Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-04-01 Architectural Review Board Agenda Packet_______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to two minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Architectural Review Board Regular Meeting Agenda: April 1, 2021 Virtual Meeting 8:30 AM ****BY VIRTUAL TELECONFERENCE ONLY*** https://zoom.us/join Meeting ID: 996 3869 2965 Phone number: 1 669 900 6833 Pursuant to the provisions of California Governor’s Executive Order N-29-20, issued on March 17, 2020, to prevent the spread of Covid-19, this meeting will be held by virtual teleconference only, with no physical location. The meeting will be broadcast live on Cable TV and through Channel 26 of the Midpen Media Center at bit.ly/MidPenwatchnow. Members of the public may comment by sending an email to arb@cityofpaloalto.org or by attending the Zoom virtual meeting to give live comments. Instructions for the Zoom meeting can be found on the last page of this agenda. Visit bit.ly/PApendingprojects to view project plans and details. Call to Order / Roll Call Oral Communications The public may speak to any item not on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,2 Agenda Changes, Additions, and Deletions The Chair or Board majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management. City Official Reports 1. Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2) Tentative Future Agenda items and 3) Recent Project Decisions Study Session/Preliminary Review Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3 2. 2850 W Bayshore [21PLN-00041]: Request for Preliminary Architectural Review of a Proposed 48-Unit Residential Townhome Development. Environmental Assessment: _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to two minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Not a Project. The Formal Application Will be Subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review. Zoning District: ROLM (Research Office and Limited Manufacturing). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Claire Raybould at Claire.Raybould@cityofpaloalto.org. Action Items Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Ten (10) minutes, plus ten (10) minutes rebuttal. All others: Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3 3. Public Hearing: Recommendation on Objective Design Standards (Continued from March 18th, no staff report changes, Attachments B-E added) Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcements 4. 656 Lytton Avenue [19PLN-00040]: Staff Level Ad Hoc Approval Memo from March 4, 2021 5. North of Ventura Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP) Working Group Updates – Boardmember Lew Adjournment _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to two minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Palo Alto Architectural Review Board Boardmember Biographies, Present and Archived Agendas and Reports are available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/architectural/default.asp. The ARB Boardmembers are: Chair Osma Thompson Vice Chair Grace Lee Boardmember Peter Baltay Boardmember David Hirsch Boardmember Alex Lew Get Informed and Be Engaged! View online: http://midpenmedia.org/category/government/city-of-palo-alto/ or on Channel 26. Public comment is encouraged. Email the ARB at: arb@CityofPaloAlto.org. Material related to an item on this agenda submitted to the ARB after distribution of the agenda packet is available for public inspection at bit.ly/paloaltoARB. Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329-2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service. _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to two minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Public Comment Instructions Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email, teleconference, or by phone. 1. Written public comments may be submitted by email to arb@CityofPaloAlto.org 2. Spoken public comments using a computer will be accepted through the teleconference meeting. To address the Board, click on the link below for the appropriate meeting to access a Zoom-based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully. A. You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in-browser. If using your browser, make sure you are using a current, up-to-date browser: Chrome 30+, Firefox 27+, Microsoft Edge 12+, Safari 7+. Certain functionality may be disabled in older browsers including Internet Explorer. B. You will be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify you that it is your turn to speak. C. When you wish to speak on an agenda item, click on “raise hand”. The moderator will activate and unmute attendees in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak. The Zoom application will prompt you to unmute your microphone when it is your turn to speak. D. When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. E. A timer will be shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments. 3. Spoken public comments using a smart phone will be accepted through the teleconference meeting. To address the Council, download the Zoom application onto your phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter the Meeting ID below. Please follow instructions B-E above. 4. Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the Board. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted. https://zoom.us/join Meeting ID: 996 3869 2965 Phone number: 1 669 900 6833 (you may need to exclude the initial “1” depending on your phone service) Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 12139) Report Type: City Official Reports Meeting Date: 4/1/2021 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: City Official Report Title: Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2) Tentative Future Agenda items and 3) Recent Project Decisions From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) review and comment as appropriate. Background The attached documents are provided for informational purposes. The Board may review and comment as it deems appropriate. If individual Boardmembers anticipate being absent from a future meeting, it is requested that be brought to staff’s attention when considering this item. The first attachment provides a meeting and attendance schedule for the current calendar year. Also included are the subcommittee assignments, which are assigned by the ARB Chair. The second attachment is a Tentative Future Agenda that provides a summary of upcoming projects or discussion items. The hearing dates for these items are subject to change. Board level Architectural Review approvals can be found on the City’s webpage at http://bit.ly/PAapprovedprojects. Administrative staff-level Architectural Review approvals can be found on the City’s webpage at http://bit.ly/PAstaffapprovals. Any party, including the applicant, may request a hearing by the ARB on the proposed director's decision(s) by filing a written request with the planning division. There shall be no fee required for requesting such a hearing. However, pursuant to 18.77.070(b)(5) any project relating to the installation of cabinets containing communications service equipment or facilities, pursuant to any service subject to Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 2.11, Chapter 12.04, Chapter 12.08, Chapter 12.09, Chapter 1 Packet Pg. 5 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 2 12.10, or Chapter 12.13 is not eligible for a request for hearing by any party, including the applicant. No action is required by the ARB for this item. Attachments: x Attachment A: ARB Meeting Schedule Assignments (DOCX) x Attachment B: Tentative Future Agendas (DOCX) 1 Packet Pg. 6 Architectural Review Board 2021 Meeting Schedule & Assignments 2021 Schedule Meeting Dates Time Location Status Planned Absences 1/7/2021 8:30 AM Cancelled Regular 1/21/2021 8:30 AM Cancelled Regular 2/4/2021 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Regular 2/18/2021 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Regular 3/4/2021 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Cancelled 3/18/2021 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Regular 4/1/2021 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Regular 4/15/2021 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Regular 5/6/2021 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Regular 5/20/2021 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Regular 6/3/2021 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Regular 6/17/2021 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Regular 7/1/2021 8:30 AM TBD Regular 7/15/2021 8:30 AM TBD Regular 8/5/2021 8:30 AM TBD Regular 8/19/2021 8:30 AM TBD Regular 9/2/2021 8:30 AM TBD Regular 9/16/2021 8:30 AM TBD Regular 10/7/2021 8:30 AM TBD Regular 10/21/2021 8:30 AM TBD Regular 11/4/2021 8:30 AM TBD Regular 11/18/2021 8:30 AM TBD Regular 12/2/2021 8:30 AM TBD Regular 12/16/2021 8:30 AM TBD Regular 2021 Ad Hoc Committee Assignments Assignments will be made by the ARB Chair on the day of the hearing January February March April May June 3/4 – Lee/Hirsch 4/1 – Baltay/Hirsch July August September October November December 1.a Packet Pg. 7 Architectural Review Board 2021 Tentative Future Agenda The Following Items are Tentative and Subject to Change: Meeting Dates Topics April 15, 2021 x 300 Pasteur: SUMC Nursing Pod Expansion x 4256 El Camino Real: Revisions Request for Garage Parking x Review of Boards and Commission Handbook x 180 El Camino Real: Ad Hoc Review 1.b Packet Pg. 8 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 11984) Report Type: Study Session Meeting Date: 4/1/2021 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 2850 W Bayshore: Residential Townhome Development (Prelim) Title: 2850 W Bayshore [21PLN-00041]: Request for Preliminary Architectural Review of a Proposed 48-Unit Residential Townhome Development. Environmental Assessment: Not a Project. The Formal Application Will be Subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review. Zoning District: ROLM (Research Office and Limited Manufacturing). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Claire Raybould at Claire.Raybould@cityofpaloalto.org. From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB): 1. Review and provide informal comments. No formal action is requested. Report Summary The subject application is a request for preliminary review. No formal direction is provided to the applicant and Boardmembers should refrain from expressing opinions either in support or against the project. As a preliminary review application, the Planning and Development Services Department has only performed a cursory review of the project for compliance with the zoning code. A comprehensive review of a future project to applicable codes, including context-based design criteria and other standards, would follow the submittal of a formal application. Accordingly, there may be aspects of this preliminary review application that do not comply with municipal regulations or require additional discretionary applications beyond architectural review. 2 Packet Pg. 9 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 2 Similarly, there has been no comprehensive review of the project to the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan or other policy documents. Such review will occur upon the filing of a formal application. The purpose of this meeting is to provide the applicant an opportunity to present a conceptual project to the Board and receive initial comments. Boardmembers may identify aspects of the project that are appropriate given the neighborhood context and consistent with city policies. The ARB may also note areas of concern for which they recommend redesign or design refinements and recommend approaches to those for the formal submittal. Community members are also encouraged to provide early input to the project. Background Project Information Owner: Summerhill Homes Architect: SDG Architects Representative: John Hickey, Summerhill Homes Legal Counsel: Not Applicable Property Information Address: 2850 W Bayshore Road Neighborhood: Midtown Lot Dimensions & Area: ~235 feet x ~767 feet, 2.34 acres Flood Zone: Special Flood Hazard Zone AE11 Housing Inventory Site: Not Applicable Located w/in a Plume: Not Applicable Protected/Heritage Trees: Street trees present (see discussion below) Historic Resource(s): Not Applicable Existing Improvement(s): 32,639 sf, single-story building constructed in 1977 Existing Land Use(s): Research and Development (currently vacant) Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North: PC-1889 Zoning (Institutional land use [school/daycare]) West: PF Zoning (Park land use [Greer Park]) East: PF Zoning (Open Space land use [Baylands across Highway 101]) South: PF Zoning (Park land use [Greer Park]) Aerial View of Property: 2 Packet Pg. 10 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 3 Source: Google Maps Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans Zoning Designation: ROLM (Research Office and Limited Manufacturing) Comp. Plan Designation: Research/Office Park Context-Based Design Criteria: Applicable Downtown Urban Design Guide: Not Applicable South of Forest Avenue Coordinated Area Plan: Not Applicable Baylands Master Plan: Not Applicable El Camino Real Design Guidelines (1976 / 2002): Not Applicable Proximity to Residential Uses or Districts (150'): Not Applicable Located w/in Airport Influence Area: Not Applicable (just outside the boundary) Prior City Reviews & Action City Council: None PTC: None HRB: None ARB: None Project Description Summerhill Homes proposes to demolish an existing approximately 32,500 square foot (sf) commercial building and redevelop the 2.34-acre site with a 48-unit townhome style development, approximately 20 units to the acre. The new development includes eight three- story buildings, each with six residential units. Access to the site is provided from West Bayshore Road. The project would include seven (7) below market rate units and provide in-lieu fees for 0.2 units, consistent with the City’s affordable housing requirements for new 2 Packet Pg. 11 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 4 condominium developments. The project’s residential density is within the 16-30 dwelling units per acre range allowed under the existing zoning and land use designations. A location map is included in Attachment A. The applicant’s complete project description and request letter is included in Attachment D and the project plans are included in Attachment E. Anticipated Entitlements: The following discretionary applications are anticipated and would be subject to the ARB’s review: x Architectural Review – Major (AR). The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC 18.77.070. AR applications are reviewed by the ARB and recommendations are forwarded to the Planning & Development Services Director for action within five business days of the ARB’s recommendation. Action by the Director is appealable to the City Council if filed within 14 days of the decision. AR projects are evaluated against specific findings. All findings must be made in the affirmative to approve the project. Failure to make any one finding requires project redesign or denial. AR findings that must be made for the formal project are provided in Attachment B. x Design Enhancement Exception (DEE). The applicability and findings for a DEE are outlined in PAMC Section 18.76.050. Design Enhancement Exceptions are reviewed by the ARB and recommendations are forwarded to the Planning & Development Services Director. This request would be processed in conjunction with the Major AR application. DEE requests are evaluated against specific findings. All findings must be made in the affirmative to approve the project. Failure to make any one finding requires project redesign or denial. In addition, the following applications are anticipated, which would be subject to the PTC, Council or Director’s purview: x Conditional Use Permit (CUP). A CUP is needed for residential project within the ROLM zone. The process for this type of application is set forth in PAMC 18.77.060. CUP applications are reviewed at a staff level and the Director of Planning and Development Services issues a decision. Action by the Director is appealable to the City Council if filed within 14 days of the decision. PAMC 18.76.010 outlines the findings for the granting of approval of a Conditional Use Permit. To approve the project, both findings must be made in the affirmative. Failure to make any one of the findings requires denial of the project. x Vesting Tentative Map. The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in Title 21 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) and California Government Code 66474. The process for approval of a Vesting Tentative Map for a condominium subdivision is outlined in PAMC Sections 21.12.010 and 21.13.020. Vesting Tentative maps require Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) review. The PTC reviews whether the 2 Packet Pg. 12 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 5 amended subdivision is consistent with the Subdivision Map Act (in particular Government Code 66474), Title 21 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, and other applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and State Law. The PTC’s recommendation is forwarded to the City Council for final approval. In accordance with Title 21 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, all entitlements must be completed prior to formal review of the Vesting Tentative Map. Discussion Preliminary review applications receive a cursory review for compliance with zoning regulations and consistency with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan or other applicable policy documents. Feedback on the conceptual design was previously transmitted to the applicant. A more comprehensive review will occur upon formal submittal, which may reveal other code or policy concerns. A summary of key requests and considerations are highlighted below. At this point in project development, the ARB is encouraged to provide feedback to the applicant on the preliminary drawings. The Board may want to consider comments that relate to: x Scale and mass x Transitions in scale to adjacent properties x Relationship to the neighborhood setting and context x Pedestrian-orientation and design x Access to the site x Consideration to any applicable policy documents (Background Section) x Architectural design, theme, cohesiveness, and quality of materials x Preservation of existing native or mature landscaping or features, if any Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans and Guidelines1 The Comprehensive Plan includes Goals, Policies, and Programs that guide the physical form of the City. The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the project site is Research/Office Park, which allows for a variety of commercial uses as well as mixed-use and exclusively residential projects. Although the Research/Office Park land use designation states that it allows floor area ratios ranging from 0.3 to 0.5, this project exceeds that floor area ratio through use of a concession in accordance with the state density bonus (Government Code Section 65915). As outlined in the government code, “the granting of a density bonus shall not require, or be interpreted, in and of itself, to require a general plan amendment, local coastal plan amendment, zoning change, or other discretionary approval.” Therefore, neither a Comprehensive Plan amendment, nor a Zoning Code Text Amendment is required to accommodate the proposed floor area requested under the state density bonus. 1 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/landuse/compplan.asp 2 Packet Pg. 13 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 6 Therefore, the proposed use is consistent with this Comprehensive Plan land use designation. The City’s Comprehensive Plan, particularly the Land Use and Housing Elements, includes several goals and policies that encourage housing development. A complete analysis of the project’s consistency with the Comprehensive Plan will be completed in response to a formal application and complete set of plans. Zoning Compliance2 The project is located on a site zoned Research, Office and Limited Manufacturing (ROLM). The ROLM zoning allows multi-family residential uses with approval of a CUP. Under the ROLM zoning, exclusively residential projects must comply with the RM-30 Zone District development standards. A brief analysis of the project’s consistency with these standards is included in Attachment C; however, a more complete analysis of the zoning compliance would be prepared upon submittal of a formal application, if filed. A review of the conceptual plans highlights key concessions that the applicant is requesting. State Density Bonus Because the project includes on-site below-market rate units, it is eligible for a state density bonus and associated allowances. The proposed residential density (approximately 20 dwelling units per acre) is consistent with the site’s allowable density. However, the applicant intends to utilize the parking allowance stipulated in Assembly Bill 2345 and to utilize their allowed concession toward floor area ratio. The applicant requests a floor area ratio of 1.08 to 1 (84,938 sf) based on the net lot area of 78,700 sf (which excludes private street area for the purposes of floor area calculation). As part of any formal application, the applicant will be required to provide evidence, in accordance with PAMC Section 18.15.080 to show that a floor area ratio of this amount provides “identifiable and actual cost reductions.” Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) Request The applicant proposes a DEE for increased height for three tower elements on each of the individual structures. The intent is to create more variation between the middle and top of the structure as well as to provide better articulation across the buildings. The height (i.e. mid- point) of the main sloped roof and parapet roofs would be 34 feet, six inches or less, consistent with the height requirements for the zone district. DEEs are typically applied to unique architectural features. The code states that “items for which DEEs may be granted include, but are not limited to, dormers, eave lines, [and] roof design…” The code also states that DEEs are limited to “minor changes to the setback, daylight plane, height…” Staff is seeking preliminary feedback on whether the intended DEE request might be favorably considered. If the applicant pursues a DEE, additional information may be necessary to determine whether the findings could be met. Open Space 2 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: http://www.amlegal.com/codes/client/palo-alto_ca 2 Packet Pg. 14 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 7 In accordance with PAMC Section 18.13.040(e)(2), with the Architectural Review Board’s review, the Director may allow part or all of the required private usable open space areas to instead be provided as common usable open space. The intent of this flexibility is to improve design, privacy, protection, and increase play area for children. Although balconies are planned for at least some of the units, the formal application will include a request to allow some private open space to be used toward common open space in order to meet the minimum open space requirements. Staff requests the ARB’s feedback on this request as part of this preliminary review application. Sound Wall In order to reduce noise levels for residents, the applicant intends to request approval of a sound wall within the City’s public right-of-way between Highway 101 and West Bayshore Road. Various departments, including Transportation and Public Works, are reviewing and evaluating preliminary engineering plans for the wall location to determine the feasibility of this request. It is not clear yet whether staff can support this request, as it may impact drive aisles and bike lanes. Next Steps There is no further action required by the ARB after its discussion. The applicant may elect to file a formal application. Environmental Review The subject review involves no discretionary action and is therefore not a project and not subject to review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). If a formal application is filed, the City would analyze that formal project in accordance with CEQA. Report Author & Contact Information ARB3 Liaison & Contact Information Claire Raybould, Senior Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (650) 329-2116 (650) 329-2575 Claire.Raybould@cityofpaloalto.org jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments: x Attachment A: Location Map (PDF) x Attachment B: Findings for Approval (PDF) x Attachment C: Zoning Comparison Table (DOCX) x Attachment D: Applicant's Project Description (PDF) x Attachment E: Project Plans (DOCX) 3 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 2 Packet Pg. 15 24 24 2 4 24 C ommu nity _B uildin g Colorado_Pump Station Colorado Substation 8.3' 1003.3' 709.3' 355.0' 56.0' 261.9' 10.2' 441.4'341.9' 44.3' 156.3' 27.1' 119.6' 199.9' 244.8' 337.2' 767.0' 232.5' 55.0' 87.9' 112.2'148.6' 08.2' 60.0' 89.0' 97.9' 108.2' 16.1' 8.1' 112.7' 24.2' 112.4' 24.2' 39.1' 9.6' 73.5' 33.8' 112.4' 113.4' 25.2' 108.3' 73.5' 9.6' 37.9' 2.4'21.7' 113.4' 53.0' 14.0' 99.6' 24.7' 72.7' 39.1' 19.2'37.9' 2.4' 52.4' 44.4' 23 68.5' 20.1' 11.0'8.2'24.0' 89.5' 49.0' 20.0'13.1' 45.5'76.6' 12.6'26.2' 13.5' 87.6' 24.0'1.5'24.0'4.0'24.0'9.2' 54.8' 6.9' 278.9' 108.3' 5.4'20.2' 24.2' 109.4' 45.6' 107.2' 86.4' 1.1' 425.2' 34.3' 77.7' 158.5' 112.1' 383.6' 33.0' 415.9' 340.8' 76.8' 99.3' 69.4' 107.4' 82.0' 34.7' 64.3' 100.0' 99.3' 66.6' 107.4' 68.4' 115.7' 8.5'24.4' 36.1' 115.8' 72.0' 104.8' 103.8' 104.8' 78.9' 142.4' 360.9' 64.7' 232.5' 425.2' 235.2' 588.0' 235.2' 341.8' 337.2' 7' 32.7' 33.0' 212.3' 167.3' 28.3' 33.0' 140.3' 33.0' 212.3' 20.1'11.0' 35.5' 31.9' 10.0' 45.6' 41.5'24.0' 89.5' 24.0' 89.5'31.9' 62.2' 25.0'20.0'13.1' 42.7' 93.1' 11.5' 13.5' 87.6' 24.0' 88.5' 24.0' 88.5' 24.0' 29.5' 88.5' 30.8' 79.5' 9.1' 23.1' .9' 97.6' 24.0' 97.7' 91.6' 24.0' 101.7' 11.7'14.7' 26.7' 14.0' 99.6' 24.7' 112.0' 24.3' 112.0' 24.2' 112.7' 1040 1042 1044 1046 1048 1050 1052 054 1064 1066 1068 10701072107410761078 1011 2901 2903 29072905 2909 2911 2913 2915 2917 2919 2850 1125- 1139 2800 1082 7 106 3- 1 075 1077- 1091 1095- 1107 110 9- 112 3 1143- 1151 2999 2860 1098 119 9 1080 2800 2870 E A ST B A Y S H O RE R O A D WES T B A Y S H O R E RO A DCOLORADOAVENUE E A ST B A Y S H O RE R O A D B A Y S H O R E F REEW A Y W ES T B A Y S H O R E R O A D SIM KINSCOU R T W E S T B AY SHORE R OAD B A YSH O RE FR E E W A Y B A Y S H O RE F RE E W A Y B A YSH ORE FRE E W A Y COLORADOPLACE C O L O R AD O A V E N U E RM-20 PC-3183 R-2 PC- 1889 ROLM GreerP a rk E mily R e n z el W etla n d s This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Project Site Current Features 0'237' Location Map: 2850 W Bayshore CITY O F PALO A L TO I N C O R P O R ATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto chodgki, 2021-03-04 12:58:05Attachment A. Location Map (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) 2.a Packet Pg. 16 ATTACHMENTA FINDINGSFORAPPROVAL 2850WBayshoreRoad 21PLNͲ00041  InorderfortheARBtomakeafuturerecommendationofapproval,theprojectmustcomply withthefollowingFindingsforArchitecturalReviewasrequiredinChapter18.76.020ofthe PAMC.  Finding#1:ThedesignisconsistentwithapplicableprovisionsofthePaloAlto ComprehensivePlan,ZoningCode,coordinatedareaplans(includingcompatibility requirements),andanyrelevantdesignguides.  Finding#2:Theprojecthasaunifiedandcoherentdesign,that: a. createsaninternalsenseoforderanddesirableenvironmentforoccupants,visitors, andthegeneralcommunity, b. preserves,respectsandintegratesexistingnaturalfeaturesthatcontributepositively tothesiteandthehistoriccharacterincludinghistoricresourcesoftheareawhen relevant, c. isconsistentwiththecontextͲbaseddesigncriteriaoftheapplicablezonedistrict, d. providesharmonioustransitionsinscale,massandcharactertoadjacentlanduses andlandusedesignations, e. enhanceslivingconditionsonthesite(ifitincludesresidentialuses)andinadjacent residentialareas.  Finding#3:Thedesignisofhighaestheticquality,usinghighquality,integratedmaterialsand appropriateconstructiontechniques,andincorporatingtextures,colors,andotherdetails thatarecompatiblewithandenhancethesurroundingarea.  Finding#4:Thedesignisfunctional,allowingforeaseandsafetyofpedestrianandbicycle trafficandprovidingforelementsthatsupportthebuilding’snecessaryoperations(e.g. convenientvehicleaccesstopropertyandutilities,appropriatearrangementandamountof openspaceandintegratedsignage,ifapplicable,etc.).  Finding#5:Thelandscapedesigncomplementsandenhancesthebuildingdesignandits surroundings,isappropriatetothesite’sfunctions,andutilizestotheextentpractical, regionalindigenousdroughtresistantplantmaterialcapableofprovidingdesirablehabitat thatcanbeappropriatelymaintained.  Finding#6:Theprojectincorporatesdesignprinciplesthatachievesustainabilityinareas relatedtoenergyefficiency,waterconservation,buildingmaterials,landscaping,andsite planning. 2.b Packet Pg. 17 CONTEXTͲBASEDDESIGNCRITERIA PLEASENOTE–theserequirementsareproposedtobereplacedbyObjectiveStandardsin thesummerof2021.SeetheObjectiveStandardswebpageformoreinformationͲ https://bit.ly/ObjectiveStandards  PursuanttoPAMC18.16.090(b),thefollowingcontextͲbaseddesignconsiderationsand findingsareapplicabletothisproject.ThesecontextͲbaseddesigncriteriaareintendedto provideadditionalstandardstobeusedinthedesignandevaluationofdevelopmentina commercialdistrict.Thepurposeistoencouragedevelopmentinacommercialdistricttobe responsibletoitscontextandcompatibilitywithadjacentdevelopmentaswellastopromote theestablishmentofpedestrianorienteddesign.  1. PedestrianandBicycleEnvironment Thedesignofnewprojectsshallpromotepedestrianwalkability,abicyclefriendly environment,andconnectivitythroughdesignelements  2. StreetBuildingFacades Streetfacadesshallbedesignedtoprovideastrongrelationshipwiththesidewalkandthe street(s),tocreateanenvironmentthatsupportsandencouragespedestrianactivitythrough designelements  3. MassingandSetbacks Buildingsshallbedesignedtominimizemassingandconformtopropersetbacks  4. LowDensityResidentialTransitions Wherenewprojectsarebuiltabuttingexistinglowerscaleresidentialdevelopment,careshall betakentorespectthescaleandprivacyofneighboringproperties  5. ProjectOpenSpace Privateandpublicopenspaceshallbeprovidedsothatitisusablefortheresidentsand visitorsofthesite  6. ParkingDesign Parkingshallbeaccommodatedbutshallnotbeallowedtooverwhelmthecharacterofthe projectordetractfromthepedestrianenvironment  7. LargeMultiͲAcreSites Largesites(overoneacre)shallbedesignedsothatstreet,block,andbuildingpatternsare consistentwiththoseofthesurroundingneighborhood  8. SustainabilityandGreenBuildingDesign Projectdesignandmaterialstoachievesustainabilityandgreenbuildingdesignshouldbe incorporatedintotheproject  2.b Packet Pg. 18   PerformanceCriteria18.23  Performancecriteriaareintendedtoprovideadditionalstandardstobeusedinthedesignandevaluation ofdevelopmentsinthemultiͲfamily,commercial,andindustrialzones.Thepurposeistobalancetheneeds oftheuseswithinthesezoneswiththeneedtominimizeimpactstosurroundingneighborhoodsand businesses.Thecriteriaareintendedtomakenewdevelopmentsandmajorarchitecturalreviewprojects compatiblewithnearbyresidentialandbusinessareas,andtoenhancethedesirabilityoftheproposed developmentsforthesiteresidentsandusers,andforabuttingneighborsandbusinesses.   Assurethatdevelopmentprovidesadequateandaccessible interiorareasorexteriorenclosuresforthestorageoftrash andrecyclablematerialsinappropriatecontainers,andthat trashdisposalandrecyclingareasarelocatedasfarfrom abuttingresidencesasisreasonablypossible.  Consistencywillbefinalizedwhenaformal applicationissubmitted.   Tominimizethevisualimpactsoflightingonabuttingor nearbyresidentialsitesandfromadjacentroadways.    Thepurposeistorestrictretailorservicecommercial businessesabutting(eitherdirectlyoracrossthestreet)or within50feetofresidentiallyzonedpropertiesorproperties withexistingresidentialuseslocatedwithinnonresidential zones,withoperationsoractivitiesbetweenthehoursof 10:00p.m.and6:00a.m.Operationssubjecttothiscodemay include,butarenotlimitedto,deliveries,parkinglotand sidewalkcleaning,and/orcleanuporsetupoperations,but doesnotincludegarbagepickup.    Privacyofabuttingresidentialpropertiesorpropertieswith existingresidentialuseslocatedwithinnonresidentialzones (residentialproperties)shouldbeprotectedbyscreening frompublicviewallmechanicalequipmentandserviceareas. Landscapingshouldbeusedtointegrateaprojectdesigninto thesurroundingneighborhood,andtoprovideprivacy screeningbetweenpropertieswhereappropriate.  18.23.020TrashDisposalandRecyclingProjectConsistency 18.23.030Lighting 18.23.040LateNightUsesandActivities 18.23.050Visual,ScreeningandLandscaping 2.b Packet Pg. 19  Therequirementsandguidelinesregardingnoiseand vibrationimpactsareintendedtoprotectresidentiallyzoned propertiesorpropertieswithexistingresidentialuseslocated withinnonresidentialzones(residentialproperties)from excessiveandunnecessarynoisesand/orvibrationsfromany sourcesinabuttingindustrialorcommerciallyzoned properties.Designofnewprojectsshouldreducenoisefrom parking,loading,andrefusestorageareasandfromheating, ventilation,airconditioningapparatus,andothermachinery onnearbyresidentialproperties.Newequipment,whether mountedontheexteriorofthebuildingorlocatedinteriorto abuilding,whichrequiresonlyabuildingpermit,shallalsobe subjecttotheserequirements.    Thevisualimpactofparkingshallbeminimizedonadjacent residentiallyzonedpropertiesorpropertieswithexisting residentialuseslocatedwithinnonresidentialzones.    Theguidelinesregardingsiteaccessimpactsareintendedto minimizeconflictsbetweenresidentialvehicular,pedestrian, andbicycleusesandmoreintensivetrafficassociatedwith commercialandindustrialdistricts,andtofacilitate pedestrianandbicycleconnectionsthroughandadjacentto theprojectsite.    Therequirementsforairqualityareintendedtobuffer residentialusesfrompotentialsourcesofodorand/ortoxic aircontaminants.    InaccordancewithTitles15and17ofthePaloAlto MunicipalCode,minimizethepotentialhazardsofanyuseon adevelopmentsitethatwillentailthestorage,useor handlingofhazardousmaterials(includinghazardouswastes) onͲsiteinexcessoftheexemptquantitiesprescribedin HealthandSafetyCodeDivision20,Chapter6.95,andTitle 15ofthiscode.  18.23.060NoiseandVibrationProjectConsistency 18.23.070Parking 18.23.080Vehicular,PedestrianandBicycleSiteAccess 18.23.090AirQuality 18.23.100HazardousMaterials 2.b Packet Pg. 20 ATTACHMENT C ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 2850 W Bayshore, 21PLN-00041 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.13 (RM-30 DISTRICT) Regulation Required Proposed Minimum/Maximum Site Area, Width and Depth 8,500 sf area, 70 foot width, 100 foot depth 101,800 sf (2.337 AC) No Change from existing Minimum Front Yard 20 feet 24 Rear Yard 10 feet 15 feet Interior Side Yard 6 feet Not Applicable Street Side Yard 16 feet 10 feet; 23 feet Special Setback 24 feet 24 feet (special setback on West Bayshore) Setback from major roadways [18.13.040(b)(1)(A)] 25 feet Not Applicable Max. Building Height 35 feet Main:34’6”; Towers (3 on each building): 39’6” (request for DEE) Side Yard Daylight Plane None Not Applicable Rear Yard Daylight Plane None Not Applicable Max. Site Coverage 40% (40,720 sf) 32.9% (33,492 sf) +3.2% for covered patios (3,321 sf) Max. Total Floor Area Ratio 60% (61,080 sf) Gross Site: 0.83:1 (84,938 sf: 101,800 sf) Net site: 1.081 (84,938 sf: 78,700 sf) area (Concession requested per state density bonus law and PAMC Chapter) Minimum Site Open Space 30% (30,540 sf) 33.8% (34,408 sf) Minimum Usable Open Space 150 sf per unit (7,200 sf) TBD Minimum Common Open Space 75 sf per unit (3,600 sf) Unknown (expected to exceed requirement if some private open space is provided as common open space) Minimum Private Open Space 50 sf per unit (2,400 sf) Unknown (request to provide some private open space as common open space) in accordance with 18.13.040(e)(2)(B) * Design Enhancement Exception requested. ** Increase per 18.15.050d 2.c Packet Pg. 21 Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking) for Multiple-Family Residential Type Required Proposed Vehicle Parking 1.5 spaces per unit (per Assembly Bill 2345 for density bonus projects). 