Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-03-16 Architectural Review Board Agenda PacketARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD Regular Meeting Thursday, March 16, 2023 Council Chambers & Hybrid 8:30 AM Pursuant to AB 361 Palo Alto City Council meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with the option to attend by teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safety while still maintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose to participate from home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe and participate in the meeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged if attending in person. The meeting will be broadcast on Cable TV Channel 26, live on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen Media Center https://midpenmedia.org. Visit https://bit.ly/PApendingprojects to view project plans and details. Commissioner names, biographies, and archived agendas and reports are available at https://bit.ly/paloaltoARB.  VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/96561891491) Meeting ID: 965 6189 1491    Phone: 1(669)900‐6833 PUBLIC COMMENTS Public comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or an amount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutes after the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance to arb@CityofPaloAlto.org and will be provided to the Board and available for inspection on the City’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you are referencing in your subject line. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson's presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. The Chair may limit Public Comments to thirty (30) minutes for all combined speakers. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak for Study Sessions and Action Items to two (2) minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers. PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted only by email to arb@CityofPaloAlto.org at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Once received, the Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. To uphold strong cybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storage devices are not accepted. CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL PUBLIC COMMENT  Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS The Chair or Board majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management. CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS 1.Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2) Tentative Future Agenda Items and 3) Recently Submitted Projects STUDY SESSION Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 2.Study Session to Review and Discuss the City's Local Objective Standards for Senate Bill 9 Residential Units and Urban Lot Splits Previously Approved by Council Along with the City’s SB 9 Interim Ordinance 5538. The Planning and Transportation Commission Recommended a Permanent Ordinance to Replace the Interim Ordinance on February 8, 2023. Environmental Assessment:  Not a Project. For More Information Contact Amy French at Amy. French@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. 3.Review and Adoption of the Revised Architectural Review Board By‐Laws to Address Meeting Attendance in 2023 APPROVAL OF MINUTES Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 4.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for February 16, 2023 BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS AND AGENDAS Members of the public may not speak to the item(s). ADJOURNMENT AD HOC COMMITTEE 5.414 California Avenue [22PLN‐00207]: Ad‐Hoc Committee Review of a Project Previously Recommended for Approval to Review Colors as well as Architectural and Landscape Design Details 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 to access a Zoom‐ based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully. You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in‐ browser. If using your browser, make sure you are using a current, up‐to‐date browser: Chrome 30, Firefox 27, Microsoft Edge 12, Safari 7. Certain functionality may be disabled in older browsers including Internet Explorer. You may be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify you that it is your turn to speak. When you wish to speak on an Agenda Item, click on “raise hand.” The Clerk will activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak. When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. A timer will be shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments. 3. Spoken public comments using a smart phone will be accepted  through the teleconference meeting. To address the Board, download the Zoom application onto your phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter the Meeting ID below. Please follow the instructions above. 4. Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the Board. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted. CLICK HERE TO JOIN    Meeting ID: 965 6189 1491   Phone: 1‐669‐900‐6833  Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329‐2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARDRegular MeetingThursday, March 16, 2023Council Chambers & Hybrid8:30 AMPursuant to AB 361 Palo Alto City Council meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with theoption to attend by teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safetywhile still maintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose toparticipate from home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe andparticipate in the meeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged ifattending in person. The meeting will be broadcast on Cable TV Channel 26, live onYouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen MediaCenter https://midpenmedia.org. Visit https://bit.ly/PApendingprojects to view project plansand details. Commissioner names, biographies, and archived agendas and reports are availableat https://bit.ly/paloaltoARB. VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/96561891491)Meeting ID: 965 6189 1491    Phone: 1(669)900‐6833PUBLIC COMMENTSPublic comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or anamount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutesafter the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance toarb@CityofPaloAlto.org and will be provided to the Board and available for inspection on theCity’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you are referencing in your subjectline.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified aspresent at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson's presentation will be allowed up tofifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking membersagree not to speak individually. The Chair may limit Public Comments to thirty (30) minutes forall combined speakers. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak for Study Sessions andAction Items to two (2) minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers. PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted only by email to arb@CityofPaloAlto.org at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Once received, the Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. To uphold strong cybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storage devices are not accepted. CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL PUBLIC COMMENT  Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS The Chair or Board majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management. CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS 1.Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2) Tentative Future Agenda Items and 3) Recently Submitted Projects STUDY SESSION Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 2.Study Session to Review and Discuss the City's Local Objective Standards for Senate Bill 9 Residential Units and Urban Lot Splits Previously Approved by Council Along with the City’s SB 9 Interim Ordinance 5538. The Planning and Transportation Commission Recommended a Permanent Ordinance to Replace the Interim Ordinance on February 8, 2023. Environmental Assessment:  Not a Project. For More Information Contact Amy French at Amy. French@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. 3.Review and Adoption of the Revised Architectural Review Board By‐Laws to Address Meeting Attendance in 2023 APPROVAL OF MINUTES Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 4.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for February 16, 2023 BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS AND AGENDAS Members of the public may not speak to the item(s). ADJOURNMENT AD HOC COMMITTEE 5.414 California Avenue [22PLN‐00207]: Ad‐Hoc Committee Review of a Project Previously Recommended for Approval to Review Colors as well as Architectural and Landscape Design Details 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 to access a Zoom‐ based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully. You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in‐ browser. If using your browser, make sure you are using a current, up‐to‐date browser: Chrome 30, Firefox 27, Microsoft Edge 12, Safari 7. Certain functionality may be disabled in older browsers including Internet Explorer. You may be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify you that it is your turn to speak. When you wish to speak on an Agenda Item, click on “raise hand.” The Clerk will activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak. When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. A timer will be shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments. 3. Spoken public comments using a smart phone will be accepted  through the teleconference meeting. To address the Board, download the Zoom application onto your phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter the Meeting ID below. Please follow the instructions above. 4. Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the Board. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted. CLICK HERE TO JOIN    Meeting ID: 965 6189 1491   Phone: 1‐669‐900‐6833  Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329‐2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARDRegular MeetingThursday, March 16, 2023Council Chambers & Hybrid8:30 AMPursuant to AB 361 Palo Alto City Council meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with theoption to attend by teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safetywhile still maintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose toparticipate from home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe andparticipate in the meeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged ifattending in person. The meeting will be broadcast on Cable TV Channel 26, live onYouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen MediaCenter https://midpenmedia.org. Visit https://bit.ly/PApendingprojects to view project plansand details. Commissioner names, biographies, and archived agendas and reports are availableat https://bit.ly/paloaltoARB. VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/96561891491)Meeting ID: 965 6189 1491    Phone: 1(669)900‐6833PUBLIC COMMENTSPublic comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or anamount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutesafter the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance toarb@CityofPaloAlto.org and will be provided to the Board and available for inspection on theCity’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you are referencing in your subjectline.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified aspresent at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson's presentation will be allowed up tofifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking membersagree not to speak individually. The Chair may limit Public Comments to thirty (30) minutes forall combined speakers. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak for Study Sessions andAction Items to two (2) minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers.PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted onlyby email to arb@CityofPaloAlto.org at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Once received,the Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. To uphold strongcybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storage devices are notaccepted.CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALLPUBLIC COMMENT Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker.AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONSThe Chair or Board majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management.CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS1.Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2) Tentative FutureAgenda Items and 3) Recently Submitted ProjectsSTUDY SESSIONPublic Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.2.Study Session to Review and Discuss the City's Local Objective Standards for Senate Bill9 Residential Units and Urban Lot Splits Previously Approved by Council Along with theCity’s SB 9 Interim Ordinance 5538. The Planning and Transportation CommissionRecommended a Permanent Ordinance to Replace the Interim Ordinance on February 8,2023. Environmental Assessment:  Not a Project. For More Information Contact AmyFrench at Amy. French@cityofpaloalto.org.ACTION ITEMSPublic Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Ten (10) minutes, plus ten (10) minutes rebuttal. All others: Three(3) minutes per speaker.3.Review and Adoption of the Revised Architectural Review Board By‐Laws to AddressMeeting Attendance in 2023APPROVAL OF MINUTESPublic Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.4.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for February 16, 2023BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS ANDAGENDAS Members of the public may not speak to the item(s). ADJOURNMENT AD HOC COMMITTEE 5.414 California Avenue [22PLN‐00207]: Ad‐Hoc Committee Review of a Project Previously Recommended for Approval to Review Colors as well as Architectural and Landscape Design Details 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 to access a Zoom‐ based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully. You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in‐ browser. If using your browser, make sure you are using a current, up‐to‐date browser: Chrome 30, Firefox 27, Microsoft Edge 12, Safari 7. Certain functionality may be disabled in older browsers including Internet Explorer. You may be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify you that it is your turn to speak. When you wish to speak on an Agenda Item, click on “raise hand.” The Clerk will activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak. When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. A timer will be shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments. 3. Spoken public comments using a smart phone will be accepted  through the teleconference meeting. To address the Board, download the Zoom application onto your phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter the Meeting ID below. Please follow the instructions above. 4. Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the Board. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted. CLICK HERE TO JOIN    Meeting ID: 965 6189 1491   Phone: 1‐669‐900‐6833  Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329‐2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARDRegular MeetingThursday, March 16, 2023Council Chambers & Hybrid8:30 AMPursuant to AB 361 Palo Alto City Council meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with theoption to attend by teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safetywhile still maintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose toparticipate from home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe andparticipate in the meeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged ifattending in person. The meeting will be broadcast on Cable TV Channel 26, live onYouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen MediaCenter https://midpenmedia.org. Visit https://bit.ly/PApendingprojects to view project plansand details. Commissioner names, biographies, and archived agendas and reports are availableat https://bit.ly/paloaltoARB. VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/96561891491)Meeting ID: 965 6189 1491    Phone: 1(669)900‐6833PUBLIC COMMENTSPublic comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or anamount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutesafter the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance toarb@CityofPaloAlto.org and will be provided to the Board and available for inspection on theCity’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you are referencing in your subjectline.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified aspresent at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson's presentation will be allowed up tofifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking membersagree not to speak individually. The Chair may limit Public Comments to thirty (30) minutes forall combined speakers. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak for Study Sessions andAction Items to two (2) minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers.PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted onlyby email to arb@CityofPaloAlto.org at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Once received,the Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. To uphold strongcybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storage devices are notaccepted.CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALLPUBLIC COMMENT Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker.AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONSThe Chair or Board majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management.CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS1.Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2) Tentative FutureAgenda Items and 3) Recently Submitted ProjectsSTUDY SESSIONPublic Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.2.Study Session to Review and Discuss the City's Local Objective Standards for Senate Bill9 Residential Units and Urban Lot Splits Previously Approved by Council Along with theCity’s SB 9 Interim Ordinance 5538. The Planning and Transportation CommissionRecommended a Permanent Ordinance to Replace the Interim Ordinance on February 8,2023. Environmental Assessment:  Not a Project. For More Information Contact AmyFrench at Amy. French@cityofpaloalto.org.ACTION ITEMSPublic Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Ten (10) minutes, plus ten (10) minutes rebuttal. All others: Three(3) minutes per speaker.3.Review and Adoption of the Revised Architectural Review Board By‐Laws to AddressMeeting Attendance in 2023APPROVAL OF MINUTESPublic Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.4.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for February 16, 2023BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS ANDAGENDASMembers of the public may not speak to the item(s).ADJOURNMENTAD HOC COMMITTEE5.414 California Avenue [22PLN‐00207]: Ad‐Hoc Committee Review of a Project PreviouslyRecommended for Approval to Review Colors as well as Architectural and Landscape Design Details 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 to access a Zoom‐ based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully. You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in‐ browser. If using your browser, make sure you are using a current, up‐to‐date browser: Chrome 30, Firefox 27, Microsoft Edge 12, Safari 7. Certain functionality may be disabled in older browsers including Internet Explorer. You may be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify you that it is your turn to speak. When you wish to speak on an Agenda Item, click on “raise hand.” The Clerk will activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak. When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. A timer will be shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments. 3. Spoken public comments using a smart phone will be accepted  through the teleconference meeting. To address the Board, download the Zoom application onto your phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter the Meeting ID below. Please follow the instructions above. 4. Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the Board. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted. CLICK HERE TO JOIN    Meeting ID: 965 6189 1491   Phone: 1‐669‐900‐6833  Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329‐2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service. Item No. 1. Page 1 of 2 Architectural Review Board Staff Report From: Jonathan Lait, Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: March 16, 2023 Report #: 2302-0967 TITLE Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2) Tentative Future Agenda Items and 3) Recently Submitted Projects 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 this 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 as needed. 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. The attachment also has a list of pending ARB projects. Approved projects can be found on the City’s Building Eye webpage at https://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning. Any party, including the applicant, may request a hearing by the ARB on the proposed director's decision(s) within the 10-day or 14-day appeal period by filing a written request with the planning division. There shall be no fee required for requesting such a hearing. However, there is a fee for appeals. 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, Item 1 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 5     Item No. 1. Page 2 of 2 Chapter 12.10, or Chapter 12.13 is not eligible for a request for hearing by any party, including the applicant. No action is required by the ARB for this item. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: 2023 Meeting Schedule & Assignments Attachment B: Tentative Future Agenda and New Projects List AUTHOR/TITLE: ARB Liaison1 & Contact Information Claire Raybould, AICP, Senior Planner (650)329-2116 Claire.Raybould@Cityofpaloalto.org 1 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@CityofPaloAlto.org. Item 1 Staff Report Packet Pg. 6 Architectural Review Board 2023 Meeting Schedule & Assignments 6 9 3 2023 Meeting Schedule Meeting Dates Time Location Status Planned Absences 1/05/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Cancelled 1/19/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 2/02/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Cancelled 2/16/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 3/02/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular Thompson 3/16/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 4/06/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular Chen 4/20/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 5/04/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 5/18/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 6/01/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 6/15/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular Thompson 7/06/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular Rosenberg 7/20/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 8/03/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 8/17/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 9/07/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 9/21/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 10/05/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 10/19/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 11/02/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 11/16/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 12/07/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 12/21/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 2023 Ad Hoc Committee Assignments Assignments will be made by the ARB Chair January February March April May June 2/16 – Hirsch, Baltay 3/16 – Chen Rosenburg July August September October November December Item 1 Attachment A 2023 Meeting Schedule & Assignments Packet Pg. 7 Architectural Review Board 2023 Tentative Future Agenda and New Planning Projects The following items are tentative and subject to change: Meeting Dates Topics April 6, 2023 •3200 Park Boulevard/340 Portage (Development Agreement) •Chair and Vice Chair Elections •Annual Report/Council Work Plan The following items are likely to be heard by the ARB in the near future and have a pending project webpage (bit.ly/PApendingprojects) and/or can be view via Building Eye (bit.ly/PABuildingEye). Grey items are recently approved or projects that have gone to Council prescreening and would be reviewed by the ARB if a formal application is submitted. Permit Type Submitted Permit # Project Mgr.Address Type Work Description AR Major - Board 10/21/19 19PLN- 00347 CHODGKI 486 HAMILTON AV Mixed use On-hold pending environmental review for vibration. Major Architectural Review for a new three-story mixed-use project including 2,457 square feet of retail space, 2,108 square feet of office space, and four (4) residential units. Zoning District: CD-C(P) AR Major - Board 9/16/20 20PLN- 00202 CHODGKI 250 HAMILTON AV Bridge On-hold for redesign - Allow the removal and replacement of the Pope- Chaucer Bridge over San Francisquito Creek with a new structure that does not obstruct creek flow to reduce flood risk. The project will also include channel modifications. Environmental Assessment: The SFCJPA, acting as the lead agency, adopted a Final EIR on September 26, 2019. Zoning District: PF. AR Major - Board 1/28/21 21PLN- 00028 GSAULS 3300 EL CAMINO REAL R&D 1st formal 4/7/22, 2nd formal 10/20/22 (recommended approval with AdHoc Committee requirement) - Major Architectural Review to Allow the Construction of a two-story, 50,355 sf office/R&D project with 40% surface parking & 60% below-grade parking, includes a 2,517 sf amenity space. Environmental Assessment: MND Pending. Zoning District: RP (Research Park). Item 1 Attachment B Tentative Future Agenda and New Projects List Packet Pg. 8 AR Major - Board 6/16/21 21PLN- 00172 EFOLEY 123 SHERMAN AV Office ARB 1st formal 12/1/22 - Major Architectural Review application to allow demolition of existing buildings to allow the construction of a new 3-story office building with 2 levels of below grade parking. This project would also require the combination of 3 existing parcels. Zoning District: CC (2)(R). Environmental Assessment: Pending. AR Major - Board Zone Change 12/21/21 21PLN- 00341 EFOLEY 660 University Mixed use ARB 1st formal 12/1/22 - Planned Community (PC), to Combine 3 Parcels (511 Byron St, 660 University Ave, 680 University Ave/500 Middlefield Rd), Demolish Existing Buildings (9,216 SF Office) and Provide a New Four Story Mixed-Use Building with Ground Floor Office (9,115 SF) and Multi-Family Residential (all floors) Including a Two Level Below-Grade Parking Garage. Proposed Residential Proposed Residential (42,189 SF) Will Include 65 Units (47 Studios, 12 1-Bedroom, 6 2-Bedroom). AR Major – Board, Development Agreement and PC 7/28/2020 10/28/2021 8/25/2022 20PLN- 00155 21PLN- 00108 22PLN- 00287 CHODGKI 340 Portage (former Fry’s) 200 Portage 3200 Park Blvd Commercial and townhomes Was heard by PTC on 10/12/22, ARB hearings 12/15/22, 1/19/23 – Development Agreement, Rezoning and Major Architectural Review application to allow the redevelopment of an approximately 4.86-acre portion of the site. Scope of work includes the partial demolition of an existing commercial building and construction of 91 or 74 new Townhome Condominiums. Zoning District: RM-30 (Multi-Family Residential). Environmental Assessment: Pending. Prescreening Council 06/13/2022 22PLN- 00198 EFOLEY 70 Encina AV Housing Heard by Council on 9/12/22, waiting for formal application - Prescreening for a New multi-family residential condominium project with 20 units. The project is pursuing approval for the use of PHZ zoning regulations under the Palo Alto Municipal Code. AR Major - Board 06/16/2022 22PLN- 00201 CHODGKI 739 SUTTER AV Housing Prelim 11/18/21, NOI sent 7/15/22, waiting for revised plans - Major Architectural Review to Allow the Demolition of an Existing 8-unit apartment building, and Construction of 12 new townhome units on the project site Using the State Density Bonus Allowances. The proposed units are 3-stories in height, and 25,522 sf of floor area. Rooftop Open Space is proposed for the units adjacent to Sutter Avenue. A Compliant SB 330 Pre-Application was submitted on 5/5/2022; however, the applicant did not resubmit plans within 90 days; therefore, the project will be subject to the current objective standards upon resubmittal. Zoning District: RM-20 (Low Density Multi-Family Residential). Environmental Assessment: Pending AR Minor - Board 07/06/2022 22PLN- 00223 THARRIS ON 180 EL CAMINO REAL, STE E705A Commercial Will be withdrawn - Minor Architectural Review Board (ARB) review of The Melt restaurant (currently The Melt), Space #705A, Bldg. E (#E705A). Exterior improvements include new façade, new storefront glazing, redesigned outdoor patio and new signage. Interior improvements will include complete interior remodel. No change of use. (CUP 11PLN-00253). Zoning District: CC. Item 1 Attachment B Tentative Future Agenda and New Projects List Packet Pg. 9 AR Major - Board 07/07/2022 22PLN- 00229 22PLN- 00057 (SB 330) CHODGKI 3001 EL CAMINO REAL Affordable Housing ARB 1st formal hearing 11/17/22; 2 nd formal hearing 3/2/23 - Major Architectural Review to demolish two existing retail buildings and to construct a 129 unit, 100% affordable, five-story, multi-family residential development utilizing allowances and concessions provided in accordance with State Density Bonus regulations. The units would be deed restricted to serve tenants meeting 30%-50% of Area Median Income. The project would be located on a proposed new 49,864 square foot lot located at 3001-3017 El Camino Real. (Senate Bill 330 Housing Development Project). Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: CS (Commercial Service). Prescreening Council 07/07/2022 22PLN- 00227 GSAULS 3400 EL CAMINO REAL Housing Heard by Council on 9/19/22, waiting for formal application - Prescreening for a Planned Housing Zone (PHZ) to build 382 residential rental units comprised of 44 studios, 243 one-bedroom, 86 two-bedroom and 9 three-bedroom units in two buildings. Zoning District: CS, CS(H), RM-20 (Service Commercial, Hotel, Multi-Family Residential). AR Minor - Board and Conditional Use Permit 7/19/2022 22PLN- 00237 THARRIS ON 180 EL CAMINO REAL, STE E700A Commercial ARB recommended approval on 3/2/2023 - Minor Architectural Review Board (ARB) review for Sushi Roku restaurant (formally Yucca De Lac) and CUP for alcohol service at Space #700B, Bldg. E (#E700B) at the Stanford Shopping Center. Exterior improvements include new façade, new storefront glazing, outdoor patios and new signage. Interior improvements will include complete interior remodel. No change of use. Zoning District: CC. AR Minor - Board 7/26/2022 22PLN- 00243 THARRIS ON 221 FOREST AV Commercial/ Office Architectural Review for proposed improvements to the interior and to the front and rear of 221-227 Forest. The floor area will increase but the volume of the building envelope will not increase. Zoning District: CD-C (P). Council Prescreening 10/18/2022 22PLN- 00355 EFOLEY 250 CAMBRIDGE AVE Code Change – roof gardens To be heard by Council or withdrawn - Pre-Screening to consider the potential entitlement process at 250 Cambridge Avenue for installation of a new rooftop garden terrace at the front half of the existing building roof facing Cambridge Avenue. Zoning District: CC(2). Site and Design 10/27/2022 22PLN- 00367 CHODGKI 2501 EMBARCADE RO WY Public Utility – Water Filtration Will be scheduled for early first hearing - Request for Site and Design Review to allow construction of a Local Advanced Water Purification System at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP). The proposed project will include the construction and operation of a membrane filtration recycled water facility and a permeate storage tank at the City’s RWQCP to improve recycled water quality and increase its use. Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: Public Facilities with Site and Design combining district (PF)(D). Item 1 Attachment B Tentative Future Agenda and New Projects List Packet Pg. 10 Zone Change 11/17/2022 22PLN- 00391 EFOLEY 4075 El Camino Way Residential - add 14 units to existing Will be scheduled for early first hearing - Request for Planned Community Zone Change to add 14 new units to an existing Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility in a similar style to the existing building. Twelve of the additional units proposed are to be stacked above the existing building footprint with the other two units proposed to be located as minor expansion to existing building footprint. The new units are to be of a similar size and layout to the existing units. Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: PC-5116 (Planned Community). Preliminary AR 12/20/2022 22PLN- 00406 GSAULS 3600 Middlefield Public Facility Was heard by ARB on 2/16, waiting for formal application - Request for Preliminary Architectural Review to replace Palo Alto Fire Station 4. The proposed building will be a 7,800 square foot, LEED Silver, single- story structure replacing the existing 2,800 square foot single-story fire station constructed in 1953. Environmental Assessment: Not a Project. Zoning District: PF (Public Facility). SB 330 Pre- Application 1/10/2023 23PLN- 00003 GSAULS 3150 El Camino Real Residential- 380 units replacing eating and drinking and office SB 330 Pre-Application for 3128, 3150, and 3160 El Camino Real to replace two existing commercial buildings on-site and construct a 380 unit Multi-family Residential Rental Development with 10% Below Market Rate. The project includes a 456,347 square foot apartment building with a 171,433 square foot garage that extends to 84 feet in height. The project includes Requested Concessions and Waivers in Accordance with the State Density Bonus. Minor Board 01/18/2023 23PLN- 00009 THARRIS ON 180 El Camino Commercial Will be scheduled for early first hearing - Request by Jason Smith of LandShark Development for a Minor Board Level Architectural Review to allow exterior improvements, including a new façade, new storefront glazing, new signage, and a complete interior remodel for Arhaus. Zoning District: CC. Zone Change 4/25/2022 22PLN- 00010 EFOLEY 800-808 SAN ANTONIO RD Housing Will be scheduled for early first hearing - Request for a zone change from CS to Planned Community (PHZ) for a 76-unit, 5-story residential building. 