Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 2411-3800CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL Monday, April 14, 2025 Council Chambers & Hybrid 5:30 PM     Agenda Item     12.PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI-JUDICIAL: 70 Encina Avenue [24PLN-00095]: Adopt an Ordinance Rezoning the Subject Property and an Adjacent Vacant Parcel to Planned Community/Planned Home Zoning and Adopt the Record of Land Use Action to Demolish a Surface Parking lot and to Construct a New Three-Story, 19,035 Square Foot Building with 10 Residential Condominium Units. CEQA Status- Streamlined Review in Accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 (Comprehensive Plan Consistency). Zone District: CC (Community Commercial). Questions added, Public Comment, Staff Presentation, Applicant Presentation City Council Staff Report From: City Manager Report Type: ACTION ITEMS Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: April 14, 2025 Report #:2411-3800 TITLE PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI-JUDICIAL: 70 Encina Avenue [24PLN-00095]: Adopt an Ordinance Rezoning the Subject Property and an Adjacent Vacant Parcel to Planned Community/Planned Home Zoning and Adopt the Record of Land Use Action to Demolish a Surface Parking lot and to Construct a New Three-Story, 19,035 Square Foot Building with 10 Residential Condominium Units. CEQA Status- Streamlined Review in Accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 (Comprehensive Plan Consistency). Zone District: CC (Community Commercial). RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends City Council take the following actions: 1. Consider the CEQA Guidelines section 15183 checklist analyzing the project’s consistency with the Comprehensive Plan 2030 Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2014052101); 2. Approve an Ordinance (Attachment B) rezoning the subject site from Community Commercial to Planned Community/Planned Home Zoning; and 3. Approve the Record of Land Use Action (Attachment C) approving the proposed project, based on findings and subject to conditions of approval to the City Council. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Hayes Group Architecture, representing a prospective purchaser, proposes to rezone the subject property at 70 Encina Avenue and an adjacent vacant parcel from CC (Community Commercial) to Planned Community (PC)/Planned Home Zoning (PHZ).1 The project includes demolition of an existing surface parking lot on two contiguous parcels adjacent to the Town and Country Village Shopping Center (Town & Country) and construction of 10 condominium units, two of which would be provided at below market rate (BMR). The applicant recently filed a separate application for a tentative map. Approval of the tentative map and final map would 1 Referred to in this report as "Planned Home Zoning (PHZ)” to emphasize the focus on housing as the benefit to the community. Still, PAMC Section 18.38, which outlines the requirement and process for Planned Community (PC) Zoning, remains the underlying code supporting application of this policy. be required, prior to issuance of a building permit, to merge the two parcels and for the proposed 10-unit condominium subdivision. BACKGROUND City Council Prescreening 2 for the proposed rezoning of this property. The initial proposal included 20 condominium units in a five-story building. City Council encouraged the applicants to work with the operators of Town & Country, Ellis Partners, and to scale down the building to better align with the scale of existing Town & Country buildings. In response, the project was redesigned to a 10-unit, three-story development. The applicant filed a preliminary ARB application to obtain ARB feedback on December 7, 2023, prior to submitting a formal application. 2 City Council, September 12, 2022 Staff Report: https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Public/CompiledDocument?meetingTemplateId=9048&compileOutputType=1 Planning and Transportation Commission Initial Review Following submittal of the formal application, the PTC held a public hearing on September 11, 2024.3 At the PTC hearing on September 11, 2024, Commissioner comments included: •Recognition and appreciation of the applicants’ work with Town & Country; •Support for the proposed height as appropriate; •Support for the accessible units and the bedroom count as desirable for families; •General support for current design in terms of visual compatibility with Town & Country; •Concern with limited amount of greenspace and need for improved circulation; •Direction to remove the proposed bulb-outs and entrance gate that encroached on public property; and •Suggestion that future CC&Rs should include a provision to prevent residents and guests from parking at Town & Country. The PTC voted unanimously to move the project forward to the ARB. The ARB first reviewed the project on November 7, 2024,4 and made no design changes but continued the item until environmental review was complete. On February 6, 2025,5 the ARB voted 4-1 (Hirsch dissenting) to recommend Council approval. The dissenting vote reflected a preference to pursue a broader housing plan for the Encina Avenue corridor. During public comment, a representative from Ellis Partners (Town & Country operators) noted early discussions with the applicant about a joint housing project that would redevelop the entire north parking lot. While the applicant was open to collaboration, they still sought approval of the current proposal. The ARB discussed the potential for a coordinated plan along Encina Avenue, with one member strongly advocating for a unified approach. Others supported future coordination but agreed to proceed with a recommendation on the project as proposed, acknowledging the applicant does not own adjacent parcels. The ARB also voted 4-1 to recommend that Council consider rezoning the north parking lot area (excluding the subject parcels) for residential use. The dissenting vote again reflected a preference for a broader housing plan along Encina Avenue. The project returned to the PTC on February 26, 2025.6 After extensive discussion, the Commission could not agree on whether previous concerns had been addressed, largely due to 3 Planning and Transportation Commission, September 11, 2024 Staff Report: https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=13723 4 Architectural Review Board, November 7, 2024 Staff Report: https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=13926 5 Architectural Review Board, February 6, 2024 Staff Report: https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=15748 6 Planning and Transportation Commission, February 26, 2025 Staff Report: https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=15720 the project’s isolated nature. A motion to recommend approval failed on a 3-3 tie (Summa, Chang, Ji dissenting). The PTC then voted 5-1 to forward the project to Council with a split recommendation, reflecting the prior tie vote. The dissenting vote was based on dissatisfaction with moving a project forward without consensus. (see discussion below where staff clarifies both units would be restricted to 80% AMI). ANALYSIS 7 7 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online: bit.ly/PACompPlan2030 This project is consistent with this designation, as it proposes housing within a half mile of the Palo Alto Caltrain Station and Transit Center. As discussed in the Record of Land Use Action (Attachment C), this project promotes a number of Comprehensive Plan policies and does not conflict with other policies specific to Town & Country. In summary, this location is described as being within the Town & Country, however it does not contain retail use, and will not decrease the retail use at the shopping center. Additionally, one of the parcels (APN 120-34-006) was included in the Housing Element Sites Inventory, with an expected capacity of four units. The proposed project merges parcels to allow for additional capacity. The proposed ten units therefore, exceed the anticipated capacity in the Housing Inventory. The project supports Comprehensive Plan policies to provide affordable housing, infill development, and to promote high-quality design. •Floor area ratio of 1.57:1, where the existing regulations allow 0.5:1; •Lot coverage of 58.6%, where the existing regulations allow 50%; •Rear setback of seven inches, where the existing regulations require 10 feet; •No ground-level open space, where the existing regulations require 30%; and •An average of 95 square feet usable open space per unit, where the existing regulations require 150 square feet per unit. amendment to the zoning code, it is permissible to extend this City Council policy to the subject project. Accordingly, staff has included a condition of approval requiring a TDM plan prior to the issuance of a building permit. 8 developers could consider to enhance public benefit while maintaining project feasibility. FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT Daily Post on April 4, 2025, which is 10 days in advance of the meeting. 8 City Council, June 23, 2020 Staff Report: https:/www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas-minutes- reports/reports/city-manager-reports-cmrs/year-archive/2020/id-10715.pdf future housing project on their North parking lot. This hypothetical project would include this subject lot, which Ellis Partners does not own or lease, and other surrounding properties they currently lease but do not own. Likewise, the project applicants only have property rights to the two subject properties in this application. Staff notes that there is no current application for this alternative project and that any future project would need to go through the appropriate Planning Entitlement process. While the applicant for this project has expressed their willingness to continue conversations with Ellis Partners for this alternative project, they have also expressed their interest in continuing to process their submitted application. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ATTACHMENTS APPROVED BY: 3 Bldg 3 Bldg 1 Bldg 2 Bldg 4 50.0' 121.2' 50.0' 121.2' 121.2' 121.2' 56.0' 121.2' 56.0' 100.0' 121.2' 100.0' 121.2' 50.0' 121.2' 50.0' 121.2' 18.8' 535.5' 938.0' 1 100.0' 50.0' 121.2' 50.0' 121.2' 50.0' 121.2' 50.0' 121.2' 50.0' 121.2' 50.0' 121.2' 50.0' 121.2' 50.0' 121.2' 50.0' 121.2' 50.0' 121.2' 50.0' 121.2' 50.0' 121.2' 50.0' 121.2' 50.0' 121.2' 121.2' 121.2' 50.0' 50.0' 121.2' 100.0' 100.0' 121.2' 121.2' 182.3' 200.0' 121.1' 14.3' 72.6' 137.4' 84.5' 112.3' 39.0' 48.0'43.5' 112.3' 82.2' 224.6' 212.7' 72.0' 51 75 63 44 87 98 67 81 855 25 ALMA ST EL CAMINO REALMINO REAL EMBARCADERO ROAD URBAN L ANE UE ENCINA AVENUE CC CS CS PAMF PARKING STRUCTURE This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Project Site 0' 71' Attachment A 70 Encina Location Map CITY OF PALO ALTO I NC O R P O R A TED CALIFORNIA P a l o A l t o T h e C i t y o f APRIL 1 6 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto ekallas, 2024-09-04 15:59:55 (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) *NOT YET APPROVED* 1 0160168_KB2_20250325_AY16 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 70 Encina Avenue from Service Commercial (CS) Zone to Planned Community Zone (PC) The Council of the City of Palo Alto ORDAINS as follows: SECTION 1. Findings and Declarations. (a) On March 24, 2024, Hayes Group Architecture (“Applicant”) submitted an application for Rezoning to Planned Community/Planned Home Zoning (PHZ) and Major Architectural Review to redevelop the site at 70 Encina Avenue (the “Subject Property,” more particularly described in Exhibit A) with ten condominium units, two of which would be below market rate (the “Project”). (b) Following Staff Review, the Planning and Transportation Commission (Commission) reviewed the project on September 11, 2024 and recommended the project to the Architectural Review Board. (c) The Architectural Review Board reviewed the project on November 7, 2024 and, following preparation of the environmental analysis, formally recommended approval of the project to the City Council on February 6, 2025. (d) The Planning and Transportation Commission reviewed the project on February 26, 2025; and recommended approval of the project to the City Council. (e) 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”). (f) 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. (g) The City, in compliance with CEQA, determined that the project is eligible for streamlined review in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183. The City prepared an analysis of the project in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, which evaluated the project’s consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and the Comprehensive Plan EIR, including relevant addenda. Plan level technical reports were prepared to confirm that the Comprehensive Plan EIR, including any mitigation required through that EIR, would adequately address the impacts of the proposed project. (h) The Council is the decision-making body for approval of the Planned Community Project. *NOT YET APPROVED* 2 0160168_KB2_20250325_AY16 (i) 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. Specifically, the project proposes family- serving, ownership housing units. The existing CS zoning requires ground-floor retail and limits the square footage for residential uses to a floor area ratio of no more than 0.35 to 1. The limitation on residential housing uses and development standards was intended to apply to the shopping center, of which this site was previously a leased part. The site is zoned and designated as part of the shopping center but is no longer leased by the Town & Country Village shopping center owner and is part of a separate, adjacent parcel. In order to provide an exclusively multi-family use on this site and to achieve a floor area, lot coverage and setbacks that allow for development of the project as proposed, the proposed rezoning is necessary. (j) 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, as set forth in Section 6 of this ordinance. (k) The use or uses permitted, and the site development regulations applicable within the district are consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive plan and compatible with existing and potential uses on adjoining sites or within the general vicinity, as set forth in the Record of Land Use Action (Exhibit B) accompanying this ordinance. 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 “Planned Community Zone (PC) _____”. SECTION 3. Project Description. The Project as a whole is described in the Development Plan, titled “Encina Housing 70 Encina Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301” and uploaded to the Palo Alto Online Permitting Services Citizen Portal on February 19, 2025. With respect to the Subject Property, the project comprises the uses included in this Ordinance, depicted on the Development Plans, incorporated by reference, including the following components: (a) Redevelopment of an existing surface parking area, as described in more detail in the Development Plan, to allow construction of a new 3-story, 19,035 sf building (1.57 FAR); to include ten (10) residential condominium units organized around a common access court that provides both vehicular and pedestrian access and site improvements. Two of the proposed units will be deed restricted to be sold at a rate affordable to households earning 80-100% of area median income. (b) Merger of two existing lots and subdivision into ten (10) residential condominium units through a subdivision map, which will be filed at a later date. *NOT YET APPROVED* 3 0160168_KB2_20250325_AY16 SECTION 4. Land Uses. (a) The following land uses shall be permitted: (1) Multi-family residential; (2) Accessory Uses. SECTION 5. Site Development Regulations and Development Schedule. (a) Development Standards: Development standards for the Subject Property shall be those conforming to the Development Plans. (b) Parking and Loading Requirements: The Owner shall provide parking and loading as set forth in the Development Plan. Specifically, the Owner shall provide four units with 1 space per unit and six units with 2 spaces per unit, for a total of 16 parking spaces. (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 5 (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, as required by Palo Alto Municipal Code 18.38.050. (g) Development Schedule: The project is required to include a Development Schedule pursuant to PAMC §18.38.100. The applicant has indicated that development is anticipated to begin in October 2025 and conclude in December 2026. Notwithstanding the above, 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. SECTION 6. Public Benefits. (a) Public Benefits *NOT YET APPROVED* 4 0160168_KB2_20250325_AY16 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 benefit provided by the Project is two dwelling units at below market rates (“BMR”), affordable to households with income not exceeding 80% of area median income. This exceeds the base requirement in Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.65, which would require one BMR unit and the payment of in-lieu fees. SECTION 7. Environmental Review The City prepared an analysis of the project in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 and confirmed that the Comprehensive Plan EIR, including any mitigation that would be addressed as required through that EIR, would adequately address the impacts of the proposed project. SECTION 8. Effective Date This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day after the date of its adoption (second reading). INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: ATTEST: APPROVED: __________________________ City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: __________________________ Assistant City Attorney _________________________ Mayor _________________________ City Manager __________________________ Director of Planning and Development Services *NOT YET APPROVED* 5 0160168_KB2_20250325_AY16 Exhibit A Plan and Legal Description Order Number: NCS-1218310-SC Page Number: 7 First American Title Insurance Company LEGAL DESCRIPTION Real property in the City of Palo Alto, County of Santa