72 spaces required 96 private spaces provided; 2 guest spaces plus drop-off and delivery; 98 spaces plus drop- off/delivery Bicycle Parking 1 space per unit (100% long term) 48 required 48 provided 2.c Packet Pg. 22 SummerHill Homes Townhome Community at 2850 W. Bayshore Project Description SummerHill Homes proposes to redevelop a 2.34-acre site on West Bayshore Road in Palo Alto with a new 48-unit townhome community. The project will take advantage of the site’s close proximity to Greer Park, a short walk or bike ride to nearby schools, and convenient access to neighborhood shops and services at Edgewood Plaza and Midtown. With attractive landscaping, outdoor amenities and contemporary architecture, SummerHill expects the project to be a great homeownership opportunity for people living or working in Palo Alto. Location & Setting The project site is located at 2850 West Bayshore Road. The property currently contains a 32,500 square-foot single-story commercial building, built in 1976. To the southeast and southwest, the site is bordered by Greer Park. To the northwest of the site is the Emerson Montessori School, and to the northeast of the site, across W. Bayshore Road, are the Bayshore Freeway and the Emily Renzel Wetlands. Project Overview x SummerHill proposes to develop the 2.34-acre site with 48 new three-story townhomes in eight buildings, with attractive landscaping and common area amenities, at an overall density of approximately 20 dwelling units per acre. x The project will offer a variety of three-bedroom home plan, with an average living area of approximately 1,747 square feet. x The buildings are configured to provide an activated street presence along W. Bayshore Road and southeastward towards Greer Park. x The architecture is proposed as a contemporary style that combines pitched roofs, parapets, and classic materials with warm colors that complement the landscape and surrounding context. x Vehicular circulation is provided through an entry drive from W. Bayshore Road and on-site private streets. The project will provide approximately 98 off-street parking spaces. Each unit will have an attached private two-car garage — side-by-side garages for 32 of the units and tandem garages for 16 of the units. Bike storage for residents is provided in the garages, and bike racks for guests will be located around the site for convenience. x Consistent with City standards for private streets, the project will provide 32-foot wide streets, including paving, sidewalks, and garage aprons. x Many of the units will have private decks or front patios, but the project will also feature a large central community open space — approximately 9,000 square feet. 2.d Packet Pg. 23 Project Description SummerHill Homes Townhome Community at 2850 W. Bayshore -2- 2021-03-12 x For the privacy and quiet of the residents, SummerHill will construct a 14-foot sound wall along the east side of W. Bayshore Road, across from the project frontage. Requested Approvals The site is designated Research/Office Park in the 2017 Comprehensive Plan and is zoned Research, Office and Limited Manufacturing (ROLM). The ROLM District allows multifamily residential use, subject to the approval of a conditional use permit and the development standards prescribed for the RM-30 zoning district. SummerHill will request Major Architectural Review approval, a Conditional Use Permit, a concession pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law and the City’s Density Bonus ordinance, a Design Enhancement Exception, a tree removal permit, a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map and CEQA review for the project. Density Bonus SummerHill proposes to designate 7 of the 48 units as below-market rate units affordable to moderate- income households and pay an in lieu fee for a fractional 0.2 unit. Pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law and the City’s Density Bonus ordinance, SummerHill will request that the City allow the site to be developed at a floor area ratio of approximately 1.08 to accommodate the project. The additional floor area ratio will allow SummerHill to provide more market-rate and below-market rate units than would otherwise be feasible and will reduce the cost of providing the below-market rate units through economy of scale. Design Enhancement Exception SummerHill will request a Design Enhancement Exception for the project to incorporate tower elements with a height of approximately 39.5 feet, slightly taller than the applicable height limit of 35 feet. The tower elements will enhance the appearance of the project by allowing for more variety in the massing and the roofline. The height increase will not adversely affect any nearby homes, because the site is bordered on two sides by Greer Park and on a third side by the Bayshore Freeway. CEQA SummerHill anticipates that the project will qualify as a Class 32 Infill Development Project categorically exempt from project-specific environmental review. The project is consistent with the applicable Comprehensive Plan and zoning designations and regulations; the project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species; approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality; and the site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map SummerHill will prepare a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map and condominium plans to create separate parcels for the individual units and establish appropriate access, utility and service easements. SummerHill will include the proposed Vesting Tentative Map and subdivision improvements with the 2.d Packet Pg. 24 Project Description SummerHill Homes Townhome Community at 2850 W. Bayshore -3- 2021-03-12 application for the Major Architectural Review, the CUP and the other project entitlements so that all aspects of the project can be reviewed concurrently. Design and Construction The townhomes will be mapped as separate legal units pursuant to a condominium plan. The townhomes will be designed as R2 condominiums per the 2019 California Building Code with an NFPA 13 sprinkler system. Electric meters and telecommunications services will be grouped at the ends of each building, and service to the individual units will run through soffits in the garages of the units. Community Amenities & Landscaping The community will be maintained by a professionally managed homeowners association. The homeowners association will be responsible for maintaining the landscaping, common area amenities, and private streets. In addition to decorative landscaping throughout the community, common area amenities will include casual seating, picnic tables and play space for active use. Existing street trees along W. Bayshore Road will be preserved, as feasible. No Displacement The site is currently developed for commercial use, so the project will not displace any residents. Sustainability The project will be constructed in compliance with the current California Green Building Standards Code (Title 24) and the 2019 City of Palo Alto Energy REACH Code. Utilities, Public Services and Stormwater Management x Domestic water service will connect to an existing public water main in W. Bayshore Road through a master public meter and individual private submeters for each unit. Irrigation service will be provided through a separate meter, and the fire sprinklers and hydrants will be served through a dedicated line. x Existing sewer service for the site connects to a pubic main in Greer Park via a private 8-inch sewer lateral located in a private easement conveyed to the owners of the site by the City. Sewer service for the project is anticipated to use the same connection. x Stormwater will be treated on site as required to meet municipal stormwater permit requirements. Stormwater will be treated with bioretention areas and other low impact development (LID) treatment measures before being discharged to an existing public storm drain that currently serves the site. x Electric, cable, and telephone service is anticipated to connect to existing service lines along W. Bayshore Road. There are no existing overhead lines along the project frontage. New on- site utilities will be placed underground. 2.d Packet Pg. 25 Project Description SummerHill Homes Townhome Community at 2850 W. Bayshore -4- 2021-03-12 x Garbage and recycling service will be provided by GreenWaste of Palo Alto. Each garage will include designated space for waste, compost, and recycling bins. Residents will place their bins at their driveway apron for pickup. FEMA Flood Zone The project site is located within Special Flood Hazard Zone AE11. The project will be designed with the finish floor elevation (FFE) of each building at least 1 foot above the Base Flood Elevation (BFE), and CLOMR-F and LOMR-F will be obtained for the project. The existing elevation of the paved and landscaped areas of the site is approximately 6 – 10 feet, which means that the elevation of the proposed finished floors will be raised approximately 2 – 6 feet above existing grade at curb in order to be at least 1 foot above BFE. 2.d Packet Pg. 26 Attachment E Project Plans During Shelter-in-Place, project plans are only available to the public online. Hardcopies of the plans have been provided to Boardmembers. Directions to review Project plans online: 1. Go to: bit.ly/PApendingprojects 2. Scroll down to find “2850 W Bayshore” and click the address link 3. On this project specific webpage you will find a link to the project plans and other important information Direct Link to Project Webpage: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=5131 2.e Packet Pg. 27 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 12136) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 4/1/2021 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: ARB Recommendation on Objective Design Standards Title: Public Hearing: Recommendation on Objective Design Standards (Continued from March 18th, no staff report changes, Attachments B-E added) From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) recommend to the City Council adoption of the draft objective design standards (Attachment A) that would, in concert with other Zoning Code amendments, modify Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC). Report Summary The State legislature has made several changes to State housing laws in recent years to streamline housing approvals. Specifically, the legislature has taken steps to reduce the amount of subjective discretion jurisdictions have to deny or reduce the density of residential and residential mixed-use projects. Instead, in certain contexts, jurisdictions must rely on objective design and development standards. This objective design standards project aims to respond to State law by making changes to the Zoning Ordinance (Title 18) to transform subjective regulations into objective standards. Architectural review topics encompass site design and building design. This represents a new way that projects will be reviewed by Planning staff and the Architectural Review Board (ARB), in particular. Staff and consultants have worked with the ARB and a Subcommittee of the ARB over a series of nine meetings to prepare the draft design standards. The report contains two main discussion items: 1. Objective Design Standards: These objective design standards represent the transformation of the existing (subjective) context-based design criteria into objective standards. Architectural review topics encompass site design and building design. The 3 Packet Pg. 28 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 2 ARB is being asked to make a recommendation to the City Council on the draft objective design standards in Attachment A. 2. Other Code Updates to Support Objective Design Standards: City staff are proposing changes to other sections of Title 18 to strengthen objective standards, remove inconsistencies and redundancies, and streamline project review. These items are presented to the ARB as informational items and are not requested as part of the recommendation to the City Council. The code amendment items are being considered by the Planning & Transportation Commission. Background SB2 Funding and Project Purpose This project, development of objective standards, is funded by Senate Bill 2 (SB2). SB2 provides local governments with grants and technical assistance to prepare plans and process improvements that: x streamline housing approvals; x facilitate housing affordability; and/or x accelerate housing production. The City of Palo Alto developed a grant proposal to streamline housing approvals through process improvements, namely the development of objective standards. The project is to amend the Zoning Ordinance to simplify and clarify standards and guidelines for staff, decision- makers, and applicants. Relationship to State Housing Laws Several State housing laws rely upon objective standards and emphasize the need for this SB2 project. The following paragraphs summarize the laws, which, when layered together, create the policy context within which Palo Alto must develop its objective standards. Housing Accountability Act Originally passed in 1982, the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) (Government Code Section 65589.5) acknowledges the lack of housing as a critical problem in California. The HAA applies to all "housing development projects" which the State defines as: “residential units; mixed-use developments (with at least two-thirds of the square footage designated for residential use), and transitional or supportive housing.” The City’s interpretation is that the HAA applies to projects with two or more residential units. The Housing Accountability Act states that a city cannot disapprove a project, reduce its density, or otherwise make a project infeasible, when the project complies with objective standards. However, if an applicant seeks an exception to an objective standard, the project is no longer covered by the Housing Accountability Act. Decision-makers may then rely on the findings required or criteria for approval of that specific modification. In such a case, subjective standards and design guidelines can be used to evaluate projects. 3 Packet Pg. 29 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 3 SB35 Project Streamlining Under SB35 (Government Code Section 65913.4), projects meeting all of the following requirements are eligible for a streamlined review process: x The development on a legal parcel or parcels zoned for residential uses or having a Comprehensive Plan designation that allows residential or mixed-uses; x A site in which at least 75 percent of the perimeter of the site adjoins parcels that are developed with urban uses; x The development contains two or more residential units; x Projects with at least two-thirds of the square footage designated for residential use; x The project does not demolish a historic structure that is on a national, state, or local historic register; x The project does not demolish any housing units that have been occupied by tenants in the last 10 years; x The site is not within certain high-risk areas such as a very high fire hazard severity zone, a hazardous waste site, or a floodway. x Projects which meet certain affordability requirements, such as, at present at least 50% of the proposed residential units must be dedicated as affordable to households at 80% of Area Median Income (AMI); x All construction workers employed in the execution of the development must be paid at least the general prevailing rate; and x The project must meet all objective standards of the Zoning Code at the time of application submittal. In Palo Alto, SB35 applies to a limited number of projects and to date no one has applied for this type of project. Under SB35, the review process would be limited to 90 days for projects containing 150 or fewer housing units and 180 days for larger projects. An SB35 project is not subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The project is not subject to discretionary review (e.g., Architectural Review, Site and Design Review, requiring review by the ARB, PTC, or Council). The creation and changes to objective standards would affect these projects. SB330 Permit Review Effective January 1, 2020, SB330 made several changes to existing State housing law, including the HAA and Permit Streamlining Act. For the purposes of the work described herein, the important elements are as follows: x The legislation creates a preliminary application process; x Can be requested by a “Housing Development” project, which is defined to include residential projects of two or more units and mixed-use projects with 2/3 of the square footage dedicated to residential units and transitional or supportive housing projects; x The developer has 180 days from the submittal of the preliminary application to submit a development application; 3 Packet Pg. 30 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 4 x Freezes many development standards, by requiring that jurisdictions only subject a housing development project to review pursuant to the ordinances, policies, and standards adopted and in effect when a preliminary application is submitted (vs. when it is deemed complete); x Limits jurisdictions to five public hearings; x Prohibits jurisdictions from imposing (on housing projects) subjective design standards established after January 1, 2020; x Prohibits jurisdictions from enacting development policies, standards or conditions that would change current zoning and land use designations where housing is an allowable use. In such cases, the City cannot lessen the intensity of housing—such as reducing height, density, or floor area ratio, requiring new or increased open space, lot size, setbacks, or frontage, or limiting maximum lot coverage (effectively, this clause prohibits downzoning, though the City may rebalance density between various districts); and x Requires the replacement of all existing/demolished residential units. In Palo Alto, SB330 applies to a limited number of multi-family projects and to date is being requested for one project (200 Portage) with potentially a second project next month (2850 W Bayshore). Under SB330, the review process is reduced from 120 days to 90 days following completion of any applicable CEQA review. Summary State law relies more and more on projects’ compliance with objective standards to streamline housing projects. Therefore, this project aims to strengthen the City’s objective standards to identify the City’s design and development priorities. In this way, the project seeks to ensure applicants’ compliance with these priorities to facilitate the development of housing. Furthermore, this project allows the City to comply with recently passed legislation requiring objective standards and streamlined approval processes. Summary of Public Meetings This section summarizes meetings with decision-makers. This includes five previous meetings with the ARB and four meetings with a subcommittee of the ARB to review the objective design standards. Additionally, the PTC held study sessions on the project in May 2020 and on March 10, 2021. Chart 1 illustrates the project timeline. Chart 1: Project Timeline 3 Packet Pg. 31 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 5 ARB Study Sessions (5 Meetings) and ARB Subcommittee (4 Meetings) In December 20191 and February 2020,2 staff and consultants provided an overview of the project. Staff presented a description of key issues and discussed options and recommendations for how to implement the project goals and requirements of State law with respect to objective standards. The ARB expressed a range of opinions on how to address State requirements and a range of responses to staff and consultant ideas. The ARB formed a subcommittee, composed of Board members Thompson and Hirsch, to workshop the draft standards. The ARB Subcommittee reviewed and provided written comments on preliminary versions of the standards. The Subcommittee also met with staff and consultants over a series of four video meetings to discuss and debate the format, organization, intent statements, graphics, and specific language of the draft standards. The full ARB met in October3 and November 20204 to review the draft objective standards. The Board: x supported the structure of the draft ordinance; x considered the applicability of the ordinance to different types of residential vs. commercial projects; x debated several design details, menu of options’ ideas, and specific measurements for individual design topics; and x expressed a range of perspectives about draft zoning graphics. 1 December 5, 2019 ARB Staff Report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/74248, Minutes: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/74670, Video: https://midpenmedia.org/architectural-review-board-74-1252019/ 2 February 6, 2020 ARB Staff Report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/75075, Minutes: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/75703, Video: https://midpenmedia.org/architectural-review-board-74-262020/ 3 October 15, 2020 Staff Report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=78749, Minutes: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/79279, Video: https://midpenmedia.org/architectural-review-board-74-10152020/ 4 November 19, 2020 Staff Report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/79180, Minutes: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/79609, Video: https://midpenmedia.org/architectural-review-board-74-1152020-2/ 3 Packet Pg. 32 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 6 The full ARB met most recently on February 18th5 to review the revised draft objective standards during a final study session. The ARB provided detailed direction about specific intent statements, standards, applicability, and graphics. The Board generally expressed concerns about the prescriptive nature of the standards and at least one member asked to limit the use of the objective standards to only those required by the State (i.e., Housing Accountability Act projects). This issue is further discussed in the body of the report below. PTC Study Session – May 13, 2020 and March 10, 2021 Staff and consultants met with the PTC in May 2020 to provide an overview of the project, key issues, policy options, and the ARB’s recommendations.6 The PTC held a study session on March 10, 2021 to review the design standards, including the ARB’s work to date, and proposed changes to other sections of Title 18. The PTC expressed the following perspectives with respect to the objective design standards: x Commissioners generally agreed with how the subjective criteria had been translated into objective standards and appreciated the ARB’s contributions. x Commissioners generally agreed that the standards should apply to Housing Accountability Act projects and that such projects should only be subject to one non- binding ARB hearing. Some Commissioners expressed a desire to have them apply to projects more widely in the interest of streamlining. x Some Commissioners shared the ARB’s concerns about not wanting to be too prescriptive in design. Discussion & Analysis This section is divided into two parts: 1. Objective Design Standards: This subsection describes the content and applicability of the standards and intent statements in the new draft Chapter 18.24: Objective Design Standards. Staff asks the ARB to make a recommendation on this draft ordinance in Attachment A. 2. Other Updates to Title 18: Changes to development standards, performance standards, application processing, and legislative actions/overlays to make allow for objective standards. These are for information; a draft ordinance will be reviewed by the Planning and Transportation Commission to develop recommendations to City Council. 1. Objective Design Standards 5 February 18, 2021 Staff Report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=80252, Video: https://midpenmedia.org/architectural-review-board-2182021/ 6 May 13, 2020 PTC Staff Report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/76583, Minutes: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/77132, Video: https://midpenmedia.org/planning- transportation-commission-63-5132020/ 3 Packet Pg. 33 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 7 Applicability This project primarily addresses multi-family housing and residential mixed-use projects. Ground-floor commercial guidelines and standards are addressed insofar as retail is required as part of a mixed-use residential project. The “intent statements” described below would apply to all project types, including commercial and residential. Objective development standards (e.g., setbacks, heights, densities) in Title 18 currently apply, and will continue to apply, to all projects. There has been a key change since the ARB’s previous review, based on ARB feedback and further discussion with City staff and the City Attorney’s Office. City staff have revised the applicability of the design standards to apply to “housing development projects” as defined by Government Code Section 65589.5, known as the Housing Accountability Act. This means that the standards would apply to projects that include: x residential uses of two or more units, x mixed-use projects with at least 2/3 housing; and x supportive/transitional housing, that meet objective standards. As proposed, City staff would review such projects for compliance with objective standards, just as they do today for all projects. The ARB would review such projects during one advisory meeting (similar in format to a study session) in order to provide design comments. This concept is illustrated in Chart 2. Chart 2: Project Review Process for Multifamily & Mixed-Use Housing Projects Contents Attachment A contains the draft objective design standards and related graphics. Staff and consultants have revised the current Context-Based Design Criteria into a stand-alone set of 3 Packet Pg. 34 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 8 objective design standards which would be codified as Chapter 18.24. The Context-Based Design Criteria would be eliminated from the code with approval of these standards and Zoning Code amendment process. The ARB findings would remain in Title 18.76. The ARB would continue to use these findings to evaluate projects that are undergoing discretionary review in applicable zoning districts (e.g., 100% commercial projects, projects that do not comply with the Housing Accountability Act). Such projects would also need to meet the intent statements in Chapter 18.24, in a similar way that they must meet the Context-Based Design Criteria today. Table 1 identifies the topical sections for the new Chapter 18.24. These topics can generally be categorized into three areas: 1. Administration: Describes the purpose and applicability of the design standards, including the relevant zoning districts, and defines terms that are specific to this chapter. 2. Site Design: Identifies standards related to the interface between the building and public realm, including sidewalks, driveways, access, entries, and building orientation. 3. Building Design: Identifies standards related to the building itself, including bulk/massing, facades, entries, on-site open space, and materials. Table 1: Design Standards Organization, by Topic Category Topic Administration 18.24.010: Purpose and Applicability Site Design 18.24.020: Public Realm/Sidewalk Character 18.24.030: Site Access 18.24.040: Building Orientation and Setbacks Building Design 18.24.050: Building Massing 18.24.060: Façade Design 18.24.070: Residential Entries 18.24.080: Open Space 18.24.090: Materials 18.24.100: Sustainability and Green Building Each of the design topics above is broken into two sections: (1) an intent statement and (2) a set of objective standards. 1. The intent statements represent overarching guidelines for each topic, are subjective, and often include verbatim language from the Context-Based Design Criteria and/or ARB findings. 2. The objective standards are ratios, measurements, percentages, or otherwise clear criteria. Some standards are written as a menu of options, providing choices for how they may be met. Standards have been devised based on staff and consultant experience with designing and reviewing multi-family, townhouse, modular, and residential mixed-use 3 Packet Pg. 35 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 9 projects. If a project meets objective standards for a particular topic, the project automatically meets the intent statement for that section. Based on feedback from the ARB and ARB Subcommittee, the proposed design standards aim to strike a balance between prescriptiveness and flexibility. The objective design standards are intended to lead to buildings with good design principles and an acceptable level of articulation and detail. However, because these standards are objective, they cannot anticipate all different types of buildings and unique architectural designs. Therefore, draft Chapter 18.24 also includes an alternate path for compliance. These two paths toward compliance are identified in Chart 3. Chart 3: Two Paths of Compliance: Objective and Discretionary If architects/applicants do not want to meet or cannot meet the objective design standard—for whatever reason—they may instead choose to meet the “intent statement.” In choosing this path, the applicant would go through the ARB discretionary review process. The ARB would make the determination as to whether the proposed project meets the intent of the code section. This process would be very similar to the ARB’s role in architectural review today, but with the (similar) subjective criteria of the intent statements serving as the basis for review rather than the Context-Based Design Criteria. Notably, if a project applicant chooses the discretionary path, the project is no longer meeting objective standards and therefore would not be compliant with the Housing Accountability Act, based on the City’s interpretation of the law. 2. Other Updates to Title 18 3 Packet Pg. 36 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 10 In addition to design standards, City staff propose other updates to Title 18 to strengthen objective standards and streamline housing approvals, consistent with the goals of the SB2 funding. Table 2 summarizes proposed changes by zoning district/code section. Development Standards: Within each zoning district that allows multi-family housing, City staff recommend minor modifications. These would transform subjective development standards and district regulations into objective standards, remove redundancies, and clarify standards that have been historically confusing to staff, applicants and decision-makers. Proposed changes are not intended to have a substantive effect on building envelope. One notable topic for discussion is the lower maximum height development standards that apply when located near lower density residential districts and vary depending on the Zoning Code chapter. The City’s zoning map provides an illustrative ‘bubble’ showing the area of commercially zoned properties that lie within 150 feet of residentially zoned properties (as shown in map excerpt for CN zoned properties next to RM-30 zoned properties): In these areas, special development standards apply to encourage transitions in height that are sensitive to the adjacent residentially zoned properties. While staff sees the importance of this transition in height, each section of the Code currently expresses this requirement in a different way, making it difficult to implement. Staff would like to retain the spirit of these regulations but streamline the language for ease of use. More information on this proposed Code change will be provided at-places. Performance Standards: Performance standards in Chapter 18.23 were originally conceived to address potential colocation impacts between residential and non-residential uses. However, this code section has been revised over time and has been interpreted to apply to all types of projects, regardless of adjacency. As a result, this section has been a source of confusion for City staff and applicants. To clarify applicability and streamline requirements, staff propose to eliminate the catch-all 18.23 Performance Standards chapter and move those standards into more relevant code sections. Staff propose revisions to strengthen objective standards for lighting and screening, and to bring standards up to date with current zero waste and stormwater management practices, based on feedback from City staff in several departments. Legislative Actions: Title 18 offers flexible development standards to facilitate multi-family residential and affordable housing projects, but requires legislative action in order for projects to access these standards. The legislative action adds time, expense, and uncertainty to the development process. Specifically, the Workforce Housing (WH), Affordable Housing (AH), and 3 Packet Pg. 37 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 11 Pedestrian Transit Oriented Development (PTOD) combining overlays require action by the PTC and City Council prior to architectural review of development proposed for a specific site. In contrast, the Housing Incentive Program (HIP) process allows more density/FAR without rezoning. Housing achievable under these overlays represent the very types of uses—housing affordable to low- and moderate-income households, and housing near transit—the City has expressed a desire to facilitate in the Housing Work Plan and other policy documents. The PTC and City Council may consider changes to these legislative actions to allow for streamlined review and approval when projects meet required thresholds for affordability. Staff recommend that such projects continue to undergo architectural review with the ARB, though it is unclear whether applicants will choose this path over alternatives provided by state law (e.g., SB35, State Density Bonus Law). Summary: Table 2 summarizes key changes to zoning districts and other code sections, as described in this report and discussed in more detail with the PTC. Table 2: Summary of Proposed Zoning Changes, by Chapter Ch. # Chapter Title Summary of Proposed Changes 18.13 Multiple Family Residential (RM-20, RM-30 and RM-40) Districts x Replace discretionary setbacks with objective setback standard x Relocate open space design standards to new 18.24 Design Standards; include cross-reference x Replace Context-Based Design Criteria with new 18.24 Design Standards; include cross-reference 18.16 Neighborhood, Community, and Service Commercial (CN, CC and CS) Districts x Clarify height transition when adjacent to lower density residential district x Relocate open space design standards to new 18.24 Design Standards; include cross-reference x Consolidate recycling storage standards with 18.23.020: Refuse Disposal Areas and move to new section in 18.40: General Standards x Replace Context-Based Design Criteria with new 18.24 Design Standards; include cross-reference 18.18 Downtown Commercial (CD) District x Relocate open space design standards to new 18.24 Design Standards; include cross-reference x Consolidate recycling storage standards with 18.23.020: Refuse Disposal Areas and move to new section in 18.40: General Standards x Replace Context-Based Design Criteria with new 18.24 Design Standards; include cross-reference x Remove redundant parking and loading section; keep parking standards in 18.52 3 Packet Pg. 38 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 12 Table 2: Summary of Proposed Zoning Changes, by Chapter Ch. # Chapter Title Summary of Proposed Changes 18.20 Office, Research, and Manufacturing (MOR, ROLM, RP and GM) Districts x Consolidate recycling storage standards with 18.23.020: Refuse Disposal Areas and move to new section in 18.40: General Standards 18.23 Performance Criteria for Multiple Family Commercial, Manufacturing and Planned Community Districts x Strengthen objective standards x Apply performance criteria to all projects, regardless of use or adjacency to residential x Relocate standards, as shown in Table 2 18.30(J) Affordable Housing (AH) Overlay District x Revise combining district into by-right overlay for projects consistent with objective standards x Allow a non-binding hearing with the ARB, but not legislative approval by the PTC or Council (TBD) 18.30(K) Workforce Housing (WH) Overlay District x Clarify height transition when adjacent to lower density residential district x Revise combining district into by-right overlay for projects consistent with objective standards x Allow a non-binding hearing with the ARB, but not legislative approval by the PTC or Council (TBD) x Expand districts beyond PF? (TBD) 18.34 Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development (PTOD) Combining District x Consider combining district with HIP (TBD) x Replace Context-Based Design Criteria with new 18.24 Design Standards; include cross-reference 18.52 Parking and Loading Requirements (to be included in a future draft) x Remove inconsistencies and redundancies x Add objective standard for off-site parking distance 18.54 Parking Facility Design Standards x Strengthen objective standards for parking and loading in site planning to avoid conflicts and push parking to rear of sites x Allow mechanical parking lifts by right (instead of by approval of the City Council or Planning Director) to streamline review and acknowledge their prevalence x Remove inconsistencies and redundancies 18.76 Permits and Approvals x Clarify that state streamlining projects are not subject to typical architectural review process 18.77 Processing of Permits and Approvals x Create a new process for state streamlining projects. 