planning commission and city council, as appropriate, shall specifically cite the public benefits expected to result from use of the planned community district. The project is consistent with Finding #2 because: The primary public benefit for this project is additional housing units to assist the City in reaching their Regional Housing Needs Assessment goals. Under the RM-20 zoning, the maximum development potential of this property would be 10 units, but through this PC application, the project proposes 63 units. The project proposes 20% of the units to be designated Below Market Rate, about half of which are allocated to Low Income and Very Low Income households. A secondary public benefit is maintaining the existing medical office, to provide services to the adjacent neighborhood. Finding #3: The use or uses permitted, and the site development regulations applicable within the district shall be consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, and shall be compatible with existing and potential uses on adjoining sites or within the general vicinity. The project is consistent with Finding #3 because: Item 2 Attachment A-1 Record of Land Use Action (Combine with Attachment A)     Packet Pg. 28     Page 3 of 17 4 6 1 6 This project requires approval of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment to maintain the proposed to remain medical office use. The project is otherwise compatible with the Comprehensive Plan as detailed further in Section 4 Finding #1 below. The proposed uses are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, as it is primarily multiple-family housing and small offices. Additional care has been taken to ensure viability of the neighboring Oak tree. SECTION 4. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW FINDINGS The design and architecture of the proposed improvements, as conditioned, complies with the Findings for Architectural Review as required in Chapter 18.76 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. The project is consistent with Finding #1 because: With approval of the requested Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Planned Community Rezoning in accordance with Ordinance _______ and Resolution _______, the proposed project complies with the zoning code and Comprehensive Plan. The project is not located within a coordinated area plan area. The proposed project is consistent with relevant goals and policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. Below is an analysis of the applicable goals and policies: Comp Plan Goals and Policies How project adheres or does not adhere to Comp Plan The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the site is Multiple Family Residential. The project proposes high-density housing in an area designated for high-density housing. The project includes a Comprehensive Plan text amendment to allow for existing non- conforming office uses to be redeveloped when part of a new mixed-use development. This would align the proposed project with the underlying comprehensive plan land use designation. Land Use Element Policy L-1.3 Infill development in the urban service area should be compatible with its surroundings and the overall scale and character of the city to ensure a compact, efficient development pattern. This project proposes to redevelop two existing medical office buildings into a mixed-use, office and multiple-family residential rental building within the Downtown neighborhood. Policy L-2.5 Support the creation of affordable housing units for middle to lower income level earners, such as City and school district employees, as feasible. This project includes 13 BMR units, which is 20% of the 63 provided housing units. Policy L-2.11 Encourage new development and redevelopment to incorporate greenery and The proposed building includes a deck area for the office and rooftop garden for the residents, in keeping with the urban character of the project Item 2 Attachment A-1 Record of Land Use Action (Combine with Attachment A)     Packet Pg. 29     Page 4 of 17 4 6 1 6 natural features such as green rooftops, pocket parks, plazas and rain gardens. and neighborhood. Policy L-6.1 Promote high-quality design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces. The proposed residential building will act as a gateway to the Downtown area and meets the Architectural Review Board findings for approval. Policy L-6.7 Where possible, avoid abrupt changes in scale and density between residential and non-residential areas and between residential areas of different densities. To promote compatibility and gradual transitions between land uses, place zoning district boundaries at mid-block locations rather than along streets wherever possible. The proposed project is four stories, same as the nearby Lytton Gardens and The Hamilton residences. While it will be the tallest building in the immediate area, overall it is compatible with the Downtown neighborhood. Policy T-1.19 Provide facilities that encourage and support bicycling and walking. The project includes sufficient short and long term bicycle parking in compliance with the code requirements. 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: There is internal order between the ground floor offices and upper floor residences. There are separate, defined entrances for the residents and office tenant. There are no historic resources on this property. The context-based design criteria do not apply. However, the project incorporates many of the design intents and is consistent with the Architectural Review findings for approval. The four-story building is taller than nearby four-story buildings. However, this is to accommodate the mixed use ground floor, flood zone, and rooftop amenity space. It will enhance the residential options Downtown by providing additional units at various sizes. 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 a variety of materials, including gray cast concrete, wood tone panels, painted siding, glass, and landscape elements that are of high quality and that integrate well to create a cohesive design. The project proposes on site Public Art, which will also enhance the design. The project will stand out from other Item 2 Attachment A-1 Record of Land Use Action (Combine with Attachment A)     Packet Pg. 30     Page 5 of 17 4 6 1 6 nearby buildings, because it uses a variety of materials to break up the massing and add visual interest. Most other buildings in the area use a more limited palette. 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 driveway to the below grade garage is located on Byron St. due to traffic limitations on University Avenue and Middlefield Road. The bike rooms are located below grade and are accessible by stair or by elevator. Building operations such as refuse collection and utilities have been designed to be oriented towards the side streets to create a cohesive façade along University Ave. Pedestrian access is clear and a separate entrance is provided for the residents and office users. Finding #5: The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is appropriate to the site’s functions, and utilizes to the extent practical, regional indigenous drought resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat that can be appropriately maintained. The project is consistent with Finding #5 because: The project is consistent with the finding in that the project provides landscaped area around the perimeter wherever possible, including 9 new trees, and 4 new street trees (13 trees total), as well as in planter boxes on the rooftop garden. The project will protect the Coast Live Oak and provides measures to ensure the tree’s protection through construction. All plants proposed are very low to moderate water use, as well as native or regionally adapted. Many are also edible for small animals, birds, butterflies or insects. Finding #6: The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning. The project is consistent with Finding #6 because: In accordance with the City’s Green Building Regulations, the building will satisfy the requirements for CALGreen Mandatory + Tier 2. The project proposed an all electric design and will be consistent with Model Water Efficiency Landscape Ordinance (MWELO) requirements. SECTION 5. Conditions of Approval. PLANNING DIVISION 1.CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS: Construction and development shall conform to the approved plans entitled, "660 University Ave., Palo Alto, CA,” uploaded to the Palo Alto Online Permitting Services Citizen Portal on May 28-29, 2024, as modified by these conditions of approval. 2.BUILDING PERMIT: Apply for a building permit and meet any and all conditions as contained in this document. Item 2 Attachment A-1 Record of Land Use Action (Combine with Attachment A)     Packet Pg. 31     Page 6 of 17 4 6 1 6 3.BUILDING PERMIT PLAN SET: A copy of this cover letter and conditions of approval shall be printed on the second page of the plans submitted for building permit. 4.PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: All modifications to the approved project shall be submitted for review and approval prior to construction. If during the Building Permit review and construction phase, the project is modified by the applicant, it is the responsibility of the applicant to contact the Planning Division/project planner directly to obtain approval of the project modification. It is the applicant’s responsibility to highlight any proposed changes to the project and to bring it to the project planner’s attention. 5.ARB SUBCOMMITTEE: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall return to the ARB subcommittee for approval of the following items, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Community Environment: a. Provide greater specification of all materials include complete material specifications and samples, the corner details, reduce the LRV level of the white paint finish to 83 or less 6.ENTITLEMENT EXPIRATION. The project approval shall be valid for a period of two years from the date of issuance of the entitlement. If within such one/two years period, the proposed use of the site or the construction of buildings has not commenced, the Planning entitlement shall expire. Application for a one year extension of this entitlement may be made prior to expiration. 7.MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) associated with the project and attached here as Exhibit A is incorporated by reference and all mitigation measures shall be implemented as described in said document. Prior to requesting issuance of any related demolition and/or construction permits, the applicant shall meet with the Project Planner to review and ensure compliance with the MMRP, subject to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning of Planning and Development Services. 8.LANDSCAPE PLAN. Plantings shall be installed in accordance with the approved plan set and shall be permanently maintained and replaced as necessary. 9.BASEMENT EXCAVATION: Any retaining wall required for basement excavation shall not prevent the planting and future growth of required landscaping. This shall be review by the Project Planner prior to issuance of a Building permit. 10.NOISE THRESHOLDS ON RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. In accordance with PAMC Section 9.10.030, No person shall produce, suffer or allow to be produced by any machine, animal or device, or any combination of same, on residential property, a noise level more than six dB above the local ambient at any point outside of the property plane. All noise producing equipment shall be located outside of required setbacks. 11.OPEN AIR LOUDSPEAKERS (AMPLIFIED MUSIC). In accordance with PAMC Section 9.12, no amplified music shall be used for producing sound in or upon any open area, to which the public has access, between the hours of 11:00pm and one hour after sunrise. Item 2 Attachment A-1 Record of Land Use Action (Combine with Attachment A)     Packet Pg. 32     Page 7 of 17 4 6 1 6 12.NOISE REPORT AT BUILDING STAGE. An analysis of the proposed project’s compliance with the City’s noise requirements for the proposed HVAC was prepared as part of the documentation to support a Class 32 categorical exemption. At the time of building permit issuance for new construction or for installation of any such mechanical equipment, if the proposed equipment exceeds the anticipated noise level that was analyzed or is proposed in a location that is closer to the property line, the applicant shall submit an acoustical analysis by an acoustical engineer demonstrating projected compliance with the Noise Ordinance. The analysis shall be based on acoustical readings, equipment specifications and any proposed sound reduction measures, such as equipment enclosures or insulation, which demonstrate a sufficient degree of sound attenuation to assure that the prescribed noise levels will not be exceeded. 13.SIGN APPROVAL NEEDED. No signs are approved at this time. All signs shall conform to the requirements of Title 16.20 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (Sign Code) and shall be subject to approval by the Director of Planning. 14. AFFORDABLE HOUSING REQUIREMENT (RENTAL PROJECT). This project is subject to the affordable housing requirements set forth in Section 16.65.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. As such, unless the mixed use, nonresidential or residential rental project is exempt under Section 16.65.025 or an alternative is approved as described in Section 16.65.080, all mixed use, nonresidential and residential rental projects shall pay housing impact fees as specified in Section 16.65.060 to mitigate the projects' impacts on the need for affordable housing. This fee will be collected along with other required development impacts fees. 15.AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLAN AND AGREEMENT. The applicant shall prepare an affordable housing plan. An affordable housing agreement, reviewed and approved by the City of Palo Alto, shall be recorded prior to the approval of any final or parcel map or building permit for the development project (PAMC 16.65.090). 16.BELOW MARKET RATE (BMR) HOUSING. A Regulatory Agreement in a form acceptable to the City Attorney for the thirteen (13) BMR units shall be executed and recorded prior to final map approval or building permit issuance, whichever occurs first. All BMR units constructed under this condition shall be in conformance with the City’s BMR Program rules and regulations. Failure to comply with the timing of this condition and any adopted BMR Program rules and regulations shall not waive its later enforcement. Failure to comply with the timing of this condition and any adopted BMR Program rules and regulations shall not waive its later enforcement. 17.TRASH ROOM. The trash room shall be used solely for the temporary storage of refuse and recycling that is disposed on a regular basis and shall be closed and locked during non-business hours. 18.REFUSE. All trash areas shall be effectively screened from view and covered and maintained in an orderly state to prevent water from entering into the garbage container. No outdoor storage is allowed/permitted Item 2 Attachment A-1 Record of Land Use Action (Combine with Attachment A)     Packet Pg. 33     Page 8 of 17 4 6 1 6 unless designated on the approved plan set. Trash areas shall be maintained in a manner to discourage illegal dumping. 19.TDM PROGRAM AND ANNUAL REPORTING REQUIREMENT. The applicant shall abide by the Final Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan, entitled “660 University Avenue, Transportation Demand Management Prepared for Smith Development”, dated December 20, 2023 to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Development Services. The TDM plan includes measures and programs to achieve a reduction in single-occupancy vehicle trips to the site by a minimum of 45%, in conformance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The TDM plan includes an annual monitoring plan to document mode split and trips to the project site. The TDM annual report shall be submitted to the Chief Transportation Official. Monitoring and reporting requirements may be revised in the future if the minimum reduction is not achieved through the measures and programs initially implemented. Projects that do not achieve the required reduction may be subject to daily penalties as set forth in the City’s fee schedule. 20.MECHANICAL LIFT PARKING. Up to 52 required parking spaces may be provided in a puzzle parking system, which allows independent access to each vehicle. The property owner shall have a maintenance agreement with the lift system manufacturer and the system shall be operational at all times. All new renters/employees shall be given instructions on how to operate the lift system. If the lift system is out of operation for any reason, anyone who is not able to retrieve their vehicle within a 10-minute period shall be reimbursed by the property owner or their designee for travel expenses up to $50 per occurrence. 21.UTILITY LOCATIONS: In no case shall utilities be placed in a location that requires equipment and/or bollards to encroach into a required parking space. In no case shall a pipeline be placed within 10 feet of a proposed tree and/or tree designated to remain. 22.SUBDIVISION MAP. The Lot Merger and Final Map for Condominium Purposes shall be recorded prior to building permit issuance. 23.ESTIMATED IMPACT FEE: Development Impact Fees, currently estimated in the amount of $3,918,017.24 plus the applicable public art fee, per PAMC 16.61.040, shall be paid prior to the issuance of the related building permit. 24.REQUIRED PUBLIC ART. In conformance with PAMC 16.61, and to the satisfaction of the Public Art Commission, the property owner and/or applicant shall select an artist and received final approval of the art plan, or pay the in-lieu fee equivalent to 1% of the estimated construction valuation, prior to obtaining a Building permit. All required artwork shall be installed as approved by the Public Art Commission and verified by Public Art staff prior to release of the final Use and Occupancy permit. 25.IMPACT FEE 90-DAY PROTEST PERIOD. California Government Code Section 66020 provides that a project applicant who desires to protest the fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions imposed on a development project must initiate the protest at the time the development project is approved or conditionally approved or within ninety (90) days after the date that fees, dedications, reservations or Item 2 Attachment A-1 Record of Land Use Action (Combine with Attachment A)     Packet Pg. 34     Page 9 of 17 4 6 1 6 exactions are imposed on the Project. Additionally, procedural requirements for protesting these development fees, dedications, reservations and exactions are set forth in Government Code Section 66020. IF YOU FAIL TO INITIATE A PROTEST WITHIN THE 90-DAY PERIOD OR FOLLOW THE PROTEST PROCEDURES DESCRIBED IN GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66020, YOU WILL BE BARRED FROM CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OR REASONABLENESS OF THE FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS, AND EXACTIONS. If these requirements constitute fees, taxes, assessments, dedications, reservations, or other exactions as specified in Government Code Sections 66020(a) or 66021, this is to provide notification that, as of the date of this notice, the 90-day period has begun in which you may protest these requirements. This matter is subject to the California Code of Civil Procedures (CCP) Section 1094.5; the time by which judicial review must be sought is governed by CCP Section 1094.6. 26.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. 27.FINAL INSPECTION: A Planning Division Final inspection will be required to determine substantial compliance with the approved plans prior to the scheduling of a Building Division final. Any revisions during the building process must be approved by Planning, including but not limited to; materials, landscaping and hard surface locations. Contact your Project Planner, Emily Kallas at emily.kallas@cityofpaloalto.org to schedule this inspection. BUILDING 28. A building permit is required for the scope of work shown. 29. At time of building permit, the following items shall be reviewed in detail. a. Building and site accessibility per CBC 11A, 11B b. Regular and van accessible spaces including EV per CBC and PAMC c. Occupied roof per 503.1.4, CBC d. Building Code analysis e. Fire-rating and protection of opening at roof, floors, and walls f. Green building compliance. g. Structural design calculations, plans, and details. PUBLIC WORKS ZERO WASTE 30. Project will be required to submit a salvage survey prior to receiving the building permit. Please anticipate meeting PAMC 5.24 Deconstruction and Construction Materials Management requirements. 31. Carts must bear appropriate signage. Recycling carts need to be blue lid and blue body. Compost carts need to be green lid and green body. Item 2 Attachment A-1 Record of Land Use Action (Combine with Attachment A)     Packet Pg. 35     Page 10 of 17 4 6 1 6 32. The following comments below are part of the Palo Alto Municipality Code. If your scope of work includes internal and external bins then cut-sheets for the color-coded internal and external containers, related color-coded millwork, and it’s colored signage must be included in the building plans prior to receiving approval from Zero Waste. Please see below for more details. As per Palo Alto Municipal Code 5.20.108 the site is required to have color-coded refuse containers, related color-coded millwork, and colored signage. The three refuse containers shall include recycle (blue container), compost (green container), and garbage (black container). Applicant shall present on the plan the locations and quantity of both (any) internal and external refuse containers, it’s millwork, along with the signage. This requirement applies to any external or internal refuse containers located in common areas such as entrances, conference rooms, open space, lobby, garage, mail room, gym, and etc. except for restrooms, copy area, and mother’s room. Millwork to store the color-coded refuse containers must have a minimum of four inches in height worth of color-coding, wrapping around the full width of the millwork. Signage must be color coded with photos or illustrations of commonly discarded items. Restrooms must have a green compost container for paper towels and an optional black landfill container if applicable. Copy area must have either a recycle bin only or all three refuse receptacles (green compost, blue recycle, and black landfill container). Mother’s room must minimally have a green compost container and black landfill container. Please refer to PAMC 5.20.108 and the Internal Container Guide. Examples of appropriate signage can be found in the Managing Zero Waste at Your Business Guide. Electronic copies of these signage can be found on the Zero Waste Palo Alto’s website, https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Public-Works/Zero-Waste/What-Goes- Where/Toolkit#section-2 and hard copies can be requested from the waste hauler, Greenwaste of Palo Alto, (650) 493-4894. TRANSPORTATION 33. Future tenants/owners shall be required to provide free transit passes for office employees to use transit, as part of the TDM plan. The requirement for free transit passes must be included as part of the lease agreement. 34. Ensure landscape area(s) do not encroach on the bike parking space(s). URBAN FORESTRY 35. PROJECT ARBORIST. The property owner shall hire a certified arborist to ensure the project conforms to all Planning and Urban Forestry conditions related to landscaping/trees, as well as relevant CEQA Mitigation Measures. 36.TREE PROTECTION FENCING. Tree protection fencing shall be required for the street trees to remain, the neighboring Coast Live Oak, and for all tree/shrubs proposed to be maintained. 37. TREE-SPECIFIC CONDITIONS. The property owner shall follow all conditions from the Urban Forester and all recommendations and guidelines listed in Section 6.1 of the February 7, 2024 Arborist Report prepared by David L. Babby, including but not limited to: a. TREE PROTECTION VERIFICATION INSPECTION REQUIRED. Prior to any site work, contractor must call Uriel Hernandez at 650-329-2450 to schedule an inspection of any required protective Item 2 Attachment A-1 Record of Land Use Action (Combine with Attachment A)     Packet Pg. 36     Page 11 of 17 4 6 1 6 fencing. The fencing shall contain required warning sign and remain in place until final inspection of the project. b. Prior to mobilizing equipment to the site, install tree protection fencing for tree #10, utilize Type I Protection, which includes affixing 5- to 6-foot tall chain link onto 2-inch diameter steel posts spaced apart as needed to remain upright. c. Digging for any bollards or permanent fencing within a TPZ, such as for #10, shall be manually performed using a shovel or post-hole digger. For any root encountered during the process with a diameter ≥2 inches, shift the hole over by 12 inches and repeat the process. d. All pruning shall be performed under the direction of the Project Arborist, conducted in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal code 8.10.020 regarding the prohibited use of excessive pruning for Quercus agrifolia species, in addition to the best management practices outlined in ANSI A300, and implemented by a California licensed tree-service contractor (D-49) with an ISA certified arborist in a supervisory role. e. All pruning work on oak #10 shall be supervised directly by the project arborist. Any authorized digging within the TPZ should be retained and protect roots encountered with diameters of ≥2 inches. Once exposed, cover with wet burlap and keep continually moist until they can be assessed by the project arborist; once assessed, cleanly sever at 90° to the angle of root growth against the cut line using a fine tooth saw, and then immediately after, bury the cut end with soil or keep continually moist by burlap until the dug area is backfilled. Roots encountered with diameters <2 inches can be cleanly severed at a 90° angle to the direction of root growth. f. Removing existing asphalt and base material located beyond the proposed deck and within #10's TPZ shall be performed under direct supervision by the project arborist. g. Once work is completed, restrict heavy equipment from traveling over the newly exposed ground, manually spread a 4- to 6-inch layer of coarse wood chips (or as determined by the project arborist), and expand protection fencing. The removal of any existing plant material within a TPZ must be manually performed, and the work reviewed with the project arborist beforehand. 38. Expected impacts to neighboring protected coast live oak tree #10 as described in the C8 updated consulting arborist report from David Babby and from the ground penetrating radar study provided by consulting arborist Robert Booty, are within acceptable parameters of industry standards, provided that all mitigation methods outlined in the consulting arborist report are followed during construction. In addition, prior to the applicant receiving building permit approval, a security bond will be placed on the neighboring coast live oak tree (Quercus agrifolia) 50" DBH tree #10 for 200% of the appraised replacement value of the tree. The security deposit duration period shall be five years from the date of Item 2 Attachment A-1 Record of Land Use Action (Combine with Attachment A)     Packet Pg. 37     Page 12 of 17 4 6 1 6 final occupancy. See language below pertaining to the tree bond as specified in the Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual: 39. TREE APPRAISAL & SECURITY DEPOSIT AGREEMENT. (Reference: CPA Tree Technical Manual, Section 6.25). Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit, the applicant shall work with the Urban Forestry Section to prepare and secure a tree appraisal and security deposit agreement stipulating its duration and a monitoring program. For the purposes of a security deposit agreement, the monetary market or replacement value shall be determined using the most recent version of the “Guide for Plant Appraisal”. The appraisal shall be performed at the applicant’s expense, and the appraiser shall be subject to the approval of the Urban Forester. a. SECURITY DEPOSIT AGREEMENT. Prior to grading or building permit issuance, as a condition of development approval, the applicant shall post a security deposit for 200% of the appraised replacement value of the following protected status tree: Tree #10, 50" DBH Quercus agrifolia on the neighboring property. The security may be a cash deposit, letter of credit, or surety bond and shall be filed with the Revenue Collections/Finance Department or in a form satisfactory to the City Attorney. b. SECURITY DEPOSIT & MONITORING PROGRAM. The applicant (or new property owner should the property change hands) shall provide to the City of Palo Alto an annual tree evaluation report prepared by the project arborist or other qualified certified arborist, assessing the condition and providing recommendations to correct potential tree decline. The monitoring program shall end three years from date of final occupancy. c. SECURITY DEPOSIT DURATION. The security deposit duration period shall be five years from the date of final occupancy. Return of the security guarantee shall be subject to City approval of the final monitoring report. A tree shall be considered dead when the main leader has died back, 25% of the crown is dead or if major trunk or root damage is evident. Should the tree die, a new tree of equal or greater appraised value shall be planted in the same area by the applicant (or new property owner should the property change hands) with permission of the tree owner at 517 Byron Street. Landscape area and irrigation shall be adapted to provide optimum growing conditions for the replacement tree at applicants expense. The replacement tree that is planted shall be subject to a new three-year establishment and monitoring program. The applicant shall provide an annual tree evaluation report as originally required. d. FORFEIT OF DEPOSIT. The City may determine that if the tree should die (as defined above) and an agreement on a replacement tree cannot be reached with the tree owner at 517 Byron Street, it will constitute a forfeit of the deposit equal to the appraised value. Any forfeit will be deposited into the Forestry Fund to plant new trees elsewhere. Issues causing forfeit of any portion of the deposit may also be subject to remedies described in Palo Alto Municipal Code. PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING Item 2 Attachment A-1 Record of Land Use Action (Combine with Attachment A)     Packet Pg. 38     Page 13 of 17 4 6 1 6 40. PUBLIC WORKS APPLICATIONS, FORMS, AND DOCUMENTS: Applicant shall be advised that most forms, applications, and informational documents related to Public Works Engineering conditions can be found at the following link: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Public-Works/Engineering-Services/Forms-and-Permits 41. PARCEL MAP: This project is subject to, and contingent upon the approval of and recordation of a parcel map. The submittal, approval and recordation of the Map shall be in accordance with the provisions of the California Subdivision Map Act and Palo Alto Municipal Code Title 21 Subdivision requirements. All existing and proposed property lines, easements, dedications shown on the parcel map are subject to City’s technical review and staff approval during the map process prior to issuance of any construction permits. 42. MAP THIRD-PARTY REVIEW: The City contracts with a third-party surveyor that will review and provide approval of the map’s technical correctness as the City Surveyor, as permitted by the Subdivision Map Act. The Public Works Department will forward a Scope & Fee Letter from the third-party surveyor and the applicant will be responsible for payment of the fee’s indicated therein, which is based on the complexity of the map. 43. STREETWORK PERMIT: The applicant shall obtain a Streetwork Permit from the Department of Public Works for all public improvements. 44. GRADING AND EXCAVATION PERMIT: A Grading Permit is required per PAMC Chapter 16.28. The permit application and all applicable documents (see Section H of application) shall be submitted to Public Works Engineering. Add the following note: “THIS GRADING PERMIT WILL ONLY AUTHORIZE GENERAL GRADING AND INSTALLATION OF THE STORM DRAIN SYSTEM. OTHER BUILDING AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS ARE SHOWN FOR REFERENCE INFORMATION ONLY AND ARE SUBJECT TO SEPARATE BUILDING PERMIT APPROVAL.” 45. ROUGH GRADING: provide a Rough Grading Plan for the work proposed as part of the Grading and Excavation Permit application. The Rough Grading Plans shall including the following: pad elevation, elevator pit elevation, ground monitoring wells, limits of over excavation, stockpile area of material, overall earthwork volumes (cut and fill), temporary shoring for any existing facilities, ramps for access, crane locations (if any), tree protection measures, etc. 46. CIVIL ENGINEER CERTIFICATION: Upon completion of the rough grading work and at the final completion of the work, applicant shall provide an as-graded grading plan prepared by the civil engineer that includes original ground surface elevations, as-graded ground surface elevations, lot drainage patterns and locations and elevations of all surface and subsurface drainage facilities. The civil engineer shall certify that the work was done in accordance with the final approved grading plan. 47. SOILS ENGINEER CERTIFICATION: Upon completion of the rough grading work and at the final completion of the work, applicant shall provide a soil grading report prepared by the soils engineer, including locations and elevation of field density tests, summaries of field and laboratory tests and other substantiating data, and comments on any changes made during grading and their effect on the recommendations made in Item 2 Attachment A-1 Record of Land Use Action (Combine with Attachment A)     Packet Pg. 39     Page 14 of 17 4 6 1 6 the soils engineering investigation report. The soils engineer shall certify as to the adequacy of the site for the intended use. 48. SHORING & TIEBACKS: Provide a shoring plan showing the existing utilities (if needed), to clearly indicate how the new structures will be constructed while protecting the existing utilities (if any). If tiebacks are proposed they shall not extend onto adjacent private property, existing easements or into the City’s right- of-way without having first obtained written permission from the private property owners and/or an encroachment permit from Public Works. 49. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER STATEMENT: The grading plans shall include the following statement signed and sealed by the Geotechnical Engineer of Record: “THIS PLAN HAS BEEN REVIEWED AND FOUND TO BE IN GENERAL CONFORMANCE WITH THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT”. 50. CONSTRUCTION DEWATERING: At the time of building permit submittal, the applicant shall submit a recent groundwater level reading. This project may be subjected to a dewatering permit during construction due to the groundwater level relative to the depth of excavation. 51. FLOOD ZONE: This project is in a FEMA Special Flood Hazard Area and shall comply with the requirements in Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.52. 52. DRY-FLOODPROOFING PLAN INSERT: Insert the “Plan Insert for Dry Floodproofed Non-Residential and Mixed-Use Buildings” sheet into the plan set. 53. FLOODPROOFING CERTIFICATE: A Floodproofing Certificate (FEMA Form FF-206-FY-22-153, also formerly known as 086-0-34) shall be completed by a licensed professional engineer prior to building permit approval. 54. FLOODPROOFING PLANS REQUIRED: Prior to building permit final, a licensed professional engineer shall submit a (1) Flood Emergency Operations Plan and (2) Inspection and Maintenance Plan. Additional information may be obtained from Section 5.5 of FEMA Technical Bulletin 3, dated January 2021. 55. OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT: Prior to Public Works final inspection, the owner shall enter into an Operations and Maintenance Agreement to ensure that the Flood Emergency Operations Plan, and the Inspection and Maintenance Plan are followed for the life of the structure and that the agreement will be transferred to future owners and/or leaseholders. This agreement shall be notarized and recorded with the County of Santa Clara and passed on to all subsequent owners. 56. ENCROACHMENT PERMIT: Prior to any work in the public right-of-way, the applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Public Works Department for any work that encroaches onto the City right-of-way. 57. LOGISTICS PLAN: A construction logistics plan shall be provided addressing all impacts to the public including, at a minimum: work hours, noticing of affected businesses, bus stop relocations, construction signage, dust control, noise control, storm water pollution prevention, job trailer, contractors’ parking, Item 2 Attachment A-1 Record of Land Use Action (Combine with Attachment A)     Packet Pg. 40     Page 15 of 17 4 6 1 6 truck routes, staging, concrete pours, crane lifts, scaffolding, materials storage, pedestrian safety, and traffic control. All truck routes shall conform to the City of Palo Alto’s Trucks and Truck Route Ordinance, Chapter 10.48, and the route map. NOTE: Some items/tasks on the logistics plan may require an encroachment permit. 58. STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION: All improvement plan sets shall include the “Pollution Prevention – It’s Part of the Plan” sheet. 59. C.3 THIRD-PARTY CERTIFICATION: Applicant shall provide certification from a qualified third-party reviewer that the proposed permanent storm water pollution prevention measures comply with the requirements of Provision C.3 and Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.11. 60. Submit the following: a. Stamped and signed C.3 data form (April 2023 version) from SCVURPPP. https://scvurppp.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/SCVURPPP-C.3-Data-Form-_-updated__4- 12-2023_clean_fillable.pdf b. Final stamped and signed letter confirming which documents were reviewed and that the project complies with Provision C.3 and PAMC 16.11. 61. C.3 STORMWATER AGREEMENT: The applicant shall enter into a Stormwater Maintenance Agreement with the City to guarantee the ongoing maintenance of the permanent storm water pollution prevention measures. The City will inspect the treatment measures yearly and charge an inspection fee. The agreement shall be executed by the applicant team prior to building permit final. 62. C.3 FINAL THIRD PARTY CERTIFICATION PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY: Within 45 days of the installation of the required storm water treatment measures and prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit for the building, the third-party reviewer shall submit to the City a certification verifying that all the permanent storm water pollution prevention measures were installed in accordance with the approved plans. 63. PAVEMENT RESTORATION: The applicant shall restore the pavement along the entire project frontage, curb-to-curb, by performing a 3.5” grind and overlay. The exact restoration limits will be determined once the resulting road condition is known following completion of heavy construction activities and utility lateral installations, at minimum the extent will be the project frontage. 64. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA: The project will be creating or replacing 500 square feet or more of impervious surface. Accordingly, the applicant shall provide calculations of the existing and proposed impervious surface areas with the building permit application. The Impervious Area Worksheet for Land Developments form and instructions are available at the Development Center or on our website. To determine the impervious surface area that is being disturbed, provide the quantity on the site plan. 65. PRIOR TO PUBLIC WORKS FINAL/ACCEPTANCE (STORM DRAIN LOGO): The applicant is required to paint “No Dumping/Flows to Matadero Creek” in blue on a white background adjacent to all onsite storm drain inlets. The name of the creek to which the proposed development drains can be obtained from Public Works Engineering. Stencils of the logo are available from the Public Works Environmental Compliance Item 2 Attachment A-1 Record of Land Use Action (Combine with Attachment A)     Packet Pg. 41     Page 16 of 17 4 6 1 6 Division, which may be contacted at (650) 329-2598. Include the instruction to paint the logos on the construction grading and drainage plan. 66. PRIOR TO PUBLIC WORKS FINAL/ACCEPTANCE (ELEVATION CERTIFICATE): The "as-built" elevation of the lowest floor not used solely for parking or storage must be certified on the FEMA Elevation Certificate and accepted by Public Works inspector as meeting the Special Flood Hazard Area requirements prior to final City approval of the structure. WATERSHED PROTECTION 67. Stormwater treatment measures a. All Bay Area Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit requirements shall be followed. b. Refer to the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program C.3 Handbook (download here: http://scvurppp-w2k.com/c3_handbook.shtml) for details. c. For all C.3 features, vendor specifications regarding installation and maintenance should be followed and provided to city staff. Copies must be submitted to Pam Boyle Rodriguez at pamela.boylerodriguez@cityofpaloalto.org. Add this bullet as a note to the building plans. d. Staff from Stormwater Program (Watershed Protection Division) may be present during installation of stormwater treatment measures. Contact Pam Boyle Rodriguez, Stormwater Program Manager, at (650) 329-2421 before installation. Add this bullet as a note to building plans on Stormwater Treatment (C.3) Plan. 68. Bay-friendly Guidelines (rescapeca.org) - Add these bullets as a note to the building plans. e. Do not use chemicals fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides or commercial soil amendment. Use Organic Materials Review Institute (OMRI) materials and compost. Refer to the Bay-Friendly Landscape Guidelines: http://www.stopwaste.org/resource/brochures/bay-friendly-landscape- guidelines-sustainable-practices-landscape-professional for guidance. f. Avoid compacting soil in areas that will be unpaved. 69. Stormwater quality protection g. Temporary and permanent waste, compost and recycling containers shall be covered to prohibit fly-away trash and having rainwater enter the containers. h. Drain downspouts to landscaping (outward from building as needed). i. Drain HVAC fluids from roofs and other areas to landscaping. j. Offsite downgrade storm drain inlets shall also be identified on this plan set and protected. If City staff removes protection from an inlet in the ROW during a rain event, the contractor shall replace the inlet protection by the end of the following business day. Item 2 Attachment A-1 Record of Land Use Action (Combine with Attachment A)     Packet Pg. 42     Page 17 of 17 4 6 1 6 70. All proposed Stormwater treatment measures should have a detail on this detail sheet. Provide a standard detail for the pervious pavers 71. Alternative Compliance for Stormwater Treatment: The applicant and the City shall enter into an agreement acceptable to the Public Works Director or designated representative to provide alternative compliance as either approved equivalent treatment area or with payment of in-lieu fees to comply with the regulated projects stormwater treatment obligations FIRE 72. Include the following notes in the Building Permit plan set: a. Install a NFPA 13 fire sprinkler, NFPA 14 standpipe, NFPA 20 fire pump and NFPA 72 fire alarm system. b. This building shall be evaluated for an Emergency Responder Radio System. WATER-GAS-WASTEWATER UTILITIES PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF DEMOLITION PERMIT 73. The applicant shall submit a request to disconnect utility services and remove meters. The utility demo is to be processed within 10 working days after receipt of the request. The demolition permit will be issued by the building inspection division after all utility services and/or meters have been disconnected and removed. FOR BUILDING PERMIT (WGW Utility Engineering) 74. The applicant shall submit a completed water-gas-wastewater service connection application - load sheet for the City of Palo Alto Utilities. The applicant must provide all the information requested for utility service demands (water in fixture units/g.p.m. and sewer in fixture units/g.p.d.). The applicant shall provide the existing (prior) loads, the new loads, and the combined/total loads (the new loads plus any existing loads to remain). 75. The applicant shall submit improvement plans for utility construction. The plans must show the size and location of all underground utilities within the development and the public right of way including meters, backflow preventers, fire service requirements, sewer mains, sewer cleanouts, sewer lift stations and any other required utilities. Plans for new wastewater laterals and mains need to include new wastewater pipe profiles showing existing potentially conflicting utilities especially storm drain pipes, electric and communication duct banks. Existing duct banks need to be daylighted by potholing to the bottom of the ductbank to verify cross section prior to plan approval and starting lateral installation. Plans for new storm drain mains and laterals need to include profiles showing existing potential conflicts with sewer, water and gas. 76. The applicant must show on the site plan the existence of any auxiliary water supply, (i.e. water well, gray water, recycled water, rain catchment, water storage tank, etc). 77. The applicant shall be responsible for installing and upgrading the existing utility mains and/or services, and laterals as necessary to handle anticipated peak loads. This responsibility includes all costs Item 2 Attachment A-1 Record of Land Use Action (Combine with Attachment A)     Packet Pg. 43     Page 18 of 17 4 6 1 6 associated with the design and construction for the installation/upgrade of the utility mains and/or services/laterals. 78. An approved reduced pressure principle assembly (RPPA backflow preventer device) is required for all existing and new water connections from Palo Alto Utilities to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. The RPPA shall be installed on the owner's property and directly behind the water meter within 5 feet of the property line. RPPA’s for domestic service shall be lead-free. Show the location of the RPPA on the plans. An approved reduced pressure detector assembly (RPDA backflow preventer device, STD. WD-12A or STD. WD-12B) is required for all existing and new fire water connections from Palo Alto Utilities to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. The RPDA shall be installed on the owner's property and directly behind the City owned meter, within 5’ (feet) of the property line or City Right of Way. 79. All backflow preventer devices shall be approved by the WGW engineering division. Inspection by the city inspector is required for the supply pipe between the meter and the assembly. 80. The applicant shall pay the capacity fees and connection fees associated with new utility service/s or added demand on existing services. The approved relocation of services, meters, hydrants, or other facilities will be performed at the cost of the person/entity requesting the relocation. 81. If a new water service line installation for fire system usage is required. Show the location of the new water service on the plans. The applicant shall provide to the engineering department a copy of the plans for fire system including all fire department's requirements. If the existing fire service to remain. Applicant to sign an application for CPAU connection for & agree to operate the fire service in accordance with these rules & regulations. Applicant needs to verify whether the existing water supply can meet the current & anticipated fire flows at the site & all equipment for the sprinkler system is in accordance with the fire department requirements. 82. Each unit or building shall have its own water meter shown on the plans. Each parcel shall have its own water service and sewer lateral connection shown on the plans. 83. A sewer lateral per lot is required. Show the location of the sewer lateral on the plans. Existing sewer laterals (city's co to sewer main) if determined to be in poor condition shall be replaced at the owner's expense. A video inspection and full evaluation of the lateral will be performed by WGW utilities operations. The applicant will be informed of the sewer lateral assessment and need to install a new lateral. If a new sewer lateral is required, a profile of the sewer lateral is required showing any possible conflicts with storm, electric/communications ductbanks or other utilities. 84. All existing water and wastewater services/laterals that will not be reused shall be abandoned at the main per the latest WGW utilities standards. 85. Utility vaults, transformers, utility cabinets, concrete bases, or other structures cannot be placed over existing water, gas, or wastewater mains/services. Maintain 1’ horizontal clear separation from the vault/cabinet/concrete base to existing utilities as found in the field. If there is a conflict with existing utilities, Cabinets/vaults/bases shall be relocated from the plan location as needed to meet field conditions. Trees may not be planted within 10 feet of existing water, gas, and wastewater Item 2 Attachment A-1 Record of Land Use Action (Combine with Attachment A)     Packet Pg. 44     Page 19 of 17 4 6 1 6 mains/laterals/water services/or meters. New water or wastewater services/laterals/meters may not be installed within 10’ of existing trees. Maintain 10’ between new trees and new water and wastewater services/laterals/meters. 86. The applicant shall provide to the WGW Utility Engineering department a copy of the plans for the fire system including all fire department's requirements prior to the actual service installation. 87. All utility installations shall be in accordance with the City of Palo Alto utility standards for water, gas, & wastewater. 88. The contractor is to temporary plug the sewer lateral during construction. (by using t cone plug: expandable pipe plug with no metal parts) SECTION 7. Term of Approval. 1.Planned Community Development Schedule. Sixty days prior to the expiration of the development schedule, the director shall notify the property owner in writing of the date of expiration and advise the property owner of Section 18.38.130. Failure to meet the approved development schedule, including an extension, if granted, shall result in: (a) The expiration of the property owner's right to develop under the PC district. The director shall notify the property owner, the city council, the planning commission and the building official of such expiration; and (b) The director's initiating a zone change for the property subject to the PC district in accordance with Chapter 18.80. The property owner may submit a new application for a PC district concurrently with the director's recommendation for a zone change. PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: APPROVED: _________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED: APPROVED AS TO FORM: ___________________________ ___________________________ Director of Planning and Assistant City Attorney Development Services Item 2 Attachment A-1 Record of Land Use Action (Combine with Attachment A)     Packet Pg. 45     Page 20 of 17 4 6 1 6 PLANS AND DRAWINGS REFERENCED: 1. Those plans prepared by KSH Architects titled “"660 University Ave., Palo Alto, CA,” uploaded to the Palo Alto Online Permitting Services Citizen Portal on May 28-29, 2024. Item 2 Attachment A-1 Record of Land Use Action (Combine with Attachment A)     Packet Pg. 46     *NOT YET ADOPTED* ATTACHMENT B 1 0160145_KB2_20240604_AY16 Resolution No. ____ Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Comprehensive Plan Land Use and Community Design Element Text to Amend the Description of the Multiple Family Land Use Designation. R E C I T A L S A. On December 21, 2021, Architect Amanda Borden, on behalf of Smith Properties and Palo Alto Dental Research A Corp (“Applicant”) submitted an application for Rezoning to Planned Community/Planned Home Zoning (PHZ) and Major Architectural Review to redevelop the 511 Byron Street – 680 University Avenue project site with 63 rental residential units and 9,115 sf of office space (the “660 University Project”). B. The project requires an amendment to the description of the Multiple Family Land Use Designation in the Land Use and Community Design Element of the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan to permit the retention of existing commercial uses on the project site. C. Whereas the Planning and Transportation Commission, after a duly noticed public hearing on June 12, 2024, recommended that the City Council amend the text of the Land Use and Community Design Element of the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan as set forth below. D. Whereas the City Council considered said recommendation after a duly noticed public hearing held on ___________, 2024 and now desires to amend the Comprehensive Plan Land Use and Design Element as set forth below. NOW THEREFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City Council finds that the public interest, health, safety and welfare of Palo Alto and the surrounding region would be furthered by a Text Amendment to the Land Use and Community Design Element. SECTION 2. The proposed Land Use and Community Design Text Amendments is consistent with the following goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan: Policy L-1.1: Maintain and prioritize Palo Alto’s varied residential neighborhoods while sustaining the vitality of its commercial areas and public facilities. The proposed amendment would allow for expansion of allowable land uses, to maintain the existing office land use and facilitate construction of 63 new rental apartment units. Item 2 Attachment B - Reso 660 University Comprehensive Plan Amendment     Packet Pg. 47     *NOT YET ADOPTED* ATTACHMENT B 2 0160145_KB2_20240604_AY16 Policy L-1.3: Infill development in the urban service area should be compatible with its surroundings and the overall scale and character of the city to ensure a compact, efficient development pattern. The proposed amendments would allow for implementation of the PC Ordinance, which provides a mix of new housing, amenity space, and retention of commercial (medical office) uses. Policy L-1.4: Commit to creating an inventory of below market rate housing for purchase and rental. Work with neighbors, neighborhood associations, property owners and developers to identify barriers to infill development of below market rate and more affordable market rate housing and to remove these barriers, as appropriate. Work with these same stakeholders to identify sites and facilitate opportunities for below market rate housing and housing that is affordable. The proposed amendments would allow for implementation of the PC Ordinance, which includes 13 below market rate rental units. Policy L-1.5: Regulate land uses in Palo Alto according to the land use definitions in this Element and Map L- 6 The proposed amendments ensure compliance with this policy and modify the land use map to align with past, current, and future uses of the site in order to address current inconsistencies between the map and existing uses and to facilitate housing and office as the future use on a portion of the site Policy L-1.6: Encourage land uses that address the needs of the community and manage change and development to benefit the community. The proposed amendments provide a plan for the site that takes into consideration the needs of the community for maintaining existing medical office in the vicinity of senior housing facilities; while providing a solution that the property owner is amenable to. Policy L-2.2: Enhance connections between commercial and mixed-use centers and the surrounding residential neighborhoods by promoting walkable and bikeable connections and a diverse range of retail and services that caters to the daily needs of residents. The amendments allow for implementation of the PC ordinance. The PC ordinance would add housing to the walkable downtown area, provide jobs in the office space that are walkable from downtown residents, and is consistent with the City of Palo Alto Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan. Item 2 Attachment B - Reso 660 University Comprehensive Plan Amendment     Packet Pg. 48     *NOT YET ADOPTED* ATTACHMENT B 3 0160145_KB2_20240604_AY16 Policy L-2.6: Create opportunities for new mixed-use development consisting of housing and retail. The comprehensive plan amendment would allow for a mix of uses on a site where currently only residential uses are allowed. SECTION 3. The City Council hereby amends the description of the Multiple- Family Land Use Designation in the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Land Use and Community Design Element to read as follows: Multiple-Family Residential: The permitted number of housing units will vary by area, depending on existing land use, proximity to major streets and public transit, distance to shopping and environmental problems. Net densities will range from 8 to 40 units and 8 to 90 persons per acre. Density should be on the lower end of the scale next to single-family residential areas. Densities higher than what is permitted may be allowed where measurable community benefits will be derived, services and facilities are available, and the net effect will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Population densities will range up to 2.25 persons per unit by 2030. As part of a Planned Community zone, or in accordance with retail preservation requirements, existing commercial uses may be maintained or rebuilt, as part of a housing development project, provided that office uses may only be retained as medical office use. // // // // // // // // // // // // Item 2 Attachment B - Reso 660 University Comprehensive Plan Amendment     Packet Pg. 49     *NOT YET ADOPTED* ATTACHMENT B 4 0160145_KB2_20240604_AY16 SECTION 4. In conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the environmental impacts of this Resolution were evaluated in an Environmental Impact Report for the 660 University Project, which the Council considered and adopted, together with the related Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP) on________, 2024. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: ____________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ____________________________ ____________________________ Chief Assistant City Attorney City Manager ____________________________ Director of Planning and Development Services Item 2 Attachment B - Reso 660 University Comprehensive Plan Amendment     Packet Pg. 50     3 9 8 5 ATTACHMENT C ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 660 University Avenue, 21PLN-00341 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.13 (RM-20 DISTRICT) AND PROPOSED Regulation Required RM-20 Proposed Minimum/Maximum Site Area, Width and Depth 8,500 sf area, 70 foot width, 100 foot depth 103 feet by 225 feet; 22,562 sf (0.52 acre) Minimum Front Yard (Middlefield) 24 foot Special Setback along Middlefield Road 10 feet minimum Street Rear Yard (Byron)16 feet 10 feet Street Side Yard (University)16 feet 6 feet Interior Side Yard (for lots greater than 70 feet in width) 10 feet 19 feet 6 inches Max. Building Height 30 feet 50’8” at four story parapet 57’2” at roof deck 62’8” at elevator overrun Interior Side Yard Daylight Plane 10 feet at interior side lot line then 45 degree angle Compliant, see sheet A3.3 Max. Site Coverage 35% (plus an additional 5% for covered patios or overhangs) (7,884 + 1,126 = 9,010 sf) 58% (13,071 sf) Max. Total Floor Area Ratio 0.5:1 2.18:1 (48,991 sf) Mixed-Use; Replacement Office: 9,115 sf (net loss of 100sf), Residential: 39,806 sf Other: 1,091 sf Residential Density 11 to 20 units per acre (5 to 10 units)63 DU on 0.52 acre = 123.5 units per acre Minimum Site Open Space 35% 7,884 sf 42% Ground level open space: 9,455 sf Minimum Usable Open Space 150 sf per unit 9,450 sf Roof terrace: 4,642 sf Balconies: ~60 sf per unit (typical), 5,230 sf total Total ~156 per unit The office deck area: ~1,120 sf does not count towards the residential open space requirement Item 2 Attachment C Zoning Table     Packet Pg. 51     3 9 8 5 Minimum Common Open Space 75 sf per unit Roof terrace: 4,642 sf 73.7 sf per unit Minimum Private Open Space 50 sf per unit 3 units do not have private open space All other units have balconies ranging from 60 sf to >400 sf *Bold indicates modification in comparison to base zoning Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking) for Multiple-Family Residential Type Required Proposed Office 1 space/250 sf (General Business Office) 37 parking spaces required, 22 existing 14 regular/carpool 4 ADA = 8 spaces 22 provided, 40% reduction Housing 1 per studio unit – 48 spaces 1 per 1-bedroom unit – 12 spaces 2 per 2-bedroom or larger unit – 6 spaces Tandem parking is permitted for multiple-family and two-family uses. 66 required 48 – Studio; 36 spaces 12 - 1-bedroom; 8 spaces 6 - 2-bedroom; 6 spaces Plus 5 unassigned ADA spaces that count as 10 towards the minimum parking requirement 60 provided, 10% reduction Vehicle Parking Total 37 Commercial 66 Residential 103 total 22 Commercial 60 Residential 82 total, 20% reduction Loading Space for Office None required for office less than 10,000 sf None Proposed Loading Space for Residential 1 required for more than 50 units None Proposed Bicycle Parking Short Term One (1) Long-term bicycle parking space per unit – 63 spaces One (1) bicycle parking space per 2,500 sf of office (80% long term 20% short term) – 4 spaces, 3 long term 1 short term 5 short term rack spaces 100 space long-term enclosure spaces, 80 residential, 20 office Item 2 Attachment C Zoning Table     Packet Pg. 52     1 Date: April 4, 2024 From: Boyd Smith, Smith Development Lund Smith, Smith Development To: Emily Kallas, Project Planner, City of Palo Alto Subject: Proposed Project at 660 University Avenue, Palo Alto, CA Emily, We hope this letter finds you well. We’re writing today regarding our proposed project at 660 University Avenue. This project proposes to replace three existing buildings (660 University, 680 University, and 511 Byron) with one mixed-use residential/office building with two levels of underground parking. The total size of the combined lot is 22,526 square feet. The proposed mixed-use project includes 63 housing units, 9,115 square feet of office or medical office space, and 79 covered parking spaces in a two-level underground garage. This project went before the Architectural Review Board (ARB) on December 1, 2022. During that meeting, we received feedback on the project including: 1. A request to consider moving the underground parking garage entrance/exit from Middlefield Road to Byron Street. 2. A request to consider an increased set-back on Middlefield Road to allow for the future installation of a dedicated bicycle lane. 3. A question about whether or not we would trade increased setbacks for increased height. 1. Alternative Location for Garage Entrance/Exit At the request of the Architectural Review Board, we asked our transportation consultant (Fehr & Peers) and our architect to analyze the impact of moving the underground parking garage entrance/exit from Middlefield Road to Byron Street. The most significant impact of moving the parking garage entrance/exit location from Middlefield Road to Byron Street is that it reduces the number of parking stalls that can fit in the garage from 88 to 79, a loss of 9 spaces. Fehr & Peers’ analysis shows there is little difference between the two locations, including the impact to nearby intersection operations. Additionally, both of the street blocks being considered for an entrance/exit location (500 block of Byron and 500 block of Middlefield) already have Item 2 Attachment D Applicants Letter on Special Setback     Packet Pg. 53     2 existing parking lot or parking garage entrance/exit locations. There is a higher level of existing pedestrian traffic on Byron compared to Middlefield but a higher level of existing vehicular traffic on Middlefield compared to Byron. For bicyclists, there are no bicycle facilities on either Middlefield or Byron near the project site. Due to the similarities between the two entrance/exit locations under consideration, Smith Development is open to both the Middlefield and Byron entrance/exit locations. 2. Increased Set-Back for Future Bicycle Path At the request of the Architectural Review Board, we also considered increasing the proposed setback on Middlefield Road from 10 to 24 feet to allow for the construction of a future dedicated bicycle path along Middlefield Road. From a project perspective, moving the setback from 10 to 24 feet results in a net loss of 3,747 square feet (or approximately 6 units and 1,290 square feet of office space). Losing 7.59% of our buildable square footage is very problematic from a project financing perspective and, in our opinion, would render this project infeasible. History Until we started work on this project, we were not even aware that the City of Palo Alto was considering a dedicated bicycle corridor along Middlefield in the existing set-back, near where the sidewalks are currently located. After being alerted of this possibility, we undertook some research as a team to better understand the history and feasibility of this proposal. Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan From what we can tell, the aforementioned future, dedicated bicycle path along Middlefield Road, in the area between Palo Alto Avenue and Channing Avenue, was not explicitly mentioned in the most recent City of Palo Alto Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan (July 2012). In that plan, bicycle improvements along Middlefield Road are mentioned, but there was no mention of a plan to study or pursue a dedicated bicycle path in the setback area that runs parallel to Middlefield Road near the project site. In Table 6-5: Proposed Bicycle Boulevards of the above referenced Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan, street segments are listed that are proposed to become bicycle boulevards, but Middlefield Road is not included on that list (PDF page 132). Item 2 Attachment D Applicants Letter on Special Setback     Packet Pg. 54     3 Further, in Table 6-4: Proposed Shared Roadways of the 2012 Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan, there is mention of shared roadway improvements for Middlefield between Palo Alto Avenue and Embarcadero Road, but no mention of a dedicated bicycle path that runs parallel to Middlefield between Palo Alto Avenue and Embarcadero Road in the area of the existing sidewalk and tree line (PDF page 131). Item 2 Attachment D Applicants Letter on Special Setback     Packet Pg. 55     4 The most direct reference to a dedicated bicycle corridor along Middlefield that we were able to identify is Figure 6-5: City Quadrants for Sub-Area Analysis. As shown below, the Proposed Bikeway Map for quadrant 6.4.1 Northeast Palo Alto identifies Middlefield Road between Palo Alto Avenue and Embarcadero Road as either a proposed Class III arterial or a location where further study is needed (PDF page 152). The map didn’t distinguish beyond that. For context, a Class III bike route is normally shared with motor vehicles such as the painting of shared lane markings. A Class I bike route is normally a dedicated bike bath that minimizes conflicts with motor vehicles. If a dedicated bicycle path was intended for the area that runs parallel to Middlefield Road between Palo Alto Avenue and Embarcadero Road, that would have been listed as a Class I or Class II opportunity, rather than a Class III arterial. The closest thing to an explicit endorsement of a dedicated bike path on Middlefield Road in the area between Palo Alto Avenue and Embarcadero Road is in Figure D-6: Cycletrack Preference (PDF page 253-254). As one might expect, this shows that a majority of Palo Alto residents feel safer on a cycletrack (i.e. dedicated bike path) than a traditional bike lane in the roadway. As a follow-up, 26% respondents cited El Camino Real as a good candidate for a cycletrack and 24% cited Middlefield as a good candidate for a cyletrack, but the responses were conceptual and included no analysis of impacts or feasibility. Yet, a later study would evaluate that. In November 2020, the Peninsula Bikeway Alignment Alternatives Study was released. This study was undertaken as a joint venture including the City of Menlo Park, City of Mountain View, City of Palo Alto, and Redwood City. The study evaluated the viability and feasibility of three potential Item 2 Attachment D Applicants Letter on Special Setback     Packet Pg. 56     5 Peninsula Bikeway corridors: 1) Middlefield Road, 2) Alma Street/Central Expressway/Caltrain Right-of-Way/Evelyn Avenue, and 3) El Camino Real. The conclusion of the Peninsula Bikeway Study is clear, “El Camino Real represents the most cohesive, connected, and appropriate opportunity for implementing this vision” (PDF page 17). As many people are aware, Caltrans is actively working on a proposal that would bring a new bike lane to El Camino Real, running the entire length of the city. The study would later say the following regarding the Middlefield Road alternative, “While a future Peninsula Bikeway along the [Middlefield Road] corridor may improve safety and connectivity for all types of users, existing ROW would not allow for the implementation of a continuous and seamless separated bicycle facility (PDF page 54).” Ultimately, this study makes it clear that the ROW constraints along Middlefield Road do not make it a suitable candidate for a new dedicated bike path in the existing set-back. For example, the Peninsula Bikeway Study notes the constrained ROW along Middlefield Road. If a dedicated cycletrack is built in the existing set-back along Middlefield Road, in the area of our proposed project, it appears, based on our analysis, that this would significantly impact the existing tree line. As displayed in the images below, the treeline in the area of our project site, near the intersection of Middlefield Road and Hamilton Avenue, has multiple mature trees and other vegetation in the existing set-back. 500 Block of Middlefield 600 Block of Middlefield 600 Block of Middlefield Looking South Looking North Looking South Were this set-back to be used for a dedicated bike path, it would require the removal of several mature trees, and other vegetation. Such tree removals seem unlikely to receive community support based on past feedback. For a better sense of the impacts and challenges associated with constructing a dedicated bike path in the existing set-back, please consider walking the 500 and 600 blocks of Middlefield. Item 2 Attachment D Applicants Letter on Special Setback     Packet Pg. 57     6 Palo Alto Bicycle Map Below is an image of a portion of the Palo Alto Bicycle Map (2021) that is published on the City of Palo Alto website. This map provides an overview of the local bicycle network. This map does not identify Middlefield Road as a primary bicycle corridor. 