Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-02-15 Architectural Review Board Summary MinutesPage 1 of 21 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 02/15/24 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MINUTES: February 15, 2024 Council Chamber & Zoom 8:30 AM Call to Order / Roll Call The Architectural Review Board (ARB) of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in Council Chambers and virtual teleconference at 8:34 a.m. Present: Chair Peter Baltay, Vice Chair Kendra Rosenberg, Boardmember Yingxi Chen, Boardmember David Hirsch, Boardmember Adcock Absent: None Oral Communications Administrative Associate III Veronica Dao stated there were no cards submitted for public comment. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Senior Planner and Architectural Review Board (ARB) Liaison Claire Raybould indicated there were no Agenda changes, additions, or deletions. Chair Baltay indicated that Boardmember Hirsch would be making a comment regarding the SB9 policies under Board member comments on an upcoming meeting. City Official Reports 1.Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2) Tentative Future Agenda items and 3) Recently Submitted Projects Senior Planner Raybould reported that Chair Baltay will be absent from the meeting on March 21st, and there will be a retreat at City Hall on February 29th starting at 9AM until 11AM. Two tentative housing projects will be coming up on March 7th with a possibility of one moving to the March 21st meeting, as well as a preliminary review item being introduced for a twenty-eight multi-unit townhome development, a Summer Hill Homes project, at 4335 and 4345 El Camino Real. Senior Planner Claire Raybould noted that a formal application was filed for Buena Vista Mobile Homes and would be on the next agenda. Chair Baltay assigned ad hoc committees to Boardmember Adcock and Vice Chair Rosenberg for the 1066 East Meadow project, and Boardmember Hirsch and Chair Baltay for the 4335 El Camino project. Page 2 of 21 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 02/15/24 Study Session 2. Study Session to Provide Feedback on the Parameters and Concepts Set Forth for the Parklet Prototype Options and to Provide Input on the Recommended Outreach Strategy and Timeline for the Parklet Prototype Design Process Chair Baltay introduced the item and called for staff’s presentation. Ashwini Kantak with the City Managers Office proposed a parklet prototype design discussing timeline and review of the Stakeholder Outreach strategy, stating that on April 1st the Council will adopt a parklet program standard. Staff will defer enforcement from April 1st to July 1st, which will allow restaurants to take advantage of the prototypes, as well as approved shop drawings and user guides; this will also businesses the benefit to expedite review processes and save on design costs. Consultant Hannah Chan Smyth stated that in 2020, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the City implemented a pilot parklet program expanding outdoor dining opportunities in the downtown University Avenue and California Avenue business district; this allowed businesses to stay open during the pandemic. Currently there are twenty-seven parklets constructed in the Palo Alto area. Ms. Smyth noted that in 2021, Council directed Staff to develop a permanent parking program with input from the Architectural Review Board (ARB) and called it the permanent program to help distinguish the difference in standards from the pilot program; parklets are considered not permanent and are designed to be removed. On September 11, 2023, the Council adopted the permanent program standards and fees, and asked to work with ARB to create pre-approved parklet designs. The programs were permitted on University Avenue downtown and the California Business District, which included the car-free street portion of Ramona Street; however, it did not include California Avenue. The project objectives on the parklet prototype were to pre-approve parklet designs reflecting the Palo Alto brand that allowed businesses to have a streamlined approval process, and to create a user-friendly guide reflecting the designs and processes business can utilize. Three design concepts were: two parklet options having a wood and steel component for the roof, and one option without; modular parklet component kits and user guides included with different variations and sizes to meet what businesses needed. Per Architectural and Engineering consultation, it was recommended that they use a light-gauge steel option for the platform to allow prolonged durability. As directed by Council in September, the Beverly Hills parklet projects were used as an example, and that is what inspired this project’s design; excerpts from the design guide and the projected kit of parts modular design included in the staff report. Stakeholders involved with the project included the ARB, property owners, business owners, Palo Alto community, restauranters, and the City Council; once all feedback had been received, they will come back in May with draft prototypes and guides before being finalized in June. What changed between the permanent and pilot programs were the standard changes to setbacks, drainage requirements, enclosures, and the size of parklets; which resulted in existing parklets requiring modification to comply, and a feasibility study that had been conducted to estimate how many current parklets would be affected. Ms. Smyth mentioned some considerations to be made were the propane heaters being permitted under the permanent program with a Hazmat Permit and due to some requirements of the permit, it could deter businesses from using them, however, could provide an alternative option if they used an electric heater with required panel upgrade. Page 3 of 21 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 02/15/24 Ms. Kantak provided a material board and inquired about a possible ad hoc committee being assigned. Chair Baltay opened the item to Public Comment. PUBLIC COMMENT Karen Holman via Zoom commented she appreciated the work being done, however, there needed to be some type of standardization as the design had not appealed to the public. She was concerned an opportunity was being missed by not looking at the historic block on Ramona Street; iron railings would be an appropriate option for the area, which complemented the Spanish Colonial architecture style designed by Burge Clark and Pedro Delemos. She stated there were many resources that could be utilized when looking at designs, such as the furniture, colors, and lighting; plastic Adirondacks were an option, but she felt it was not appropriate for the area and asked for the consideration of location with a sense of place for the community. Chair Baltay closed public comments and opened the item for Boardmember questions. Vice Chair Rosenberg asked compared to the Beverly Hills design, what stage were they on with preparing the documents for the program. Ms. Smyth stated they were at the first stage and were looking for feedback to help move forward. Vice Chair Rosenberg inquired whether the existing parklets built during COVID would have a specific requirement to follow versus a new development in regard to compliance. Ms. Kantak responded that the adopted standards had a different