3 Packet Pg. 39 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 13 Environmental Review The ordinance revisions represent implementation of adopted plans and policy. Therefore, the revisions are exempt under CEQA and/or covered by the CEQA documents prepared for the Comprehensive Plan. The project aims to facilitate implementation of State law. The project does not propose to increase development beyond what was analyzed in the Comprehensive Plan. Public Notification, Outreach & Comments This item was published in a local paper, Daily Post, on March 5, 2021, which is 13 days in advance of the meeting. Public Comments – Received Prior to March 18, 2021 Public Hearing On January 22, 2021 staff sent an email to a wide range of architect and consultants that have worked with the City in the recent past on development projects to solicit comments on the draft objective standards. Of the 30 stakeholders emailed, five people provided feedback. These comments are summarized below and included in the February 5th ARB staff report attachments: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=80252 1. Elaine Uang provided detailed comments, including recommendations to provide more flexibility for different sized lots and lot configurations, and different locations. 2. Ken Hayes provided a link to a journal entry he prepared regarding how municipalities regulate and apply design standards. 3. Rick Gosalvez, SV@Home, asked to be added to our project mailing list 4. Heather Young expressed concern that the objective standards do not account for context and site conditions, that dimensional requirements would not work in certain instances, and that the resulting designs may not be desirable. 5. Elaine Breeze, SummerHill, questioned the applicability of the proposed standards to lower density housing types, specifically townhomes, and expressed a desire for alternative compliance, if standards cannot be met. On February 18th, Chris Wuthmann (from Stanford University Real Estate) addressed the ARB regarding the objective standards; the comments regarded: 1. the relationship of the standards to subdivisions (to enable the creation of new contextual references), 2. a need to create an option within alternative compliance for demonstrable cost saving elements, including pre-fabricated and modular construction, as a legitimate consideration where the affordability of a project exceeds inclusionary requirements, and 3. recognition that new ways of living (post Covid) create a need for adapting building and site plan standards to create necessary areas for safe workspaces in outdoor environments and drop offs located outside of the public rights of way. 3 Packet Pg. 40 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 14 Mr. Wuthmann also spoke during the public testimony portion of the PTC hearing on March 10, 2021 about the topics above, maintaining standards that support affordability and distinctions between for-sale and rental products. See attached letter. Next Steps Staff will bring the ARB’s recommendation to the PTC and City Council for their consideration on a draft ordinance this spring and summer. Report Author & Contact Information ARB7 Liaison & Contact Information Jean Eisberg, Consultant Planner Jodie Gerhardt, Planning Manager (415) 841-3539 (650) 329-2575 jean@lexingtonplanning.com jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments: x Attachment A: 18.24 DRAFT Objective Design Standards (DOCX) x Attachment B: Comment Letters (PDF) x Attachment C: Excerpt Draft Minutes of March 18, 2021 (DOCX) x Attachment D: Height Transition Memo (DOCX) x Attachment E: Outreach Emails (PDF) 7 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 3 Packet Pg. 41 Chapter 18.24 Objective Design Standards DRAFT FOR ARB REVIEW March 11, 2021 Preface This document outlines the topics and potential design standards and guidelines for a new Chapter (18.24) of the Palo Alto Zoning Ordinance. This draft chapter represents a rewrite of the Palo Alto Context-Based Design Criteria and other parts of Title 18 as objective standards. The draft standards are based on the specific language of the existing design criteria, but reorganizes the content into subtopics identified below. The objective standards project aims to transform subjective design criteria into reasonable, objective design standards that support the City’s priorities for design and development. 18.24.010 Purpose and Applicability .................................................................. 1 18.24.020 Public Realm/Sidewalk Character ........................................................ 2 18.24.030 Site Access ................................................................................... 4 18.24.040 Building Orientation and Setbacks ........................................................ 5 18.24.050 Building Massing ............................................................................ 12 18.24.060 Façade Design .............................................................................. 15 18.24.070 Residential Entries ......................................................................... 24 18.24.080 Open Space ................................................................................. 27 18.24.090 Materials .................................................................................... 29 18.24.100 Sustainability and Green Building Design ............................................... 30 3.a Packet Pg. 42 pg. 1 18.24.010 Purpose and Applicability (A) Purpose (i) The purpose of the Design Standards is to provide guidance for good design in the form of “intent statements” for all project types and objective design standards for multifamily and residential mixed-use development projects that qualify as Residential Development Projects under the Housing Accountability Act. Diagrams are provided for illustrative purposes only and are not intended to convey required architectural style. Rather, the objective design standards aim to accommodate a variety of styles, construction types (e.g., wood frame, modular) and housing types including townhomes, apartments, condos, and mixed-use buildings. (B) Applicability of Regulations (i) Within the following zones and combining districts, the intent statements apply to all project types (including non-residential projects), new construction, and renovations; additionally, objective design standards apply to new residential construction projects that meet the definition of “housing development projects” under Government Code 69988.5(h)(2) (the Housing Accountability Act), such as multifamily housing with three or more units and residential mixed-use projects with two-thirds or more residential square feet: (a) 18.13: RM-20, RM-30, RM-40 (b) 18.16: CN, CC, CC(2), CS (c) 18.18: CD-C, CD-S, CD-N (d) 18.20: MOR, ROLM, ROLM(E), RP, RP(5), GM – residential and residential mixed-use only; regulations do not apply to commercial projects (e) 18.30: AH or WH combining district (f) 18.34: PTOD Public art is subject to Chapter 16.61 and exempt from these requirements. (C) Process and Alternative Compliance Each section of this chapter includes an intent statement that gives guidance for all applicable projects, regardless of use. Residential and mixed-use residential projects are generally required to comply with objective standards; however, applicants may choose to forgo one or more objective standards and instead meet the spirit of the relevant intent statements. Such requests will be reviewed and approved by the Director of Planning and Development Services or City Council, which may include a recommendation by the Architectural Review Board depending on the level of review required by Chapter 18.76. Non-residential projects shall meet ARB Finding and adhere to the spirit of the intent statements. Compliance with the relevant intent statements will be reviewed and approved by the Director of Planning and Development Services or City Council, which may include a recommendation by the Architectural Review Board depending on the level of review required by Chapter 18.76. 3.a Packet Pg. 43 pg. 2 (D) Definitions In addition to definitions identified in Chapter 18.04, the following definitions are specific to this chapter. (i) Primary Building Frontage: The front lot line or frontage along the public right-of- way. In the case of a through-lot, the primary building frontage could be on either public right-of-way. (ii) Primary Building Entry: The entrance leading to a lobby and/or accessed from the primary building frontage. (iii) Pedestrian Walkway: A sidewalk or path that is publicly-accessible and connects from a public right-of-way to another public right-of-way or publicly accessible open space. (iv) Façade Modulation: A change in building plane, either a recess or a projection, that changes shape of the exterior massing of the building. 18.24.020 Public Realm/Sidewalk Character (A) Intent To create an attractive and safe public realm and sidewalk space for pedestrians and cyclists through the implementation of design, landscaping, and infrastructure. Publicly accessible spaces and sidewalks should: x Design the transition between the public and private realm through the coordination of amenities and materials, such as accent paving, tree wells, lighting and street furniture (e.g., benches, bicycle racks, trash receptacles, and news racks). x Complement or match accent paving to existing designs in the Downtown and California Avenue business district. x Provide sidewalk widths that accommodate landscaping, street trees, furniture, and pedestrian amenities; create a pleasant, desirable place to walk; provide shade; and enable comfortable pedestrian passage. x Provide amenities, such as parking and repair equipment, for micromobility, such as bicycles and scooters. (B) Streetscape (i) Sidewalk Widths (a) Public sidewalks abutting a development parcel in any commercial mixed-use district (CN, CS, CC, CC(2), CD-C, CD-S, CD-N, PTOD) shall have a minimum sidewalk width (curb to back of walk) of at least 10 feet. This standard may be met with a combination of pedestrian clear path and landscape and furniture strip (see Figure 1), as long as the pedestrian clear path is no less than 8 feet. If the existing public sidewalk does not meet the minimum standard, a publicly accessible extension of the sidewalk, with corresponding public access easement, shall be provided. 1. Notwithstanding the total dimension in subsection (a), the following streets/locations shall have a minimum sidewalk width as noted: 3.a Packet Pg. 44 pg. 3 a. Park Boulevard (South of Caltrain to Ventura): TBD, per NVCAP b. El Camino Real and San Antonio Road, west of Highway 101: 12 ft (b) Publicly accessible sidewalks or walkways connecting through a development parcel (e.g., on a through lot) shall have a minimum six-foot width. (c) Pedestrian walkways that are designed to provide access to bicycles shall have a minimum width of eight feet, with two feet of clear space on either side. (ii) Street Trees (a) Sidewalks shall include at least one street tree, within six feet of the sidewalk, for every 30 feet of linear feet of sidewalk length. Rights of way under control of the County of Santa Clara or State of California, supersede this requirement if they have conflicting regulations. Figure 1: Illustrative Sidewalk Section and Description of Zones Mixed-Use Frontage Residential Frontage Frontage Sidewalk Street Building Setback Frontage Area Pedestrian Clear Zone Landscape/Furniture Zone Vehicles/Bike Lanes Mixed-Use x Sidewalk Dining x Outdoor Displays x Public Art x Seating x Trees/Planting Residential x Stoops x Porches x Front Yards x Trees/Planting x Sidewalk x Street Trees/Planting x Street Lighting x Seating x Bike Parking x Public Art x Outdoor Dining x Bus Shelters x Utilities (e.g., hydrants) x Street Parking x Bike Lanes x Drop-off Zones x Parklets x Bus Stops 3.a Packet Pg. 45 pg. 4 (iii) Accent Paving (a) On University Avenue from Alma Street to Middlefield Road and on California Avenue from El Camino Real to Park Boulevard the following regulation applies: 1. Sidewalks and publicly accessible areas at intersections or fronting University Avenue or California Avenue shall match any existing accent paving design and materials, such as bricks or decorative glass. (iv) Mobility Infrastructure (a) Micromobility infrastructure, such as locations to lock bicycles and scooters, shall be located within 30 feet of the primary building entry and/or a path leading to the primary building entry. This standard may be satisfied by existing infrastructure already located within 50 feet of the project site and located in the public right-of-way. (b) Primary building entries shall provide at least one seating area or bench within 30 feet of building entry and/or path leading to building entry. This standard may be satisfied by existing seating area or benches located in public right-of-way within 50 feet of the building entry. On arterials—except Downtown—seating areas or benches shall not be located between the sidewalk and curb. Arterial roadways are identified in Map T-5 of the Comprehensive Plan and do not include residential arterials. 18.24.030 Site Access (A) Intent To provide facilities and accommodations for pedestrians, vehicles, cyclists, and transit users to safely and efficiently access and circulate both within individual sites and in the site’s surrounding context. Site access should include the following elements: x Site circulation and access that presents a clear hierarchy and connectivity pattern both within a project and to adjacent sidewalks and transit stops. This hierarchy should prioritize pedestrians, bikes, vehicles, and utility/loading access in the order listed. This hierarchy may provide separate access for vehicles and other modes, or demonstrate how all modes are accommodated in shared access points. x Connections to side streets, open spaces, mews, alleys, and paseos x Vehicle, loading and service access that is integrated into building and landscape design and located to prevent conflicts with pedestrians and cyclists, while also provided convenient access to building entries. (B) Through-Lot Connections (i) Through lots located more than 300 feet from an intersecting street or pedestrian walkway shall provide a publicly accessible sidewalk or pedestrian walkway connecting the two streets. (C) Building Entries (i) Entries to Primary Building Entries shall be located from a public right-of-way or, if not possible, a publicly accessible Pedestrian Walkway. 3.a Packet Pg. 46 pg. 5 (D) Vehicle Access (i) Vehicle access shall be located on alleys or side streets where available. (ii) Except for driveway access, off-street parking, off-street vehicle loading, and vehicular circulation areas are prohibited between the building and the primary building frontage. (E) Loading Docks and Service Areas (i) Loading and service areas shall be integrated into building and landscape design and located to minimize impact on the pedestrian experience as follows: (a) Loading docks and service areas shall be located on facades other than the primary building frontage, on alleys, from parking areas, and/or at the rear or side of building if building includes these frontages. When only primary building frontage is available, loading docks and service areas shall be recessed a minimum five feet from the primary façade and shall be screened in accordance with Chapter 18.23.050. (b) Loading dock and service areas located within setback areas shall be screened in accordance with Chapter 18.23.050 and separated from pedestrian access to the primary building entry to avoid impeding pedestrian movement and safety. 18.24.040 Building Orientation and Setbacks (A) Intent To create a coherent and active interface between private development and the public realm that contributes to the sense of place and structure of the neighborhood and enhances the public’s experience. Site design that responds to the orientation of adjacent uses and creates opportunities for landscaping and usable open space. Buildings and site design should meet the following criteria: xx Buildings that create a contiguous street wall that are compatible with nearby buildings and land uses. x Placement and orientation of doorways, windows, stoops, and landscape elements to create a direct relationship with the street. x Ground floor residential units that have direct entry and presence on the street, and maintain privacy x Transitional spaces and buffer areas between buildings, parcels, and sites through building setbacks that distinguish private and public spaces. x Buildings that provide side and rear setbacks and/or upper story step backs to create a compatible relationship with adjacent lower density residential development. x Landscaped or usable areas that contain a balance between landscape and hardscape. x Optimized building orientation for thermal comfort, shading, daylighting, and natural ventilation and other forms of passive design. 3.a Packet Pg. 47 pg. 6 (B) Building Orientation (i) Treatment of Corner Buildings (a) Corner buildings greater than 40 feet in height shall include one of the following special features: 1. Street wall shall be located at the minimum front yard setback or build-to line for a minimum aggregated length of 40 feet in length on both facades meeting at the corner and shall include one or more of the following building features: 3.a Packet Pg. 48 pg. 7 a. An entry to ground floor retail or primary building entrance located within 25 feet of the corner of the building b. A different material application and fenestration pattern from the rest of the façade. 3.a Packet Pg. 49 pg. 8 c. A change in height of at least 4 feet greater or less than the height of the abutting primary façade. 2. An open space with a minimum dimension of 20 feet and minimum area of 500 square feet. The open space shall be one of the following: a. A publicly accessible open space/plaza b. A space used for outdoor seating for public dining c. A residential Common Open Space adjacent to a common interior space and less than two feet above adjacent sidewalk grade. Fences and railing shall be a minimum 50% transparent. 3.a Packet Pg. 50 pg. 9 (ii) Primary Building Entry (a) The primary building entry shall meet one of the following standards: 1. Face a public right-of-way. 2. Be visible from a public right-of-way through a forecourt or front porch that meets the following standards: a. For residential buildings with fewer than seven units, building entry forecourts or front porches shall be a minimum area of 36 square feet and minimum dimension of six feet. b. For commercial buildings or residential buildings with seven or more units, building entry forecourts or front porches shall be a minimum of 100 square feet and a minimum width of 8 feet. (iii) Ground Floor Residential Units (a) The finished floor of ground floor residential units shall be within the minimum and maximum heights according to setback distance from back of walk identified in Figure 2. On sites with a cross slope greater than 2% along a building facade, the average height of the finished floor and back of walk shall be used. (b) Ground floor units with a setback greater than 15 feet shall have at minimum an average of one tree per 40 linear feet of façade located in the building set back. (c) Ground floor residential entries shall be setback a minimum of 10 feet from the back of sidewalk. (d) Where no minimum building set back is required, all residential units shall be set back a minimum 5 feet from back of walk. (e) A minimum of 80% of the ground floor residential units that face a public right-of- way or publicly accessible path, or open space shall have a unit entry with direct access to the sidewalk, path, or open space. (Senior units or other deed-restricted units for special populations are exempt) 3.a Packet Pg. 51 pg. 10 Figure 2: Finished Floor range for ground floor residential units. Example 1: Finished floor height greater than 4 feet above sidewalk grade. 3.a Packet Pg. 52 pg. 11 Example 2: Finished floor height in the middle of the range. Example 3: Finished floor height at sidewalk grade. 3.a Packet Pg. 53 pg. 12 (C) Front Yard Setback Character (i) Required setbacks shall provide a hardscape and/or landscaped area to create a transition between public and private space. The following standards apply, based on intended use and exclusive of areas devoted to outdoor seating, front porches, door swing of building entries, and publicly accessible open space: (a) Ground-floor retail or retail-like uses shall have a minimum of 10% of the required setback as landscaped area or planters. (b) Ground-floor residential uses shall have a minimum of 60% landscaped area in the required setback area. 18.24.050 Building Massing (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: x Break down large building facades and massing to create a human-scaled building that enhances the context of the site x Are consistent in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations x Reinforce the definition and importance of the street x Provide rooflines and massing that emphasize and accentuate significant elements of the building such as entries, bays, and balconies, and shading elements where appropriate. x Provide harmonious transitions between adjacent properties (B) Contextual Massing (i) Upper Floor Step Backs (a) When the height of the subject building is more than 20 feet above the average height (i.e., average of low and high roof elevations) of an adjacent building, an upper floor step back shall start within 2 vertical feet of the height of the adjacent building. The step back shall be a minimum depth of six feet along the primary building frontage, and the step shall occur for a minimum of 70% of the façade length. (b) Notwithstanding, subsection (a), when adjacent to a single-story building, the upper floor step back shall occur between 33 and 37 feet in height. 3.a Packet Pg. 54 pg. 13 (ii) Transition to Lower Density Building Types (a) When a building abuts a side and/or rear property line with a RE, RMD, R-1, or R-2 zoned parcel or a village residential or existing single-family residential use, the building shall break down the abutting façade by meeting all of the following standards: 1. A landscape screen that includes a row of trees with a minimum 1 tree per 30 linear feet and continuous shrubbery planting. This screening plant material shall be a minimum 72 inches (6 feet) in height when planted. Required trees shall be minimum 24” box size. 2. A minimum façade break of six feet in width and six feet in depth for every 36 to 40 feet of façade length. 3.a Packet Pg. 55 pg. 14 3. Within 40 feet of an abutting structure, no more than 15% of the confronting façade area shall be windows or other glazing. Additional windows are allowed in order to maintain light, if they are fixed and fully obscured. (C) Maximum Façade Length (i) Significant Breaks (a) For portions of a building facade facing a public street, right-of-way, or publicly accessible path, any building greater than 25 feet in height and 70 feet in length shall not have a continuous façade plane greater than 70% of the façade length without an upper floor modulation, which can include bay windows. Upper floor façade modulations shall be a minimum 4 feet in depth, which can be a recess or a projection. (b) Buildings greater than 150 feet in length, which face a public street, right-of-way, or publicly accessible path, shall have at least one vertical façade break with a minimum area greater than 400 square feet and a width greater than or equal to two times the depth. 3.a Packet Pg. 56 pg. 15 (D) Special Conditions (i) Railroad Frontages (a) All parcels with lot lines abutting railroad rights-of-way shall meet the following standards on the railroad-abutting facade: 1. A minimum facade break of at least 10 feet in width and six feet in depth for every 60 feet of façade length. 2. For portion of a building 20 feet or greater in height, a maximum continuous façade length shall not exceed 60 feet. 18.24.060 Façade Design (A) Intent To create cohesive and well-crafted building facades with human-scaled details that incorporate textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. Facades should include the following elements: x Human-scaled detail, articulation, and craftsmanship x Quality of construction, craftsmanship, and design to create long lasting buildings x Expression of a human-scaled façade rhythm and pattern that reflects the building’s use x Fenestration that enhances the architectural character of the building x Defined building entry that is proportional to the building and number of people served x Articulation of the building shall break down the scale of the building via building modulation, façade articulation, and variation of fenestration and material patterns. (B) Application (i) All facades shall meet all the required design standards and guidelines to ensure the same level of care and integrity throughout the building design. (ii) Façade sidewalls located along a zero-lot line where, at time of approval are not visible from a right-of-way, are exempt. (iii) Façade sidewalls located along a zero-lot line, where at time of approval are visible from a right-of-way, shall continue color, material, and pattern of the main façade. (C) Human Scaled Architecture (i) Base/Middle/Top (a) Buildings three stories or taller on lots wider than 50 feet shall be designed to differentiate a defined base or ground floor, a middle or body, and a top, cornice, or parapet cap. Each of these elements shall be distinguished from one another for a minimum of 80% of the façade length through use of two or more of the following four techniques: 3.a Packet Pg. 57 pg. 16 1. Variation in building modulation (minimum of one, if option selected) a. Horizontal shifts. Changes in floor plates that protrude and/or recess with a minimum dimension of two feet from the primary facade. b. Upper floor step backs. A horizontal step back of upper-floor façades with a minimum five-foot step back from the primary façade for a minimum of 80% of the length of the façade. c. Ground floor step back. A horizontal shift of the ground floor facade with a minimum depth of two feet for a minimum 80% of the length of the façade. Ground floor step backs shall not exceed the maximum setback requirements, where stated. 3.a Packet Pg. 58 pg. 17 2. Variation in facade articulation (minimum of one, if option selected) a. Horizontal and/or vertical recesses or projections such as a pattern of recessed grouping of windows, recessed panels, bay windows or similar strategies as approved by the Director of Planning and Development Services. The recess shall be a minimum four inches in depth. b. Horizontal and/or vertical projections such as shading and weather protection devices, decorative architectural details, or similar strategies as approved by the Director. Projections shall be a minimum four inches in depth. 3.a Packet Pg. 59 pg. 18 c. Datum lines that continue the length of the building, such as parapets or cornices, with a minimum four inches in height or a minimum two inches in depth and include a change in material; 3. Variation in fenestration size, proportions, pattern, and depth or projection. 3.a Packet Pg. 60 pg. 19 4. Variation in two of the following: façade material, material size, texture and pattern, or color. (ii) Façade Composition (a) Building facades shall use a variety of strategies including building modulation, fenestration, and façade articulation to create visual interest and express a variety of scales through a variety of strategies. All facades shall include a minimum of two of the following façade articulation strategies to create visual interest: 1. Vertical and horizontal recesses such as a pattern of recessed grouping of windows, recessed panels, or similar strategies as approved by the Director of Planning and Development Services. The recess shall be a minimum four inches in depth. 2. Vertical and horizontal projections such as shading and weather protection devices, decorative architectural details, or similar strategies as approved by the Director of Planning and Development Services. Projections shall be a minimum four inches in depth. 3. Datum lines that continue the length of the building, such as cornices, with a minimum four inches in depth, or a minimum two inches in depth and include a change in material; 4. Balconies, habitable projections, or Juliet balconies (every 20 to 40 feet) with a minimum four inches in depth; 5. Screening devices such as lattices, louvers, shading devices, perforated metal screens, or similar strategies as approved by the Director of Planning and Development Services; or 6. Use of fine-grained building materials, such as brick or wood shingles, not to exceed eight inches in either height or width. 3.a Packet Pg. 61 pg. 20 (iii) Compatible Rhythm and Pattern (a) Residential or residential mixed-use buildings shall express a vertical rhythm and pattern that reflects the size and scale of a housing unit and/or individual rooms and spaces. This may be achieved with building modulation to create vertically oriented facades (height greater than the width of the façade), façade articulation and fenestration repetitive vertically oriented patterns. The following standards apply: 1. Facades shall use vertical patterns of building modulation, façade articulation, and fenestration (Figure 3) OR Facades that use horizontal articulation and fenestration patterns shall use a vertical massing strategy with a minimum four feet wide and two feet deep vertical shift in modulation at least once every 50 feet of façade length (Figure 4). Figure 3 Figure 4 3.a Packet Pg. 62 pg. 21 2. For continuous facades greater than 100 feet in length, the façade shall include either: a. A vertical recess or change in façade plane with a minimum two feet deep vertical shift modulation for a minimum 4 feet in width to establish a vertical rhythm or a unit between 20 to 50 feet in width; or b. A vertical recess or projection with a minimum depth of 2 feet that establishes the vertical rhythm housing units or individual rooms between 10 to 16 feet in width. 3.a Packet Pg. 63 pg. 22 (b) Storefront uses shall express a vertical rhythm not to exceed 30 to 50 feet in width. (iv) Emphasize Building Elements and Massing (a) Building Entries Within Façade Design 1. Primary building entries shall be scaled proportionally to the number of people served (amount of floor-area or number of units accessed). Building entries inclusive of doorway and facade plane shall meet the following minimum dimensions: a. Individual residential entries: five feet in width b. Shared residential entry, such as mixed-use buildings: 8 feet in width c. Commercial building entry: 20 feet in width d. Storefront entry: six feet in width 2. Primary building entries (not inclusive of individual residential entries) shall include a façade modulation that includes at least one of the following: a. A recess or projection from the primary façade plane with a minimum depth of two feet. (b) Primary entries shall include weather protection that is a minimum 4 feet wide and 4 feet deep by recessing the entry, providing an awning or using a combination of these methods. (D) Ground Floor Character (i) Storefront/Retail Ground Floors (a) Ground floor height shall be a minimum 14 feet floor-to-floor or shall maintain a 2nd floor datum line of an abutting building. (b) Transparency shall include a minimum 60 percent transparent glazing between 2 and 10 feet in height from sidewalk, providing unobstructed views into the commercial space. (c) Bulkheads and solid base walls: If provided, shall measure between 12 and 30 inches from finished grade (d) Primary entries shall include weather protection that is a minimum 6 feet wide and 4 feet deep by recessing the entry, providing an awning or using a combination of these methods. (e) Awnings, canopies and weather protection: 1. When transom windows are above display windows, awnings, canopies and similar weather protection elements shall be installed between transom and display windows. These elements should allow for light to enter the storefront through the transom windows and allow the weather protection feature to shade the display window. 2. Awnings may be fixed or retractable. 3.a Packet Pg. 64 pg. 23 (ii) Other Non-residential Ground Floors (a) Ground floor height shall be a minimum 14 feet floor-to-floor or shall match the 2nd floor datum line of an abutting building. (b) Transparency shall include a minimum 50 percent transparent glazing between 4 and 10 feet in height from sidewalk or terrace grade. (c) Primary entries shall include weather protection that is a minimum 8 feet wide and 6 feet deep by recessing the entry, providing an awning or using a combination of these methods. (E) Parking/Loading/Utilities (i) Entry Size: No more than 25% of the site frontage facing a street should be devoted to garage openings, carports, surface parking, loading entries, or utilities access (on sites with less than 100 feet of frontage, no more than 25 feet) (ii) Above grade structured parking levels facing a public right-of-way or publicly accessible open space/path shall be lined with commercial or habitable uses with a minimum depth of 20 feet. (iii) Partially sub-grade parking shall not have an exposed façade that exceeds five feet in height above abutting grade at back of sidewalk. (a) Partially sub-grade parking shall be screened with continuous landscaping and shrubbery with minimum height of 3 feet and be within 10 feet of the sub-grade parking. 3.a Packet Pg. 65 pg. 24 18.24.070 Residential Entries (A) Intent Private entries into ground floor residential units shall be designed to provide: x human-scaled detailing x enhanced pedestrian experience x transition between public and private space x spaces for residents to gather and spend time outdoors x resident privacy (B) Ground floor unit entries (i) Where ground floor residential unit entries are required, one or more of the following entry types shall be provided: (a) Stoop: 1. Stoops shall provide entry access for a maximum of two units; and 2. Stoop heights shall be within 1 step of finished floor height of adjacent unit; and 3. Stoop entry landings shall be a minimum 5 feet in depth; and 3.a Packet Pg. 66 pg. 25 4. The maximum stoop height from the back of sidewalk grade shall be 5 feet. (b) Porch: 1. Porches shall provide entry access for a maximum of one unit; and 2. Porch heights shall be within 1 step of finished floor height of adjacent unit; and 3. Porches shall be large enough so a 6-foot by 6-foot square can fit inside of a porch for each unit; and 4. The maximum porch floor height from the back of sidewalk grade shall be 5 feet. (c) Patio Entry 1. Patio entries may serve up to two units; and 2. Patios shall be large enough so a 5-foot by 5-foot square can fit inside of the patio for each unit; and 3. The Patio shall include at least one of the following features to define the transition between public and private space: a. A row of shrubs not exceeding 42 inches in height located between the sidewalk and the patio that assists with defining the edge between public and private space. Shrubs shall be at least one gallon in size and be planted a maximum of three feet on center; or b. A fence not to exceed 30 inches in height located between the sidewalk and the patio that assists with defining the edge between public and private 3.a Packet Pg. 67 pg. 26 space, with a gate or fence opening to provide access to the pedestrian route between the pedestrian way and the front door; or c. A metal, wood or stone wall not to exceed 30 inches in height located between the sidewalk and the patio that assists with defining the edge between public and private space with a gate or wall opening to provide access to the pedestrian route between the pedestrian way and the front door. A minimum 18-inch landscape strip shall be located between the wall and the abutting pedestrian way and entirely landscaped with ground cover, shrubs or other landscape living plant material. (d) Terrace: 1. A Terrace may serve multiple unit entries; and 2. The maximum Terrace height shall be 30 inches above the grade of the back of the adjacent sidewalk or accessway; and 3. Walls, fences and hedges on Terraces shall be a maximum of 42 inches tall and have a minimum transparency of 40 percent. 3.a Packet Pg. 68 pg. 27 (e) Frontage Court: 1. A Frontage Court may serve multiple unit entries; and 2. The minimum Frontage Court width along a primary frontage shall be 25 feet; and 3. The maximum Frontage Court width along a primary frontage shall be 50 percent of the facade length or 80 feet, whichever is less; and 4. The minimum Frontage Court depth shall be 25 feet; and 5. The maximum Frontage Court depth shall be 50 feet or a ratio not to exceed 2:1 depth to width. 