Clara, State of California, described as follows: PARCEL ONE: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF THE SAN FRANCISCO AND SAN JOSE ROAD, STATE HIGHWAY, SAID LINE BEING THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF THAT CERTAIN STRIP OF LAND CONVEYED BY ELIZA J. GREER TO THE CITY OF PALO ALTO, BY DEED DATED SEPTEMBER 15, 1926 AND RECORDED SEPTEMBER 16, 1926 IN BOOK 272, PAGE 54, OFFICIAL RECORDS; WHERE THE SAME IS INTERSECTED BY THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF THE GREER HOMESTEAD IN THE RANCHO RINCONADA DE ARROYO DE SAN FRANCISQUITO, SET OFF TO THE ESTATE OF ROBERT L. GREER, DECEASED, ACCORDING TO THE MAP THEREOF OF RECORD IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, IN BOOK L OF MAPS, PAGE 79; THENCE RUNNING SOUTH 42° 30' EAST AND ALONG THE PRESENT NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID HIGHWAY, AND ALONG THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID STRIP OF LAND SO CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF PALO ALTO, 531.50 FEET AND SOUTH 72° 33' EAST 20.01 FEET TO THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF THE EMBARCADERO ROAD, AND THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF THE LAND SO CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF PALO ALTO; THENCE RUNNING NORTH 70° 10' EAST AND ALONG SAID LINE, 1021.37 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF THAT CERTAIN 25 FOOT STRIP OF LAND CONVEYED BY ELIZA JANE GREER, ET AL, TO SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, A CORPORATION, BY DEED DATED NOVEMBER 19, 1901, RECORDED NOVEMBER 21, 1901 IN BOOK 246 OF DEEDS, PAGE 240, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA; THENCE LEAVING SAID LINE OF EMBARCADERO ROAD, AND RUNNING NORTH 51° 45' WEST ALONG THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID 25 FOOT STRIP OF LAND 581 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF LANDS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF THE GREER HOMESTEAD, HEREINABOVE REFERRED TO; THENCE LEAVING SAID 25 FOOT STRIP OF LAND AND RUNNING ALONG THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID GREER HOMESTEAD, SOUTH 70° 47' WEST 934.69 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. A PORTION OF THE 32 1/2 ACRE TRACT SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN MAP ENTITLED "PLAT OF A TRACT OF LAND ON THE SAN FRANCISQUITO RANCHO, OWNED BY CAPT. JOHN GREER", WHICH MAP WAS FILED FOR RECORD ON MARCH 14, 1878 IN BOOK A OF MAPS, PAGE 23, SANTA CLARA COUNTY RECORDS. PARCEL TWO: BEING A SUMMARY VACATION OF REAL PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO, COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE MOST EASTERLY CORNER OF PARCEL ONE, AS DESCRIBED IN THE TRUST TRANSFER DEED RECORDED MARCH 28, 2007, DOCUMENT NO. 19362067, SANTA CLARA COUNTY; THENCE SOUTH 70° 10' 00" WEST, ALONG THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL ONE, A DISTANCE OF 336.77 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 51° 45' 00" EAST, 32.22 FEET; THENCE NORTH 70° 10' 00" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 306.51 FEET; THENCE NORTH 38° 15' 00" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 25.69 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF THE PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS BOARD RIGHT-OF-WAY; Order Number: NCS-1218310-SC Page Number: 8 First American Title Insurance Company THENCE NORTH 51° 45' 00" WEST, ALONG SOUTHWESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, A LINE DISTANCE OF 16.22 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. APN: 120-34-015 *NOT YET APPROVED* 6 0160168_KB2_20250325_AY16 Exhibit B Record of Land Use Action Page 1 of 16 7 0 9 2 APPROVAL NO. 2025-____ On April 14, 2025, the City Council of the City of Palo Alto (“City Council”) approved an application to rezone the subject properties from Community Commercial (CC) to a Planned Community Zone District, making the following findings, determinations and declarations: SECTION 1. Background. A. On March 28, 2024 Hayes Group Architects (“Applicant”), on behalf of the property owner, applied for a Planned Community Rezoning to demolish an existing surface parking lot that is not currently in use and to construct a 10-unit, three-story, approximately 19,035 square foot townhome style housing development and associated site improvements (“The Project”). The project site consists of two parcels, including the 6,060 square foot parcel located at 70 Encina Avenue (APN 120-03-006) and an adjacent, 6,060 square foot, unaddressed parcel (APN 120-03-007) for a total combined parcel size of 12,120 square feet. B. On September 12, 2022 Council conducted a prescreening review of the proposed legislative action in accordance with PAMC 18.79 C. On September 11, 2024, 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 (ARB) based on the conceptual design and proposed project in accordance with the Planned Community Rezoning Process. D. Following the Planning and Transportation Commission’s Initial Review, the ARB held a duly noticed public hearing on November 7, 2024 to provide feedback and allow for public comment on the proposed project. On February 6, 2025 the ARB held a duly noticed public hearing and recommended approval of the proposed project. E. On February 26, 2025 the PTC held a duly noticed public hearing and recommended approval of the proposed project. F. On April 14, 2025 the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing, at which evidence was presented and all person were afforded an opportunity to be heard in accordance with the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Council’s Policies and Procedures. After hearing public testimony, the Council voted to approve/adopt: •Ordinance________amending the zoning of the proposed resulting parcel to Planned Community; and •This Record of Land Use Action G. This application is subject to the conditions set forth in Section 7 of this Record of Land Use Action Page 2 of 16 7 0 9 2 SECTION 2. Environmental Review. In accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15183, the City prepared an analysis of the project’s consistency with Comprehensive Plan and Comprehensive Plan 2030 Environmental Impact Report (SCH # 2014052101). The analysis concluded that the impacts of the proposed project were adequately address through the previously adopted EIR, including implementation of any mitigation as required through that EIR. 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: 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: 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: Page 3 of 16 7 0 9 2 two adjacent parcels in order to exceed the anticipated capacity planned for the single parcel by providing 10 total units. SECTION 4. Architectural Review Findings Finding #1: The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant design guides. The project is consistent with Finding #1 because: In conformance with the following Comp Plan Goals and Policies, the project will include high quality design compatible with surrounding development. Comp Plan Goals and Policies How project adheres or does not adhere to Comp Plan The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the site is Community Commercial. This designation allows higher density multi-family housing in locations near transit centers. The proposed project is located adjacent the Palo Alto Caltrain station. Therefore, the proposed use is consistent with this 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 remove an existing surface parking lot into a ten-unit condominium building. The proposed three-story height is appropriate to the area, which contains mostly one- and two-story buildings with a 5-story building approximately 200 feet away. Policy L-2.5 Support the creation of affordable housing units for middle to lower income level earners, such as City and school district employees, as feasible. This project includes two below market rate units, consistent with this policy. Policy L-2.11 Encourage new development and redevelopment to incorporate greenery and natural features such as green rooftops, pocket parks, plazas and rain gardens. The proposed building includes a central courtyard with seven trees and perimeter planter boxes with wall vines. Policy L-6.1 Promote high-quality design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces. The proposed building incorporates high-quality materials and design elements such as a “base-middle- top” typology. The massing and height of the project is compatible with the surrounding area. 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 three-story height is in scale with nearby buildings and has a 25-foot separation from the nearest Town & Country Village building. Although this project is currently surrounded by existing parking lots, development of these neighboring parcels could occur and, based on the existing CC zone district regulations, would be similar in scale with respect to height. Program L2.4.4 Assess non-residential development potential in the Community Although this property is located within the boundaries of Town & Country Village, as defined in Page 4 of 16 7 0 9 2 Commercial, Service, Commercial and Downtown Commercial Districts (CC, CS and CD) and the Neighborhood Commercial District (CN), and convert non-retail commercial FAR to residential FAR, where appropriate. Conversion to residential capacity should not be considered in Town and Country Village. the municipal code, it does not include the conversion of retail to residential, and therefore would not conflict with this Program. Policy L-4.12 Recognize and preserve Town and Country Village as an attractive retail center serving Palo Altans and residents of the wider region. Future development at this site should preserve its existing amenities, pedestrian scale and architectural character while also improving safe access for bicyclists and pedestrians and increasing the amount of bicycle parking. The project is located adjacent to existing Town & Country Village shopping center and its associated improvements. This property is not owned or leased by Town & Country Village and the property owners are not required to maintain the prior parking use. The proposed development would not impact current Town & Country Village amenities or character, and Town and Country is expected to be able to maintain their current operations. The building includes sufficient short and long term bicycle parking. However, this project includes minimal pedestrian circulation in and around the project site. Policy L-4.13 In Town and Country Village, encourage a vibrant retail environment and urban greening. The project is located within the defined area of Town & Country Village and while it does not include additional retail uses, it provides housing near these uses, contributing to the vibrant retail environment. Policy L-4.14 In Town and Country Village, encourage improvement of pedestrian, bicycle and auto circulation and landscaping improvements, including maintenance of existing oak trees and planting additional trees. This project proposes to remove some of the existing trees within this surface parking lot area, most of which are less than 7 inches and are not considered protected trees. The single existing oak tree within the vicinity of the site would be protected, consistent with this policy. Eight new trees would be planted on site and additional payment of in-lieu fees would be provided in accordance with the city’s tree canopy replacement requirements. Housing Element Policy 3.2 Provide adequate sites, zoned at the appropriate densities and development standards to facilitate both affordable and market rate housing production. One of the two CC-zoned properties is identified as a Housing Inventory Site with a capacity of 4 above moderate-income units. This 10-unit housing project includes two affordable units and eight market rate units. Housing Element Policy 4.3 Implement development standards, objective design standards, and architectural and green building standards that encourage new high-quality rental and ownership housing. With approval of the proposed rezoning, the project would be consistent with the development standards. The proposed development standards for this project are appropriate to the site and surrounding area and ensure an appropriate transition from neighboring properties, consistent with this policy, as well as Page 5 of 16 7 0 9 2 Architectural Review Findings, and green building standards. Policy B-6.6 Retain Town & Country Village as an attractive, local-serving retail center The project is located within the defined area of Town & Country Village and while it does not include additional retail uses, it provides housing near these uses, contributing to the vibrant retail environment. The overall scale of the project as a three-story townhome design is consistent with the existing improvements at the shopping center and do not modify the existing circulation on the site. As a PHZ project, the zoning development standards are custom built for the building. Therefore, with approval of the proposed ordinance amending the zoning of this property to Planned community/PHZ this project will comply with the zoning ordinance. No other design guidelines or documents apply to this location. Finding #2: The project has a unified and coherent design, that: a. creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community, b. preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site and the historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant, c. is consistent with the context-based design criteria of the applicable zone district, d. provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations, e. enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent residential areas. The project is consistent with Finding #2 because: The central driveway provides an internal sense of order in that it provides multi-modal access for cars, bikes, and pedestrians. The perimeter includes exterior doors from each unit facing the side property lines, providing an additional pedestrian access to each unit. The three-story form is appropriate in mass, scale, and character to the neighborhood, including development along Encina Avenue and the Town & Country Village Shopping Center. It enhances living conditions by providing housing units for families that are within walking distance of the shopping center, schools, and Caltrain. 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 sandy/tan brick veneer, cement, and fiber cement panel, gray fiber cement panel, dark metal accents and roof, and landscape elements. These materials are utilized on all four sides of the building, with the brick veneer providing a base to the upper floors. The proposed materials are compatible with the neighborhood. 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 Page 6 of 16 7 0 9 2 utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.). The project is consistent with Finding #4 because: The design includes a single entrance (with separate gates) for cars, pedestrians, and bikes. It has limited open space, primarily in the central driveway and balconies facing the driveway. Pedestrians can also access the side- yard facing garage doors. The project is consistent with Finding #5 because: The project provides landscaped area in the front and within the central courtyard. Eight existing trees, none of which are protected trees, are proposed to be removed. Seven replacement trees planted on site, and additional landscaping is provided in planters around the perimeter of the building including the Encina Avenue frontage. The proposed landscaping will provide a suitable residential appearance. 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 and the Model Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance (MWELO). SECTION 5. Architectural Review Approval Granted. Architectural Review Approval is hereby granted for the Project by the City Council pursuant to PAMC Section 18.77.070 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, effective _______, 2025 and subject to the conditions of approval in Section 7 of this Record. SECTION 6. Plan Approval. The plans submitted for Building Permit shall be in substantial conformance with those plans prepared by the applicant titled Encina Housing, 70 Encina Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301, consisting of 56 pages, uploaded to Accela Citizen Access on February 19, 2025, 2025, except as modified to incorporate the conditions of approval in Section 6. A copy of these plans is on file in the Department of Planning and Community Development. This Record of Land Use Action shall be printed on the cover sheet of the plan set submitted with the Building Permit application. SECTION 7. Conditions of Approval. 1. CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS. Construction and development shall conform to the approved plans entitled, "70 Encina, Palo Alto, California,” stamped as received by the City on February 19, 2025 on file with the Planning Department, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California except as modified by these conditions of approval. Page 7 of 16 7 0 9 2 2. BUILDING PERMIT. Apply for a building permit and meet any and all conditions of the Planning, Fire, Public Works, and Building Departments. 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. AFFORDABLE HOUSING REQUIREMENT (OWNERSHIP PROJECT): This project is subject to the affordable housing requirements set forth in Section 16.65.030 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC). The PAMC requires that “for projects on sites of less than five acres, fifteen percent (15%) of the dwelling units in the project shall be made available at affordable sales price to very low, low, and moderate income households.” As a public benefit, the project includes 20% of the dwelling units to be made available at 80% of Area Median Income. Therefore, the proposed project shall contain no less than two (2) below market rate units at the moderate income level (restricted at 80% AMI). All Below Market Rate (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. 