clearance requirement due to safety reasons, and they would need to take down existing parklets to rebuild new ones so the preapproved prototypes would be helpful. Vice Chair Rosenberg questioned if the businesses with existing parklets would get retroactive approval by City Council, or if the new standards would need to be complied before. Ms. Kantak answered if they needed to tear down and rebuild, they needed to go through the review process and submit design drawings; if the prototypes were used, they hoped to get the preapproval by July, and would help the process move forward. Vice Chair Rosenberg asked if there had been a proposed timeline on the compliance requirements. Ms. Kantak stated that staff would propose phased enforcement to Council with the recommendation to defer the program from April 1 to July 1, 2024. Chair Baltay inquired what caused the incompliance of existing parklets. Ms. Kantak said the feasibility study done were related to the sightings of the area; the defined clearances now included the vehicular traffic, other parklets, parking, travel lanes and the distance from utilities; which gave insight to any major constraints. Page 4 of 21 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 02/15/24 Ms. Smyth added that the expected changes included the drainage modification under existing parklets and the safety and access standards to buildings included in the setbacks. Chair Baltay asked if the standards on restaurateurs that were created during the end of the pandemic will now change. Ms. Smyth responded that the standards the ARB made at the time had not been implemented, so the permanent standards adopted in September were the ones being shown. Vice Chair Rosenberg clarified that the feasibility study should show if the standards were too strict, and if there was a way to make changes without compromising public safety. Boardmember Chen inquired when the feasibility study would be done. Ms. Smyth answered that City Council would receive an initial draft this week. Boardmember Chen asked if a neighboring business were to take over an old space, would they be required to redesign and reduce the size of the parklet. Ms. Smyth stated a neighboring business had priority if they requested to utilize a space during the annual renewal point, and adjacent business parklet spaces would have to be modified. Ms. Kantak noted that there were provisions in the standards that said if a business used the space on street frontage, a process was in place that would allow a request to remove the parklet within a specific time period. Boardmember Adcock questioned if a neighboring business asked to revoke consent on a parklet would it also be applied for the year term. Ms. Kantak answered they would need to get back with the Board on the complete rules of consent. Boardmember Adcock asked if there was a reason why Palo Alto had three kit design options versus a full kit model to choose from. Ms. Kantak responded they needed to talk to Public Works Department to get the preapproval of the parts, and with the wood and steel options, they had six designs to choose from. Boardmember Adcock inquired if the approved drawings gave businesses the ability to go to any vender with the drawings. Ms. Smyth answered they are exploring the option of incorporating pre-manufactured parts, but if unable to do so, they intend to allow the restaurateur to take the required details and drawings to a manufacturer to have parts made. Boardmember Hirsch asked for the thought behind the design aspect of the Beverly Hills model, and if it had already been built. Ms. Kantak stated that the Beverly Hills model was a template example for Council and had one draft option adopted with the approval process but did not necessarily use the same materials or design, as they were waiting for feedback from the Board. Page 5 of 21 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 02/15/24 Ms. Smyth commented that they would be using Palo Alto standards that incorporated the drainage areas that Public Works and City Council had established. Boardmember Hirsch questioned what would happen if a parklet owned by a neighboring business changed ownership, and the new owners complained that the parklet was interrupting their commercial space. Ms. Smyth answered per Council direction, if there is a roof or sidewall encroaching on a neighboring business it required a letter of consent, but if it is not needed, there were no existing mechanism to dispute the parklet. Boardmember Hirsch inquired if it was the lease holder or the owner who signed for the approval. Ms. Smyth stated if a letter of consent were needed, the tenant would be required to sign. Vice Chair Rosenberg asked if there was a process in place for items not on the approved list that staff could add for preapproved products and brands. Ms. Kantak responded they would work with Public Works to see what different variances and unique designs would be allowed. Boardmember Chen questioned if the permanent program permitted the same allowances as the pilot program regarding restaurants, personal services, and retail businesses; and if so, why were there only three limited prototype designs. Ms. Kantak answered it was not mandated, and to allow the establishment to create their own design. Boardmember Adcock referred to packet page 27, the adjacent angle parklet eight-foot, and inquired if the three-foot setback diagram shown was correct. Ms. Smyth stated the eight-foot setback requirement between two parklets came out of a discussion staff had with the Fire Department, but if it were an angled parklet not adjacent to another space, it would be set at the three-foot setback. Boardmember Adcock asked if the parklet next to the existing one would need to be moved five-feet back to meet the eight-foot requirement. Ms. Smyth responded they would need further consulting with Public Works on that situation. Boardmember Adcock referenced page 32 and inquired if there was a headroom requirement versus a height requirement for businesses that applied for a permit, the building code had a seven/six minimum that allowed six inches to build a roof. Ms. Smyth commented that there were no headroom standards for parklets, only a minimum and maximum height standard. Boardmember Adcock asked for clarification on the difference between the material and structural sections that were referenced under Section C3 on page 33, and why it showed the materials being defined and not the structure itself. Page 6 of 21 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 02/15/24 Ms. Kantak clarified that it was a duplicate section, section C called for plywood, polycarbonate, or sheet metal sheeting. Boardmember Hirsch questioned how electric and propane heaters would be allowed with the materials proposed. Ms. Kantak answered if the restaurants had met the requirements, such as storage and proximity to flammable materials and had a Hazmat Permit, it would be allowed. Chair Baltay asked if a business on private property with an outdoor patio would need to meet the same standards and requirements for a Hazmat Permit. Ms. Kantak stated that was assumed since it’s considered a safety hazard. Senior Planner Claire Raybould mentioned the roofing requirements and standards were the same for private property. Chair Baltay inquired what electric