18.24.080 Open Space (A) Intent To ensure that residents and visitors have access to usable open space and common facilities that provide recreational opportunities, promote a healthy environment, and enhance the experience of living in Palo Alto. Common and private open spaces should include the following characteristics: x Be integrated into the site access and building circulation strategy x Be generous in dimension to provide usable space x Provide landscape elements that will support the health of the plants and enhance the character of place x Promote public health x Be located to provide easy access to private and common building areas, and balance privacy and noise impacts to neighboring uses x Promote sustainable practices and opportunities for green infrastructure x Promote community safety through eyes on the street 3.a Packet Pg. 69 pg. 28 (B) Private Open Space (i) If Private Open Spaces is provided, it shall meet the following standards: (a) Floor area shall include a clear space with a minimum dimension of a circle with a six-foot diameter. (b) Minimum clear height dimension of 8’-6” feet (c) Be accessed directly from a residential unit (d) Balconies shall not be located within the daylight plane (e) Notwithstanding subsection (a), ground floor patios shall meet the following minimum requirements: 1. RM-20 and RM-30 districts: Minimum 100 square feet of area, the least dimension of which is eight feet for at least 75% of the area 2. RM-40 districts: Minimum 80 square feet of area, the least dimension of which is six feet for at least 75% of the area 3. Street facing private open space on the ground floor shall meet the finished floor height for ground floor residential standards in section 18.24.040(iii)(a) (C) Common Open Space (i) If Common Open Space is provided, it shall meet the following standards: 1. Minimum size of 200 square feet 2. Area shall include a space with a minimum dimension of a circle with a 10-foot diameter. 3. A minimum of 60% of the area shall be open to the sky and free of permanent weather protection or encroachments. Trellises and similar open-air features are permitted. 4. Notwithstanding subsection (1), courtyards enclosed on four sides shall have a minimum dimension of 40 feet and have a minimum courtyard width to building height ratio of 1:1.25 5. Include places to sit 6. A minimum 20% of landscaping 3.a Packet Pg. 70 pg. 29 7. Soil Depth: Planting in above grade courtyards shall have a minimum soil depth of 12 inches for ground cover, 20 inches for shrubs, and 36 inches for trees. 8. Rooftop Open Space: a. In order to qualify as usable open space, a rooftop garden shall meet the requirements set forth in Section 18.40.230. b. Rooftop open spaces may fulfill usable open space requirements in the following districts: (i) CD-C sites that do not abut a single- or two-family residential use or zoning district, rooftop gardens may qualify as usable open space and may count as up to 75% of the required usable open space for the residential component of a project. (ii) For CN and CS sites on El Camino Real and CC(2) sites that do not abut a single- or two-family residential use or zoning district, rooftop gardens may qualify as usable open space and may count as up to 60% of the required usable open space for the residential component of a project. 18.24.090 Materials (A) Intent To promote the use of high quality, durable, sustainable, and attractive materials that exhibit a sense of permanence and contribute to the aesthetic quality of the development and to the urban design fabric of the community. (B) Façade Materials (i) Primary, Secondary and Accent materials are allowed or prohibited as in the Residential and Residential Mixed-use Material List, which may be updated from time to time. (ii) Secondary materials are prohibited as primary cladding on building facades and shall not be allowed on more than 35 percent of each building facade. (iii) Accent materials are permitted on no greater than 5 percent of each facade as trims or accents (e.g., flashing, projecting features, ornamentation, etc.). (iv) Buildings 30 feet and shorter, measured from grade plane to eave or top of parapet, whichever is higher, with elevations 50 feet or narrower may utilize any secondary material as a primary material. Residential and Residential Mixed-use Material List Material Usage Brick (full dimensional) P Stone/masonry P Stucco P Glass (transparent, spandrel) P 3.a Packet Pg. 71 pg. 30 Material Usage Finished wood, wood veneer, engineered wood, and wood siding P Factory or naturally finished flat, profiled, fluted, or ribbed metal panels P Fiber reinforced cement siding and panels P Terracotta P Concrete (poured in place or precast) S Concrete blocks with integral color (ground, polished, or glazed finishes) S Concrete blocks with integral color (split face finish) S Ceramic tile S Standing seam metal S Glass block A Corrugated metal A Vegetated wall panels or trellises A Vinyl siding N T-111 Plywood N Exterior Insulation Finishing System (EIFS) N Plastic or vinyl fencing N Chain link fencing N P = Primary or Secondary material S = Secondary material only A = Accent material N = Prohibited material or fencing type 18.24.100 Sustainability and Green Building Design (A) Intent To incorporate sustainability, green building, and environmental considerations into the project design and construction. Green building design aims for compatibility with the local environment: to protect, respect and benefit from it. In general, sustainable buildings are energy efficient, water conserving, durable and nontoxic, with high-quality spaces and high recycled content materials. The following considerations should be included in site and building design: x Optimize building orientation for thermal comfort, shading, daylighting, and natural ventilation, including operable windows 3.a Packet Pg. 72 pg. 31 x Design landscaping to create comfortable micro-climates and reduce heat island effects x Maximize onsite stormwater management through landscaping and permeable pavement x Use sustainable building materials x Design lighting, plumbing and equipment for efficient energy use x Create healthy indoor environments x Use creativity and innovation to build more sustainable environments. One example is establishing gardens with edible fruits, vegetables or other plants to satisfy a portion of project open space requirements (B) Standards See Chapter 16.14: California Green Building Standards additional requirements for green building and sustainable design. Notwithstanding Section 18.24.010(c), these regulations may not be modified through alternative compliance. 3.a Packet Pg. 73 March 5, 2021 Jodie Gerhardt Manager of Current Planning PDS Department, City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Jodie and Amy, Thank you for the conversation yesterday on the objective Design Standards. We think this is a valuable effort and thank you for the opportunity to comment. The following bullet points recap the comments that we raised today: Non-residential properties: x We expressed concern that the intent statements may be problematic for non-residential buildings and properties with distinctly different uses and contexts than the infill settings that inspire the Draft Standards. You clarified for us that this Chapter is not meant to apply to zoning districts that do not currently have Context-Based Design Criteria, such as the MOR, ROLM, RP and GM Districts, except to the extent to which housing or mixed-use including housing is developed within these districts. x You clarified that the current Context-Based Design Criteria of the CC zoning district will be replaced by these new Design Standards. We committed to get back to you with any detailed comments about compliance with the intent statements by Stanford Shopping Center, which is in the CC zoning district. Affordability: x We expressed concern that aspects of the Design Standards may not have sufficiently considered cost impacts and their effect on housing affordability, which is a major impetus of this project. You replied that consideration of affordability was one reason for the inclusion of compliance options, such as within the Façade Design section. We discussed and agreed that it would be worthwhile to consider additional options for all of the sections that have been adopted by other cities developing similar Standards. x We mentioned the possibility of including language that the intent is to allow, to the extent possible, adaptive application of the Standards by cost-effective construction methodologies such as pre-fabricated and modular construction. Accommodating current and future trends: x Trends that we’re seeing in residents’ modes of living include a greater need for package drop- offs and deliveries, ever-changing mobility options, and more work-from-home spaces. These trends will benefit from any flexibility that is in the Objective Standards to accommodate them. x The work-from-home space may be a direct trade-off with balconies, which do not seem to be frequently used (except for storage) in many projects around the Bay Area. As an option under façade articulation, we suggest clarifying that “habitable projections” could include interior spaces as well. 3.b Packet Pg. 74 x It is possible that residents will desire more outdoor and indoor community spaces in the future designed to enhance their ability to work from home. We suggest ensuring that the Open Space section, which presently focuses on recreational use, not preclude these. You noted that this would be dependent on updated definitional and quantitative provisions in the multifamily Development Standards section of the Code. Sincerely yours, Chris Wuthmann Snr. Director Project Design & Construction Stanford University Real Estate 415 Broadway – Academy Hall Redwood City, CA 94063-3133 cwuthmann@stanford.edu (650) 889-0403 3.b Packet Pg. 75 From: Breeze, Elaine <EBreeze@shapartments.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2021 4:22 PM To: Gerhardt, Jodie <Jodie.Gerhardt@CityofPaloAlto.org> Cc: Raybould, Claire <Claire.Raybould@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Hickey, John <JHickey@shhomes.com> Subject: 2850 West Bayshore Road Townhomes - SummerHill Homes CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Hello Jodie, We have been working with Claire on a Preliminary ARB Application submitted for a proposed 48-unit townhome project at 2850 W. Bayshore Road (thank you, Claire!). We are following up on our conversation with her today to let you know we will be submitting a SB 330 application for the project in the near future, prior to the City’s adoption of its Objective Design Standards. We did have the opportunity to review the draft standards and noticed that they appear directed and applicable to higher density multifamily residential. In some cases, the standards would be potentially problematic for townhome style for-sale housing if there was no exception or alternative standard provided. We recognize that the City does not see a lot of townhome residential these days but we wanted to bring this observation to your attention and are happy to schedule a zoom call to discuss further and answer any questions you might have. Thank you for your consideration and we are excited to have the opportunity to work in Palo Alto again. Best Regards, Elaine Breeze Senior Vice President of Development SummerHill Apartment Communities | SummerHill Homes 777 S. California Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94304 Tel (650) 842-2404 • Mobile (415) 971-0660 • Fax (650) 857-1077 ebreeze@shapartments.com shapartments.com | shhousinggroup.com 3.b Packet Pg. 76 1 Eisberg, Jean From:Heather Young <heather@hyarchs.com> Sent:Tuesday, February 16, 2021 7:00 PM To:Gerhardt, Jodie; French, Amy; Raybould, Claire; Eisberg, Jean; Lait, Jonathan; Architectural Review Board Cc:jgracelee; Lew, Alex Subject:ARB Review of Objective Standards - comments CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Jonathan, Jodie, Amy, Claire, Jean, and members of the ARB It's clear that city staff, the ARB, and consultant team have worked diligently to develop Objective Standards over the last 15 months to both further the existing design standards within the Municipal Ordinance and prepare for the potential of accelerated review applications under state law. I applaud you for taking on this complex and demanding challenge. Much of the development outlined in the draft Objective Standards clarifies existing design intent and supports positive urban planning practice. That said, as an architect who works with the PAMC, local clients, local sites, and constructability challenges, many of the dimensioned requirements in these sections are disconnected from those realities. The idea that good or even acceptable design results from the overlay of one-size-fits-all fixed dimensional requirements on all projects regardless of site, use, context, or style is an illusion that completely misses the opportunity and nuance that take our cities from rote need fulfillment to delight. I'm happy to see that extensive comments have been added to the Feb 18 meeting packet by Elaine Uang (pages 65-88) questioning the set dimension and square footage requirements and inclusion of the Ken Hayes essay on Form based design, another name for Objective Standards. Please take both of these to heart and look closer at the language to provide dimensional ranges or clarify intent. Menlo Park has implemented a similar set of Standards as part of their Downtown Specific Plan and the result is already looking very forced and very vanilla. Given no leeway, staff is required to enforce these requirements even when they make no sense. When I pointed out to a planner that the required 10' sideyard setback would significantly reduce the available building width of a 50' lot on El Camino Real creating an awkward and unappealing massing, the response was, "why don't you buy another lot?". Comprehension that the Specific Plan requirements could and should not be taken without any contextual consideration was unimaginable but apparently the ready availability of adjacent property was. Tempting as the game of Monopoly is, acquisition of multiple parcels is a slow game at best, particularly when the development standards are so modest. Much of Menlo Park and Palo Alto parcel sizes are the result of early subdivisions into 50' wide lots and that infrastructure is very much alive and present today and yet the MP Specific Plan was developed around properties more easily obtained in the Central Valley. Like the Standards proposed in Palo Alto, Menlo Park has set dimensions for breaks in the facade or for material changes and upper floor setbacks. Unfortunately the standards seem to have less to do with the natural rhythms of apartment units, office plans, retail frontage, and building structure, or even building code, and more to do with a pat urban wish list. Upper floor setbacks are deadly to multi-family stacked-core construction and livable floor plans; there are other ways to develop a "base-middle-top" partee. Parking access on facades is about more than a 25% opening requirement; although relatively flat, many sites have multiple feet of grade change along a facade impacting parking, accessibility, floor levels and max building heights. What's the magic of a 4' wide by 2' deep vertical modulation every 50' min - the list goes on and on. Until exterior facade and massing Objective Standards are integrated with building interiors and the realities of how buildings of a variety 3.b Packet Pg. 77 2 of types are designed and function, our cities will be forced to endure uninspiring crop of vanilla held to the lowest common denominator for generations to come. Thank you for your time. I respectfully ask that you find a way to support the goals of good urban design without the lockstep checklist of the proposed objective standards. If not, the approval rate may accelerate but we'll all be left enjoying the wrong results. Regards - Heather Heather Young, Partner Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. www.hyarchs.com 81 Encina Ave, Suite 100 Palo Alto, CA 94301 D 650-459-3203 C 650-793-1289 3.b Packet Pg. 78 1 Gerhardt, Jodie From:Ken Hayes <khayes@thehayesgroup.com> Sent:Saturday, January 23, 2021 6:42 AM To:Gerhardt, Jodie Cc:Elaine Uang; heather@hyarchs.com; Cath Garber; Ted O'Hanlon; Steve Emslie; Allison Koo; Griego, Tiffany; Popp, Randy; Brad Ehikian; Lund Smith; Roxy Rapp; cconley@svlg.org; jbaker@svlg.org; Sheryl Klein; John R. Shenk; Leslye Corsiglia; Tod Spieker; Steve Levy; tom gilman; Eugene H. Sakai, AIA, LEED AP; Brandy Bridges; Steve Borlik; Sal Giovannotto; Sal Caruso; Janette (Sammartino) D'Elia; Gary Laymon; Andrew Young; Joe Bellomo; French, Amy; Jean Eisberg; Jason Holleb; Jeff Galbraith Subject:Re: Requesting Input on the City of Palo Alto's DRAFT Objective Standards CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. HiJody,  ThisissomethingIwroteawhilebackregardingthevariouscity’sdesignstandards.I’lltakealookatwhatthecityis proposingbutthiscanbeaslipperyslope.  https://www.thehayesgroup.com/anotherͲjournalͲtitle/  Thanksforincludingme.  Ken Hayes, AIA President  Khayes@thehayesgroup.com 2657 Spring Street. Redwood City, CA 94063 350 Sansome St, suite 750, San Francisco, CA 94104 www.thehayesgroup.com P 650.365.0600x15 C 415-203-2597 F 650.365.0670  3.b Packet Pg. 79 « Journal JOURNAL The Shape of Three Cities Nearly every community, if not all, in the San Francisco Bay Area have adopted development standards codifed in their municipal codes as site development regulations and guidelines, precise plans or speci¦c plans. Typically drafted by a team of design consultants, city boards and community stakeholders, these development standards are viewed as the map or blueprint for the shape of the community’s built environment and vary from community to community. On the Peninsula, three contiguous city’s have very different development standards based either on building form, architectural style or design compatibility. Each commercial planning application is evaluated in terms of the speci¦c requirements of these different standards. City planning staff, planning commissions and architectural review boards apply these standards to determine if a proposed project is compliant. Some standards are more objective, formulaic and easier to use than others that require a deeper understanding of the subjective nature of architecture. Form based development standards take a measured, objective approach to design evaluation. The building must be no taller than the height limit, it must setback from the property line a prescribed distance and step back from the street above a certain height; it must be punctuated by rhythms of minor and major building modulations with precise widths and depths that extend to the sky, as well as, building breaks that create open space between building mass. Ground §oors must have windows set back a de¦ned number of inches from the exterior wall surface, not be longer than a certain dimension and comprise a certain percentage of the wall area or the project is non-compliant. The architectural style is not dictated thus allowing for many architectural expressions, provided all criteria in the form based standards are satis¦ed and checked off by planning staff. Style based development standards take a formulaic, controlled approach to design evaluation. This method dictates not only some form based standards discussed above like height, setback and open space but go even further to determine the architectural style and execution of the proposed building. Depending on the area of the community where the building is located, the designer has the option of three architectural styles for instance: Neo-classical, Mediterranean or Art Deco. Once the style is selected, the height of the building’s base, building’s middle (body) and cornice size and projection are all predetermined. The location, depth, proportion and pattern of the windows is dictated by the standard. How colors are applied to the building and what architectural details can be used are also not left to chance, all predetermined for the designer. Is there any design subjectivity or personal expression left? Not really, but this makes it easier for the planning staff, planning commissions and architectural review boards to evaluate the proposals and not disrupt the community. Compatibilty based development standards are more subjective but take into consideration how well the proposed building responds to the community’s goals, how it addresses the sidewalk, how the building creates active pedestrian areas and how it de¦nes or reinforces open spaces. Architectural compatibility is measured by considering the building’s context, the rhythm of the street wall, the alignment of roof lines, canopies and cornices and the size, shape, proportion and location of windows and building entries. Compatibility also addresses our time, considering the market needs for certain kinds of space and the environmental and sustainability demands of our world. Compatibility does not address architectural style since different styles have co-existed since our cities began and can be mutually compatible. Evaluating a building based on a compatibility standard is much more di¨cult since there is no checklist of prescriptions or styles to check off, it is subjective and left up to the designer to present his or her project and demonstrate that it satis¦es the standard of compatibility. Quality design that responds to the goals, issues and problems of today is not about style based or form based site development requirements but rather compatibility should be the standard and within this framework buildings should be reviewed. It is more subjective and can take more time but the discussion that ensues between planning staff, commissions, review boards and the designers will make our communities a better place. Projects Pro¦le Journal 3.b Packet Pg. 80 pg. 2 Chapter 18.24 Context-Based Design Standards 18.24.010 Purpose and Applicability (A) Purpose (i)The purpose of the Context-Based Design Standards is to provide design guidance and objective design standards development projects. (B) Applicability of regulations (i)Within the following zones, the intent statements apply to all project types, new construction, and renovation; design standards apply to new construction: (a) RM-20, RM-30, RM-40 (b) CN, CS, CD, CC (c) PTOD (d) MOR, ROLM, RP (e) PC Public art in residential and residential mixed-use projects is subject to Chapter 16.61 and exempt from these requirements. (C) Alternative compliance Each section of this chapter includes an intent statement that gives guidance for all applicable projects, regardless of use. Residential and mixed-use residential projects may choose to forgo one or more objective standards and instead meet the spirit of the relevant intent statements, as determined by the Director or the Architectural Review Board, depending on the level of review required by Chapter 18.75. Commercial-only projects or other non-residential projects should meet relevant standards; they are not required to adhere irrelevant standards related to residential uses. Depending on the level of review required by Chapter 18.75, the Director or the Architectural Review Board will determine compliance with the relevant intent statements. (D)Definitions In addition to definitions identified in Chapter 18.04, the following definitions are specific to this chapter. (i)Primary Building Frontage: The front lot line or frontage along the public right-of- way. In the case of a through-lot, the primary building frontage could be on either public right-of-way. (ii)Primary Building Entry: The entrance leading to a lobby and/or accessed from the primary building frontage. (iii)Pedestrian Walkway: A sidewalk or path that is publicly-accessible and connects from a public right-of-way to another public right-of-way or publicly accessible open space. (iv)Façade Modulation: A change in building plane, either a recess or a projection, that changes shape of the interior space. 3.a Packet Pg. 42 Cite relevant chapters: a) 18.13 Multiple Family Residential b) 18.16 CN,CC,CS & 18.18 CD c) 18.34 PTOD d) MOR, ROLM, RP e) PC - what about PHZ? , regardless of use. nd instead meet the spirit of the relevant intent statements, 1 2 3 3.b Packet Pg. 81 Summary of Comments on Agenda - Thursday, November 19, 2020 Page: 2 Number: 1 Author: elaine Subject: Text Box Date: 1/18/2021 8:51:45 AM Cite relevant chapters: a) 18.13 Multiple Family Residentialb) 18.16 CN,CC,CS & 18.18 CDc) 18.34 PTOD d) MOR, ROLM, RPe) PC - what about PHZ? Number: 2 Author: elaine Subject: Highlight Date: 12/5/2020 1:26:02 PM regardless of use. Number: 3 Author: elaine Subject: Highlight Date: 12/5/2020 1:38:19 PM d instead meet the spirit of the relevant intent statements 3.b Packet Pg. 82 pg. 3 18.24.020 Public Realm/Sidewalk Character (A) Intent To create an attractive and safe public realm and sidewalk space for pedestrians and cyclists through the implementation of design, landscaping, and infrastructure. Publicly accessible spaces and sidewalks should: x Design the transition between the public and private realm through the coordination of amenities and materials, such as accent paving, tree wells, lighting and street furniture (e.g., benches, bicycle racks, trash receptacles, and news racks). x Complement or match accent paving to existing designs in downtown and Cal Ave areas. x Provide sidewalk widths that accommodate landscaping, street trees, furniture, and pedestrian amenities; create a pleasant, desirable place to walk; provides shade; and enable comfortable pedestrian passage. x Provide amenities, such as parking and repair equipment, for micromobility, such as bicycles and scooters. (B) Streetscape (i)Sidewalk Widths (a) Public sidewalks abutting a development parcel shall have a minimum sidewalk width (curb to back of walk) of XXX feet [TBD in consultation with Public Works]. If the existing public sidewalk does not meet the minimum standard, a publicly accessible extension of the sidewalk, with corresponding public access easement, shall be provided. 1. Notwithstanding subsection (a), the following streets/locations shall have a minimum sidewalk width of: a. Park Boulevard (South of Caltrain to Ventura): TBD, per NVCAP b. El Camino Real and San Antonio Avenue: 12 ft c. Other Corridors in Commercial Zones (CN, CS, CC, CC(2)) : 8ft d. CD Districts and SOFA: 10 ft (b) Publicly accessible sidewalks or walkways connecting through a development parcel (e.g., on a through lot) shall have a minimum six-foot width. Pedestrian walkways that are designed to provide access to bicycles shall have a minimum width of eight feet. (ii)Street Trees (a) Sidewalks shall include at least one street tree, within six feet of the sidewalk, for every 30 feet of linear feet of sidewalk length. 3.a Packet Pg. 43 COVID ERA SUGGESTION, WITH 6' SIDEWALKS, CONSIDER WAITING/PASSING ZONES IN LANDSCAPE AREA, TO ALLOW FOR PHYSICALLY DISTANCED PASSING WHERE POSSIBLE. To create an attractive and safe public realm and sidewalk space for pedestrians and cyclists through the implementation of design, landscaping, and infrastructure. Publicly accessible spaces and sidewalks should: xx Design the transition between the public and private realm through the coordination of amenities and materials, such as accent paving, tree wells, lighting and street furniture (e.g., benches, bicycle racks, trash receptacles, and news racks). xx Complement or match accent paving to existing designs in downtown and Cal Ave areas. xx Provide sidewalk widths that accommodate landscaping, street trees, furniture, and pedestrian amenities; create a pleasant, desirable place to walk; provides shade; and enable comfortable pedestrian passage. xx Provide amenities, such as parking and repair equipment, for micromobility, such as bicycles and scooters a minimum six-foot width. d, a publicly accessible extension of the sidewalk, with corresponding public access easement, shall be provided. 1 2 3 4 5 3.b Packet Pg. 83 Page: 3 Number: 1 Author: elaine Subject: Highlight Date: 12/5/2020 3:28:49 PM To create an attractive and safe public realm and sidewalk space for pedestrians and cyclists through the implementation of design, landscaping, and infrastructure. Publicly accessible spaces and sidewalks should: Design the transition between the public and private realm through the coordination of amenities and materials, such as accent paving, tree wells, lighting and street furniture (e.g., benches, bicycle racks, trash receptacles, and news racks). Complement or match accent paving to existing designs in downtown and Cal Ave areas. Provide sidewalk widths that accommodate landscaping, street trees, furniture, and pedestrian amenities; create a pleasant, desirable place to walk; provides shade; and enable comfortable pedestrian passage. Provide amenities, such as parking and repair equipment, for micromobility, such as bicycles and scooter Number: 2 Author: elaine Subject: Highlight Date: 12/5/2020 3:44:11 PM , a publicly accessible extension of the sidewalk, with corresponding public access easement, shall be provided. Number: 3 Author: elaine Subject: Text Box Date: 12/5/2020 3:44:49 PM COVID ERA SUGGESTION, WITH 6' SIDEWALKS, CONSIDER WAITING/PASSING ZONES IN LANDSCAPE AREA, TO ALLOW FOR PHYSICALLY DISTANCED PASSING Number: 4 Author: elaine Subject: Highlight Date: 12/5/2020 3:43:15 PM minimum six-foot width Number: 5 Author: elaine Subject: Text Box Date: 12/5/2020 1:31:48 PM WHERE POSSIBLE. 3.b Packet Pg. 84 pg. 4 Frontage Sidewalk Street Building Setback Frontage Area Pedestrian Clear Zone Landscape/Furniture Zone Property Line Varies Landscape/ Furniture Area Edge Zone 18” typ. Curb + Step Out Area Mixed-Use x Sidewalk Dining x Outdoor Displays x Public Art x Seating x Planting Residential x Stoops x Porches x Front Yards x Utilities x Planting x Street Trees/Planting x Street Lighting x Seating x Mobility Infrastructure x Bike Parking x Public Art x Outdoor Dining x Street Parking x Bike Lanes x Drop-off Zones x Parklets (iii) Accent Paving (a) Sidewalks and publicly accessible areas fronting University Avenue and California Avenue shall match existing accent paving design and materials, such a mosaic tile and bricks. (iv) Mobility Infrastructure (a) Micromobility infrastructure, such as locations to lock bicycles and scooters, shall be located within 20 feet of the primary building entry and/or a path leading to the primary building entry. This standard may be satisfied by existing 3.a Packet Pg. 44 LABELS THESE DIAGRAMS (MIXED USE VS RESIDENTIAL?) AND EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCES IN USE AND DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS a))Sidewalks and publicly accessible areas fronting University Avenue and California Avenue shall match existing accent paving design and materials, such a mosaic tile and bricks. ALLOW FOR FLEXIBILITY AND BETTER DESIGN CHOICES. WHAT IF EXISTING PAVING IS NOT IDEAL? FOR EXAMPLE, THE RECYCLED GLASS ALONG CAL AVE IS KIND OF DANGEROUS FOR LITTLE KIDS, AND UNEVEN AND SUBOPTIMAL FROM AN ACCESSIBILITY STANDPOINT 1 2 3 3.b Packet Pg. 85 Page: 4 Number: 1 Author: elaine Subject: Text Box Date: 1/18/2021 8:52:28 AM LABELS THESE DIAGRAMS (MIXED USE VS RESIDENTIAL?) AND EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCES IN USE AND DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS Number: 2 Author: elaine Subject: Text Box Date: 1/18/2021 8:50:30 AM ALLOW FOR FLEXIBILITY AND BETTER DESIGN CHOICES. WHAT IF EXISTING PAVING IS NOT IDEAL? FOR EXAMPLE, THE RECYCLED GLASS ALONG CAL AVE IS KIND OF DANGEROUS FOR LITTLE KIDS, AND UNEVEN AND SUBOPTIMAL FROM AN ACCESSIBILITY STANDPOINT Number: 3 Author: elaine Subject: Highlight Date: 12/5/2020 1:34:47 PM ) Sidewalks and publicly accessible areas fronting University Avenue and California Avenue shall match existing accent paving design and materials, such a mosaic tile and bricks. 3.b Packet Pg. 86 pg. 5 infrastructure already located within 50 feet of the project site and located in the public right-of-way. (b) Primary building entries shall provide at least one seating area or bench within 20 feet of building entry and/or path leading to building entry. This standard may be satisfied by existing seating area or benches located in public right-of-way within 50 feet of the building entry. 18.24.030 Site Access (A) Intent To provide facilities and accommodations for pedestrians, vehicles, cyclists, and transit users to safely and efficiently access and circulate both within individual sites and in the site’s surrounding context. Site access should include the following elements: x Site circulation and access that presents a clear hierarchy and connectivity pattern for all travel modes both within a project and to adjacent sidewalks and transit stops. This hierarchy may provide separate access for vehicles and other modes, or demonstrate how all modes are accommodated in shared access points. x Connections to side streets, open spaces, mews, alleys, and paseos x Vehicle, loading and service access that is integrated into building and landscape design and located to prevent conflicts with pedestrians and cyclists, while also provided convenient access to building entries. (B) Circulation Hierarchy (i)Sites shall clearly identify a hierarchy of connectivity in a circulation plan that identifies a priority for pedestrian, bike, private vehicles, and utility/loading access in the order listed. [see comment in text box below] (ii)Through lots located more than 300 feet from an intersecting street or pedestrian walkway shall provide a publicly accessible sidewalk or pedestrian walkway connecting the two streets. (C) Building Entries (i)Entries to Primary Building Entries shall be located from a public right-of-way or if not possible a publicly accessible Pedestrian Walkway. Circulation Plan: Some topics are inherently difficult to create clear and objective standards to meet the intent of the guidelines while providing flexibility that is needed for each project. One way to create an objective standard for these performance criteria is to have a requirement that a developer submit a plan to meet these criteria. The review of the plan material, description of how the project will meet the intent of the guidelines, and the implementation will not be objective and thus not applicable to deny a project for not meeting the City’s expectations of the guidelines, but the act of having to write the report/plan may provide enough guidance and design thinking to get most of the way there in most cases. 3.a Packet Pg. 45 UNDER CIRCULATION HIERARCHY, PLEASE INCLUDE AND REFERENCE ACCESS/INFRASTRUCTURE FOR MICROMOBILITY VEHICLES. ALLOW FLEXIBILITY FOR FUTURE TRANSPORT MODES (A) Intent To provide facilities and accommodations for pedestrians, vehicles, cyclists, and transit users to safely and efficiently access and circulate both within individual sites and in the site’s surrounding context. Site access should include the following elements: xx Site circulation and access that presents a clear hierarchy and connectivity pattern for all travel modes both within a project and to adjacent sidewalks and transit stops. This hierarchy may provide separate access for vehicles and other modes, or demonstrate how all modes are accommodated in shared access points. xx Connections to side streets, open spaces, mews, alleys, and paseos xx Vehicle, loading and service access that is integrated into building and landscape design and located to prevent conflicts with pedestrians and cyclists, while also provided convenient access to building entries. 1 2 3.b Packet Pg. 87 Page: 5 Number: 1 Author: elaine Subject: Highlight Date: 12/5/2020 3:28:12 PM (A) Intent To provide facilities and accommodations for pedestrians, vehicles, cyclists, and transit users to safely and efficiently access and circulate both within individual sites and in the site’s surrounding context. Site access should include the following elements: Site circulation and access that presents a clear hierarchy and connectivity pattern for all travel modes both within a project and to adjacent sidewalks and transit stops. This hierarchy may provide separate access for vehicles and other modes, or demonstrate how all modes are accommodated in shared access points. Connections to side streets, open spaces, mews, alleys, and paseos Vehicle, loading and service access that is integrated into building and landscape design and located to prevent conflicts with pedestrians and cyclists, while also provided convenient access to building entries. Number: 2 Author: elaine Subject: Text Box Date: 12/5/2020 1:42:29 PM UNDER CIRCULATION HIERARCHY, PLEASE INCLUDE AND REFERENCE ACCESS/INFRASTRUCTURE FOR MICROMOBILITY VEHICLES. ALLOW FLEXIBILITY FOR FUTURE TRANSPORT MODES 3.b Packet Pg. 88 pg. 6 (D) Vehicle Access (i)Vehicle access shall be located on alleys or side streets where available. (ii)Vehicle access, vehicle loading, and off-street parking shall follow the following standards: (a) Except for driveway access, off-Street parking, off-street vehicle loading, and vehicular circulation areas are prohibited between the building and the primary building frontage. (iii)Special Conditions (b) California Avenue: Vehicular access to CC(2) zoned sites on California Avenue which requires vehicular movement across the sidewalk on California Avenue shall be prohibited, except where required by law and as applied to parcels owned, leased or controlled by the City. (c) University Avenue: Vehicular access to CD-C zoned sites on University Avenue which requires vehicular movement across the sidewalk on University Avenue shall be prohibited, except where required by law and as applied to parcels owned, leased or controlled by the City. (E) Loading Docks and Service Areas (iii)Loading and service areas shall be integrated into building and landscape design and located to minimize impact on the pedestrian experience as follows: (a) Loading docks and service areas shall be located on facades other than the primary building frontage, on alleys, from parking areas, and/or at the rear or side of building if building includes these frontages. When only primary building frontage is available, loading docks and service areas shall be recessed a minimum five feet from the primary façade and shall be screened in accordance with Chapter 18.23.050. (b) Loading dock and service areas located within setback areas shall be screened in accordance with Chapter 18.23.050 and separated from pedestrian access to the primary building entry to avoid impeding pedestrian movement and safety. 