16 of the units would be provided at below market rate, 4 of which would be to low income and 7 of which would be to very low income. The building is designed as a 5-story building with four levels of wood framing over a concrete podium superstructure, with two levels of subterranean parking. Project went to a Council prescreening on 8/15. Minor Architectural Review 1/24/2023 23PLN- 00015 GSAULS 3200 EL CAMINO REAL Hotel In discussions with applicant regarding parking requirements - Minor Architectural Review approval to remove one level of underground parking at the previously approved Parmani Hotel (18PLN-00045; Record of Land Use Action 2019-06). No proposed changes to the approved hotel design, but the entire hotel likely needs to be re-approved. The request proposes to reduce the number of approved parking spaces from 106 parking spaces to 63 parking spaces. Zoning District: CS. Environmental Assessment: Pending. Council Pre- Screening and Zone Change 2/1/2023 & 2/2/2023 23PLN- 00025 23PLN- 00027 AFRENC H 2901 MIDDLEFIEL D Housing – one unit Council Pre-Screening and Zone Change to consider an amendment to the PC-2343 to amend the development plan to consolidate parking and to extract 700 Ellsworth from PC district and rezone it to R-1. Zoning District: PC-2343. Environmental Assessment: Not a Project (no formal action required). Item 1 Attachment B Tentative Future Agenda and New Projects List Packet Pg. 11 Council Pre- Screening 2/8/2023 23PLN- 00036 THARRIS ON 1237 SAN ANTONIO Public Utility Request by Valley Water for a Council Pre-Screening application to allow a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to update the land use of a portion of Area B of parcel #116-01-013 from Public Conservation Land to Major Institution/Special Facilities. The other portion of Area B is currently designated as a Major institution/Special Facilities and the proposed project also calls for the subdivision of Area B. Zoning District: PF(D). Environmental Assessment: Not a Project (no formal action required). Major Architectural Review 1/04/2023 23PLN- 00058 CHODGKI 420 Acacia Residential- 16 units replacing surface parking lot Will be scheduled for early first hearing - Request for Major Architectural Review for a 16-unit Multi-family Residential Townhome Project. The Project will Provide 15% Below Market Rate On-site and Includes Requested Concessions and Waivers in Accordance with the State Density Bonus. The SB 330 pre-application was deemed compliant on February 2, 2023. Item 1 Attachment B Tentative Future Agenda and New Projects List Packet Pg. 12 Item No. 2. Page 1 of 3 1 6 0 5 Architectural Review Board Staff Report From: Jonathan Lait, Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: March 16, 2023 Report #: 2301-0850 TITLE Study Session to Review and Discuss the City's Local Objective Standards for Senate Bill 9 (SB 9) Residential Units and Urban Lot Splits Previously Approved by Council Along with the City’s SB 9 Interim Ordinance 5538. The Planning and Transportation Commission Recommended a Permanent Ordinance to Replace the Interim Ordinance on February 8, 2023. Environmental Assessment: Not a Project. For More Information Contact Amy French at Amy.French@cityofpaloalto.org. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) review and comment on the attached objective standards for Senate Bill 9 Residential Units and Urban Lot Splits (Attachments B and C) which were presented to and adopted by City Council previously with the interim ordinance. There are no changes proposed at this time to these standards. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City Council previously approved an interim ordinance1 (Ordinance 5538) amending Titles 18 and 21 to align with new state housing legislation, including SB 9. These were further amended in accordance with Ordinances 5542 and 5546. Council approvals also included adoption of interim objective standards for lot splits and development under SB 9. Council directed staff to share the approved objective standards with the Architectural Review Board (ARB) and Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) for consideration related to a permanent ordinance citing the objective standards. The Housing and Community Development (HCD) Department maintains a fact sheet regarding SB 9, which is included as Attachment A. The City’s webpage for forms and applications also includes a section on SB 9 Projects to provide information to the public and potential applicants.2 1 Link to the adopted Ordinance 5538: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/city- clerk/ordinances/ordinances-1909-to-present/2021/ord-5538.pdf 2 Link to SB 9 Information and Forms: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Planning-Development- Services/Current-Planning/Forms-Applications Item 2 Staff Report Packet Pg. 13 Item No. 2. Page 2 of 3 1 6 0 5 BACKGROUND Following adoption of Ordinance 5538, Council adopted additional interim ordinances related to SB 9 as reflected in Ordinance 55423 adopted January 24, 2022 and Ordinance 55464 adopted on April 11, 2022. These additional modifications included refinements such as clarifications regarding inclusionary requirements for SB 9 projects and authorization for Public Works to adopt standards for off-site improvements. Council also adopted objective standards for urban lot splits (separate from the SB-9 Objective Design Standards). Attachment B includes the objective design standards for residential units developed in accordance SB 9 and Attachment C includes adopted objective lot design standards for an urban lot split. In general, the interim ordinances are largely restatements of SB 9’s basic requirements, while the detailed design standards represent Palo Alto’s exercise of local regulatory authority. Because the state law became effective on January 1, 2022, staff did not have time to consult the Architectural Review Board (ARB) or Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) before presenting the detailed interim standards and ordinances for Council adoption. Therefore, staff is seeking ARB and PTC feedback as part of the process for Council adoption of the permanent ordinance and standards. On February 8, 2023, the PTC reviewed a draft permanent ordinance and recommended Council approval of the permanent ordinance with minor modifications (4-0, Rhooparvar, Templeton absent). Council review of the ordinance is anticipated in early spring 2023. ANALYSIS Permanent Ordinance On February 8, 2023, the PTC reviewed a draft permanent ordinance and recommended Council approval of the permanent ordinance with minor modifications (4-0, Rhooparvar, Templeton absent). Links to the February 8, 2023 staff report5 and meeting minutes6 are provided in the footnotes. Council review of the ordinance is anticipated in early spring 2023. Objective Design Standards At the PTC’s February 8, 2023 hearing, there were no suggested amendments to the SB 9 objective design standards. Modifications to the SB 9 objective design standards can be accomplished outside the Council timeline for adopting the permanent ordinance. 3 Link to Ordinance 5542: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/city-clerk/ordinances/ordinances- 1909-to-present/2022/ord-5542.pdf 4 Link to Ordinance 5546: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/city-clerk/ordinances/ordinances- 1909-to-present/2022/ord-5546.pdf 5 Link to PTC report of February 8, 2023: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes- reports/agendas-minutes/planning-and-transportation-commission/2023/ptc-2.08-sb9-ordinance.pdf 6 Link to PTC February 8, 2023 meeting minutes: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas- minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/planning-and-transportation-commission/2023/ptc-3.8-draft-verbatim- minutes-2.8.23.pdf Item 2 Staff Report Packet Pg. 14 Item No. 2. Page 3 of 3 1 6 0 5 Staff welcomes feedback from the ARB on the standards and will meet with the PTC once the ARB has concluded its consideration of the objective design standards for SB 9 residential units and lot splits in the second quarter of 2023. Potential amendments to the previously approved standards that are currently being considered may include: 1. Increasing the size of detached units for larger lots (to units over 800 sf) to enable more use of cottage cluster development and use of SB 9 2. Modifying lot split standards for larger lots and irregular shaped lots (such as Residential Estate lots in the hills of Palo Alto.7 SB 9 and the City’s related ordinances and objective standards have been effective for over a year now. To date, only one urban lot split project has been reviewed and is ready to submit for a building permit. Five additional urban lot split projects are in the inquiry or preliminary discussion phases. Three SB 9 projects with no associated urban lot split have been through reviews and are now in the building permit process. One additional SB 9 project that does not include a lot split is in the inquiry or preliminary discussion phase. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT Staff had alerted the current and potential applicants who have contacted staff with SB 9 projects, that the PTC and City Council would review a draft permanent ordinance in Spring 2023. Additional recent outreach regarding the ordinance included notification to a local architect group. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Housing and Community Development Fact Sheet Regarding SB9 Attachment B: SB9 Development Standards Attachment C: Urban Lot Split Standards AUTHOR/TITLE: Amy French, Chief Planning Official 7 Note that SB 9 legislation does not apply to the Open Space (OS) zone because the OS zone is not listed in the City‘s zoning code as among the residential zones. Item 2 Staff Report Packet Pg. 15              !"#$" %& &' %$$()#*+,-./0&'-1-+2  34     5467877 Item 2 Attachment A Housing & Community Development SB 9 Fact Sheet Packet Pg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`abcd^ef  ghg ijk   jljh m         n    n      op k  q      op   n  kq r                     o r   q           g rrkn  kn sk rhk o       no   k             rt     n m      qu           u  oqo u  q  n      n q  q              n     vllm   p r      k  w  kxw   kxw    kx w     x    gh       n    gy zhu y z  n   r^\{|}X~`_\}b€X \‚X{[\`}ƒc{X „{}b…†‡ˆ‡‰‡Š‹‡Œ Ž ‘Ž’‡“””•–—–˜ ˜™“š›œ’ …šžŸ•• ™™ ¡š›œ’ …šž…¢ž…£žž¤    n            nq qu        q     o  p r¥    o  k k k¦ o p k rk  qu        n  o      r§  p    q   o  p g rrk¨ow  o¨  xhk    q qr         op n q      q n        p nq  r©    n    q      o  p k      n  p        p                 ª z «    ¬ ¥ r¤  nn q     p n      o    n    qu  r      p k      k  q s             r Item 2 Attachment A Housing & Community Development SB 9 Fact Sheet Packet Pg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`  G FH   D         D a'b$cdRceP!f%P)'#!$ gI   D  D   EF FG  DH  JX   G      G  D           F'#!$ %$&% $hii jk%Pl$!# !mgI   D    J    noop   M FI YJX   M    GZYJX   J   GZ YJX       D  Z          JX   X J J    J J     N    J [  J  [ DJ JJ               J  J FV JX       D      J   DJX     J  J   Item 2 Attachment A Housing & Community Development SB 9 Fact Sheet Packet Pg. 18                                  !      "  #$%&'()*+,-./01+&123$&.4)&4.%+56     7  8 "                        "     95 5!          :5;-4.<;--&$1=%(2=>%(.$%&'()*+5    ?  ?"?     856       89 55!@?A :!      8     56      "      8      ?  B 9:5C  !  ?     8        59D5 !EEFGHGI5IJ!59:9I:9:KFFAJJ5L! 9:9:5:M2%<N21&O%P%Q-RS%2&TUVWVXVYZV[\]^_`]aVbccdefeg_ghbijka_Tlmndefeg_ghbijka_TkmTgmTomm 7               5D       FGHGI5IJ              ?        "  5 "  !  p       q p    q            ?     9D5 !EFGHGI5IJ!59::                       59D5 !EFGHGI5IJ!59:9I:9C:5:;12=123+-,O%21(QTUVWVXVYZV[\]^_`]aVbccdefeg_ghbijka_Tamnddrhh_sbijka_Tamm                   5 ! t  8    !             !            !    !   D       FGGH5G! 9:9I:!                           !    5p !    q    !7  !  !     !     !        !  !      "            59D5 !EFGGH5G!59:9I:5: Item 2 Attachment A Housing & Community Development SB 9 Fact Sheet Packet Pg. 19                 !"#$%&'()!&%*#+&"'!&+,-./.0.12.34567859.:;;<=>=?7?@:ABC97,DE,?ED19,DE,<EF<<G@@7H:ABC97,DE,IE,8ED19,DE,IE,JEEK             L                 M       NOPQRSL TUTNUTVWURXY       Z [          S\  S ] S  Z^ ] S^ S     S\ L   S      R   L                \   L \         _  K ` TQOS QNNS   abPcURd     e)&"%'$(!