options were available if a parklet wanted power. Ms. Smyth responded that a permanent light or electrical fixture would require an electrical permit from the City; an alternative option could be a Ground Fault Circuit Interrupter (GFCI) on the outside of the building which has a single wire run to the parklet. Chair Baltay asked if the standards previously installed were included in this proposal, specifically on how the power ran across the sidewalk and conduit color. Ms. Smyth referenced packet page 39, Item 2B under section D, Electrical Power Supply, and stated that the power cords between buildings and parklets shall be secured to one overhead guide wire between structures. Chair Baltay inquired why they would not have a power cord installed underground in a conduit below the parklet. Ms. Smyth answered the City did not want to tear up the concrete or curbs in the area. Boardmember Hirsch asked how the prototype would be developed and if the Board would be updated as it progressed. Ms. Kantak responded that they were scheduled to return to the ARB in May, and an ad hoc committee would be welcomed. Chair Baltay inquired if a design or historic resource review had been done to areas such as the Ramona Street District. Ms. Kantak stated they had not researched the historic elements with the three prototypes, as it was considered a separate work effort related to Ramona; the downtown had a historic and car-free nature and needed a different approach. Chair Baltay asked why they excluded California Avenue from the parklet program. Page 7 of 21 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 02/15/24 Ms. Kantak answered that the car-free portion of California Avenue was on a separate timeline and effort, and Ramona Street had been recognized and was considered part of the historic downtown. Boardmember Chen referenced Item 5F on page 33, and questioned if the 5% referred to the square footage or seat count in a parklet; and if it would be rounded up if needed. Ms. Smyth replied that it would be rounded up for parklet spaces and the page referred to the seating space. Boardmember Hirsch commented on the equal divisions of the parklets that allowed fire access shown on page 36, and asked if it would be a standard requirement to have fire access along the street, as well as if it would affect the modular development. Ms. Smyth stated that the images shown showed what may be required by the Fire Department if a business had a long parklet space; the smaller parklets at the eight-foot gap should be sufficient, and would not be needed. Boardmember Hirsch mentioned the Beverly Hills model did not show specifics on design or selection of planters, and if they were allowed. Ms. Smyth responded that the Palo Alto program did not currently allow planters, and were not part of the design, instead it would be an enclosed guardrail structure. Chair Baltay called to bring comments on Site Planning. Boardmember Adcock commented her concerns were on the parklet ownership and businesses that needed consent if there were over-lapping parklets and felt it would be problematic due to the one-year timeline; where the three-foot versus the five-foot is allowed and needed the consent, it would affect the site plan effort. She mentioned that with the three-foot space between the parklets, the twenty-feet maximum made the three-hundred and fifty square foot allowance invalid and questioned if that were correct. Ms. Smyth responded the three-hundred and fifty square foot parklet would not likely need to comply as had been previously answered, it was not a requirement unless deemed necessary by the Fire Department. Boardmember Adcock clarified that if it were to become a requirement, then the 350 square foot could not become the upper limit, due to the 20ft times 8ft limit of the parklet, and could not be a contiguous three-hundred and fifty square feet if made to break up the parklets every twenty feet; then asked if it applied to just the roof. Ms. Smyth answered that the 350 square feet were restricted to the parklets with roofing; anything above that required sprinklers and needed other requirements, and if it were an unroofed parklet, there would be no restriction on the size. Boardmember Adcock inquired if the three-foot gap shown on page 36 were for parklets with a roof. Ms. Smyth stated it would be a gap all the way through the platform to the roof. Page 8 of 21 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 02/15/24 Chair Baltay expressed the twenty-foot requirement was too restrictive, and to require a business to break up the parklet was unreasonable and unnecessary; he suggested a no square foot limitation. Ms. Smyth commented that they would talk to the Fire Department to see if any flexibility would be allowed. Manager of Current Planning Jodie Gerhardt inquired if the Fire Department was concerned about the business parklets close in proximity to one another. Chair Baltay questioned why an angled parklet and vehicle parking did not require the same guidelines for the three-foot gap regulation, and suggested it be made to a one-foot gap; in his opinion it was too restrictive at the three-foot. Pressure treated wood as well as steel framing should be allowed, as businesses tend to use less expensive contractors, which would restrict restaurateurs from building platforms. Boardmember Adcock noted that it included in the diagram that fire retardant was placed in parentheses and felt they should choose one or the other to be used by businesses. Chair Baltay commented that the existing building codes should be used, such as the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) code, and those requirements needed to be met; he asked what the surface material of the platforms needed to be. Ms. Smyth answered the material section listed what applied to the platforms, but currently the standards were not specified. Vice Chair Rosenberg noted on packet page 51 there were materials, platform parklet, potential construction, roof, enclosures, sidewalls, and furnishings listed, but nothing on flooring; she felt some were problematic and were in violation of code and needed to be regulated. Chair Baltay referred to page 30 on the load capacity being specified at 100 pounds per square foot and said the building code should govern what was allowed; the curb needed to ensure water flowed along the street. Ms. Smyth stated that to be accessible to business owners for easy cleaning, grates were installed over- top which allowed better water flow. Boardmember Adcock inquired if the screening around the outer edge of the drainage was protected as well as kept the parklet from blocking water to the drainage system, and if a minimum opening were specified. Ms. Smyth answered there was a six and a half inch minimum opening needed, and currently has a drainage component along the edge that runs parallel to the travel lane. Boardmember Adcock asked if a business were allowed to put their parklet over a storm drain inlet. Ms. Smyth responded that there was a five-foot setback requirement on a storm drain catch basin, so no. Page 9 of 21 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 02/15/24 Chair Baltay commented that if a business had a fifty-foot frontage that was two-thirds of the way in, it would be too restrictive to have a five-foot setback