6. BELOW MARKET RATE (BMR) HOUSING. A Regulatory Agreement in a form acceptable to the City Attorney for the two (2) 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. 7. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) associated with the project (2017 Comprehensive Plan EIR) 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 and Development Services. The following mitigation measures are relevant to this project: a. Mitigation Measure AES-1 b. Mitigation Measure AIR-2a c. Mitigation Measure AIR-3c d. Mitigation Measure CULT-3 e. Mitigation Measure CULT-5 Page 8 of 16 7 0 9 2 8. NESTING BIRD SURVEY. Vegetation or tree removal shall be prohibited during the general avian nesting season (February 1 – August 31), if feasible. If nesting season avoidance is not feasible, the applicant shall retain a qualified biologist, as approved by the City of Palo Alto, to conduct a preconstruction nesting bird survey to determine the presence/absence, location, and activity status of any active nests on or adjacent to the project site no more than 14 days prior to scheduled vegetation clearance and/or demolition activities. If nesting birds are found to be present, a suitable buffer (typically a minimum buffer of 50 feet for passerines and a minimum buffer of 250 feet for raptors) as determined appropriate by the biologist, shall be established around such active nests and no construction shall be allowed within the buffer areas until a qualified biologist has determined that the nest is no longer active (i.e., the nestlings have fledged and are no longer reliant on the nest). A report documenting any data recovered during monitoring shall be prepared by a qualified biologist and submitted to the Director of Planning prior to final planning inspection. 9. UNANTICIPATED DISCOVERY OF BURIED ARCHAEOLOGICAL, PALEONTOLOGICAL, AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES. No known archeological or paleontological resources are present on or within the immediate vicinity of the site. However, in the unlikely event that an archeological resource or paleontological resource is unearthed during ground disturbing activities, work in the immediate area must be halted and an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for archeology (National Park Service 1983) shall be contacted immediately to evaluate the find. If the find is Native American in origin, then a Native American representative must also be contacted to participate in the evaluation of the find. The qualified archaeologist, and, if applicable, the Native American representative, shall examine the find and make recommendations regarding additional work necessary to evaluate the significance of the find and the appropriate treatment of the resource. Recommendations could include, but are not limited to, invasive or non-invasive testing, sampling, laboratory analysis, preservation in place, or data recovery. A report of findings documenting any data recovered during monitoring shall be prepared by a qualified archaeologist and submitted to the Director of Planning prior to final planning inspection. 10. LANDSCAPE PLAN. Plantings shall be installed in accordance with the approved plan set and shall be permanently maintained and replaced as necessary. 11. 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. 12. NOISE THRESHOLDS ON COMMERCIAL PROPERTY. In accordance with PAMC Section 9.10.040, No person shall produce, suffer or allow to be produced by any machine or device, or any combination of same, on commercial or industrial property, a noise level more than eight dB above the local ambient at any point outside of the property plane. Page 9 of 16 7 0 9 2 13. 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. 14.NOISE REPORT PRIOR TO INSPECTION. Where the acoustical analysis projected noise levels at or within 5 dB less than the Noise Ordinance limits, the applicant shall demonstrate the installed equipment complies with the anticipated noise levels and the Noise Ordinance prior to final Planning inspection approval. 15. FINAL INSPECTION. A Planning Division Final inspection will be required to determine substantial compliance with the approved plans prior to the scheduling of a Building Division final. Any revisions during the building process must be approved by Planning, including but not limited to; materials, landscaping and hard surface locations. Contact your Project Planner, Emily Kallas at emily.kallas@cityofpaloalto.org to schedule this inspection. 16. ESTIMATED IMPACT FEE. Development Impact Fees, currently estimated in the amount of $769,498.15 plus the applicable public art fee, per PAMC 16.61.040, shall be paid in accordance with PAMC Chapter 16.64. 17. 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. 18. 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 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. 19. 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 Page 10 of 16 7 0 9 2 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. 20. 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. 21. 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. 22. REFUSE. All trash areas shall be effectively screened from view and covered and maintained in an orderly state to prevent water from entering into the garbage container. No outdoor storage is allowed/permitted unless designated on the approved plan set. Trash areas shall be maintained in a manner to discourage illegal dumping. 23. 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. BUILDING 24. Building permit submittal shall comply with 2022 CBSC if submitted to the City prior to 1/1/26. 25. Building permit submittal shall follow the checklist found at this link. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/3/development-services/building- division/checklists/simplified/r10-new-mf-checklist_1.16.2025.pdf TRANSPORTATION 26. The Driveway shall be designed to the City's standard https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Public-Works/Engineering-Services/Public-Works- Standard-Drawings-and-Specifications 27. Plans shall show the removal of on-street parking spaces as required for refuse service of this development. 28. TDM PROGRAM AND ANNUAL REPORTING REQUIREMENT: The applicant shall prepare a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Development Services. The TDM plan shall include measures and programs to achieve a reduction in single-occupancy vehicle trips to the site by a minimum of 20%, in conformance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The TDM plan shall include 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 Page 11 of 16 7 0 9 2 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. FIRE 29. FIRE FLOW IMPROVEMENTS. Fire flow test results (August 2024) were not sufficient to meet the min PAFD required FH flow of 2000 gpm. Water main improvements will be required for this project. All upgrades required to properly serve the project shall be completed at the expense of the applicant and in conformance with the City’s standards. 30. FIRE HYDRANT. Install one public fire hydrant on project side of street. 31. Update references on sheet C-7.0 to reference CFC 2022. PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING 32. 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 33. 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. 34. STREETWORK PERMIT. The applicant shall obtain a Streetwork Permit from the Department of Public Works for all public improvements. 35. 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.” 36. 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. Page 12 of 16 7 0 9 2 37. 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”. 38. 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. 39. LOGISTICS PLAN. A construction logistics plan shall be provided addressing all impacts to the public including, at a minimum: work hours, noticing of affected businesses, bus stop relocations, construction signage, dust control, noise control, storm water pollution prevention, job trailer, contractors’ parking, truck routes, staging, concrete pours, crane lifts, scaffolding, materials storage, pedestrian safety, and traffic control. All truck routes shall conform to the City of Palo Alto’s Trucks and Truck Route Ordinance, Chapter 10.48, and the route map. NOTE: Some items/tasks on the logistics plan may require an encroachment permit. 40. STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION. All improvement plan sets shall include the “Pollution Prevention – It’s Part of the Plan” sheet. 41. 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. Submit the following: a. Stamped and signed C.3 data form (August 2024 version) from SCVURPPP. https://scvurppp.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/SCVURPPP-C.3-Data-Form- Fillable_2024_wp.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. 42. 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. 43. 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. 44. 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 Page 13 of 16 7 0 9 2 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. 45. 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. 46. PRIOR TO PUBLIC WORKS FINAL/ACCEPTANCE (STORM DRAIN LOGO). The applicant is required to paint “No Dumping/Flows to SF 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 Division, which may be contacted at (650) 329-2598. Include the instruction to paint the logos on the construction grading and drainage plan. 47. PRIOR TO PUBLIC WORKS FINAL/ACCEPTANCE (RECORD DRAWINGS). At the conclusion of the project applicant shall provide digital as-built/record drawings of all improvements constructed in the public right-of-way or easements in which the City owns an interest. 48. PRIOR TO PUBLIC WORKS FINAL/ACCEPTANCE (INDEFINITE ENCROACHMENT PERMIT). An approved indefinite encroachment permit will be required for private infrastructure constructed in the public right-of-way, easement or on property in which the City holds an interest, but that was not authorized by a building permit. PUBLIC WORKS ZERO WASTE 49. Internal refuse bins shall be installed as listed below. Cut sheets of both the signage and bins are required on the plan set. c. Common Areas requires a green compost, black landfill, and blue recycle d. Mail Area requires a black landfill, and blue recycle e. *Signage with pictorial items of what goes where and a list of “no” items are required on each of the bin. 50. If the scope of work involves internal and external bins (compost, recycle, and landfill) and its related millwork, then on the overall site plan, please show where the bins will be placed and reference the cut sheets of the three bins (recycle, compost, and landfill) that will be used at each location. The recycle, compost, and landfill bin must be placed right next to each other. Please see requirements below. 51. The following comments below are part of the Palo Alto Municipality Code and must be reflected in the plans submitted for building permit as applicable: a. 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 Page 14 of 16 7 0 9 2 included in the building plans prior to receiving approval from Zero Waste. Please see below for more details. b. 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, back of the house kitchen, café, dining area, and etc. except for restrooms, copy area, and mother’s room. c. 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 a small landfill bin for sanitary products. 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. URBAN FORESTRY 52. TREE REPLACEMENT IN-LIEU FEES. For the replacement value of 21 unplanted 24" box trees (where the replacement value is 28 and 7 are proposed for planting) $13,650 must be paid to the Palo Alto Urban Forestry fund prior to permit issuance. Invoice will be sent to applicant and fees applied, to make payment. 53. ARBORIST REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS AND MONITORING. The owner and contractor shall implement all protection and inspection schedule measures, design recommendations and construction scheduling as stated in the TPR and/or Sheet T-1, and is subject to code compliance action pursuant to PAMC 8.10.080. The required protective fencing shall remain in place until final landscaping and inspection of the project. If called for, project arborist approval must be obtained and documented in the monthly activity report sent to the City. When required, the Contractor and Arborist Monthly Tree Activity Report shall be sent monthly to the City (pwps@cityofpaloalto.org) beginning with the initial verification approval, using the template in the Tree Technical Manual, Addendum 11. 54. TREE DAMAGE, INJURY MITIGATION AND INSPECTIONS APPLY TO CONTRACTOR. Reporting, injury mitigation measures and arborist inspection schedule (1-5) apply pursuant to TTM, Section 2.20-2.30. Contractor shall be responsible for the repair or replacement of any publicly owned or protected trees that are damaged during construction, pursuant to Title 8 of the PAMC and city Tree Technical Manual, Page 15 of 16 7 0 9 2 Section 2.25. No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment shall be permitted within the tree enclosure area. The ground under and around the tree canopy area shall not be altered. Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. 55. 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 fencing. The fencing shall contain required warning sign and remain in place until final inspection of the project. During the permit phase of a project an applicant must provide the proposed square footage of the rehabilitated landscape to determine if the project requires a MWELO compliance review. Please see the document titled “Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance Compliance Submittals and Guidelines” (https://cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/76159) to determine if the project qualifies for MWELO Review. If a MWELO review is required, please follow the instructions in the above document when submitting your permit application and plan set. 56. NO NET LOSS OF CANOPY. To comply with the city’s no net loss of canopy policy (Urban Forest Master Plan: Goals 6.A, 6.B & 6.C & Comprehensive Plan Natural Environment Chapter: Goal N-2 and others) all trees 4” DBH and larger are subject to replacement to avoid a loss of canopy at the neighborhood level. Replacement ratios are determined by table 3-1 in the Tree Technical Manual (Section 3.20.C). New landscape tree plantings (24” box or larger) count towards the replacement total. Screening trees may also count toward the total depending on size and species selected. If unable to plant the required number of trees on site (our preferred solution) there is the option to pay in-lieu fees of $650 per each 24” box tree into the forestry fund. 57. T-1 SHEET. The final Plans submitted for building permit shall include the T1 Sheet and all additional TSheets regarding tree protection and mitigation. PUBLIC WORKS WATERSHED PROTECTION The following conditions are required to be part of any Planning application approval and shall be addressed prior to any future related permit application such as a Building Permit, Excavation and Grading Permit, Certificate of Compliance, Street Work Permit, Encroachment Permit, etc. as further described below. 58. Stormwater treatment measures: f. All Bay Area Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit requirements shall be followed. 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. 59. 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. Page 16 of 16 7 0 9 2 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. 60. PAMC 16.09.165(h) Storm Drain Labeling k. Storm drain inlets shall be clearly marked with the words "No dumping - Flows to [Creek]," or equivalent. WATER-GAS-WASTEWATER UTILITIES 61. 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). 62. 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 duct bank 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. 63. 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). 64. The applicant shall be responsible for installing and upgrading the existing utility mains and/or services, laterals as necessary to handle anticipated peak loads. This responsibility includes all costs associated with the design and construction for the installation/upgrade of the utility mains and/or services/laterals. 65. 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. 66. The applicant shall pay the capacity fees and connection fees associated with new WGW utilities required with the project. The approved relocation of services, meters, hydrants, or other facilities will be performed at the cost of the person/entity requesting the relocation. 67. The applicant shall provide to the engineering department a copy of the plans for fire system including all fire department's requirements. Page 17 of 16 7 0 9 2 68. The property shall have its own water meter for domestic and irrigation shown on the plans. Each parcel shall have its own water and sewer lateral connection shown on the plans. 69. A sewer lateral per lot is required. Show the location of the new sewer lateral on the plans. A profile of the sewer lateral is required showing any possible conflicts with storm, electric/communications ductbanks or other utilities. 70. All existing water, and gas. and wastewater services/laterals that will not be reused shall be abandoned at the main per the latest WGW utilities standards. 71. Utility vaults, transformers, utility cabinets, concrete bases, or other structures cannot be placed over existing water, gas, or wastewater mains/services. Maintain 2’ 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 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. 72. All water system improvement necessary to accommodate the development shall be finalize per WGW requirements and approved by WGW prior to permit issuance. SECTION 8. Term of Approval. 