18.24.040 Building Orientation and Setbacks (A) Intent To create a coherent and active interface between private development and the public realm that contributes to the sense of place and structure of the neighborhood and enhances the public’s experience. Site design that responds to the orientation of adjacent uses and creates opportunities for landscaping and usable open space. Buildings and site design should meet the following criteria: x Buildings that create a contiguous street wall that are compatible with nearby buildings and land uses. x Placement and orientation of doorways, windows, stoops, and landscape elements to create a direct relationship with the street 3.a Packet Pg. 46 DOES VEHICLE ACCESS MEAN CARS/TRUCKS/MOTORCYCLES? MICROMOBILITY VEHICLES SHOULD HAVE A SEPARATE CATEGORY. THEIR USE CASES AND TRAVEL ZONES ARE DIFFERENT e, loading docks and service areas shall be recessed a minimum five feet d within setback areas shall be screened in accordance with Chapter 18.23.050 a ON SITES WITH ONLY ONE FRONTAGE, YOU'LL NEED FLEXIBILITY DUE TO COMPETING DEMANDS OF OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE ALONG THE STREET FRONTAGE.. RECOMMEND ALLOWING SERVICE AREAS TO BE WITHIN THE SETBACK, NOT A FORCED RECESS FROM THE PRIMARY FACADE. SCREENING WILL BE IMPORTANT, BUT THERE SHOULD BE FLEXIBILITY ON THE SCREENING TYPE. (A))Intent To create a coherent and active interface between private development and the public realm that contributes to the sense of place and structure of the neighborhood and enhances the public’s experience. Site design that responds to the orientation of adjacent uses and creates opportunities for landscaping and usable open space. Buildings and site design should meet the following criteria: xx Buildings that create a contiguous street wall that are compatible with nearby buildings and land uses. xx Placement and orientation of doorways, windows, stoops, and landscape elements to create a direct relationship with the street 1 2 3 4 5 3.b Packet Pg. 89 Page: 6 Number: 1 Author: elaine Subject: Text Box Date: 12/5/2020 1:44:08 PM DOES VEHICLE ACCESS MEAN CARS/TRUCKS/MOTORCYCLES? MICROMOBILITY VEHICLES SHOULD HAVE A SEPARATE CATEGORY. THEIR USE CASES AND TRAVEL ZONES ARE DIFFERENT Number: 2 Author: elaine Subject: Highlight Date: 12/5/2020 1:44:14 PM , loading docks and service areas shall be recessed a minimum five feet Number: 3 Author: elaine Subject: Highlight Date: 12/5/2020 1:44:39 PM within setback areas shall be screened in accordance with Chapter 18.23.050 Number: 4 Author: elaine Subject: Text Box Date: 12/5/2020 1:51:30 PM ON SITES WITH ONLY ONE FRONTAGE, YOU'LL NEED FLEXIBILITY DUE TO COMPETING DEMANDS OF OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE ALONG THE STREET FRONTAGE.. RECOMMEND ALLOWING SERVICE AREAS TO BE WITHIN THE SETBACK, NOT A FORCED RECESS FROM THE PRIMARY FACADE. SCREENING WILL BE IMPORTANT, BUT THERE SHOULD BE FLEXIBILITY ON THE SCREENING TYPE. Number: 5 Author: elaine Subject: Highlight Date: 12/5/2020 3:30:11 PM (A) Intent To create a coherent and active interface between private development and the public realm that contributes to the sense of place and structure of the neighborhood and enhances the public’s experience. Site design that responds to the orientation of adjacent uses and creates opportunities for landscaping and usable open space. Buildings and site design should meet the following criteria: Buildings that create a contiguous street wall that are compatible with nearby buildings and land uses. Placement and orientation of doorways, windows, stoops, and landscape elements to create a direct relationship with the street 3.b Packet Pg. 90 pg. 7 x Ground floor residential units that have direct entry and presence on the street x Transitional spaces and buffer areas between buildings, parcels, and sites through building setbacks that distinguish private and public spaces. x Buildings that provide side and rear setbacks and/or upper story stepbacks to create separation between adjacent lower density residential development. x Landscaped or usable areas that contain open space or hardscaped areas. x Optimized building orientation for heat gain, shading, daylighting, and natural ventilation and other forms of passive design. (B) Building Orientation (i)Treatment of Corner Buildings (a) Corner buildings shall include one of the following special features: 1. Street wall shall be located at the minimum front yard setback or build-to line for a minimum aggregated length of 60 feet in length on both facades meeting at the corner and shall include one or more of the following building features: a. A corner entry to ground floor retail or primary building entrance b. A different material application and fenestration pattern from the rest of the façade c. A change in height of at least 8 feet greater or less than the height of the abutting façade. > 3.a Packet Pg. 47 f 60 feet WHY 60'? THE HISTORIC BUILDING AT RAMONA AND UNIVERSITY AVE - ONE OF PALO ALTO'S MOST ICONIC BUILDINGS - PROBABLY WOULD NOT MEET THIS STANDARD IS THERE A SECTION FOR MID-BLOCK BUILDINGS, WITH NEIGHBORS ON ON 2 SIDES? CORNER TREATMENTS MAY HAVE DIFFERENT CONSIDERATIONS ALONG ECR OR SAN ANTONIO VS UNIVERSITY AVE. EVEN A CORNER BLDG ON A SMALLER STREET LIKE LYTTON AVE OR COLLEGE AVE MAY NEED DIFFERENT STANDARDS 1 23 4 3.b Packet Pg. 91 Page: 7 Number: 1 Author: elaine Subject: Text Box Date: 12/5/2020 2:11:08 PM IS THERE A SECTION FOR MID-BLOCK BUILDINGS, WITH NEIGHBORS ON ON 2 SIDES? Number: 2 Author: elaine Subject: Highlight Date: 12/5/2020 1:52:08 PM 60 feet Number: 3 Author: elaine Subject: Text Box Date: 1/18/2021 8:53:29 AM WHY 60'? THE HISTORIC BUILDING AT RAMONA AND UNIVERSITY AVE - ONE OF PALO ALTO'S MOST ICONIC BUILDINGS - PROBABLY WOULD NOT MEET THIS STANDARD Number: 4 Author: elaine Subject: Text Box Date: 12/5/2020 2:23:55 PM CORNER TREATMENTS MAY HAVE DIFFERENT CONSIDERATIONS ALONG ECR OR SAN ANTONIO VS UNIVERSITY AVE. EVEN A CORNER BLDG ON A SMALLER STREET LIKE LYTTON AVE OR COLLEGE AVE MAY NEED DIFFERENT STANDARDS 3.b Packet Pg. 92 pg. 8 2. A publicly accessible open space with a minimum dimension of 20 feet and minimum area of 1,000 square feet. 3. A common open space that is no more than six feet above the back of walk grade at the corner, is located adjacent to indoor common spaces, with direct access, has areas for seating, has a minimum dimension of 20 feet and minimum area of 1,000 square feet, and has a fence or railing that is no less than 50 percent open or transparent. (ii)Primary Building Entry (a) The primary building entry shall meet one of the following standards: 1. Face a public right-of-way Be visible from a public right-of-way through a forecourt or front porch that meets the following standards: a. For residential buildings with fewer than seven units, building entry forecourts or front porches shall be a minimum area of 36 square feet and minimum dimension of five feet. b. For commercial buildings or residential buildings with more than six units, building entry forecourts or front porches shall be a minimum of 100 square feet and a minimum width of 8 feet. 3.a Packet Pg. 48 f 20 feet NARROW DEPTH SITES MAY NEED AN EXEMPTION. A LOT OF GOOD PUBLIC ACTIVITY CAN HAPPEN IN A 12-15' DEPTH. 1000SF OVERALL SEEMS HIGH (20'X50'!), ESPECIALLY ON SMALLER SITES. RECOMMEND 500 SF MIN OR A GRADUATED MINIMUM BASED ON MINIMUM LOT SIZE (IE 500 SF FOR SITES < 1/4 ACRE, 750 FOR SITES <1/2 ACRE AND 1000 SF FOR SITES OVER 1/2 ACRE. 1,000 square feet, f 20 feet and minimum area off AGAIN THESE DIMENSIONS FOR AN INTERIOR COMMON SPACE SEEM HIGH, ESPECIALLY FOR SMALLER SITES, OR BLDGS WITH COMPLEX PROGRAMS AND INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIREMENTS WHERE EVERY SQUARE FOOT ON GROUND FLOOR IS PRECIOUS. THINK ABOUT GRADUATED STANDARDS BASED ON LOT SIZE . minimum dimension of five feet. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3.b Packet Pg. 93 Page: 8 Number: 1 Author: elaine Subject: Highlight Date: 12/5/2020 1:59:49 PM 20 feet Number: 2 Author: elaine Subject: Text Box Date: 12/5/2020 2:24:10 PM NARROW DEPTH SITES MAY NEED AN EXEMPTION. A LOT OF GOOD PUBLIC ACTIVITY CAN HAPPEN IN A 12-15' DEPTH. 1000SF OVERALL SEEMS HIGH (20'X50'!), ESPECIALLY ON SMALLER SITES. RECOMMEND 500 SF MIN OR A GRADUATED MINIMUM BASED ON MINIMUM LOT SIZE (IE 500 SF FOR SITES < 1/4 ACRE, 750 FOR SITES <1/2 ACRE AND 1000 SF FOR SITES OVER 1/2 ACRE. Number: 3 Author: elaine Subject: Highlight Date: 12/5/2020 2:04:38 PM 20 feet and minimum area of Number: 4 Author: elaine Subject: Highlight Date: 12/5/2020 2:04:29 PM 1,000 square feet, Number: 5 Author: elaine Subject: Text Box Date: 1/18/2021 8:55:11 AM AGAIN THESE DIMENSIONS FOR AN INTERIOR COMMON SPACE SEEM HIGH, ESPECIALLY FOR SMALLER SITES, OR BLDGS WITH COMPLEX PROGRAMS AND INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIREMENTS WHERE EVERY SQUARE FOOT ON GROUND FLOOR IS PRECIOUS. THINK ABOUT GRADUATED STANDARDS BASED ON LOT SIZE Number: 6 Author: elaine Subject: Text Box Date: 12/5/2020 2:07:07 PM . Number: 7 Author: elaine Subject: Highlight Date: 12/5/2020 2:52:52 PM minimum dimension of five feet. 3.b Packet Pg. 94 pg. 9 (iii) Ground Floor Residential Units (a) A minimum of 80% of ground floor residential units facing a public right-of-way or publicly accessible path or open space shall have a unit entry with direct access to the sidewalk, path, or open space. (Senior units or other deed-restricted units for special populations are exempt) (b) Entries to ground floor residential units shall face a public right-of-way or publicly accessible path/open space or be visible from a public right-of-way through a forecourt or front porch that is a minimum of 30 square feet. (c) Ground floor residential units shall be setback a minimum 15 feet from the back of sidewalk. (C) Front Yard Setback Character (i)Required setbacks shall provide an extension of the sidewalk as a hardscape and/or landscaped area to create a transition between public and private space. The following standards apply, based on intended use and exclusive of areas devoted to outdoor seating, front porches, door swing of building entries, and publicly accessible open space: (a) Ground-floor retail or retail-like uses = Minimum of 20% of the required setback (b) Other ground-floor non-residential uses. A minimum of 40% of the required setback area Ground-floor residential uses. A minimum of 60% of the required setback area 18.24.050 Building Massing (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: x Break down large building facades and massing to create a human-scaled building that enhances the context of the site x Are consistent in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations x Reinforce the definition and importance of the street x Provide rooflines and massing that emphasize and accentuate significant elements of the building such as entries, bays, and balconies, and shading elements where appropriate. x Provide harmonious transitions between adjacent properties (B) Contextual Massing (i)Upper Floor Step Backs (c) When the average height of the building is greater than 20 feet above the average height of an adjacent building, an upper floor step back shall start within 2 vertical feet, plus or minus, of the height of the adjacent building, be a minimum depth of six feet along the primary building frontage, and the step should shall occur for a minimum of 70% of the façade length. 3.a Packet Pg. 49 )Ground floor residential units shall be setback a minimum 15 feet from the back of sidewalk.CONSIDER VARIANCES FOR NARROW DEPTH SITES. MOST PRE-WW2 STRUCTURES DON'T HAVE 15' SETBACKS AND WORK , ESP FOR SMALL MULTIFAMILY LIKE RM-20 THRU RM-50 "MISSING MIDDLE" TYPE HOUSING b))Other ground-floor non-residential uses. A minimum of 40% of the required setback area Ground-floor residential uses. A minimum of 60% of the required setback area NOT CLEAR. MOST PEOPLE NEVER EXPERIENCE BUILDINGS AT THIS HEIGHT AND NEVER NOTICE SETBACKS. (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: xx Break down large building facades and massing to create a human-scaled building that enhances the context of the site xx Are consistent in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations xx Reinforce the definition and importance of the street xx Provide rooflines and massing that emphasize and accentuate significant elements of the building such as entries, bays, and balconies, and shading elements w appropriate. xx Provide harmonious transitions between adjacent propertie 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3.b Packet Pg. 95 Page: 9 Number: 1 Author: elaine Subject: Highlight Date: 12/5/2020 2:08:10 PM Ground floor residential units shall be setback a minimum 15 feet from the back of sidewalk. Number: 2 Author: elaine Subject: Text Box Date: 1/18/2021 8:56:06 AM CONSIDER VARIANCES FOR NARROW DEPTH SITES. MOST PRE-WW2 STRUCTURES DON'T HAVE 15' SETBACKS AND WORK , ESP FOR SMALL MULTIFAMILY LIKE RM-20 THRU RM-50 "MISSING MIDDLE" TYPE HOUSING Number: 3 Author: elaine Subject: Highlight Date: 12/5/2020 2:09:50 PM ) Other ground-floor non-residential uses. A minimum of 40% of the required setback area Ground-floor residential uses. A minimum of 60% of the required setback area Number: 4 Author: elaine Subject: Text Box Date: 12/5/2020 2:09:59 PM NOT CLEAR. Number: 5 Author: elaine Subject: Highlight Date: 12/5/2020 3:29:35 PM (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: Break down large building facades and massing to create a human-scaled building that enhances the context of the site Are consistent in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations Reinforce the definition and importance of the street Provide rooflines and massing that emphasize and accentuate significant elements of the building such as entries, bays, and balconies, and shading elements Number: 6 Author: elaine Subject: Highlight Date: 12/5/2020 3:29:39 PM appropriate. Provide harmonious transitions between adjacent properti Number: 7 Author: elaine Subject: Text Box Date: 12/5/2020 3:50:02 PM MOST PEOPLE NEVER EXPERIENCE BUILDINGS AT THIS HEIGHT AND NEVER NOTICE SETBACKS. 3.b Packet Pg. 96 pg. 10 (ii)Transition to Lower Density Building Types (d) When a building abuts a side and/or rear property line with a RE, RMD, R-1, or R-2 zoned parcel or a village residential or existing single-family residential use, the building shall break down the abutting façade by meeting the following standards: 1. A reduction in mass through one of the following: a. A minimum 15-foot building setback and an upper floor step back above 35 feet in height for a minimum depth of 25 feet. b.Jodie – to add IR privacy type Guidelines that are objective (i)Frosted windows (ii)Staggered window placement 3.a Packet Pg. 50 IN PALO ALTO, LEFT SIDE DIAGRAM CURRENTLY NOT ALLOWED BUT IT SHOULD BE! SIX STORY STRUCTURES ARE NOT FEASIBLE - SINCE THEY ARE OVER 50'! :) RIGHT SIDE DIAGRAM OF THIS BLDG IS THE TALLEST ALLOWABLE IN PALO ALTO RIGHT NOW! YOU MAY WANT TO EDIT TO SHOW RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN 2 STORY AND 4 STORY STRUCTURE 1 2 3.b Packet Pg. 97 Page: 10 Number: 1 Author: elaine Subject: Text Box Date: 1/18/2021 8:57:12 AM IN PALO ALTO, LEFT SIDE DIAGRAM CURRENTLY NOT ALLOWED BUT IT SHOULD BE! SIX STORY STRUCTURES ARE NOT FEASIBLE - SINCE THEY ARE OVER 50'! :) Number: 2 Author: elaine Subject: Text Box Date: 1/18/2021 8:56:40 AM RIGHT SIDE DIAGRAM OF THIS BLDG IS THE TALLEST ALLOWABLE IN PALO ALTO RIGHT NOW! YOU MAY WANT TO EDIT TO SHOW RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN 2 STORY AND 4 STORY STRUCTURE 3.b Packet Pg. 98 pg. 11 c.A minimum 20-foot building side yard setback, a minimum 10-foot step back above 30 feet in height, and a landscape screen that includes a double row of trees with a minimum 1 tree per 30 linear feet plus continuous shrubbery planting 72 inches (6 feet) in height [NOTE: Alternative is to maintain existing daylight plane] 2. A minimum façade break of six feet in width and six feet in depth for every 36 to 40 feet of façade length. 3. A maximum 15% window coverage of facades within 30 feet of abutting property line. 3.a Packet Pg. 51 THIS WILL BE TOUGH TO ACHIEVE ON SMALLER OR NARROW DEPTH SITES (<60'). IN ADDITION TO MAINTAINING EXISTING DAYLIGHT PLANE AS AN ALTERNATE OR OPTION, PLEASE CONSIDER APPROACH - DIFFERENT CRITERIA FOR SITES A) <60' MIGHT HAVE A 8' LANDSCAPE BUFFER B) 60-100' MIGHT HAVE A 10'-12 BUFFER C) >100' COULD ACCOMODATE 15'-20' m 20-foot building side yard setback, a minimum 10-foot step back above 30 feet in height, of six feet in width and six feet in depth 6' DEPTH IS A LOT ESPECIALLY ON SMALLER SITES, <100' IN ONE DIRECTION. 2-3' IS BETTER AND STRUCTURALLY EASIER/CHEAPER TO CONSTRUCT., 1 2 3 4 3.b Packet Pg. 99 Page: 11 Number: 1 Author: elaine Subject: Highlight Date: 12/5/2020 2:17:10 PM 20-foot building side yard setback, a minimum 10-foot step back above 30 feet in height Number: 2 Author: elaine Subject: Text Box Date: 12/5/2020 2:26:08 PM THIS WILL BE TOUGH TO ACHIEVE ON SMALLER OR NARROW DEPTH SITES (<60'). IN ADDITION TO MAINTAINING EXISTING DAYLIGHT PLANE AS AN ALTERNATE OR OPTION, PLEASE CONSIDER APPROACH - DIFFERENT CRITERIA FOR SITESA) <60' MIGHT HAVE A 8' LANDSCAPE BUFFERB) 60-100' MIGHT HAVE A 10'-12 BUFFERC) >100' COULD ACCOMODATE 15'-20' Number: 3 Author: elaine Subject: Highlight Date: 12/5/2020 2:35:22 PM f six feet in width and six feet in dept Number: 4 Author: elaine Subject: Text Box Date: 1/18/2021 8:59:24 AM 6' DEPTH IS A LOT ESPECIALLY ON SMALLER SITES, <100' IN ONE DIRECTION. 2-3' IS BETTER AND STRUCTURALLY EASIER/ CHEAPER TO CONSTRUCT., 3.b Packet Pg. 100 pg. 12 (C) Maximum Façade Length (i)Significant Breaks (a) For portions of a building facade facing a public street, right-of-way, or publicly accessible path, any building greater than 25 feet in height shall not have a continuous facade greater than 70% of the façade length. Upper floor façade modulation shall be a minimum 2 feet in depth. (b) Buildings greater than 100 feet in length, which face a public street, right-of-way, or publicly accessible path, shall have at least one vertical façade break with a minimum area greater than 600 square feet and a width less than or equal to two times the depth. 3.a Packet Pg. 52 n 600 square feet A MINIMUM 600 SF VERTICAL BREAK IS A LOT, THIS SHOULD NOT BE MORE THAN 0-100 SF. ON A TYPICAL DOWNTOWN SITE, 150' WIDE X 150' SITE THIS STANDARD WOULD REQUIRE A 20' X 30' BREAK SOMEWHERE? IT'S FINE TO HAVE AN OBJECTIVE STANDARD THAT REQUIRES AN OPEN SPACE, BUT ALLOW THE APPLICANT FLEXIBILITY ON HOW TO REDUCE OR MODULATE BUILDING MASS AND OPEN SPACE. THIS STANDARDS DESCRIBED HERE ARE TOO ONEROUS AND CAN CONSTRAIN GOOD DESIGN ALTERNATIVES OR MAKE DEVELOPMENT INFEASIBLE. 100' LONG SITES ARE NOT THAT LONG/WIDE, INSTEAD OF MANDATING THIS HUGE BREAK, USE MASSING TO CONTROL VARIATION ALONG A FACADE, ALTERNATIVE: CHANGE 100' TO BLDGS OVER 200' IN LENGTH n 100 feet minimum 2 feet in depth1 2 3 4 5 6 3.b Packet Pg. 101 Page: 12 Number: 1 Author: elaine Subject: Highlight Date: 12/5/2020 2:36:24 PM minimum 2 feet in dept Number: 2 Author: elaine Subject: Text Box Date: 12/5/2020 2:34:25 PM 100' LONG SITES ARE NOT THAT LONG/WIDE, INSTEAD OF MANDATING THIS HUGE BREAK, USE MASSING TO CONTROL VARIATION ALONG A FACADE, ALTERNATIVE: CHANGE 100' TO BLDGS OVER 200' IN LENGTH Number: 3 Author: elaine Subject: Highlight Date: 12/5/2020 2:29:45 PM 100 feet Number: 4 Author: elaine Subject: Text Box Date: 12/5/2020 2:34:17 PM Number: 5 Author: elaine Subject: Highlight Date: 12/5/2020 2:27:21 PM 600 square feet Number: 6 Author: elaine Subject: Text Box Date: 1/18/2021 9:00:38 AM A MINIMUM 600 SF VERTICAL BREAK IS A LOT, THIS SHOULD NOT BE MORE THAN 0-100 SF. ON A TYPICAL DOWNTOWN SITE, 150' WIDE X 150' SITE THIS STANDARD WOULD REQUIRE A 20' X 30' BREAK SOMEWHERE? IT'S FINE TO HAVE AN OBJECTIVE STANDARD THAT REQUIRES AN OPEN SPACE, BUT ALLOW THE APPLICANT FLEXIBILITY ON HOW TO REDUCE OR MODULATE BUILDING MASS AND OPEN SPACE. THIS STANDARDS DESCRIBED HERE ARE TOO ONEROUS AND CAN CONSTRAIN GOOD DESIGN ALTERNATIVES OR MAKE DEVELOPMENT INFEASIBLE. 3.b Packet Pg. 102 pg. 13 (D) Special Conditions (i)Railroad Frontages (a) All parcels with lot lines abutting railroad rights-of-way shall meet the following standards on the railroad-abutting facade: 1. A minimum facade break of at least 10 feet in width and six feet in depth for every 60 feet of façade length. 2. For portion of a building greater that is 20 feet or greater in height, a maximum continuous façade length shall not exceed 60 feet. 3. A daylight setback plane starting 10 feet in height from grade at the property line and extending at a 1:1 ratio. 18.24.060 Façade Design (A) Intent Statement: To create cohesive and well-crafted building facades with human-scaled details that incorporate textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. Facades should include the following elements: x Human-scaled detail, articulation, and craftsmanship x Quality of construction, craftsmanship, and design to create long lasting buildings x Articulation of the building base or ground floor, body or middle, and top, cornice or parapet edge x Expression of a human-scaled façade rhythm and pattern that reflects the building’s use x Fenestration that enhances the architectural character of the building x Defined building entry that is proportional to the building and number of people served (B) Application (i)All facades shall meet all the required design standards and guidelines to ensure the same level of care and integrity throughout the building design. (ii)Façade sidewalls located along a zero-lot line where, at time of approval are not visible from a right-of-way, are exempt. (iii)Façade sidewalls located along a zero-lot line, where at time of approval are visible from a right-of-way, shall continue color, material, and pattern of the main façade. (C) Human Scaled Architecture (i)Base/Middle/Top (a) Buildings three stories or taller shall be designed to differentiate a defined base or ground floor, a middle or body, and a top, cornice, or parapet cap. Buildings two stories or less shall include a defined base and top. Each of these elements shall be distinguished from one another through use of two or more of the following four techniques: 3.a Packet Pg. 53 (A))Intent Statement: To create cohesive and well-crafted building facades with human-scaled details that incorporate textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. Facades should include the following elements: 1 3.b Packet Pg. 103 Page: 13 Number: 1 Author: elaine Subject: Highlight Date: 12/5/2020 2:36:52 PM (A) Intent Statement: To create cohesive and well-crafted building facades with human-scaled details that incorporate textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. Facades should include the following elements: 3.b Packet Pg. 104 pg. 14 1.Variation in building modulation (select a minimum of one) a. Horizontal shifts. Changes in floor plates that protrude and/or recess with a minimum dimension of two feet from the primary facade. b. Upper floor step backs. A horizontal step back of upper-floor façades with a minimum five-foot step back from the primary façade for a minimum of 80% of the length of the façade. c. Ground floor step back. A horizontal shift of the ground floor facade with a minimum depth of two feet for a minimum 80% of the length of the façade. Ground floor step backs shall not exceed the maximum setback requirements, where stated. 3.a Packet Pg. 54 THIS MASSING IS GOOD, ESSENTIALLY A DIAGRAM OF THE BELOVED BUILDING AT RAMONA & UNIVERSITY, BUT IT MIGHT NOT MEET 60' COMBINED CORNER LENGTHS DESCRIBED IN 18.10.040(B)i(a)1 LOVE THESE DIAGRAMS, BUT THEY ILLUSTRATE BUIDLINGS TALLER THAN PALO ALTO'S CURRENT 50' HEIGHT LIMIT (WE SHOULD ALLOW STRUCTURES THIS TALL THOUGH!) 1 2 3.b Packet Pg. 105 Page: 14 Number: 1 Author: elaine Subject: Text Box Date: 1/18/2021 9:01:08 AM LOVE THESE DIAGRAMS, BUT THEY ILLUSTRATE BUIDLINGS TALLER THAN PALO ALTO'S CURRENT 50' HEIGHT LIMIT (WE SHOULD ALLOW STRUCTURES THIS TALL THOUGH!) Number: 2 Author: elaine Subject: Callout Date: 1/18/2021 9:01:41 AM THIS MASSING IS GOOD, ESSENTIALLY A DIAGRAM OF THE BELOVED BUILDING AT RAMONA & UNIVERSITY, BUT IT MIGHT NOT MEET 60' COMBINED CORNER LENGTHS DESCRIBED IN 18.10.040(B)i(a)1 3.b Packet Pg. 106 pg. 18 2. For continuous facades greater than 100 feet in length, the façade shall include a vertical recess or projection with a minimum four feet wide and two feet deep vertical shift modulation to establish a rhythm between 20 to 50 feet in width for housing units or 12 to 16 feet in width for individual rooms and spaces. 3.a Packet Pg. 58 THIS IS A BETTER STANDARD THAN 18.24.050(C). AS LONG AS THIS IS INCLUDED, THE OTHER SHOULD NOT EXIST. AS CURRENTLY WRITTEN, THEY CONTRADICT EACH OTHER. For continuous facades greater than 100 feet in length, 1 2 3 3.b Packet Pg. 107 Page: 18 Number: 1 Author: elaine Subject: Text Box Date: 12/5/2020 2:42:04 PM THIS IS A BETTER STANDARD THAN 18.24.050(C). AS LONG AS THIS IS INCLUDED, THE OTHER SHOULD NOT EXIST. AS CURRENTLY WRITTEN, THEY CONTRADICT EACH OTHER. Number: 2 Author: elaine Subject: Cloud Date: 12/5/2020 2:39:56 PM Number: 3 Author: elaine Subject: Highlight Date: 12/5/2020 3:42:03 PM For continuous facades greater than 100 feet in length 3.b Packet Pg. 108 pg. 19 (b) Residential mixed-use and non-residential buildings shall express a vertical rhythm and pattern by using one of the following options: 1. Facades shall use vertical patterns of building modulation, façade articulation, and fenestration; 2. Facades that use horizontal articulation and fenestration patterns shall use a vertical massing strategy with a minimum four feet wide and two feet deep vertical shift in modulation at least once every 50 feet of façade length. (c) Storefront uses shall express a vertical rhythm not to exceed 30 to 50 feet in width. 3.a Packet Pg. 59 .Facades that use horizontal articulation and fenestration patterns shall use a vertical massing strategy with a minimum four feet wide and two feet deep vertical shift in modulation at least once every 50 feet of façade length. THIS STANDARD IS ALSO BETTER THAN 18.24.050(C) 1 2 3.b Packet Pg. 109 Page: 19 Number: 1 Author: elaine Subject: Highlight Date: 12/5/2020 2:42:24 PM Facades that use horizontal articulation and fenestration patterns shall use a vertical massing strategy with a minimum four feet wide and two feet deep vertical shift in modulation at least once every 50 feet of façade length. Number: 2 Author: elaine Subject: Text Box Date: 12/5/2020 2:42:42 PM THIS STANDARD IS ALSO BETTER THAN 18.24.050(C) 3.b Packet Pg. 110 pg. 21 (D) Ground Floor Character (i)Storefront/Retail Ground Floors (a) Ground floor height shall be a minimum 14 feet floor-to-floor or shall maintain a 2nd floor datum line of an abutting building. (b) Transparency shall include a minimum 60 percent transparent glazing between 2 and 10 feet in height from sidewalk, providing unobstructed views into the commercial space. (c) Bulkheads and solid base walls: If provided, shall measure between 12 and 30 inches from finished grade (d) Primary entries shall include weather protection that is a minimum 6 feet wide and 4 feet deep by recessing the entry, providing an awning or using a combination of these methods. (e) Awnings, canopies and weather protection: 1. When transom windows are above display windows, awnings, canopies and similar weather protection elements shall be installed between transom and display windows. These elements should allow for light to enter the storefront through the transom windows and allow the weather protection feature to shade the display window. 2. Awnings may be fixed or retractable. 3. Awnings, canopies and other weather protection elements shall not extend across the entire facade. Instead, individual segments shall be installed over each storefront entry or set of storefront windows and shall not extend across wall sections, across multiple windows or over columns. (ii)Other Non-residential Ground Floors (a) Ground floor height shall be a minimum 14 feet floor-to-floor or shall match the 2 nd floor datum line of an abutting building. (b) Transparency shall include a minimum 50 percent transparent glazing between 4 and 10 feet in height from sidewalk or terrace grade. 3.a Packet Pg. 61 a minimum 14 feet floor-to-floor THERE SHOULD BE SOME FLEXIBILITY FOR PROGRAM NEEDS OR NAVIGATING GRADE CHANGES FRONT TO BACK. CONSIDER A RANGE, (IE 12'-15' FLOOR TO FLOOR) RATHER THAN A STRICT MINIMUM. a minimum 14 feet floor-to-floor m 6 feet wide and 4 feet 1 2 3 4 3.b Packet Pg. 111 Page: 21 Number: 1 Author: elaine Subject: Highlight Date: 12/5/2020 3:22:33 PM minimum 14 feet floor-to-floor Number: 2 Author: elaine Subject: Highlight Date: 12/5/2020 3:22:43 PM 6 feet wide and 4 feet Number: 3 Author: elaine Subject: Highlight Date: 12/5/2020 2:44:27 PM a minimum 14 feet floor-to-floor Number: 4 Author: elaine Subject: Text Box Date: 12/5/2020 2:46:32 PM THERE SHOULD BE SOME FLEXIBILITY FOR PROGRAM NEEDS OR NAVIGATING GRADE CHANGES FRONT TO BACK. CONSIDER A RANGE, (IE 12'-15' FLOOR TO FLOOR) RATHER THAN A STRICT MINIMUM. 3.b Packet Pg. 112 pg. 22 (c) Primary entries shall include weather protection that is a minimum 10 feet wide and 8 feet deep by recessing the entry, providing an awning or using a combination of these methods. (iii) Residential Ground Floors (a) Finished Floor Height: Units on ground floors shall have a finished floor height at a minimum two feet above average back of sidewalk height for the associated façade. (b) Primary entries shall include weather protection that is a minimum 4 feet wide and 4 feet deep by recessing the entry, providing an awning or using a combination of these methods. (E) Parking/Loading/Utilities (i)Entry Size: No more than 25% of the site frontage facing a street should be devoted to garage openings, carports, surface parking, loading entries, or utilities access (on sites with less than 100 feet of frontage, no more than 25 feet) (ii)Above grade structured parking levels facing a public right-of-way or publicly accessible open space/path shall be lined with commercial or habitable uses with a minimum depth of 20 feet. (iii) Partially sub-grade parking not exceeding six feet in height above abutting grade at back of sidewalk shall be screened with features meeting the standards of section 18.24.110 Visual, Screening, and Landscaping. 3.a Packet Pg. 62 m 10 feet wide and 8 feet deep by recessing the entry 80 SF SEEMS LARGE FOR SMALL SITES, MAKE SURE THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH 18.24.040(B)ii PRIMARY BUILDING ENTRY THE 25% ON NARROW 100' SITES MAY BE IMPOSSIBLE TO MEET. GARAGES ARE TYPICALLY 20' WIDE FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS, THERE MAY ALSO BE UTILITY ACCESS (ELECTRICAL ROOMS, TRASH ROOMS, BACKFLOW PREVENTERS,) IN ADDITION TO GARAGE ACCESS, f 20 feet. n 25% of the site frontage facing a street should be devoted to ,), garage openings, carports, surface parking, loading entries, or utilities access (on sites with less than 100 feet of frontage, no more than 25 feet) 1 2 3 4 5 3.b Packet Pg. 113 Page: 22 Number: 1 Author: elaine Subject: Text Box Date: 12/5/2020 3:22:06 PM 80 SF SEEMS LARGE FOR SMALL SITES, MAKE SURE THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH 18.24.040(B)ii PRIMARY BUILDING ENTRY Number: 2 Author: elaine Subject: Highlight Date: 12/5/2020 2:46:48 PM 10 feet wide and 8 feet deep by recessing the entr Number: 3 Author: elaine Subject: Text Box Date: 12/5/2020 3:21:36 PM THE 25% ON NARROW 100' SITES MAY BE IMPOSSIBLE TO MEET. GARAGES ARE TYPICALLY 20' WIDE FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS, THERE MAY ALSO BE UTILITY ACCESS (ELECTRICAL ROOMS, TRASH ROOMS, BACKFLOW PREVENTERS,) IN ADDITION TO GARAGE ACCESS, Number: 4 Author: elaine Subject: Highlight Date: 12/5/2020 2:51:26 PM 25% of the site frontage facing a street should be devoted to garage openings, carports, surface parking, loading entries, or utilities access (on sites with less than 100 feet of frontage, no more than 25 feet) Number: 5 Author: elaine Subject: Highlight Date: 12/5/2020 2:51:20 PM 20 feet. 3.b Packet Pg. 114 pg. 23 18.24.070 Residential Entries (A) Intent Private entries into ground floor residential units shall be designed to provide: x human-scaled detailing x enhanced pedestrian experience x transition between public and private space x spaces for residents to gather and spend time outdoors x resident privacy (B) Ground floor unit entries (i)Where ground floor residential unit entries are required, one or more of the following entry types shall be provided: (a) Stoop: 1. Stoops shall provide entry access for a maximum of two units.; and 2. Stoop entry landings shall be a minimum 4 feet in depth; and 3. The maximum stoop height from the back of sidewalk grade shall be 5 feet. (b) Porch: 1. Porches shall provide entry access for a maximum of one unit; and 2. Porches shall be large enough so a 6-foot by 6-foot square can fit inside of a porch for each unit; and 3. The maximum porch floor height from the back of sidewalk grade shall be 5 feet. 3.a Packet Pg. 63 a 6-foot by 6-foot square can fit inside of a porch for each unit; BE CONSISTENT WITH 18.10.024.(C)ii WHICH SAYS 36 SF AND MIN 5' DIMENSION Private entries into ground floor residential units shall be designed to provide:: xx human-scaled detailingg xx enhanced pedestrian experiencee xx transition between public and private spacee xx spaces for residents to gather and spend time outdoorss xx resident privacy Pr12 3 4 3.b Packet Pg. 115 Page: 23 Number: 1 Author: elaine Subject: Highlight Date: 12/5/2020 3:27:46 PM Private entries into ground floor residential units shall be designed to provide: human-scaled detailing enhanced pedestrian experience transition between public and private space spaces for residents to gather and spend time outdoors resident privac Number: 2 Author: elaine Subject: Highlight Date: 12/5/2020 3:27:52 PM Number: 3 Author: elaine Subject: Text Box Date: 12/5/2020 2:55:19 PM BE CONSISTENT WITH 18.10.024.(C)ii WHICH SAYS 36 SF AND MIN 5' DIMENSION Number: 4 Author: elaine Subject: Highlight Date: 12/5/2020 2:52:06 PM 6-foot by 6-foot square can fit inside of a porch for each unit 3.b Packet Pg. 116 pg. 24 (c) Terrace: 1. A Terrace may serve multiple unit entries; and 2. The maximum Terrace height shall be 30 inches above the grade of the back of the adjacent sidewalk or accessway; and 3. Walls, fences and hedges on Terraces shall be a maximum of 42 inches tall and have a minimum transparency of 40 percent. (d) Frontage Court: 1. A Frontage Court may serve multiple unit entries; and 2. The minimum Frontage Court width along a primary frontage shall be 25 feet; and 3. The maximum Frontage Court width along a primary frontage shall be 50 percent of the facade length or 80 feet, whichever is less; and 4. The minimum Frontage Court depth shall be 25 feet; and 5. The maximum Frontage Court depth shall be 50 feet or a ratio not to exceed 2:1 depth to width. 