requirement, which made compliance nearly impossible. Boardmember Hirsch noted that it needed to be framed around the drainage separately and that would affect the modular construction. Chair Baltay stated that the kit of parts needed to ensure drainage and could be installed with two by six- inch platforms on the street. Chair Baltay discussed that a two-hundred lateral load requirement for the parklet enclosures were too large and would be difficult without heavy anchorage to the street; noting that some regulations regarding dimensions and loads were being used from the Uniform Building Code (UBC) stair and guardrail requirements, which were not pertaining to the parklets as it referred to the difference in grade elevation starting at thirty inches. The same applied on the forty-two inch minimum height that were set too high and suggested it should be thirty to thirty-two inches. Vice Chair Rosenberg added that the four-inch sphere notifications were not necessary as well. Chair Baltay commented that the regular building code should be applied if there were no elevation changes and if there were a grade change, then the whole code should be applied. Boardmember Adcock stated that she agreed the forty-two-inch height and 200 pound minimums were unnecessary but felt the four-foot spacing was an added safety to patrons with children while eating or walking along the parklets. Boardmember Hirsch responded that planters to divide the parklets and street would look better than guardrails. Chair Baltay asked for clarification if the planters were not allowed. Ms. Smyth responded that was correct, in September City Council made the requirement due to Traffic Safety concerns. Chair Baltay stated that planters were needed to make this project suitable and would be further discussed; the forty-two-inch height requirement for the parklet enclosures were blocking public views to the scenery and it needed a visual connection to the area around the public included. Boardmember Adcock mentioned that the Beverly Hills guide used the 200 pound and four inches with a thirty-six inch to four foot maximum on a thirty-eight-inch height limit. Chair Baltay responded that calculations and requirements would be difficult for a small business to attain. Boardmember Adcock commented that they provided calculations for handrails and guardrails, but if a business were not attached to the ground, it would be difficult to provide. Ms. Smyth stated that the reason for the prototype program were to have calculations done beforehand and would be included in the shop drawings and pre-approved permit to negate business owners that needed to find engineers. Page 10 of 21 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 02/15/24 Vice Chair Rosenberg asked if there was a continuous system from platform through railing to roof that was set and pre-approved in the kits, and if a specific type and function of said railings were included as well as compliant to safety concerns. Chair Baltay referred to page 36, comment C on design of enclosures, which said: parklets shall integrate or incorporate vegetation into the enclosure treatment; he noted section I, which discussed plant material and asked why it had been added to the guide even though not allowed, and if it were City Council’s regulation. Ms. Smyth responded yes, it related to Traffic Safety and was implemented by Council. Boardmember Hirsch added that if only code issues were answered, it would not meet the aesthetic of the environment they wanted to attain. Boardmember Chen noted that an element previously discussed pertained to the shading, and if retractable or removable shadings would be allowed on outdoor parklets; and questioned what had been decided about them. Chair Baltay responded that it was an issue between the safety enclosures and roofs, as restaurateurs wanted areas with glass pieces that blocked the wind and sunlight, such as drop-down shades. Vice Chair Rosenberg noted that on packet page 37, it said: four side-walled parklets may include hard transparent screens between enclosures and roofs to provide wind screens and must have complete transparent and non-obstructing sidelines from the travel lane to sidewalk; it included what materials were not permitted, and that side-walls were not allowed in front of neighboring storefronts without letter of consent; she questioned what would apply if a business did not have a roof. Chair Baltay noted that even blocking traffic sight lines, the ARB felt as a balance between utility and benefit, retractable or adjustable awnings were also a reasonable choice. Chair Baltay discussed that the seven by six-foot minimum height requirement should be governed by the code, and from a zoning and planning point of view the total overall height were a concern and needed to stay to a maximum height allowance; and asked why a minimum height limitation was necessary. Vice Chair Rosenberg answered one was not needed, as the building code stated seven by six foot minimum for convenience in order to meet compliance. Boardmember Hirsch inquired how the engineers would meet requirements if they used the kit of parts. Chair Baltay commented that the kit of parts needed to specify a range of heights and the engineer would need to meet the maximum height; he felt the twelve-foot maximum was too out of scale. Vice Chair Rosenberg questioned whether the shed type of prototype was the only style allowed, or if a flat trellis style would be available; if no sloped roofs were on the enclosure, the height limit could be lowered. Boardmember Adcock stated that if the ten-foot maximum height were implemented, it would conflict with the eight-inch side wall; the twelve-foot height maximum would be suitable for most metal shed style prototypes. Page 11 of 21 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 02/15/24 Chair Baltay requested clarification on reasonable visual sights of the enclosures from the street front. Senior Planner Claire Raybould stated that a shed or flat roof design would be possible if less than twelve feet and asked if the ARB wanted multiple design options. Chair Baltay answered that he would like to see different design options as they wanted to eliminate a vinyl pitched tent roof structure, and the height limit should be measured from the sidewalk at a maximum of eleven foot. Senior Planner Claire Raybould questioned whether the eleven-foot height was measured from the sidewalk or street. Ms. Smyth responded that due to being premanufactured, the best way for it to be measured would be by the platform height. Chair Baltay commented that the painted plywood for the roof should be up to merchants regarding what materials were used. Boardmember Hirsch questioned if the building sat at the eleven-foot height maximum, would an over- hanging roof be allowed, and how would the gutter drainage affect the façade to the roof. Chair Baltay asked if drainage systems and downspouts would be required if the parklet had an over- hanging roof. Ms. Smyth answered that gutters and leaders were required. Boardmember Chen inquired how far the over-hang requirement allowed. Ms. Smyth referred to packet page 32 and said the roof’s outer edges along the travel lane may extend six inches beyond the parklet footprint of eight foot or above. Chair Baltay questioned what would