3. Increased Setbacks for Increased Height At the December 1, 2022 Architectural Review Board meeting, we were asked if we’d be willing to trade an increase in project height for increased setbacks along Middlefield Road. Our strong preference is to keep the project in its current form. Conclusion Our analysis indicates there would be significant feasibility and financial challenges to constructing a new dedicated bike path in the existing set-back along Middlefield Road in the area of our project. Therefore, we respectfully ask the City of Palo Alto allows us to keep our existing, proposed set-back. Thank you in advance for your time and consideration of this letter. Please let us know if you have any questions. Respectfully, Boyd Smith Item 2 Attachment D Applicants Letter on Special Setback     Packet Pg. 58     7 CC Jonathan Lait, Director of Planning and Development Services Attachments A. Fehr & Peers Driveway Analysis (March 9, 2023) References 1. City of Palo Alto Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan (July 2012) 2. Peninsula Bikeway Wayfinding, Safety and Feasibility Study (November 2020) 3. Palo Alto Bicycle Map (2021) Item 2 Attachment D Applicants Letter on Special Setback     Packet Pg. 59     From:Kathleen Rotow To:Kallas, Emily Subject: Date: Re: 660 University Draft EIR - Now Circulating Wednesday, April 3, 2024 11:52:55 AM Attachments:image001.png image002.png Thanks Emily. I'm glad the review concluded that the Byron Ave entry and exit for this project made more sense than further slowing down Middlefield and University. It also keeps some of the inevitable noise from this project from disturbing the senior project across the street on University. On Wed, Apr 3, 2024 at 8:28ꢀAM Kallas, Emily <Emily.Kallas@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote: Hi Kathleen, After the initial ARB review, the driveway was relocated to the Byron frontage, to reduce potential conflict on Middlefield. Thanks, Emily Emily Kallas, AICP Planner Planning and Development Services Department (650) 617-3125 | emily.kallas@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org Parcel Report | Palo Alto Zoning Code | Online Permitting System | Planning Forms & Applications | Planning Applications Mapped Item 2 Attachment E Comments on Draft EIR and Post ARB     Packet Pg. 60     From: Kathleen Rotow <kathleenrotow@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 3, 2024 4:46 AM To: Kallas, Emily <Emily.Kallas@cityofpaloalto.org> Subject: Re: 660 University Draft EIR - Now Circulating CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Good Morning Emily, I have an initial question that you may be able to answer quickly. Given that I live within two blocks from the project on University Avenue, one of my concerns is the amount of additional traffic this project will generate on an already very congested corner. Probable additional traffic backups on both University Ave and Middlefield Ave. Will the entry and exits for parking be on University or Middlefield? Will there be any left turn entry into the parking for the project while heading west on University? Thank you, Kathleen Rotow Sent from my iPhone On Apr 2, 2024, at 5:58ꢀPM, Kallas, Emily <Emily.Kallas@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote: Good afternoon, This e-mail is to inform you that the Draft EIR for the 660 University project is now available here on our Planning Department website. The Notice of Availability is attached and has further information regarding the proposed project. The comment period for the Draft EIR begins today, Tuesday, April 2nd and will end on May 17, 2024. This e-mail is being provided to you because you are a neighboring jurisdiction, your agency has expressed an interest in the proposed project or because your agency may have an interest in the proposed project, or because you have been requested to be contacted regarding any project within the City of Palo Alto’s jurisdiction. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or to send comments. Item 2 Attachment E Comments on Draft EIR and Post ARB     Packet Pg. 61     Regards, Emily <image001.png> Emily Kallas, AICP Planner Planning and Development Services Department (650) 617-3125 | emily.kallas@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org <image002.png> Parcel Report | Palo Alto Zoning Code | Online Permitting System | Planning Forms & Applications | Planning Applications Mapped <660_University_NOA signed.pdf> Item 2 Attachment E Comments on Draft EIR and Post ARB     Packet Pg. 62     From: To: Christopher Ream Kallas, Emily Subject: Date: Importance: 660 University Project Wednesday, April 10, 2024 3:38:35 PM High CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Emily, Chris Ream here, the President of the Hamilton Homeowners Association. I intend to prepare a letter to the Architectural Review Board outlining The Hamilton’s objections to the planned project at 660 University, and I also intend to attend and comment at the ARB Hearing new week on April 18. I have done a quick review of the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR addresses many of the points I had previously brought up to the ARB along with some new points, including in particular, the danger of killing Tree #10 (the protected coastal oak) and the alternative of adding a fifth above-ground story to the building, and the alternative of eliminating the second floor of the underground garage. These are not shown in the developer’s current plans, but are obviously issues that need to be addressed at some point. My question is: Would it be proper for me to address in my letter to the ARB and at the Hearing points raised in the Draft EIR but not yet appearing in the developer’s plans. I will call you to have a brief discussion on this. Chris _________________________ Christopher Ream 555 Byron Street, #409 Palo Alto, CA 94301 1-650-424-0821 ream@reamlaw.com Item 2 Attachment E Comments on Draft EIR and Post ARB     Packet Pg. 63     From: To: Subject: Date: Mimi and Eric Carlson Christopher Ream; Kallas, Emily Re: 660 University Project Thursday, April 11, 2024 11:02:35 AM You don't often get email from mimianderic@hotmail.com. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Chris et al. Please note that the proposed project will create a traffic nightmare, espesciallly if the entrance is on Byron.- which is effectively a one wao street during the day. Eric Carlson From: Christopher Ream <ream@reamlaw.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2024 3:38 PM To: Kallas, Emily <Emily.Kallas@cityofpaloalto.org> Subject: 660 University Project Emily, Chris Ream here, the President of the Hamilton Homeowners Association. I intend to prepare a letter to the Architectural Review Board outlining The Hamilton’s objections to the planned project at 660 University, and I also intend to attend and comment at the ARB Hearing new week on April 18. I have done a quick review of the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR addresses many of the points I had previously brought up to the ARB along with some new points, including in particular, the danger of killing Tree #10 (the protected coastal oak) and the alternative of adding a fifth above-ground story to the building, and the alternative of eliminating the second floor of the underground garage. These are not shown in the developer’s current plans, but are obviously issues that need to be addressed at some point. My question is: Would it be proper for me to address in my letter to the ARB and at the Hearing points raised in the Draft EIR but not yet appearing in the developer’s plans. Item 2 Attachment E Comments on Draft EIR and Post ARB     Packet Pg. 64     I will call you to have a brief discussion on this. Chris _________________________ Christopher Ream 555 Byron Street, #409 Palo Alto, CA 94301 1-650-424-0821 ream@reamlaw.com Item 2 Attachment E Comments on Draft EIR and Post ARB     Packet Pg. 65     THE HAMILTON HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION Christopher Ream, President 555 Byron Street Palo Alto, California 94301 Telephone: 1-650-424-0821 Email: ream@reamlaw.com April 16, 2024 Via email: Emily.Kallas@CityofPaloAlto.org Re: 660 University Project Architectural Review Board Hearing on April 18, 2024 Draft EIR April 2024 Comments re Protection of the Coast Live Oak Tree Dear Emily, Please consider the comments in this letter as you continue to work on the Draft EIR for the 660 University Project and pass on these comments to members of the Architectural Review Board and to others where appropriate. There is an Attachment A and an Attachment B to this letter. The Hamilton is a senior living (55+) condominium development with 36 residential units and the average age of the residents in The Hamilton is mid-80’s. The Hamilton shares the same small block with the proposed development at 660 University Avenue. Lytton Gardens, Webster House and Webster House Health Center are within a block and directly across the street from the proposed development. Channing House is two blocks away. Because of this concentration of elderly citizens, the area is frequently referred to as “Senior Corner.” I am Christopher Ream. My wife Anne and I have been Palo Alto residents for 53 years and have been residents of The Hamilton for the past five years. The Hamilton community strongly opposes the proposed development at 660 University, and the Board of Directors of the Hamilton Homeowners Association (the “HHA”), with the support of its members/residents, has resolved to fight against the proposed development. I am the President of the HHA and am personally committed to significantly revising the proposed building that will materially adversely affect us and all of our neighbors. There is a majestic, beautiful Coast Live Oak tree (the “Tree”) in the middle of our block and is listed as Tree #10 on Applicant’s plans. Applicant’s arborist reports that the Tree’s trunk is 50 inches in diameter and its limbs stretch out 90 feet in diameter “in a mostly balanced canopy.” The Tree abuts the back property line of the 660 University project and so its limbs reach out approximately 45 feet over the project’s property, and its root structure is larger than that. The Tree brings shade and joy to us and everyone else on the block. The Tree is several hundred Item 2 Attachment E Comments on Draft EIR and Post ARB     Packet Pg. 66     660 University Project Ream Comments re Protection of the Coast Live Oak Tree April 16, 2024 Page 2 of 4 years old and is deemed a Protected Heritage Tree by the City of Palo Alto. Applicant’s arborist rates the Tree “High” for suitability for preservation. This proposed project puts this beautiful Tree in grave danger: “It is WLCA’s professional opinion that the tree’s vigor would be negatively impacted to a severe degree as a direct result of proposed site work as currently described on the 10/31/2023 set of plan sheets, resulting in tree #10 falling into a spiral of condition decline from which it cannot recover.” Walter Levison Consulting Arborist Impact Analysis dated 12/18/2023, p.6 Please see Attachment A to this letter for the full Impact Analysis by Walter Levison Consulting Arborist. Tree Protection Zone Applicant’s plans recite that the City’s Tree Technical Manual (TTM) ¶1.36 specifies a “Tree Protection Zone” (TPZ) for a protected tree with a radius equal to the ten times the trunk’s diameter. For the Tree, that would be 10 x 50” = 500” = 41 feet. Another rule is that the TPZ should be equal to the foliage, so here that would be a radius of 45 feet based upon the arborist’s report of a 90-foot canopy spread. I am not an arborist, but I am told that one common rule of thumb is that a tree’s roots are one and a half to three times wider than the canopy. For the Tree’s 45-foot limbs, that would be 67 to 135 feet of roots out under the parking lot where the new building would go. Robert Booty, arborist retained by Rincon Consultants on behalf of the City, reports that his LIDAR root scan of the existing asphalt parking lot at 600 University Avenue shows that the Tree’s roots are still dense and going out strong at his 51-foot scan, the furthest extent of his investigation. (See Attachment B.) Applicant has drawn a TPZ of only 30 feet on its plans and has the new building right next to and touching that 30 feet. That is 11 to 15 feet less than required. And the 30 feet is just what the building is supposed to look like – you don’t have to be an experienced contractor to know that there will be plenty of damaging construction work done on the exterior side of the two-story underground garage walls, and that will be much closer than 30 feet to the Tree. Robert Booty’s report points out that the roots are going to be sliced off at his scan of 31 feet. (See Attachment B.) Now, look up at the 2nd, 3rd and 4th floors, there are residential units with balconies sticking out 6 feet into the TPZ. Applicant’s arborist admits that pruning will be required, including a 17-inch limb. The Tree has to be pruned back to clear those balconies. Then be realistic: Applicant is going to prune the Tree even further back so that there is at least 5 feet of clearance between those balconies and the Tree. We are now cutting the Tree back to only 19 feet of foliage left. Item 2 Attachment E Comments on Draft EIR and Post ARB     Packet Pg. 67     660 University Project Ream Comments re Protection of the Coast Live Oak Tree April 16, 2024 Page 3 of 4 If 660 University is allowed to be built as now proposed, the Tree’s canopy will be severed on one side, disrupting the Tree’s balance, potentially allowing strong gravitational forces to push the Tree over. In addition, the roots needed to hold the Tree back from tipping over will have been cut and lost their gripping force. How soon will the Tree topple over and crash into The Hamilton and others. It would destroy the dental offices at 517 Byron, and badly injure and maybe kill anyone in those offices at the time. The neighborhood will lose this beautiful tree. The privacy of the seniors in the sixteen apartments in The Hamilton on that side of our development will be exposed to the 36 units with balconies on our side of the 660 University building as well as the noisy crowds on the roof top party deck. Security The Staff Report for the Architectural Review Board Hearing to be held April 18, 2024 reported that the Urban Forestry Section has requested that any building permit be conditioned upon the Applicant obtaining an appraisal of the replacement value of the Tree and posting security for that amount. What does that mean in this situation? It will be completely impossible to replace the Tree, thus how can anyone come up with a replacement value. And, if the Tree “dies” within three years of the completion of the project, then the money from the security will go into the Forestry Fund to plant trees elsewhere. So much for the owner of 517 Byron and thus the person who was the owner of the Tree and the one most damaged by its death. This might make sense if the permit was conditioned upon obtain an appraisal value using the Trunk Formula Method (TTM 6.45B) rather than the Replacement Cost Method (TTM 6.45A). Solution At the Architectural Review Board hearing in December 2022, everyone, including the Applicant’s architect and its landscaper actively agreed that the Tree had to be protected; but the Applicant did not suggest that a 41-45 foot TPZ should be observed. No, their answer was that they knew of a tree in Mountain View that has so far survived a small TPZ (although they did not say how long it has survived). One tree surviving for an unknown time is not a valid argument to ignore the universally accepted rule of a TPZ equal to 10 times the trunk’s diameter or the extent of the canopy. The only solution here to save this Protected Heritage Tree is that the proper 41-foot TPZ must be imposed and complied by both the proposed building and its construction. This is not an unfair burden on the Applicant: They have known all along that their 30-foot TPZ was in violation of TTM regulations, and that the building could not be constructed without violating even that reduced TPZ because of the necessity to have construction closer to the Tree than that artificial 30 feet. The first time they showed a TPZ on their plans was their C3 filing on October 6, 2022 when they showed a TPZ with a radius of 29’11-½” (strange number for a TPZ). C3_660 University Ave_PLAN1.pdf, p.24. This was later updated to the 30 feet we see now. Item 2 Attachment E Comments on Draft EIR and Post ARB     Packet Pg. 68     660 University Project Ream Comments re Protection of the Coast Live Oak Tree April 16, 2024 Page 4 of 4 Applicant’s arborist David L. Babby discusses the size of the TPZ in §5.3 of his Tree Protection Report, 660 University Avenue, February 7, 2024: “The CPA's Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) standard is a radial distance from the trunk equal to 10 times its diameter, which for oak #10, identifies a TPZ of 41 feet from the trunk. The proposed project establishes the TPZ to be 30 feet from the trunk, which equates to a multiplier of 7 times the trunk diameter (and 11 feet inside).” He then goes on to say that the small 30-foot TPZ only applies to the finished building and garage, and sets up an even smaller, undisclosed zone where all sorts of construction work can tear up the ground and destroy the Tree’s roots: “The architectural design substantially conforms to my recommendations provided in January 2021, which stipulates a minimum 30-foot setback from the oak's trunk to construct the future building and parking garage, and a minimum setback of 20 feet from the trunk for all ground disturbance beneath the existing asphalt surface. “Roots The 20-foot setback from #10's trunk for ground disturbance applies to any soil compaction, grading, subexcavation, overexcavation, trenching, drilling/auguring, storm drains, swales, etc.” In other words, once you are 20 feet or more from the Tree, you can go at it, tear up the ground and destroy the Tree’s roots anyway and as much as you want. It appears to me that the Applicant didn’t have a thought when they started about Palo Alto’s desire to protect its beautiful Heritage Trees. They just saw some land, put together plans to fill that land with rental opportunities, and moved forward. When they discovered that Palo Alto wanted to protect the Tree, they drew a TPZ to accommodate their plans, rather than drawing their plans to accommodate the Tree. As Chair David Hirsch so succinctly stated at the December, 2022 Architectural Review Board Hearing on this project: “This is too much building in too small of a space.” Thank you for your consideration,Christopher Ream Christopher Ream Item 2 Attachment E Comments on Draft EIR and Post ARB     Packet Pg. 69     Item 2 Attachment E Comments on Draft EIR and Post ARB     Packet Pg. 70     ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell (415) 203-0990 Email walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com Date: 12/18/2023 Impact Analysis of Proposed 660 University, Palo Alto Site Plan Project Work on One (1) Off-Site Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia) Specimen (Project Tree #10, Palo Alto City Tree Tag #1572) at 517 Byron Palo Alto, CA Mr. Chris Ream, President The Hamilton Homeowners Association 555 Byron Palo Alto, CA ream@reamlaw.com Dear Mr. Ream, The following written letter report is the single deliverable prepared by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) per your request as an association with members residing at The Hamilton, in close proximity to the proposed multi-story 660 University project. Background and Assignment The proposed private development project stated above proposes to demolish various existing office buildings and parking lot areas, and build an underground parking garage, with residential and commercial office facility directly over the garage footprint. WLCA’s assignment was to determine whether the site work as currently proposed per the set of plan sheets (dated October 2023) would cause severe or otherwise irreversible injury to the subject oak specimen to such as degree that it would be expected to fall into a spiral of decline from which it could not recover, as a direct result of the site work. WLCA visited the site on 12/13/2023 to archive digital images, create a tree map markup showing actual site-verified canopy dimensions (rough approx.), and confirm existing site conditions. The project encompasses three lots, 660 University, 680 University, and 511 Byron. An adjacent lot at 517 Byron just south of the proposed work area exhibits a relatively very large “veteran tree” coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) referenced by David L. Babby, author of the Tree Protection Report filed by the developer, as tree #10 (City tag #1572), a specimen in good overall condition (62% out of 100% possible) as visually assessed by WLCA, with a canopy spread that is equal to the largest coast live oak specimens ever assessed in the author’s entire 25 year professional consulting career (see digital images below in this report showing the 90 foot diameter canopy). WLCA reviewed the private development proposed plan sheets dated 10/31/2023 (planning resubmittal #5) which were downloaded from the City of Palo Alto website, and an arborist report by David Babby dated 11/19/2021, which does not actually contain any site plan sheets (Mr. Babby used a topographic survey sheet for his site tree map markup). Multiple marked-up tree location maps, color-coded by WLCA, show expected construction-related impacts in relation to the tree #10 existing canopy dripline and in relation to the standard tree protection zone (TPZ) of 10 x diameter as an offset radius from mainstem edge. These markups are attached to the end of this letter report for reference (view document using Adobe Pro, Adobe CS, or other paid form of Adobe Acrobat, to maintain the visibility of the color-coded markups). Digital images archived by WLCA in December 2023 are also included in this report for reference of pre-project conditions. 1 of 12 Site Address: 660 University, Palo Alto, CA Iteration: 12/18/2023 Walter Levison  2023 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Life Member of the International Society of Arboriculture Item 2 Attachment E Comments on Draft EIR and Post ARB     Packet Pg. 71     ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell (415) 203-0990 Email walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com Basic Data Diameter: 50 inches, per Babby report. Spread: Approximately 90 feet total diameter, per David Babby report and WLCA. Health (Vigor): 70% per Babby, 80% per WLCA. Structure: 40% per Babby, 50% per WLCA. Overall Condition Rating: 50% (fair) per Babby, 62% (good) per WLCA. Live Twig Density and Live Foliar Density: Good. Additional Tree Information per WLCA’s Visual Tree Assessment (VTA) 12/13/2023 and Research Foliage hangs down to 15 to 25 feet above grade at 45 feet radius north of mainstem edge. Multiple mainstems exhibit wide angle saddle shaped (i.e.”normal”) attachment forks between 10 and 15 feet elevation above grade. These stems are somewhat upward oriented. Buttress root flares at root crown appear normal, though root system extent and condition are essentially unknowable due to hardscape presence over a large percentage of actual root zone. It is hypothesized that the actual extent of root 1zone is at least 2x to 3x the 45 foot canopy radius in terms of lateral distance in most directions out from trunk , based thon both Arboriculture 4 Edition (2004), and on WLCA’s past 25 years of construction site consulting experience with coast live oak specimens on older sites with older less-compacted root zone conditions, where historical building foundations and parking lot baserock base sections were constructed to far less strict standards than modern engineer specifications. There may be extensive rooting occurring out through various private lots that adjoin the 517 Byron lot on which tree #10 stands, with lateral woody roots extending from tree #10 underneath various retaining wall footings and building footings, out to underneath existing asphalt parking lot surfacing, etc. Per USGS local quadrangle soils map, tree #10 is growing in the “Qoa” unit, which is defined as an older alluvium (oa): a gravelly riparian soil that is derived from stream associated movements, and typically contains smooth rocky material that drains relatively well, and is excellent for development of deep, elongated native oak tree root systems (based on WLCA’s professional experience and research). This Palo Alto site probably has one of the best soils in the entire Bay Area in terms of allowing for fast growth of native oaks. See the digital images section of this report for an overlay map created by WLCA using various online sources and the USGS soil map shows how groundwater at this location is relatively high in elevation (25 foot groundwater contour), and shows existing roads, historical streams, and red dot plots where a past survey by others indicated locations of extremely old native valley oak specimens for reference. What this all means is that the proposed project site has very good growing conditions for native oaks with a high groundwater table elevation contour and gravelly alluvium soil associated with historical waterways which drains relatively quickly and may also exhibit relatively good aeration related to the larger material components of the soil. 1 Per Harris et. al. 2004. Arboriculture 4th Edition. Prentice Hall. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, USA. 2 of 12 Site Address: 660 University, Palo Alto, CA Iteration: 12/18/2023 Walter Levison  2023 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Life Member of the International Society of Arboriculture Item 2 Attachment E Comments on Draft EIR and Post ARB     Packet Pg. 72     ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell (415) 203-0990 Email walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com Expected Tree Root Zone and Canopy Impact Analysis / Based on October 2023 Set of Proposed Plan Sheets •Canopy: Expect 20 to 30% of canopy live wood and foliage to be removed to clear southward-extended balcony construction, garage vertical wall construction, foundation footing construction for main building structure, vertical exterior walls along the south side of the residential structure, and an additional +/- 10 feet of horizontal width required to be totally cleared up to roof peak elevations as a “construction corridor” airspace for exterior work, scaffold erection, and bucket lift machinery use (based on WLCA’s past projects to date, which required between 6 feet and 15 feet of horizontal clearance as construction corridors around building exterior walls, between soil surface grade and the roof peaks). Note that the curvilinear section of garage entry ramp, although it is below grade elevation, may actually require tall vertical machinery clearance directly above the proposed wall cut locations, resulting in further clearance pruning of the tree #10 northwest corner of canopy (not verified). This information is based on past projects overseen by WLCA involving underground parking garage retaining wall construction in the Bay Area. Total expected canopy loss will likely result in a remnant canopy with 20 to 25 feet of north, northeast, and northwest extension from mainstem base, whereas existing canopy is +/- 45 feet radial extension in those directions. Refer to the attached WLCA tree map markup for a graphic representation of the various impacts indicated as color-coded lines. •Roots: Expected subgrade work will encroach to within the City of Palo Alto “10 times diameter” tree protection zone on the north side of tree, inside which special methods/materials/monitoring is required for site construction work. Extent of root zone compromised by the various elements of proposed work (garage wall excavation using vertical shoring, landscape decking, landscape irrigation, landscape plant and tree installation, etc. is expected to be moderate to severe, depending on actual cut depths and depending on whether machinery and personnel are allowed to enter into the TPZ and compact the root zone in the north area of TPZ. Note that the actual extent of roots may or may not be 2x to 3x the tree canopy dripline radius distance northward from trunk, and is currently obscured by hardscape and not able to be verified in terms of lateral distance of growth. Critical Root Zone (i.e. “CRZ”) or “Tree Protection Zone”, in terms of structural root plate, lateral woody roots, and absorbing root mass retention during work on one or more sides of a tree, is ten times the diameter of trunk (10 x 50 inch diameter as noted in the David Babby report). Therefore, it is WLCA’s understanding that the required TPZ 2work offset radius for tree #10 is approximately 10 x 50 inches = 41.6 feet radius ), unless site work at offset distances less than 10 x diameter is specifically authorized by City Urban Forestry Staff. Note that in the case of the 660 University project, the severe extent of clearance pruning creates a cumulative impact in terms of loss of tree condition, such that the combined root zone and canopy impacts are relatively severe or extremely severe (see attached WLCA markups showing deep excavation work impacts, for example, expected to within 30 feet offset from trunk, which is far less than the 41.6 foot official TPZ offset). 2 Reference the developer’s Tree Disclosure Statement, which notes that the official TPZ is 10 x diameter of trunk, per City of Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual (TTM) standards. Blue link to full TTM below shows up erroneously as a hyperlink to “Appendix A”, but is actually the full TTM document: APPENDIX A (cityofpaloalto.org) 3 of 12 Site Address: 660 University, Palo Alto, CA Iteration: 12/18/2023 Walter Levison  2023 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Life Member of the International Society of Arboriculture Item 2 Attachment E Comments on Draft EIR and Post ARB     Packet Pg. 73     ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell (415) 203-0990 Email walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com Note also that there is no guarantee that site work will be performed by the developer in a manner consistent with specific conditions of project approval as set forth by Palo Alto Urban Forestry Staff, even if those special conditions were mandated by the City. There is no way for an arborist monitoring site work, for instance, to be on site during every stage of the work. The arborist monitor, if retained to inspect site work near to tree #10 during the development phase of the project, would only be able to visibly inspect the site once a month or so, leaving him/her with a limited snapshot of what below-ground impacts occurred in relation to the tree #10 root zone. Soil Compaction within the CRZ/TPZ: Note that proposed driving of machinery, foot traffic, extensive landscape footing development, and extensive planting and (possibly also) extensive irrigation pipe trenching are expected to occur within the CRZ/TPZ of 41.6 feet radius from trunk edge of tree #10. Consulting Arborists will typically specify use of robust “ground protection” in these cases, covering the ground with a thick mat of geotextile overlaid with 6 or more inches of wood chips, and finally covered with steel trench plates or full sheets of exterior grade plywood strapped together with steel strap plates to create a soil buffer. But given that there is planned intense landscaping and decking, etc. to be developed in the area between the garage retaining wall and the south property line abutted up against the 517 Byron lot, WLCA expects that it would be virtually impossible for the developer to actually implement use of robust ground protection and maintain it for any length of time, without causing a major problem in terms of ground logistics (staging, storage, movement of tools and materials, performance of landscape related development between 517 Byron and the underground parking garage wall, etc.). Therefore, it is expected that soil compaction of a high degree will likely occur in the north section of the tree #10 root zone, within the CRZ/TPZ offset radius, causing additional reduction in overall tree health and structural condition as soil oxygen pore space is compacted and root zone root growing conditions end up suffering as a result of loss of oxygen pore spaces within the tree root growth section of the soil profile (i.e. mainly the uppermost two feet of the soil profile, but potentially down to 4 or 5 feet or more below soil surface grade elevation in native Palo Alto area historical riparian cobble type soils). •TRAQ Risk: The removal of 20% to 30% of the canopy of tree #10 for clearance as noted above, will cause southward lopsidedness of the currently-symmetrical canopy tree specimen of extremely large spread radius (45 feet radius), resulting in increased load forces acting on the north side (“tension” side) of the root system. The root system will have been compromised to an unknown degree during site work (underground parking garage wall excavation, landscape development, and possible adjustments to or demolition of the existing brick retaining wall that separates 517 Byron from the proposed 660 University project site. Risk of whole tree failure mode and impact with targets to the south of the mainstem location will be necessarily increased and elevated due to these site plan work activities. Risk of stem failure and impact with various ground targets will over time be increased and elevated, due to the required clearance pruning through the north side of the canopy to clear scaffolding, bucket lift machinery, balconies, and the new building exterior wall plus underground parking retaining wall work that requires vertical machinery airspace clearance. Very large diameter pruning cuts will be made to accomplish the work, ranging from 3a few inches diameter each, up to 17 or more inches diameter each , on some stems that extend northward into the proposed project airspace area. Pruning cuts of this relatively large diameter will allow for fungal wood decay-causing pathogen entrance into the stems via these open cut wounds, resulting in extensive decay column formation over time that progresses down into the stems from the cut wounds. 3 David Babby’s arborist report notes that a 14” and a 17” diameter stem will require pruning. 