1. Effective Date. The approvals memorialized in this Record of Land Use Action shall be effective on the same date that the accompanying ordinance, Ordinance _____, rezoning the subject properties takes effect and construction shall occur in accordance with the development schedule as indicated in the ordinance. Notwithstanding the above, construction of the project shall commence within two years or the effective date of the ordinance. // // // // // // // Page 18 of 16 7 0 9 2 INTRODUCED AND PASSED: PLANS AND DRAWINGS REFERENCED: 1. Those plans prepared by the applicant titled Encina Housing, 70 Encina Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301, consisting of 56 pages, uploaded to Accela Citizen Access on February 19, 2025, except as modified to incorporate the conditions of approval in Section 7. ATTACHMENT D 70 Encina, 24PLN-00095 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.16 (CC DISTRICT) Mixed Use and Residential Development Standards Regulation Required CC Residential Standards Existing Proposed PHZ Minimum Site Area, width and depth No Requirement 100.0 feet x 121.19 feet 12,119 sf 100.0 feet x 121.19 feet 12,119 sf Minimum Front Yard 0 feet N/A 0 feet Rear Yard 10 feet N/A 0 feet 3 inches Interior Side Yards No Requirement N/A Varies, 0 feet 7 inches – 5 feet Max. Site Coverage 6,059 sf 50%N/A 7,108 sf 58.64% Min. Landscape/Open Space 3,630 sf 30% 0%, no ground-level landscaping or qualifying open space Min. Useable Open Space 150 sf per unit 1500 sf total N/A Unit terraces vary 79 sf – 155 sf 952 sf total Max. Building Height 50 feet N/A 37 feet 3 inches Residential Density No Requirement N/A 10 units 28 du/acre Max. Floor Area Ratio (FAR)1.25 15,150 sf N/A 19,035 sf 1.57:1 100% residential Daylight Plane None N/A N/A Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) for Office* Type Required Existing Proposed Vehicle Parking No parking required per AB 2097 Approximately 36 uncovered spaces 16 spaces Bicycle Parking 1 LT space per unit None 1 LT space in each unit garage Aug. 30th, 2024 Emily Kallas / Jodie Gerhardt City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department 285 Hamilton St, 1st Floor Palo Alto, CA 94301 PROJECT DESCRIPTION RE: 70 ENCINA AVE – PLANNING REVIEW PROJECT DESCRIPTION Dear Ms. Kallas, On behalf of our client Stormland LLC., Hayes Group Architects submits this project description along with an application form, a set of design drawings and required documents to request planning review for entitlement. The site is comprised of two parcels totaling 12,120 SF located in the CC zone along Encina Avenue, behind the Town & Country shopping center. The site was previously used as a surface parking lot for the shopping center. Proposed Project The proposed project consists of a new 3-story, 22,355 SF building (1.84 FAR), and full site improvements to replace the existing surface parking area. The proposed design organizes 10 new 3- story townhouse style residential units around a common central courtyard. The front facade creates a strong edge along Encina Ave, with the building mass pulled back 3 feet at the ground floor behind raised planters. The building facades facing both interior side-yards are set back a minimum of 5 feet, with additional intermittent setbacks to break up the massing and accentuate the identity of each individual residential unit. The primary building materials exposed to public view are brick veneer (at the ground floor), board and batten, linear rainscreen siding, vertical slat screens, pre-finished glazing frames, clear glass, and standing seam metal roof. Project History Back in May of 2022 we submitted an application for a PHZ ‘Pre-Screening’ hearing for a larger project on the same parcel(s). That hearing was held on Sept 12, 2022. While the project received a warm reception by Council members, there was objection from the neighboring shopping center, mostly regarding the size and height of the proposed project. After reviewing the project with the neighbors and studying various alternative project configurations, we have determined to modify the project as follows: 1. Reduction in height from five (5) stories to three (3). This greatly reduces visibility of the project from within the neighboring Town & Country shopping center. 2. The reduction in height also results in a reduction in residential unit count from twenty units (20) to ten (10). The previous project configuration consisted of four (4) stories of residential area over one floor of parking and common area. The new configuration proposes two (2) stories of living area over individual private garages located at the ground level of each unit. 3. In an effort offset the financial impact of the reduced unit count, the project approach was changed from 'flat' (single story) units over a podium, to three-story town-house units, sometimes referred to as 'carriage units' since their ground floors consist of a private garage. This eliminates costly concrete construction at the ground level and minimizes interior common area. It also eliminates the need for common stairs and an elevator since all units are 'walk-up' units, accessed from grade level, and simplifies the configuration and cost of structural systems. 4. The now proposed ten (10) residential units are organized around a common access court that provides both vehicular and pedestrian access. This courtyard is 30 feet wide and roughly 80 feet long, mostly open to the sky, and is proposed to have pavers for the ground surface and include tall narrow trees to create a more natural and inviting environment with less focus on cars, and bollards to ensure protection of the pedestrian entry points to each unit. This concept is similar to the well-known and successful project: Fulton Grove, located at 421 to 457 Fulton Street in San Francisco, CA. 5. The proposed design incorporates numerous planting / green features throughout the building, contributing to enhancing the aesthetic appeal and softening the building façade. On December 7th 2024 this revised project direction was presented in a Preliminary ARB hearing. While opinions of board members varies widely, there was general consensus around the need to loosen up the vehicular entrance, the desire to activate the Encina street frontage, the need to provide some setback at the rear façade, and feedback from the fire department about the need to provide additional roof access provisions. We also attended a DRC meeting on January 17th 2024 and a formal PHZ application was submitted on March 17th 2024. In the formal submittal package we addressed comments received from the DRC as summarized below: 1. Vehicular Entry: The vehicular entry gate has been widened from the 14’ code minimum to 18 feet. The garage doors to the front units have also been pushed deeper into the site and the entry court width widened by 4 feet to create more maneuvering space. 2. Activate Encina Frontage: We have flipped the front unit layouts, so the stairways are on the front façade instead of being buried behind interior program. Locating a transitional semi-private space such stairs at the façade allows us to create more windows without concerns about visibility into more private spaces. 3. Rear Setback: The upper 2 stories have been set back 3’-9” from the rear property line. This breaks down the massing and allows us to introduce windows facing Town & Country, so the rear façade feels more open instead of closed. 4. Roof Access: We met several times with the Palo Alto Fire Department and established the need to provide ladder accessible paths to the roof at both the front and rear property lines. We also changed the side yards from private areas to common egress and access paths. Built-in roof access stairs have also been integrated into the architecture at both the front and rear facades. The front access is concealed behind the façade and connected to new front facing terraces. The rear access stairs are screened by a new vertical slat screen wall along the property line that also provides privacy for the new rear facing windows. The slats are spaced far enough apart to allow the passage of light and filtered visibility. Following additional coordination with several city departments we further revised our design as follows and submitted the revised package at the end of July 2024. 1. Rear bedroom (Unit ‘D’) egress window: after additional meetings with the fire dept., it was concluded that there should be 12ft of horizontal clearance for rescue ladders. We pushed the window inwards to obtain the clearance. 2. Subsurface transformer in a planted island: due to various constraints, we are proposing a planted utility island to also accommodate a subsurface transformer, please see the letter provided separately for a detailed discussion of this proposal. 3. Expanded refuse room: in order to satisfy the refuse room layout requested by the waste management dept., we expanded the room by approx.100 SF (from 144SF to 240SF) while relocating the fire backflow device on the front façade. 4. To brighten up the façade: we replaced the dark gray color rainscreen with a lighter (to match with the brick veneer on ground level) color to enhance the building façade appearance and also to address some comments/ concerns made from some of the board members during the preliminary ARB hearing. PHZ Summary As noted in the previous PHZ Program Statement, the use of a PHZ designation continues to be essential for the following reasons: a. The underlying Zoning designation of CC would only allow for an FAR of 0.6:1. This limited development potential severely hinders the number of housing units that can be built. Coupled with the high price of land it also further challenges the inclusion of affordable housing. Under these regulations the site would be limited to a maximum of 4 residential units atop fully or semi- underground parking. Application of PHZ regulations would allow for a significant increase in unit count as illustrated in the attached plans. The proposed residential design is supported with the surroundings as there are adjacent planned community and hospital buildings of much greater heights. b. The proposed uses in this project are limited to private residential condominiums, including support and amenity spaces related to residential use. Support and amenity spaces include usable open space, parking, shared circulation, utilities, and trash & recycling. c. The nature of all proposed uses is that of residential living and associated activities. Each residential unit will contain its own private kitchen and bathing facilities, with all parking concealed in fully enclosed private garages. Below is a schedule of unit types and sizes and anticipated sales prices. Please note that sales prices are based on an estimated sales price of $1,250 per occupied square foot, not including common areas such as parking and utilities etc. unit description BR# unit size (avg) quantity sales price (avg) 3 BEDROOM (1 CAR PARKING) 3BR 1,572 SF 1 $1,896,250 3 BEDROOM (1 CAR PARKING) 3BR 1,632 SF 1 $1,998.500 3 BEDROOM (2 CAR PARKING) 3BR 1,555 SF 6 $1,937,500 2 BEDROOM (1 CAR PARKING) 2BR 1,369 SF 2 $1,788,750 TOTAL: 10 Note: Sales prices shown above are for market rate units. Unit sizes represent livable area, not including ground floor garage and storage areas. 20% of units will be sold or rented as BMR units. Pricing for Below Market Rate units shall be established by the Director of Planning & Development Services in accordance with the City’s website. Expected Construction Timeline Construction Phase: Start Date End Date Overall Construction Schedule (start and completion date for entire project) Oct. 2025 Dec. 2026 Demolition 10/1/2025 10/15/2025 Site Preparation 10/1/2025 10/15/2025 Grading 10/16/2025 11/5/2025 Building Construction 11/6/2025 6/1/2026 Asphalt Paving 9/1/2026 9/4/2026 Architectural Coating 4/1/2026 12/31/2026 Other (e.g., Groundwater Dewatering): Other (e.g., Trenching/Utilities): 10/16/2025 12/1/2025 If you have any questions regarding the contents of this letter or the accompanying plans, please feel free to contact me by phone or email. Jeff Galbraith Principal Hayes Group Architects Inc. (650) 223-4026 jgalbraith@thehayesgroup.com Sincerely, 1 Kallas, Emily From:slevy@ccsce.com Sent:Thursday, February 6, 2025 12:15 PM To:Architectural Review Board Cc:Kallas, Emily; Raybould, Claire Subject:One of the finest public discussions I have ever heard CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Thank you Chair Rosenberg and board members and Emily and Claire. It was a joy to see five adults work through a complicated challenge of approving the applicant's work and telling council that the entire site should have more housing. I appreciate David's persistence of reminding us that the city's adopted housing goal will require bold action and that projects of 10 units will not make it happen. I appreciate the board's approval of this project and the hard work (and expenses) that the applicant has put in. I appreciate Peter's hard work to embrace both positions and I hope you reapply for the ARB. You are a powerful and thoughtful voice. I look forward to attending future meetings. Thank you again for the fine and, I thought, respectful discussion. Steve                            !   January 30, 2025 Emily Kallas Planner, City of Palo Alto Emily.Kallas@CityofPaloAlto.com (650) 617-3125 RE: Applica&on No. 24PLN-00095 Dear Ms. Kallas, We have reviewed the latest submi3al from Storm Land LLC and The Hayes Group (Storm Development) for Applica&on No. 24PLN-00095 (Plan Set Date 01/07/2025, Comment Response 3), which requests a Planned Home Zoning (PHZ) for the construc&on of a new 3-story residen&al condominium at 70 Encina. Our past review and commentary about the requested PHZ project are summarized below: · a le3er to the Palo Alto City Council dated September 8, 2022 · a le3er to the Architectural Review Board (ARB) dated December 2, 2023 · a le3er dated July 24, 2024 · a le3er dated September 3, 2024 · a le3er dated October 30, 2024 Addi&onally, we have voiced these concerns in person at the City Council hearing on September 12, 2022, at the ARB Study Session on December 7, 2023, the Planning and Transporta&on Commission (PTC) Hearing on September 11, 2024, and an ARB Hearing on November 7, 2024. Feedback on Current Submial In the current submission, we find no meaningful changes have been made to address our previous feedback about the massing, layout and opera&onal impacts of the proposed project on Town and Country Village (TCV). Based on encouragement from ARB members before and at the November 7, 2024, ARB Hearing, we have reached out to each ARB member and discussed a possible path forward on a comprehensive development plan for the en&re North parking lot at TCV, inclusive of TCV parking areas and the proposed 70 Encina development site (North Lot). During each of these discussions, ARB members expressed a desire to see a comprehensive proposal, crea&ng a thoughFully planned project resul&ng in a greater number of new housing units than the 10 isolated luxury condominium units proposed by the 70 Encina project. Given this feedback, we have taken meaningful steps over the last 60 days to study residen&al development at the North Lot. To that end, the collec&ve ownership of TCV has discussed possible deal structures that will bring housing to the North Lot, and the ownership is generally suppor&ve of such a project. Addi&onally, we have retained an architect and have begun to evaluate the best approach for the North Lot that balances architecture and the experience of our retail customers, opera&onal considera&ons and the need to maximize housing development. TCV reached out to Storm Development to solicit a collabora&on for a possible joint comprehensive project for the North Lot. We look forward to further discussions with Storm Development in the coming weeks. Addi&onally, should a collabora&on fail to materialize, we are also studying mul&family development for our por&on of the North Lot. However, in our opinion, a comprehensive solu&on would result in the best design and greatest number of housing units for the City. Given the need for housing in the City, we understand that the North Lot is a prime candidate for new residen&al development, and support such a project. As we have repeatedly expressed in our prior le3ers and comments, we con&nue to feel that the proposed development in the current applica&on is poorly conceived, and in isola&on would be detrimental to TCV and its customers who treasure this important community asset. Planned Home Zoning is intended for comprehensive planned developments, and the required findings cannot be made for a small isolated 10-unit project that is not compa&ble with exis&ng uses, and may not be as compa&ble as possible with any future residen&al development of the North Lot. We, therefore, respecFully request that the ARB pause on a decision for this applica&on un&l a cohesively planned and architecturally suitable residen&al development across the full North Lot can be studied, crea&ng more meaningful new housing towards the City’s RHNA goals. We thank you for the chance to again be heard on this applica&on, and value our partnership with the Palo Alto Planning Department. As we embark on our third decade as the stewards of TCV, we see a great future for this unique property and we hope to work with the ARB, City staff and poten&ally with Storm Development to create a be3er project that we can all be proud of in the future. Sincerely, Dean Rubinson Director of Development Ellis Partners LLC on behalf of CEP Town & Country Investors LLC Cc: James F. Ellis, Ellis Partners Melinda Ellis Evers, Ellis Partners Mitchell Serrato, Ellis Partners Architectural Review Board, Palo Alto Claire Raybould, City of Palo Alto Leigh Prince, Fox Rothschild Outlook 70 Encina Place From Susan Setterholm <susan.setterholm@gmail.com> Date Sat 11/2/2024 12:48 AM To Architectural Review Board <arb@cityofpaloalto.org> Cc Palo Forward <palo.alto.fwd@gmail.com> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Hello, I urge you to approve 70 Encina Place. Palo Alto needs more housing. I worked in Palo Alto for years. I lived in Palo Alto until I was priced out. Please approve the development with two below market units for others like me. Thank you. Susan Setterholm 1000 Sutter Street San Francisco CA 94109 Outlook 70 Encina From eileen menteer <ementeer@hotmail.com> Date Sat 11/2/2024 7:23 PM To Architectural Review Board <arb@cityofpaloalto.org> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Tho not a beautiful building, it provides 2 units of affordable housing, which isn't nothing.  