happen if the roof overhang extended beyond the parklet and they left the roof-overhang fall within the allowed for the space. Boardmember Adcock clarified that it allowed six inches into the two-foot section. Chair Baltay asked if the enclosure wall were brought back by six inches, would the businesses be allowed more than the six-inch roof overhang, and commented the six-inch roof over-hang should not be specified. Boardmember Adcock inquired as to why Item 6 in the guideline said that rain leaders and gutters were required if the parklets were small enclosures. Ms. Smyth responded they would take note of the guidelines. Vice Chair Rosenberg added that the ARB standards set on materials from previous projects should be applied such as the vinal roofs and loose fabric not being allowed, and the painted plywood not being feasible; and suggested there should be more options. Chair Baltay inquired if the Board wanted to implement a restriction on materials used for aesthetic reasons. Page 12 of 21 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 02/15/24 Boardmember Adcock clarified if that were strictly for the painted plywood, or if a variety of other sheet wood materials were included as well. Boardmember Hirsch asked if it would be wood or metal column structures and commented it would look appropriate as a metal structure with corrugated roofing on the street front. Vice Chair Rosenberg commented that the painted plywood was not up to ARB standards and the choice on roofing needed restriction. Boardmember Hirsch stated that the prototype needed to determine a starting point, and to let the individual business choose their own designs after being approved. Boardmember Adcock questioned whether the regulation would pertain to the function of shedding versus sieving of water in the gutters, the material used for the roof, or the look of the drainage and leads; or if all of them at once. Chair Baltay replied that the building code had detailed codes that should decide the functionality, and that there were requirements on site drainage, but buildings could be designed without gutters. Boardmember Adcock added that without gutters the parklet needed a sloped roof. Boardmember Hirsch disagreed with the metal gutter drainage and commented that recommendations should be made regarding the materials used on parklet roofing. Chair Baltay inquired the Board for comments regarding the propane and electric heaters. Boardmember Adcock commented that the requirements in place made it impossible for propane heaters to be approved in parklets. Chair Baltay mentioned that the merchants may be dissatisfied with the decision, but the ARB felt it was the right choice. Chair Baltay asked for input from Board members on the string lighting or electrical requirements. Vice Chair Rosenberg stated that if a business wanted to install lighting and had upgraded the electrical panels to code, they should be allowed to choose what they wanted. Boardmember Adcock inquired how much of a permanent structure should be allowed since the parklet was an annual permitted space on public property. Vice Chair Rosenberg replied that it should be as permanent as the roof structure itself. Chair Baltay commented that if the only permitted items allowed such as string lights, solar powered cords, and battery powered table lights, it would be too restrictive; and stated that this excluded permanent lighting. Vice Chair Rosenberg responded she did, and that the prefabricated had built in lighting, and they should not be prohibited. Ms. Smyth noted that page 40 showed an outline of standards for lighting, and if a business wanted permanent lighting, they would follow the appropriate permitting process. Page 13 of 21 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 02/15/24 Chair Baltay commented that any lighting allowed by code should be permitted, with an exception to Traffic Safety issues. Chair Baltay inquired if the use of amplified sound and television sets were allowed in the parklets, such as someone using a microphone for a live performance. Ms. Smyth answered that they were not permitted if associated with the parklet and was unsure of street performers. Boardmember Adcock indicated that the wattage being limited was excessive, but asked if any permit processes were required for parklet lighting as a stand-alone; separate from the business itself based on Title 24. Ms. Smyth stated that a single wire connected to the outside of the building was permitted along the parklet; if the parklet were to obtain an electrical permit separately, it would go through a different process. Senior Planner Claire Raybould noted that in the report, the color temperature and Kelvin lighting generally aligned with the Dark Skies ordinance. Boardmember Hirsch commented that the plastic furnishings should be eliminated. Chair Baltay asked Staff what were required and allowed on private property for site furnishings. Senior Planner Claire Raybould replied they followed the Architectural Review guidelines; if visible to the public they looked at what was proposed to the consistency in material, durability, and style, and if not visible to the public they were not as concerned. Chair Baltay stated that he did not favor site furnishings requirements, and they had the potential to hurt a business if forced to choose more expensive items. Vice Chair Rosenberg noted that if the furniture were not favored by the public, it would hinder the businesses. Boardmember Hirsch showed concern on how a business would attach an added structure to the ceiling if not planned in the prototype. Boardmember Adcock requested clarification if that included banners. Boardmember Hirsch replied if they had chosen to make the parklet stand out from others and added a solid ceiling or a different ceiling structure design. Chair Baltay referred to page 18 with the recommended prototype designs and five listed components: platform, flooring, enclosures, sidewalls, posts and roof. He proposed three element prototypes that included platforms and floorings, enclosures and sidewalls, and the roof; stating that the kit of parts should have included options from each category. The platform and flooring should have a wood and steel structure option included, with the surface platforms having a choice of materials approved by code, as well as planters and steel or solid railings added to the enclosures with metal designs or wood structures for the roof that gave the businesses freedom to mix and match options to choose from. Page 14 of 21 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 02/15/24 Vice Chair Rosenberg asked for clarification on if the kit of parts were an expedited review or if all items included were preapproved, as well as if the pre-designed components were necessary if the kit of parts were made to be hyper efficient in the prototype process. Ms. Smyth responded that the Beverly Hills program was designed with a pre-approved interchangeable kit of parts that were combined in many ways and waited for ARB feedback on which route to follow. Boardmember Adcock noted that having too many items to choose from could strain the City on what would be approved and permitted but felt the set of pre-approved components were unnecessary and businesses should have had more options allowed. Chair Baltay commented that the engineers should be told the design standard implemented more support pieces at corners, so if needed, more could be added later. Vice Chair Rosenberg added that if placed, there would be no need for a business owner to rebuild the parklet as it would already be pre-approved. Boardmember Chen stated that the interchangeable parts were an efficient and straightforward way to start on the prototypes. Ms. Kantak inquired if an ad hoc committee would be established. Chair Baltay asked if Staff wanted input on an Outreach Strategy. Ms. Kantak replied that the following week there would be a meeting with restauranters, business owners, and Property Owners on the approach and benefit once moved forward, but if ARB had feedback on the stakeholders or timelines, they welcomed the information. Chair Baltay appointed Vice Chair Rosenberg and Chair Baltay as ad hoc committee. The ARB took an 8 minute break and resumed with all member present except Vice Chair Rosenberg who returned 2 minutes later. 