4 of 12 Site Address: 660 University, Palo Alto, CA Iteration: 12/18/2023 Walter Levison  2023 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Life Member of the International Society of Arboriculture Item 2 Attachment E Comments on Draft EIR and Post ARB     Packet Pg. 74     ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell (415) 203-0990 Email walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com •Heritage Tree Designation in City of Palo Alto There are currently +/- eight (8) trees listed on the City heritage tree list maintained by the City. Per the following information, trees are apparently not required to meet any specific “approval criteria” in terms of species, size, condition, or other relevant parameters, to be selected as formal heritage tree specimens in City of Palo Alto, other than that the trees are native oak species or redwoods located on private property: (Excerpt from a City Staff Report Online): “In 1996, Council enacted the Tree Preservation Ordinance, Chapter 8.10 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, to preserve and maintain specified native oaks, redwoods, and heritage trees on private property, and to protect them from disfigurement or removal, except in certain circumstances. Section 8.10.090 of the ordinance allows persons to nominate a tree on their property forheritage tree status. After Council approval of such designation, the tree is added to the heritage tree listing, which includes specific location, overall size, and canopy spread. The list is maintained by the Department of Public Works and available to the public on the City’s Urban Forestry website. Once designated, a heritage tree is protected by the provisions of the Tree Preservation and Management Regulations, unless removed from the heritage tree list by subsequent Council action at the request of the property owner.” Per the above information, protected size tree #10 (City tree tag #1572) appears to be an excellent candidate for inclusion in the City’s heritage tree designation program which protects native oaks on private properties. It is a specimen in good overall condition, with exceptional size in terms of both mainstem diameter (est. 50 inches), and canopy spread (90 feet total diameter), with good vigor, good buttress root flares, and good saddle-shaped wide angle forks of mainstem attachment. •David Babby Report 11/19/2021 Page 6 Per page 6 of the developer’s arborist report by David Babby, tree #10 exhibits a “high” rating in terms of suitability for preservation (see below excerpt from page 6 of Babby report): 5 of 12 Site Address: 660 University, Palo Alto, CA Iteration: 12/18/2023 Walter Levison  2023 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Life Member of the International Society of Arboriculture Item 2 Attachment E Comments on Draft EIR and Post ARB     Packet Pg. 75     ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell (415) 203-0990 Email walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com Conclusion If the proposed 660 University site plan project were built out as currently proposed per the 10/31/2023 planning resubmittal #5 versions of the plan sheets, WLCA expects that tree #10 would experience relatively moderate to severe root loss, and relatively severe pruning, which combined as a cumulative below-ground and above-ground negative impact would necessarily result in loss of vigor (health) and structure to a severe degree. The tree’s safe and useful life expectancy in its current condition rating of “good” (+/- 62% overall condition rating) may be reduced as a result of site plan project work from (EXISTING: no-construction scenario) 50 to 100 years remaining, to (PROPOSED: post-construction scenario) 10 to 20 years remaining, or less, depending on the tree’s response to very significant project clearance canopy and root pruning as described above in this letter report. It is WLCA’s professional opinion that the tree’s vigor would be negatively impacted to a severe degree as a direct result of proposed site work as currently described on the 10/31/2023 set of plan sheets, resulting in tree #10 falling into a spiral of condition decline from which it cannot recover. There would also necessarily be a corresponding elevation of the TRAQ risk rating in terms of risk of whole tree and/or tree part failure and impact with various static and moving targets with moderate to high occupancy ratings within the target zone and a reasonable time frame such as 12 to 24 months, starting as of the proposed site construction completion date (this would need to be assessed at a future time, and is outside the scope of WLCA’s initial pre-project assignment). The tree is located in the an area known to have high water table elevations and gravelly (gravel-laden) riparian type alluvium soil that tends to support excellent native oak tree root growth in terms of both rooting depth and root lateral extension. It is highly recommended that this exceptionally large native oak specimen in good overall condition be designated by the City Council as a City of Palo Alto Heritage Tree on private land, and formally added to the list maintained by the City on their official website, with the added tree protection guarantees that this tree special protection status includes (tree specimens are typically nominated for such designation by the owner of the property on which the tree stands). Refer also to David Babby’s arborist report dated 11/19/202, page 6, which notes that tree #10 is rated as “high” suitability for preservation, appearing healthy and structurally stable per his assessment, presenting “good potential for contributing long-term to the site”. 6 of 12 Site Address: 660 University, Palo Alto, CA Iteration: 12/18/2023 Walter Levison  2023 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Life Member of the International Society of Arboriculture Item 2 Attachment E Comments on Draft EIR and Post ARB     Packet Pg. 76     ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell (415) 203-0990 Email walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com Digital Images by WLCA 12/13/2023 / Tree #10 Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) View of the relatively wide angle fork attachments between 10 and 15 feet elevation above grade at which the tree #10 codominant mainstems arise. These saddle shaped forms are normal and desirable from a structural stability standpoint. Although it is not “optimal” to have codominant mainstems forking in a tree, the best case scenario would be for all of the forks to exhibit wide saddle-shaped attachments like this tree. It is actually extremely unusual for a coast live oak to exhibit saddle-shaped forks at every bifurcation of the codominant mainstems. View looking eastward while standing on 517 Byron. Note the excellent buttress root flaring at the root crown of tree #10 which is considered normal and desirable. 7 of 12 Site Address: 660 University, Palo Alto, CA Iteration: 12/18/2023 Walter Levison  2023 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Life Member of the International Society of Arboriculture Item 2 Attachment E Comments on Draft EIR and Post ARB     Packet Pg. 77     ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell (415) 203-0990 Email walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com View of subject oak #10 looking northward from 517 Byron. 8 of 12 Site Address: 660 University, Palo Alto, CA Iteration: 12/18/2023 Walter Levison  2023 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Life Member of the International Society of Arboriculture Item 2 Attachment E Comments on Draft EIR and Post ARB     Packet Pg. 78     ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell (415) 203-0990 Email walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com View of oak #10 lower 50% of canopy/mainstem architecture, with the adjoining asphalt parking lot area west of 517 Byron visible at left half of the image. The root system is assumed to be extended through most or all adjoining lots surrounding 517 Byron (not verified), as is assumed to reach as much as 2x to 3x the 45 foot canopy radius (again, not verified, but very possible, per WLCA’s past experience with older oaks in Palo Alto and Menlo Park area, especially if the soil is a historical cobble-based riparian soil profile with fast drainage (not verified). 9 of 12 Site Address: 660 University, Palo Alto, CA Iteration: 12/18/2023 Walter Levison  2023 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Life Member of the International Society of Arboriculture Item 2 Attachment E Comments on Draft EIR and Post ARB     Packet Pg. 79     ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell (415) 203-0990 Email walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com Per WLCA’s multi-layer mockup created for a valley oak location comparison with groundwater depths and soil types, the tree #10 location has a 25 foot depth groundwater table, and nearby Palo Alto study-noted red dots which indicate very large older valley oak specimens surveyed in the past and included on internet maps for reference. The Qoa soil type at the 660 University site is defined as “older alluvium” (hence the “oa” designation): a Pleistocene soil of gravels, sand, and silt that is unconsolidated to consolidated, interspersed with alluvial materials from stream action. See next page of this report for the United States Geological Survey legend pertaining to this soil unit, clipped from the local Palo Alto soil map, obtained from USGS Menlo Park headquarters. 10 of 12 Site Address: 660 University, Palo Alto, CA Iteration: 12/18/2023 Walter Levison  2023 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Life Member of the International Society of Arboriculture Item 2 Attachment E Comments on Draft EIR and Post ARB     Packet Pg. 80     ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell (415) 203-0990 Email walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com Above was excerpted from the USGS Quadrangle (soil unit map) which includes the City of Palo Alto area. Assumptions and Limiting Conditions Any legal description provided to the consultant/appraiser is assumed to be correct. Any titles and ownership to any property are assumed to be good and marketable. No responsibility is assumed for matters legal in character. Any and all property is appraised and evaluated as through free and clean, under responsible ownership and competent management. It is assumed that any property is not in violation of any applicable codes, ordinance, statutes, or other government regulations. Care has been taken to obtain all information from reliable sources. All data has been verified insofar as possible; however, the consultant/appraiser can neither guarantee nor be responsible for the accuracy of information provided by others. The consultant/appraiser shall not be required to give testimony or to attend court by reason of this report unless subsequent contractual arrangements are made, including payment of an additional fee for such services as described in the fee schedule and contract of engagement. Unless required by law otherwise, the possession of this report or a copy thereof does not imply right of publication or use for any other purpose by any other than the person to whom it is addressed, without the prior expressed written or verbal consent of the consultant/appraiser. Unless required by law otherwise, neither all nor any part of the contents of this report, nor copy thereof, shall be conveyed by anyone, including the client, to the public through advertising, public relations, news, sales, or other media, without the prior expressed conclusions, identity of the consultant/appraiser, or any reference to any professional society or institute or to any initiated designation conferred upon the consultant/appraiser as stated in his qualifications. This report and any values expressed herein represent the opinion of the consultant/appraiser, and the consultant’s/appraiser’s fee is in no way contingent upon the reporting of a specified value, a stipulated result, the occurrence of a subsequent event, nor upon any finding to be reported. Sketches, drawings, and photographs in this report, being intended for visual aids, are not necessarily to scale and should not be construed as engineering or architectural reports or surveys unless expressed otherwise. The reproduction of any information generated by engineers, architects, or other consultants on any sketches, drawings, or photographs is for the express purpose of coordination and ease of reference only. Inclusion of said information on any 11 of 12 Site Address: 660 University, Palo Alto, CA Iteration: 12/18/2023 Walter Levison  2023 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Life Member of the International Society of Arboriculture Item 2 Attachment E Comments on Draft EIR and Post ARB     Packet Pg. 81     ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell (415) 203-0990 Email walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com drawings or other documents does not constitute a representation by Walter Levison to the sufficiency or accuracy of said information. Unless expressed otherwise: • • • information contained in this report covers only those items that were examined and reflects the conditions of those items at the time of inspection; and the inspection is limited to ground-based visual examination of accessible items without climbing, dissection, excavation, probing, or coring. There is no warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied, that problems or deficiencies of the plants or property in question may not arise in the future. Loss or alteration of any part of this report invalidates the entire report. Arborist Disclosure Statement: Arborists are tree specialists who use their education, knowledge, training, and experience to examine trees, recommend measures to enhance the beauty and health of trees, and attempt to reduce the risk of living near trees. Clients may choose to accept or disregard the recommendations of the arborist, or to seek additional advice. Arborists cannot detect every condition that could possibly lead to the structural failure of a tree. Tree are living organisms that fail in ways we do not fully understand. Conditions are often hidden within trees and below ground. Arborist cannot guarantee that a tree will be healthy or safe under all circumstances, or for a specified period of time. Likewise, remedial treatments, like any medicine, cannot be guaranteed. Treatment, pruning, and removal of trees may involve considerations beyond the scope of the arborist’s services such as property boundaries, property ownership, site lines, disputes between neighbors, and other issues. Arborists cannot take such considerations into account unless complete and accurate information is disclosed to the arborist. An arborist should then be expected to reasonably rely upon the completeness and accuracy of the information provided. Trees can be managed, but they cannot be controlled. To live near trees is to accept some degree of risk. The only way to eliminate all risk associated with trees is to eliminate the trees. Certification I hereby certify that all the statements of fact in this report are true, complete, and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief, and are made in good faith. Signature of Consultant DIGITAL BADGES: ISA CERTIFIED ARBORIST CREDENTIAL: https://certificates.isa-arbor.com/f1918723-df46-48cc-ace2-c12625530fec#gs.v54om6 (Renewed through June, 2026) ISA TREE RISK ASSESSMENT QUALIFIED (TRAQ): https://certificates.isa-arbor.com/d180515f-ab75-440b-9c66-106005e3cf10?record_view=true#gs.hpb30w (Renewed through March, 2028) Attached: Tree Map Markups by WLCA 12/18/2023 (View Using Adobe or Adobe CS in Order to Allow for Full Visibility of the Markups Created Using Adobe Pro Software). 12 of 12 Site Address: 660 University, Palo Alto, CA Iteration: 12/18/2023 Walter Levison  2023 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Life Member of the International Society of Arboriculture Item 2 Attachment E Comments on Draft EIR and Post ARB     Packet Pg. 82     Item 2 Attachment E Comments on Draft EIR and Post ARB     Packet Pg. 83     Item 2 Attachment E Comments on Draft EIR and Post ARB     Packet Pg. 84     660 University Project Ream Comments re Protection of the Coast Live Oak Tree April 16, 2024 Aꢀachment B Item 2 Attachment E Comments on Draft EIR and Post ARB     Packet Pg. 85     Item 2 Attachment E Comments on Draft EIR and Post ARB     Packet Pg. 86     Item 2 Attachment E Comments on Draft EIR and Post ARB     Packet Pg. 87     May 23, 2023 Root Study Oak Tree #1572 660 University Avenue Palo Alto, California May 8, 2022 660 University Avenue Palo Alto, California. Scan #7 Line scan over parking lot 31 feet away from Oak tree #1572 Excavation point for below-ground garage. This involves this whole cross section. All roots will be removed; beginning with the following scans 7-12 Root Depth in inches Asphalt Thickness 34Robert Booty Registered Consulting Arborist 487 ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor www.arboristonsite.com Copyright 2022 Arborist OnSite Horticultural Consulting, Inc. Item 2 Attachment E Comments on Draft EIR and Post ARB     Packet Pg. 88     From:Christopher Ream To:Kallas, Emily Subject: Date: Attachments: 660 University, ARB Hearing Wednesday, April 17, 2024 12:27:59 AM 660 - Ream Letter re Tree - 20240416 w Attachments.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Emily, Please find attached my letter which I wish the Architectural Review Board will have a chance to review before the Hearing Thursday morning. Please share it with each Member and with anyone else for whom you think would be appropriate. Please point out to them that Walter Levison’s Impact Analysis is attached. Thank you. Chris _________________________ Christopher Ream 555 Byron Street, #409 Palo Alto, CA 94301 1-650-424-0821 ream@reamlaw.com Item 2 Attachment E Comments on Draft EIR and Post ARB     Packet Pg. 89     From: To: Kallas, Emily Kallas, Emily Subject: Date: FW: New Construction at 511 Byron Street, and more, Palo Alto Tuesday, May 21, 2024 4:22:00 PM From: Faith Brigel <faithwb3@yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2024 5:21 PM To: Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Lythcott-Haims, Julie <Julie.LythcottHaims@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Veenker, Vicki <Vicki.Veenker@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Lauing, Ed <Ed.Lauing@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Kou, Lydia <Lydia.Kou@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Tanaka, Greg <Greg.Tanaka@CityofPaloAlto.org> Cc: Faith Brigel <faithwb3@yahoo.com>; greg.stone@cityofpaloalto.org; Burt, Patrick <Pat.Burt@CityofPaloAlto.org> Subject: New Construction at 511 Byron Street, and more, Palo Alto Some people who received this message don't often get email from faithwb3@yahoo.com. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council of City of Palo Alto, This morning I attended an Architectural Review Board meeting to discuss the new construction that is being proposed for 511 Byron Street, 660 University Ave., 680 University Ave., and 500 Middlefield Road. Once all of these buildings will be demolished they will construct an immense four story, mixed usage of many offices and many residential rentals, and a two story basement for parking, though the parking spaces will be much reduced from what is needed. And I assume a lot of water will need to be drained since our water level is shallow. Their presentation talked about several of the other buildings in that area that are large, though not as large as this one: the Hamilton project, Lytton Gardens, The Webster House and there is the 3 story 2 condo on Webster and University Ave. There are already several large buildings in this area. And I think none of them have a two story basement. That intersection is already very congested. And there is rarely any parking on Byron Street. One person opposed to this project this morning stated that constructing this building into that area is like squeezing it into a lot that is much too small. I have owned the single, story Victorian that is more than 100 years old, for almost 40 years. My building was not mentioned this morning. And I will lose some of my daylight plan, which was also not mentioned. Byron Street and University Ave. in Item 2 Attachment E Comments on Draft EIR and Post ARB     Packet Pg. 90     that area has always been a quiet, professional area for the past 40 years. My building has a psychiatrist, and a psychologist. They work in my building because it is quiet. Adding many residential apartments with balconies to those structures will totally change the nature of this area. And I more than likely will lose at least some of my tenants, if not all of them. I understand that the State is requiring more housing. But a very large building with offices and apartments right downtown on University Ave. beside Middlefield is not a good spot for it. There should be some consideration for people like myself who have been in that area for many years- not just the developers who are not concerned that they are overbuilding the downtown area. I ask and hope that you who represent all of us on the City Council and will take into consideration all of us not just the developers. Thank you for your consideration, Faith W. Brigel Item 2 Attachment E Comments on Draft EIR and Post ARB     Packet Pg. 91     From: To: Mathews, Marley@DOT Kallas, Emily Cc:Luo, Yunsheng@DOT Subject: Date: 660 University Avenue Mixed-Use Project Caltrans Comment Wednesday, May 8, 2024 1:06:33 PM You don't often get email from marley.mathews@dot.ca.gov. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Hello Emily, Thank you for including Caltrans in this review of the 660 University Avenue Mixed-Use Project DIER. At this time, Caltrans has no comments on the material provided. Please note this correspondence does not indicate an official position by Caltrans on this project and is for informational purposes only. Please continue to include Caltrans in discussions regarding this Project to stay informed. We encourage multi-agency collaboration and welcome any potential opportunities. Any future material or correspondence regarding this Project can be submitted to LDR-D4@dot.ca.gov. Thank you, Marley Mathews Transportation Planner (she/her) D4 Caltrans 510-960-0841 Item 2 Attachment E Comments on Draft EIR and Post ARB     Packet Pg. 92     From:Gennifer Wehrmeyer To:Kallas, Emily Cc:CPRU-Dropbox; Shree Dharasker Subject: Date: VW File 34811 – Comments on DEIR for 660 University Avenue Mixed-Use Project Friday, May 17, 2024 4:14:49 PM Attachments:image001.png You don't often get email from gwehrmeyer@valleywater.org. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Emily, The Santa Clara Valley Water District (Valley Water) has reviewed Notice of Availability of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the 660 University Avenue Mixed-Use Project to merge three parcels to construct a four-story mixed-use building at 511 Bryon Street, 660 University Ave, and 680 University Ave/500 Middlefield Rd in Palo Alto, received on April 2, 2024, and has the following comments: 1. Valley Water does not have any right of way or facilities within the project site boundary; therefore, in accordance with Valley Water’s Water Resources Protection Ordinance, a Valley Water encroachment permit will not be required for the project. 2. Valley Water previously commented on the Notice of Preparation (NOP) that underground structures should be designed for waterproofing that avoids the need for permanent dewatering after construction is complete. As stated in Section 10-a, construction will involve excavation up to 38 feet below ground surface, during which time dewatering will be used. It is unclear if dewatering will occur after construction. Underground structures should be designed for waterproofing and permanent dewatering should be avoided once construction is finished. 3. Valley Water records indicate that no active wells are located on the subject property. While Valley Water has records for most wells located in the County, it is always possible that a well exists that is not in the Valley Water’s records. If previously unknown wells are found on the subject property during development, they must be properly destroyed under permit from Valley Water or registered with Valley Water and protected from damage. For more information, please call the Valley Water’s Well Ordinance Program Hotline at 408-630-2660. 4. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) 006085C0010H, effective May 18, 2009, the project site is within FEMA Flood Zone AH, an area with 1% annual chance of shallow flooding (usually areas of ponding), located between base flood elevations of 46 feet and 47 feet. The project is required to follow the flood plain ordinance and national flood insurance requirements. If you have any questions or need further information, you can reach me at gwehrmeyer@valleywater.org or at (408) 694-2069. Please reference Valley Water File 34811 on further correspondence regarding this project. Thank you, Gennifer Wehrmeyer ASSISTANT ENGINEER, CIVIL Item 2 Attachment E Comments on Draft EIR and Post ARB     Packet Pg. 93     Community Projects Review Unit Watershed Stewardship and Planning Division GWehrmeyer@valleywater.org Tel. (408) 630-2588 Cell. (408) 694-2069 SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 5750 Almaden Expressway, San Jose CA 95118 www.valleywater.org ..Clean Water Healthy Environment Flood Protection Item 2 Attachment E Comments on Draft EIR and Post ARB     Packet Pg. 94     349 Sutter Street San Francisco California 94108 KSH Architects | 349 Sutter Street San Francisco California 94108 | 415.954.1960 PROJECT DESCRIPTION – 660 UNIVERSITY AVE, PALO ALTO Located on a prominent site in Palo Alto, the 660 University project is situated on University Avenue between Middlefield Road and Byron Street. The project proposes a mixed-use 4-story building with two (2) levels of below-grade parking and includes the following: 9,115 square feet of office space on the ground floor; 63 residential units with an entry lobby; and parking to service both uses. The residential and office entrances are located on University Avenue with recessed alcoves designed to welcome tenants, connected to the sidewalk grade via ramps and stairs. Separate elevators are also provided for each use and are accessible from the below grade parking levels. Natural finishes have been selected for the exterior of the building, including clear glass, board- formed concrete, simulated wood panels and horizontal siding. The residential elevator tower on University Avenue and the stair towers on Middlefield Road and Byron Street are expressed as sculptural forms, further highlighted by extensive landscaping at the edges of the site. Changes in plane, setbacks, projecting balconies, a roof garden with landscaping and trellises contribute to the character and texture of the proposed building. Three parcels will be combined and two existing office buildings on the site will be demolished in order for this project to proceed. We are estimating that the approximate start date for construction will be 10/01/2024, and the approximate end date for construction will be 09/01/2025. Context The project is designed to be a high-quality addition to Palo Alto. Features include changes in plane, the expression of varied heights in the building volumes, material and color variation, recessed windows and projecting balconies with glass railings. In addition to the private balconies, a terrace for residents is proposed at the roof, to provide common open space. The project has taken steps to respond to the surrounding context of the site. The form of the building steps down toward the adjacent residence located at 524 Middlefield Road and responds to the context of the neighboring single-family use lot through setbacks along the common property line. The shared fence between the neighboring property and the site will be updated based on multiple discussions with the resident of 542 Middlefield Road, and the proposal has been received positively by the neighbor. Trash staging and the vehicular entry to the parking garage are located on Byron Street to avoid further congestion along Middlefield Road. The preservation of a large oak tree, located on an adjacent parcel, is incorporated into the design, and conforms to all recommendations and setbacks prescribed by a city approved arborist. An outdoor deck will also be constructed beneath the existing oak tree without disturbing the existing conditions of the root system. The team for this project successfully designed & constructed a similar project at 250 Bryant in Mountain View (3 stories with two levels of below grade parking) around an existing oak tree and has experience with this type of installation. The project front yard (Middlefield Rd) has a special 24 ft. setback that is required per the current zoning map. In order to deliver the needed housing to Palo Alto as proposed in this project, the Item 2 Attachment F Applicants Project Description Response Letter     Packet Pg. 95     349 Sutter Street San Francisco California 94108 KSH Architects | 349 Sutter Street San Francisco California 94108 | 415.954.1960 design seeks to propose a 10 ft. setback. This setback is similar to that provided by the existing office building onsite that is scheduled for removal as a part of this scope -- combined with the 14 ft. sidewalk width, both the existing and proposed buildings are located 24 ft. from the face of the curb on Middlefield Road. For added context, Sheet A1.1-B shows the typical setbacks measured on an aerial overlay of the neighborhood – currently, no other buildings in the vicinity appear to comply with the 24 ft. setback proposed. The street side yard setback (University Ave.) requires a 16 ft. setback per zoning, or a 0-20’ setback on arterial roadways. The project proposes 6 ft setback is currently proposed, and combined with a 12 ft wide sidewalk, places the building 18 ft. from the face of curb on University Ave. Similarly, the street rear yard (Byron St) proposes a 10 ft setback where 16 ft is required. With the 10ft sidewalk width, the face of the proposed building is 20 ft. from the face of the curb on Byron Street. The interior side yard requires a 10 ft setback. In order to accommodate the existing oak tree canopy, as well as comply with the required daylight plane adjacent to the single family residence at 534 Middlefield Rd., our building proposes a 19.5 ft. minimum setback, and a 26.5 ft. maximum setback with additional insets. The daylight plane condition is shown in 3/A3.3 in the drawing set. Open Space – 35% min. required The proposed design exceeds open space requirements providing 9,406 SF (42%) ground level open space as well as the following: 3,288 SF of private (residential) balcony area; 644 SF of private (residential) terrace area on the second floor (subdivided for the 5 units adjacent); 1,298 SF of private (residential) terrace area on the fourth floor (subdivided for the 3 units adjacent); and 4,672 SF of common use (residential) terrace area on the roof. In total, ~9,902 SF of private balcony & private/common terrace area is provided where only 9,450 SF is required. While the provided open space total exceeds the minimum requirement, the project proposes 8 units without private balconies. However, the other 55 units are provided with private balconies of a minimum of 60 square feet each. The rooftop terrace will provide a variety of different ‘neighborhoods’ to allow for diverse gathering spaces from smaller quiet pockets to larger group areas including lounge, dining & BBQ uses. The layout allows the roof terrace to be separated from the interior lot line by the penthouse & HVAC enclosures so that the primary views & sight lines from the terrace are out toward the streets (University primarily and also Byron / Middlefield) and not towards the single-family residence. Seating areas are set away from the perimeter guardrail, allowing the primary circulation to be on the outside of the flexible terrace space, connecting between both egress stairs & the elevator. Item 2 Attachment F Applicants Project Description Response Letter     Packet Pg. 96     349 Sutter Street San Francisco California 94108 KSH Architects | 349 Sutter Street San Francisco California 94108 | 415.954.1960 FAR – 0.5:1 max, min. 11 units – max 20 units / acre The proposed office FAR is .4 & the proposed residential FAR is 1.77 (63 units for ~ 0.5 acres where 10 are allowed) for a combined proposed FAR of 2.175. This residential FAR calculation includes the proposed units, stairs, elevators, MEP rooms, & residential lounge to support the residential units, as well as roof top penthouse space to access the residential rooftop terrace. The project seeks to exceed the allowable FAR in order to provide much needed housing within the downtown community. Jobs/Housing Ratio The existing combined office area (to be removed) on the subject parcels is 9,216 SF, of which 9,115 SF (~100 SF decrease) is proposed to be replaced within the current project. In addition, the project seeks to provide 63 new housing units (combination of studios, 1-BRs & 2-BRs) to the community. Parking With the proposed project being less than a mile from the University Ave. Caltrain station, the project has proposed a robust TDM plan to allow for a parking reduction of 25% overall. In addition, the residential parking is proposed primarily of independent mechanical stackers with pits (2 vehicles per stall) in order to limit the below grade scope to two levels and minimize the amount of below grade excavation and potential dewatering that may be required. Affordability The project sponsor is also including the housing affordability component for this project and proposes to distribute the 20% inclusionary requirement across three income levels. Here would be the breakdown of the 13 affordable units (20% of total unit count): Income Level Unit A1 Unit A3 Unit B1 Unit B2 Unit C Unit E2 Total Below Market Rate Units (20%, 13 total) Very – low income 2 1 1 4 Low Income 1 2 1 4 Moderate Income 1 3 1 5 Total 13 Unit Typology Studio: Unit Type A1-3, B1-4, C, F1 (400 - 500 SF) 1 Bedroom: Unit Type D, E2, F2, G (567 – 655 SF) 2 Bedroom: Unit Type E1 (836 SF) Item 2 Attachment F Applicants Project Description Response Letter     Packet Pg. 97     349 Sutter Street San Francisco California 94108 KSH Architects | 349 Sutter Street San Francisco California 94108 | 415.954.1960 Unit Design A large variety of different unit plans will be provided, ranging from 400 SF to 836 SF. All but eight units will be provided with at least one private balcony of minimum 60 SF. Five units at the second floor (5 studios) will be provided with larger private terraces of at least ~120 SF each. Three units at the fourth floor (2 studios + 1 1BR) provided with larger private terraces of at least ~375 SF each. Each unit will include a full-size ADA compliant bathroom & kitchen with a full-size stacking or side- by-side washer/dryer. Approximately 24% of the units will be 1BR & 2BR, with the remainder provided as studios. Floor Unit A1 Unit A2 Unit A3 Unit B1 Unit B2 Unit B3 Unit B4 Unit C Unit D Unit E1 Unit E2 Unit F1 Unit F2 Unit G Total per Floor Second 3 2 1 2 2 4 2 1 2 1 1 0 0 1 22 Third 1 4 1 2 2 4 2 1 2 1 1 0 0 1 22 Fourth 2 0 1 4 1 2 2 0 1 1 1 2 1 1 19 Total per Unit 6 6 3 8 5 10 6 2 5 3 3 2 1 3 63 RM-20 Zoning compliance The proposed project requests City Council consideration of the following adjustments under a PC application, to approve 65 new units to the RM-20 district: 1. Increased height: The max building height allowed for RM-20 is 30’. The proposed project seeks to provide a 4-story building with max. 45.5’ height to top of roof (terrace), similar in scale to The Hamilton within the same block (between on Hamilton between Byron & Middlefield) as well as Lytton Gardens (opposite block across University). 2. Increased FAR: 0.5 to 2.175 as noted above, including increased density of 65 units from 10/0.5 acre allowed. 3. Reduced parking: 105 stalls are required (37 office + 68 residential including assigned + 2 unassigned ADA). The proposed project seeks to provide a minimum of 79 stalls utilizing a 25% TDM reduction. 4. Open Space: Allowance for a rooftop terrace as common open space for the residential tenants, including the supporting elevator overrun & code required exit stairs for access. Item 2 Attachment F Applicants Project Description Response Letter     Packet Pg. 98     349 Sutter Street San Francisco California 94108 KSH Architects | 349 Sutter Street San Francisco California 94108 | 415.954.1960 ARB Feedback & Responses At the previous ARB hearing, the board expressed their interest in seeing a higher level of detail and refinement in the components of the presented design. The feedback has been incorporated into the revised proposal in the following ways: · Provide details to show that the lift parking will have an independent stacking system. o A stacker lift system will be implemented on the P2 level. The lifts utilize pits to allow the lifts to be operated independently so cars can be accessed without assistance. o A puzzle lift system will be implemented on the P1 level. The lift configuration allows the lifts to be operated independently so cars can be accessed without assistance. · Provide high-level site planning options for driveways on both Middlefield and Byron. o Upon further feedback and discussion with Planning, the project team has relocated the below-grade garage entry from Middlefield Road to Byron Street. This will prevent further traffic impacts to the University Ave / Middlefield Road intersection. · Provide flood gate details for below-grade parking. o The relocated driveway incorporates a designated area for a flood gate to be manually installed in the event of a flood. At the bottom of the entry ramp, there will be an additional trench drain to catch any rainwater runoff. · Provide info for how mechanical equipment is allowed below base flood height. o Per correspondence with Ludwig Simpao from CPAU, the transformer pad does not need to be elevated above the base flood elevation. It can remain at the same elevation as the sidewalk so long as the required working space is kept level. o The CPAU Electric Service Requirements manual does not specify any requirements regarding the installation of pad-mounted equipment in flood hazard areas. o CPAU requires that the transformer pad be in a location that allows trucks to back up to within 5’ of the pad on a surface that can withstand the truck weight of 24 tons, has an access path that is at lest 12’ wide, and has a minimum vertical clearance of 14’. Each transformer pad requires 3’ of clear and level working space on the non-operable sides, and 8’ of clear and level working space on the door sides in front. These requirements are shown in the CPAU Pad Mount Clearance Requirements document. · Provide cover from weather over the pedestrian entries to the below grade garage. o The proposed stairs from the below grade garage to the sidewalk grade are used for fire exit access only. o Weather protection is not provided to minimize the visual impact of the exit stairs on the pedestrian experience, and to prevent further encroachment into the setbacks along Byron St. and Middlefield Road. o Trench drains will be located at the bottom of each exit stair for rainwater runoff. Item 2 Attachment F Applicants Project Description Response Letter     Packet Pg. 99     349 Sutter Street San Francisco California 94108 KSH Architects | 349 Sutter Street San Francisco California 94108 | 415.954.1960 · The special setback on Middlefield should be maintained. There is interest in allowing additional height to accommodate this. o Upon further study, it was determined that maintaining the 24’ Middlefield Road setback would result in the following:  The building façade would be reduced along Middlefield Road to maintain the 24’ special setback requirement above grade. · The raised planters would shift back to match the new building façade, and would encroach into the 24’ setback by 10’. · The two below-grade parking levels would still extend to the property line. · The ground level and below-grade parking levels would reconfigure to accommodate the new garage stair location.  