It would be a much better place to call home than the Harry Potter cubby, the $800 Palo Alto version.  I hope you will approve this project and many more which will help people live closer to their jobs. Eileen Menteer Outlook SUPPORT - new homes at 70 Encina Street From Adam Schwartz <adamdschwartz@yahoo.com> Date Mon 11/4/2024 9:02 AM To Architectural Review Board <arb@cityofpaloalto.org> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Greetings: I write in strong support for the construction of new homes at 70 Encina Street. I urge the Architectural Review Board, at its upcoming meeting on November 7, to approve the application to rezone this lot, to allow construction of ten new homes, including two at below market rate (BMR). Palo Alto has a severe housing crisis. Our teachers, civil servants, and service workers cannot afford to live here, so they are driving super-commutes both ways, burning green-house gasses as they go. We need new homes at all price points -- including these proposed two new BMR homes and eight new market-rate homes. I've lived in Palo Alto for nine years. My friends have been priced out. My kids, who went to junior high school and high school here, cannot afford to mo ve back to be near me. My mother, who has increasing health problems, cannot afford to mo ve here to be near me. This is an excellent location for ten new homes: 70 Encina Street is next to transit, shopping, and other amenities. This project has already been under review for more than two years, and has already been significantly reduced in size to address various concerns. Now is the time to approve this project -- and build new homes. Sincerely, Adam Schwartz 523 Channing Ave. Outlook ARB Items #2 & #3 - 70 Encina & 3150 ECR From Palo Alto Forward <palo.alto.fwd@gmail.com> Date Tue 11/5/2024 4:28 PM To Architectural Review Board <arb@cityofpaloalto.org> 2 attachments (316 KB) 3150 ECR Support Ltr (11.5.24).pdf; 70 Encina Support Ltr (11.5.24.pdf; CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Architectural Review Board & City Staff, Please see our attached letters of support for agenda items #2 and #3 being heard on November 7th. Thank you,  -- Amie Ashton Executive Director, Palo Alto Forward 650-793-1585 **Want to be counted as a suppor ter of housing? Add your name here.** November 5,2024 SUBJECT:Agenda Item #3 -70 Encina Avenue Townhome Project Dear Chair Rosenberg and Review Board Members, We write in support of the project at 70 Encina Avenue.This modest 10-unit townhome project (including two affordable units)has been through a long,but sadly typical,PHZ process since 2022.It has undergone significant changes,including a decrease in the total number of units,in order to address neighboring property issues.The project is half its original size. The project location is perfect for housing,with local schools,jobs,retail,and services within walking distance.The project is also close to Caltrain and there is abundant existing and planned active transportation infrastructure in the immediate vicinity,including the El Camino Real bike lanes and the Embarcadero Bike Path. This is a constrained,infill site with limited opportunities for increased setbacks and landscaping without significantly compromising the feasibility of the project as a whole.However,our massive housing shortage requires us to recognize the tradeoffs that must be made to facilitate housing.For these larger,family-sized units in this location,the tradeoffs are worth making. The project still faces a long approval process,with at least two more hearings before approval. We urge you not to delay this project further.Long delays often mean the end of housing projects due to continually increasing costs.Please take substantive action at the hearing and recommend approval of the project to the Planning and Transportation Commission. Thank you for your thoughtful comments on the project and for your service to our community! Amie Ashton Executive Director,and on behalf of the Board of Palo Alto Forward October 30, 2024 Emily Kallas Senior Planner, City of Palo Alto Emily.Kallas@CityofPaloAlto.com (650) 617-3125 Dear Emily, We have carefully reviewed the latest submi,al from Storm Land LLC and The Hayes Group for Applica2on No. 24PLN-00095, which requests a Planned Home Zoning (PHZ) for the construc2on of a new 3-story residen2al condominium at 70 Encina. Town & Country Village (TCV) has reviewed all itera2ons of this applica2on and has par2cipated in all related public hearings to voice our concerns about the design, density, and opera2onal impact on TCV, its tenants, customers, and the community. Our concerns have been communicated through the following documents: • a le,er to the Palo Alto City Council dated September 8, 2022 • a le,er to the Architectural Review Board (ARB) dated December 2, 2023 • a le,er to Planning staff dated July 22, 2024 • a le,er to Planning staff dated September 3, 2024 Addi2onally, we have voiced these concerns in person at the City Council hearing on September 12, 2022, at the ARB Study Session on December 7, 2023, and the Planning and Transporta2on Commission (PTC) hearing on September 11, 2024. Feedback on Current Submial We are not reitera2ng herein our specific concerns for the aesthe2c and opera2onal impacts that we foresee this proposed project imposing on our property, our tenants and the community. Please refer to our prior le,ers for that detail. In the interest of simplicity and clarity, we are providing the a,ached matrix to highlight that the applicant has not addressed the overwhelming majority of the feedback that it has received at the last two hearings (ARB on December 7, 2023 and PTC on September 11, 2024). The feedback at these hearings was very clear and consistent and aligns with the concerns that we have con2nued to raise in our le,ers and at the prior hearings. We understand and support the City’s efforts to increase the local housing supply, however, given the limited 2me availability of City staff and the City’s Boards and Commissions, it feels inappropriate for the applicant to request con2nued expenditure of the City’s resources while largely ignoring the clear feedback they have received. Addi2onally, we feel that the most recent submi,al makes no effort to Feedback from PTC Applicant Response PTC Meeting - September 11, 2024 Cycle 3 Plans - Plan date 10.4.24 Bulb Outs beyond curb not supported Bulb out removed. Results in fewer trees since no trees have been added Concerns about sound and proximity of commercial services, recommends accoustic dampening added to design Concern not addressed in 10.4.24 plans Setbacks at property lines desired Concern not addressed in 10.4.24 plans Concerns about project being too dense for size of parcels Concern not addressed in 10.4.24 plans Insufficient greenspace and trees included Applicant removed the only added greenspace (bulb out). Project adds no new greenspace or added trees Gate at property line will be a traffic issue Concern not addressed in 10.4.24 plans Trash Pickup Room is too close to curb Concern not addressed in 10.4.24 plans Feedback from ARB Applicant Response ARB Study Session - December 7, 2024 Cycle 1 Plans - Plan date 3.8.24 Lack of setbacks at property lines raised as a concern Concern not addressed in 10.4.24 plans Trash room only accessible by leaving the property Minor updates made, still requires residents to leave property to access trash room. Windows facing each other in the courtyard is a privacy concern Minor window adjustments made. Submission still has a number of windows facing each other. Access to parking in northern two units is a problem, and would require multi-point turns to access Concern not addressed in 10.4.24 plans Gate at property line is a traffic and queuing issue Concern not addressed in 10.4.24 plans SUMMARY OF APPLICANT RESPONSES TO FEEDBACK FROM PTC & ARB 70 Encina - 24PLN-00095 - 10.4.24 Submittal July 22, 2024 Emily Kallas Planner, City of Palo Alto Emily.Kallas@CityofPaloAlto.com (650) 617-3125 Dear Emily, As you proceed with your staff level review of application number 24PLN-00095, request for Planned Community Zone Change (PHZ) to allow construction of a new 3-story, 22,552 sf residential condominium building, we, as the owners and operators of Town & Country Village (“TCV”) wish to raise our continued concerns with regards to the proposed 70 Encina development. Our concerns and objections were previously communicated in our September 8, 2022, letter to the Palo Alto City Council, in our letter from December 2, 2023 to the Architectural Review Board (both attached) and we addressed these concerns in person at the City Council hearing on September 12, 2022 and at the Architectural Review Board (ARB) Study Session on December 7, 2023. We and our consultant architect, Randy Popp, have carefully reviewed the revised development plans, dated March 8, 2024. While we recognize that the applicant has made some minor changes to the proposal, our team and Mr. Popp believe that the vast majority of the concerns raised by the ARB on December 7, 2023 have gone completely ignored, notably the lack of a buffer between this zero lot line proposal and TCV and the lack of architectural compatibility for this sensitive setting. Furthermore, all the operational concerns that we have repeatedly raised about this problematic project remain unaddressed. Background We of course understand the critical need for new housing development in Palo Alto and throughout the region, but we request that you require the applicant to revise its proposal to address the concerns raised by the ARB as well as the aesthetic and operational impacts that we have continued to highlight over the last three years. We do not consider this ¼ acre site surrounded by our north parking lot to be a suitable housing site and feel that the ten luxury townhomes this project will create will do little to address the City’s housing shortage. Furthermore, the addition of these ten units does not justify the degradation of TCV, a unique and treasured community asset and source of significant sales taxes for the City of Palo Alto. As you may be aware, at the September 8, 2022, hearing, the City Council “asked the applicant to work with Town & Country to receive their support of the project and stated that consideration should be paid to how this development may affect the vitality of Town & Country. Council also wanted any project at 70 Encina to provide a better visual connection with Town & Country, such as through the use of materials.” Ever since that hearing, we have reviewed the prior revisions from the applicant and provided clear and consistent feedback to the applicant and to City staff in the hopes that the design would evolve in a manner that we can support and that is more appropriate and consistent with TCV’s architectural vocabulary, massing and operational considerations. In terms of specific feedback on the most recent submittal, we are providing herein a summary of the impacts the proposed project would have on the operation of TCV and the potential areas of conflict it might create for our tenants and customers with the future occupants of the proposed development. Also attached is a letter from Randy Popp highlighting his concerns with the current design and the lack of architectural compatibility with TCV. TCV Operational Concerns 1. The Planning Department has expressed concern multiple times about parking at TCV, and while we comply with current code and issued approvals, our concern is that guest parking for the proposed residential development is going to spill into our adjacent lots and displace our customers. The proposed design includes no guest parking for ten residences and only provides an average of 1.4 spaces for these three-bedroom units. While we understand the desire to not build large parking facilities in Palo Alto, it is inevitable that future guests and residents will park on our property given its proximity. TCV will then be forced to police and tow guest parking for this development, and TCV will need to involve the City in repeated complaints about unauthorized use of our property. 2. This development will also result in an increase in vehicular traffic on our property. Given its design and orientation, residents and guests will likely use our property to drive through from Embarcadero, given Encina is sometimes hard to access by car via El Camino Real. As stated above, we believe the increase in traffic posed by the proposed development will create adverse impacts to our property and our patrons. TCV will be forced to involve the City in mitigation of neighbors using our property for path of travel. 3. Poke House, Asian Box, Antoine’s Cookies, Jamba Juice, Douce France, and Horsefeather will all be operating food and beverage facilities adjacent to the new residents, whose homes will be along on our primary service alley. Our concern is that residents will complain and try to impose on our tenants’ ability to operate. Each of these food service operations receive deliveries at early hours, and early morning businesses like Jamba Juice & Douce France will have employees and patrons arriving at the site early each day. Horsefeather will be utilizing a nearby outdoor patio until 10 PM at night, as allowed in their planning approval, which poses a potential conflict with residents who will likely complain to the City about the incompatibility of a these two nearly adjacent uses. 4. Since the proposed development abuts our rear service alleyway, we are concerned that residents will complain about off-hours deliveries, trash pickups, and other typical elements of commercial food operations. Employees occupy the service alleys adjacent to the residences at all hours of the day, and our concern is that residents will inevitably complain to the City about their presence, and the general operations of our tenants. The proposed development includes no buffer or setbacks to mitigate this and proposes high-end residential units directly adjacent to our active shopping center that has been operating for over 70 years in this location. Zoning Violations Beyond our concerns with the revised proposal, we would also like to remind you and others at the City of Palo Alto, that the owners of the subject site installed a chain link fence on or about November 2021, surrounding their portion of the parking lot. Based on conversations we had with planning staff in 2021, we were told that the installation of this fence was a clear zoning violation and that its installation would require an application by the 70 Encina property owners to modify prior planning approvals, factoring in changes in traffic flow and aesthetics. Since no such application has been filed, we have repeatedly reminded staff of this situation and now after nearly three years of weeds, pavement cracks and overall blight, this situation remains unchanged, as a result of a lack of zoning enforcement (current condition photos attached). Given how meticulous City staff is in enforcing zoning codes and processes at TCV, it is quite surprising that the City is willing to process this new development application for a site that has a nearly three year old outstanding zoning violation that is blighting such an important community asset. Please see the recent photos of the site for reference. We respectfully request that you put this application on hold until the property in question is in full compliance with current zoning regulations and the blighted conditions are addressed. Thank you for your consideration of our concerns. We truly appreciate being included in the review process for this application and are hopeful that it can be revised to result in a project that is more appropriate for this important and sensitive setting. We have been the careful stewards of TCV since 2005 and would be devastated if this project as proposed were to be built in such a dense and incompatible configuration. Sincerely, Dean Rubinson Director of Development Ellis Partners LLC of behalf of CEP Town & Country Investors, LLC Cc: Jim Ellis, Ellis Partners Melinda Ellis Evers, Ellis Partners Mitchell Serrato, Ellis Partners Amy French, City of Palo Alto Attachments: Design Review Letter, Randolph Popp Architects - July 3, 2024 Current Photos Exhibit – July 22, 2024 Letter to Palo Alto City Council – September 8, 2022 Letter to Palo Alto Architectural Review Board – December 2, 2022 P a g e | 1 of 2 3 July 2024 Dean J. Rubinson Partner, Director of Development Ellis Partners 111 Sutter Street, Suite 800 San Francisco, CA 94104 Re: Proposed Planned Home Zoning Project at 70 Encina Avenue Dean: I was excited to understand there was an updated package available for the proposal adjacent to Town & Country Village but after my review, I’m quite disappointed to find much of the constructive criticism the development team received when they presented to ARB on December 07, 2023 has not been addressed. In fact, in some areas, the impact has worsened. First and foremost, it still feels like more units are being squeezed into this property than can reasonably be accommodated. Board Member Chen mentioned this concern, and while I typically advocate for more density, in this particular case, I tend to agree with her perspective. A number of critical constraints and limitations have not been resolved as outlined below, and the overall design just feels too strained. The vehicular entry off of Encina has been widened. However, the interior courtyard space still seems to be too narrow, such that, as Board Member Hirsh pointed out, cars will have difficulty getting into and out of the garages. In particular, the first two stalls immediately adjacent to the entry will likely require multipoint turns to safely enter and exit. While this juggling is going on, other vehicles will not be able to enter or exit the property, potentially causing a queuing issue out on the street. At the opposite end of the drive aisle they have added an open weave CMU screen below a pair of outdoor terraces. Noise from the service drive, particularly in the early morning hours, will most certainly translate to the interior courtyard of the development, which will act like an echo chamber, creating an impact for all of the units, not just those adjacent