3. Study Session to Discuss the Concepts of an Ordinance to Reduce Light Pollution and Increase Bird Safety Chair Baltay introduced the item and called for staff’s presentation. Senior Planner Kelly Cha with the long-range division, presented City Council’s priority from 2023, the Dark Sky and Bird Safe glass design ordinance. City Council directed Staff to initiate an evaluation of strategies to protect natural wildlife habitats from glass safety and light pollution as well as the comprehensive plan that included a policy on bird funding designs. They worked with local advocates and reviewed ordinances from comparable cities to build their findings and wanted to work with ARB feedback and public comment on said items. Ms. Cha stated that Dark Sky referred to movements and achievements of significant reduction to light pollution that negatively impact humans and wildlife, which had grown awareness and had adopted relevant regulations in local cities. There were currently no Page 15 of 21 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 02/15/24 ordinance on Dark Sky in Palo Alto, but there were regulations related to the lighting in the municipal code Section 18.40.250. Staff recommended some requirements related to Dark Sky be implemented such as a curfew placed on businesses, motion sensor devices installed for after curfew, a requested maximum color temperature of 2700 Kelvin, as well as a regulated brightness of a maximum 20,000 lumens. She stated that Staff considered reducing the light trespass requirement of 0.5-foot candles to 0.1-foot candles when adjacent to residential neighborhoods; special purpose, security, outdoor recreational facilities, service station, and string lighting were some proposed options related to their use and purpose. A comprehensive plan policy and guideline that encouraged bird friendly designs were developed by looking at local Parks in the area; the considered design standards for glass treatment per ordinance were based on Cupertino’s ordinance. Ms. Cha said when they compared all the ordinances there were common standards; with a listed type of glazes, no more than 10% untreated glazing allowed between ground level to sixty-foot above ground, avoid funneling of flight paths required, switchboard requirements after hours, reduction or prohibition of transparent glass used and reduced glass on top of a building with a garden roof. Some standards only pertained to San Fransico and Sunny Vale and were presented for ARB information; ARB should consider San Francisco’s requirement on a reflective level that the bird safe design standard only applied to single family residence when a façade had 50% or more glazing. This had been a study session, so no action is required from ARB, but requested feedback and input on Staff consideration and public comment on Dark Sky and Bird Safe that helped develop and draft ordinances for the Planning and Transportation Commission hearing in April. In May or June of this year they hoped City Council would adopt the ordinances. Chair Baltay opened the floor to public comment. Administrative Associate Veronica Dao introduced Shani Kleinhaus. Shani Kleinhaus stated that she resided in Palo Alto and was on the Park and Recreation Commission but did not speak on their behalf. She represented the Sierra Club and Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society who worked with Staff, and developed a model ordinance on light pollution that was included in a letter to ARB sent the previous day. The United Nations reported a fifth of all migratory species were at risk of extinction, and were suffering from population decline; Palo Alto, being sat on a Pacific Flyway, was critical for birds and other migratory species. The lighted local buildings confused migration patterns and exposed them to hazardous human environments; as lighting increased worldwide, it was implicated that it drove to the extinction of bugs and to climate change which had resulted in lower migratory species. They asked that ARB consider lowering the light pollution by minimizing the increases allowed, and have current light pollution that were produced, reduced. Ms. Kleinhaus stated two recent ordinances Malibu and Brisbane adopted were to measure and implement the lighting structures installed be adjusted by being dimmed and asked that the enclosures included more than just glass; she gave other options such as wires and bridges for examples that Sunny Vale looked at. Ms. Kleinhaus added that ARB were free to call and speak on future questions. Chair Baltay thanked Ms. Kleinhaus for her presentation and her continued support and effort on behalf of the birds and brought questions or comments to the Board. Chair Baltay inquired where the codes were expected to be applied in Palo Alto, throughout the town or in specific areas. Page 16 of 21 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 02/15/24 Ms. Cha responded it was throughout the City, but still being discussed for considerations of different requirements for West of Foothill and Baylands. Chair Baltay commented it should be restricted to areas with specific needs or levels of regulations, and asked what type of buildings or uses would the regulations be applied to. Ms. Cha answered it would be applied potentially to all building types, but needed feedback if certain types of buildings should be applied or limited. Chair Baltay stated that it should not be applied to single-family residences, rather certain commercial buildings of a certain size. Boardmember Adcock noted that the section regarding Implementation and Compliance stated the compliance and added that the minimum on new projects, if applied, should not be limited to just new projects, they needed to implement limitations on existing buildings. She referred to page 87 that related to the limitations on total lighting load on a property that exceeded 160,000 lumens, and asked how they quantified a property and lumen level. Ms. Cha responded that the size requirements had not yet been worked through and would be a good idea to take the property size into account. Boardmember Adcock mentioned if a lumens per acre that multiplied evenly, or on larger properties, would not be adversely affected if they were implemented, but it should be made fair for owners; =no more than 300 