A loss of 6 units (2,457 SF) on residential levels 2-4.  A loss of 1,290 SF of office space on the ground level. o A net loss 3,747 SF, or 7.59% of buildable SF would render the project infeasible from a financing perspective. · Façade lacks articulation – consider adding vertical hierarchy (base, middle, top), deeper eave elements, recessed windows. o The building façade has been refined to include the definition of base, middle, and top, as well as changes in plane, expressed through volumes of varying heights, materials, and color variation. The inclusion of recessed windows of varying depths and projecting balconies with glass railings help to further emphasize these design changes. · Consider the pedestrian experience. o The frontages along Byron Street, University Ave, and Middlefield Road will be replaced with new sidewalks, planter strips, and tree wells. o Raised planters with a variety of native plants and trees are located along the edges of the site at ground level, creating a rich landscaped backdrop for pedestrians. o Two public art installations, located and expressed at the building exterior at different heights and scales, further enrich the pedestrian experience. o The residential and office entries along University Avenue are recessed alcoves designed to welcome tenants and visitors with rich, warm materials. · Consider user experience in provided open spaces (balconies, deck) and privacy between them. o Private balconies are separated by translucent glass partitions. These partitions will be double-layered with a privacy film for additional visual obstruction. o The layout of the roof deck was revised to create privacy between the project and the Hamilton, located two lots away on the same block. The occupiable area has been shifted away from the interior lot line via a mechanical enclosure. Penthouses for exit stairs and elevators create secondary visual obstructions, helping to ensure that views and sightlines are directed primarily towards University Avenue. Item 2 Attachment F Applicants Project Description Response Letter     Packet Pg. 100     349 Sutter Street San Francisco California 94108 KSH Architects | 349 Sutter Street San Francisco California 94108 | 415.954.1960 · Consider overall design parti, and role of the building in the neighborhood – the “downtown gateway” experience and relationship with “Senior Corners.” o To emphasize the site’s location, the public art program was expanded to include a second art piece at the elevator tower. This piece is 5’ wide by 30’ tall and adds a visual marker to the site and the University / Middlefield intersection as a gateway into Downtown Palo Alto. o The updated exterior materials utilize natural finishes that visually recall those of neighboring high-density projects such as Lytton Gardens. o Wood-clad building volumes with trellises at the roof level are located at the corners of University Ave / Middlefield Road and University Ave / Byron Street to celebrate these key intersections. · Refine the materials – the current proposed materials are not high quality, color scheme is not high enough contrast, materials are “cold”, needs “richness and depth”. Consider incorporating wood and human-scale elements. o Updated finishes have been selected for the exterior of the building, which consist of the following:  Clear vision glass  Board-formed natural concrete  Simulated wood façade panels  Painted horizontal siding  Natural wood slat panels  Warm grey painted metal accent panels  Warm light grey painted mullions  Warm grey painted metal trellis structure with wood slats o The finishes provide heightened contrasts in color, texture, richness, and scale. · Provide a texture sample for all materials, not just colors. o Physical sample materials have been provided. · Confirm unit layouts, considering how window placement affects both the interior and the exterior. Avoid locating major windows with easy viewing from the streets – particularly applies to manager’s unit. o Unit layouts have been revised to accommodate the updated façade articulation. o Window placement guarantees natural light in all kitchen / bedroom spaces within units, and access to balconies where applicable. o The manager’s unit has been removed from the ground level. It will be located on one of the upper residential levels for additional privacy. · Consider adding interior common spaces. o A lounge space is included at the ground level, next to the elevators. o On each residential floor, there is a common area with windows located next to the elevators. · Tree protection is a major priority. Confirm that building the raised deck above existing pavement is the best treatment, and consider clean-up and maintenance related to locating open space below the canopy of the tree. Provide additional detail demonstrating how the tree will be protected. Item 2 Attachment F Applicants Project Description Response Letter     Packet Pg. 101     349 Sutter Street San Francisco California 94108 KSH Architects | 349 Sutter Street San Francisco California 94108 | 415.954.1960 o The design/construction team has consulted closely with a project arborist to ensure the health and viability of the tree, prioritizing its preservation. o Based on arborist feedback, the proposed raised deck design would provide the least amount of impact on the oak tree’s existing root system. o The office tenants would be responsible for the clean-up and maintenance of the open space below the tree canopy. o As of February 2024, an updated arborist report has been issued and the drawing set has been revised to provide information on protection measures in further detail to mitigate tree impacts. · Add an on-site delivery/drop-off/loading space. o A street stall on Byron Street would be used as a loading space for building use, designated via signage. o This would service car share drop offs / pickups, on-site delivery, loading, and trash staging / pickup. · Add street-level bike parking – minimum 50%, though 100% is preferable and more equitable for residents. Consider including space for larger/alternative types of bikes. Provide a bike/ped circulation diagram. o The proposed street-level bicycle parking is designed for short-term storage; six (6) stalls have been provided along University Ave. o Long-term bicycle parking is located across three separate locations in the below- grade parking garage. The bicycle racks would be accessible through the elevators at ground level and are provided in a secured storage area. o The proposed bicycle racks can be customized with standardized accessories to accommodate larger / alternative bicycle types. o A bike / pedestrian circulation diagram has been provided in the drawing set on sheets A1.1, A2.P2, and A2.P1. · Consider adding more shade, trees/landscaping to the roof deck. Consider moving it slightly back from the edge of the building. The mechanical should be placed around the roof deck, not the other way around. o The mechanical screen has been centered on the roof to allow maximum efficiency. The roof deck is oriented along University Avenue to provide separation from the interior lot line, as well as the neighboring single-family resident and the Hamilton. o Permanent wood slat trellises have been added to the roof deck. Temporary umbrella structures (complying with CBC 3103) will also be available at the roof deck level to provide shade. The temporary structures will stored away in the event of extreme weather or when not in use. o The roof deck has been designed with raised planters of drought-tolerant and native planting, meant to also accommodate stormwater treatment. o 14% of the proposed planting at the roof deck grows up to considerable heights. At full maturity, Cephalanthus occidentalis reaches ~10 feet in height, and Ribes sanguineum reaches ~9 feet in height. These plants are located between the different ‘rooms’ along University Ave, separating programs to provide privacy as well as shade. Item 2 Attachment F Applicants Project Description Response Letter     Packet Pg. 102     If you need assistance reviewing the above documents, please contact the Project Planner or call the Planner-on- Duty at 650-617-3117 or email planner@cityofpaloalto.org Attachment D Project Plans In order to reduce paper consumption, a limited number of hard copy project plans are provided to Board members for their review. The same plans are available to the public, at all hours of the day, via the following online resources. Environmental Document NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Notice of Preparation for an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared by the City of Palo Alto for the project listed below. In accordance with CEQA Guideline Section 15073, this document will be available online for review during a minimum 30-day circulation period beginning November 4, 2022 and Ends on December 5, 2022. The environmental document is available at https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Events- Directory/Planning-and-Development-Services/660-University-Avenue Directions to review Project plans and environmental documents online: 1. Go to: bit.ly/PApendingprojects 2. Scroll down to find “660 University” and click the address link 3. On this project-specific webpage you will find a link to the project plans and other important information Direct Link to Project Webpage: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/News-Articles/Planning-and-Development-Services/660- University-Avenue Item 2 Attachment G Project Plans and Environmental Review     Packet Pg. 103     30 24 24 24 24 30 24 24 First United_Methodist Church Alain Pinel Realtor Lytton Gardens 50.0'200.0' 50.0'200.0' 200.0' 50.0' 200.0' 200.0' 100.0' 100.0' 250.0' 225.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 200.0' 152.5' 19.3'3.0' 47.7' 25.2' 67.0' 22.2' 100.0' 125.0' 140.0' 112.5'140.0' 112.5' 160.0' 112.5' 160.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 100.0' 100.0' 100.0' 100.0' 100.0' 25.0' 100.0' 25.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0'100.0' 59.0' 100.0' 59.0' 100.0' 66.0' 100.0' 66.0' 50.0' 125.0' 50.0' 125.0' 50.0' 95.0' 50.0' 95.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 100.0' 100.0' 100.0' 100.0' 147.5' 400.0' 174.7' 47.8' 3.0' 19.3'22.2' 133.0' 150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5' 75.0' 125.0' 50.0' 150.0' 75.0' 150.0' 75.0' 151.5' 75.0' 151.5' 75.0' 48.5' 7.0'1.5' 150.0' 50.0' 143.0' 75.0' 125.0' 75.0' 125.0' 48.5' 82.0' 48.5' 82.0' 35.0' 100.0' 35.0' 100.0' 40.0' 100.0' 40.0' 100.0'100.0' 35.0' 100.0' 57.5' 125.0' 57.5' 125.0' 67.5' 125.0' 67.5' 125.0' 50.0' 90.0' 75.0' 150.0' 75.0' 150.0' 151.5' 75.0' 151.5' 75.0' 151.5' 75.0' 151.5' 75.0' 151.5' 75.0' 151.5' 75.0' 151.5' 75.0' 151.5' 75.0' 151.5' 75.0' 151.5' 75.0' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 25.0' 50.0' 100.0' 100.0'75.0' 75.0' 578 642-652630-640 600-610 415 405 434 765 750-798 482 486 490 483 547 526 649 625523 518 610 600 616 624 630 511 517 524 500 680 725 478 499 489 435 428 422 416 724 425 555 530 575 555 536 518 720 500 498 755 515 537 543539 720 519 UNIVERSITY AVENUE UN I V E R S I T Y A V E N U E BYR O N S T R E E T MIDDLEFIELD ROAD FULTON STREET MIDDLEFIELD ROAD WEBSTER STREET FULTON STREET HAMILTON AVENUE RM-20 PC-4173 This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Project Site Current Features Search Polygon 0' 68' Attachment A Location Map 660 University CITY OF PALO ALTOINCORPORATED CAL I F ORN I A P a l o A l t o T h e C i t y o f APR I L 1 6 1 8 9 4 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto ekallas, 2024-03-21 09:04:52 Attachment A. Location Map (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) Item 2 Attachment I Zoning Map Vicinity of 660 University     Packet Pg. 104     Item No. 3. Page 1 of 6 Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: June 12, 2024 Report #: 2405-3029 TITLE 4075 El Camino Way [23PLN-00202, Palo Alto Commons]: Consideration of a Planned Community (PC) Project Amending an Existing PC (PC-5116) to Allow Additions to an Existing 121 Unit Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility. The Additions Would Include 16 Assisted Living Units. Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: PC-5116 (Planned Community). RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) take the following action(s): 1. Provide comments/feedback and recommend that staff forward the proposed application to the Architectural Review Board for review of the development plan. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The subject project was previously reviewed by the PTC. An earlier staff report1 includes extensive background information, project analysis and evaluation to city codes and policies. Links to the staff report, meeting video and staff presentation are provided below. The purpose of this report is to transmit the revised project and parking study and review the applicant’s response to the PTC's February 2024 comments. The analysis section of this report builds upon the information contained in the earlier report and has been modified to reflect the recent project. In particular, Staff has received a parking study and noise study. The plans have been revised to reduce the number of new assisted living units from 18 to 16 units, and the addition’s compliance with the daylight plane adjacent to the R-1 zone has been clarified. 1 Links to February 28, 2024 staff report, video and staff presentation: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/planning-and- transportation-commission/2024/ptc-2.28-4075-el-camino-wy.pdf https://midpenmedia.org/planning-and-transportation-commission-2-2282024/ https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/planning-and- transportation-commission/2024/ptc-2.28-4075-el-camino-wy_staff-presentation.pdf Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 105     Item No. 3. Page 2 of 6 BACKGROUND On February 28, 2024 the PTC reviewed the project. The PTC comments and the applicant’s response are summarized in the following table and discussed in detail in the Analysis section. The PTC motion was to continue its review to a date uncertain that would occur after the applicant (1) refines the design with attention to daylight plane and massing as it impacts Wilkie Way residents, and (2) provides more information about the parking situation. PTC Comments/Direction Response Summary Daylight Plane – Move the addition out of the daylight plane adjacent to Wilkie Way neighbors. Determine if the slope should be 45 degrees or 3:6. Staff determined the 45-degree daylight plane is applicable on the project site. The plans have been revised so that the additions are located outside of the 45- degree R-1 zone daylight plane. Parking Study The parking study prepared by Hexagon found there are adequate spaces on site based on daily peak demand. A transportation demand management (TDM) plan will be prepared to ensure the parking is utilized effectively. Noise Study A noise study prepared by Illingworth and Rodkin found there will be no noticeable increase in noise associated with the addition. Public Benefits The applicant has provided a letter describing the public benefits of the project, Attachment G. ANALYSIS Changes to the Project Scope The project scope has decreased from 18 units to 16 units. Additionally, two of these units have been added to the ground floor, though it is on the residential-facing side. The 10-foot setback is maintained on this side. The upper floor additions have been moved back, to approximately 12 feet from the property line for the second floor and approximately 20 feet for the third floor. The plan set is included in Attachment J. Daylight Plane At the previous meeting, the PTC questioned whether the 45-degree R-1 zone daylight plane was correct, or if a 3:6 angle as described in the Special Requirements section of PAMC 18.38 was correct. As shown in Attachment D and as verified by staff, the 1987 PC Ordinance for the existing building show the second option was chosen and the original project was compared to the 45- degree R-1 zone daylight plane standard. For this reason, staff believes it is appropriate to continue to use this R-1 zone daylight plane requirement. However, for comparison purposes, both daylight planes are shown in the plan set on page A5.7. The proposed additions have been Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 106     Item No. 3. Page 3 of 6 modified so they no longer encroach into the 45-degree R-1 zone daylight plane; however, a portion of the existing building encroaches into the 3:6 daylight plane. PAMC 18.38.150 states: Sites sharing any lot line with one or more sites in any RE, R-1, R-2, RM or any residential PC district shall be subject to a maximum height established by a daylight plane beginning at a height of ten feet at the applicable side or rear site lines and increasing at a slope of three feet for each six feet of distance from the side or rear site lines until intersecting the height limit otherwise established for the PC district; provided, however, that for a use where the gross floor area excluding any area used exclusively for parking purposes, is at least sixty percent residential, the daylight planes may be identical to the daylight plane requirements of the most restrictive residential district abutting each such side or rear site line until intersecting the height limit otherwise established for the PC district. If the residential daylight plane, as allowed in this section, is selected, the setback regulations of the same adjoining residential district shall be imposed. The 1979 zoning code used at that point in time did not delineate convalescent facilities as non- residential, as we consider these to be classified today. It is likely the use was considered residential use and therefore the staff applied the abutting R-1 daylight plane. At that time, there were not different daylight planes for the side and rear property lines as there are today; it was 45-degrees measured from 10 feet for both. Currently, the reason convalescent facilities are not considered residential is these units do not have kitchens and do not count towards the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) goals. Parking Study A parking study (Attachment C) was prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants and reviewed by staff of the City’s Office of Transportation. The study reflects an observation of the peak parking over three days in March. The study shows that with the gate open, there should be adequate parking, as fewer cars entered the site than there are parking spaces. The study looked only at on-site conditions and did not observe off-site parking, such as on-street parking. In researching the existing conditions, staff found that the original 1987 PC Ordinance requires a commuter program for employees, including distributing information regarding public transportation options, providing or reimbursing transit passes, and carpool coordination. There is currently no record of this being implemented; therefore, staff is requiring the applicant to submit a new TDM plan to implement, improve, and monitor these requirements. It is expected the applicant will submit the TDM plan in the next cycle of review. The applicant has also attempted to improve parking conditions on site. They sent a letter to all residents and visitors (Attachment F) explaining parking options for staff and visitors. However, it is currently not clear to staff how visitors can access the parking garage, as most parking is behind a gate that requires a member of the Palo Alto Commons staff to open. Noise Study A noise study prepared by Illingworth and Rodkin is provided as report Attachment D. Four test sites measured ambient noise from April 1st through April 4th. The study analyzed the addition of Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 107     Item No. 3. Page 4 of 6 18 units, as the consultant did not yet have the revised plans for 16 units. Measured at the property line shared with the single-family neighbors, the average daytime noise is 52 dBA and the average nighttime noise is 48 dBA. This is comparable to other neighborhoods in Palo Alto and within the allowances of the Noise Ordinance (PAMC 9.10). Both construction noise and operational noise were determined to be below CEQA thresholds for significance. Additionally, it was determined that the increase in noise related to the addition of 18 units would not be perceptible. The neighbors requested the noise study also analyze how the CalTrain horns reflect off the existing building and how this would change with the proposed building. The train horns had a noise level of 55 to 61 dBA, and under the most conservative estimate, would increase by approximately 3 dBA. As a comparison, 55-61 dBA is similar to the noise of the new air condenser heat pumps the City has been encouraging because they are quieter than traditional condenser units. Public Benefits The PTC and neighborhood also felt the public benefits of the project, as required for PC approval, were not clearly defined. The Applicant has prepared a response provided as report Attachment G. Public benefits include expansion of the provided Assisted Living services, and improvements to the existing facilities, including aesthetics and refuse management. Also, while these units will not be counted as housing units towards the City’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment, they do provide needed housing for seniors. 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 31, 2024, which is 12 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on May 29, 2024, which is 14 days in advance of the meeting. Public Comments Fifteen neighbors commented at the February 28, 2024 PTC meeting. A summary of their comments is as follows: •Desire for the public benefits of the project to be better defined •Desire for improved parking conditions for visitors, to limit street parking on Wilkie Way •Desire for daylight plane requirements to be met •Concern about noise including AC/mechanical, human, •Desire for the units to be placed facing El Camino Way instead of Wilkie Way •Concern about privacy to Wilkie Way neighbors •Concern about impacts to daylight and shadows •Concern about future property values for Wilkie Way homeowners •Concerns about pedestrian and bike safety in the vicinity •Desire for assisted living units to be provided at an affordable price •Comments regarding maintenance and trimming of existing and proposed screening trees Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 108     Item No. 3. Page 5 of 6 Additionally, one new neighbor comment has been provided by email, included in Attachment H. Prior neighbor comments were included in the previous PTC staff report. Although the neighbors expressed concern, and the PTC expressed interest, potential impacts on future property values do not relate to the Findings for the project. FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT This action has no fiscal impact as applicants are responsible for staff and consultant costs through applicable fees through the deposit-based cost recovery program. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. A Categorical Exemption is being prepared in accordance with CEQA Guideline Section 15301 (Existing Facilities). NEXT STEPS Following the PTC review and ARB review(s), the project would return to the PTC for review of and a recommendation on the draft PC ordinance to the City Council. Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 109     Item No. 3. Page 6 of 6 ATTACHMENTS A. Location Map B. Zoning Comparison Table C. Parking Study D. Noise Study E. Applicant’s Letter Regarding Daylight Plane F. Applicant’s Letter Regarding Parking G. Applicant’s Letter Regarding Public Benefits H. Neighbor’s Comments I. February 28, 2024 PTC Report without Attachments J. Link to Project Plans AUTHOR/TITLE: Report Author & Contact Information PTC2 Liaison & Contact Information Emily Kallas, AICP, Planner Amy French, Chief Planning Official (650) 617-3125 (650) 329-2336 emily.kallas@cityofpaloalto.org amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org 2 Emails may be sent directly to the PTC using the following address: ptc@cityofpaloalto.org Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 110     24 24 24 fort_Inn Goodwill_Industries Camino Court Apts Palo Alto _Commons B2 B1 B3 B4 163.2' 163.2' 163.2' 163.2' 163.2' 163.2' 163.2' 163.2' 163.2' 163.2' 163.2' 163.2' 163.2' 163.2' 163.2' 163.2' 163.2' 163.2' 163.2' 163.2' 163.2' 163.2' 163.2' 163.2' 163.2' 163.2' 163.2' 163.2' 163.2' 163.2' 163.2' 163.2' 163.2' 163.2' 163.2' 163.2' 163.2' 163.2' 163.2' 163.2' 163.2' 163.2' 163.2' 163.2' 163.2' 163.2' 163.2' 163.2' 163.2' 163.2' 163.2' 163.2' 163.2' 163.2' 163.2' 163.2' 163.2' 163.2' 163.2' 163.2' 163.2' 163.2' 163.2' 163.2' 163.2' 163.2' 220.0' 269.1' 220.4' 268.9' 220.0' 269.1' 220.4' 268.9' 220.0' 269.1' 220.4' 268.9' 220.0' 269.1' 220.4' 268.9' 220.0' 269.1' 220.4' 268.9' 220.0' 269.1' 220.4' 268.9' 220.0' 269.1' 220.4' 268.9' 220.0' 269.1' 220.4' 268.9' 220.0' 269.1' 220.4' 268.9' 220.0' 269.1' 220.4' 268.9' 220.0' 269.1' 220.4' 268.9' 220.0' 269.1' 220.4' 268.9' 220.0' 269.1' 220.4' 268.9' 66.3' 66.2' 55.7' 92.3' 39.3' 30.7' 117.4' 54.0' 117.4' 54.0' 117.4' 54.0' 117.4' 53.0' 117.1' 117.2' 55.0' 220.0' 269.1' 220.4' 268.9' 220.0' 269.1' 220.4' 268.9' 220.0' 269.1' 220.4' 268.9' 220.0' 269.1' 220.4' 268.9' 220.0' 269.1' 220.4' 268.9' 220.0' 269.1' 220.4' 268.9' 220.0' 269.1' 220.4' 268.9' 220.0' 269.1' 220.4' 268.9' 220.0' 269.1' 220.4' 268.9' 220.0' 269.1' 220.4' 268.9' 220.0' 269.1' 220.4' 268.9' 220.0' 269.1' 220.4' 268.9' 220.0' 269.1' 220.4' 268.9' 53.0' 0' 117.1'56.8' ' 105.2' 0.0' 105.1' 30.0' 7.4'11.1'12.6'15.9' 46.6' 37.7' 48.6' 105.1' 105.2' 30.0' 105.3'105.3' 30.0' 5.3'3' 40.0' 44.0' 83.0' 44.0' 83.0' 38.0' 83.0' 0' 83.0' 44.0' 3.0' 105.0' 13.0' 35.0' 8.1'9.2' 45.0' 10.0'16.9' 16.7' 77.0' 23.0' 11.4'14.9' 96.5' 48.0' 105.0' 78.0' 26.0' 59.5' 14.9' 31.0' 49.0' 19.0'15.0' 43.0' 15.0'19.0' 49.0' 24.0' 64.0' 24.0' 72.0' 24.0' 72.0' 24.0' 72.0' 13.0' 10.0' 5.0' 64.0' 30.0' 105.0' 30.0' 105.0' 30.0' 105.0' 30.0' 105.0' 30.0' 105.0' 30.0' 105.0' 52.0' 11.9' 45.0' 9.2'8.1' 35.1' 17.6' 83.0' 44.0' 83.0' 44.0' 83.0' 11.9' 209.1' 133.0' 18.0'3.0' 158.9' 25.7' 16.4' 25.0' 134.7' 43.2' 2.9' 183.1' 16.0' 150.3' 11.9' 209.1' 133.0' 18.0'3.0' 158.9' 25.7' 16.4' 25.0' 134.7' 43.2' 2.9' 183.1' 16.0' 150.3' 11.9' 209.1' 133.0' 18.0'3.0' 158.9' 25.7' 16.4' 25.0' 134.7' 43.2' 2.9' 183.1' 16.0' 150.3' 11.9' 209.1' 133.0' 18.0'3.0' 158.9' 25.7' 16.4' 25.0' 134.7' 43.2' 2.9' 183.1' 16.0' 150.3' 11.9' 209.1' 133.0' 18.0'3.0' 158.9' 25.7' 16.4' 25.0' 134.7' 43.2' 2.9' 183.1' 16.0' 150.3' 11.9' 209.1' 133.0' 18.0'3.0' 158.9' 25.7' 16.4' 25.0' 134.7' 43.2' 2.9' 183.1' 16.0' 150.3' 11.9' 209.1' 133.0' 18.0'3.0' 158.9' 25.7' 16.4' 25.0' 134.7' 43.2' 2.9' 183.1' 16.0' 150.3' 11.9' 209.1' 133.0' 18.0'3.0' 158.9' 25.7' 16.4' 25.0' 134.7' 43.2' 2.9' 183.1' 16.0' 150.3' 11.9' 209.1' 133.0' 18.0'3.0' 158.9' 25.7' 16.4' 25.0' 134.7' 43.2' 2.9' 183.1' 16.0' 150.3' 11.9' 209.1' 133.0' 18.0'3.0' 158.9' 25.7' 16.4' 25.0' 134.7' 43.2' 2.9' 183.1' 16.0' 150.3' 146.0' 32.4' 53.9' 134.7' 7.3'.7'5.5' 35.9' 37.9' 150.9 16 78 120 20.2 58.3' 1.8' 99.5' 60.0' 100.0' 40.0' 100.0' 39.5' 100.0' 208.9'150.4' 449 91.0 161.1' 6.0' 44.4' 146.0' 54.1' 171.8' 50.3' 161.1' 40.0' 13.0' 11.9' 209.1' 133.0' 18.0'3.0' 158.9' 25.7' 16.4' 25.0' 134.7' 43.2' 2.9' 183.1' 16.0' 150.3' 11.9' 209.1' 133.0' 18.0'3.0' 158.9' 25.7' 16.4' 25.0' 134.7' 43.2' 2.9' 183.1' 16.0' 150.3' 11.9' 209.1' 133.0' 18.0'3.0' 158.9' 25.7' 16.4' 25.0' 134.7' 43.2' 2.9' 183.1' 16.0' 150.3' 11.9' 209.1' 133.0' 18.0'3.0' 158.9' 25.7' 16.4' 25.0' 134.7' 43.2' 2.9' 183.1' 16.0' 150.3' 11.9' 209.1' 133.0' 18.0'3.0' 158.9' 25.7' 16.4' 25.0' 134.7' 43.2' 2.9' 183.1' 16.0' 150.3' 11.9' 209.1' 133.0' 18.0'3.0' 158.9' 25.7' 16.4' 25.0' 134.7' 43.2' 2.9' 183.1' 16.0' 150.3' 11.9' 209.1' 133.0' 18.0'3.0' 158.9' 25.7' 16.4' 25.0' 134.7' 43.2' 2.9' 183.1' 16.0' 150.3' 11.9' 209.1' 133.0' 18.0'3.0' 158.9' 25.7' 16.4' 25.0' 134.7' 43.2' 2.9' 183.1' 16.0' 150.3' 11.9' 209.1' 133.0' 18.0'3.0' 158.9' 25.7' 16.4' 25.0' 134.7' 43.2' 2.9' 183.1' 16.0' 150.3' 11.9' 209.1' 133.0' 18.0'3.0' 158.9' 25.7' 16.4' 25.0' 134.7' 43.2' 2.9' 183.1' 16.0' 150.3' 263.3' 225.2' 138.1' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 40.0' 115.0'40.0' 115.0' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 99.4' 129.8' 135.1' 9.4' 58.6'30.7' 24.7' 118.5' 188.8' 180.0' 124.7' 9.4' 80.7' 131.0' 38.7' 151.6' 130.5'54.3' 151.6'50.0' 120.0'65.0' 120.0' 65.0' 150.4'208.8' 150.0'208.8' 157.4' 138.1'150.8' 170.4' 107.3' 188.8' 117.8' 31.4' 46.0' 110.6' 20.0' 30.0' 120.0' 5.0' 27.1' 129.8' .5'.2' .1' 99.4' 129.8' 135.1' 9.4' 58.6'30.7' 24.7' 118.5' 188.8' 99.4' 129.8' 135.1' 9.4' 58.6'30.7' 24.7' 118.5' 188.8' 99.4' 129.8' 135.1' 9.4' 58.6'30.7' 24.7' 118.5' 188.8' 99.4' 129.8' 135.1' 9.4' 58.6'30.7' 24.7' 118.5' 188.8' 99.4' 129.8' 135.1' 9.4' 58.6'30.7' 24.7' 118.5' 188.8' 99.4' 129.8' 135.1' 9.4' 58.6'30.7' 24.7' 118.5' 188.8' 99.4' 129.8' 135.1' 9.4' 58.6'30.7' 24.7' 118.5' 188.8' 99.4' 129.8' 135.1' 9.4' 58.6'30.7' 24.7' 118.5' 188.8' 99.4' 129.8' 135.1' 9.4' 58.6'30.7' 24.7' 118.5' 188.8' 99.4' 129.8' 135.1' 9.4' 58.6'30.7' 24.7' 118.5' 188.8' 99.4' 129.8' 135.1' 9.4' 58.6'30.7' 24.7' 118.5' 188.8' 50.0' 182.9' 50.0' 183.0' 50.0' 15.0' 120.8'76.0' 161.2' 90.9' 282.0' 76.0'120.8' 76.0'120.8' 44.5' 87.0' 44.5' 87.0' 46.5' 87.0' 46.5' 87.0' 45.5' 87.0' 45.5' 87.0' 45.5' 87.0' 45.5' 87.0' 100.0' 87.0' 100.0' 87.0' 50.0' 183.0' 50.0' 183.0' 70.0' 178.0' 70.0' 178.0' 177.9' 46.5' 178.0' 46.5' 50.0' 178.0' 50.0' 178.0' 100.0' 60.0' 100.0' 60.0' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 50.0' 50.0' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 50.0' 50.0' 99.9' 50.9' 119.8' 30.9' 31.4' 109.3' 52.5'89.2' 31.4' 32.4' 113.9' 50.0' 109.3' 50.3' 119.5' 50.0' 113.9' 6.0' 44.4' 119.6' 52.1' 119.5' 52.1' 119.7' 50.0' 119.6' 50.0' 119.8' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0'120.0' 52.1' 120.0' 52.1' 50.1' 100.7' 50.0' 103.9' 50.0' 100.7' 50.0' 100.7' 50.0' 100.7' 50.0' 100.7' 50.0' 183.1' 50.0' 182.9' 50.0' 183.0' 50.0' 183.1' 50.0' 183.0' 50.0' 183.1' 50.0' 183.0' 50.0' 183.0' 1.6'1.3' 30.7' 26.8' 100.0' 60.0' 105.0' 145.3' 160.0' 120.1' 70.0' 12.2'73.1' 50.3' 53.5' .8'.1' 30.7' 2.8' 50.0' 50.3' 53.3' 141.3' 53.1' 150.2' 11.9' 50.5' 127.9' 55.9' 117.2' 61.2' 117.2' 62.0' 107.3' 104.8' 104.8' 66.8' 104.8' 66.8'104.8' 66.8' 104.8' 70.1' 38.8' 46.0' 31.2' 47.8' 33.7' 45.4' 99.7' 50.0' 100.7' 50.0' 100.7' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 100.7' 50.0' 100.7' 50.0' 77.0' 60.0' 75.0' 104.8 74.9' .7' 57.7' 99.9' 231.2' 55.0' 60.0'71.7' 31.5' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 50.0' 100.0' 31.4' 30.9' 120.0' 50.9' 203.0' 51.8' 203.0' 203.0' 51.8' 203.0' 203.0' 51.8' 203.0' 50.1' 103.9' 50.0' 107.1' 50.1' 107.1' 50.0' 110.3'25.0' 25.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.2' 50.0' 100.2' 50.0' 101.9' 50.1' 110.3' 50.0' 113.5' 113.5' 50.0' 116.7' 50.1' 101.9' 50.1' 102.0' 102.0' 50.1' 103.8' 103.8' 50.1' 50.1' 12.0' 38.2' 220.0' 269.1' 220.4' 268.9' 142.6' 162.6' 177.4' 19.6'18.8' 145.9' 228 22.7' 6'67.6'67.6' 67.5' 34.8' 22.8' 70.3' '57 3 20.4' 18.1' 22.7' 70.3' 22.8' 70.3' 22.8' 70.3' 22.8' 70.3' 22.8' 70.3' 22.8' 70.4' 22.8' 82.9' 24.7' 92.9' 24.7' 92.9' 22.8' 102.9' 13.9' 102.9' 21.8' 3.1' 16.0' 26.7' 99.0' 117.2' 3.1' 16.0' 26.7' 43.6' 255.8' 21.0' 9.5'14.3' 6.4' 16.6' .8' 15.7' 15.7' 17.2' 1.7' 11.0' 3.8' 16.3' 20.5' 2.2'6.5'5.6'1.3' 133.0' 20.4'160.7' 20.0' 57.4' 20.4' 145.8' 4.0'2.2'8.1' 61.9' 16.7' 40.9' 69.5' 22.7' 70.4' 22.8' 70.4' 5.6'1.3' 23.9' 70.4' 26.5' 31.6' 4.2' 31.9' 31.6' 62.2' 9.5' 14.3' 6.4' 16.6' 73.7' 4.2' 31.9' 73.7' .8' 15.7' 15.7' 17.2' 1.7' 11.1' 3.8' 16.3' 20.5' 2.2' 6.5' 27.1' 70.4' 14.1' 20.4' 57.4' 22.7' 70.4' 22.7' 70.4' 22.7' 70.4' 22.8' 70.4' 22.7' 70.4' 22.7' 70.4' 22.8' 70.4' 22.7' 70.4' 22.7' 70.4' 22.8' 70.4' 27.1' 70.4' 18.0'4.0'2.2'8.1' 61.9' 29.4' 69.5' 27.1' 81.4' 22.7' 81.4' 11.5'7.9' 9.9' 82.9' 107.1' 30.3' 45.0' 8.5'37.0'10.0' 5.0' 64.0' 48.0' 8.0' 69.0'38.7' 12.6' 81.2' 85.8' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 98.6' 98.4'98.4' 98.5' 56.6' 63.0' 56.9' 63.0' 178.0' 50.0' 178.0' 98.4' 93.0' 93.0' 98.5'98.5'85.0' 98.5'85.0' 245.0' 245.0' 90.0' 90.0' 57.2'52.0' 11.0' 35.5' 24.0' 20.7' 7.9' 48.6' 48.6' 7.9'20.7'31.6' 20.5' 8.0'8.0' 53.2' 53.2' 20.5'31.2' 20.0' 20.0' 9.1'9.1' 58.0' 58.0' 31.5' 31.4' 31.0' 20.3' 20.3' 8.4'8.4' 59.7' 59.7' 31.8' 31.2' 30.9' 31.9' 21.3' 21.3' 21.0' 21.0' 75.3' 7.8'7.8' 9.8'9.8' 55.6' 55.6' 47.1' 47.1'30.9' 26.5' 16.1'16.7'4.8' 117.2' 30.0' 39.3' 92.2' 81.8' 89.0' 89.0' 89.0' 81.8' 36.5' 53.7' 53.7' 42.4' 30.8' 30.4' 24.4'24.4' 6.8' 6.8' 54.0' 54.0' 31.2' 5.6'5.6' 26.0' 26.0' 54.9' 54.9' 87.5' 54.5' 54.5' 27.9' 32.8' 31.1' 32.5'24.8' 24.8' 24.0' 24.0' 7.2'7.2' 6.8'6.8' 18.8' 11.4' 5.2' 45.0' 8.5'8.0' 54.4'10.0' 11.9' 68.9' 49.2' 47.7' 119.2' 107.1' 388.0' 392.6' 392.6' 100.0' 128.0' 24.5' 357.0' 179.5' 29.8' 179.3' 519.6' 59.6 0.8 326.1 4071 61 618 4121 4133 4020 598 3945 40254023 4021 575 573 569 4041 548 4113 4111 4073 4101 4104 4117 4119 4127 4131 451 453 455 457 459 461 463 4079 4069 4065 4059 4082 4085 4060 4072 4076 4080 4084 4054 4040 4075 404 432 4125 4131 4139 4110 4104 3943 393 383 420 270 4039 4043 4042 4055 4050 4056 229 483 487 456 550 552554 594 596 568580 510 514 518 526 530 534 538542 546 550 554 558 4109 4129 4102 502 506 4128 3999 4129 4112 4044 4025 405 4106 4108 4060 522 4070 617 567 4054 4062 4080 4094 4091407540614055 4031 4040 4050 3981 460 478 4037 4045 4143 4115 465 467 469 471 4109 4121 4119 4117 4115 4111 4020 4030 360 380 4085 4091 4073 370 4149 330 321 319 4103 350 401 363 343 323 380 360 340 320 300 310 3996 4022 390 4059 4065 4060 4071 4079 408 4070 4068 301 303 4032 4042 4052 4062 4072 330 4021 4033 410 430 470 473 480 407 417 427 437 457 450 475 477 556558 560 562 564 566 570 572574 576 578 582 584586 588590 592 549 545 541 537 533 529 525 521 4101 4105 4117 4121 4125 4126 4110 4113 412241184114 577 4106 415 421 425 4100 4102 4135 4100 405 4062 4068 50 SECOND STREET MACLANE WILKIE WAY WEST MEADOW DRIVE V EL CAMINO WAY EL CAMINO REAL CAMINO CT EL CAMINO WAY WEST MEADOW DRIVE E) VISTA AVENUE WISTERIA LANE VILLA VISTA (PRIVATE) PARK BOULEVARD DRISCOLL PLACE JACOBS COURT (PRIVATE) EL CAMINO REA L EL CAMINO REAL EL CAMINO REAL RM-20 PF RM-20 RM-30 930 RM-30 R-1 CN PC-5116 PC-4511 RM RM-2 R R-2 tynter Tennis Court KEYS SCHOOL MIDDLE CAMPUS This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Project Site Current Features 0' 120' Attachment A 4075 El Camino Way Location Map CITY OF PALO ALTOINCORPORATED CAL I F ORN I A P a l o A l t o T h e C i t y o f AP R I L 1 6 1 8 9 4 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto ekallas, 2024-02-08 10:45:19 Attachment A. Location Map (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) Item 3 Attachment A: Location Map     Packet Pg. 111     ATTACHMENT B ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 4075 El Camino Way, 23PLN-00202 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.16 (CN DISTRICT) AND EXISTING PCs (5116, 3775) Exclusively Non-residential Development Standards Regulation Required CN Existing (PC 5116 and PC 3775) Proposed Site Area, width and depth None 110,642 sf Irregularly shaped 110,642 sf Irregularly shaped Minimum Front Yard (El Camino Way) 0-10 feet to create an 8-12 foot effective sidewalk width (1), (2), (8) 14.5 ft 14.5 ft Rear Yard (Closest to Wilkie Way) 10 feet abutting residential districts 10 ft 10 ft Interior Side Yards None N/A left 8 ft other sides N/A left 8 ft other sides 6 ft at proposed addition Street Side Yard (W. Meadow Drive) 20 feet (2)20 ft 20 ft Build-to-lines 50% of frontage built to setback on El Camino Way 33% of side street built to setback on W. Meadow Drive (7) Approximately 7.5 ft (2.3%) built to front setback Approx. 