to the service drive. Accessory to the above is the concern raised by Board Member Chen that interior-facing bedroom windows are directly aligned. This too is a byproduct of the excessive density they are trying to achieve. The impact is a very challenging privacy conflict. It’s unclear how this could be resolved without a significant retooling of the design. Another issue which has not been addressed but would require some significant reorganization is that the trash room is still only accessible by doors fronting on Encina. It’s difficult to understand how all of the townhomes will utilize this space efficiently and what the long-term impact of this will be for the most distant units. I personally can’t imagine walking my trash, recycling, and compost that distance on a regular (daily) basis. Both Board Members Rosenberg and Adcock raised valid concerns about the zero setback positioning of the massing at the 3 non-street frontage sides. Although there has been an attempt made to create some additional visual relief to the massing of the building, ultimately, P a g e | 2 of 2 the concept remains essentially unchanged. In respect to the street-facing units, Board Member Baltay pointed out the potential for direct access via stoops on Encina. Rather than doing that, the design continues to exist as a ‘wall’ without addressing many of the objective design standards typically expected for the pedestrian-level street-facing portion of the building. It appears from some added sheets that additional work has been done relative to fire access. The result of this is the addition of a very intrusive stair configuration and a heavy screening element. I know from earlier conversations that you and I both feel this elevation is a primary component of the building because so much of it is visually accessible from the interior of Town & Country Village. This add-on is yet another element indicative of a density and massing which is greater than what the site can reasonably accommodate. Contextually, it increases the problematic nature of the development, which we know will continue to exist for decades as a singular building amid a large parking area. Turning to the elevations, materials, and color choices, Board Members Rosenberg and Baltay most vocally indicated they felt not enough deference was being paid to Town & Country Village. Board Member Chen suggested greater mass along Encina and a reduction in height closer to Town & Country Village. I’m ambivalent about the value of changing the massing to elevate height closer to Encina and feel that may not be productive on such a small site. In regards to architectural deference to Town & Country Village, the addition of a dark-colored rain screen is a positive step, but the beige sandstone-colored brick at the base of the building feels like an inappropriate approach regarding materials and color. I do not consider the current design to be successful concerning the important goal communicated by the ARB Members. In summary, I don’t believe this submittal addresses the concerns raised by the Board or in response to those identified by your team. I cannot see how, at this point, you might indicate your support for the proposal. I know that was the goal for the Council but we are just not there yet. Sincerely, Randy Popp Randolph Popp, Architect Current Photos Exhibit - July 22, 2024 Page 1 Current Photos Exhibit - July 22, 2024 Page 2 Current Photos Exhibit - July 22, 2024 Page 3 P a g e | 1 of 4 8 September 2022 Sent via email: city.council@cityofpaloalto.org City of Palo Alto City Council Palo Alto City Hall 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: Proposed Planned Home Zoning Project at 70 Encina Avenue Honorable Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council Members, and Staff: In response to the proposal submitted for 70 Encina Avenue, Ellis Partners has retained my services to assist in their understanding of the project and its potential impact on Town & Country Village. Having practiced in this community for over 32 years including serving on the Architectural Review Board, I believe my insight and evaluation could be beneficial as a part of your review of the application. While I am typically a proponent of increasing the availability of housing, I do not feel the proposal offered for this particular site meets the standards our city has set in several critical areas. I’ll preface all of this by stating my general appreciation for the projects Hayes Architects has designed. I think they are a valuable local resource and have enhanced our environment through their work time and again. One notable example of their work was the thoughtful and compatible Trader Joe’s addition to Town & Country Village. However, with this project, their client is not Ellis Partners, and the design is not compatible with Town & Country Village. To support my evaluation of the proposal I have worked with a well-known and widely respected renderer who has developed additional dimensionally accurate views of the building using the information provided in the proposal package. I have attached those images to this letter and, without attempting to alter the building design, believe they represent a range of building heights to help illustrate how a more reasonable two- or three-story proposal might be viewed within the existing context. As we all know, a new development in Palo Alto is generally obligated to conform to the review standards of the Architectural Review Board and as such, must satisfy findings to be deemed approved. This project falls short in almost every category. Consistency with ARB Review Standards: • Promote orderly and harmonious development of the city Our Comprehensive Plan, Municipal Code, and Zoning regulations clearly define what is appropriate regarding orderly and harmonious development within the city. The project is located in the Community Commercial Zoning District which is designed to encourage retail and some commercial uses. Notably, residential use in this area is highly restricted through both Zoning and Comprehensive Plan policy. As can be seen in the attached renderings, a five-story structure, placed in a parking lot, and adjacent to primarily single-story structures, is jarring and out-of-context. • Enhance the desirability of residence or investment in the city P a g e | 2 of 4 While there might be some convenience to living in this location, the proposed height and massing in this location is entirely inappropriate. While many would argue that we need housing in any format we can achieve it, I would argue that there are other more appropriate locations. Compromising to allow a PHZ project of this scale at this location sets precedent for ignoring development standards we have agreed are necessary to maintain aesthetic balance across Palo Alto. Indicating encouragement for this type of dramatic change here would result in far reaching impacts that will significantly alter our environment. • Encourage the attainment of the most desirable use of land and improvements Approving a project of this scale and character at this location will result in unintended consequences for this street and Town & Country Village. The likelihood of other projects similar to this being developed in the near future is slim (Ellis Partners has a long-term ground lease) so this would remain an isolated anomaly for the foreseeable future. Based on current Zoning and Comprehensive Plan Policies, which indicate the most desirable use of the site is retail/commercial, the land use change necessary to achieve this type of development at this site would create a condition that is not in harmony with the existing surrounding development or what can be reasonably be anticipated for the future. • Enhance the desirability of living conditions upon the immediate site or in adjacent areas It is challenging to understand how an isolated, purely residential project, could be considered compatible with the adjacent properties. If a coordinated effort here was able to allow a significant land area to be developed for residential use, there might be enough benefit to the nearby retail to balance the visual impact it would cause. At that scale, it could be large enough to allow for transitions to the adjacent context in a way this small parcel cannot. The dimensions of this project site within the context of the single-story and parking lot adjacent uses allows for no reasonable transition to a building at the height proposed. The limited number of units possible simply does not outweigh the negative aesthetic impact the proposal creates. Additionally, the limited setbacks proposed, and overall building layout, will make any future adjacent project even more difficult to accommodate. • Promote visual environments which are of high aesthetic quality and variety and which, at the same time, are considerate of each other. As stated above, the scale of this project, exaggerated by the boxy massing, represents no acknowledgment of the adjacent environment and is inconsiderate of the low-slung Hacienda style. It is common practice for projects to terrace, or step back, from edges that border on parcels with lesser height. As this site is bordered by single-story and parking lot adjacent uses, the only possible approach would include a significant reduction in overall height. A more appropriate approach, as suggested in the attached images, might be a revised two- or three- story proposal that could transition from the adjacent single-story context and would then be more consistent with nearby 2-story structures. Consistency with Findings for Approval (1) The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant design guides. As outlined in the letter provided by Land Use Attorney Leigh Prince, this project is inconsistent with both the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning regulations. This Finding cannot be made. P a g e | 3 of 4 (2) The project has a unified and coherent design, that: (C) Is consistent with the context-based design criteria of the applicable zone district The project is inconsistent with context-based design criteria for the district within which it is proposed. Notably, the FAR is significantly in excess of what would reasonably be anticipated. This Finding cannot be made. (2) The project has a unified and coherent design, that: (D) Provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass, and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations The project does not provide a harmonious transition in scale, mass, or character to the adjacent land uses and land-use designations. The project proposes a 5-story 55-foot high square stucco building amidst parking and adjacent to Town & Country Village, which is primarily a single-story Hacienda style collection of structures. As the images I provided show, the contrast between the two is severe and there seems to be no attempt toward transition. This Finding cannot be made. (3) The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. While acknowledging this is a preliminary proposal, my evaluation is that the current design does not suggest it will strive to be of the highest aesthetic quality, using high-quality integrated materials, or incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. Although the immediate context is eclectic, the predominant style is the low-slung architecture of the Town & Country Village. Departing from that in the manner proposed will not unify or allow for a transition that could satisfy this requirement. This Finding cannot be made. (5) The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is appropriate to the site's functions, and utilizes to the extent practical, regional indigenous drought resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat that can be appropriately maintained. Due in large part to the 86.5% site coverage proposed the minimal landscape design does not truly enhance the building or its surroundings. It appears to be only modestly appropriate to the site’s function and does not appear to represent a desirable habitat. This Finding cannot be made. Consistency with Objective Standards When evaluated in the context of the adopted Objective Design Standards for the CC Zoning District, and consistent with other requirements listed above, it seems important to understand the direction outlined in Section 18.24.050 Building Massing (underlining added for emphasis): (A) Intent To create buildings that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area through the consideration of building scale, massing, and bulk. Massing should create a human-scale environment that is of high aesthetic quality and accommodates a variety of uses and design features. Building massing should include elements that: P a g e | 4 of 4 - Are consistent in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations - Provide harmonious transitions between adjacent properties The project as proposed does not reflect consideration of this Standard and significant modification would be needed in the form of step-back/terracing and height reduction to conform to the many requirements the Palo Alto regulations describe. Note that these are similar and related to the other obligations described above and as I have repeatedly stated, the 5-story box is in no way compatible or consistent with Town & Country Village. Critique of the submitted documents A further critique of the submitted documents yields other problematic concerns. The lowest level of the building, which is primarily a parking garage, is an entirely solid wall for virtually all of the perimeter. While modestly appropriate along Encina, the remainder of the building, which is viewable from all sides, lacks articulation or character at the pedestrian level. The rendered representation of the building provided by the applicant, both in elevation and perspective, fails to fully clarify the character of this building relative to its context. I think it is important to note that the 2-foot-tall parapet as shown would not be sufficient to screen typical roof- mounted equipment that would need to be placed there. A more common screen height would be closer to 5-7 feet, pushing the total visual height of the building to somewhere in the neighborhood of 60 feet. That height will be approximately 40 feet more than the Town & Country building it is most adjacent to and similarly in contrast to the single-story buildings on the opposite side of Encina. The multi-story buildings shown in the renderings are misleading in that they are far from the project site at a distance of roughly 300 feet (the length of a football field). In closing, I believe there are many other housing opportunity sites that might be appropriate for this type of development but find the proposal presented for this site to be impossible to support based on established standards for review and approval. Sincerely, Randy Popp Randolph Popp, Architect 70 Encina Avenue – Study Illustrations View A Key Plan Five Level Three Level Two Level 70 Encina Avenue – Study Illustrations View B Key Plan Five Level Three Level Two Level 70 Encina Avenue – Study Illustrations View C Key Plan Five Level Three Level Two Level 70 Encina Avenue – Study Illustrations View D Key Plan Five Level Three Level Two Level 70 Encina Avenue – Study Illustrations View E Key Plan Five Level Three Level Two Level W I L L I A M L . M c C L U R E J O H N L . F L E G E L D A N K . S I E G E L J E N N I F E R H . F R I E D M A N M I N D I E S . R O M A N O W S K Y L E I G H F . P R I N C E D A V I D L . A C H G R E G O R Y K . K L I N G S P O R N N I C O L A S A . F L E G E L K R I S T I N A A . F E N T O N C A R A E . S I L V E R K I M B E R L Y J . B R U M M E R C A M A S J . S T E I N M E T Z _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ B R I T T N E Y L . S T A N D L E Y C H R I S T I A N D . P E T R A N G E L O J O S E P H H . F E L D M A N J O R G E N S O N, S I E G E L, M c C L U R E & F L E G E L, L L P A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W 1 1 0 0 A L M A S T R E E T , S U I T E 2 1 0 M E N L O P A R K , C A L I F O R N I A 9 4 0 2 5 -3 3 9 2 (6 5 0 ) 3 2 4 -9 3 0 0 F A C S I M I L E (6 5 0 ) 3 2 4 -0 2 2 7 w w w .j s m f .c o m September 7, 2022 O F C O U N S E L K E N T M I T C H E L L _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ R E T I R E D J O H N D . J O R G E N S O N M A R G A R E T A . S L O A N D I A N E S . G R E E N B E R G _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ D E C E A S E D M A R V I N S . S I E G E L (1 9 3 6 - 2 0 1 2 ) J O H N R .C O S G R O V E (1 9 3 2 - 2 0 1 7 ) Sent via email: City.Council@cityofpaloalto.org City of Palo Alto City Council Palo Alto City Hall 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: Proposed Planned Home Zoning Project at 70 Encina Avenue Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members: Town and Country Village (“Town and Country”) is a specialty retail shopping center that was originally completed in the 1950s. Since acquiring Town and Country, Ellis Partners has been committed to retaining the original character of early western-style architecture with red tile roofs, heavy wood beam and column-supported covered walkways and stately oaks growing throughout. Over the years, Ellis Partners has completed renovations to Town and Country, including the construction of Trader Joe’s. These renovations have preserved the low-slung character of Town and Country, while increasing its appeal as one of Palo Alto’s primary retail destinations. Recently, a Planned Home Zoning (“PHZ”) project was proposed at 70 Encina Avenue (“project site”). The project site was previously used and permitted by the City of Palo Alto (“City”) as a part of Town and Country for parking (although in recent months the owner has fenced off the project site without City approval). The current proposal would rezone the project site from Community Commercial (“CC”) to PHZ to allow the development of a 55-foot high five-story condominium building. This proposed project is not only out of character with the adjacent Town and Country buildings, but it is also inconsistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Approving the proposed project, even at a more palatable height and scale, would require more than rezoning the project site to PHZ, it would require a Comprehensive Plan amendment and a zoning text amendment. As a result, Ellis Partners opposes the project because as proposed it would detract from this important and iconic pedestrian-oriented retail destination. City of Palo Alto City Council Planned Home Zoning Project at 70 Encina September 7, 2022 Page 2 Town and Country Village Includes the Project Site Town and Country is defined as all properties zoned CC and bounded by El Camino Real, Embarcadero Road, Encina Avenue and Southern Pacific right-of-way – this includes the project site. See Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.16.030. Town and Country was originally constructed in phases between 1952 and 1958 including one and two-story buildings, an extensive parking lot, trees and landscaping. From the 1950s to the present (approx. 