%fg!!+&%"!'(hii"# '(j"#k%++lm!f%(!%+    \            RK  S [    L                   n  o  \           ^            R*'(!p#"!' !"#$%&'(qm'(!&rhk&s*qht-./.0.12.34567859.:;;<=>=?7?@:ABC97,uEF<<G@@7H:ABC97,1EE    Z  [          SXvK                      SL RT`LRn   SwaPbxbSLRTLUTPUyXvK         z{XvKM  SwPOaNxRU   S    Z             XvK      RK  S          T        \     US                   [    XvKRo   \S                 Y  XvKRh&!|}!+i('k%$%&g%'+m"%+,-./.0.12.34567859.:;;<=>=?7?@:ABC97,DE,IEF<<G@@7H:ABC97,DE,IE,~EEK   L              [  \ Z          \    TPU   L[      S   S\         L       S\S \  {TaU   L[         L  e Y     \ {TQU   L   L       R Item 2 Attachment A Housing & Community Development SB 9 Fact Sheet Packet Pg. 20                 !"#$ %&'($)&*&+ ,-./0/1/23/4567896:/;<==>??8@A    B         C         C    C            D       EEFGGHIHJ  C  C  KL     B      CHJ   L L     D       EEFGGHIHM                           C H    B         N  L LN        L     C   CO     C      C HPQQ&,,)RST&##$+UV+$ ,-./0/1/23/4567896:/;<<=WXWY8Y?;Z[\:8-]A^==>??8@;Z[\:8-0AA J _`CaDH KbbEcdHd EccHdde    HM  B    L     C         C L f_  g J _HC  K       C   J _`C    h      L   HM         CC L         C         C   CHiV+$ ,jS&k$+&lmM          L     J _`C   L C C      a   e L LHM           L  C    h      C       HnopqrostupvHJ   a   C        e    w       C   w      HJ       J _x J _Hyh         w   aH HK   eK  haH HK C   eKw  haH HK   eK Hz{{|}}~os€| pu‚tupvHJ J _       C                     C     h      Hƒ       K  K   KO K          C    w C  CL   H„…up~oz{{|}}~os€| pu‚tupvHJx J _      ††B   ‡      C    w   HJx J _                 C   h     H Item 2 Attachment A Housing & Community Development SB 9 Fact Sheet Packet Pg. 21                   !   !    !      !    "#      $ %& $ %  '   (           )    '     *  "      )  # $ % & $ %         (+,-./012345637718/9:$ % ) ) '      '    ;       ('    ) )           < (        '        )        ;     (=>?@ABC?(D        '  '            (E         "( (   $ %  & $ %# '  '<   ( ;    )     )    '         $ %     & $ %()  '      ;   *     ("F( GHII(J )("K#(#L     '  '      (M>=>?@ABC?(D           )    $ % N& $ %  '  $ %'(% O '  K     '       '      '      $ % N&$ %  $ %P'(E )          )       $ %  & $ % )    $ %P'('       *   '          )       $ %  & $ %(  Q345RS9T3458/.URV/       (W/7RXY1S6ZYUX1[XZ/0\XRX/]1,6YSV^R86  '     )          ( '     )       '     '    )      (]1,6YSV_7/-/SX^R8: ` K   )   'K  Q            aI#   <    '   K    )     b#              O          ;   '              c#                   "        Item 2 Attachment A Housing & Community Development SB 9 Fact Sheet Packet Pg. 22                                         ! "!        #$                                %&                   $ $        #  %'     ()*+,-./01232.4,52678/2%)*+,-./9:-,-,;<4*=>?@ABC        #          $                 %DE% FGGHII#%D#!DJ!DC!%!&          $     K  $ %LM        N  #                       $  O       #P O      O                     (        %DE% FGGHII#%D#!DJ!DC!%!C                 O               D#            !%C                #     K  $                       %            #Q       #         K  $ D!    # %'   # R2,-/.842ST+:-,S-<4-*.,U:*V-6-42S=:*392:48-.W*.-./XY21842S;<4-*.,  ( # %)*+,-./;<<*+.486-1-4Z;<4B[        C # C DCC!   [     C D[C!           %DE% FFG\\]%\^G\I\%\^G\JH%JI^G\"I  O%!&     L     Q  N   Q           Q                  %DE% FG\I\%\#%D#!DH!%!     #  CC [C  ()*+,-./;<<*+.486-1-4Z;<4_2<V.-<81;,,-,48.<2;S`-,*:Z%Y2.481a.<1+,-*.8:Z)*+,-./BE       G\]\I# D! $                    #  K   K   %b         O   #    #                    %       (Y2.481a.<1+,-*.8:Z)*+,-./c23*:8.S+3% Item 2 Attachment A Housing & Community Development SB 9 Fact Sheet Packet Pg. 23 November 24, 2021 Page 1 of 11 SB-9 OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS (IR GUIDELINES CROSSWALK) The City’s Individual Review (IR) Program was established in 2001. The associated IR Guidelines were updated in 2005. These are intended to preserve the character of Palo Alto neighborhoods by implementing requirements relating to streetscape, massing, and privacy. These SB-9 Objective Design Guidelines are based upon these IR Guidelines, and arranged in accordance with the five (5) IR Guidelines as follows: GUIDELINE ONE: Site Planning: Garage, Driveway, and House GUIDELINE TWO: Neighborhood Compatibility for Height, Mass, and Scale GUIDELINE THREE: Resolution of Architectural Form, Massing, and Roof Lines GUIDELINE FOUR: Visual Character of Street Facing Facades and Entries GUIDELINE FIVE: Privacy from Second Floor Windows and Decks Each IR Guideline is further broken down into Key Points. This document converts the existing discretionary Key Points into Objective Standards. To facilitate implementation of IR Guidelines in Eichler neighborhoods, these Standards reference information from the Eichler Neighborhood Design Guidelines adopted by Council on April 2, 2018. Note: An SB-9 objective design standard shall not be applied if: 1) such standard would not enable two units, each having a minimum 800 square feet or 2) the maximum floor area allowed by the zoning code would not be feasible. IR Key Point IR Guideline Concept/ Key Point SB-9 Objective Design Standards 1.1 DRIVEWAYS: Minimize driveway paving impacts in order to highlight yards and pedestrian entryways. 1.1A: DRIVEWAYS: One curb cut and driveway per street frontage. Shared driveways are encouraged but require an easement to which the City is a third party. 1.1B: DRIVEWAY WIDTH: 18-foot maximum driveway width (inclusive of uncovered parking) within a front or street side yard setback. 1.1C. PLANTING STRIP: A minimum two-foot wide, landscaped planting strip is required between a driveway and/or uncovered parking space and an interior lot line. Item 2 Attachment B SB9 Development Standards Packet Pg. 24 November 24, 2021 Page 2 of 11 IR Key Point IR Guideline Concept/ Key Point SB-9 Objective Design Standards 1.1D WALKWAY SEPARATION: Walkways shall be separated from driveways by a minimum of 4 feet of landscape planting or extend sideways (that is, perpendicular) from driveway so that no additional parking or paved turnaround space is created in a front or street side yard beyond that of the maximum allowed driveway width. 1.1F: DRIVEWAY MATERIALS: Driveway and uncovered parking surfaces that exceed 10 feet in width shall not have asphalt or grey concrete surfaces. They must have a decorative surface to blend with the landscape such pavers, brick, or colored concrete. 1.2 GARAGES & CARPORTS: Locate garages to be subordinate to and minimally visible, or significantly less prominent, than the house. 1.2A: GARAGE LOCATION: Attached or detached garages/carports must be located a minimum of 5 feet behind the forwardmost plane of the front facade or 3 feet behind the forwardmost plane of the street-side façade. The forwardmost façade plane may be a building wall or porch with posts/columns and must be at least 12 feet wide. 1.2B: GARAGE WIDTH: An attached or detached garage/carport facing the street shall be no more than 30 percent of the total facade width facing that street, except that it may be 12 feet wide in any circumstance. 1.2C: EICHLER TRACT GARAGES: In mapped Eichler Tracts, a garage or carport may be located forward of the front facade plane of the house so long as the garage or carport is: (a)no more than 21 feet wide, (b) has a roof pitch of 3:12 (slope of 3 vertical feet for every 12 horizontal feet) or less, and (c)has a maximum height of no more than 12 feet above existing grade. 1.2D: DUPLEX PARKING REQUIREMENT: In the case of a duplex, when parking spaces are required, the parking space for each unit shall be a covered parking space. 1.3 SECOND FLOOR SIZE & LOCATION: Site planning (setbacks, yard areas, etc.) and footprint configuration (inclusive of upper 1.3A: SECOND FLOOR SIZE: The maximum floor area above the first-floor level: (a) shall not exceed 35 percent of total gross floor area on the lot except as noted in subsection (b) or Standard 1.3B. (b)shall not exceed 30 percent of the total gross floor area where an abutting lot along a side lot line has a one-story home or home with no more than 500 square feet of second floor area. Item 2 Attachment B SB9 Development Standards Packet Pg. 25 November 24, 2021 Page 3 of 11 IR Key Point IR Guideline Concept/ Key Point SB-9 Objective Design Standards floor location/area) shall fit existing neighborhood patterns and take cues from adjacent lot conditions (see guideline examples). 1.3B: EICHLER TRACT SECOND FLOOR SIZE: Where a property is in a mapped Eichler Tract, and not in a single- story overlay zone, the maximum floor area of the second floor shall not exceed 25 percent of the total gross floor area on the lot. 1.3C: FRONT SETBACK Where the contextual front yard setback does not apply, the front setback shall be no less than the average front setback of the homes on lots to either side of the subject lot. (Note: In all cases, the zoning minimum front setback or special setback would still apply.) 1.3D: SECOND FLOOR STEPBACKS: Second floor area shall not be permitted within the standard side or rear setbacks of the underlying single family zoning district. 1.3E. SECOND FLOOR AREA ON FLAG LOTS AND SUBSTANDARD LOTS: On flag lots (or similar lots without street frontage) and/or substandard lots, if the maximum allowed total floor area is greater than 70 percent of the buildable lot area, floor area may be placed on a second level. The maximum second floor area allowed shall be the area in excess of 70 percent of the buildable lot area or 300 square feet, whichever is greater. 1.4 LANDSCAPE SCREENING: Landscaped open space along interior lot lines between homes. 1.4A: SCREENING LANDSCAPE: Plant screening trees with a species having a typical mature height of at least 25 feet, and mature canopy width of 15 feet at a quantity of at least one per 25 linear feet along each interior lot line. Existing trees to be retained that are at least 25 feet tall and 15 feet wide may substitute for required planting on a one-to-one ratio. Three closely spaced tall screening shrubs with a mature height of at least 20 feet and mature width of at least 5 feet may be substituted for one screening tree. 1.4B: PLANTING TYPE AND SIZE: Screening trees and shrubs shall be specified by botanical name with at least 50 percent of screening trees and shrubs being evergreen. Screening trees shall be specified and planted at 24-inch box size or larger and 8 feet height or taller. Screening shrubs shall be specified and planted at 15- gallon size or larger and 8 feet or taller. 1.4C: PLANTING ADJACENT PUE’S: Where an easement such as a PUE exist along an interior lot line, trees are required to be planted on the same side of the easement as the building, but not within the easement. Item 2 Attachment B SB9 Development Standards Packet Pg. 26 November 24, 2021 Page 4 of 11 IR Key Point IR Guideline Concept/ Key Point SB-9 Objective Design Standards 1.5 STEP BACKS NEXT TO SINGLE-STORY HOMES: Locate an upper floor well back from the front façade and/or away from side lot lines if the home is adjacent to small or single-story homes (see guideline examples). 1.5A: CONTEXTUAL FRONT MASSING STEPBACK: Where a home on an abutting lot across a side lot line is single-story or has a second-floor area less than 500 square feet, a proposed structure shall have a one-story building volume at least 15-foot wide and 15-foot deep at the front side of the house set forward of any second-floor street facing wall plane. 1.5B: CONTEXTUAL SIDE MASSING STEPBACK: Where a home on an abutting lot across a side lot line is single- story or has a second-floor area less than 500 square feet, each proposed structure located within 20 feet of the side lot line shall step back the upper floor from the lower floor along that side of the structure at least 7 feet for at least 50 percent of the depth of the structure. 