7.5 ft plus 2 corners (8.2%) built to street side setback No change, complies Max. Site Coverage 50% (55,321 sf)47.4% (52,470 sf)48.5% (53,668 sf) Max. Building Height 25 ft and 2 stories 32 ft 5 in 32 ft 5 in New addition max height 28 ft Max. Floor Area Ratio (FAR)0.5:1 (55,321 sf) residential 0.4:1 (44,257 sf) non- residential 0.9:1 (99,578 sf) total 0.43:1 (47,500 sf) residential 0.76:1 (83,511 sf) non- residential (convalescent) 1.18:1 (131,011 sf) total 0.43:1 (47,500 sf) residential 0.82:1 (90,379 sf) non-residential (convalescent) 1.25:1 (137,906 sf) total Daylight Plane for lot lines abutting one or more residential zone districts other than an RM-40 or PC Zone R-1 is 45 degrees at 10 ft (6) Complies Complies (1) No parking or loading space, whether required or optional, shall be located in the first 10 feet adjoining the street property line of any required yard. (2) Any minimum front, street side, or interior yard shall be planted and maintained as a landscaped screen excluding areas required for access to the site. A solid wall or fence between 5 and 8 feet in height shall be constructed along any common interior lot line.. (6) The initial height and slope shall be identical to those of the most restrictive residential zone abutting the site line in question. (7) 25 foot driveway access permitted regardless of frontage, build-to requirement does not apply to CC district. (8) A 12 foot sidewalk width is required along El Camino Real frontage Item 3 Attachment B - Zoning Comparison     Packet Pg. 112     Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) Type Required Existing PC Proposed Vehicle Parking 0.75 per Senior Housing Unit (33 spaces) 1 per 2.5 beds Convalescent Facilities (57 spaces) 41 spaces Senior Housing 57 spaces Convalescent Facilities 41 spaces Senior Housing 57 spaces Convalescent Facilities Complies Bicycle Parking None per Senior Housing Unit 1 per 25 beds Convalescent Facilities (2 LT) None No change Loading Space 1 loading space for 10,000-99,999 sf. 2 required for 100,000- 199,999 sf. None No change Item 3 Attachment B - Zoning Comparison     Packet Pg. 113     Memorandum Date: April 2, 2024 To: Ms. Carolyn Mogollon From: Gary Black and Jonathan Chang Subject: Parking Study for the Proposed Assisted Living Facility Expansion at 4075 El Camino Way in Palo Alto, California Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. has completed a parking study for the proposed expansion to the existing assisted living facility at 4075 El Camino Way in Palo Alto, California. The project would add 18 new units to the existing 121-unit facility. The facility has 48 parking spaces in a garage and 7 spaces in a front parking lot, for a total of 55 parking spaces. The parking study was conducted to determine if the existing number of parking spaces provided on-site would be sufficient with the addition of the new units. Data Collection Hexagon determined that the peak parking occupancy period for this location is on Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday from 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM. As seen in Table 1, Hexagon collected parking counts on these days in March of 2024. Table 1 Parking Counts Based on the parking data collected, a ratio for number of parking spaces required for each dwelling unit in the facility was determined in Table 2. There are a total of 55 parking spaces provided on-site. Thus, Hexagon has determined that the total capacity that the parking garage and parking lot can accommodate is 289 units. Time Occupied Spaces Time Occupied Spaces Time Occupied Spaces 9:00am 19 9:00am 19 9:00am 20 9:30am 22 9:30am 21 9:30am 18 10:00am 17 10:00am 19 10:00am 21 10:30am 21 10:30am 22 10:30am 21 11:00am 21 11:00am 23 11:00am 23 Peak OCP 22 Peak OCP 23 Peak OCP 23 March 19, 2024 March 21, 2024 March 22, 2024 Item 3 Attachment C: Parking Memo     Packet Pg. 114     4075 El Camino Way Parking Study April 2, 2024 P a g e | 2 Table 2 Parking Ratio Conclusions The project proposes to add a total of 18 new units to the existing 121-unit facility. That would amount to a total of 139 units. 139 units is well within the determined maximum capacity of 289 units, thus the additional units added to the development would not cause any issues with insufficient parking. Parking Occupancy Parking Ratio Dwelling Units 23 0.19 121 55 0.19 289 Item 3 Attachment C: Parking Memo     Packet Pg. 115     429 E. Cotati Avenue Cotati, CA 94931 Tel: 707-794-0400 Fax: 707-794-0405 www.illingworthrodkin.com illro@illingworthrodkin.com M E M O Date: May 9, 2024 To: Carolyn Mogollon, AICP Project Manager, David J. Powers & Associates, Inc. From: Carrie J. Janello Senior Consultant, Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. Michael S. Thill Principal Consultant, Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. SUBJECT: Palo Alto Commons Project, 4075 El Camino Way, Palo Alto, CA – Noise and Vibration Assessment The Palo Alto Commons Project would expand the existing 121-unit assisted living facility (83,511 square feet) located at 4075 El Camino Way in Palo Alto, California. The expansion would include the addition of 18 new units totaling 6,816 square feet, primarily located on the second and third floors. The project requests an amendment to the existing Planned Community Permit for the site to allow for the proposed expansion. No increase in parking or modifications to the circulation of the site are proposed. This memo evaluates construction noise and vibration levels and operational noise levels resulting from the proposed expansion. The construction noise and vibration levels are assessed relative to thresholds established by the City of Palo Alto and the State of California, and where necessary, controls are recommended as part of a construction management plan. Operational noise levels are also assessed, and where necessary, mitigation measures are recommended to reduce project impacts to a less-than-significant level. Regulatory Background California Department of Transportation. Caltrans identifies a vibration threshold of 0.5 in/sec PPV for buildings structurally sound and designed to modern engineering standards, 0.3 in/sec PPV for buildings that are found to be structurally sound but where structural damage is a major concern, and a conservative limit of 0.25 in/sec PPV for historic and some old buildings. Item 3 Attachment D - Noise Memo (05.09.24)     Packet Pg. 116     Carolyn Mogollon, AICP May 9, 2024 Page 2 City of Palo Alto 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Chapter 4 of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan (Natural Environment) discusses noise. The following goals and policies apply to the proposed project: Goal N-6: An environment that minimizes the adverse impacts of noise. Policy N-6.3 Protect the overall community and especially sensitive noise receptors, including schools, hospitals, convalescent homes, senior and child care facilities and public conservation land from unacceptable noise levels from both existing and future noise sources, including construction noise. Policy N-6.5 Protect residential and residentially-zoned properties from excessive and unnecessary noise from any sources on adjacent commercial or industrial properties. Policy N-6.6 Apply site planning and architectural design techniques that reduce overall noise pollution and reduce noise impacts on proposed and existing projects within Palo Alto and surrounding communities. Policy N-6.7 While a proposed project is in the development review process, the noise impact of the project on existing residential land uses, public open spaces and public conservation land should be evaluated in terms of the increase in existing noise levels for the potential for adverse community impact, regardless of existing background noise levels. If an area is below the applicable maximum noise guideline, an increase in noise up to the maximum should not necessarily be allowed. Policy N-6.8 The City may require measures to reduce noise impacts of new development on adjacent properties through appropriate means including, but not limited to, the following: • Orient buildings to shield noise sensitive outdoor spaces from sources of noise. • Construct noise walls when other methods to reduce noise are not practical and when these walls will not shift similar noise impacts to another adjacent property. • Screen and control noise sources such as parking lots, outdoor activities and mechanical equipment, including HVAC equipment. • Increase setbacks to serve as a buffer between noise sources and adjacent dwellings. • Whenever possible, retain fences, walls or landscaping that serve as noise buffers while considering design, safety and other impacts. • Use soundproofing materials, noise reduction construction techniques, and/or acoustically-rated windows/doors. • Include auxiliary power sources at loading docks to minimize truck engine idling. • Control hours of operation, including deliveries and trash pickup, to minimize noise impacts. Policy N-6.9 Continue to require applicants for new projects or new mechanical equipment in the Multifamily, Commercial, Manufacturing or Planned Community districts to submit an acoustical analysis demonstrating compliance with the Noise Ordinance prior to receiving a building permit. Policy N-6.11 Continue to prioritize construction noise limits around sensitive receptors, including through limiting construction hours and individual and cumulative noise from construction equipment. Item 3 Attachment D - Noise Memo (05.09.24)     Packet Pg. 117     Carolyn Mogollon, AICP May 9, 2024 Page 3 Policy N-6.13 Minimize noise spillover from rail related activities into adjacent residential or noise- sensitive areas. City of Palo Alto Municipal Code. The noise ordinance of the City of Palo Alto limits noise levels caused by stationary noise sources and construction on adjacent residential properties. The applicable portions of the noise code are as follows: 9.10.030 Residential property noise limits. (a) No person shall produce, suffer or allow to be produced by any machine, animal, or device, or any combination of same, on residential property, a noise level more than six (6) dB above the local ambient at any point outside the property plane. 9.10.060 Special Provisions. The special exceptions listed in this section shall apply, notwithstanding the provisions of Sections 9.10.030 through 9.10.050. Said exceptions shall apply only to the extent and during the hours specified in each of the following enumerated exceptions. (a) General Daytime Exception. Any noise source which does not produce a noise level exceeding seventy (70) dBA at a distance of twenty-five feet under its most noisy condition of use shall be exempt from the provisions of Sections 9.10.030(a), 9.10.040 and 9.10.050(a) between the hours of eight a.m. and eight p.m. Monday through Friday, nine a.m. and eight p.m. on Saturday, except Sundays and holidays, when the exemption herein shall apply between ten a.m. and six p.m. (b) Construction. Except for construction on residential property, construction, alteration and repair activities which are authorized by valid city building permit shall be prohibited on Sundays and holidays and shall be prohibited except between the hours of eight a.m. and six p.m. Monday through Friday, nine a.m. and six p.m. on Saturday provided that the construction, demolition or repair activities during those hours meet the following standards: (1) No individual piece of equipment shall produce a noise level exceeding one hundred ten (110) dBA at a distance of twenty-five (25) feet. If the device is housed within a structure on the property, the measurement shall be made outside the structure at a distance as close to twenty-five feet from the equipment as possible. (2) The noise level at any point outside of the property plane of the project shall not exceed one hundred ten (110) dBA. (3) The holder of a valid construction permit for a construction project in a non- residential zone shall post a sign at all entrances to the construction site upon commencement of construction, for the purpose of informing all contractors and subcontractors, their employees, agents, materialmen and all other persons at the construction site, of the basic requirements of this chapter. (A) Said sign(s) shall be posted no less than three feet and no more than five feet above the ground level, shall be visible from the adjacent street, and shall be of a Item 3 Attachment D - Noise Memo (05.09.24)     Packet Pg. 118     Carolyn Mogollon, AICP May 9, 2024 Page 4 white background, with black lettering, which lettering shall be a minimum of one and one-half inches in height. (B) Said sign shall read as follows: CONSTRUCTION HOUSE FOR RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES MONDAY-FRIDAY 8:00 A.M. TO 6:00 P.M. SATURDAY 9:00 A.M. TO 6:00 P.M. SUNDAY/HOLIDAY CONSTRUCTION PROHIBITED Existing Noise Environment The project site is bordered by single-family residences to the northeast and the Goodwill of Silicon Valley to the southeast. Other land uses in the project vicinity include single-family residences and the Acme Children’s Center to the southeast, opposite West Meadow Drive; Vision Care for Animals and the Animal Hospital of Palo Alto to the southwest, opposite El Camino Way; and single- and multi-family residences to the southwest, opposite El Camino Way and El Camino Real. The noise environment at the site and in the surrounding area results primarily from transportation- related noise sources such as vehicular traffic along El Camino Real and train passbys along the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR). Local traffic and aircraft also contribute to the ambient noise environment. A noise monitoring survey, consisting of two long-term (LT-1 and LT-2) and two short-term (ST- 1 and ST-2) noise measurements, was conducted between Monday, April 1, 2024, and Thursday, April 4, 2024, to document existing conditions in the project vicinity. All measurement locations are shown in Figure 1. Long-term noise measurement LT-1 was made along West Meadow Drive, approximately 50 feet northwest of the centerline. Hourly average noise levels at LT-1 typically ranged from 52 to 67 dBA Leq during daytime hours (7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.) and from 42 to 56 dBA Leq during nighttime hours (10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.). The day-night average noise level on Tuesday, April 2, 2024, and Wednesday, April 3, 2024, was 59 dBA Ldn. The daily trend in noise levels at LT-1 is shown in Figures A1 through A4 of Appendix A. LT-2 was made along the northeastern boundary of the site, near the shared property line with the residence located at 4040 Wilkie Way. Hourly average noise levels at LT-2 typically ranged from 48 to 62 dBA Leq during daytime hours and from 42 to 53 dBA Leq during nighttime hours. The day-night average noise levels on Tuesday, April 2, 2024, and Wednesday, April 3, 2024, were 57 dBA Ldn and 54 dBA Ldn, respectively. The daily trend in noise levels at LT-2 is shown in Figures A5 through A8 of Appendix A. Short-term noise measurements ST-1 and ST-2 were made on Monday, April 1, 2024, between 10:30 a.m. and 10:50 a.m. ST-1 and ST-2 were made from an open space area on the project site. ST-1 was positioned in the center of the open space, approximately 30 feet from the nearest Item 3 Attachment D - Noise Memo (05.09.24)     Packet Pg. 119     Carolyn Mogollon, AICP May 9, 2024 Page 5 building façade of the existing senior assisted living center. ST-1 was positioned as far as possible from existing buildings, while ST-2 was positioned close to the existing buildings. These locations were selected to quantify any potential reflected noise from the building close to ST-2. The dominant noise sources at ST-1 and ST-2 included jet aircraft (49 to 58 dBA) and train horns (55 to 61 dBA). Background ambient noise levels produced by vehicular traffic ranged from 42 to 43 dBA. During the first 10-minute measurement period for both measurements, emergency sirens generated noise levels of 55 to 64 dBA, which increased the average 10-minute Leq. The 10-minute Leq measured at ST-1 and ST-2 ranged from 46 dBA without the emergency sirens to 50 dBA with the sirens. Table 1 summarizes the noise measurement results. There were no appreciable differences in measured noise levels due to noise reflected from the building. TABLE 1 Summary of Short-Term Noise Measurements (dBA) Noise Measurement Location Date, Time Measured Noise Level, dBA Lmax L(1) L(10) L(50) L(90) Leq ST-1: center of open space near the northeastern property line 4/1/2024, 10:30-10:40 64 59 54 46 42 50 4/1/2024, 10:40-10:50 60 57 48 43 41 46 ST-2: along the building façade in the open space near the northeastern property line 4/1/2024, 10:30-10:40 64 59 53 45 43 50 4/1/2024, 10:40-10:50 61 57 46 43 42 46 Item 3 Attachment D - Noise Memo (05.09.24)     Packet Pg. 120     FIGURE 1 Aerial Image of the Project Site and Surrounding Area with Long- and Short-Term Measurement Locations Identified Source: Google Earth, 2024. Item 3 Attachment D - Noise Memo (05.09.24)     Packet Pg. 121     Construction Noise and Vibration Assessment Temporary Construction Noise Construction of the project would be completed in one phase over approximately 18 months beginning in January 2025. Construction activities would occur between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on weekdays. During each phase of construction, there would be a different mix of equipment operating, and noise levels would vary by phase and vary within phases, based on the amount of equipment in operation and the location at which the equipment is operating. Noise impacts resulting from construction depend upon the noise generated by various pieces of construction equipment, the timing and duration of noise-generating activities, and the distance between construction noise sources and noise-sensitive areas. Construction noise impacts primarily result when construction activities occur during noise-sensitive times of the day (e.g., early morning, evening, or nighttime hours), the construction occurs in areas immediately adjoining noise-sensitive land uses, or when construction lasts over extended periods. Section 9.10.060(b) of the City of Palo Alto Municipal Code states that construction activities are permitted between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and between 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays provided that no individual piece of equipment produces a noise level exceeding 110 dBA at a distance of 25 feet or noise levels of 110 dBA are exceeded anywhere outside the property plane. If the equipment is housed in a structure, the 110 dBA would be enforced at a distance of 25 feet from the structure. All construction activities are prohibited on Sundays and holidays. The construction of the project would require minimal construction equipment. During the site preparation phase and grading/excavation phase, a mini excavator will be used. Similarly, during the construction of the building exterior, a small forklift would be used. The typical maximum instantaneous noise levels for a Bobcat E10 mini excavator would range from 59 to 67 dBA Lmax at a distance of 25 feet. A small forklift would produce similar noise levels. Maximum instantaneous noise levels are expected to comply with the City of Palo Alto’s threshold of 110 dBA. Reasonable regulation of the hours of construction, as well as regulation of the arrival and operation of heavy equipment and the delivery of construction material, are necessary to protect the health and safety of persons, promote the general welfare of the community, and maintain the quality of life. With the incorporation of construction best management practices as a project condition of approval, construction noise exposure at sensitive receptors would be reduced as much as possible resulting in a less-than-significant impact. Item 3 Attachment D - Noise Memo (05.09.24)     Packet Pg. 122     Carolyn Mogollon, AICP May 9, 2024 Page 8 Construction Best Management Practices Implement the following construction best management practices: • Construction will be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and between 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays for any on-site or off-site work within 300 feet of any residential unit. • The contractor shall use “new technology” power construction equipment with state-of- the-art noise shielding and muffling devices. All internal combustion engines used on the project site shall be equipped with adequate mufflers and shall be in good mechanical condition to minimize noise created by faulty or poorly maintained engines or other components. • The unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines shall be prohibited. • Staging areas and stationary noise-generating equipment shall be located as far as possible from noise-sensitive receptors such as residential uses. • Substitute nail guns for manual hammering, where feasible. • Substitute electrically powered tools for noisier pneumatic tools, where feasible. • A “noise disturbance coordinator” shall be designated to respond to any local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator would determine the cause of the noise complaints (e.g., beginning work too early, bad muffler, etc.) and institute reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem. A telephone number for the disturbance coordinator would be conspicuously posted at the construction site. The implementation of these measures would reduce construction noise levels emanating from the site, minimizing disruption and annoyance. Considering that construction is temporary, with the implementation of these controls, as well as the Municipal Code limits regulating allowable construction hours, the impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. Temporary Construction Vibration Construction phases would include demolition, site preparation work, foundation work, and new building framing and finishing. As noted previously, the construction of the project would only require minimal construction equipment (i.e., mini-excavator and forklift). For structural damage, the California Department of Transportation recommends a vibration limit of 0.5 in/sec PPV for new residential and modern commercial/industrial structures, 0.3 in/sec PPV for older residential structures, and a limit of 0.25 in/sec PPV for historic and some old buildings. The 0.3 in/sec PPV vibration limit would apply to properties near the project site and the 0.25 in/sec PPV vibration limit would apply to the nearest historic property. Item 3 Attachment D - Noise Memo (05.09.24)     Packet Pg. 123     Carolyn Mogollon, AICP May 9, 2024 Page 9 According to the historical inventory of the City of Palo Alto,1 there are no historical buildings located within 200 feet of the proposed project site. Additionally, the Goodwill building and medical office buildings surrounding the site were constructed post-World War II and would not be considered older buildings subject to the 0.25 in/sec PPV threshold. Conservatively, the 0.3 in/sec PPV threshold for older residential buildings is applied to all existing off-site structures surrounding the project site. Table 2 presents vibration levels produced by typical construction equipment at a distance of 25 feet. These vibration levels represent heavy construction equipment that would not be used on the project site. However, these data are used to illustrate that even under worst-case conditions, vibration levels generated by the construction of the project would remain low. Vibration levels would vary depending on soil conditions, construction methods, and equipment used. Table 2 summarizes the vibration levels at each of the surrounding buildings in the project vicinity. Vibration levels are highest close to the source and then attenuate with increasing distance at the rate �𝐷𝐷𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝐷𝐷��1.1 , where D is the distance from the source in feet and Dref is the reference distance of 25 feet. TABLE 2 Vibration Levels for Heavy Construction Equipment at 25 feet and the Nearest Surrounding Buildings Equipment PPV at 25 ft. (in/sec) Estimated Vibration Levels at Nearest Building Façades Surrounding the Project Site, in/sec PPV NE Res. (10ft) SE Res. & Children’s Center (150ft) SW Goodwill (40ft) SW Medical Offices (225ft) Hydromill (slurry wall) in soil 0.008 0.022 0.001 0.005 0.001 in rock 0.017 0.047 0.002 0.010 0.002 Hoe Ram 0.089 0.244 0.012 0.053 0.008 Large bulldozer 0.089 0.244 0.012 0.053 0.008 Caisson drilling 0.089 0.244 0.012 0.053 0.008 Loaded trucks 0.076 0.208 0.011 0.045 0.007 Jackhammer 0.035 0.096 0.005 0.021 0.003 Small bulldozer 0.003 0.008 0.000 0.002 0.000 Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, Federal Transit Administration, Office of Planning and Environment, U.S. Department of Transportation, September 2018, as modified by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc., April 2024. As shown in Table 2, the nearest older residential building to the northeast would be about 10 feet from the nearest expected construction area. At this distance, construction vibration levels from large construction equipment would be at or below 0.24 in/sec PPV, which is below the conservative 0.3 in/sec PPV threshold. Smaller equipment would be best represented by the “small bulldozer,” which would produce vibration levels below 0.01 in/sec PPV at the nearest buildings. This is a less-than-significant impact. 1 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/planning-amp-development-services/historic- preservation/historic-inventory/city-historic-inventory-list.pdf Item 3 Attachment D - Noise Memo (05.09.24)     Packet Pg. 124     Carolyn Mogollon, AICP May 9, 2024 Page 10 Operational Noise Assessment A significant impact would result if the proposed project would result in a substantial permanent increase in noise levels at sensitive receptors in the vicinity. A substantial increase would occur if: a) the noise level increase is 5 dBA Ldn or greater, with a future noise level of less than 60 dBA Ldn; or b) the noise level increase is 3 dBA Ldn or greater, with a future noise level of 60 dBA Ldn or greater. Based on the ambient noise levels measured at the project site and the surrounding area, existing residential receptors surrounding the site would be exposed to existing noise levels below 60 dBA Ldn. Assuming a standard 1% to 2% traffic volume increase per year along the surrounding major roadways, which is typical for built-out areas such as this, a 2 dBA Ldn increase would be estimated by 2044. Therefore, the future noise levels at the residential receptors to the northeast would remain under 60 dBA Ldn, while the future noise levels at the residential receptors to the southeast would exceed 60 dBA Ldn. A significant noise increase would occur at the northeast residences if project-generated operations would permanently increase noise levels by 5 dBA Ldn and at the southeast residences if project-generated operations would permanently increase noise levels by 3 dBA Ldn. Section 9.10.040 of the Municipal Code states that any noise generated at the project site shall not exceed ambient levels at residential properties by 6 dBA or at commercial properties by 8 dBA. The northeast residences have existing ambient noise levels represented by LT-2, with daytime noise levels ranging from 48 to 62 dBA Leq (average of 52 dBA Leq) and nighttime noise levels ranging from 42 to 53 dBA Leq (average of 48 dBA Leq). The southeast receptors (including the residences and children’s center) and southwest receptors (including the Goodwill and medical offices) would be represented by noise levels measured at LT-1, which include daytime noise levels of 52 to 67 dBA Leq (average of 57 dBA Leq) and nighttime noise levels of 42 to 56 dBA Leq (average of 49 dBA Leq). Conservatively, daytime and nighttime thresholds applied at the property lines of the surrounding receptors are summarized in Table 3. TABLE 3 Summary of Operational Noise Thresholds Applied at Each Receiving Property Line Receptor Daytime Leq, dBA Nighttime Leq, dBA Northeast Residences 58 54 Southeast Residences & Children’s Center 63 55 Southwest Goodwill 65 57 Southwest Medical Offices 65 57 Project Traffic A traffic study was not required for the proposed project. The additional units included in the project expansion would generate project trips insignificant compared to the traffic volumes along the surrounding roadways. Therefore, the additional project trips would not result in a measurable or detectable noise level increase over the existing ambient noise environment. The project would not result in a permanent noise increase of 3 dBA Ldn or more at noise-sensitive receptors in the project vicinity. This is a less-than-significant impact. Item 3 Attachment D - Noise Memo (05.09.24)     Packet Pg. 125     Carolyn Mogollon, AICP May 9, 2024 Page 11 Mechanical Equipment The project would install new mechanical equipment for heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC). Two condensing units (Daikin RXYQ96TTJU) will be installed on the rooftop of the building, and 30 interior fan coils (Daikin FXAQ07PVJU) will be installed within the new residential units. According to the manufacturer’s specification sheet for the Daikin condensing units, noise levels would be 61 dBA at 3 feet. The Daikin wall-mounted units would generate indoor noise levels of 31 to 36 dBA at 3 feet. These quiet units would, therefore, not be audible at the residential exteriors. Surrounding off-site receptors would only be exposed to noise levels generated by the rooftop condensing units. Assuming the equipment runs continuously during the daytime and nighttime hours, the estimated day-night average noise level for the Daikin condensing unit would be 67 dBA Ldn at 3 feet. The rooftop condensing units would be 28 feet above the ground, and with setbacks of 10 feet or more from the edge of the rooftop, minimum attenuation of 15 dBA was calculated for each unit at each receiving receptor surrounding the site. Note, the residences to the northeast would be completely shielded by the existing assisted living building and would not be exposed to mechanical equipment noise generated by the project additions. Each of the neighboring northeast residences would be exposed to different mechanical equipment noise levels from the additions. Table 4 summarizes the total noise level exposure from mechanical equipment associated with the on-site additions, as estimated at each of the northeast residential property lines identified in Figure 2. Table 4 also summarizes the estimated noise levels at Goodwill. FIGURE 2 Northeast Residential Receptors with Direct Line-of-Sight to the Additions on the Northeast Building Façade Item 3 Attachment D - Noise Memo (05.09.24)     Packet Pg. 126     Carolyn Mogollon, AICP May 9, 2024 Page 12 TABLE 4 Estimated Operational Noise Levels for Residential Condensing Units Receptor Distance from Rooftop Condensing Units, feet Hourly Leq, dBA Ldn, dBA Noise Level Increase, dBA Ldn R1 95 to 205 < 20a 24a 0 R2 65 to 155 21a 27a 0 R3 55 to 130 23a 29a 0 R4 60 to 125 23a 29a 0 R5 60 to 125 22a 29a 0 R6 60 to 140 22a 28a 0 R7 85 to 180 < 20a 25a 0 R8 125 to 225 < 20a 23a 0 Goodwill 40 to 120 26a 32a 0 a Minimum attenuation of 15 dBA was applied to ground-level receptors due to setbacks and elevation of the rooftop equipment. Based on the estimated noise levels in Table 4, mechanical equipment Leq noise levels would not exceed the City’s daytime or nighttime thresholds. For all existing receptors, the noise level increase due to mechanical equipment would not be measurable or detectable (0 dBA Ldn increase). This would be a less-than-significant impact. Potential for Reflected Train Noise There is concern that the additional residential units proposed along the northeast façade of the building would reflect train horn noise upon the rear areas of Wilkie Way residences. Reflected noise could be of concern if the design of the northeast building façade was relatively flat reflecting plane parallel to the UPRR and Wilkie Way. Figure 3 shows the views of the northeast façade of the building under existing and proposed project conditions. As shown in Figure 3, the northeast building façade is not a flat surface capable of focusing sound energy at Wilkie Way residences. The varied angles of the building scatter potential reflected noise in several directions, depending on the angle of incidence of the noise. The design of the building itself, under existing and proposed conditions, limits the potential for reflected train horn noise. Furthermore, the façades of the additional units proposed by the project make up a small percentage of the overall northeast façade, further limiting potential reflections. Simultaneous noise measurements were made during the noise survey at ST-1 and ST-2 to demonstrate reflections experienced under existing conditions close to, and away from the building. These measurements were made to simulate potential reflections that could occur as a result of the project. ST-1 was made in the center of the open space area, as far as possible from the building façade to minimize the potential reflections of sound energy, and ST-2 was made near the building façade to maximize the potential reflections of sound energy. As noted previously, the predominant noise sources measured at ST-1 and ST-2 included jet aircraft (49 to 58 dBA) and train horns (55 to 61 dBA). Maximum noise levels produced by these sources varied between the two measurement positions by up to 1 dBA. A 1 dBA change in noise levels is only detectable in a laboratory environment and would not be detectable at Wilkie Way residences. A similar increase in noise levels could be expected with the project assuming reflections under practical conditions. Theoretically, assuming 100 percent of the sound energy, or all of the train noise, were to be reflected by the project back to a particular receptor along Wilkie Way, a maximum noise level Item 3 Attachment D - Noise Memo (05.09.24)     Packet Pg. 127     Carolyn Mogollon, AICP May 9, 2024 Page 13 increase of 3 dBA would be expected. A 3 dBA increase in noise levels is barely detectable outside of a laboratory environment. Therefore, the potential for reflected train horn noise would be less- than-significant under both practical and theoretical conditions. (24-045) Item 3 Attachment D - Noise Memo (05.09.24)     Packet Pg. 128     Carolyn Mogollon, AICP May 9, 2024 Page 14 FIGURE 3 Existing and Proposed Views of the Northeast Building Façade Item 3 Attachment D - Noise Memo (05.09.24)     Packet Pg. 129     Carolyn Mogollon, AICP May 9, 2024 Page 15 APPENDIX A Item 3 Attachment D - Noise Memo (05.09.24)     Packet Pg. 130     Carolyn Mogollon, AICP May 9, 2024 Page 16 Item 3 Attachment D - Noise Memo (05.09.24)     Packet Pg. 131     Carolyn Mogollon, AICP