3.a Packet Pg. 64 e 30 inches 1 3.b Packet Pg. 117 Page: 24 Number: 1 Author: elaine Subject: Highlight Date: 12/5/2020 2:55:59 PM 30 inches 3.b Packet Pg. 118 pg. 25 18.24.080 Open Space (A) Intent To ensure that residents and visitors have access to usable open space and common facilities that provide recreational opportunities, promote a healthy environment, and enhance the experience of living in Palo Alto. Common and private open spaces should include the following characteristics: x Be integrated into the site access and building circulation strategy x Be generous in dimension to provide usable space x Provide landscape elements that will support the health of the plants and enhance the character of place x Promote public health x Be located to provide easy access to private and common building areas x Promote sustainable practices and opportunities for green infrastructure x Promote community safety through eyes on the street (B) Private Open Space Private Open Spaces shall be immediately accessible from each residential unit, provide direct visible access to the sky, protect from weather, and take advantage of possible views. Private Open Spaces shall meet the following standards: (a) Minimum dimension of six feet by six feet. (b) Minimum clear height dimension of 8’-6” feet (c) Be accessed directly from a residential unit (d) Balconies shall not be located within the daylight plane (e) Notwithstanding subsection (a), ground floor patios shall meet the following minimum requirements: 1. RM-20 and RM-30 districts, Minimum dimension of eight feet by eight feet and 100 square feet of area for at least 75% of the area 2. RM-40 districts, Minimum dimension of six feet by six feet and 80 square feet of area for at least 75% of the area 3. [TO COME: Regulating height above the ground-floor/setback from the street to ensure privacy/usability] (C) Common Open Space Common Open Space shall meet the following standards: 1. Minimum dimension of 12 feet. 2. Minimum of 60% of area open to the sky free of permanent weather protection or encroachments 3. Notwithstanding subsection (1), courtyards enclosed on four sides shall have a minimum dimension of 40 feet and have a minimum courtyard width to building height ratio of 1:1.25 4. Include places to sit 5. A minimum 20% of landscaping 3.a Packet Pg. 65 d 80 square feet of area for at least 75% of the area 100 square feet of area for at least 75% of the areaTHIS MAKES NO SENSE. IS THERE A DIAGRAM? (A))Intent To ensure that residents and visitors have access to usable open space and common facilities that provide recreational opportunities, promote a healthy environment, and enhance the experience of living in Palo Alto. Common and private open spaces should include the following characteristics: xx Be integrated into the site access and building circulation strategy xx Be generous in dimension to provide usable space xx Provide landscape elements that will support the health of the plants and enhance the character of place xx Promote public health xx Be located to provide easy access to private and common building areas xx Promote sustainable practices and opportunities for green infrastructure xx Promote community safety through eyes on the street 1 2 3 4 3.b Packet Pg. 119 Page: 25 Number: 1 Author: elaine Subject: Highlight Date: 12/5/2020 3:29:15 PM (A) Intent To ensure that residents and visitors have access to usable open space and common facilities that provide recreational opportunities, promote a healthy environment, and enhance the experience of living in Palo Alto. Common and private open spaces should include the following characteristics: Be integrated into the site access and building circulation strategy Be generous in dimension to provide usable space Provide landscape elements that will support the health of the plants and enhance the character of place Promote public health Be located to provide easy access to private and common building areas Promote sustainable practices and opportunities for green infrastructure Promote community safety through eyes on the street Number: 2 Author: elaine Subject: Text Box Date: 12/5/2020 3:20:40 PM THIS MAKES NO SENSE. IS THERE A DIAGRAM? Number: 3 Author: elaine Subject: Highlight Date: 12/5/2020 2:59:25 PM 100 square feet of area for at least 75% of the area Number: 4 Author: elaine Subject: Highlight Date: 12/5/2020 2:59:20 PM 80 square feet of area for at least 75% of the are 3.b Packet Pg. 120 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Call to Order/Roll Call Present: Chair Osma Thompson, Vice Chair Grace Lee, Board Members Alexander Lew, Peter Baltay and David Hirsch. Absent: None. 3. Public Hearing: Recommendation on Objective Design Standards Chair Thompson: Let’s move on to our next action item. This is the objective design standards. I don’t have something census to read on it, so I will just hand it over to staff. Ms. Gerhardt: This is Jodie Gerhardt, Manger of Current Planning. I wanted to introduce the team. Amy French, Chief Planning Official is here with is as well. Both of us on staff have been working on this project and then we have Jean Eisberg and Chris Sensenig, our main consultants that have been working on this project. Chair Thompson: Really quickly, Board Member Baltay wanted to do a disclosure. Should we just do disclosures quickly before we get into it? Ms. Gerhardt: Yes, go ahead. Chair Thompson: Okay. Go ahead, Board Member Baltay. Board Member Baltay: Yes, I’d like to disclosure that I had a Zoom meeting with two folks from SummerHill Homes back on March 2nd, Elaine Breeze and John Hickey. We went on for quite a while. They had some concerns about some aspects of these design standards and I thought I should share my notes from that meeting because it is not part of the public record. They were concerned about a subjective code being aimed at larger buildings. They felt that the requirement for primary building entrance didn’t work with their type of typology. They primarily build row homes where you have individual units with individual entrances. In a big sense, they felt that these design standards were designed for single, large buildings, not row home-type housing, and yet they build a lot of row home housing and they think that they are likely to work in Palo Alto. Another issue they brought up was a requirement for a façade break, or 600 square feet or 20 feet depth or something like that. We have the details in here. They said that that large of a break becomes really onerous for a row home type thing. It’s basically removing a unit. It’s not just a design detail. They questioned the base, middle, and top delineation; wanted to know if a pitched roof would be allowed to count as a top. They suggested a minimal dimension for open space things to be five feet, not six. They asked that we consider lengths as percentages of the block a building is on rather than ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD EXCERPT DRAFT MINUTES: March 18, 2021 City Hall/City Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue Virtual Meeting 8:30 AM 3.c Packet Pg. 121 City of Palo Alto Page 2 an absolute number, say 150 feet. That is the summation of my comments with SummerHill homes, Elaine Breeze and John Hickey. Thank you. Chair Thompson: Can you repeat that last item. Board Member Baltay: I wrote down my notes here. Consider length as a percentage, not an absolute number. That was in reference to the length of the building. We say anything over 150 feet; they were suggesting we consider it as whether it was a percentage of the whole block or something like that. Again, their issue is that the build a lot of row homes, which is, say, 25 foot/20 foot units each one having a stoop and a front door, two or three stories and our standards make that very difficult for them they said. Chair Thompson: Okay, thank you. Are there any other disclosures of anybody else on the Board? Not hearing anything. Board Member Hirsch: Jodie, I wrote you a little note, yes. I am concerned that what we are going to be talking about today is this whole list of the project pieces and I just want an opportunity to speak to the whole idea of objective/subjective issues in a general way. Whether it comes before going over the details or at the end, I don’t care particularly but I don’t know if we can make it far through it if we go to the end. What will be left of us, you know? Because this is a very, very big subject and a very serious subject I think, too. I think that in general, you know, the comments Peter that you just made were very interesting. Board Member Baltay: David, I'm just disclosing a discussion I had with somebody. Board Member Hirsch: I understand. Board Member Baltay: Please don’t interpret that as my comments. (Crosstalk) Board Member Hirsch: (Inaudible) point of view here, having to do with how we review projects because it is a serious issue. Where we have this discussion is the question right now. Ms. Gerhardt: Thank you, Board Member Hirsch. We had asked that Board Members arrange their comments by topic and I think we can ask the Chair if she would like to do a summary at the beginning or the end. Chair Thompson: Yeah, I’d be fine with that. I guess, in terms of format for today, we’ll have staff give us any updates since the last time we saw the objective standards and then we can have quick general comments and then go section by section if there are any section-specific comments. I’d like for everyone to keep their comments succinct and brief as possible mainly because we do tend to talk about this for a while and this is the third or fourth time that we have seen them. So, in terms of repeating former things that have been said if it can just be very brief I think that would be better to keep this project moving. I also do have a hard stop at noon. I believe we do have to do a recommendation of some kind today. I would want to try and start discussing motions around 11:30 or 11:45 to be sensitive to everyone’s time. Ms. Gerhardt: Yes, staff would appreciate a recommendation if at all possible today. In your staff report packet page 30, we do have the listing out of the various topics. We were hoping to arrange the conversation in that fashion. I think we are mostly going to talk about the new chapter 18.24 which is taking our context space design criteria and converting those into more objective standards being titled the objective design standards. Jean and Chris will walk us through those new standards. I believe Chris is reading to do some wordsmithing if we feel that that’s necessary. With that, I’ll just keep moving forward and let Jean take it from here. Jean Eisberg: Thank you. Good morning, Chair Thompsons and Members of the Board. We are back talking about objective standards. I will try to keep this presentation fairly brief since we have heard it a couple of times. Since this is an action item, I wanted to make sure we cover we are looking for action on. 3.c Packet Pg. 122 City of Palo Alto Page 3 I am going to give a brief overview of the project, talk about the key action today which is the recommendation on objective design standards, this new Chapter 18.24, provide some information updates about other changes that are proposed to Title 18 that the Planning Commission and Council will consider. Again, we are here because the city’s existing subjective context space design criteria cannot be enforced for certain types of projects undergoing streamlined review, that includes Housing Accountability Act projects, SB35 projects, SB33 projects. Instead, the City would only be relying on objective standards for such projects at this time, including things like height, setbacks and development standards tabled in the zoning ordinance. This project, as Jodie said, proposes to transform those objective criteria into objective standards. The project is funded by SB2, which calls for ways to streamline housing approvals, facilitate housing affordability, and accelerate housing production, particularly for lower-income units. The force of objective standards is really about streamlining. Again, what are objective standards? They are uniformly verifiable; they involve no personal or subjective judgment. For example, a setback with a minimum of ten feet is an objective standard versus many of the subjective criteria which the City currently has on the books including a couple of examples here that parking should be broken up into smaller groups to avoid large expanses. Likewise, the context space criteria talks a lot about compatibility, for example scaling and massing should be compatible with existing buildings. That is a subjective criteria. Taking a step back on the Housing Accountability Act, this is going to come up a couple of times in the presentation but just a reminder of what that is. This protects housing projects that comply with objective standards. The Housing Development projects under state law are defined as -- the way the City interprets it -- two or more residential units, a mixed-use development with at least two-thirds residential floor area, and transitional or supportive housing. These projects are complying with objective standards. In those cases, the City cannot deny a project, reduce its density, or make it infeasible unless it makes findings under state law about adverse specific impacts. This is our sixth meeting with the Board. We’re going back to the Planning Commission next month looking for their recommendation on the design standards and then we would go to Council later this spring or summer. The first chunk of our presentation is the action item for the objective standards. We have been meeting for about a year now and there has been general support among the Board for this two-path option; the idea of having objective standards but then also this discretionary path for projects that are going through discretionary review in a very similar way that the Board currently reviews projects. Then, as you well know, there have been a lot of concerns about the prescriptive nature of these objective standards. Just wanted to mention we have had an ad hoc committee made up of Chair Thompson and Board Member Hirsch. We appreciate their help workshopping the standards over a series of four meetings last summer and this winter. We met with the Planning Commission, the PTC, last week about these design standards. They generally agreed with how the ARB and staff and consultants have transformed the criteria. They were very appreciative to the ARB’s contributions to this. Chair Thompson represented your Board very well and helped present to the PTC last week. They agreed with an idea that some Board Members at the last meeting talked about, including -- Board Member Baltay bought it up and staff has considered -- that these standards should only apply to Housing Accountability Act projects. Those are the projects that must meet objective standards and therefore make this application more narrow just to those types of projects. For all other types of projects, including commercial projects, housing projects that for whatever reason do not want to meet these standards or are looking for rezoning, other discretionary approvals, those projects would go through the typical discretionary review process with up to three meetings with the Board. Some commissioners did express the desire to have them apply more widely potentially in the future, in the interest of streamlining housing overall. We also heard from some commissioners that they shared the ARB’s concern about not wanting the standards to be too perspective. Staff has also reached out to architects and developers that frequently work in the City. We have received feedback from several different architects and developers and we have had one public commenter from Stanford during both recent PTC and ARB hearings. Focusing on changes since the last time you saw this in February, first, the key change in terms of applicability is that we are recommending that the objective standards to those Housing Accountability Act projects, including SB35 and SB330 projects that are streamlined review. In that way, they would be more narrowly applied. Additionally, Chapter 18.20, which are the ROLM, GM, MOR district, some of those districts allow multi-family housing and we are suggesting that the standards that apply in that district to Housing Accountability Act projects. However, that district does not currently reference the context space design criteria. What we don’t want to do is wrap up any commercial projects in those districts to have to apply the context space design criteria the way they have been transformed. Those commercial projects in those districts would not be subject to objective standards, including the intent statements. In that way, we 3.c Packet Pg. 123 City of Palo Alto Page 4 would kind of keep that parallel distinction. Hopefully, I am making this clear, since the context space design criteria does not apply to that chapter currently, we are proposing to maintain that. These new standards and intent statements would also not apply to that Chapter unless is a Housing Accountability Act project. The key changes since the February 18 meeting are that we incorporated the refinements recommended by the Board during the straw polls. That changed some measurements, ratios, dimensions, and materials. We made some minor modifications to address concerns about townhomes, modular construction, and different types of buildings. This is just encapsulating to clarify a few examples of different kinds of Housing Accountability Act projects, and again the applicability. Again, for Chapter 18.20, only Housing Accountability Act would be subject to these standards and intent statements. No changes to our topics, but these are the ten topics in the draft 18.24 and we will go through these one by one or we won’t go through any topics that you don’t have questions or comments on. Again, in terms of how the document is organized, there is a series of umbrella intent statements which are drawn sometimes verbatim from the context space design criteria but those are the subjective statements and intents and then underneath that we have standards and those are the objective standards. Sometimes they are measurements, sometimes a menu of options. Two paths, if you're a Housing Accountability Act project you are required to meet the objective standards. If you are a discretionary project very similar to today, you would meet the intent statement as determined by the ARB through a series of meetings, up to three. One notable change here in the blue box is that we are recommending that even though these projects only need to meet objective standards, that they go through one advisory meeting with the ARB and this is a non-binding hearing but allows an opportunity for both the Board to make advisory design comments and for public comments just as you have today. What this may look like in terms of the staff report you have this section 18.24, the applicant has checked off that they have met standard XYZ, shows you the page number that appears that’s attached to a shorter staff report that does not include the ARB findings. Again, that project is not subject to findings and that comes to the Board and there’s still this conversation that happens with the applicant and the opportunity to provide feedback. That would be codified in changes to chapters 18.75 and 18.76 of the City Zoning Ordinance. I mentioned the application to different types of buildings. I wanted to show some examples of different types of projects and how we think the standards could apply. Of course, if a project applicant, for whatever reason, didn’t want to meet the objective standards they could, again, chose to go through a discretionary review process but looking at some townhome examples and the way that those entrances can be permitted on the ground floor through these objective standards. For example, we brought up the issue of roof pitch, which we do see as a defined top in a pitched roof in different ways but building massing and facades can be expressed. One of the key elements of the design standards is the façade design which now states after changes in the last round that those changes in facade design are not required below four-stories. Most town homes would not apply in that context. The issue of modular construction was also raised. I just wanted to demonstrate that modular construction does not necessarily mean rectilinear building. There are still opportunities for recessed facades, projections, and different uses of materials, and a different look to a ground floor versus upper stories. One of the key elements of most modulars is that the mods fit on the back of a truck, and so we have this shape of a unit but it is not actually a dwelling unit, it’s just a unit of the piece of the puzzle. This is an image we showed at the last meeting, different ways that it may be applied to apartments. The recommendation from staff is to recommend the City Council adopt the draft objective design standards as a part of an amendment to Title 18. The last piece of the presentation is just informational items, other updates to Title 18. This was discussed with the Planning Commission last week. First is some minor changes to development standards in individual district regulations. One key issue we wanted to bring up and this is referenced in the At Places Memo that Jodie provided yesterday or this morning, which is about the height transition. The way to is now, each district kind of says in a little bit of a different way what’s required in terms of changes in height across properties when you're adjacent to a lower density residential zone. Staff would like to retain the spirit of those regulations while streamlining the language to make it more clear for applicants, for staff, and for decision-makers. For example, this is an example of the CN, CS, CC district. The current code language says within 100 feet of a residential district abutting or located within 50 feet of the site and this language has always been confusing for staff, and, as I’ll demonstrate, has been interpreted in a couple of different ways with actual projects. The proposal is to clarify that any portion of a structure with 50 feet of residential zones would be subject to a lower height. What that means at the graphic at right is that you have a lower density district on the left of the screen, the higher density commercial district on the right of the screen, and within 50 feet of the property line the portion of the building would be subject to that lower height limit. Just a couple of 3.c Packet Pg. 124 City of Palo Alto Page 5 examples, this is the Wilton Court project and you can see how that was interpreted. Within 50 feet, the project is at a lower height; beyond that 50 feet measurement, it is at a taller height above 35 feet. The key here is that this project was not subject to 150-foot depth which it looks like the whole project would have been subject to that lower height, but instead that 50-foot dimension. Another built example is the Hilton Hotel which is adjacent to an RM40 district and within 150 feet of an R1 district and it does not have any reduced height at the rear of the building. Other key sections are changes to performance standards in 18.23. Mostly it’s an issue of relocating those standards to other sections of the code, making them apply to all different types of projects regardless of the type of use. The way it is written in 18.23 is a little bit confusing but most of those performance standards only apply for commercial or non-residential adjacent to residential projects. In practice, these standards have been applied more broadly and so we are making that more clear moving them to more rational locations in the code and tightening up some standards working with the City’s Water Quality Division, Zero Waste Division, to bring them up to date. Another key item we talked about last month and talked to the PTC about all last week is the idea of transforming some of these legislative actions, such as the Workforce Housing and Affordable Housing overlay, into incentive programs kind of like the Housing Incentive Program and, in that way, if you meet the threshold of affordable criteria, then you could receive waivers for development standards flexibility rather than going through the legislative process with the PTC and the Council for the types of housing that the City wants to generate, affordable and moderate-income housing to make that process more simplified. These projects would still go through Architectural Review with the ARB up to three meetings. This is maybe part of a separate planning effort than the objective standards project but it has been slowed due to this part of our work here. That concludes my presentation. Chair Thompson: Thank you. Upon thinking about it further, I think what might make sense is if we go through section by section first, and then at the end, we can give our overall feedback because that will probably lead to the motion or that will probably speak to the motion or the recommendation that we end up doing. With the Board’s permission, let’s just dive right into it. Thank you, Jean. Let’s start with section 10. I am going to use the last few digits, which is the purpose and applicability section. I’ll just call on each Board Member; if you have comments on that section, if you don’t just say no comments and we’ll just keep moving. For section 10, the purpose and applicability section, Board Member Lew, any comments? Go ahead, Jodie. Ms. Gerhardt: Would you like us to bring up the document just so we can see it? Chair Thompson: Yeah. Ms. Gerhardt: If Chris or Jean can do that. [Setting up presentation.] Board Member Lew: I have nothing in my notes. I would say just generally, which I think I have mentioned before, that we do have low-density zones and the objective standards don’t really address those buildings under 40 feet. The City doesn’t have any (inaudible) design guidelines, like row house guidelines compared to say like Mountain View which does have them. That’s all that I have. Chair Thompson: Okay. Board Member Baltay. Board Member Baltay: Thank you. Two comments quickly. First is under paragraph A.1, the purpose. I’d recommend striking the last sentence. I believe that was just added recently. The one that begins “rather the objective design standards,” et cetera. I don’t see that that adds anything to the code. It just seems to open you up to questions about what you're trying to do. More importantly, when I look back at the list of applicability based on SB35 project streamlining it says the development contains two or more residential units. I urge and recommend that staff speak to the City Attorney to clarify that that does not mean a house with an accessory dwelling unit. As it stands, if somebody wants to propose a house with a separate ADU I think that would be called two residential units, and that would mean all of the IR processes in Palo Alto would be invalidated. It seems to me that that should be clarified and ideally stated here that that doesn’t mean ADU’s. I strongly recommend you take a look at that. Those are my two comments. 3.c Packet Pg. 125 City of Palo Alto Page 6 Chair Thompson: On that note, and even on Board Member Lew’s note about it applying to areas that are shorter than 40 feet, does staff have a comment about that? Ms. Gerhardt: I would ask for Jean and Chris’s help. I think there are definitely some of these standards that do not apply to buildings under 40 feet, but that’s not all of these standards. There are other ones that would still apply. Regarding Board Member Baltay’s comments, maybe we can take straw polls as we go along so that we can change this document, otherwise, it might get unwieldy if try and change it at the end. Board Member Baltay: What I am suggesting, Jodie, is not a straw poll but rather that you guys check whether ADU’s are considered a residential unit from a legal perspective. Ms. Gerhardt: Yes, it was not the intention to include ADU’s. The Housing Development Projects are multi- family and ADU’s are not considered multi-family but we could make that extremely clear. Board Member Baltay: I can see my clients aggressively litigating this issue to avoid the IR process and I don’t think that’s the intent of this program. Ms. Gerhardt: ADU’s are not multi-family. That is very clear in the mind of staff, in the code, but we can add an extra sentence here to further clarify that. I guess I was speaking more to you wanting to strike out that one sentence. If we want to do a straw poll on striking out the sentence. Chair Thompson: We will discuss that afterward. Okay, Board Member Hirsch. Board Member Hirsch: No, it’s been a short time here. I haven’t had a chance to look at it in detail but I don’t think I have a problem with the way that’s raised. Chair Thompson: Okay, thank you. Vice Chair Lee. Vice Chair Lee: I’ll start with the process, I wasn’t sure if this new idea for the ARB advisory nonbinding one meeting with public comments is something… where is that? I know that you often refer to other chapters but in terms of process, if I was somebody who was an affordable housing developer interested in these objective design standards, where do I learn that information or process? Ms. Gerhardt: The new process, what we’re proposing, is that there would be one nonbinding hearing that would be written into the code. It is actually in Chapters 76 and 77. Vice Chair Lee: Okay. Sorry, if I’m coming in with a commercial project, for example. I just wanted to understand the process and how it applies. Ms. Gerhardt: If you're a commercial project, then the intent statements apply and that’s written into the applicability section here. Jean Eisberg: Commercial projects… Vice Chair Lee: (Inaudible) under B? Chair Thompson: Under C… Ms. Gerhardt: Under C. Chair Thompson: …where it says non-housing developments. Vice Chair Lee: Okay. And then the other piece I wanted to mention is what Board Member Baltay mentioned. I think that is something that we should retain. That rather the objective design standards 3.c Packet Pg. 126 City of Palo Alto Page 7 aim to accommodate, or if you want to revise, maybe it’s a little bit more brief, but I do think pointing to construction types and housing types is a plus as part of our purpose for these objective design standards. Chair Thompson: Okay. Vice Chair Lee: I don’t know that we need to pullout construction types in terms of a variety of styles, though I do favor that as well since the graphics are so limited here. Actually, I would vote to retain the whole as written. Chair Thompson: Okay. Let’s take a straw poll in a second. I don’t have any other comments on this section. Let’s take a quick straw poll of the Board on if we would rather retain or keep that last sentence that’s highlighted in red on the screen. The straw poll is remove it, if we agree to remove it or not. Board Member Lew. Board Member Lew: Retain. Chair Thompson: Retain. Board Member Baltay. Board Member Baltay: Remove. Chair Thompson: Remove. Board Member Hirsch. Board Member Hirsch: Retain. Chair Thompson: Retain. Vice Chair Lee. [Adjusting Audio.] Vice Chair Lee: Retain. Chair Thompson: Retain. I will vote to retain as well. Okay, let’s move on to .020. Ms. Gerhardt: Chair, if I may, I don’t know that we did public comments. We may need to do that. Chair Thompson: That’s a good point. Thank you. Are there any members of the public that would like to speak on the objective standards? Mr. Nguyen: Chair Thompson, we currently do not have any raised hands for public comments. Chair Thompson: Okay, thank you. I will close the public hearing. I apologize. Let’s move on to .020 the public realm sidewalk character. Any comments, let’s start with Board Member Lew. Board Member Lew: I have no comments. Chair Thompson: Thank you. Board Member Baltay. Board Member Baltay: Yes, I have a comment regarding the paving material. It’s on section three, accent paving, A1. I think I said this before, but I think we should just have a list of paving materials that are appropriate and kept by staff, updated every so often with the approval of the ARB. I’m just saying it’ll match the adjacent ones; I think it’s going to prove to be unworkable. Chair Thompson: Okay. Board Member Baltay: That’s my comment. 