1.5C: SIDE DAYLIGHT PLANE CLEARANCE: Where a home on an abutting lot across a side lot line is single-story or has a second-floor area no more than 500 square feet, the proposed structure(s) shall maintain at least 2 feet clearance from the second-floor roof edge or wall parapet to the side daylight plane as measured perpendicularly to the side daylight plane. 1.5D: EICHLER TRACT SIDE DAYLIGHT PLANE CLEARANCE: In mapped Eichler Tracts the clearance from any roof edge to the side daylight plane as measured perpendicularly from the daylight plane shall be at least 4 feet. 1.6 GARAGE PLACEMENT: Avoid placing a second story such that it would emphasize the garage. See Standard 1.2A 2.1 BUILDING HEIGHT/MASS: Avoiding overwhelming adjacent single-story homes with large masses, monumental forms, and sharp contrasts in height. Incorporate lower height and profile and 2.1A: UPPER FLOOR FRONT FAÇADE AREA: Where an abutting lot across a side lot line has a single-story home or home with no more than 500 square feet on the second floor, the front facade's visible wall area on the upper floor shall be no greater than 50 percent of the front facade's visible wall area on the first floor. Wall area includes the area defined by porches, windows, and wall surfaces under gables. On corner lots, the front facade shall be the facade at the shorter frontage. 2.1B: ROOF HEIGHT FOR VARIED ROOF PITCHES: Roof height shall be limited to 27 feet for roofs with pitches 9:12 or greater, 25 feet for roofs with pitches 3:12, up to 9:12, and 22 feet for roofs with pitches less than 3:12. Properties in flood zones shall be permitted to increase building height by one-half foot for each foot that the base flood elevation exceeds existing grade. Item 2 Attachment B SB9 Development Standards Packet Pg. 27 November 24, 2021 Page 5 of 11 IR Key Point IR Guideline Concept/ Key Point SB-9 Objective Design Standards place more area on lower floor. 2.1C: EICHLER TRACT ROOF HEIGHTS: In mapped Eichler Tracts the maximum roof height shall not exceed 22 feet, as measured from existing grade to the roof surface for a pitched roof, or 20 feet for a flat roof surface or parapet. Properties in flood zones shall be permitted to increase building height by one-half foot for each foot that the base flood elevation exceeds existing grade. 2.2 MASS REDUCTION: Managing mass and scale from high floor levels, tall wall planes and boxy forms. 2.2A: FIRST FLOOR LEVEL: The finished first floor level shall not be more than 18 inches above existing grade. In Eichler Tracts, the finished first floor level shall not be more than 12 inches above existing grade. In a flood zone, the first-floor level may be set at the minimum allowed above grade to meet code requirements. For a lot removed from the flood zone due to on-site grading, the measurement shall be taken from revised grade. 2.2B: FLOOR-TO-FLOOR HEIGHT: The height from the first finished floor to the second finished floor shall not exceed 10'-6”. 2.2C: SECOND FLOOR WALL PLATE HEIGHT: The wall plate height (i.e., interior wall height at exterior wall) on the second floor shall not exceed 9 feet for roofs with pitches 3:12 or lower; 8'-6" for roofs with pitches greater than 3:12 up to 9:12; and 8 feet for roofs with pitches 9:12 or greater. 2.2D: PARAPET HEIGHT: Parapets shall not exceed 1 foot above the roof surface over second floor roofs. 2.3 ROOF EDGE HEIGHT CONTRAST TO NEIGHBOR: Limiting height contrast of adjacent roofs, including single story roof edges. 2.3A: CONTEXTUAL FIRST FLOOR EAVE HEIGHT: The height of the first floor's street facing roof edges (i.e., eaves or parapets) shall not exceed 18 inches above the average height of the first-floor eave or parapet of the homes on the abutting lots at side lot lines as measured at those homes' eaves nearest the subject lot. This first-floor roof edge height limit shall also extend 15 feet back from the building corner. This standard shall be 24 inches within a flood zone if either of the abutting homes’ first-floor level does not meet current flood zone regulations. This standard applies to the eave side of pitch roof forms and not the rake side such as at a gable. 2.3B: CONTEXTUAL SECOND FLOOR EAVE HEIGHT: The height of the upper floor's street facing roof edge (eave or parapet) shall not exceed 18 inches above either: (a)the average height of the upper floor street facing eave or roof edge of homes to each side, or (b)in the case of only one home having a second floor, the height of that home's eaves. Item 2 Attachment B SB9 Development Standards Packet Pg. 28 November 24, 2021 Page 6 of 11 IR Key Point IR Guideline Concept/ Key Point SB-9 Objective Design Standards 2.4 FLOOR AREA WITHIN ROOF VOLUME: Place 2nd story floor area within the first-floor roof's volume to mitigate height, mass, and scale. See Standard 1.3 2.5 MASSING PLACEMENT: Locate smaller volumes in front of large volumes and use roof pitches and forms to manage perceived height. 2.5A: SINGLE-STORY BUILDING FORMS: At least one single-story building form (excluding garages) with dimensions no greater than 16 feet in height, no less than 8 feet in depth, and no less than 12 feet in width shall be placed on each street facing building side. Location shall be either: (a)fully forward of the second floor's wall face, or (b)partially forward or aligned with the second floor's wall face if the one-story form is at a building corner. 2.5B: Within mapped Eichler Tracts, garages may serve as the form in Standard 2.5A, and no roof pitch shall exceed 3:12. (See Standard 3.2C). 2.6 WALL HEIGHT/ATTIC SPACE: Avoiding tall wall heights and large unused attic spaces. 2.6A: ATTIC HEIGHT: Unused attic spaces shall not exceed 5 feet in height. 2.6B: EXTERIOR WALL HEIGHT: No exterior wall shall exceed 22 feet in height as measured from existing grade to the eave or parapet. Portions of walls under rakes such as at gables or shed roof forms may exceed this height. 3.1 GARAGE AND ENTRY HEIGHT & MASS: The building's massing and roof forms should reduce mass and resolve building form with garage and entry forms subordinate in 3.1A: GARAGE HEIGHT AND MASS: Maximum height of a roof over an attached garage shall not exceed 15 feet in height as measure from existing grade. The maximum garage wall plate height shall not exceed 10 feet. 3.1B: ENTRY HEIGHT: Exterior entry forms shall not exceed 12 feet in height as measured from existing grade. Item 2 Attachment B SB9 Development Standards Packet Pg. 29 November 24, 2021 Page 7 of 11 IR Key Point IR Guideline Concept/ Key Point SB-9 Objective Design Standards scale to the principal building forms. 3.2 CONSISTENT ROOF FORMS & PITCHES: Use consistent forms, roof pitches, and overhangs that are also based on a recognizable architectural style. 3.2A: ROOF FORM VARIATION: No more than two types of roof forms shall be used (examples of two forms are hip and gable roofs or shed and flat roofs). 3.2B: ROOF PITCH VARIATION: No more than two roof pitches shall be used (e.g., 4:12 and 12:12; 6:12 and flat). 3.2C: ROOFLINES IN EICHLER TRACTS: In mapped Eichler Tracts rooflines shall meet the following: (a)roof pitches no more than 3:12, (b)gable, shed, butterfly or flat roof forms (note: hip roofs with flat roofs at eaves permitted; see Illustration 1D of the IR guidelines for example), and (c)2-foot minimum overhangs at eave and rake sides of roof forms for at least 50 percent of roof edges. 3.3 ROOF FORMS: Organized roof geometry with well- spaced primary and secondary forms and integrated roof forms on additions. 3.3A: INCOMPLETE ROOF FORMS: Truncated hip and gable roof forms shall not be permitted at second floor roofs on two-story structures or roofs at single story structures. Note: A truncated roof form is where the roof planes do not extend to a ridgeline; rather they terminate with a flat roof or roof well. 3.4 UNCLUTTERED MASSING: Avoid cluttered massing by using a few simple, well- proportioned forms. 3.4A: GABLE ROOF FORMS: No more than three gable forms on an elevation facing a public street. 3.4B: BAY WINDOWS: No more than two bay windows on an elevation facing a public street. 3.5 ROOF PITCH NEXT TO 1-STORY HOMES: Use roof layout, ridge orientation, roof pitch, 3.5A: CONTEXTUAL ROOF PITCH: On properties adjacent to single story homes along either interior side lot line, roof pitches on new two-story buildings shall be 6:12 or lower. Item 2 Attachment B SB9 Development Standards Packet Pg. 30 November 24, 2021 Page 8 of 11 IR Key Point IR Guideline Concept/ Key Point SB-9 Objective Design Standards eave height offsets and extensions, and horizontal roof lines to reduce mass and enhance form. 4.1 FAÇADE FOCAL POINTS: Facades should have unified visual character with architectural focal points (other than a garage) on each street side. Corner lot elevations should be equally well designed on both facades. 4.1 A: FAÇADE VISUAL FOCAL POINT: Each street facing building elevation shall have a significant visual focal point, defined as either: (a)at least 50 square feet of glazing in a large window, multi-panel window or glazed door, or bay window form, or (b)a roofed or trellised porch at least 6 feet deep and 8 feet wide and no more than 12 feet tall. 4.2 FAÇADE COMPOSITON: Façades should be composed with attention to line, order/alignment of openings, proportion of windows and forms, hierarchy and spacing of focal points. 4.2A: WINDOW ALIGNMENT: Windows on two-story wall planes that face a street shall be aligned vertically unless there is a change in exterior materials from the lower floor to the upper floor. 4.2B: FAÇADE ELEMENT SPACING: Focal points such as porches, large/featured windows, and bay windows shall be spaced at least 5 feet horizontally apart from each other when placed on the same level/floor. 4.3 MATERIALS & DETAILING: Architectural character/interest and supportive use architectural detailing and materials. 4.3A: WINDOW TO WALL DETAILING: Window frames shall be recessed at least 2 inches from the exterior wall face or have trim at least 3.5 inches wide on all four window sides. Stucco over foam shall not be used as window trim. 4.3B: WINDOW PATTERNS: Window fenestration with divided lite appearance shall have exterior applied muntin bars (i.e., true or simulated divided lites). Item 2 Attachment B SB9 Development Standards Packet Pg. 31 November 24, 2021 Page 9 of 11 IR Key Point IR Guideline Concept/ Key Point SB-9 Objective Design Standards 4.3C: STUCCO TEXTURE: When stucco is used it shall be steel-troweled ‘Smooth’ or ‘Santa Barbara’ texture as described in the Technical Services Information Bureau, Chapter 5 - Plaster Textures & Acrylic Finishes (2011). For additions, stucco texture on the addition shall be allowed to match the stucco texture of the existing house. 4.3D: EXTERIOR MATERIALS IN EICHLER TRACTS: In mapped Eichler Tracts, exterior wall cladding shall be vertical board channel or flush siding, wood tongue and groove board siding, wood nickel-gap siding, smooth fiber cement panels, or metal panels. Board-form concrete, concrete block, or stucco may be used as a secondary material but collectively these materials shall not account for more than 30 percent of all non- glazed wall surfaces. 4.4 ENTRY TYPES: Avoid monumental or over- scaled entries that stand out on the house do not meet the prevalent pattern of entry scale or entry type such as porch or courtyard in the neighborhood. 