May 9, 2024 Page 17 Item 3 Attachment D - Noise Memo (05.09.24)     Packet Pg. 132     Carolyn Mogollon, AICP May 9, 2024 Page 18 Item 3 Attachment D - Noise Memo (05.09.24)     Packet Pg. 133     Carolyn Mogollon, AICP May 9, 2024 Page 19 Item 3 Attachment D - Noise Memo (05.09.24)     Packet Pg. 134     Carolyn Mogollon, AICP May 9, 2024 Page 20 Item 3 Attachment D - Noise Memo (05.09.24)     Packet Pg. 135     Carolyn Mogollon, AICP May 9, 2024 Page 21 Item 3 Attachment D - Noise Memo (05.09.24)     Packet Pg. 136     Carolyn Mogollon, AICP May 9, 2024 Page 22 Item 3 Attachment D - Noise Memo (05.09.24)     Packet Pg. 137     Frank Petrilli D (415) 268-0503 fpetrilli@coblentzlaw.com April 10, 2024 Emily Kallas, Planner Amy French, Chief Planning Official Planning and Development Services emily.kallas@cityofpaloalto.org amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org Re: Palo Alto Commons: Applicable Daylight Plane and Setback Requirements Dear Emily and Amy: Our client, Palo Alto Commons, LP, is the owner of the Palo Alto Commons residential care facility for the elderly located at 4075 El Camino Way in Palo Alto. As you are aware, our client submitted an application to add 18 units to the existing 121-unit senior facility which requires amending an existing Planned Community (PC) Permit. That proposal was discussed by the PTC as a prescreening item on February 28. In response to the Staff presentation and exchanges with Commissioners at that meeting, and given what appeared to be some confusion about the applicable daylight plane standard, our client asked us to evaluate the applicable daylight plane and setback standards that apply to the project. The analysis below discusses the existing approvals and historic Zoning Code regulations for the property, and provides our evaluation of what the project’s applicable daylight plane and setback requirements are. In brief, we believe the same standards that applied to the original project in 1987 continue to apply, such that the daylight plane standard shown on the current plans is correct. After reviewing the Code, the prior PC ordinance and the plans, we can appreciate that this issue is complicated and we hope you find our analysis helpful. I. Introduction To The Original PC Ordinances And Historic Zoning Code By way of background, Palo Alto Commons was initially approved by Ordinance No. 3775 in 1987, which rezoned the property to a PC district (1987 PC Ordinance attached as Exhibit 1). The 1987 PC Ordinance identifies a 10 foot side yard setback and a 45 degree daylight plane angle, starting at 10 feet in height at the lot line, as shown in the excerpt below:1 1 Ordinance No. 3775, PDF p. 23. Item 3 Attachment E - Applicant's Letter Regarding Daylight Plane Standards     Packet Pg. 138     City of Palo Alto April 10, 2024 Page 2 019659.0001 4880-8294-5714.6 Based on our review, the 1987 PC Ordinance is consistent with the side yard setback and daylight plane restrictions in the 1987 Zoning Code (which, for our purposes, has not been materially amended since that time). More specifically, section 18.38.150 of the Zoning Code subjects PC developments to “special requirements” if the property shares any lot line with residential districts. Those “special requirements” include daylight plane restrictions, which differ between non-residential uses and residential uses where the gross floor area is at least 60 percent residential: Sites sharing any lot line with one or more sites in any RE, R-1, R- 2, RM or any residential PC district shall be subject to a maximum height established by a daylight plane beginning at a height of ten feet at the applicable side or rear site lines and increasing at a slope of three feet for each six feet of distance from the side or rear site lines until intersecting the height limit otherwise established for the PC district; provided, however, that for a use where the gross floor area excluding any area used exclusively for parking purposes, is at least sixty percent residential, the daylight planes may be identical to the daylight plane requirements of the most restrictive residential district abutting each such side or rear site line until intersecting the height limit otherwise established for the PC district. If the residential daylight plane, as allowed in this Item 3 Attachment E - Applicant's Letter Regarding Daylight Plane Standards     Packet Pg. 139     City of Palo Alto April 10, 2024 Page 3 019659.0001 4880-8294-5714.6 section, is selected, the setback regulations of the same adjoining residential district shall be imposed.2 In short, this provision says that non-residential uses were (and remain) subject to a more restrictive daylight plane angle and residential uses were (and remain) subject to different daylight planes that effectively mirror the setback and daylight plane requirements that apply in the abutting residential district (here, the side yard standards in the R-1 district3). Summarized below are the differing daylight plane requirements as applied to PC developments with side yards bordering an R-1 district: Summary of PC District Daylight Plane Requirements Measured From Beginning Height Daylight Plane Angle Non-Residential Use Lot Line 10 feet Increasing slope of 3 feet for each 6 feet of distance (or ~27 degrees) >60% Residential Use Lot Line 10 feet 45 degrees Because the code section quoted above speaks to both side and rear yards, it is important to emphasize that the applicable daylight plane and setback standard in this table are those set forth in the R-1 district’s interior side yard requirements since that side of the property is considered an interior side yard under the City’s Zoning Code. The reason the side of the property bordering the R-1 district is considered a “side lot line” is because it is not a front or rear lot line. The property is considered a “corner lot” because it abuts two or more streets (El Camino Way and West Meadow Drive) having an angle of intersection of 135 degrees or less (approximately 90 degrees).4 The “front lot line” of a corner lot is defined as the shorter lot line abutting a street.5 Compared to El Camino Way, the property has a shorter lot line along West Meadow Drive, which makes its frontage along that street its front lot line. A “rear lot line” is defined as the lot line not intersecting a front lot line and which is most distant from and most closely parallel to the front lot line.6 This makes the western side of the property, bordering the RM-20 district, the rear lot line because it doesn’t intersect the front lot line and is roughly parallel with it. As a result, what remains is the side of the property bordering the R-1 district, which is considered a “side lot line” because it is not a front or rear lot line, and an “interior” lot line because it is not abutting a street.7 2 Zoning Code, § 18.38.150(e). 3 The property also borders an R-2 district parcel, which shares identical daylight plane restrictions with the R-1 district. 4 Zoning Code, § 18.04.030(a)(84)(A). 5 Zoning Code, § 18.04.030(a)(91)(A). 6 Zoning Code, § 18.04.030(a)(91)(C). 7 Zoning Code, § 18.04.030(a)(91)(D), (B). Item 3 Attachment E - Applicant's Letter Regarding Daylight Plane Standards     Packet Pg. 140     City of Palo Alto April 10, 2024 Page 4 019659.0001 4880-8294-5714.6 II. The 1987 Project Conformed to the Zoning Code, Which Required A Residential Daylight Plane Angle The 1987 project satisfied the R-1 district’s side yard daylight plane requirements by providing a 45 degree daylight plane angle starting at 10 feet in height at the side lot line, and side yard setback regulations, by providing at least a 6 foot interior side yard setback.8 Instead of providing a 6 foot interior side yard setback, the 1987 project provided a larger setback of 10 feet to satisfy a different subsection of the Zoning Code requirements for PC sites sharing a lot line with residential districts.9 But that larger setback, governed by a different subsection of the “special requirements” section in the Zoning Code, is not relevant to the applicable daylight plane standard which is 45 degrees. As a consequence, and by virtue of conforming exactly to the R-1 side yard requirements, it seems apparent to us that the 1987 project must have been considered a “residential use,”10 which triggered the Zoning Code’s PC-specific residential daylight plane and setback regulations. If that was not the case, then different daylight plane and setback standards would have been imposed on the project back in 1987. III. The Same Daylight Plane And Setback Applies Today Because The Zoning Code Remains Substantively Unchanged And The Project Is Still A “Residential Use” Since 1987, the relevant Zoning Code regulations and the project’s use remain unchanged. The Zoning Code’s PC district “special requirements” are substantively unchanged,11 and the adjoining R-1 district continues to require a 45 degree side yard daylight plane starting at an initial height of 10 feet at the project’s interior side lot line, in addition to a 6 foot interior side yard setback. Second, the project continues to qualify for these R-1 district daylight plane and setback requirements because it is still a “residential use.”12 Therefore, the project remains subject to the same suite of daylight plane and setback regulations that it was developed under in 1987. 8 Zoning Code, § 18.12.040, Table 2. 9 Zoning Code, § 18.38.150(c). 10 Ordinance No. 3775, § 2(c), referred to the project as a “residential use” that “will generate less employment than the commercial uses permitted under the existing zoning.” We cannot at this time provide evidence that the 1987 project’s gross floor area was at least 60 % residential (Zoning Code, § 18.38.150(e)), but we assume this to be the case based on the amount of residential units provided an d the ultimate daylight plane required. 11 Since 1987, Zoning Code, § 18.38.150 was only updated in 2022 by Ordinance No. 5548 (§ 9), but those changes did not alter the relevant daylight plane regime. 12 The project proposes to add 18 senior units to an established “residential use,” which was already at least 60% residential (by virtue of being 100% residential) in 1987. Item 3 Attachment E - Applicant's Letter Regarding Daylight Plane Standards     Packet Pg. 141     City of Palo Alto April 10, 2024 Page 5 019659.0001 4880-8294-5714.6 We understand that there may be some confusion about whether a senior facility can be a “residential use,” when its units may not count toward the City’s RHNA obligations. Although the project’s units do not contain “cooking … facilities”13 and are not “dwelling units” for purposes of the Zoning Code and RHNA, a recent superior court decision14 and the 1987 Ordinance make clear that a residential use does not become non-residential if its units lack kitchens. Even without kitchens, the project’s senior residents continue to live in the units and to treat them as permanent and continuous places of residence. The nature of the “use” is residential. The Zoning Code is also consistent with this analysis. The Zoning Code does not specifically define residential care facilities for the elderly, but does define “supportive housing” and “transitional housing,” which are other specialty housing types that are typically regulated by the State (and also do not count against RHNA needs, much like other specialty housing types like group housing). Supportive and transitional housing units do not always contain kitchens, but the Zoning Code considers both to be “residential use[s] of property.”15 Therefore, there are at least two other examples in the Zoning Code of “residential uses” that can provide units without kitchens. Perhaps more importantly, State law also defines the facility as a “residential” development. The project constitutes a “senior citizen housing development” as defined in Sections 51.3 and 51.12 of the Civil Code.16 Civil Code Section 51.3 defines a “senior citizen housing development” as a “residential development developed, substantially rehabilitated, or substantially renovated for, senior citizens that has at least 35 dwelling units,” and in turn broadly defines “dwelling units” as “any residential accommodation other than a mobilehome.” That is also why senior housing projects are also subject to the Housing Accountability Act, entitled to special considerations under the State Density Bonus Law, and so on. For all of these reasons, we feel confident that the daylight plane standard shown on the current plans is correct and that Palo Alto Commons has been rightfully subject to a 45 degree daylight plane angle starting at 10 feet in height at the interior side lot line, and a 10 foot interior side yard setback, since 1987. 13 Zoning Code, § 18.04.030(a)(46). 14 A Ventura Superior Court decision from 2021 held that senior residential projects contain “residential uses” for purposes of triggering the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) (Yes In My Back Yard vs. City of Simi Valley (Case No. 56-2020-0539590-CU-WM-VTA)). Because seniors would use the living units as their residences (i.e., be a place where they actually live), the court held that the development would qualify as a “residential use” for purposes of the HAA. 15 Zoning Code, § 18.04.030(a)(135.5), (138). 16 Gov. Code, §§ 65915(b)(1)(c), 65915(f)(3)(A). Item 3 Attachment E - Applicant's Letter Regarding Daylight Plane Standards     Packet Pg. 142     City of Palo Alto April 10, 2024 Page 6 019659.0001 4880-8294-5714.6 We hope you find our analysis helpful. Please do not hesitate to reach out if we can be of further assistance or if you have questions. Very truly yours, Frank Petrilli FRP:CES Cc: Molly Stump, City Attorney Enclosure Item 3 Attachment E - Applicant's Letter Regarding Daylight Plane Standards     Packet Pg. 143     019659.0001 4853-3288-9014.1 Exhibit 1 Ordinance No. 3775 (1987 PC Ordinance) Item 3 Attachment E - Applicant's Letter Regarding Daylight Plane Standards     Packet Pg. 144     ORDINANCE NO. 3775 ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENI..>ING SEC'riON Hl.08.040 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE (THE ZONING MAP) TO CHANGE THE CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY KNOWN AS 4047, 4075 AND 4085 EL CAMINO WAY . FROM RM-2 AND CN TO PC. The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: S~CTION 1. Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the •zoning Map•, is hereby amended by changing the zoning of certain property known as 4047, 4075 and 4085 El Camino Way from RM-2 (Medium Density Multiple Family Residence District} and CN (Neighborhood Commercial District) to PC (Planned Community District). Said property is shown on a map attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 2. The City Council hereby finds with respect to the subject property that: (a) The use or uses proposed for the site are of such characteristics that the application of general districts or combining districts will not provide sufficient flexibility to allow the proposed develop­ ment which is to provide housing for the elderly. The increased density and decrP.ased parking requirements will allow small~r units to be constructed of a size suitable to the elderly within the same buildi~g envelope allowed under the RM-2 zone. ( b} Development of tQf! site under the provisions of the PC district will result in public benefits not otherwise attainable by application of the regulations of general districts or combining districts in that housing for the elderly, including residential care, is a public need, considering Palo .Alto's elderly popu­ lation, and this type of facility ~s not being pro­ vided in the community by other projects. (c) Th& use or uses permitted and the site de­ velopment regulation$ applicable within the district shall be consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, and shall be compatible with existing and poten­ tial uses on adjoining sites or within the general vicinity, in that the project will have minimal traf­ fic or noise impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. Furtherrnorei the residential use will generate less employment than lhe commercial uses permitted under the existing zoning. SECTION 3. The plans attached hereto as Exhibit "B", as amended show1ng 121 units, constitute the development plan and are incorporated herein by this reference. Said development plan is 1 • Item 3 Attachment E - Applicant's Letter Regarding Daylight Plane Standards     Packet Pg. 145     approved p\ursuant to Section 1 B .68.120 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, subject to the following conditions: (a) CONDITIONS OF USE. The uses shall be limited to 121 apartment ~nits ~ the elderly who can no longer live independently. ;s shall also include food preparation and dinirig, ;mmunity rooms, and office facilities for provision 6f services to apartment residents. The facility shall be licensed as a Residential Care Facility for the elderly under the State of California Health and Welfare Agency, Department of Social Services Title 22, Section 87102(a}, or successor legislation which requires the provision of at least the following services: 1. Use of a residential care unit, either a studio or one bedroom. 2. 3 meals a day. 3. Security in the form of 24 hours supervisory personnel on duty, controlled access into the facility and emergency devices located in each residential care unit. 4. Personal care in dressing, bathing and other personal hygiene. 5. Supervision but not administration of medication. 6. Transportation in the form of a van to provide ~ccess for personal needs such as banking, hair care, prescriptions, stores, church, activiti~s oriented tow~rds social abilities such as various senior facilities in the City of Palo Alto including the Senior Coordinating Council and the Senior Day Health Program. 7. Programs to provide entertainment, health and inter action. 8. Coordination with doctors and other outside contractors regarding health services. 9. The Developer shall establish and administer a program which shall give preference for .:>ccup.ancy to Palo Alto t:esidents and their families. If the stated uses change, then the project will require an amendment to the PC zone approved by the 2. Item 3 Attachment E - Applicant's Letter Regarding Daylight Plane Standards     Packet Pg. 146     City Council and shall be required to comply with parking requirements associated with the new use. (b) IMPROVEMENTS. 1. Parking for at least 55 cars shall be provided on site -.as indicated on the approved plan •. A portion of the underground parking shall be .accessible to guests. The management shall provide on-site van service for residents. Manage~ent shall charge residents with cars a parking fee to be approved by the Director of Planning and Community Environment in addition to the regular monthly rent and service charge. Developer shall submit a preliminary plan (attached hereto as Exhibit nc"), which may consist of a simple line drawing to show how additional parking spaces will be provided in the event a prop~sal is received to change the use from the PC zone for a residential care facility for the elderly to a use equivalent to multi-family housing, with the attendant parking requirements. 2. To satisfy the Below Market Rate Program ot the Comprehensive Plan, the developer shall make an in-lieu contribution in the amount of $205,200, adjusted to the Consumer Price Index (all urban consumers -San Francisco-Oakland) p~ior to the issuance of an occupancy permit for the development. This fee shall be used to .reduce the cost of some apartment units for low and moderate income seniors. An agreement setting forth the terms of such a reduction in cost shall be negotiated and agreed to by the City, the developer and the Palo Alto Hqusing Corporation prior. to the issuance of an occupancy permit. 3. The developer shall obtain approval of and record a parcel m~p merging ·the three existing parcels, prior to issuanee of a build~ng permit~ 4. Complete water and sewer flow calculations are needed at the time of building plan check to show that the off-and on-site water and sewer system will provide the required fire and sanitary - flows needed to serve the development. Any improvements to the system will be at the owner's expense. 5. The developer shall replace damaged curb, gutter, and sidewalk on El Camino Way. 6. A soil~ report sh~ll be prepared to specifically address the proposed shoring for garage . 3. ''.· ... Item 3 Attachment E - Applicant's Letter Regarding Daylight Plane Standards     Packet Pg. 147     excavation ahd the elevation of the water table at the site prior to issuance of a building permit. 7. Storm drainage from the site shall be piped directly into the existing storm drain running along the east side of w~ M~adow Drive. The on-site~ draina9e system shall be designed with excess capacity so that water can be detained on-site during peak flow periods. 8. A drainage plan shall be submitted to ~uolic works Engineering for approval prior to completion of construction drawings. Surface drainage over the sidewalk is not permitted. Drainage patterns shall not adversely affect abutting properties. 9. Underground garage pump/sump system shall be designed to operate effectively in the event of a power failure by means of: a. a back-up emergency power generator; b. an oversized sump with capacity to hold the ~ccurnulated water; or c. a method subject to the City Engineer's approval. 10. No street tree shall be removed without permission from the-Division of Parks and Open Space. The trees on El Camino Way may be replaced with pyrus aristocat. New camphor trees on West Meadow Drive shall be planted behind the sidewalk. 11. The d~~eloper shall apply for an encrochment permit from Public Works Engineering prior t.o finalizir,'3 plans for encroachment into the public right-of-way. ' 12. Space for a pad-mount transfo~mer is required. Electric meters must be grouped on the first floor. 13. Title 24 regarding handicapped requirements for apartments shall apply. 14. Mound-ing for landscaping bf:!hind the sidewalk shall not exceed three feet in elevation with respect to the driveway grade. 15. Prior to application for an occupancy permit, the developer shall submit to the Director of Planning and Community Environment for approval, a 4. ... ,. ·( ,. Item 3 Attachment E - Applicant's Letter Regarding Daylight Plane Standards     Packet Pg. 148     detailed written description of how the following aeasures will be iMplemented and monitored: a. Maintenance in a central location ot ti•ely information regarding commute alternatives and distribution of same to all new employees. The infor•ation should include all relevant transit system ti•etables, information about ridesharing from RIDES for Bay Area Comauters, Inc. and County Transit, information on the ouildings' and the Cityts bicycle facilities. b. A means to provide or reimburse employees for transit passes. ~. Assurance that the property manager will provide each employee with the RIDES car pool match list application form and information package at least once each year. 16. Detailed landscaping plans and color palette shall return to the Architectural Review Board for tinal ap~roval prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit. Information about the final color sche~e shall u~ s~nt to the Planning Commission upon ARB approval. 17. Developer shall be responsible for the costs of undergrounding and service conversions for electric, telephone, and street lighting and fo~ all services now provided by utility poles 401 and 402 on El CaMino Way~ such undergrounding to extend to but not include utility pole 403. 18. Notwithstanding any of the provisions of Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 9.10, construction hours on the site shall be limited to the hours between 6:00 a.m., and 6:00 p.m.1 Monday through Friday, the hours of 9:00a.m., to 5:00p.m., on Saturdays, and there shall be no construction ~llowed on sundays and holidays. (c) DEVELOPMENT Sf,HEDULE. Construction shall begin no later than one year following City Council approval of the zone change and shall be completed within 18 months of the start of ~on~~ruction. (d) ANNL~L REPORT. The m~\nagement f,hall provide the City with an c::.nnual project r ~port with the following in format ion: 1. Occupancy/Vacancy st•tus 5. ,., ,, ,', ..... ·,. ·_, 1( Item 3 Attachment E - Applicant's Letter Regarding Daylight Plane Standards     Packet Pg. 149     2. Number and age of occupants 3. Nu•ber ot employees 4. Numoer of residents and employees who use parking spaces S. Copy of Renewal License for. Residential Care Facility SECTION 4. In the event that Sect ion 3, subparagraph (a)( 9) of th1s ord1nance is for any reason held to be unconstitutional or unlawful, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this ordinance or any part thereof. SeCTION ~. The Council finds that this project will have no significant adverse environmental impact. SECTION 6. This ord ina nee shall become e f ff'1.:t i ve upon the commencement of the thirty-first day after the d~te of its passage. It-.THUDUCED: October 5, 1987 PASSED: October 26, 1987 AYBS: Bechtel, Cobb, Fletcheri Leby, Patitucci, Sutorius, Woolley NOE!:>: Renzel ABS'l'ENTIONS: None /iliSEN'I': Klein APPROVED: Mayor Sr. f ss1stant C1ty Attorn~y II 6. Item 3 Attachment E - Applicant's Letter Regarding Daylight Plane Standards     Packet Pg. 150     ZOIIE C FROM AM­ TO P Item 3 Attachment E - Applicant's Letter Regarding Daylight Plane Standards     Packet Pg. 151     (.,) 1--m -:a:: >< LIJ i: ,, 1\ .... ' '' . ., f -l ·l... '-----~-· ·11~.·.·· ' = J.· : ' .. ~a/SI!i/J •.·. •• .. · .: ... · -~··· : . l I I , I . • I 1b,;& KIW : 8 'f ----------(··-~ .. l1t:~ ... ·· .. :.~.·.·.·~.-........ "'.-.~ •... ~.· ..• · .. · ..... ·~.4.-= •. D ••• ~.-." ••• :n.:.~ •. ~.-.;,_~ •.. ~.~.;,.• ~.~.·_;_~_ .• · ... ·_·'." .. • .. · ____ .._ __ _._lilli..i .... '.i.i!•''~ Item 3 Attachment E - Applicant's Letter Regarding Daylight Plane Standards     Packet Pg. 152     u 1--CD -X >< L&J • ~, ' ' ' ' ' ' \ .... • • ~~ -· ~ ' , ' .... " ... " ---... ,. ...... .-:.=.. . ~-···-"' ---""'"'· ', ' ' " \,· , ., '-. •• fB) (' f-'f 7"1 e. it/It· Item 3 Attachment E - Applicant's Letter Regarding Daylight Plane Standards     Packet Pg. 153     ' • ' ' i ' • ' -- . • ., • ' , . - • ' ... , "' '.\7 ... \ I ' \ : \). \ . / ,. 6 ~· 8118fHX3 I ' __ _. .. ,--· .. ,. \ I I I I . ·,·,~·· .. .. .. ·,-. -i l . ~ . "j ., ' ~ '' ' •' ,. 1 . ' . ~ ] ···:·J. .. : ·, iJ ·.• -'·_,:. '· . :'! ... , i I 'l j ··~ _J •·. '· .. ~ ; ·.·!. ·•.· .· .. '. J ';;J •li !! ;1 ·-:., Item 3 Attachment E - Applicant's Letter Regarding Daylight Plane Standards     Packet Pg. 154     ~,. •. _. / { / I ' . ' : . \ !.; ~..._ ' . .., \ -,. ' ' .·J·r, :f.:: · ... ~ .. p·. I '' l \ :~.i :' \ ' ' -~ ·"i ~ . . .,, ' · .. -·' ... . ' .,.._.._.._ ..... _:t~g.w:;:" _____ ..., _____ -l~:.:.:--~-~~·----:.:w;,:"';.·""-·-~---t-r---.....;'.~ . ..,··-·---+~---------~--r---,._.__ .......... _________ _. ____________________ ...,...rT--,.....,..,..-.-~ .. r , · 1 • -~~"~! I I () \ ' . ,} ,, ,; • (;;.,. \_'!; •· 1 + WII,X'i;f"Co~~ -1 ·;· t + ~F ' 6'~C: ... t'\•" -·· .. --.-....--:-...,.-' -+ '' • \ .. I I \ ' ' I .• ..t .... '' \ 'i .. r ... ',"J- . '! •' ~ .. , ' ., 1 r----· ... j I , ···~·.: + '(......._ - ,...,._~iM·t ·•• -~ ~~~~~-.· \ ' .. ~ ~ fiiWZ!WW-PC. ~ap\t, CUI B): ...... fWI!IIirt, - o--. / ' I +--·----+ l .... ~.: . .-1-. '·.~ / . I '< -. . .,-:· . .; . -.., .· ... I ... :--1···. I '" __ ... ·-·· . -· J -------~1 I f" t / ··~ ~-·.~:-t;; r-~rr­ ;'kfA 1!'1 n"i/?!'N/., ~--~·~ 1 ... -7..-lH'e : I I \ I I I 1 I -iii ·'· ';·. ;w ... ·. ::1·. . ~. ,, ~ ... .' i Item 3 Attachment E - Applicant's Letter Regarding Daylight Plane Standards     Packet Pg. 155     I r ' ! '· ' t f •• t. L ! •• r I , r ~ L ~· .. . , .>:., :~ '· ~-' . ' : •. '• _/ '-; ~-.• / '. . • _;_f • '· '•. ' ..... -·,, ... ,_ .' i' ' ,. j ' • I GENERAL NOTES r_::t~,"-1"'!;c.:r· ·-r-·c Sts t=-:• .... L ... ~'( ~",t..~ .• ~ -~"~":"t_.. ~--'I . -.: I . f'tl....'if-f:(,.~·;l.~H~L.~ l·~-~'l.J !:<t! 1):·..;--t~ .~.-\Pfo'-i·r . : ~· ij .. ·' ~ ·, '' ' i ' ' I - · .. I \5 , I ;: L/:(·~~ (OIIH/Jr~ G~·L<•:5, ·':r J r~oor '1 -:c[ ru c~ tol~ Ul'i11':', To ~:.r. !f.TD. <1/ 4 I lYP. 0::-l':tE:.i'l. ,::t, -. jl<. "'!'-( -· • f'Zr~':,_'!?FJ1i"'l'<l_.. (.).ro-e, r· ::.c_.·-r-r F-t.::. !"1.-t·~r.:.L·(- tlllifilN\.f•t A~;>~ (,·;;.. '(fl .. .o.·1~r£A<1'E A6:; ~ '-"~. • ,A'Z>·>Il,.--ff.<.J C:u~~¢1?.1 (,,...-,.,,,, .. ··"' 21 lf."!l~ PUI-f. • tv'li:~to 1.:. j,. !... (.AY<. I;; tifT P~ , 1 c:>E 0 · • iJit F!:; Y.f~lf· :·tu"':f"'F·V C,..!! .. •(lf1-VC.> 'fA:::t-1 UNIT \0 ~ViC-eO co~Af"L'I ~<-:-rt"'r ! . • &t!rtz-4r.MCl' /LL ("l''PHI ·~t 1 '<"·il(~'''l1 fd-i... JHPi"''D'..4f<L-N~.s,o.;:. ..... t?. r2>U IVPI!-1 q 1/f'<., 1 (~~ - Te> c..:''Nf?:.>( Hr·nt '"~nLt -z1 I" •Jt:.t(~(.ry •-'1 1~!-<',..>1(.../<t'f.?':O lt·~~41Ct,}.l!':t-lj~.,.. ~ ... r!Z'r:'F'"'""\...1.]. 1c /. LJt..l·Ti'_;, r.·e:4'{"'\.ltt:{;; r.tt. . .Hlf;~ t... t.tt;, ·~ tl-~(.~..,,::; l'iV.-.t... ,,.,. r!..-c.,:·r-e. '-'· tftA"TtfiC'f -/HoT 't.J.A1f;J2.. : ne-'"li:'!S'rij~J...L.--tiHtj<;.., jt:' P.f-~r:J..~ H:..< H/ ;o-.. l I • tf.W.!i·li f-'~}<L. ~.ll.~~ M,J.. t--t:.:· I)Nt~)f.; W /WA~ GlRC:::vU.T(;,. FPOt-. ~~ f1~ ~~. :-HOT W.A~FI., 'SIMI~~- -;( li" C.:-·d~Hc*:f -r.r.c.pp.:)-C,!!·O~ UNITS ) .,.L fJLlJi~l't .. • f'Ef.lh'HcR fill!•-. ' 1. n I • ,. ·'I II i(f"'l . ' ' !' I~ klf:rtiT :: • .-._JICi'YJ...'f,_ t:~ \·~~ .. i ~t=-:11 · !:;:Jfr;..:._ ~J .. Nf:;'-:(/ ... ~):. J.,f2E'i;.·;: I Vv'.AY; 4-J....I.<~9'>'A-~ l..'¢*"";''(~. • i?YTH~~o~ t'i"l·':'.J'~6 ~,c,., .. ,,q At>J/cfi'T 1t· !'(-! jj " I ,-;,_,. "" .. '! /' t )~ ~ ,, r-_. ..... , 1--. II .11 0 ' 1!.""'"1' r'-1?'-1 -.~'I r ~--·1 -..: I tl It e-1..o1Y.. -e>tf '.7( Sd .. J·tl-cn1.-. ·.!'~ ~~-~.-c:..c-~ 12 t"V:>r..r. t r·~ ~ J,! '" '·t"'A<-e-s 1-..... ,.,.l.~'H (.1. t,vr?.r·M !!C.,. 1~ f!.f':,.'t?tl-lT • )'! ;> q lf1 ~ !¢f I .~rf'. ' ' '' •;;.~< ,; :. '. '':::::::::-:: .... =: ... :": .. :------------------~-·-----------------------------------1·"------------------.;....;.. __ ~----.... ~~-.. ----~------·'·· --------------,------.. -;-~,:-.... +. .• :--""!"'--~.~.-. .. --... ,.;-----.~----~..1 ~~~---.!~~~ }'{~~~ ~~.{ ~ ~--'~ '· /_: ' ', ·'' -~-//·._ ·_: :~ :':·'._..' '-· ·.:t ... • ., ___ ~J;. . ./J<~·_:.;_--'.:_---'-- ' . -·· ,···. ' ..... ... ,· Item 3 Attachment E - Applicant's Letter Regarding Daylight Plane Standards     Packet Pg. 156     i .. ,., ,. •, ·~' _-·,_> ·._ .).4<: .'>1t ... ~ ... ~:,. l-'.\ ' -+ 1 I --r- ' i J l ' li ----~ +-.. -1--~ -t-·-----. I I I .. · ... ,('···_· •' ' I . F itXl-+-I_;_ i I ; 1-:1 i J. I ···-n :I I I ! i ' / ,_ - 1. I :· ,' ·. I I I I j I i ' I .1 I ,. ~ \ -- I I. 1\ ' / . . '!: -: -t / " / / '"' ' / ,/ 'y' / -------------·. ·2,2.<01 J '' '··· ~J ... -' . ' ' $ " ) r r ,-:· ' . . • -·-. t' . . \ :-__.._ I I ' I 4 • ·I.·· ., ··-1 .:a '' ' ·.: ,. ' Item 3 Attachment E - Applicant's Letter Regarding Daylight Plane Standards     Packet Pg. 157     r· i4.J, r .. ~-.·. t ~' ,•:-· " ' .. r-·· l ',. '· ~>; .. :·:. •,!,. ··.._· ·. I~ £' .' . ' .. ; i' ·-~ ·.• .. ' : ·"' ·~ I / < / / A. / " / • . , . .:: ' . A / " / ' / ' < \ I f ' ' . ~ ' :. . •, I_ ,­~ ,__ __ ...,.... ______ ---------·-----~-------------------~7--:204' / ( I '-I ' ' ' .. ' ' 1. -~-----+ . ' ., .. / _/ ·/ / r-- I I r.-At-Af. 1"o P~!M<;it I ~T to:~ . ;,.. ' ' ~~:, + ~ 00 i . · .. -f;,_,c;lc,lltt; -~ -~-;; l:~ ./) ... ·· ·. 1 ~'*"P' i;~-r¥ ~{~.,+7.Qb. . · · · IT '<of' . f' ~'!'!~"""" . . . ·--17.. 0 ... · , . ' . -...... '-_, .:··•·, ' . . . : . .. ... u.e:r"-tt'f "..;, ...... ~.r····~-· l!l.,_ u ; "' ..... i.,~t? ~ f41v1r~ 'qf,"'":~-@.. f v;~ •.. 1.11~· ~r :t· . .. . ·: < ··.~:.:~.f-:~" : .. -.:_,. /f'l7·,. G:.~~'. -~~ri -+----+--~===-1'11_..-_"tt4_~~-· ._':U .... ~..,..e ________ ----:--~~:--·.......;;:;:;;. ;; ..• ;;.®;. ··.;);o;;i.-::···:;;'';;:'.::: ~;;-~~· 'td.i S:·~~J7;·: ·;""·~ .... ~..;.·~"1-.~:;t!. o~_·.·~~"_.· ·_!:..,;.;· . f'o:-1-----"'~-------i-:.."1 ~F ~.· :i~~Tf· · ..• <j:t. o' ~~-. ~~~~ .... --~- . ,;· ,-·~-.· '' • . \ .. _(' . .' .. •' . !· -.' ,I I 'f '~ ' ,-. ·, ... ! cJ'l'" ' t '_), _;" _-;~\ •. ,~· &_L _ _;.; .--'.i:.~.-~: -~--"'" :~:{.·.'~~. ·-~ .:..i, ~ .. ., . . .-.' ' . •' ',, ,,' ,·, . "'~;}~. ·.<-;_·· .. ,.:_,~·' : ")·~~'.;.: . "' ' : .. ''' fA~lti4 f. 'F. CJ.-~Y. -I -00 . l ., ' +-. :JJ ' -~~l~ .. ···· . ' . . ' .•.. ;::;~-·-;~ :c.~·y tQe' . .. _ . . -._..... . ' ··. ., .. · .. -' \' '-·1-'''' ! . ·: ... .i. '' ,f' '-; . ~-. ' . ~ '-' . ..... ..... ,,_ ·. . . ~ ,/.+' .'..,_ ·. --:.""'-..~ .... -.. ,l ...... -. ' I I ' I ii· • , .. :··· ' .·· I ' . \c ·.·. >, ;r . ·J .. · ., ' ' _· '"\ I· . ' Item 3 Attachment E - Applicant's Letter Regarding Daylight Plane Standards     Packet Pg. 158     l ~ f· ~ '·' • r , ~; . •. t'; ; •. .... '! ~: ... ' ' ~. ' . .. • ' . . -,._ . ..}\., . .", :·· ,. . ' . . . . ,..-...... --~ . ' .. -' . ~~~.·&~1 ~· .. ··~~-! ....... . ... .. .. i • I ! I ··, . I I \ '1', ~ ., • ... ,...... . ....,.v· :...,.I ,lW'l'· I:, .... ·: ·~-~~ . :.;., ·, ·'. ,' -~ - ~-·- .-., . ' ., ·' ·'·' . ',\ ' .. ..... -~-- I, , }. - -~ -. .. I I'., ' ' • j" 0 I> ~· .• ,: • • .p • I q H ' / / ./ ··~--n-~____j ~~ 1 ~ ~ .. .~~~~ ·. ,:;-·· •, I ' ' J., ~-" . ... l .. •· .~ r ' . -! . ' . ~ l:' ~ ···I .. .:,:. i:l ~-: .. ' . -,~l :--, .. ,' '·'- ~-.. :... •-. . -.. . ' ._ .... .... ' . ~ ., .. Item 3 Attachment E - Applicant's Letter Regarding Daylight Plane Standards     Packet Pg. 159     : ~ .. - ' r ,, ' ,_.. ' , .. t· .• ~{·, >,, 1··._.·.:_·. c ' " •.·· . ,_.·· ' ' . ' .... ,_ ... . ;; ·' .1;''. ·-~--,. '"'' i I. ',. ' ...... _ ., I I ' _J I ' .. i \ !l I I } (~l?t•,... <-1"•Pte> --.--L T~~t;. ~~N-~ .-~·-- • -··' I(Ji~A; i11!> >A·r-r' ·,:• ..,. ---- (~) r-· 0· ( t I I ----1 ------t l .... \-,-.,...· '2~/.---~,.~t;'" ·. .,. •.. ·lfJ...ie. s-.1\f. ,.. :~~!!:' "-...:. ' ' I I .. I ·: \)''', • · .... . ' ,' .l 11 1'7 !1' . l ~--~-,------------~------------·-----1--...... . ' ~~~4~ iii' *"'~·~~~4 ;, ' . .,. " . ' '' ft!rt. :~-A . ~-~1!)-f..H:"r .~.(~f-jkt,.;. r~·-·· •t>#~ .. . · •l . ': '., , .. ·~ ~ . :. ' ·,_' /-' .-... ·--.::·-~-~ . ·-;,:· .·; \ . ··;-i ·.-~; ... : ,\ '· .. '.•·' ·; •' ., ..... ···; .,· "-, \~: .fb.o ~-;~~\ ~\ '. '· I ; '"".' ·' : '~ ',, '·~·. :_~;· ·~·<~::;,3,(~· I ;-'· ..... ' ., • ,,! ; ·, ' ~· -~. ,; . ' ... 1 ...:.·.~,: . ' ~:,_·, ·-----~----+ e-.---"+ ) ~1\:r-_. 1: kVJ ~f -/~L. .;~:l!'lf· !'f-' ····k· f;>!=j(j::. ~::-:'='=":;:.':.:-_-:=. :;;::..::=tl I I I 1.' f·l I\ ( :.;: ~-... ' '·\.j //l / I r-A 1..-U' N-y· 'T rr· ! r.,~ 1- 0 rt e.~ 1 T o :::.;;_.ua,.(,. .ii ~..,., ~. ·V v :-.. t..e-r· t2.r:, '--.......:~-.:'1.; ;-;-1 ~~. Uttlj -re-lf<"~l!o !4-:nt l>~e.. 1~~---····Db·\; ; .. -' •. ~~·: ' ' .. ·._ .....,. . ~.:. .. ···Ax« t. I· .. ·. , ' ,"_'• 410 ~. ~ .... : ...... . ' ' ,' ' ,.,~·:_i_.7' ~ ,J . ' . t I I ,, ) .,I• .· ... ·. ·'~> ... · ... ~,.. ......... . I !,IE:_-f."? T 1 ''II t• !.--: ~.; it' t-v.-.-.1 -~MIL'? b I (;(, fi'JH" ~ ul!-i J1" \ -~~ -' I ~~ l l I I --·--------'~· i J . ~ '.· ' : '' ... ··\. . _!; •·· _i':~i::~-~~ .. : "a~~£~ .. . I:. •• I . Item 3 Attachment E - Applicant's Letter Regarding Daylight Plane Standards     Packet Pg. 160     • • .,)' (· t~;.. f"'-, , +--··· ,,,, ___ . , ----~~- ..... , ... :.:::·· .. ', .. , l SOUTHEAST·· .. · _ffl:;f,V)\~·-i- '~ . .:.-·-' ' :.,._'!"i<N D6J:) U"VllO~J;:I . ~ ,(!!, ,· ~J(.t_ , I~ Pf¥' C::OVIZ.T 1, .. ,·. / / -·~ ·~ .. , , I I • • ·l ~· •, ~ ·1 ,,·,,··t .. · .... ~ ~-~~. ; ~- 4' . .~_ ~ .. -~ •. !'!' ·~ ~ Item 3 Attachment E - Applicant's Letter Regarding Daylight Plane Standards     Packet Pg. 161     .,[ •,;, ,. ·.;. ..... \ \ \. \ .,.----~-'1 J. . - SOUTH. B.EVATION + • '"l :.' ·Mt·~l.!!"!!.'';llllit . ..._'Q!'!"'J ~"""""'~~.eli-: ............. · .. ··~ i •; ..... T lr----ir-1 Ul ;t L :J : • ':,1" •·· l . ; t .. ·~' • Item 3 Attachment E - Applicant's Letter Regarding Daylight Plane Standards     Packet Pg. 162     r r-r , I ' .:.....J ' r .... ' ..:-.... , _.r--t ------,--------···-+ _./·· ' I ' .· I I 1, _ ..... -.-.,_-.' ·&~· ...... ' . '~ .... -:. . ,' .6·. -· .. • : of .·).. ~-.... . -· ·.' ··- .. -:-.. -:4.' -' .... • r I ! U<l'! ~"..t-' Ltr{e. c·p-~;;,.,,-:..-rw1 ~~~~;, t~·rtL-e (~,~1'1'') ... &Ll1W1W.<f' ~----,_____________ '] ~;:;-t"""--------------·---·--···'!