lumens per string needed to be defined as to whether it were an eight-foot or fifty-foot string, or a single foot of string, and specify what the ordinance limited. Referencing page 89 regarding the ‘should be no more than forty-two lumens on a string’ and questioned if it meant per bulb or per string, and emphasized they needed to be specified in the ordinances. Vice Chair Rosenberg stated that she understood the uses and benefits of Dark Sky on the migratory patterns of birds, but felt it was overreached to force the ordinance on single family residences; it would be necessary on commercial or industrial buildings that had over 85% glazing on their four-story glass structures. Nearby towns have followed some exterior Dark Sky light fixture requirements, which were specifically designed to meet compliance, and if regulated on how many fixtures per footage, would be understood. She commented that the ordinances should be focused on appropriate cities and areas that are in the migratory bird paths, and that it was a mixed City with different environments. Boardmember Chen agreed about being focused on specified areas to implement ordinances, then questioned the language used on packet page 89 for streamlined residential uses, and if they could have used private open space instead of [TIMESTAMP 3:06:54] for single and multi-family use. Ms. Cha answered that what was seen were mostly single family homes, and the report focused on them, but the ordinances applied to everything; they had been used at times in areas where businesses had street closures, as well as multi-family developments in open common areas. She added that if any suggestions were made that added limitations, they would be interested in the feedback. Boardmember Hirsch stated that he disagreed with the Board on limited ordinances, the regulations would be violated if not applied to residential as well; the areas that were part of the final determination Page 17 of 21 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 02/15/24 needed to be considered and enforced through the review process on private dwellings when a certain level is reached. He referred to a previous automobile commercial building ARB had discussed at length in Embarcadero that had parking on the roof, and thought it was important for similar building structures to be regulated. However, he felt the lighting was not an issue due to the area being poorly lit at night. Boardmember Adcock asked if the Dark Sky ordinance pertained to the exterior lighting or the light leak from buildings through the glass and if it were City regulated. Ms. Cha responded there was no current language specified in the ordinance, but it intended for the indoor lights to be monitored with switchboards after hours with a curfew of two hours after they close for businesses, and it would be applied to all indoor and outdoor lighting. Boardmember Adcock commented that it did not seem specified as such in the Dark Sky ordinance, and suggested adding clarification on whether it was for light leaking from exterior lighting or storefront businesses. Vice Chair Rosenberg inquired if the regulation applied to interior lighting on a building and not the exterior glazing, and then would it be applied to the function of the building and not based on the percentage of glazing. Ms. Cha answered the Dark Sky portion does not discuss the glazing itself, the main focus was on the lumen brightness; if needed to be included they would work toward getting it implemented. Vice Chair Rosenberg stated that there were two portions to the Dark Sky ordinances, one on how exterior lighting affected the surroundings and the other being the illuminations from the interior of buildings; if they wanted to regulate the businesses to such extent, they needed to have pertinent or functional reasons as to why and how it would be implemented. Boardmember Hirsch showed concern for the winter months that needed longer lighting throughout the months and asked if they had done any studies on the issue. Chair Baltay stated that two environmentally sensitive areas in Palo Alto were West of 280, the Foothills, and the Baylands, to which neither were extensively residentially developed; the ordinances should be applied to all residences and businesses that resided in those areas. He suggested that they keep to the Dark Sky permissible exterior fixtures, which were the standards and easily implemented in communities along the Peninsula, and adjacent to the Foothill area. A light control system could be easily installed for businesses to manage the two hours after being closed curfew, as long as one was already in place, as well as interior window shades that ARB had used on commercial building projects previously. Boardmember Adcock asked if there was a reason the Dark Sky regulation on color temperature mentioned one at 2700 and one at 2200. Ms. Cha responded that they chose the 2700 over the 2200 or 3000, which was a Dark Sky recommendation. Boardmember Adcock noted that staff suggested encouraging and possibly requiring that more sensitive areas had luminaires below 2200 Kelvin for better nighttime. Page 18 of 21 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 02/15/24 Ms. Cha answered it applied to areas such as the Foothills and Baylands but is currently being questioned whether it should be lowered to 2200 Kelvin. Senior Planner Claire Raybould clarified that if it were set at 2200, it would have been harder to attain. Ms. Cha replied that was correct. Chair Baltay inquired if they had studied how complicated it would be for building inspectors and design teams to obtain the color temperature of all lighting fixtures, and what would happen if businesses changed the fixtures. Boardmember Adcock asked how they defined the project subject to bird safe development as referred to on page 90, and for the definition of the untreated glass referenced; with no more than 10% of the façade untreated on the surface allowed. She commented the standard compliance definitions were vague on what would be regulated and how to be complied; the ordinance that stated the glass treatment must have a high color contrast to the glass in order to be applied on the outer-most surface; which were not achievable due to insulated glass not usually being set on the number one surface of standard insulated glazing. Ms. Cha mentioned that the provisions written and added were done after the study and found that it would not be as effective if installed interiorly; if found infeasible by architectural standards, it would be further discussed at the time. Boardmember Adcock commented that she never had installed one to the outer-most surface due to it being short lived, and they should continue to do research on the topic; on the upper half of page 90 she questioned if the façade of all projects subjected to the bird safe development requirements applied to all or certain projects. Ms. Cha responded that with current recommendations and considerations it applied to all projects and buildings, but wanted feedback from ARB to determine if it would be feasible and if the requirement needed to be modified. Boardmember Chen stated that the North Ventura study found it were not only bird safe glass, but also highly reflective materials used that were considered bird hazards. She referred to packet