3.c Packet Pg. 127 City of Palo Alto Page 8 Chair Thompson: Great. Maybe, Chris, if you could note that we might take a straw poll on that later. Board Member Hirsch, any comments? Board Member Hirsch: I agree with what Peter said so I vote yes on that when it comes around here, but no I don’t have any other comments to make. Chair Thompson: Okay, thank you. Vice Chair Lee. Vice Chair Lee: I do not have comments. Chair Thompson: Okay, and I also do not have comments. Let’s take a quick straw poll on Board Member Baltay’s suggestion of a list of paving materials should be… yes, go ahead, Jodie. Ms. Gerhardt: Just on the accent paving, the reason that staff put this in there is because we have had a lot of problems with not getting this accent material. Various property owners either like the idea or don’t, but on University Avenue, on Cal Ave we would like to have a more consistent appearance to the sidewalk and what is what this is trying to drive at. I did make a small change that the University paving does not need to go all the way to Middlefield, it’s just to Webster, but we would like to retain this or at least the idea of this because otherwise we are going to have difficulty getting this material. Board Member Baltay: What I am arguing for, Jodie, is that you guys retain it but more than that, just take control of it. It really should be the planning staff and the public realm to decide what the sidewalk is, not the individual applicant. The way it is written here leaves a lot of latitude just to demonstrate that this is what is next to you so you can do it. As you walk down University Avenue, it’s a mish-mash and this isn't going to solve that problem. This will just let it continue. Somebody can prove that bricks are adjacent and it doesn’t even explicitly say directly adjacent. Why not make a list of what you think is right and stand by? We’re offering you that chance. Ms. Gerhardt: Okay, that is the intention so maybe we can wordsmith this a little bit better. Board Member Baltay: My intent is that you, the City, the staff, take control of this sidewalk paving material. Chair Thompson: My understanding, Board Member Baltay, is that you're looking for a table to be added in this location that has the streets, like University, and then the paving that is acceptable on University. Is that right? Board Member Baltay: I suppose something like that, acceptable paving and maybe an accent or something but just for the staff to do it and specify it. Chair Thompson: Okay. I think the proposal here is to add that table to these standards, I think that’s what I’d like to take a straw poll on. Board Member Baltay: Okay. Chair Thompson: Board Member Baltay. BOARD Member Baltay: Yes, I think we should do that. Chair Thompson: Okay. Board Member Lew. Board Member Lew: I am not sure what to do on this one. I understand the complexity. I understand the rationale for the table and I think it makes sense. I think it may be very difficult to do though. Board Member Baltay: Isn't it better to try, Alex, than just leave it and let every applicant make their own case? 3.c Packet Pg. 128 City of Palo Alto Page 9 Board Member Lew: Yeah, I don’t know. I've looked at University Avenue as well as Cal Avenue and it is just a minefield. I think at the end of the day it seems to me that there should be a public works standard or standards… Ms. Gerhardt: Just to be clear, that is exactly what staff is trying to do is to create that standard. Board Member Lew: I do support having the standards and (inaudible). That’s where I am. Chair Thompson: Okay. Board Member Hirsch. Board Member Hirsch: I agree with Alex here and Peter. I think there should be standards. Just a bit of side experience, in New York we tried different kinds of paving material and in the end, it turned out it was uncontrollable and it’s better to have a city-wide standard. Therefore, highraise [phonetic] would develop that and it’s what it would be. I think it is impossible; it’s a minefield as Alex says, and there should be some absolute standards out there to be changed very rarely. Chair Thompson: Okay, thank you. Vice Chair Lee. Vice Chair Lee: I agree with the two paths. I mean, I agree with what everybody is saying in terms of intent. Now I am looking at the language and I am wondering if this is appropriate though, shall match any existing accent paving design and materials such as bricks and decorative glass. There are some accent paving that is existing that I don’t know if we want to match. I think the intent is actually to establish a city standard and that to be consulted when there is an existing accent paving city standard for Cal Ave and for University Avenue, but what I understand is that it doesn’t exist right now, right, Jodie, or it’s in process. This is a problem. Ms. Gerhardt: There is a standard in my mind that maybe did not come out in the language and I think what I am rightfully hearing is that the way this is written is a little too soft and it needs to be more direct. Vice Chair Lee: I am just not sure what to do here because as somebody new to Palo Alto would go to Cal Ave and look for that decorative glass and match it exactly. Ms. Gerhardt: Yes, on Cal Ave there is the glass in the sidewalk and so that should be matched. On University, we have on the corners we have solid brick corners but then in the midblock we have sort of a strip of brick trim. That’s what we are trying to say and obviously we said it a little too softly. Vice Chair Lee: Okay. It is just a little complex because there is no city standard, there is no list. I am just not sure. Ms. Gerhardt: I think that is what we are trying to make is the standard and I think we can be more straightforward in that. Vice Chair Lee: Okay. Board Member Baltay: It would probably be okay just to refer back to a standard rather than try to put the standards in this document here. Just say shall match to the standard. Ms. Gerhardt: We just don’t have that standard written anywhere. That’s why I am trying to write it here but I can work with Public Works and see if there’s any other sort of documents too. Board Member Baltay: I think you're hearing the Board just saying that there should be a standard, so where you put it (inaudible) less important to us. Chair Thompson: Yes, there are definitely four people on this Board that feel that way. I have a minority view probably. I like the idiosyncrasies and the uniqueness of the street character even though it is a mine. I think it’s cool. I think when you walk down a street and you're like oh, I'm at the Cheesecake Factory 3.c Packet Pg. 129 City of Palo Alto Page 10 when there was a Cheesecake Factory. I appreciate it but I can understand that I'm the minority in on there and that’s fine; this is a democracy. Okay, hopefully, that gives staff clear direction. Let’s move on to .30 site access. Any comments, Board Member Lew? Board Member Lew: I don’t have any comments on this section. Chair Thompson: No comments? Okay. Board Member Baltay. Board Member Baltay: No comments. Chair Thompson: No comments. Board Member Hirsch. Board Member Hirsch: No comments. Chair Thompson: No comments. Vice Chair Lee. Vice Chair Lee: No comment. Chair Thompson: No comments. I also have no comments. Let’s keep going, .040. Let’s start again with Board Member Lew. Board Member Lew: I want to throw out that on a townhouse or row house building type, which we don’t address here, under 40 feet there are things that can be done to make them better, especially on corners. Typically, like with a row houses, you’ve got a sidewall with very few windows and they are very unattractive and on better projects, they do bump out to hide the fire alarm closets, so they are adding maybe two or three feet of massing at the ends of the building to make them more appealing. I think we should consider that, maybe not today but in a future generation of this document that we do that. There are ways to make them better or to do wrap-around corner porches on the ends of the buildings. I will support the rest of this for the more urban buildings. That’s all that I have. Chair Thompson: Thank you. Board Member Baltay. Board Member Baltay: I have nothing to add to this. Thank you. Chair Thompson: Okay, thank you. Board Member Hirsch. Board Member Hirsch: Let me see. We are talking now about corners. Is this correct? That’s what we’re talking about? Chair Thompson: This is .040 building orientation and setbacks, and Board Member Lew had a comment about the treatment of corner buildings for buildings that are shorter than 40 feet in height. Board Member Hirsch: Okay. I have a lot of problems with this. I think my first problem is why are we putting in commercial on the corner as an item in comparison to the other two? What has happened here is there are three items and you choose one. Is that correct, Jean or Chris? We choose one of those three in order to get an approval. Ms. Eisberg: Yes. Board Member Hirsch: Okay. I don’t understand how these three are related to each other, and I am very concerned that what we saw now up-to-date on this in the beginning there were some really wonderful buildings that don’t look anything like what we are looking at here. The commercial on the ground floor has an option. Is it an option or should it be a part of a requirement in those zones in which commercial has to be? Number one, I have a question about commercial as a choice to put it everywhere or anywhere, it ought to be specific as to being used in the zone where it is required. Then you stated it’s required; you have it on the corner… 3.c Packet Pg. 130 City of Palo Alto Page 11 Ms. Gerhardt: Board Member Hirsch, with these standards we are not requiring a certain use, just a design. Board Member Hirsch: Oh, well what is the design then? The design is an absolute dimension on the corner. So that comes back to Peter’s client that said let’s not be fixed about dimensions but this is fixed 20 feet or 25 feet. I see it’s been changed. Why should this be a fixed dimension? I don’t understand that. Go to the next one, which is… Chair Thompson: It’s a maximum, by the way. Board Member Hirsch: It’s what? Chair Thompson: It’s a maximum. It says 25-foot maximum. It’s not fixed. Board Member Hirsch: What is the reason for a maximum? Mr. Sensenig: To define the corner where an entry would need to be with it to define what a corner of the building is. If we used a percentage here, say 10 percent, then for a building that’s only 100 feet long, that would mean the corner entry would need to be within the first ten feet of the corner. Board Member Hirsch: Choosing these three, you're saying it cannot be more than 25 feet, a corner element? I have a problem with it, you know. If it works out to be 30 feet, what do you do? Get an exception? I don’t like these types of dimensional requirements. Let’s go to the next one which is change in material. In the first place, the diagram is confusing because why would you do something like this? Why would you change a material on a corner like that? I agree it’s an interesting design possibility but it refers to an interior program function of some sort that changes in the building. I can’t imagine why you would be so specific as to do it for three floors or four floors. Then lest go to the third one. Here we have a raised corner. That’s an interesting thought as to doing it. I can agree physically it would be a corner element that would be emphasized but then what happens with the one that’s lower in that corner. Is that a reasonable idea? There is no function that can happen in that space then. It’s a lower space and it’s just a roofline. You're making a decision about it being raised or lowered and I don’t quite see it. Okay, suppose somebody doesn’t want to do any of those. They have a building that they don’t want the commercial on the ground floor. They don’t want an entry into the outside on the ground floor. They don’t want to change the material and they don’t want it higher or lower. Then you go to the next portion of this which is an open space. Here you are substituting an open space on the corner. This isn't a very impressive corner anymore but you're stating that it is specific to, in this case, use of community space on the corner. Does that make a lot of sense of an important corner of a site? Then, you're saying that there has to be a community room on the inside of that space. To me, that’s telling people that they have to have a specific program of a community-use space related to a community-use outdoor space on a corner as an emphasis of a corner. I don’t understand how this relates to anything above it. Then there are two others and both of them involve a public use of a corner space. That’s an assumption that a private company, private developers, ultimately private owners, say are going to want to have public use of a public space on a private piece of property. Two of the three are open to the public like that if that is the way public is being interpreted here. I don’t see it as a good idea. You know, the landing building has an entry on the corner, right? That’s the one on Forest (inaudible) open space but that is not mentioned here. That’s a reasonable possibility that you would turn a corner into an entry. The other thought about it being an entry is suppose you have a big long building, then the entry doesn’t make sense because it is very far for the travel of everybody who goes into a building. I really have a problem with the way all of these are expressed on the corner. I just don’t see the relationship and the rationale for this. I think I can leave it like that. Chair Thompson: Okay, thank you. Vice Chair Lee. Vice Chair Lee: Thanks. Under two, I just want to make sure for that open space on the corner, is there a reason why we are not wanting a square 20 by 20 as a minimum? Maybe, Chris, you could let us know. Is it because we also want a rectangle with a larger dimension? I am just not sure. I can see an applicant coming with 400 square feet rather than 500. Is a square not desired? I'm just asking a question. 3.c Packet Pg. 131 City of Palo Alto Page 12 Ms. Gerhardt: This could be a square if you wanted it to be. Vice Chair Lee: I don’t understand the rationale there. My other question is if you all could weigh in on the primary building entry. It’s A, and underneath that, it is under 2B where front porches shall be a minimum of 100 square feet and a minimum of eight. Does have to be that large? I am just thinking of the future and how I think about this. Could it be six? Could the minimum be decreased as well? Does anybody feel it should be eight? Chair Thompson: What section is that in? Vice Chair Lee: It’s on packet page 46. I am sorry I didn’t bring this up earlier but I think we talked about it for primary building entry, section 2.ii and it’s under A.2.B. Ms. Gerhardt: Chris has it highlighted. Vice Chair Lee: I am just thinking scenarios, seven or more units but should that minimum width be eight or could it be six? Board Member Baltay: Grace or staff, are we referring to the depth of the porch or the width as you look across the façade? Mr. Sensenig: Width. Board Member Baltay: Is there a requirement on depth as well or is that left to the functional needs? Vice Chair Lee: It’s left, so there’s a minimum square foot but then a width. That seems a little bit… I am just trying to create more flexibility. Do you want to just talk about it briefly? Board Member Baltay: This front porch is intended to also serve as the entryway into the building? This is where the front door would be? Vice Chair Lee: Right. Chris Sensenig: This is the shared entry, yes. Board Member Baltay: Okay. Chair Thompson: Let’s discuss this really quick. (Crosstalk) Board Member Baltay: It’s hardly useful. I think, Grace, making that number smaller still would not be appropriate if you think about it, right? (Crosstalk) Vice Chair Lee: Examples, not in my mind Palo Alto but I mean just think it’s possible. Chair Thompson: Let’s take a quick straw poll on the shared entry minimum for the primary entry building width if we want to change it from eight feet to six feet. Vice Chair Lee you're in support of that? Vice Chair Lee: Yes, yes. Chair Thompson: Okay. 3.c Packet Pg. 132 City of Palo Alto Page 13 Board Member Baltay: before we vote, quickly, Grace, why would you think it matters for a building with more units. Just convince me of that. Vice Chair Lee: I think it matters whether or not it has seven or more units. That is compelling that there are a lot of people coming at the same time but clearly there are buildings that have the minimum width of six feet for this situation. I am just wondering why we are going to eight feet there. Mr. Sensenig: The guidance of the context space design standards was to have building entries represent the size and scale of the building and the number of people served. Vice Chair Lee: Okay. Chair Thompson: It is the idea of having two people pass by each other, basically. Vice Chair Lee: I’m thinking that… (Crosstalk) Chair Thompson: That’s the eight feet and Vice Chair Lee, you're suggesting that two people can pass by each other just fine in six feet? Vice Chair Lee: Yeah, exactly. Chair Thompson: Okay. Is everybody clear about the proposed change? I’ll just start over again. Vice Chair Lee? Vice Chair Lee: Yes. Chair Thompson: Board Member Lew. Board Member Lew: No. Chair Thompson: Board Member Baltay. Board Member Baltay: No. Board Member Hirsch: No. Chair Thompson: I will also vote no. Board Member Baltay: Sorry, Grace. Vice Chair Lee: Also, sorry, are we going to go back to the corner? Chair Thompson: Yeah, we can talk about the corner. I also wanted to circle back on Board Member Lew’s note about the less than 40 feet as well. Let’s do the corner. This is just discussing the corner diagrams. Vice Chair Lee: Yes. Chair Thompson: Okay. Do other Board Members have comments responding to what Board Member Hirsch is saying? Let’s start with you Vice Chair Lee. Vice Chair Lee: You're talking about Board Member Hirsch’s comments? Chair Thompson: On the diagrams, or if you have other comments on the diagrams. 3.c Packet Pg. 133 City of Palo Alto Page 14 Ms. Gerhardt: I think Board Member Lee had a comment about number two that Chris has highlighted here. Chair Thompson: Okay. Vice Chair Lee: Sorry, I was just confused. I wasn’t sure what I am commenting on right now. Ms. Gerhardt: Maybe if we just focus on this one sentence first and then the overall. Chair Thompson: Oh, I see. Okay. Vice Chair Lee: That’s what I was commenting on, the square versus the rectangle; 20 by 20 would be 400 rather than 500 square feet. My proposal is to reduce to 400. Board Member Baltay: Grace, you're not saying it should be a square in proportion, rather you just think the area should be less. Vice Chair Lee: I think both. It could be a square, so that minimum dimension on both sides could be 20, right? Thus, it would be 400. I guess the way it is written, yes, I am saying 400 square feet rather than 500. Board Member Baltay: Okay, but you're not advocating for a square geometry. Vice Chair Lee: No, I am just saying someone could come in for the square and that’s okay, too. Board Member Baltay: I can support your argument on that one. Vice Chair Lee: I just feel like I have seen that before and it has been successful. Chair Thompson: Similarly, couldn’t they achieve that if they just did 25 by 25 feet? Board Member Baltay: Twenty-three feet, probably. Chair Thompson: Yeah, whatever 500 is. It sounds like the proposal is to make that area smaller. Board Member Baltay: That’s what she's saying, yes. Chair Thompson: Okay. Let’s take a straw poll to change 500 to 400 as proposed by Vice Chair Lee. I will go around. Vice Chair Lee? Vice Chair Lee: Yes. Chair Thompson: Board Member Lew. Board Member Lew: No. Chair Thompson: Board Member Baltay? Board Member Baltay: Yes, I’ll support that. Chair Thompson: Board Member Hirsch. Board Member Hirsch: I’m a little bit confused as to what we are voting on here. 3.c Packet Pg. 134 City of Palo Alto Page 15 Chair Thompson: Sorry; we’ll clarify. For the diagram with the open space and the corner, currently, the objective standard is to require that open space on the corner if the applicant chooses to do that to be a minimum of 500 square feet. Vice Chair Lee has proposed that the minimum is 400 square feet. Board Member Hirsch: I would go with a minimum of 400 square feet. Chair Thompson: Okay. I vote no. I think 500 is better in terms of space. I think passed three to two. Board Member Baltay: How about we split the difference and say 450. Do we have anybody who wants to do that instead? Grace, would that be enough to make it work? I guess you have the vote. Vice Chair Lee: I am open to 450, but also don’t want to prolong if people want to move on. Board Member Baltay: Yeah, Osma it is up to you. (Crosstalk) Board Member Baltay: It’s good to have consensus if you want it. Chair Thompson: Yeah, I think more open space is typically desirable. Four hundred and fifty is better to me than four hundred. Board Member Baltay: Maybe Grace will change her motion and we can vote on it. Vice Chair Lee: I move for 450. Board Member Baltay: I support that. Chair Thompson: Do a roll call? Board Member Baltay: You're in charge, Osma. Whatever you think. Chair Thompson: Yeah, I am fine with that. Is Board Member Lew okay with that? Board Member Lew: I think we should move on. I don’t have (inaudible). Chair Thompson: Okay. Let’s go back to the less than 40 feet height. Board Member Lew, were you suggesting that we add a section for standards under 40 feet? Board Member Lew: I think that there is an issue with townhouses and corners. I think that we should do that and maybe it is the next generation of use or if there is a separate row house design guidelines somewhere else in the code. Chair Thompson: Okay. Board Member Lew: We haven’t seen very many of those types of projects in Palo Alto for the last 15 years, but they are all over if you go to Sunnyvale, Mountain View, Santa Clara; that is what they’re building. It seems to me like we are sort of reminiscent not addressing this item. It seems like this is a weakness in our proposed code. Chair Thompson: Okay, but you are suggesting maybe we not include it here right now for today’s recommendation but that it be in a future next version? Board Member Lew: Yeah. It seems like the rest of the document doesn’t address the under 40-foot-high buildings with regards to massing and the facades. Maybe it is too much of a stretch to do it today. I think that we should keep that in mind. 3.c Packet Pg. 135 City of Palo Alto Page 16 Chair Thompson: Okay. I actually forgot to go through my own comments. I’ll just do that quickly. In the intent statement, we have a note about buildings that create a continuous street wall that are compatible with nearby buildings and land uses. That’s the first line and I was wondering if we want to maybe reconsider the word contagious. There might be some opportunities where contiguous is not applicable but maybe having breaks in the street wall is appropriate in the context. I wanted to see what the Board thought about not having the word contiguous on there if it doesn’t make sense. Board Member Baltay: What would you substitute with it, Osma? Chair Thompson: I would just remove the word contiguous. (Crosstalk) Chair Thompson: That is compatible with nearby buildings. It’s a subjective standard. Board Member Baltay: Contiguous street wall is kind of an urban planning term, I think. Vice Chair Lee: I read contiguous street wall. It’s not a building wall; it’s not a solid building wall. It’s a wall that breaks and is solid at times along the street. Is that what we are trying to say about contiguous street wall? Chair Thompson: I am understanding contiguous to be a surface that maybe comes in and out, potentially, but it’s like a consistent wall across the whole way and I think there might be some instances where breaks might make sense. Board Member Hirsch: (Inaudible). Chair Thompson: I would propose we strike contiguous. Board Member Hirsch: I’d like to speak to that. Chair Thompson: Sure. Board Member Hirsch: We can change the language so that it reads that the frontage of the adjacent buildings aligns or the frontage is in some way… I am trying to find the best term for this now but it is just that the major piece of each building should align. Board Member Baltay: Yeah. Chair Thompson: Or be compatible with as it is written there. Maybe it is buildings that create a street frontage that is compatible with nearby buildings. Board Member Hirsch: No, I like the idea of them aligning but the frontage line doesn’t have to be contiguous. Chair Thompson: Any other Board Members have any comments concurring or descanting on this proposal? Board Member Baltay: I think the intent is close enough, Osma, the way it is written, and all of this gets subjectively interpreted by the ARB anyway. Chair Thompson: I think contiguous is a little prescriptive. That’s my only note. Board Member Baltay: We can change it to continuous street frontage. Vice Chair Lee: I am fine with street frontage as well. I think the issue for me is wall because it might be misinterpreted as a full wall. 3.c Packet Pg. 136 City of Palo Alto Page 17 Chair Thompson: Okay, great. It sounds like we are all in concurrence with this change. Okay, let’s keep going. I think we are done with this section. Board Member Baltay: I do support what Alex says about the townhomes. I don’t think we have the bandwidth to address the issue here so we are better off leaving out standards as it is and acknowledging that it’s just not complete on this standard. The townhouses are just a separate beast and to try to figure out how to do the corner on that would be hard right now. Chair Thompson: I agree, as well. Any other comments on this section? Ms. Gerhardt: I do want to be cautious. Maybe Chris can walk us through on a townhouse how the corners would be treated because we may have some such projects come through at this time, and I think he has some suggested language if we wanted to entertain that. I realize it is a little hard on the fly. Mr. Sensenig: Yeah. Chair Thompson: Was that just written? Mr. Sensenig: it was written previously for another project but it is example language that I think can address, or at least begin to address, the comments from Board Member Lew. For buildings less than 40 feet in height, the idea here is about end units. Dwelling units located at the end of a series of two or more attached dwellings without a main entrance facing the public street and units shall include the following: a building façade facing the street shall have a height to width ratio of 1.2:1; the building façade for each unit facing the street shall have at least one window greater than five feet. That could be alternatively done with building facades shall have fenestration for a minimum of 15 percent of frontage. The other one is the building facing the street shall have at least an architectural projection that projects a minimum of 18 inches from the street-facing façade. I think something like that would address having a completely blank façade on an end unit on a townhouse. Again, this is a quick draft of some certain ideas if we would want to include something like this. Chair Thompson: Would this be a menu? Would you choose one of these? It’s a lot to prescribe as four things to do. Mr. Sensenig: It is three things to do. There is an either/or direction here on the fenestration. Vice Chair Lee: I see. It just needs to be called out. Mr. Sensenig: Yeah. Sorry. Vice Chair Lee: I think still think it is a lot to require or prescribe. Would a menu option be possible here? Mr. Sensenig: Yeah, of course, a menu option could be possible. This is just missing the hiding of equipment but I think that is covered in other performance standards if I am correct. I think the two key issues are not having a blank wall and not having a completely flat wall without articulation. I think you would want to require those. I think requiring a height-to-width ratio probably isn't necessary but I think those two key things… you could go that you could either have windows or have articulation. Board Member Baltay: I would want to see this in the ARB before you.. it is so hard to know if this is going to work or not, Chris. Mr. Sensenig: Yes. Chair Thompson: Yeah. Board Member Baltay: The idea of a blank townhome wall would be so bad. I think we are risking a lot by trying to make a quick change on the fly for something that needs a lot of study. 3.c Packet Pg. 137 City of Palo Alto Page 18 Ms. Gerhardt: Maybe we need to leave this item open. To the Board, is it okay to move forward without this but maybe if staff can figure out a way to quickly come back and incorporate it that would be a secondary option? Board Member Baltay: I think it would be great if you could figure something out. Chair Thompson: Yeah. Let’s come back to this later when we talk about our recommendation. Let’s move on to .50. Board Member Hirsch: Could we take one item and go back a second here? On the corner materials there, the one at the bottom. Is there a reason why we have to have both change in materials and fenestration pattern? Chair Thompson: What are you proposing Board Member Hirsch? Board Member Hirsch: Either/or or both are possible but it could be one material change or one fenestration pattern change rather than a continuity of all the way up the corner. Wilton Court, for example, uses the same base material changes in window patterns. Chair Thompson: Okay. You are suggesting to change and to or. Should we take a quick straw poll with the rest of the Board? Board Member Baltay: Just explain what it is, Osma. He is saying both of these are required now? Board Member Hirsch: Yes. Chair Thompson: Item B the way that it is written now is suggesting a material and fenestration change and Board Member Hirsch is suggesting a material or fenestration change. Board Member Hirsch: And/or. Chair Thompson: And/or. Board Member Baltay: I am not sure that’s what I read here. Staff, can you clarify what is the current proposal here? Mr. Sensenig: It currently states that in order for this to qualify as a special corner element, there needs to be a different material application and fenestration pattern from the rest of the façade. Ms. Gerhardt: Can we highlight that section? Chair Thompson: Is that clear to the Board what the proposal is? Board Member Baltay: But it says in the previous page section on include one or more of the following. Is this a different thing? Mr. Sensenig: No, this is part of that. Chair Thompson: It's part of that. Ms. Gerhardt: If you chose this to be your one, do you have to do both of these things? Board Member Baltay: it says here one or more. Ms. Gerhardt: But if you chose B to be the item that you’re going to do, inside of B you have to do both material and fenestration changes currently. You have to do all of B if you're going to do it. 3.c Packet Pg. 138 City of Palo Alto Page 19 Board Member Baltay: I understand, thank you. Sorry. Chair Thompson: Let’s take a quick straw poll to change the word and to and/or. Board Member Hirsch. Board Member Hirsch: Recommended, yes. Chair Thompson: Board Member Lew. Board Member Lew: Yes. Chair Thompson: Vice Chair Lee. Vice Chair Lee: Yes. Board Member Baltay: No, I think it should stay the way it is. Chair Thompson: I also like it the way it is, but it passes three to two. The proposal was and/or, by the way. Let’s keep going. Section 050. This is building massing. Are there any comments, Board Member Lew? Board Member Lew: I was thinking about this with regard to the Wilton Court project. It seems to me Wilton Court would not meet this particular standard because it is on a corner and it was next to an existing one-story building. Wilson Court would have to meet the upper setback requirement as well as the significant break requirement because it has a 163-foot long façade. I do have reservations that we are making something that is really too strict or too difficult for an affordable housing project to meet. I am really worried about this one. In addition to Wilton Court, I also did consider 801 Alma and 753 Alma, although those are in different zoning districts. I think that those would also not comply. I am a little bit worried about this particular standard. I don’t disagree with the concept of them, but I am just worried about it actually getting an affordable housing developer to use this standard. Chair Thompson: Do you have proposed changes that you would like to see? Board Member Lew: My thought was maybe to keep the standard for most projects but have some sort of alternative for 100 percent affordable housing projects. Maybe there is some kind of exception for that. Or we keep it as is and let the 100 affordable housing projects use a different process in the code because we do have many ways of getting a project approved. I don’t disagree with the intent of this. I think I would probably vote for it. I am just concerned that it may not work. That’s all that I’ve got. Chair Thompson: Do we have any other comments from the Board on Board Member Lew’s comments if there are any proposed changes? Vice Chair Lee: I do agree with Board Member Lew’s comments. I am particularly concerned about the maximum façade length with the significant breaks, that section. I would support and would love to hear from staff or other Board Members on ideas of how 100 percent affordable projects might follow a different path. Chair Thompson: I would like to suggest Vice Chair Lee and Board Member Lew if there could be an opportunity where we could amend this standard so that we don’t have to make any extra caveats. If the issue is 150 in length, do you prefer it to be 160 in length? I think those are the kind of proposed changes I am looking for, or would you like to strike the standard altogether? Board Member Baltay: If I could, Chair Thompson, I am opposed to making a separate standard for affordable housing. I think all housing should be designed equally well and if it is good enough for one of us, it’s good enough for the rest of us. I think that’s a really bad precedent to start setting. I think that we should take this one Alex is talking about, section C.i.B., buildings greater than 150-foot in length, and just dramatically cut back what we are talking about. I wrote down to four-foot minimum depths, eight- 3.c Packet Pg. 139 City of Palo Alto Page 20 foot minimum width, 64 square feet minimum area. To me, that’s enough of a break to give you a visual relief on the building mass but it is small enough that you can arrange (inaudible) around it. I think an affordable builder still could work with that. Again, four-foot minimum depth, eight-foot width, those are minimums, 64 square feet minimum area. Chair Thompson: Chris, do you need Board Member Baltay to repeat that, or were you able to catch that? Mr. Sensenig: One more time, please. Board Member Baltay: I suggest we make it a minimum depth of four feet, a minimum width of eight feet, those are dimensions 2:1 respectively, with a minimum area of 64 square feet. Chair Thompson: Okay. Ms. Gerhardt: I do have the Wilton Court plans if people need a reference. Board Member Hirsch: I don’t understand, Peter. How can four by eight be 64? Board Member Baltay: It’s not. You have to make it bigger in one dimension or the other but I am trying to give some design (inaudible). Board Member Hirsch: Okay. Chair Thompson: These are minimums. Board Member Baltay: These are minimums but the 64 square feet is effectively a bedroom and that is the price we are asking you to pay to break up the mass of your building. Four hundred square feet is a whole unit. That’s my logic thinking about this more and more. I think 400 square feet is just too much. It’s not going to work. Board Member Hirsch: Way too much. Board Member Baltay: I agree that on long buildings it is too much if you don’t have some break in the mass and if you don’t want to come back before the ARB with a better design, then I think that’s a better standard. Chair Thompson: I think your note about having a separate standard for affordable housing, I also disagree with that notion. I think we all need to keep the standard of housing high everywhere and similar. I am in support of this change. Can we take a straw poll and see if there are others in support of this change to address concerns? Board Member Hirsch. Board Member Hirsch: I'm in favor. Vice Chair Lee: Board Member Osma, I think what Board Member Alex had mentioned it is not to take away any review for the 100 affordable housing, but there would be a separate path. Not that there wouldn’t be any design standard in this regard, but there might be another way to address the intent here. Board Member Alex, I am not sure that’s what you meant but that’s what I was thinking. It wouldn’t be that there is no objective, but there would be something that would address a 100 percent affordable project. Board Member Lew: I am thinking Peter’s recommendation is fine for the buildings in that 150-foot range. I do think, though, that we should keep this standard that we have with the 400 square feet for even bigger buildings. Say like 195 Page Mill Road which has like a 400-foot long façade. I actually think we need this larger dimension for those really big projects that are an entire city block-long length. I am thinking maybe we should have A, B, and C. 3.c Packet Pg. 140 City of Palo Alto Page 21 Chair Thompson: It sounds like Board Member Lew, would you propose instead of it being 150 feet in length to have it only be applicable to facades that are 175 feet or greater in length, or 200? Board Member Lew: I think we should give it a range. Say like Wilton Court, if it something that is half a block long we do it one way, and if something is really an entire city block long then we really do need an additional standard. Board Member Baltay: I think you're right, Alex. (Crosstalk) Board Member Lew: If you’re 150 feet then you need to do this, and then if you're over 350 feet then you also need to do an additional break. Board Member Baltay: Is that the right number, Alex, 350? Board Member Lew: Well, it could be 300 maybe. Vice Chair Lee: Alex, are you proposing a percentage of what we know to be a Palo Alto block when we… Board Member Lew: I don’t know. (Inaudible). I am not sure but I do think that there are two separate issues, right. Board Member Baltay: Let’s add section C to this, which addresses the larger issues and it section C has the text of what is being currently presented with a different length number. Board Member Lew: Yes. Board Member Baltay: That’s what you're talking about, Alex. Tell us what you length you think, Alex. You have the most experience with this I think. Board Member Lew: There are typical Palo Alto blocks that are 225 by 400 feet, like downtown. On University Avenue they are typically short blocks of 225 feet, but between Hamilton and University Avenue that is 400 feet, or University and Lytton. That’s a pretty big dimension, 400 feet. (Crosstalk) Board Member Lew: 195 Page Mill is a 400-foot long façade. Board Member Baltay: (Inaudible) it more than 250 feet then? Board Member Lew: That way we are excluding smaller blocks. Yeah, okay. Board Member Baltay: I think it is better to err on the side of conservancy. They can always come back to the ARB. Board Member Lew: Right; agreed. Board Member Baltay: We are doing this on the fly. Chair Thompson: Are we changing buildings greater than, from 150 we are changing it to 250? That’s the proposal? Board Member Lew: No, I think we should keep it. I think we should have two standards, right? 3.c Packet Pg. 141 City of Palo Alto Page 22 Ms. Gerhardt: Yeah, the 250 length would have the 400 square feet, and the 150 length would have the 64 square feet? Board Member Baltay: Yes. Chair Thompson: Okay. Board Member Baltay: Should it be less than 150 for the smaller recess? Board Member Lew: We don’t have anything for less than 150 other than the other rhythms that we are proposing, I think. Board Member Baltay: It’s fine. We should just move forward then. Chair Thompson: Okay. Let’s take a quick straw poll if we are all good with this change. Board Member Lew. Board Member Lew: Yes. Chair Thompson: Board Member Baltay. Board Member Baltay: Yes. Chair Thompson: Board Member Hirsch. Board Member Hirsch: Yes. Chair Thompson: Vice Chair Lee. Vice Chair Lee: Yes, and thank you to Peter and Alex. Chair Thompson: Me, too. I will say yes, as well. It is 11:30. We are sort of halfway. I wanted to get the Board’s temperature on… I have a block from 12:00 to 1:00 that I have to leave for. There is sort of two ways we can go. We can keep going in this fashion section by section and then we might stop at noon and then re-adjourn at 1:00. That’s one option to finish. The other option is that we stop now and make recommendations right now. I would like to hear from each member of the Board what they'd like to do starting with Board Member Lew. Board Member Lew: I am flexible; I can go either way. I have fewer comments going forward if that helps. Chair Thompson: Yeah, that would be great if people could mention that as well. I also have fewer comments going forward. Board Member Baltay. Board Member Baltay: I have fewer comments but still a couple of significant things I think warrant discussion. I can meet again at 1:00 for another hour or so but I think we owe it to the public and staff to figure this out. Chair Thompson: Okay, thank you. Board Member Hirsch. Board Member Hirsch: Yes, I have some comments going forward and I agree to meet again at 1:00. Chair Thompson: Okay. Vice Chair Lee. Vice Chair Lee: I have fewer comments. I do think we need to do a good job with this. I do have a meeting at 1:30. I can come back at 1:00 but I will need to come off at 1:30. 