---·-------·-· r---~ I . I ! I I l I \ , 1 Item 3 Attachment E - Applicant's Letter Regarding Daylight Plane Standards     Packet Pg. 163     1 . I ,_. l ~ ' r r:. ....... ., ''f"' '''-! 1-'1-~'t"'-~r. j "' ... ! '-~~ . -· ~ h·· f"'·· r-·-·--.... ; ' • ,. l I I l ' ,. ~ "'7'="==;;r'7"'""'~""'""""*"+ Ll I I ' J. I ,. ' / ... ~·-·: . ' 11.· •• · .. - f ; '· ~.)....~: "'" • ...;~ .• ' '~· .. ·;' '.· ~~l .. ~r~ ('f""-t?\~t>J ... ~1\Q!!ti.i:t '· l ~ ra:-( -··'· ~ ' I I I I ' ' ' \ .! .. ,. I J ' 1 l r ' ! l l 'l • J . ' ~ ... \ . \ ·''·" '· ~ -, Item 3 Attachment E - Applicant's Letter Regarding Daylight Plane Standards     Packet Pg. 164     .,.. •• 111!!1 ... -111!111 ... ___ '!"!"' _______ !!"' ..•. -~-....-~-....·.':"",...,., •. ..-,., ... , ,...,,; -,.,,,-c.J .. ; -.· ·: .. • .· . , __ ,,, -~-· ' . k ~-- t' ' r t: f ~ • ~ r r ~ t • • !:...:' ~' [' ~ '· ' •• ~ . ·~·~ 1~-~ ... · .. _,,#' ._,' ,• .. ~- ~ OJ ill CL.DJ ~ -·- .. .. -"' ~ ·------~ ----- Item 3 Attachment E - Applicant's Letter Regarding Daylight Plane Standards     Packet Pg. 165     • ,, r 1. ' ~.; • ·-:· '. ,.,. '-,1·· SQ!ITHWEST -A .•. -~~: .. " .·. :~ ... II •'•1 .. ' D. DOG ELEVATION __ .t __ . '• ,._.. ~ :· -~ .. ....,II.~ . .,~·'· .. -~ .. • --~-. .... ~ ' .. . ... , . . ; -~ ,,-_7'f?' --: .... --, • ~-:''cj!. ,•- '· .· -,,.· '','. " ·'', . ~'.' " ' .. ' NORTHWEST ELEVATION ·.• ., . •. LJ []''""l I 1' ' ":;:;.-:-~ [_I[ I! ~ tTl!]~ [CIJ n-rt L~. 1!____....11=+-!1 LLlJ -<=-1~ ~ •,· ·, .j .. ,," "' Item 3 Attachment E - Applicant's Letter Regarding Daylight Plane Standards     Packet Pg. 166     ~--.... . ,., ~ .-, .... . -· __ r-1 ........... J 48M.wn.J<,JE EL CAMINO WAY : .. ,.._ ·\dtf.·_·; .,.,.~~--... · ··-~ ,,.. ·---::l ~: ... . ... • '' ·'" i ·.' ~-.. :-''•, ,, .·--1-·•· . ·s ; ' -~. L--~----~ . . ,• ·;· ,_· . ... 'I .. ·-,· ' ' . '·: . -~,; ':.; ... " '"',.; .. 'I< . ·.,. ; . ,; . ' •\' \,' . .. : -· :_·; __ . B. ~ : .... i 't0'4. ;w1iillf ~ ~' .. ..: t'.: ...• ""'·' ' t EL CAMINO WAY SECTION· E·E ·fi},· i ,i, ~ ·· · ~ ~rr ;" 1' t1. f""..NO ~ ~W'-.'"1~- . J ------- :o': ! / ·~ .. -:... . ~ ,· ' . -.~ ..... ' ~-. ....: ·--"""•· ... ·:~ .... ~:·-:--·· --·· 'I. \ . ' ··J '' ! ... .• ... •. .. Item 3 Attachment E - Applicant's Letter Regarding Daylight Plane Standards     Packet Pg. 167     r· • . . . . . . . ' f .. . ' ~: : ' ~. t ~· '. I ' ' ~:' '\ l,••••••••!l••••••z•••a .. •••••••~lll•••••,•••••• .. ~~~-,•~~~·•llll.t .. IIIIIP•••IIJ.!I,_!I"•u•s•sq•. !!1'1111!1.•'•,..""'-~,·~:.01."'·~·~,.,,, ......... -. ........ ---.. ~""' .. ,:".~"•''".· ~·~~-.-..... "'· -:.-:.:-.:-."'-::-~~,_.....,."· -~·-;,_;;. ~~~ .. ~~~~~· • .. , j l .. 1 ; -;- ... .. -, .. ~:-~rr~9"·- +-------------+ I . I I I -; I I I '""~ .!-+ ' ~;;, ~ ..... ·~ ~fi. ~~~f_.J t . .IVIN~ ~ · I.!,J I U<-. UNIT"; · T(f'~'Aj_ .. -~-.----'~· ... ._. ---~· -----••<p•··-........... -~·,_, • . --~ --::;· ,.~;"'!. .~~-~~--• ...-'"": ·~~ _,.~---~ ruru: to r..+t, A-~ ''-4\? '"·"• rr~-1 !·~··· ' .,.~ ~ ·' p ••. J n'/ ( ;.-1, . .., '1 V. c1t~ur·r·~ K-1 4t~·F.. '<,te r:..,..t~) -·;..:r·-.!-. .............. Hl"rtt~lt>L­ ~~ Pll'ol ~ .,-.,.r \ I I I 1 I __ __._ ____ --§.---;; .:O.U:.t N '!' ~ld'ti!. : ,A.,-!~ .. ~.,.~ I..!IIRJ""''-' 0: '-,J.J~ ) . .. ~. ,,;--- 1f !f'f:AL rJ>.t l. ·' ··.·'1 I --~-- 1' I : < Item 3 Attachment E - Applicant's Letter Regarding Daylight Plane Standards     Packet Pg. 168     ·' I.' t. .. ~ .: . '·f·· ~--... ' :-.·· ~t 1"'', .. .:~.~-,;. __ - . . . ' -~-----,-,------·-. -· -.. , ..... _,._,~,·-~:·-~-~~-.. ~~~~-~~--~~ ... -.~~~"-:_~~~-~-~ ••• .. _ ... EL CAMINO WAY .. .. .... ---·-·----~ ., ... ... .;..· . .,.,; (•'' . l ------~.... ~ .... ·-----__ _. ... + -~ . !!DII!O"':"'""' :,;,""···~. --;:,~-.~~·.:.,;:J~.''II-"::_" ;; .... ---..... ~- r ' I . ,,;-·' . ' ·aooowu. . :--·;:_ ___ ·-------------... ----------___ , __ , ___ _. 1 r·----·--··------~ ·• -~ .. ~·~:-~~1.-_·:~·-•;'~·-··-. . ..... ·-· . ·' ....... ,.:,.;.,-.,. "'GQODWIJ.. '. ---r· I I ... ; .. -..... ~-·---··. ----------- I -------'-'----4=-~-r---·-----"~ .... ·: •·+ ~-~-...... ' -........:...' ., .......... ---~--;.."'-... -~-· .. I _____ ) __ I i . I _ .... ..., 'i l ' ' ......... _ ._-_ : I r I .. /, ' ' DEC 21 ~"' o~:iJ ':l· l,...l ')'~ 41?·~ ...... I 2 ~ ~;;() ".... ~N ~I'Cf');...; j NOON & 2:30 PM ~-...... _...., __ /'-. / ·" ···Ui:.'21 ,. : ,: ... ...:. .. ,. .. ' .... ·. \ ' _;,._·. ' -'_ 1 :" .. _· ·-~'4.'10 tf'M--· ifl . · ... -· -.. ,I • ~ Qlao.:r ., t1laleesr ea.~ .. , P.J : Qi:;) .. ,.,..., .1~~~ ()(X)_:~ FQft ~ToMe) ' ' I •• • . , ... t_:_ Item 3 Attachment E - Applicant's Letter Regarding Daylight Plane Standards     Packet Pg. 169     r . ' i ''·. '' .. ,. ,, •· .· t;, .. (, ~,, ,, ;, __ ,;_. r , .. • ' '·, I j4.a:> ·.: · ... -.·.~~/'<·,··-·· •'• 1, •• . 1 .• :. :·:, ,.·. \·.' ' . ~ ' '~· .. _ ..... '' .. ' -·: '' 0 0 0 I i~·::~ • ... ;_ ' .• ·,.. f ' ', ..... :.; . . ' '' ·, ... '· ",.# •• ,.,·, i .... ·' , . .--· .. ' ..... " EL I, .. .-.' .' . ·•',• .. :.;- l". ·'' . -<. ·\ .. \ ' ' ··:·,. ' :·. '. ' " '' ·~ ' ' ,, '. · .. ·,, T ... <' ~ ' ' I ·• ,, ' . ' ~-,, ' ' ~·-- ·_,. -"·. ' ·. ,. '' .: -: ·- . '·/··. • •. :.:. '< -;·. -.. / "/:". '' "· . ·.1_ '• I • '· ·.. . ~-~. ·, . ; .. : '.,.:, •• 1-· ;t ' Ill ,' '' I: Ill ), ' f. . ,' . . :, .. ~- ·-, .. : .... ··; 5": '' '(····,, ' ::r. ' ' L ..... •'" ,'( . ,-'; ', ,· -·· :·· .. ·-::-. '!. ,;_ ·' . ~:-. •,' . ': . '· .. , . . ·,,;,_• ,. . · .... .-·. ·. ·.· .. -· .. -·. · __ :·:_.· . .. '· ' _\ :··.·; ... •. '}. ··_· '· '·. -,_ ., .. ·<'•(,. '•,' ~ . ' · ...... ~ ~ .. > ~•_' I ...... - ' :•- .. --·~·,------;---··-·~---·--·-· [ t~><! -,;. T'.:;;, ···-···-···· ft··-· "' ·-·.~-. ...:· ..... -- r.t.. lto!DIO'\Tes ft.O~LIJ..IS IJ,O, W. lt-IDIC:,..O.T es;· ""'~ or-~ . .~ · ... ,.~·-. ' .,, " ,., ---)'( ... ~~ .~:I '-~ ·~ 4:;' ~:r--~· ·i I ' ' rul r-!,'' ' "' ,, 1 I l " ' ,,cP laJ > -a: 0 ?: 0 0 <t l.rJ ~ ..... (/) LLI ;: I I I ll I ~ ti • .,. ·-·: -~--- , I ·• ~ i4i ~ ··~, •. '",•\ ' . '~ .. , . ··: ~- Item 3 Attachment E - Applicant's Letter Regarding Daylight Plane Standards     Packet Pg. 170     ' '' • ' !; ' ?W L \ . i -6. a 2 . \ 2 a: .. .), • 5 ! i . . .: . ' . us; .. ' j ... ,WE \ \ .... ~ .. \ ' \ r 9 JWU'en ::;, ~J~=·Ier; ·' . .. ,.· .. ·. ··-:·.·:·-\i ',, '' ,·-.i ' ,_-~ Item 3 Attachment E - Applicant's Letter Regarding Daylight Plane Standards     Packet Pg. 171     .... : ;!i· \ ,, to~ ~: i:.'.· ,,. : ~ (- i . . ~ ~-,·.' ~i } r::- ~ ...... ~ k ~- [. I ' ,. ~\· i_i::. ~ •... ~-;·. L / \ ·' . . ~- ··- .',•· ·._·.--· i ;'- :l#~ _ .. ·.· .· . ~-... ·· '. ~ '"''· ':-·' . / . .. :~··· . ._ ... -~---· J ... ···r . ' .. ;' -,-\ . . ,; ... ),'. _;•. _.: #: .::--·~ • -_ ' .· ,· · ... :':.....---.• ~;..._;_.,!,-': .·_ -'~~ ... ~ ... --___ :\ -.J 'i-·.'1.),./,• . '·' .i.i. .i '· \ ., . f ',I. j r I I _, 1 • •• -:.. ! ' ' • ' ' \ \ ( , I ._._ "'• \ ! ......-~---.... ' _Jj,.: -­ • ;: ~ .. •· .. · "!'"!!!! . Item 3 Attachment E - Applicant's Letter Regarding Daylight Plane Standards     Packet Pg. 172     r. , I ,, t .. i ·. 1__--+ l -·t - ·. :.. . : ~ . , LA.ND sc~I\P.-i; . P-LANl· . . ... -· . ' . -~-· ' I [ ' L-J l I •. . . ' L----+ I JIAZl~.,. DI!TM-.. ·~ WAY . ---____ .. -'----·---------------..,..-----.;._-----'-·-'-------------· -·-------· ---- i, _,·,,~··::;:-::.:::~~-~~--~-;-~~-~--~: -·~$l ' .. -~-. _ _j . . I I,,TYJii WALl< _.,-r -~' I . ' I . I ' . ' ~-------. ! I .. . i .l i ,• : ·, ·,-. ,;baLl k •• h11tcd fo:t ao!l.,.•kl4 f!.alab ou;lo •• oah Pt.fh-111. a.ac~ret•, eclaita4 agr•P"•' ..-erau ••• · k_ia•. . · · Walkl!l'« •'lll'he•• ~1· h .. t!IJ....,. .•Hhoat net• ... • •w~.,••-Uflte4 •(14>•:jll,•St pal .. ')• · . .. . > ' ' • ' ' • • • • ' • • • • • • ' ' • ' • 0 ' ' ~ • ~ -~ . • '· . 1' ! ' • ' • ." ' : ·-• : -••• ' I . :'I . . ' ... ' • : . • ''' ~ ! .'~'' ' • : 'loaa; •. ac•p!i _,itetlil.r•• ·lil!,haile "~·••• eut •dll _.,. .. ~aeu• fer ; ~·~:tore 'it.hla _.._.. alr.d vU! _prnUa •.SU 1roap caa.,.uatlaa .. ~h•f 'Itt ·.\ui~~-· c-udt.aa or -•uuulit:: pl..,... la c\c ·. . t•.r•hl'• ··. llir4,. ~~~~·. wUl 11•. plaa•A. ~o pn'-'•• .. _.u,. · . ~atoit41~t •!14 acc·aitt_ .•• i~C.. ... lll,f•!'•al •·.--·~ ~~It •n• h ,,r.,i•h"l •Hia a .atora1o · .CI'~UU aad wo~lt ,_.oa.;ll far &n•laf •~•·-'••~~' ir. ~t !'l~·~u:. · A toaau,~a hi 't11a_ c:.u~u . · · , ·, U•l' t;tltr" U · t'e · •"••l•a •· aall« Ia 'lUe~C , . tire t ... lltalot OliU ·-~~··. •• ae~t,a ?t.,.d ucoa_t. ~i.at, •• . .,.u .. ·~·•••• • a~l• nlo1ill~aa •••~•· a,_suak ~hll •eli••••• dUwo he. r-.1,. or a~oup caoko-•ta, tllo caulta 'Ifill ~lu 1r~llle •. aallllnh• pUe•; tor 4lac~&cata•• n · •••• pla7lq. · :,._ . ' -. ~NOTESi '. . . . . . t ._, ......... ·1-1/.L!~ ~ -~ I . ' r wooo: a:aa· DETAIL 1'JIIEES TO PB'Uf .J 1-:.....:.;;..;_..;;._+-o.t. ~ -~ I I ' ~~ J f ,. t· 3 · ..... " I . ,, •• • . . I I • ' 1 I .!;~ ., .. .;; i i ll l . '·~ :E •· Item 3 Attachment E - Applicant's Letter Regarding Daylight Plane Standards     Packet Pg. 173     r ,, •• .. ,-._., ~-. ~· ' . ' . ' . :.·-~- !:J ,.· .. 4· .. - 1-··.--~--. ./;-_+'.; ''(.'• . ' ' . . ' ' ~-' . -·. ~~ ' . "':': '~I"~ --~-'-,' :·· '•, ·.' . ,' ., . ~--~~~~~w--~~~~~~~~~~~~~ffiffi~~~~~~~~~ 111-f'P----'---L1 Jl t~ I ~ ---'-"1~0 1i ' ~ -' -~-------..... ,I ...... .J<,.S..!""'-----'J.ol~ 1'1111 ,..,~ ---~==::t....t:===========~=====~=====::t.J:=~-~ I I .·.-. ·. ' I ' ., I I I 2"~ ~~~ ---+-----:---7----------~ I I I I I I I I ~----J~~ ~--------4---~.~~-----~--------------~~--------------------~' ~·~~ l I I I I I I I II ...jll.o4-·-T-----~ ><~e !'>tJW!-~ wuel't~ ---"--t---· ·--' -~---.:__--·-----·--J 11-WIU.t'eJ,? <?It f'!Oe~ I 1'1 "'F-P 1::> I HU> P LArt, 1 I 1\IC:zt."'!a..---~~-~~ 0fl'! ,..,~ ---, ~ ------------- ' -~:.t_~vpfo~ I I I I I I I ------___:_ -· ---_____!-_j__ tfom:rr l~~c. r* ~1.£..: , •• ~ 1'-o" l . ,- 1 I I I I I I I I 1-- I 4'·..::>" I ,, li!i~ - ' ' 1 '1 I J I • ·-' . ~ .. ' ' I I , \. . I J . ~- ' I i ' . ' 1 I \ ' : ' :. r T ·o··-.............. . > • \ • ·.··f,~ .. H+-r--~·r ; r • i-·· '. · .. ~ .. ·.o.·· .. <;·r-rr .. I ' ; '/ ... 1 . ._ ' . : I . -', ·... ' . ~' _, • ~ ·' ,.. -.l .~. ~-· . .. . . • • . ·' ' ' tourtj/\rN --~vAL.~ : Ia= 1 L..o 1 , .. "'j t '-·-~.· r"f · ITr· ' . I ~-11~,-rrr·-, ,_. -. -H'--~ . / I !; I . ./ \ \ I ' It· 41%" ~· ....:.'•.,.....-'--T-Jir--"' a,-"P' ~~-. \ \ . = ' -~ . "' ' l ~,~~:::; t ' ,, . ' 1 ' ·' I II ,j r . . ·· ·· It I '. ; . . I j • I. --:-::~· r~, -r-rr- 1 I ' . ... ,, .-·· · l~.·~~··.z . : '. 1-<'• 1 . . vtJr? "".~ ' . ' . +-·---- ·r .... ' . ' ". -- I • •;, • I • • • . .. ·, ..... _,.,·,-·\-. :; ' '.,. ...... ~ ~ . ,· ~ ... ·~ \ . ~ ' .· ·:' ' . ~ •' . .. · .. " 1 ------: r1 ;J,.,~ r:J·fr~ r~----~----------~~ . . . . .-. ' -1 ' ~ -G&'-l'?~W. -~ -t2.tf ... ~z:~:t¢;1_ . .. .•. ', ., ' ., -''. ~-. I I • I a· 1 . I . ~-. ,., I , .. l ' . ' J.· I I I 'Z • .· l Item 3 Attachment E - Applicant's Letter Regarding Daylight Plane Standards     Packet Pg. 174     ' '· ' I· . 1. ' ~ ~· . '' • ~-- ~- :.-- i. ~--. . ' ~·. ' . ~~' ' ~ .· . t. ;: . -.-' :)<' ' ~ r- ,,·,-: -- I i ~~ I L I I ' , I I I~ ! [ ~;,ev ··•I ,-, . CJ ... ·,. •. ,/ ( .EL CAMINO· .WAY i ' "'"' . <\-~~~~-.. _"t' ···: .. , .. , . .. -" -.. I .I I t I ! • ·-: .-·. ··rl. ./ I .j ->~,!-·,· "• ,' . ·: .l . ' 1 I : I . · ... . . , . ; ,,, ' . ' ' ~· . .' ·. ' -; . ; r• -, ' . : ' .. ~- ' -;-. ' .. ~-· ; "" 1. !Q {£.) , ' . ,.. . :· ' . -~ ' . . ,·.!. '~ ',< . •.i, . ~ ' .. ,' .... -... ·~ ' . /' ;14··· ' .. :. ~~~.· u··-~t...,... ' ; ... -~ :-;~~~· . .,, ~ .•. . JG:I>UIJI'l/ lf.!m"ll'lllaii<I»lf nD«L. ~~1~·~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~=m~--~~~._~~~·~~· ~--.. ~~ ,· • a· l.· l~ .. . . • " • J ' ....... •' '!• I····. -.. ..• I 1 • . . .lilff.··· .'1 .;~ ~ ~Xj i ~1 lt • . ~ -~ -~ J " •, :1. .:, Item 3 Attachment E - Applicant's Letter Regarding Daylight Plane Standards     Packet Pg. 175     r I I' ! ' : ~ ,,,· ·t;', · .. i ;.· ':t:!l;:··· .,·, . :· .•.. ·r ' L • : : : ' ~~ ~ ';! i :r;'j ·.: , •,'i;'•, ., :)i. ·.; __ ... ':," ' ~ I ,,.,\ '· .\• ,'' -~ '<·, ~ '' ', ' I • ':,• . " ~ • i ·Jc.· :··· '·,"J Item 3 Attachment E - Applicant's Letter Regarding Daylight Plane Standards     Packet Pg. 176     '; ; ' 'I ·~' ' ' ' i 1 '·.•I'· I , •• .. :;. Item 3 Attachment E - Applicant's Letter Regarding Daylight Plane Standards     Packet Pg. 177     "q I•' ·I·''' 'I Item 3 Attachment E - Applicant's Letter Regarding Daylight Plane Standards     Packet Pg. 178     ','r'• ·.~ ,,, (, '•·•.·· Item 3 Attachment E - Applicant's Letter Regarding Daylight Plane Standards     Packet Pg. 179     I : -: . ~ . ' ' . ' ~ ' . Item 3 Attachment E - Applicant's Letter Regarding Daylight Plane Standards     Packet Pg. 180     In order to enhance the parking experience for all members of the Palo Alto Commons community, we have established the following Community Parking Policy. This policy is designed to ensure fair and efficient use of our parking spaces, maintaining a harmonious environment for residents and their guests. •Designated Parking Areas: a. Palo Alto Commons has a total of 58 parking spots b. Additionally, there are 41 parking spots at the Avant, the independent living community located on the right side of Palo Alto Commons. •Authorized Users: a. Only residents, family members, and staff members are allowed to use the parking spaces at Palo Alto Commons and the Avant. b. Visitors and guests of residents are also permitted to use our parking facilities. c. Private Care Givers can only park at nearby public parking. Our Concierge can provide assistance. •Overflow Parking for Visitors: a. In the event that parking at Palo Alto Commons is full, visitors and guests are allowed to park in the Avant garage or on the street of El Camino Rear. b. The concierge will have the authority to assist and guide visitors to alternative parking solutions, ensuring their convenience. •Staff Parking Guidelines: a. Staff members are requested not to park in the residential areas located behind the building of Palo Alto Commons, specifically prohibited on Wilkie Way. This is to reserve those spaces for homeowners and their own guests. b. Staff members are encouraged to park on El Camino Real, public parking right of way areas and cross the street carefully at the street light. •Gate Access to Avant Parking Garage: a. If visitors cannot find parking within Palo Alto Commons, the concierge will facilitate access to the Avant parking garage. b. This additional parking option is designed to accommodate overflow situations and ensure a smooth parking experience for all community members. c. A sign at the entrance of driveway to redirect visitors to call the concierge asking for parking assistance. •Parking Management on Busy Days: a. During busy days or special events, we encourage staff members to carpool whenever possible. b. A shuttle service may be arranged to transport staff members from off-site parking areas to the community entrance, reducing the demand for on-site parking. C. Community will provide valet parking services to guests and visitors. •Effective Communication: a. Regular communication will be maintained with residents, family members, and staff regarding parking updates, events, and any changes to the parking policy. b. Feedback from the community will be actively sought to address concerns and continually improve our parking management strategy. Item 3 Attachment F - Applicant's Letter Regarding Parking     Packet Pg. 181     245 Fischer Ave., Suite B2, Costa Mesa, California 92626 W: ipaoc.com CA: 714-557-2448 TX: 713-805-9097 4075 El Camino Way Public Benefits One of the large public benefits that our project will provide is providing more housing within Palo Alto. There is definitely a housing need within the city, especially for seniors that need to be taken care of. With our added units, we will be able to accommodate more residents. Thereby allowing aging citizens of Palo Alto to be able to stay in town when they need assistance. This will also allow the family members and other visitors to not have to drive way out of town to be able to see their loved ones. This also shows how our project can help reduce traffic city wide. And locally, our senior residents are unable to drive, so they won’t have an impact to traffic. Our property also provides jobs to the surrounding area and with this proposed increase in units, will allow us to increase our staffing by a few roles. With this proposed project, we will have an opportunity to update the exterior look of our building. This will include a new paint scheme, as well as adding new sloped roofs (there are none now). Those proposed sloped roofs will help soften the exterior to our building. Another aspect that will help soften the building is that we are proposing to add 2 small trees in the open space facing the residential neighbors in the back. They will be small so that they help block the views but won’t add any shade to their properties. The proposed changes to the building will also have minimal impact to shading the neighbor ’s properties since we will be fully outside of the daylighting plane. Lastly with this proposed project, we will be able to update and enlargen the existing trash enclosure to be able to provide space for both recycling bins and compost bins. As well as be able to add both short term and long term bike parking. Helping reduce the environmental impact of our building. Item 3 Attachment G: Applicant's Public Benefit Statement     Packet Pg. 182     From:jenny chen To:Kallas, Emily; Planning Commission Cc:hermesmh1@gmail.com; jayashreed@yahoo.com; altairetang@gmail.com; Yanfengwang2@yahoo.com; wkneighbour@gmail.com; Lee_lilning@yahoo.com; Ziming Weng; jennietuchan@hotmail.com; garrettchan@hotmail.com; Chen Jenny Subject:Opposition to Palo Alto Commons Expansion Date:Wednesday, April 10, 2024 4:36:40 PM You don't often get email from jennyslchen@yahoo.com. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Emily, We extend our gratitude for meeting with us, Mona He, Yanfeng Wang, and Jenny Chen, on Thursday, April 4, 2024, regarding the interpretation of Palo Alto municipal code 18.38.150(e) concerning the daylight plane. During the February 28, 2024 meeting, Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commissioner Keith Reckdahl provided clarification (video timestamp 3:51:43-3:52:34 Planning and Transportation Commission | Midpen Media Center), stating, "In the code there are two ways of implementing the daylight plane, PC option or R1 setback option. PC daylight plane starts at 10 feet and ascends at a shallow 30-degree angle. R1 setback on the rear of an R1 is 20 feet. Therefore, the R1 setback optional daylight plane would commence 20 feet into the property. R1 option cannot be applied here due to the current building setback being only 10 feet. PC optional daylight plane must be applied in this case. This could significantly impact the types of units permitted in the rear." We concur with Commissioner Reckdahl's interpretation of the daylight plane regulation. Sincerely, Jenny Chen Item 3 Attachment H - Neighbor Comment 4-10-24     Packet Pg. 183     Item No. 3. Page 1 of 9 Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: February 28, 2024 Report #: 2312-2397 TITLE 4075 El Camino Way [23PLN-00202, Palo Alto Commons]: Consideration of a Planned Community (PC) Project Amending an Existing PC (PC-5116) to Allow Additions to an Existing 121 Unit Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility. The Additions Would Include 18 Assisted Living Units. Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: PC-5116 (Planned Community). RECOMMENDATION It is recommended the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) take the following action(s): •Provide initial comments/feedback and recommend that staff forward the proposed application to the Architectural Review Board for review of the development plan. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Planned Community (PC) amendment project includes the addition of 18 units (approximately 6,800 sf) to an existing 121-unit, 83,500 sf assisted living facility. The existing PC would need to be amended to allow for increases in density, floor area, lot coverage, and for the building to protrude up to 1’8” into the daylight plane in some areas. The additions would be consistent with the existing building height. The application is subject to environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); the review is in process. The City Council reviewed a prescreening project in August 2023. The current application requires initial review by the PTC, followed by review by the Architectural Review Board (ARB) of the development plan. After ARB review, the PTC will review a draft PC ordinance and provide a final recommendation on the development plan before it is presented to the City Council for final action. BACKGROUND Project Information Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 16     Item 3 Attachment I: February 28, 2024 PTC Staff Report w/o Attachments     Packet Pg. 184     Item No. 3. Page 2 of 9 Owner: Stephen Reller, R and M Properties Architect: Daniel Bowman, IPAOC Representative: n/a Legal Counsel: n/a Property Information Address:4075 El Camino Way Neighborhood:Ventura Lot Dimensions & Area:110,642 sf, irregular shaped lot Housing Inventory Site:No Located w/in a Plume:No Protected/Heritage Trees:Yes, street trees Historic Resource(s):No Existing Improvement(s):Palo Alto Commons: 83,511 sf, 3 stories, 32’6” height, built 1989 The Avant: 47,500 sf, 3 stories, built 2014 Existing Land Use(s):Senior Assisted Living, Senior Independent Living Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North: Single Family Residential (R-1) West: Multi-Family Residential (RM-20) East: Multi-Family Residential (RM-20), Goodwill Store, and Preschool (CN) South: Animal Care, Retail, Mixed-Use (CN) Special Setbacks:No Aerial View of Property: Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 17     Item 3 Attachment I: February 28, 2024 PTC Staff Report w/o Attachments     Packet Pg. 185     Item No. 3. Page 3 of 9 Source: Google Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans/Guidelines Comp. Plan Designation:Planned Community (PC-5116) Zoning Designation:Multiple-Family Residential (MF), Neighborhood Commercial (CN) 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 yes Context-Based Design Criteria applicable SOFA Phase 1 (2000)Within Airport Influence Area SOFA Phase 2 (2003) Prior City Reviews & Action City Council:Prescreening: 8/7/23 report, video PTC:None HRB:None ARB:None Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 18     Item 3 Attachment I: February 28, 2024 PTC Staff Report w/o Attachments     Packet Pg. 186     Item No. 3. Page 4 of 9 City Council reviewed a Prescreening application for a project with 14 new units on August 7, 2023. Minutes of the prescreening are provided as Attachment E. Council supported the concept to add more units to Palo Alto Commons. However, Council raised concerns about the encroachment into the daylight plane adjacent to single-family homes, on-site parking, and affordability of the assisted living units. Members of the public also echoed similar concerns. Council encouraged the applicant to consider if it was feasible to add a fourth floor that would be stepped back from the current edges of the building, rather than nestling the new units into the existing step-backs. In response to this, the applicant submitted a memo, Attachment C, explaining why it is not feasible to add a fourth floor. Primary reasons include the existing location of egress stairs and elevators, increased displacement of residents during construction, structural capacity of the existing structure, and cost. However, the project has been redesigned to reduce the intrusion into the daylight plane. Additionally, four more units, for a total of 18, were added to the project. These four units are smaller, and potentially more affordable by design, than the current units. PROJECT DESCRIPTION This project is a request to amend an existing Planned Community (PC) for an Assisted Living facility. The project site currently consists of two Senior Living communities, Palo Alto Commons, providing 121 Assisted Convalescent units and approved in 1987 (PC 3775), and The Avant providing 44 Independent Living units and approved in 2011 (PC 5116). The existing Palo Alto Commons building is three stories tall and tapers down to two and one stories closest to the adjacent single-family (R-1) neighborhood. The project would add 18 units (approximately 6,800 sf) to the Palo Alto Commons building by adding second floor area and in some locations third floor area to the “step backs”, as well as three modestly sized ground floor additions which will vary in height from two to three stories. If approved, the amended PC would allow for increases to the density, floor area, lot coverage, and allow an up to 1’8” protrusion into the daylight plane in some areas. The development plans are provided in Attachment F. Requested Entitlements, Findings and Purview: The following discretionary applications are being requested and subject to PTC purview: •Planned Community (PC): The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC 18.38. Planned Community is intended to accommodate all types of developments, including combinations of uses appropriately requiring flexibility under controlled conditions not otherwise attainable under other districts. The planned community district is particularly intended for unified, comprehensively planned developments that are of substantial public benefit and which conform with and enhance the policies and programs of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The application requires initial review by the Planning and Transportation Commission, followed by review by the Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 19     Item 3 Attachment I: February 28, 2024 PTC Staff Report w/o Attachments     Packet Pg. 187     Item No. 3. Page 5 of 9 Architectural Review Board (ARB). Upon recommendation from the ARB, the draft ordinance for the project is presented along with the development plan to the Planning and Transportation Commission for recommendation to the City Council for final action. ANALYSIS Neighborhood Setting and Character Adjacent zoning and uses include The Avant Independent Living facility on the same parcel, and multifamily residential use (RM-20) to the (approximate) west, single-family (R-1) residential uses to the north, and the Goodwill store (CN) to the east. Across El Camino Way, West Meadow Drive, and El Camino Real there are other multi-family and commercial uses. Heights in the area range from one to three stories and the buildings reflect a variety of architectural styles. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans and Guidelines[1] The Comprehensive Plan designation includes both Multiple-Family Residential, for a portion of the site adjacent to single-family, and Neighborhood Commercial for the portion towards El Camino Way. Multiple-Family Residential is described as: The permitted number of housing units will vary by area, depending on existing land use, proximity to major streets and public transit, distance to shopping and environmental problems. Net densities will range from 8 to 40 units and 8 to 90 persons per acre. Density should be on the lower end of the scale next to single-family residential areas. Densities higher than what is permitted may be allowed where measurable community benefits will be derived, services and facilities are available, and the net effect will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Population densities will range up to 2.25 persons per unit by 2030. Neighborhood Commercial is described as: Includes shopping centers with off-street parking or a cluster of street-front stores that serve the immediate neighborhood. Examples include Charleston Center, Edgewood Center and Midtown. Typical uses include supermarkets, bakeries, drugstores, variety stores, barber shops, restaurants, self-service laundries, dry cleaners and hardware stores. In locations along El Camino Real and Alma Street, residential and mixed-use projects may also locate in this category. Nonresidential FARs will range up to 0.4. Consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s encouragement of housing near transit centers, higher density multi- family housing may be allowed in specific locations. As no changes to land use are proposed, this project would not substantially deviate from the existing degree of conformance with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designations. This project would also support the following policies: •Policy L-1.3 Infill development in the urban service area should be compatible with its surroundings and the overall scale and character of the city to ensure a compact, efficient development pattern Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 20     Item 3 Attachment I: February 28, 2024 PTC Staff Report w/o Attachments     Packet Pg. 188     Item No. 3. Page 6 of 9 •Policy L-1.6 Encourage land uses that address the needs of the community and manage change and development to benefit the community •Policy L-2.8 When considering infill redevelopment, work to minimize displacement of existing residents. •Policy L-2.9 Facilitate reuse of existing buildings Shadow Study Comprehensive Plan Policy L-6.8 states: Support existing regulations that preserve exposure to natural light for single-family residences. Single-family residences in an R-1 zone are the closest buildings to the proposed additions and the homeowners have expressed concerns regarding the project. The plan set (Sheets A5.9- A5.15), includes a shadow study comparing the typical length of shadows expected throughout the day for the existing building and the proposed building. Neighbors would expect to see slightly increased shadows in their backyards from approximately fall to spring. At the height of the winter, increased shadows would begin as early as noon, whereas at other times of the spring or fall, the shadows would occur later in the afternoon. Minimal increases in backyard shadows would occur during the summer. Below is a diagram showing the worst case scenario on Dec 21st at 4:00pm Zoning Compliance[2] A detailed review of the proposed project’s consistency with applicable zoning standards is provided in Attachment B. The proposed changes would need to be considered as new development standards under the Planned Community amendment. In summary: •The density and provided units would increase by 18 units •The allowed lot coverage and floor area would increase to accommodate the approximately 6,800 sf addition •The minimum setback would decrease from 8 ft to 6 ft for the property line adjacent to Goodwill Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 21     Item 3 Attachment I: February 28, 2024 PTC Staff Report w/o Attachments     Packet Pg. 189     Item No. 3. Page 7 of 9 •The building would encroach up to 1’8” into the daylight plane adjacent to single-family homes •The parking ratio provided would reduce from .47 spaces per unit to .41 spaces per unit, as no additional spaces are being provided. However, this is consistent with the Code requirement for 1 space per 2.5 beds for Convalescent Facilities. No changes are proposed to the maximum height Multi-Modal Access & Parking Based on the feedback from City Council and the neighbors, a parking study is being prepared to analyze the efficacy of the existing parking spaces and any potential needed increase from the proposed units. The applicant clarified that of the 55 spaces on site, 41 are dedicated to onsite staff, and 14 are for visitors. This applies only to the Palo Alto Commons portion of the site. The Avant is a separate PC zone and has its own parking. This project is located on the VTA 22 bus line but is not within walking distance of a CalTrain station or other public transportation. The applicant has been asked to provide additional information regarding existing and proposed bike parking. It does not appear that there was a requirement for bike parking at the time of original development. [1] The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online: bit.ly/PACompPlan2030 [2] The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: bit.ly/PAZoningCode 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 February 16, 2024, which is 12 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on February 15, 2024, which is 13 days in advance of the meeting. Public Comments There were four public comment speakers during the August 7, 2023 Council Prescreening, as reflected in the attached meeting minutes (Attachment E). Additionally, the applicant hosted an outreach meeting on October 11, 2023 at the project site and invited all adjacent neighbors. Approximately 10 people attended, including City staff and Mayor (at the time) Kou. The neighbor’s comments were focused on the following: Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 22     Item 3 Attachment I: February 28, 2024 PTC Staff Report w/o Attachments     Packet Pg. 190     Item No. 3. Page 8 of 9 •Concern about the increase in height, opinion that adding one story was better than adding multiple, i.e., the parts of the building going from one to two, or two to three, is more appropriate than parts going from one story to three stories •Concern about existing noise from the Caltrain “bouncing” off the building and if this would increase as a result of the addition •Concern about over-pruning or removing screening trees •Concern about shadows cast by the addition further shading their backyards •Concern about staff and visitors parking on local streets, rather than on-site •Desire for the applicant to more strongly consider additions to the other sides of the building that do not face single-family neighbors There was also a complaint regarding noise from existing rooftop equipment, this neighbor was encouraged work with the site operator and to follow up with Code Enforcement, as this is outside the scope of this project. After the outreach meeting, the applicant placed story poles to demonstrate the approximate addition. These were removed to address a neighbor’s request in January. Two additional public comments were received regarding the current version of the project and are included as Attachment D. 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. While a noise report is being prepared, no new significant environmental impacts are currently anticipated as a part of this project. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS In addition to the recommended action, the PTC may: 1. Continue the item to a date uncertain, to enable additional PTC review before moving the project forward to the Architectural Review Board. ATTACHMENTS A. Location Map B. Zoning Comparison Table C. Applicant’s Response to Prescreening Comments D. Neighbor’s Comments E. August 7, 2023 Prescreening Excerpt Minutes F. Project Plans Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 23     Item 3 Attachment I: February 28, 2024 PTC Staff Report w/o Attachments     Packet Pg. 191     Item No. 3. Page 9 of 9 AUTHOR/TITLE: Report Author & Contact Information PTC[1] Liaison & Contact Information Emily Kallas, AICP, Planner Amy French, Chief Planning Official (650) 617-3125 (650) 329-2336 Emily.kallas@cityofpaloalto.org amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org [1] Emails may be sent directly to the PTC using the following address: planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 24     Item 3 Attachment I: February 28, 2024 PTC Staff Report w/o Attachments     Packet Pg. 192     If you need assistance reviewing the above documents, please contact the Project Planner or call the Planner-on-Duty at 650-617-3117 or email planner@cityofpaloalto.org Project Plans In order to reduce paper consumption, a limited number of hard copy project plans are provided to Council members for their review. The same plans are available to the public, at all hours of the day, via the following online resources. Directions to review Project plans online: 1. Go to: bit.ly/PApendingprojects 2. Scroll down to find “4075 El Camino” and click the address link 3. Click on “Tell me more about 4075 El Camino Way” 4. On this project-specific webpage you will find a link to the project plans and other important information Direct Link to Project Webpage: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Current- Planning/Projects/4075-El-Camino-Way Item 3 Attachment J: Project Plans     Packet Pg. 193