70 years), the City has considered Town and Country by these boundaries. A recent Planning Commission staff report dated February 10, 2021, included figures showing Town and Country. These figures illustrate how the City and the community at large understand Town and Country – as including the project site. Figures Showing Town and Country Residential is Inconsistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan does not support the rezoning of the project site, which has historically been part of Town and Country, from its current CC zoning to PHZ zoning. Comprehensive Plan Policy B-6.6 provides that Town and County should be retained as an attractive, local-serving retail center. Most importantly, Comprehensive Plan Policy L2.4.4 provides that “Conversion to residential capacity should not be considered in Town and Country Village.” Rezoning the project site to allow a residential condominium building would violate these Comprehensive Plan policies. As a result, the finding needed to approve the proposed project and rezone to PHZ – that the proposed use would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan – cannot be made. Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.36.060. If there is a strong desire to alter the long-standing policy regarding preserving Town and Country for low-density retail, approving a PHZ rezoning to allow housing, even at a more palatable height and scale, would require approving a Comprehensive Plan amendment to change the language that housing should not be considered at Town and Country. In addition, a zoning text amendment would be needed to carve out the project site from the definition of Town and Country in Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.16.030. Such a significant policy shift should not be undertaken lightly as it may have lasting and precedent setting impacts on Town and Country, potentially undermining this iconic retail center and further eroding the City’s dwindling retail uses. It is Ellis Partners’ firm belief that the City Council cannot make the required finding to rezone, absent a Comprehensive Plan amendment and a zoning text amendment. As it currently stands, the Comprehensive Plan provides that residential capacity should not be considered at this location and Town and Country should be retrained as a local serving retail center. City of Palo Alto City Council Planned Home Zoning Project at 70 Encina September 7, 2022 Page 3 Neither Consistent with Nor a Reasonable Modification to Existing Zoning The existing CC zoning for the proposed project site would not allow the development of the proposed project. Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.16.040 provides that in the CC zone residential is permitted, but only as part of a mixed-use development or on sites designated as housing inventory sites. The proposed project site is not listed as a housing inventory site (in fact it was administratively removed from the list of potential sites in this Housing Element cycle). In addition, while adding housing would make Town and Country mixed-use as a whole, the premise of the applicant’s proposal is founded on separating itself from Town and Country. Therefore, to be permitted the project itself would have to be mixed-use and it is not. Further, the City Council’s policy direction regarding the PHZ has been to look for reasonable modifications to the existing zoning. This project proposes a significant departure from the existing zoning. It proposes a project that is substantially different from and not compatible with Town and Country. See Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.38.060 requiring the Council to find the project would be compatible with existing and potential uses on adjoining sites or within the general vicinity. 1. Floor Area Ratio - The maximum allowable floor area ratio (“FAR”) is 0.35 for Town and Country. The maximum FAR for mixed-use development for Town and Country is limited to 0.50 provided that no more than 0.15 shall be residential. The project has proposed a FAR of 2.4 for residential only, far in excess of both the underlying zoning and the existing surrounding retail center. To put it into perspective, the proposed FAR is 6.8 times larger than the allowable FAR for retail and 16 times larger than the allowable FAR for residential in a mixed-use project. 2. Site Coverage – The maximum site coverage is 50 percent. The project proposes a site coverage of 86.5% or 36.5% percent more than allowable under the existing zoning or allowed for any of the surrounding Town and Country uses. 3. Height – Although the maximum allowable height is 50 feet in the CC zoning district, the majority of buildings in Town and Country are a blend of one and two stories approximately 18 to 24 feet in height. Thus, 55-feet and five stories is a significant departure from the low-slung character of the retail center. The proposed project would be the first and likely only building of this type and magnitude for the foreseeable future at Town and Country making it incompatible with the surrounding uses. Given the established retail uses, existing zoning regulations and long-term ground lease, Ellis Partners does not anticipate any significant change to Town and Country, and certainly nothing that would be compatible with the height and scale of the proposed project. Furthermore, the City’s Comprehensive Plan programs and policies speak to transitions in scale between developments (Policy L-1.3) and discouraging abrupt changes in scale and density (Policy L-6.7 and Program L6.7.1). The proposed project provides no transition and is an abrupt change in scale from Town and Country buildings and parking which would surround it. Conclusion Ellis Partners appreciates the significant amount of time and resources these pre-screening applications consume and thanks City staff and the Council for their time and attention to this matter. Ellis Partners understands the City’s need to plan for housing; however, housing development of this height and scale is not appropriate at Town and Country and if approved as City of Palo Alto City Council Planned Home Zoning Project at 70 Encina September 7, 2022 Page 4 proposed would undermine the look and feel of this iconic retail center. Thus, Ellis Partners respectfully requests that the City Council not to support moving this project forward as proposed. Sincerely, Leigh F. Prince Leigh F. Prince cc: Jonathan Lait, Planning Director (Jonathan.Lait@cityofpaloalto.org) 152454300.2 December 2, 2023 Sent via email: arb@cityofpaloalto.org City of Palo Alto City Architectural Review Board Palo Alto City Hall 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: Proposed Planned Home Zoning Project at 70 Encina Avenue Dear Chair Baltay, Vice-Chair Rosenberg, and Members of the Palo Alto Architectural Review Board: Town & Country Village is appreciative of the reduced scale and concept modifications represented in the submitted design but continues to be concerned about the proposed project at 70 Encina Avenue. We have been the thoughtful stewards of Town & Country Village as an important community asset for nearly 20 years and throughout our ownership we have been focused on preserving and protecting this unique neighborhood treasure in a manner that is entirely consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and all the City’s design guidelines. The proposed project, however, does not preserve and protect this community treasure and is wholly inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Comprehensive Plan Policy L-2.4, Program L2.4.4, states explicitly “Conversion to residential capacity should not be considered in Town and Country Village.” Although the 70 Encina parcels have no buildings on them and have existed for 70 years as parking for the center, this site is clearly listed under the Municipal Code as within the boundary of Town & Country Village. As such, when considering this project, we hope you will focus your attention on weighing the relative value of the zoning code concessions you are being asked to evaluate and the impact of the project on the Town & Country Village as a whole. We clearly understand there is a housing crisis and appreciate the City’s efforts to mitigate the deficit in Palo Alto by identifying locations for 6,086 potential new housing units (plus an additional 780 units to act as a “buffer”) within the city per the 6th Cycle Housing Element, with the majority (3465) being at moderate or below moderate-income levels. However, it seems inconsistent with the City’s housing goals to allow 10 luxury condominiums to take precedence over the continued preservation of a valued, historical neighborhood center at a location where the Comprehensive Plan specifically prohibits housing. As a reminder, the Comprehensive Plan, when speaking about the future of Town & Country Village in Policy L-4.12, states that proposed developments should, “recognize and preserve Town and Country Village as an attractive retail center serving Palo Altans and residents of the wider region. Future development at this site should preserve its existing amenities, pedestrian scale, and architectural character.” While we appreciate the applicant’s decision to reduce the scale of the project, which previously towered over the primarily single-story Town & Country Village, we continue to believe that the latest iteration is still lacking consistency within this important and sensitive setting and as proposed, would most certainly not contribute to the preservation of “its existing amenities, pedestrian scale, and architectural character. 152454300.2 While we understand that the application is proposed as a PHZ/PC, which allows the City some leeway to depart from current zoning standards established for these parcels, it is essential to remember, as stated in the staff report, that “a planned community district is particularly intended for unified, comprehensively planned developments that are of substantial public benefit and which conform with and enhance the policies and programs of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan.” The proposed project, even though scaled down, is not a unified, comprehensively planned development – it will exist as a small one-off residential development within the Town & Country Village shopping center parking lot. It does not provide substantial public benefit – likely providing a mere two affordable units amongst eight condos likely costing over $1.5 million each. It does not enhance the policies and programs of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan but rather, stands in direct opposition to those policies and programs. We consider this proposal to be inappropriate in its attempt to use the PHZ/PC process. As proposed it will certainly result in a dramatic degradation of the community treasure that has been carefully protected for decades and that we have been working to preserve since 2005. The City Council, at the September 12, 2022 hearing clearly recognized the risk of this project adversely impacting Town & Country Village. As stated in the Staff Report, “they asked the applicant to work with Town & Country to receive their support of the project, and stated that consideration should be paid to how this development may affect the vitality of Town & County. Council also wanted any project at 70 Encina to provide a better visual connection with Town & Country, such as through the use of materials.” We encourage you to respond to this application in a manner that aligns with the City Council’s direction to achieve Town & Country support, limits conflict with the Comprehensive Plan, and aligns fully with the intent of the PHZ/PC process. As the proposed project does not yet achieve any of these, we respectfully request that you provide the applicant with such feedback. The proposal you are being asked to evaluate will have a lasting adverse impact if approved in its current form. We appreciate your partnership in maintaining Town & Country’s unique character, scale, and architectural charm for the future. Below is a more detailed evaluation provided in consultation with Randy Popp, an Architect and former Chair of the ARB, who we have asked to advise us in evaluating this design proposal, its consistency with City design guidelines, and the impact it would have on Town & Country Village. Also provided below is a list of significant operational concerns this proposal raises. Thank you for your careful consideration, Dean Rubinson Director of Development Ellis Partners LLC Architectural Review Findings: Regardless of the concessions granted through the PHZ regulations, the role of ARB is to ensure that all required Architectural Findings (PAMC 18.76.020(d)) must be met by the applicant. We find that it is inconsistent with the following criteria: 152454300.2 1. The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant design guides. This project site was not intended to be developed as residential. While current changes in policy may make this project seem desirable, any departure from established plans or codes should provide significant community benefit, far beyond the enrichment of the development team. Furthermore, the proposal should seek to achieve the greatest possible alignment with all other established aspects of zoning regulations and policy. 2. The project has a unified and coherent design, that: a. Creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community. A sense of order and desirability of the environment for the general community is not accomplished through the proposed design. The current proposal does not support or enhance the requirements for a desirable retail environment, as further explained in the operational section below. b. Preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site and the historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant. The proposed project does not integrate into the existing historic character of Town & Country Village. Due to its proximity, the proposed project should seek to achieve greater compatibility in its design, massing, and use of materials. The submitted design stands in stark contrast to the historic character of Town & Country and must be substantially modified to meet this Finding. c. Is consistent with the context-based design criteria of the applicable zone district. N/A - we are not aware of any context-based design criteria for this site. d. Provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations. While the applicant has reduced the scale, the proposed project is still inconsistent with adjacent architectural character and land use. Town & Country Village has a distinct scale and design vocabulary, (roof slope, materials, deep overhangs at comfortable pedestrian walkways, etc.) and we feel the current proposal is incompatible with the historic nature of the center. e. Enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent residential areas. The design does not enhance living conditions on the site. The intensive operational needs of a thriving neighborhood center include receiving deliveries, handling trash, well-lit customer parking, and the like. We believe that residents would find these necessary operational demands to be 152454300.2 unpalatable. Until the proposal can achieve mitigation of these existing necessary constraints, the application should be returned for modification. 3. The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials, and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. As stated before, we do not find the current design to be compatible with the current historic design, massing, or character of Town & Country Village. 4. The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and providing for elements that support the building's necessary operations (e.g., convenient vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.). We feel the proposed development will result in a net-negative to the safety and ease of access for pedestrians and bicycle traffic. The added vehicular traffic, loss of parking for retail use, and minimal setbacks combine to create an unmitigated series of impacts. Additionally, given the tight constraints of the site and the density of the proposed development, there is serious concern for the impact to retail vehicular access at an already constrained site, and certainly represents reduced access for operational needs. 