3.c Packet Pg. 142 City of Palo Alto Page 23 Chair Thompson: Okay. How does staff feel about it? Ms. Gerhardt: That’s what I wanted to ask and make sure our consultants are available, Jean and Chris. Ms. Eisberg: Unfortunately, I am not available at 1:00. Mr. Sensenig: I am not available. Ms. Gerhardt: Okay. We may need to pick this up on a different day then because I do think we need to give it some good time and some good review. Vice Chair Lee: You had mentioned that one item was not on the agenda anymore for next meeting. Is that too much time if we were to simply pick up next meeting? Ms. Gerhardt: Let me see. Jean, when were we proposing to go to PTC? Ms. Eisberg: April 28th. Ms. Gerhardt: Okay. April 1st is still ahead of that. Okay, that is definitely a possibility if we continue this to April 1st. Jean and Chris, would you be available on the 1st? Mr. Sensenig: I can be available on the 1st. Ms. Eisberg: Yes. Ms. Gerhardt: Okay. That probably is a better route then. Chair Thompson: Okay, great. Thank you so much for everyone’s flexibility. We will just keep going in this fashion and then five minutes to noon we will make a motion to continue this if we haven’t already done so by then. Great, thank you, everybody. Let’s go to .060. Board Member Baltay: Osma, if I could, I had some other things on the massing I wanted to discuss quickly. Chair Thompson: Yeah, back to .50. Board Member Baltay: Alex jumped ahead of me on his maximum façade length but section two, transition to lower density building types. I think the trees should be 20 feet apart, not 30. Chair Thompson: What’s the number? Board Member Baltay: Number one, a landscape screen includes a continuous row of trees. We had reduced the size of them from 36 to 24-inch box but I think they should be 20 feet apart, not 30 feet apart. Secondly, I wanted to prose on the minimum façade break, similarly a little more variety in the depth and the width to propose a minimum of four-foot width to a maximum of eight-foot. I am sorry, width and a minimum of two-foot depth with a 32 square foot maximum space just to give the designer a little more flexibility on how to work it out. This was based on discussions with the townhome builders about what floor plan requirements they have. Chair Thompson: I think you might need to repeat your suggestions for Chris. Ms. Gerhardt: Chris, you need to go up one on the landscaping. Board Member Baltay: Yes, where it says 30 feet; right there. I suggest that become 20. Then the second one where it says a minimum of six feet width. Instead of six feet in width it should say between four to eight feet in width and a two-foot minimum depth with a 32 square foot minimum area. 3.c Packet Pg. 143 City of Palo Alto Page 24 Ms. Gerhardt: We are trying to be objective. It would just be a minimum of four feet in width. Board Member Baltay: You're right. It should say minimum four-foot width, minimum two-foot depth, and minimum 32 square foot area. The logic just being somebody laying out an apartment a chance to… if it is just four feet you just make a smaller bedroom. If it is six feet, you’ve really lost it on your floor plan. Chair Thompson: Okay. There is a proposal to change those items one and two. Let’s just keep them in the same straw poll. Are there any questions from any of the Board Members? Vice Chair Lee: I did have a question. My biggest challenge here with the 20 feet is the canopy of the tree. For these street trees, they sometimes do have quite a canopy. I am wondering about that 20-foot dimension in terms of health of street trees because typically it is 30. Mr. Sensenig: (Inaudible) not a street tree. Board Member Baltay: This is privacy screening, Grace, between properties. Vice Chair Lee: Sorry; this is between properties. But even so, the choice of the tree isn't always a seasonal color, smaller ornamental. We actually might want to plant a tree that will need space to grow. That’s my issue there with that dimension. I just wanted to pull it out for the straw poll. That was my issue, even on screening between properties that the tree needs a space to grow and with the 20 feet planting a tree that will mature might not be enough if you did want more than one. Board Member Baltay: Okay. Maybe 25 feet then? Vice Chair Lee: Actually, 30 is really the way to go for a mature tree. Board Member Baltay: Thirty leaves a big privacy opening though. Two 24-inch box trees. Vice Chair Lee: Well, it’s again timing for that tree to grow. I feel comfortable 30 just knowing tree selection and the health of the tree. Board Member Baltay: A lot of trees that are used for these things just don’t grow to a 30-foot canopy. Vice Chair Lee: It’s true, but Magnolias and a lot of people’s choices, they grow. Board Member Baltay: Okay. Vice Chair Lee: I think about 30 feet. I was just going to say I am very happy with that change. Chair Thompson: Okay, great. Board Member Lew, can you speak to both items? Board Member Lew: I haven’t thought about this a lot. I think that I am okay with a 30-foot as a minimum. I think I understand Peter’s point that the 20 feet is more desirable. I don’t have a lot to say. It depends on the species of tree. Chair Thompson: Okay and the façade break suggestion. Board Member Lew: I didn’t understand the dimensions. Chair Thompson: Did you notice the type, Chris? It would need to be minimum four feet in width. Board Member Lew: I don’t know. I think I am okay with that as a minimum. I would hope we would get something larger, though. Board Member Baltay: The square foot area, Alex, forces you to make something larger. 3.c Packet Pg. 144 City of Palo Alto Page 25 Board Member Lew: Understood. Chair Thompson: I am hearing that you're okay with that change. Okay, Board Member Hirsch. Board Member Hirsch: Again, in New York, we say 25 feet for street trees in dimension between them. I think that’s a good compromise, a minimum of 25 feet could be closer. Chair Thompson: Okay and the façade break. Board Member Hirsch: I think it works, whatever Peter was describing there. It really is an issue of just how deep is the building and how much of the property it is taking up and how many units you can get on the side. I find that the specifics of this are likely to cause a lot of problems for designers when they get into the reality. I am not concerned that much with breaks in a side of a building. I don’t see exactly a reason for it but, Peter, you think it is really important to have those breaks. Board Member Baltay: We’re trying to just collectively come together, David. I mean, everybody seems to think the breaks are important. I suppose when you have to objective standardize it, yeah, it is one way of making a building look better. I support it. Chair Thompson: I support it as well. It sounds like we have at least four Board Members supporting the change in the façade break and Board Member Hirsch tentatively supporting it as well. Board Member Hirsch: Tentative, yes. Chair Thompson: I think that’s good. For the trees… Board Member Baltay: How about 25 feet, Grace? Can we do that? Board Member Hirsch: I think 25 feet works for me. Vice Chair Lee: Yeah, or 28. I just talk to a lot of folks about these trees. “I didn’t know that they were going to get so big.” I just hear that quite a bit on these lots. I feel for them because they didn’t plant them with enough space between them. Chair Thompson: I am okay with 25 feet. It’s a minimum. They can plant them. Board Member Baltay: Want to make it 25 feet then? Vice Chair Lee: Okay, 25 as a minimum. Mr. Sensenig: Osma, it’s a minimum that creates a certain number of trees. It’s not like it is a minimum of 20. It is working in the opposite direction. Chair Thompson: Right, okay. That’s right. I still think 25 is fine. I know 30 is the standard, but in general, I think trees like to be close to each other. Twenty-five feet is the majority vote. Any other comments on .050? No, okay. Let’s keep going, .060. This is façade design. I always start with Board Member Lew because that’s where he is on my Zoom panels. Go ahead, Board Member Lew. Board Member Lew: I only have one comment, which is I think for the façade composition requirements that if we do have something like a 400-foot long façade I think that it is still going to be potentially monotonous even if it complies with these standards. I will support the standards as they are proposed. Chair Thompson: For .060, what section were you referring to? Board Member Lew: (ii) under the facade composition. 3.c Packet Pg. 145 City of Palo Alto Page 26 Chair Thompson: Okay. Board Member Lew: I think my thought was for, again, facades greater than 300 feet that I would recommend adding yet an additional requirement but I don’t know what that would be. I did send staff an example in Berkley where two different architectural styles were done on one building to try to break up the monotony. Chair Thompson: All right. It sounds like there might be a proposal to include a caveat for facades greater than 300 feet. Right now it is a minimum of two of the following. Maybe there is a suggestion to include three of the following. That might be a little bit too much. Let’s see what the other Board Members think about this item. Board Member Baltay. Board Member Baltay: I share Alex’s concern but I just don’t see how you can write it out. I don’t think we can make a change that will cover that issue. Chair Thompson: Okay. Board Member Hirsch. Board Member Hirsch: We’re skipping over all of the drawings that have been shown. Chair Thompson: We are going through each person’s comments and discussing them one by one. We will come around to you. Board Member Hirsch: Façade composition also has to do with the drawings that describe these, correct? Go back up the page, please. As a prototype, in the first place, I am bothered by the diagrams. The diagrams show a relatively square building on what would be a square lot. Chair Thompson: Sorry, Board Member Hirsch. We are just taking a straw poll on if we want to add a caveat in the façade composition part for buildings that have a façade greater than 300 feet. We will come back around for the diagram. Board Member Hirsch: Okay, I'm good with that. Again, the question is 300 feet? Board Member Baltay: The proposal is to add a caveat for facades… Board Member Hirsch: Yes, a break in the façade. I agree with Alex. Chair Thompson: Okay. Vice Chair Lee. Vice Chair Lee: I just want to clarify. The suggestion is to add the language that this would only apply for facades greater than 300 feet. Chair Thompson: No, that’s not the suggestion. Vice Chair Lee: Okay. What is the suggestion? Chair Thompson: The suggestion is to add an exemption to this that for facades greater than 300 feet there would be a more stringent… Vice Chair Lee: Yeah, I am just not sure how to do that. I guess I am going the other way on this. I still think we should just do a minimum of one of the following façade articulation strategies under façade composition. Then four right above it. I still would advocate for one of the following rather than two of the following. I think I am going in the opposite direction on this one. Chair Thompson: Okay. We will let this one go then. I don’t think there is enough support for it. Are there any other items Board Member Lew? No, okay. Board Member Baltay. 3.c Packet Pg. 146 City of Palo Alto Page 27 Board Member Baltay: Yes, I would like to clarify section two, variation and façade articulation, minimum one and the third one. I’m sorry, item number three, variation and fenestration, size proportion pattern, and depth. What I want to be clear is the variation is required to be a variation in all of these things; the size has to be different, the depth, the projection, and the pattern. That’s how I read this but it is not super clear and it should be. Then, if that is the case, the drawing needs to represent that because right now the drawing is really showing the (inaudible) pattern. Chair Thompson: Can staff clarify? Mr. Sensenig: It is a variation in two of the following. Wait, you’re in three? Board Member Baltay: Yes, the one with blue, green, and then yellow windows. That one right there. I would read this to mean all of those criteria have to vary. Is that the intent? Mr. Sensenig: No, that is not the intent. The intent is more what is shown. That the difference between the base and the middle is going from a storefront window to a box window, in this case, and then the variation between the middle and the top is a change in the size of the window. Board Member Baltay: It looks the same size to me. Mr. Sensenig: It's two windows as opposed to one window. Board Member Baltay: Yeah, I’m not buying that, Chris. If you took the colors off I think it doesn’t hang. I think we should just be clear about what we are intending here. Our graphics need to be improved on this if you don’t mind. Osma, I’m not sure what I'm suggesting here. I guess any two of those are fine. The whole thing seems kind of hokey but I think we need to clarify what we are doing here. Chair Thompson: Board Member Baltay, are you suggesting that instead of all of the things -- fenestrations, size, proportions, pattern, and projects -- that it is not all of those things, it’s just one of those things as part of the standard? Board Member Baltay: I would love to see all of them but I don’t think there is that much support for that. I think the more variation the better. I would support leaving it the way it is written, and I am requesting that the graphics get improved. Board Member Hirsch: That’s the comment that I was making, as well. Chair Thompson: Okay. Go ahead, Board Member Hirsch. Board Member Hirsch: I would like another prototype. Osma, you and I helped Chris on this and I think it improved graphics in other areas of this but here we should be talking about facades and the facades should look more like the kind of buildings that are likely to happen. For example, in this one where there is a change between the base, middle, and top -- which I, frankly, am bothered by as a concept anyhow - - the top might very well be a bunch of separate windows that are not exactly the same pattern as the middle of the building, smaller ones perhaps. It should be shown more in a format of what it might be in reality. This kind of a building looks to me like an industrial or commercial building in a dense urban downtown, not at all like where the building is likely to be in Palo Alto. The prototype is incorrect, in my mind. Part of it is in response to what Peter is saying here, as well. Chair Thompson: Maybe a suggestion could be that this example also shows projects because right now the example is not showing projections in the façade. It’s just showing a change in window style. Mr. Sensenig: It’s a depth of projection of the fenestration. Chair Thompson: Okay, not in the façade itself? 3.c Packet Pg. 147 City of Palo Alto Page 28 Mr. Sensenig: Yeah. In each one there is a variation in size, proportion, and pattern. No, the depth and projection does not change between the fenestration, but the first three things do all change. Vice Chair Lee: If I may, I think it is just the drawing type because we are looking at this view and I think maybe an elevation would be better to really see what you're trying to illustrate and label these things if needed. This wasn’t one of my comments but I am just trying to see what might be helpful in a better graphic, an improved graphic. Ms. Gerhardt: Chris, it is showing the bellybands and that is where the… maybe we just need to call that out more that that’s where the change in depth might happen. Mr. Sensenig: I'm sorry. I don’t fully understand your comment. Do you mean these? Ms. Gerhardt: Yeah, there are the lines going across. Mr. Sensenig: Yes, the change. Yes, that is a projection that is added to the fenestration as a whole, the sunshade in a different sunshade. That is a difference in projection but, as Baltay pointed out, not clear in the language of the standard. Chair Thompson: I could see an elevation diagram helping. A simple elevation parti that breaks it up and shows pattern one, pattern two, pattern three very explicitly. Vice Chair Lee: Maybe you'd want to add shadows of the… Board Member Hirsch: Pardon this interruption here, but wouldn’t this illustration be incorrect based on other standards, like the recesses or bays? The dimension of this drawing there would be some breaks in a façade like this. If you could just enlarge one specific area and keep it as a… Ms. Gerhardt: Do you have any questions, Chris, or is something maybe we can work on? Mr. Sensenig: There are a lot of different comments floating around there. I don’t think there is direction. Chair Thompson: I think what I am hearing is that there is a request by some members of the Board to change the diagram for this particular standard. I think if we can be clearer about what kind of changes to this diagram we think would benefit the message, that’ll help Chris out. Ms. Gerhardt: Are we saying that the language itself is fine, it is just that the diagram isn't showing that same thing? Board Member Hirsch: Yes. Chair Thompson: I think so, yes. If there are any Board Members that disagree please speak. I heard two suggestions. I heard one suggestion of focusing only on the façade versus the axon, maybe like a zoom-in of just that side façade. Similarly, focus on the elevation. That might make it clearer how we are suggesting breaking up the façade and maybe this would accomplish a similar thing. Does that seem right, fellow Board Members? I see a nod. Board Member Baltay: I think elevations are a better way to show this, and maybe not trying to show a whole façade. Just show a couple of windows that vary. Chair Thompson: Two bays, yeah. I think the way you had it, Chris, with the two bays makes sense, or an elevation. Board Member Hirsch: How about a change in size and windows? Chair Thompson: A more clear delineation between the green and the blue fenestration pattern? 3.c Packet Pg. 148 City of Palo Alto Page 29 Board Member Hirsch: Yes. Board Member Baltay: You'd be looking for a different shape or smaller windows in a line, maybe, across the top. You wouldn’t have the same structural post coming up or you would do something different. Chair Thompson: If it is housing, one bay could be the bedroom and the other is the living room, and the living room might have bigger glass and the bedroom might have just half-height glass because of privacy. It’s not always done that way but that could be another way to break up the fenestration. Is that clearer? Mr. Sensenig: Is the direction to change to elevation or just crop these sets of drawings? Board Member Baltay: You need to do more than crop the drawings you have, Chris. Mr. Sensenig: Okay. I am hearing change to elevation diagrams. Board Member Baltay: At a minimum, yes. Chair Thompson: It could accompany the crop, if it’s helpful but we do think it will probably be clearer and more abstract. Mr. Sensenig: It’ll just lose any depth, right? Board Member Baltay: Put shadows on it. Shadows can show you depth very well. Ms. Gerhardt: We are at 11:57. Chair Thompson: thank you. Okay, it seems like we are done with .050. Does everybody feel okay about that? We will maybe revisit this one thing. Board Member Hirsch: Could we run through the drawings on the top? Chair Thompson: Okay, maybe we are not done with .050. Ms. Gerhardt: 060. MOTION Chair Thompson: Oh, .060. Sorry. We will come back and revisit this at the next. I move that we continue this item to our next meeting on April first. Board Member Hirsch: Second. Chair Thompson: Can we get a roll call vote. Aye: Lee, Lew, Baltay, Hirsch, Thompson (5) No: (0) MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSES 5-0. Ms. Gerhardt: That’s a motion to continue the item to a date certain of April 1st. Thank you very much. 3.c Packet Pg. 149 TO: ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD FROM: JODIE GERHARDT, MANAGER OF CURRENT PLANNING DATE: MARCH 18, 2021 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 3 – RECOMMENDATION ON OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS Following is additional information related to building height transitions. 2. Other Updates to Title 18 Transition Zone Between Lower Density Housing and Higher Density and/or Taller Development As noted in the staff report, the Zoning Code includes special development standards that ensure a transition in height when a project is near low to mid-density residentially zoned properties (generally R-E through RM-30). While staff implements these height standards on a regular basis, the concern is that each section of the Code expresses this requirement in a slightly different manner. This makes the regulations difficult to implement consistently, as represented by several recent projects on El Camino Real. Additionally, these standards can be confusing to developers that would like to make significant investments in our City. Therefore, staff would like to retain the spirit of these regulations while streamlining the language for ease of use by the public, applicants, reviewing bodies, and staff. The most confusing section and where staff believes the most significant change is needed is the CN, CC, CC(2), and CS development standards. In these zones it is unclear if the transition area is 50 feet or 150 feet. In many instances, a 50 feet transition area has been enforced. Staff would like to codify this interpretation because (1) a 50-foot transition zone provides protection to lower density development while accommodating the City’s need to provide additional housing and (2) this transition zone aligns with the most recent Code interpretations and project approvals. It should be noted that transitions in height are also regulated by daylight plane requirements (in the RM, Commercial zones) and by Context-Based Design Criteria (soon to be Objective Design Standards). 3 3.d Packet Pg. 150 2 Summary of Existing Transitional Height Standards The existing height transition standards are summarized below: x Zoning Chapter 18.13 (RM-40): The Multiple Family Residential zones chapter provides height standards. In the RM-40 zone, the maximum height is reduced “for those portions of a site within 50 feet of a more restrictive residential district or a site containing a residential use in a nonresidential district”. The transition area is limited to 50 feet, with no mention of a 150-foot radius affecting height. x Zoning Code Chapter 18.16 (CN, CC, CC(2), CS zones): Community Commercial and Commercial Service zones, excluding CN (Neighborhood Commercial), Section 18.16.060 development standards for mixed use (including residential) projects specify special lower height limits with the following parameter: “Within 150 ft. of a residential zone district (other than an RM-40 or PC zone) abutting or located within 50 feet of the side.” This has long been interpreted that the portion of a proposed building’s height must be lower when it is within 50 feet of the side of the parcel that abuts residential property (R-zoned property other than RM-40 or a residential PC). If the proposed building is to be placed at least 50 feet from the abutting residential property line, the new building does not need to meet a lower height limit in the CN, CC, CC(2) or CS zones. 3.d Packet Pg. 151 3 x Zoning Code Chapter 18.18 (CD - Commercial Downtown zone): Development standards Section 18.18.060, mixed use and residential Table 3, has clearer height standard language; i.e. a lower height is required. This code section states that “within 150 ft. of an abutting residential zone” the height limit is reduced from 50 feet to 40 feet. This section includes a footnote (4) that states: “For sites abutting an RM-40 zoned residential district or a residential Planned Community (PC) district, maximum height may be increased to 50 feet.” The CD height standard within the 150-foot radius of an R-zone has no reference to “within 50 feet of the side.” x Zoning Chapter 18.20 (MOR, ROLM, ROLM(E), RP, RP(5), and GM zones): The chapter enables multiple family residential use mixed with non-residential use via a Conditional Use Permit. The Chapter’s Table 1 enables this mix of uses by CUP in the ROLM, MOR and RP zones, but not in the GM zone. For Exclusively Residential Uses: Within the MOR and ROLM zones, such development must meet RM-30 development standards. Within the ROLM(E) zone, such development must meet RM-20 development standards. Within the RP and RP(5) zones, the height and other standards for such development is noted as follows: “Within 150 feet of an R- E, R-1, R-2, RMD, or similar density residential PC zone” the mixed-use development subject to CUP must meet RM-20 standards. x Zoning Chapter 18.30 Combining Districts: o Affordable Housing, J (AH): “Within 50 ft of an R-1, R-2, RMD, RM-20, or RM-30 zoned property”. The 150-foot radius is not cited as affecting height. o Workforce Housing, K (WH): “Within 150 ft. of a residential district (other than an RM- 40 or PC zone) abutting or located within 50 feet of the site”. This is similar to the Chapter 18.16 verbiage but staff believe there is a clerical error. Staff believe that “site” should be “side”, as in, the abutting side of the property. x Zoning Chapter 18.38 Planned Community: Section 18.38.150 Special regulations notes “The maximum height within one hundred fifty feet of any RE, R-1, R-2, RM, or applicable PC district shall be thirty-five feet; provided, however, that for a use where the gross floor area excluding any area used exclusively for parking purposes, is at least sixty percent residential, the maximum height within one hundred fifty feet of an RM-4 or RM-5 district shall be fifty feet.” Suggested Clarifications for Chapters 18.16 and 18.30(K): As shown above, these height transitions standards are expressed in at least 11 different ways making them difficult to implement in a consistent manner. Staff would like to streamline the language in all sections, to standardize them while maintaining the same intent. 3.d Packet Pg. 152 4 The proposed height transition standards are summarized below: The most significant change would be in the CN, CC, CC(2) and CS zoning section, where the City received most of its multiple family residential and mixed-use projects fronting El Camino Real. The current language of this height transition for development in the CN, CC, CC(2) and CS zones is confusing for City staff and project applicants. The proposed standard for these commercial zones clarifies the Code: that only the portion of the building within 50 feet of the applicable lower density residential zone must have a reduced height limit. This is intended to provide visual relief, and access to light and air, along with other requirements (i.e. daylight plane and objective design standards). Staff will present several example projects (i.e. 2209 El Camino Real, 3001 El Camino Real, 3705 El Camino Real, and 4216 El Camino Real) and a graphic that illustrates this concept during the hearing. This standard is in keeping with current interpretation of the CN, CC, CC(2) and CS zoning regulations. This concept would also apply to the WH combining district which has the same confusing language. Staff believes the other zones’ height standards only need slight wordsmithing changes to streamline their implementation. ARB & Objective Standards As the ARB, PTC, and ultimately City Council consider objective standards, these advisory and policy making bodies can also clarify this aspect of the Code. By providing feedback on this topic, the ARB can help advise the PTC and the Council on how to treat transition zones. Clarity will help meet the other goal of this project, which is to streamline housing development through clear, consistent, and well- organized code language. 3.d Packet Pg. 153 1 Gerhardt, Jodie From:Gerhardt, Jodie Sent:Tuesday, March 23, 2021 6:06 PM To:'Elaine Uang'; 'heather@hyarchs.com'; 'Cath Garber'; 'Ted O'Hanlon'; Ken Hayes; 'Steve Emslie'; Allison Koo (akoo@shpco.com); Griego, Tiffany; 'Randy Popp'; Brad Ehikian (brad@ehikiancompany.com); 'Lund Smith'; 'Roxy Rapp'; 'cconley@svlg.org'; 'jbaker@svlg.org'; 'Sheryl Klein'; John Shenk; 'Leslye Corsiglia'; Tod Spieker (tod@windyhillpv.com); Steve Levy; 'tom gilman'; Eugene H. Sakai, AIA, LEED AP; 'Brandy Bridges'; Steve Borlik; sal@vrent.com; 'Sal Caruso'; 'Janette (Sammartino) D'Elia'; Gary Laymon; Andrew Young; Jo Bellomo; Wuthmann, Christopher E. Cc:French, Amy; 'Jean Eisberg' Subject:Palo Alto's Objective Standards project and Streamlined Code for Housing projects Toall,  TheCityiscontinuingtoprepareObjectiveDesignstandardsformultiͲfamilyandmixedͲusehousingprojects.These newstandardswillreplacetheexistingsubjectiveContextͲBasedDesignCriteria.Formoreinformationaboutthe project,pleasevisittheprojectwebsiteandtakealookatthedraftObjectiveStandards.Youmayalsowishtoreview ourlateststaffreporttothePTC.ThesechangeswillamendtheCity'sZoningOrdinancetocomplywithrecentchanges inStatelawthataimtostreamlinetheprocessforhousingprojects.Citystaffandconsultantshavebeenworkingwith theArchitecturalReviewBoardandthePlanningCommissionoverthepastyeartodevelopasetofstandardsandCode changesthatbalanceclarityandflexibility.  Wearereachingouttoarchitects,propertyownersanddeveloperswhoregularlyworkinPaloAlto,arefamiliarwith theCity'sZoningOrdinance,andmaybeaffectedbythesechangestokeepyouinformedofthisprojectasitmoves throughtheprocess.WearecurrentlytargetingadoptionofthesenewCodeSectionsinSummer2021.PleasenoteͲ Whilewehavetriedtoincorporatemanybuildingstyles(i.e.highdensity,townhomes,modularhousing)and approacheswithintheseobjectivestandards,therewillremainotherwelldesignedprojectsthatcannotmeetevery objectivestandard.Therefore,wehaveincludedanalternativecompliancesection,whichallowstheDirectororthe ArchitecturalReviewBoardtoforgocompliancewithoneormoreobjectivestandardsandinsteadensuretheproject meetsthespiritoftherelevantintentstatementineachchapter.  Staffisalsoproposinganewstreamlinedprocessforhousingprojects.Ifanewhousingprojectmeetsallofthe ObjectiveStandards,theywouldonlyberequiredtoattendonenonͲbindingARBhearing,whichstaffbelieveswill greatlyreduceprocessingtime.  Thereareseveralwaysthatyoumayprovideinput: 1. Email:Reviewthedraftstandardsonthewebsiteandsendusyourfeedback. 2. ARBMeeting:OnApril1,2021,theARBwillbeaskedtomakearecommendationonthedraftObjective Standards.ThestaffreportwillbeloadedontotheARB’swebpageaweekbeforethehearing. 3. PTCMeeting:OnApril28,2021,thePTCwillbeaskedtomakearecommendationonthedraftObjective StandardsandotherCodechanges.ThestaffreportwillbeloadedontothePTC’swebpageaweekbeforethe hearing. Thankyouforyourtime,   JodieGerhardt|ManagerofCurrentPlanning|PDSDepartment 250HamiltonAvenue|PaloAlto,CA94301 T:650.329.2575|E:jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org 3.e Packet Pg. 154 2   NEWParcelReport|PaloAltoMunicipalCode|OnlinePermittingSystem PlanningForms&Handouts|PlanningApplicationsMapped   The City of Palo Alto is doing its part to reduce the spread of COVID-19. We have successfully transitioned most of our employees to a remote work environment. We remain available to you via email, phone, and virtual meetings during our normal business hours.  From:Gerhardt,Jodie Sent:Friday,January22,202112:56PM To:ElaineUang<elaine.uang@gmail.com>;heather@hyarchs.com;CathGarber<cath@fgͲarch.com>;TedO'Hanlon <tedohanlon@gmail.com>;KenHayes<khayes@thehayesgroup.com>;SteveEmslie<Steve@lhͲpa.com>;AllisonKoo <akoo@shpco.com>;Griego,Tiffany<tgriego@stanford.edu>;RandyPopp<randy@rpͲarch.com>;BradEhikian <brad@ehikiancompany.com>;LundSmith<lund@wsjproperties.com>;RoxyRapp<roxy@roxyrapp.com>; cconley@svlg.org;jbaker@svlg.org;SherylKlein<boardchair@pah.community>;JohnShenk<John@thoitsbros.com>; LeslyeCorsiglia<leslye@siliconvalleyathome.org>;TodSpieker(tod@windyhillpv.com)<tod@windyhillpv.com>;Steve Levy<slevy@ccsce.com>;tomgilman<tgilman@desͲae.com>;EugeneH.Sakai,AIA,LEEDAP <esakai@studios2arch.com>;BrandyBridges<BBridges@wilsonmeany.com>;SteveBorlik<steve@ybarchitects.com>; sal@vrent.com;'SalCaruso'<scaruso@carusoͲdesigns.com>;'Janette(Sammartino)D'Elia'<jdelia@jaypaul.com>;Gary Laymon<glaymon@TGPͲINC.com>;AndrewYoung<ayoung@ybarchitects.com>;JoBellomo <jo@bellomoarchitects.com> Cc:amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org;JeanEisberg<jean@lexingtonplanning.com> Subject:RequestingInputontheCityofPaloAlto'sDRAFTObjectiveStandards  Toall,  Asyoumaybeaware,theCityistheprocessofpreparingobjectivedesignstandards,whichwillreplacetheexisting ContextͲBasedDesignCriteria.ThesechangeswillamendtheCity'sZoningOrdinancetocomplywithrecentchangesin Statelawthataimtostreamlinetheprocessforhousingprojects.Citystaffandconsultantshavebeenworkingwiththe ArchitecturalReviewBoardoverthepastyeartodevelopasetofstandardsthatbalanceclarityandflexibility.  Wearereachingouttoarchitects,propertyownersanddeveloperswhoregularlyworkinPaloAlto,arefamiliarwith theCity'sZoningOrdinance,andmaybeaffectedbythesechanges.Wewouldliketogetyourfeedbackonthedraft standardsbeforetheyareconsideredforadoptioninSpring/Summer2021.PleasenoteͲWhilewehavetriedto incorporatemanybuildingstylesandapproacheswithintheseobjectivestandards,therewillremainotherwelldesigned projectsthatcannotmeeteveryobjectivestandard.Therefore,wehaveincludedanalternativecompliancesection, whichallowstheDirectorortheArchitecturalReviewBoardtoforgocompliancewithoneormoreobjectivestandards andinsteadensuretheprojectmeetsthespiritoftherelevantintentstatementineachchapter.  FormoreinformationabouttheprojectandtheARB'sworktodate,pleasevisittheprojectwebsiteandtakealookat thedraftstandards.  Thereareseveralwaysthatyoucanprovideinput: 1. Email:Pleasereviewthedraftstandardsonthewebsiteandsendusyourfeedback. 2. RoundtableMeetings:AmyFrenchandIwillbeholding"officehours"viaZoomwithsmallgroupsofarchitects tolistentoyourfeedbackandanswerquestions.Pleaseletusknowifyouwouldliketoparticipate. 3. ARBMeetings:JoinusforthenextARBmeeting,whichisscheduledforFebruary18,2021. 3.e Packet Pg. 155 3     JodieGerhardt|ManagerofCurrentPlanning|PDSDepartment 250HamiltonAvenue|PaloAlto,CA94301 T:650.329.2575|E:jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org  NEWParcelReport|PaloAltoMunicipalCode|OnlinePermittingSystem PlanningForms&Handouts|PlanningApplicationsMapped   The City of Palo Alto is doing its part to reduce the spread of COVID-19. We have successfully transitioned most of our employees to a remote work environment. We remain available to you via email, phone, and virtual meetings during our normal business hours.  3.e Packet Pg. 156 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 12141) Report Type: Board Member Questions, Comments or AnnouncementsMeeting Date: 4/1 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 656 Lytton Avenue: Ad Hoc Approval Title: 656 Lytton Avenue [19PLN-00040]: Staff Level Ad Hoc Approval Memo from March 4, 2021 From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) receive the following Ad Hoc Memo. Background While Ad Hoc Memos are generally attached to ARB Minutes, this is done more for convenience than a legal requirement. On March 4, 2021, there was no ARB hearing and therefore staff is bringing forward this staff-level Ad Hoc Approval memo as an informational item only. Attachments: x Attachment A: March 4, 2021 Ad Hoc Approval Memo (PDF) 4 Packet Pg. 157 Copies sent to: Project File Architectural Review Board Ad Hoc Committee Review Edwina Jean-Louis, SGPA Architecture and Planning, 200 Pine St. Suite 500, San Francisco, CA 94104 656 Lytton Ave. [19PLN-00040] March 4, 2021 Emily Foley, AICP, Associate Planner PLANNER’S SIGNATURE The application, and plans dated February 16, 2021, was reviewed by the ARB Ad Hoc Committee on March 4, 2021 in accordance with condition of approval #4, as stated below. The ARB Ad Hoc Committee comprised of Board members David Hirsch and Grace Lee. 4. ARB SUBCOMMITTEE: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall return to the ARB subcommittee for approval of the following items, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Community Environment: a. Replace bright “Wheatfield” color with a muted tone b. Provided corner detail for siding along with photo examples c. Ensure transformer is sufficiently screened with landscaping d. Include any signage changes e. Staff will route plans to Transportation to ensure all safety concerns, related to the drop-off area, have been addressed f. Detail any pavement changes that to happen in the drop-off area g. Look to retain the pedestrian pathway from the University Ave. courtyard that leads towards Downtown h. Provide pedestrian access sheet with diagrams of how pedestrians would get to local points of interest - Downtown, bus stop, etc. At the meeting, the Ad Hoc Committee agreed with the revisions presented with the following conditions added: 1. Elevation color #2 shall be Benjamin Moore Peanut Shell. 2. The laced corner detail shall be used. 3. The area around the transformer shall be landscaped as shown on sheet L0.2. 4. The drop off area include MUTCD regulatory signage for “No Parking” and “Drop-off Only”. Lytton Gardens Staff shall monitor drop-off and pick-up activity to avoid sidewalk TO: SUBJECT: DATE: FROM:          4.a Packet Pg. 158 Copies sent to: Project File encroachment. No parking shall be allowed in the loading zone or sidewalk area. 5. The drop off area shall be paved with “Natural Gold” GraniteCrete as shown on sheet L0.2. 6. The existing pedestrian path going from the courtyard to University Ave. towards the north shall be retained as shown on sheet A5.1. The applicant shall ensure these changes are incorporated into the design and this Ad Hoc Committee Review letter shall be printed on the plans submitted for building permit(s).          4.a Packet Pg. 159