page 90 on the alternative compliance method, and asked if there were any qualification requirements needed to be a third-party consultant. Ms. Cha answered that they would hire a technical consultant for the third-party; it would most likely be the City who hired the consultant on their behalf, which needed to be designed different from the elements the City required if proposed. Senior Planner Claire Raybould clarified that Boardmember Chen asked what qualifications the third-party consultant needed. Boardmember Chen inquired whether the consultant was hired from the City, or if the applicant needed to find a consultant qualified to conduct the review. Page 19 of 21 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 02/15/24 Senior Planner Claire Raybould responded that usually the applicant paid the City to hire a consultant to ensure that it was an independent third party. Boardmember Hirsch referred to the bird safe design requirements and felt it was a restrictive list. Senior Planner Claire Raybould clarified when the design requirement mentioned walkways, it referred to areas with glass along the path. Chair Baltay questioned if all balconies were restricted as it were written in the packet. Senior Planner Claire Raybould answered it should have been clarified to balconies or rooftop areas that had planters or glass on the exterior. Boardmember Hirsch commented that they needed an inspector for evenings to find the problems that were raised if it fit their budget. Vice Chair Rosenberg noted that they were implementing designs and guidelines based on lack of information of new bird safety materials continuously being studied by Scientists; she questioned how common bird strikes were in the confines of Palo Alto, and if the new rules and regulations to be implemented were on issues not closely related to the City. Vice Chair Rosenberg added that her opinion was to add bird safe glazing to the second story and up only; being on the first floor restricted business and office buildings too much, as well as historic structures and residential single-family homes be excluded due to not being predominantly glass structures. She commented that more consideration should go into how multi-family homes implement bird safe glass, whether it be on certain windows or not at all, because it obstructs views to the outside views. Boardmember Adcock stated that the section of the packet regarding standard compliance treatments did not state only fritted glass but listed permanent treatments such as opaque glass and window muntins; she questioned if it would meet code if there were only muntins along the middle of the highly reflective glass window, and if not, what to be complied needed to be clarified. She gave examples of different types and pattern designs of frit glassing that could be considered for residential or first-floor buildings, and noted the guidelines needed to be clarified on what could be used on glass without being too restrictive on compliance. Chair Baltay commented that he agreed with his fellow colleagues regarding bird safe glass windows on single and multi-family residential, that type of glass is difficult to attain and an item that needed to be special ordered or applied, which would make residential housing compliance difficult. He felt the restrictions should be confined to localized areas such as the Baylands and Foothills, and some tall rise commercial buildings downtown. Chair Baltay asked Ms. Kleinhaus for her thoughts on the regulation requirements for downtown. Ms. Kleinhaus commented the study showed most bird collisions happen in residential neighborhoods, with a one bird-per house-per year ratio, and residential requirements were placed on Cupertino’s single and multi-family homes; she had some different glass window designs available to show the ARB and stated that most storefront buildings and businesses were exempt from the regulations to allow the public an inside view. Regarding the lighting concerns, she added that the main problem came from businesses that use interior lighting for advertisement after hours. There are different options that can be used; at Page 20 of 21 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 02/15/24 Mitchell Park Library, the top levels use a reflective structure to deflect the birds as an alternative to fritted glass. Boardmember Hirsch stated that a catalog of glass should be in offices that allow residential housing consultants to choose from various designs for areas that have a naturalized environment or an abundance of trees that contain birds and wildlife. Vice Chair Rosenberg commented that could be too restrictive as there are regulations within Palo Alto that require certain amount of trees be planted in order to be permitted. Chair Baltay questioned how a regulation would be implemented on certain residential housing, and how it would be applied. Ms. Kleinhaus stated if the amount of glass used on a building were not limited, then the bird safe measures should be and recommended that architects who run into compliance issues on residential housing use foot-by-foot space muntin on the windows, have reflective film coated on the glass, colored screens, or add other visual cues. Chair Baltay inquired how difficult it would be to regulate a twelve-inch by twelve-inch limit on a single paned window. Manager of Current Planning Jodie Gerhardt answered that a regulation requiring divided light windows could be implemented and Staff could hold a review on the issue. Boardmember Adcock asked if a window treatment or visual cue on the glazing could be added rather than restricting divided light windows, as well as the highly reflective glass; and suggested it be clarified as to what is within the regulations and standards. Ms. Gerhardt responded that they would add clarifications moving forward. Ms. Cha commented that they were appreciative of the feedback, and they would look at how other Cities implement their regulations and standard ordinances on bird safety before returning before the Board; and they would add a list of drafted ordinance language. More regulation for naturalized areas would be considered, such as the Foothills, Baylands, and urbanized areas in Palo Alto. Senior Planner Claire Raybould noted that there were no future plans to return to the ARB, but it could be considered; and inquired if the ARB wanted an ad hoc committee assigned. Chair Baltay replied that he did not want to assign an ad hoc committee as one had been done previously on a project similar, however he did want them to return to the ARB with an updated draft ordinance. Chair Baltay closed the Study Session. Approval of Minutes 6. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for November 16, 2023. Chair Baltay asked for comments or a motion. Page 21 of 21 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 02/15/24 MOTION: Boardmember Chen moved, seconded by Vice Chair Rosenberg, to approve the meeting minutes for November 16, 2023 as written. VOTE: 5-0-0 Boardmember Questions, Comments or Announcements Chair Baltay announced that he attended the City Council meeting earlier in the week and they discussed, reviewed, and approved the SB9 Objective Standards and shared complements from Council with the Board members. Adjournment Chair Baltay adjourned the meeting at 12:14 p.m.