5. The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is appropriate to the site's functions, and utilizes to the extent practical, regional indigenous drought resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat that can be appropriately maintained. The current proposal has the property fully developed leaving little to no room for the required landscaping necessary to achieve compliance with this Finding. The project landscape design does not provide the necessary transition to the adjacent Center design. In addition, please note that the proposed development represents a net loss to the existing tree canopy. Currently, the canopy coverage on the site is approximately 2170 square feet across 8 existing trees, while the proposed development includes 7 replacement trees with limited growth potential for a proposed approximate canopy of 550 square feet. 6. The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning. We have yet to fully understand how this proposal achieves compliance with this Finding. As stated previously, the bar for approval should be set high due to the concessions being requested for approval of this proposal at this site. Operational Review Findings: Given that the proposed project stands in contrast to the City’s planning documents, it is not surprising that if approved it will likely create several significant impacts on the pedestrian, vehicular and other operational aspects of Town & Country Village: 152454300.2 1) It is incompatible to locate residences within the parking lot of a busy commercial shopping center. Our shopping center receives tenants’ deliveries throughout the day and frequently these are more intense in the early morning hours before the center opens to customers. Additionally, certain dining tenants operate into the late evening hours which might impact potential new residences within the vicinity. Lastly, we have trash and recycling serviced daily, immediately proximate to the proposed development. While these operations are consistent with City codes and existing approvals, residents will almost certainly find them incompatible with their residential use. We would ask that you carefully consider these concerns in your evaluation of the project to avoid creating a cycle of complaints that cannot be resolved. 2) Given the density of the proposed development, we foresee constraints on parking and pedestrian access. The current proposal allows for no space for potential residents’ visitors, service vendors, or deliveries. With Encina Avenue already fully parked during the day, and with all our parking stalls restricted for our retail and restaurant uses at the Center, we feel the added traffic and parking load on Encina Avenue and the surrounding area would be untenable. The project should be designed in anticipation of all these needs, as would be required of any other proposal brought forward. 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 commissioners for their review. The same plans are available to the public, at all hours of the day, via the following online resources. Directions to review Project plans and environmental documents online: 1. Go to: bit.ly/PApendingprojects 2. Scroll down to find “70 Encina” and click the address link 3. On this project-specific webpage you will find a link to the project plans and other important information Direct Link to Project Webpage: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Current- Planning/Projects/70-Encina-Ave Council Action Agenda Responses Dear Mayor and Council Members, On behalf of City Manager Ed Shikada, please see staff responses below for questions from Mayor Lauing on the Monday, April 14 Council Meeting. Action Item 12: 70 Encina Avenue 1. Provide more detail on the shift in understanding in regards to housing being allowed at Town & Country. Staff response: There seems to have been a previous understanding from Town & Country that housing would not be allowed at the shopping center. It is not clear whether this originated from prior statements by the City or was simply the property owner's interpretation of the Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, Comprehensive Plan Policy L2.4.4 contains the statement "Conversion to residential capacity should not be considered in Town and Country Village." When staff reviewed this policy in context of the subject project, however, it was determined that the primary purpose of the policy was to preserve the commercial uses at Town & Country; the proposed residential development does not conflict with this goal because it does not convert a commercial use to residential use. This perspective has been consistently shared by staff with regard to the subject project. The 2022 Prescreening report for this project includes the same language included in subsequent reports on the topic: “These [Comprehensive Plan] policy statements seek to preserve or retain existing amenities and commercial floor area but the concept to convert portion of the surface parking lot to housing does not appear inconsistent with these Comprehensive Plan polices. Specifically, the proposal does not reduce commercial floor area or otherwise impede the vitality of the Town & Country Village. Arguably the placement of a new residential structure at the subject location disrupts the availability of parking spaces and requires consideration of drive aisle re-alignment, but this also holds true if the independently owned parcel were developed with commercial uses. Moreover, adding housing to this location may actually prove beneficial to the Town & Country Village as it introduces new residents that could shop at the market and enjoy many of the other restaurants and retail stores Council Action Agenda Responses within the immediate proximity.” (September 12, 2022 Council Report, Packet Page 22) Notably, in the past, a broader redevelopment at Town & Country to create housing would have required substantial reconfiguration of their available parking. Now, due to AB 2097, which went into effect after the prescreening, there is somewhat more flexibility for the amount of parking Town & Country is required to provide. 2. Provide additional explanation of the 3-3 vote from PTC in February. Staff response: Additional details are included in the report, though it is after the text of the motion – “Discussion also included support for more green space and a larger rear setback. During public comment, the Ellis Partners representative reiterated prior remarks about potential redevelopment of the north parking lot. While such a project would undergo standard Planning review, its possibility gave some commissioners pause.” (Packet Page 219). More specifically, some ARB boardmembers and PTC commissioners were swayed by Ellis Partner’s suggestion that a joint project might be proposed, to the extent that they did not support the subject project in isolation. Meanwhile, other ARB boardmembers and PTC commissioners expressed support for Ellis Partner’s proposal to build housing alongside the 70 Encina parcels, but did not believe such inchoate plans should preclude approval of this project, nor that approval of this project would preclude future collaboration on a joint proposal. It should be reiterated that Ellis Partners leases some of the parcels abutting Encina Avenue but does not own them. The property owner for multiple properties that are included in Ellis Partner’s conceptual plan has not provided any input on this proposal. 3. Clarify consistency of multifamily housing with Comprehensive Plan designation. Staff response: The Community Commercial Land Use Designation definition states, “Consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s encouragement of housing near transit centers, higher density multi-family housing may be allowed in specific locations.” Council Action Agenda Responses The staff report analyzes whether this particular parcel is an appropriate location for housing, based on its context within the CC Land Use Designation and the rest of the neighborhood. “This project is consistent with this designation, as it proposes housing within a half mile of the Palo Alto Caltrain Station and Transit Center.” Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan is further analyzed on packet page 234- 236 as a part of Architectural Review Finding #1. From:Hayden Kantor To:Council, City Subject:support for 70 Encina project Date:Monday, April 14, 2025 10:05:06 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council, I strongly support building more housing at 70 Encina and for more homes to be built in this area. It's close to Stanford, transit, and downtown. These will be great for families. We need many more market-rate homes like these. The long process and delay -- 3 years -- is unacceptable. Best, Hayden Kantor Palo Alto, CA From:slevy@ccsce.com To:Council, City Subject:Encina housing Date:Monday, April 14, 2025 7:12:44 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ! Dear Mayor Lauing and council members, Please approve the Encina housing project. The applicant has waited a long time and invested $$ to get to this point. Apparently both the applicant and T&C lessee agree this is a good place for housing. They deserve a speedy unanimous approval. It is unfair to ask them to wait for a distant and, at this point, speculative "more comprehensive" option. Stephen Levy This message could be suspicious The sender's email address couldn't be verified. This is their first email to you. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast From:Lisa Peschcke-Koedt To:Council, City Cc:Lisa Peschcke-Koedt Subject:Please approve 70 Encina project on Monday 4/14/25 Date:Sunday, April 13, 2025 11:34:21 AM Importance:High CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council: Please approve the project at 70 Encina which comes before you on Monday, April 14. This project is perfect to help with our housing shortage. As you know, our severe housing shortage needs many actions. This one at 70 Encina has been pending since 2022, and needs to move forward now. The 70 Encina project provides 10 homes immediately adjacent to shopping, jobs, schools and various services. The project includes larger family-sized homes, including two affordable homes. That is a great fit for our housing priorities and needs. Please approve this now so it may move forward and help with our housing shortage. I was born and raised in Palo Alto, and am very grateful for being able to continue to live here. I hope we can expand our housing to allow others to join this great community. Thanks, Lisa Lisa Peschcke-Koedt 965 Addison Avenue, Palo Alto lisa_peschcke_koedt@hotmail.com From:Katie Renati To:Council, City Subject:Opposition to Condo Project at 70 Encina Date:Sunday, April 13, 2025 10:20:51 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council Members, As a long-time Palo Alto resident and frequent customer of Town & Country businesses, I strongly oppose the proposed 3-story condo project at 70 Encina. When I first noticed a section of the back parking lot being closed, I assumed it was being repaved. Then my son, who used to work at Jamba Juice, told me that condos were being built there—I could hardly believe it! Here are my concerns: The lot is far too small to accommodate a 3-story building. The project will only create 10 condos, while our city needs to focus on larger-scale housing solutions to have meaningful impact. The architecture does not fit the existing style and character of Town & Country. Parking at T&C is already limited. Regardless of whether the project includes private parking, residents and their guests will inevitably use T&C parking out of convenience. Traffic and pedestrian flow within the center are already problematic. This development would only add to the congestion and confusion. I respectfully urge the Council to oppose the condo project at 70 Encina. Thank you for your service and for all that you do for Palo Alto and its residents. Sincerely, Katie Renati Palo Alto Resident since 1988 From:Susan Setterholm To:Council, City Cc:Palo Forward Subject:70 Encina Plaza approval Date:Wednesday, April 9, 2025 7:13:30 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Council Members, Please approve 70 Encina Plaza right away. I lived and worked in Palo Alto. I hope other people such as myself will be able to live at 70 Encina Plaza, and not be priced out of the area as I was. Susan Setterholm From:Nancy Olson To:Council, City Subject:70 Encina Date:Wednesday, April 9, 2025 6:54:16 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Council Members: Housing for 10 families was proposed in 2022. You will be voting on this housing at 8:00 pm. after 3 years! Three years - how sad - how typical - how sad. Nancy Olson 2431 Bryant Street Palo Alto 94301 From:Neil Shea To:Council, City Subject:YES on 70 Encina! Date:Wednesday, April 9, 2025 4:34:32 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Council, We desperately need more homes here in Palo Alto, especially right near transit and downtown. Please support this important project, which has already been extensively vetted. Thank you! Neil 800 High Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 70 Encina Avenue Planned Home Zoning (PHZ) April 14, 2025 www.paloalto.gov 2 PROJECT LOCATION Neighboring uses: •Town & Country Shopping Center •PAMF office and other offices •Opportunity Center •Palo Alto CalTrain Station 3 PROJECT OVERVIEW Proposed project includes 10 condominium townhome-style units organized around a central driveway. Two units would be Affordable/BMR at 80% AMI. Requested Zoning Exceptions from Underlying CC Zone: •1.57 FAR where 1.25 is allowed •58% Lot Coverage where 50% is allowed •0 foot rear setback where 10 feet is required •Useable open space varies from 79 to 155 square feet where 150 square feet is required per unit •No ground level landscaping space where 30% is required 1 PHZ/PC Process •Prescreening – September 2022 •Preliminary ARB – December 2023 •Formal application – March 2024 •Staff review – ongoing •Initial PTC hearing – September 2024 •ARB hearing – November 2024 •ARB recommendation – February 2025 •PTC recommendation – February 2025 •Council decision – April 2025 Public comments are accepted at all public hearings, and at any time throughout this process BACKGROUND / PROCESS 5 COUNCIL PRESCREENING – SEPT 2022 •Encouraged housing at this location and further consideration of context with Town & Country (including size of the five-story proposal) and coordination with neighbors.​ 6 ARB AND PTC RECOMMENDATIONS – FEB 2025 •Most were supportive of the scale of the proposed project. •Some were supportive of the scale of the prescreening proposal. •Most were supportive of potential for Town & Country to add housing in the future. •ARB included in their motion a recommendation to consider rezoning the entire north parking lot area for residential use. •PTC split their vote – 3 voted in support of a recommendation of approval and 3 were against. •PTC also recommended considering ways to improve pedestrian safety at the end of Encina, and to consider a different affordability mix. 7 KEY CONSIDERATIONS •Consistency with the Findings, Comprehensive Plan, and Zoning Code •Site Development regulations •Public benefit and affordable units •Relationship to Town & Country – land uses, operations 8 PUBLIC BENEFITS Proposed project includes the following public benefits, as required for a PHZ: •Family sized, condominium units •Two unit would be Affordable/BMR at 80% AMI •Consistent with Council guidelines for PHZ, option 2 •Has a weighted value of 24% 9 CEQA STATUS – STREAMLINED REVIEW •A streamlined review has been prepared per CEQA Guideline 15183 (Projects Consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Comprehensive Plan EIR) •Mitigation measures from the Comprehensive Plan EIR will be applied, as applicable 10 PUBLIC COMMENTS •Ellis Partners, operators of Town & Country o Concerns regarding scale, setback, and shopping center operations o Request for a more collaborative approach to housing in this area •Other letters received, primarily in support of the project 11 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the City Council take the following actions: 1.Consider the CEQA Guidelines section 15183 checklist analyzing the project’s consistency with the Comprehensive Plan 2030 EIR; 2.Approve an Ordinance rezoning the subject site from CC to PHZ; and 3.Approve the Record of Land Use Action for the proposed project, based on findings and subject to conditions of approval. Emily Kallas, AICP Senior Planner Emily.Kallas@paloalto.gov 650-617-3125 70 ENCINA AVENUE CITY COUNCIL PRESENTATION 4.14.2025 ENCINA AVENUE TOWNHOMES SITE CONTEXT – AERIAL PHOTO PROJECT SITE 20 CONDO UNITS (MIX OF 2BR+ & 3BR) 20% AFFORDABLE ORIGINAL CONCEPT – Sept 12, 2022 PHZ PRE-SCREENING COMMENTS FROM 9.12.22 1.This is a great place for housing 2.Work with Ellis Partners to resolve their concerns about impacts to T&C. ELLIS PARTNERS CONCERNS 9.12.2022 1.Five stories is out of context with T&C both in terms of height and density. Two or Three stories would be acceptable. 2.Concerned about potential impacts to Town & Country of housing next door. Suggesting it would hurt the vitality of the shopping center, and take away from it’s existing character. ORIGINAL CONCEPT DIAGRAM – FOUR STORIES OVER PODIUM 5 STORIES 20 UNITS PHZ PRE-SCREENING CONCEPT – 9.12.2022 STEPPED MASSING DIAGRAM – REDUCED UNIT COUNT 5 STORIES 18 UNITS REDUCED PROGRAM – TWO OR THREE STORIES OVER PODIUM 3 STORIES 10 UNITS REDUCED PROGRAM – TWO OR THREE STORIES OVER PODIUM 3 STORIES 10 UNITS $NOT VIABLE SOLUTION THAT RESOLVES ECONOMICS & T&C CONCERNS 3 STORY TOWNHOMES 10 UNITS CONCEPTUAL SITE & UNIT LAYOUT DIAGRAM GROUND LEVEL COURTYARD DESIGN PRECEDENT SHARED PEDESTRIAN AND VEHICULAR ACCESS COURTYARD: FULTON PLACE, SAN FRANCISCO DESIGN PRECEDENT SHARED PEDESTRIAN AND VEHICULAR ACCESS COURTYARD: FULTON PLACE, SAN FRANCISCO DESIGN PRECEDENT SHARED PEDESTRIAN AND VEHICULAR ACCESS COURTYARD: FULTON PLACE, SAN FRANCISCO PROPOSED PLAN – GROUND FLOOR PROPOSED PLANS – SECOND & THIRD FLOORS LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 PROPOSED DESIGN – SEEN FROM THE REAR ENTRY INTO T&C VISIBILITY FROM TOWN & COUNTRY 12.7.2023 11.7.2024 DESIGN RESPONSES 1.Rear unit rooflines changed to flat to reduce façade height facing T&C 2.Added rear screens to soften façade & provide window privacy ARB COMMENTS 1.Design not deferential or compatible enough with T&C TOWN & COUNTRY – CONTEXT DIAGRAM PROPOSED DESIGN – VIEW FROM ENCINA AVE PROPOSED DESIGN – NORTHEAST CORNER PROPOSED DESIGN – SIDEYARDS FOR MAINTENANCE & FIRE ACCESS PROPOSED DESIGN – SIDEYARDS FOR MAINTENANCE & FIRE ACCESS PROPOSED DESIGN – COURTYARD VIEW LOOKING SOUTH PROPOSED DESIGN – COURTYARD VIEW LOOKING NORTH PROPOSED DESIGN – FRONT FAÇADE ON ENCINA AVENUE RECENT CHANGES IN ELLIS PARTNERS CONCERNS At the February 26, 2025 ARB hearing they expressed interest now in developing a larger and taller residential project in other portions of their rear parking lot. This indicates they are: 1.No longer concerned about Five stories being out of context with T&C both in terms of height and density. 2.No longer concerned about negative impacts of housing on Town & Country. THANK YOU