4.4A: CONTEXTUAL PORCH ENTRIES: If porches (i.e. roofed, street-facing porches with posts/column(s) and more than 3 feet deep), occur on at least 50 percent of homes on the block of the subject lot (counting only homes on the subject lot side of the street), the proposed house shall include a street-facing porch no less than 6 feet deep and 8 feet wide. 4.4B: ENTRIES IN EICHLER TRACTS: In mapped Eichler Tracts an entry porch projecting forward of the front wall of the house shall not be used. A recessed void at the facade or a courtyard entry may be used in lieu of a porch. A covered trellis used as a colonnade or a side porch that does not project forward of the facade at the entry would not be considered an entry porch. 4.5 GARAGE DOORS: Garage door design should reflect the building architecture and the garage and garage door openings and panels modest scale relative to the rest of the facade. 4.5A: GARAGE DOOR DESIGN AND MATERIALS: The garage door shall match the material, color, and panel design pattern of the entry door or window fenestration. 4.5B: GARAGE DOOR SIZE: The maximum garage door width shall be 16 feet and the maximum garage door height shall be 8 feet. If two single-wide garage doors are used instead of one double-wide door, each door's maximum width shall be 9 feet and maximum height 8 feet. Item 2 Attachment B SB9 Development Standards Packet Pg. 32 November 24, 2021 Page 10 of 11 IR Key Point IR Guideline Concept/ Key Point SB-9 Objective Design Standards 5.1 PRIVACY CONDITIONS: Map existing and proposed privacy conditions. 5.1A: PRIVACY DIAGRAM: Site Privacy Diagram must show the proposed second-floor plan including windows, major on-site vegetation, and all elements on the neighboring property within 25 feet of the subject property line. For adjacent sites show major vegetation, building footprints, windows (indicate size and location), and patios within 25 feet of the property lines shall be provided in the project plan set. 5.2 WINDOW LOCATION/PRIVACY TREATMENT: Locate windows to reduce privacy impacts and mitigate impacts elsewhere. 5.2A: BEDROOM WINDOW LOCATION: Organize the second-floor plan so at least one bedroom has its largest/egress window facing the front lot line. On corner lots, at least one bedroom’s largest/egress window shall also face the street side lot line. 5.2B: SECOND FLOOR WINDOW PRIVACY: For any window on an upper floor, facing an interior lot line that is located less than 20 feet from a side lot line or less than 30 feet from a rear lot line, one of the following shall be used: (a)permanent obscure glazing, or (b)exterior mounted permanent architectural privacy screens that block views more than 70%, or (c)windows with sills above 5 feet from the finished floor level. 5.2C: STAIR WINDOW PRIVACY: Stair windows facing interior side lot lines within 20 feet of the lot line shall have permanent obscure glazing or exterior mounted permanent architectural privacy screens to at least 5 feet above the landing. 5.2D: PRIVACY LANDSCAPE: Privacy screening landscape shall be located to align with proposed second floor windows across side and rear lot lines and between windows at facing units on a single property. Privacy screening landscape shall be evergreen and per size and planting standards shown in Standard 1.4. 5.3 WINDOW SIZE AND OPERATION: Limiting impacts through the size and operation (window type) of operable windows. 5.3A: SECOND FLOOR WINDOW SIZE ALONG SIDE LOT LINES: Any upper-level window or window grouping located less than 20 feet from a side interior lot line (measured perpendicularly) shall not have more than 30 square feet of glazing. Item 2 Attachment B SB9 Development Standards Packet Pg. 33 November 24, 2021 Page 11 of 11 IR Key Point IR Guideline Concept/ Key Point SB-9 Objective Design Standards 5.3B: SECOND FLOOR OPERABLE WINDOWS ALONG SIDE LOT LINES: Operable casement windows on the upper level with a sill height less than 5 feet above the finished floor and within 20 feet of an interior side lot line shall be hinged so the windows open towards the public street. Horizontal sliding windows shall not be permitted facing and within 20 feet of an interior side lot line, unless the windowsill height is at least 5 feet above the finish floor level. 5.4 UPPER LEVEL DECKS & BALCONIES: Only permitted where they would have minimum privacy loss to side or rear facing properties under IR guidelines. 5.4A: SECOND FLOOR BALCONY LIMITATIONS: No more than one second floor deck/balcony shall be permitted per dwelling and shall: (a)only be permitted on a street facing facade, (b) be located at least 20 feet from any interior side lot line, and (c)be limited in size to no more than 40 square feet. 5.4B: ROOF DECK NOT PERMITTED: A roof deck (i.e., a deck above of the first level of a single-story building or second level of a two-story building) shall not be permitted. Item 2 Attachment B SB9 Development Standards Packet Pg. 34 ATTACHMENT A PROPOSED OBJECTIVE LOT DESIGN STANDARDS Proposed Objective Lot Design Standards: a. Lot Typologies (1) Side-by-side. One lot line shall divide the property from front to rear, with street frontages for both lots. (2) Flag Lot. Two property lines shall divide the property to create a new flag lot. The “flagpole” shall be at least 15 feet wide. (3) Flag Lot with Easement. Substandard lots less than 50 feet in width shall create a 10-foot access easement to create access to the rear lot. (b) Development Standards Side-by-Side Lots Flag Lot Lot Split on lot less than 50 feet in width Configuration All lots shall meet one of the three typologies as described in (a) Flag lot configuration required on lots deeper than 200 ft Typology (a) (3) only Minimum Lot Size (sq. ft.) 1,200 Maximum Lot Size None Item 2 Attachment C Urban Lot Split Standards Packet Pg. 35 Maximum Lot Split Ratio 60%/40% Minimum Street Frontage (ft) 25 15 Easement Maximum Number of New Lot Lines 2 (1) Shared Driveway Required (2) (3) (1) One property line may be used to divide an existing lot into two side-by-side lots. Two property lines may be used to create a flag lot. No more than two new lot lines may be added. The new lot lines, as far as practicable, shall be parallel or at right angles to straight streets or radial to curved streets. (2) A shared driveway shall be comprised of a single curb cut that extends for at least 10 ft before branching to two or more parking spaces. A recorded access easement is required. (3) The two lots shall share a single driveway, unless sharing a driveway would require demolition of existing structures proposed to be retained. If sharing a driveway would require such demolition, no more than 2 curb cuts, one per each lot, will be permitted. The curb cuts must be at least 20’ apart per 12.08.060 (a) (9) (A); drive aisle dimensions per 18.54.070 table 6. Item 2 Attachment C Urban Lot Split Standards Packet Pg. 36 Item No. 3. Page 1 of 3 1 7 7 6 Architectural Review Board Staff Report From: Jonathan Lait, Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: March 16, 2023 Report #: 2302-1025 TITLE Review and Adoption of the Revised Architectural Review Board By-Laws to Address Remote/Virtual Meeting Attendance in 2023 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) discuss, review, and adopt a revised version of the By-Laws to address allowances for remote meeting attendance. PROJECT DESCRIPTION On November 17, 2022, and February 16, 2023, the ARB discussed modifications to the by-laws to align with state regulations regarding remote meeting attendance. Based on those discussions and to align with recently adopted state laws, staff recommends a modification to the ARB’s By-laws as shown in underline in Attachment A and as further discussed below. BACKGROUND The Brown Act has long permitted remote attendance through teleconferencing, as long as: 1) the locations of each teleconference participant are provided in notices and agendas, 2) the agenda is posted at each teleconference location, and each location is open to the public, and 3) at least a quorum of the board members participates from locations within the boundaries of the City. The Brown Act does not limit the number of times these procedures can be used. AB 361 allowed a local government to suspend these teleconference requirements during a statewide emergency, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, by making certain findings. However, the statewide emergency has now been formally lifted; therebefore, the AB 361 exceptions no longer apply. Effective January 1, 2023, AB 2449 provides an additional, limited exception to the typical teleconference requirements, which do not rely on the existence of a statewide emergency. A board member may participate remotely, without making their location available to the public, only when there exists a “just cause” or “emergency circumstances” approved by the board, for remote participation, and the reason is disclosed to the public. In addition, a quorum of the board must meet in a single location (i.e. the meeting must be a “hybrid” meeting). The exception under AB 2449 may not be used by a member of the board for more than three Item 3 Staff Report Packet Pg. 37 Item No. 3. Page 2 of 3 1 7 7 6 consecutive months or more than 20% of the regular meetings in a calendar year (Four (4) total meetings per year for the ARB). As has always been the case under the Brown Act, if a member of the board wishes to attend virtually without citing one of the “just cause” or “emergency circumstances” identified under the law and follows the necessary standard remote attendance procedures set forth in Attachment A, then they may do so without a limitation on the meetings. However, boardmembers have indicated that they do not have an interest in remote attendance pursuant to the standard remote attendance procedures (separately from the allowances under “just cause” or “emergency circumstances”). Therefore, these standard remote attendance procedures are not discussed further. Attendance Policies of Other Boards/Commissions Council directed all commissions and boards to adopt their own remote attendance policy. On January 30, 2023, Council adopted revisions to the Council Procedures and Protocol Handbook that allowed for a total of five remote hearings per legislative body (i.e. five for Council and five for each Council Committee). However, the Brown Act requirements, as discussed above, would also apply. ARB By-laws The current ARB by-laws were last updated in September 2022. They do not include rules on attendance such as how many meetings a member can miss, nor do they take into account the COVID-19 Pandemic when virtual meeting attendance became necessary. The Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 2.21 provides content regarding the composition of the board and how often the board may meet (twice monthly). The meeting frequency is also cited in Section 6.9 of Article VI of the ARB By-laws. The ARB By-laws contain three sections in Article VI regarding meetings. In accordance with Council direction, the ARB may wish to discuss adding By-laws Section 6.3 to set forth a virtual attendance policy. ANALYSIS Staff has provided suggested edits to the ARB by-laws in underline in Attachment A. In accordance with the feedback from boardmembers at the February 16, 2023 hearing, detailed protocol for remote meeting attendance has been removed from the by-laws and the proposed by-laws simply indicate that remote meeting attendance will comply with the Brown Act requirements. Because boardmembers expressed that there was no interest in attending virtually without “just cause” or “emergency circumstances,” the proposed modifications also clarify that only four hearings (20% of the hearings within a calendar year) and for no more than 3 consecutive months may be attended remotely. A separate internal protocol document will be maintained by staff to clarify the required protocols in conformance with the Brown Act in the event that a boardmember chooses to attend remotely under “just cause” or “emergency circumstances. A draft of this internal protocol is included in Attachment B. Item 3 Staff Report Packet Pg. 38 Item No. 3. Page 3 of 3 1 7 7 6 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW This is not considered a project as defined by CEQA and no review is required. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Redlined ARB By-Laws Attachment B: Internal Protocol for Remote Meeting Attendance AUTHOR/TITLE: ARB Liaison & Contact Information Claire Raybould, AICP, Senior Planner (650) 329-2116 Claire.Raybould@cityofpaloalto.org Item 3 Staff Report Packet Pg. 39 1 Revised February 16, 2023 RULES AND REGULATIONS AND BY-LAWS OF THE PALO ALTO ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD ARTICLE I NAME Section 1.0 The name of this board shall be the PALO ALTO ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD (ARB) ARTICLE II Section 2.0 This board shall perform any duties imposed upon it by Ordinances of the City of Palo Alto and by applicable State and Federal law, or as requested by the City Council of the City of Palo Alto. ARTICLE III Officers Section 3.0 The officers of the Board Shall consist of a Chairperson, a Vice Chairperson, and a Secretary who shall be a non-voting member. Section 3.1 The offices of Chairperson and Vice Chairperson shall be elected from among the appointed members of the Board, and the person so elected shall serve for a term of one year or until a successor is elected. Elections shall be held at the first meeting in April of each year, which coincides with the first meeting of new Board members. Section 3.2 The Director of Planning and Development Services of the City of Palo Alto or their designated representative shall be the Secretary of the Board. Section 3.3 The duties of the offices of the ARB shall be as follows: Section 3.31 It shall be the duty of the Chairperson to preside over all meeting of the Board, to appoint committees and to serve as an ex-officio member of the committees so appointed, to call special meetings of the Board and to designate the time and place of such meeting, to set the date and time for the public hearing held by the Board, to sign documents and correspondence in the name of the Board, to ensure the Annual Report/Council Work Plan is completed before the end of their term (March 31st), and to represent the Board before the City Council, its commissions and committees, and such other groups and organizations as may be appropriate. The Chairperson may designate the Vice Chair, or in the Vice Chairperson’s absence, another member of the Board to act in their stead. Item 3 Attachment A-Draft Redlined ARB Bylaws Packet Pg. 40 2 Revised February 16, 2023 Section 3.32 It shall be the duty of the Vice Chairperson to assist the Chairperson and to act in their stead during their absence. Section 3.33 It shall be the duty of the Secretary to keep a record of all meeting of the Board, to accept in the name of the Board documents and correspondence addressed to it, to present such correspondence to the Board, to provide the Board with early notification of pending projects that will require the ARB’s review, and perform other staff functions as deemed necessary by the Board. The Secretary will determine the agenda for all public meeting of the Board, based upon an assessment of the applications made to the City requiring architectural review, and based also upon the desirability of hearing such other matters as may be deemed, by the Chairperson or by the Secretary, to be of concern to the Board. ARTICLE IV Committees Section 4.0 The Chairperson shall appoint special committees as they be desired or required. ARCTICLE V Quorums and Voting Section 5.0 Three members of the Board shall constitute a quorum for the purposes of conducting business. Section 5.1 All actions taken must be by affirmative vote of majority of those Board members present, except to adjourn or continue for lack of a quorum. A tie vote constitutes a denial of an item, except that a member of the Board may then move that the item be reconsidered or continued to another meeting. A majority of the Board may then vote to reconsider or continue the item to another meeting ARTICLE VI Meetings Section 6.0 Regular meetings of the ARB shall be held not less than twice a month. The Chairperson shall establish the dates of the meetings. Meetings shall be held on Thursday at 8:30 A.M. in the Palo Alto City Hall. Regular meetings may be adjourned and reconvened upon a majority vote of the members present. Item 3 Attachment A-Draft Redlined ARB Bylaws Packet Pg. 41 3 Revised February 16, 2023 Section 6.1 The Chair, Vice Chair and Secretary shall meet ahead of each public hearing to go over the agenda and submit early questions to staff that will be answered at the hearing. Section 6.2 Special meetings may be called at any time by the Chairperson, or at the request of three members, by a written or oral notice given to each member at least 48 hours before the time specified for the proposed meeting. Section 6.3 Board members may attend remotely in accordance with the Brown Act, including traditional teleconferencing procedures in Government Code Section 54943, subdivision (b)(3), and remote attendance procedures set forth in Assembly Bill 2449 (Cal.Gov. Code Section 54953, subdivision (f)). Remote attendance under AB 2449 shall not be used for more than 20% of regular meetings (4 total meetings) in a calendar year or for more than three consecutive months. ARTICLE VII Rules Section 7.0 All meetings of the Board shall be conducted in accordance with a modified Robert’s Rules of Order. ARTICLE VIII Design Awards Section 8.0 Design Awards for outstanding built projects may be awarded every five years beginning in 2005. Award-winning projects shall be selected from those reviewed by the ARB, and completed since the last awards were made. Section 8.1 Criteria and number of awards shall be determined by the awarding board. Section 8.2 Winning projects may be displayed in the City Hall lobby for one month following the presentation of awards. The ARB shall request that the Mayor of the City of Palo Alto issue an appropriate proclamation. THE FOREGOING BY-LAWS WERE ADOPTED BY A MAJORITY VOTE OF THE PALO ALTO ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE, 1973. Amended: July 3, 1974 May 19, 1977 August 4, 2005 February 5, 2015 September 15, 2022 February 16, 2023 Item 3 Attachment A-Draft Redlined ARB Bylaws Packet Pg. 42 INTERNAL PROTOCOL FOR REMOTE ARB HEARING ATTENDANCE Boardmembers are strongly encouraged to attend meetings in person. State law allows boardmembers to attend meetings remotely by following the procedures outlined in Assembly Bill 2449 (2022) (“AB 2449 Remote Attendance”). For convenience, these procedures are described below and are current as of March 2023. If state law is subsequently amended, the amended terms of State law will apply. A Boardmember attending remotely using these procedures must ensure that: a. At least a quorum of the Board is participating in person from a singular physical location clearly identified on the agenda and open to the public. b. The Boardmember has either “just cause” or “emergency circumstances” that require remote participation, as required by AB 2449. i. “Just cause” is defined as: •a childcare or caregiving need of a child, parent, grandparent, grandchild, sibling, spouse, or domestic partner that requires remote attendance, •a contagious illness that prevents in-person attendance, •a need related to a physical or mental disability which cannot be resolved by a request for reasonable accommodation, or •travel while on the business of a state or local agency. ii. “Emergency circumstances” is defined as: •a physical or family medical emergency that prevents a Boardmember from attending the Architectural Review Board meeting in person. c. Notice. A Boardmember that is attending remotely due to “just cause” or “emergency circumstances” must notify the Chair and the Secretary of the Board at the earliest possible opportunity, including at the start of the meeting, of their need to participate remotely and provide a general description of the circumstances. The Boardmember is not required to disclose any personal medical information. d. Acceptance. At the earliest opportunity available to it, the Board, by a majority vote of its members, take action on the request to approve or disapprove it. If the request does not allow sufficient time to place it on the agenda for the meeting for which the request is made, the legislative body must take action on the request at the beginning of the meeting by majority vote. e. Disclosures. Boardmembers attending remotely must publicly disclose at the meeting before any action is taken whether any other individuals 18 years of age or older are present in the room at the remote location with the member and the general nature of the member’s relationship with the individual. f. Technology. All technology necessary for the Boardmember and for the public to attend remotely must function at all times, which must include two-way, live audio and visual communication. If the Boardmember determines that any or all of these requirements cannot be met, he or she shall not participate in the meeting remotely using AB 2449 Remote Attendance procedures.\ Item 3 Attachment B-Internal Protocol for Remote Meeting Attendance Packet Pg. 43 Item No. 4. Page 1 of 1 Architectural Review Board Staff Report From: Jonathan Lait, Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: March 16, 2023 Report #:2303-1079 TITLE Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for February 16, 2023 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) adopt the attached meeting minutes. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Minutes of February 16, 2023 AUTHOR/TITLE: Veronica Dao, Administrative Associate Item 4 Staff Report Packet Pg. 44 Page 1 of 12 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 02/16/23 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD DRAFT MINUTES: February 16, 2023 Council Chamber & Zoom 8:30 AM Call to Order / Roll Call The Architectural Review Board (ARB) of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in Council Chambers and virtual teleconference at 8:30 a.m. Present: Chair David Hirsch, Vice Chair Peter Baltay, Boardmember Yingxi Chen, Boardmember Kendra Rosenberg Absent: Boardmember Osma Thompson 1. Chair Hirsch read the Resolution Authorizing Use of Teleconferencing for the Architectural Review Board During Covid-19 State of Emergency MOTION: Vice Chair Baltay moved, seconded by Boardmember Rosenberg, to adopt the Resolution Authorizing Use of Teleconferencing for the ARB During Covid-19 State of Emergency. VOTE: 4-0-0-1 (Boardmember Thompson absent) Oral Communications None Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Manager of Current Planning Jodie Gerhardt indicated there were no Agenda changes, additions, or deletions. City Official Reports 2. Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2) Tentative Future Agenda items and 3) Recently Submitted Projects Manager of Current Planning Jodie Gerhardt displayed the ARB meeting schedule and informed the ARB that Boardmember Thompson has a planned absence scheduled for the March 2, 2023 hearing of 3001 El Camino project and the Stanford Center façade change at Stanford shopping center. The March 16th hearing has one item scheduled related to the Senate Bill (SB) 9 Objective Standards. New projects include the 800 San Antonio Road formal application for a planned community zone change to build a 5-story 76- unit residential building that will consist of 16-units below market rate along with varying market rate units, and Our House retail store in the Stanford shopping center has applied for exterior improvements. Item 4 Attachment A Minutes of Februrary 16 2023 Packet Pg. 45 Page 2 of 12 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 02/16/23 Chair Hirsch noted the San Antonio Road project is already on the chart so it will be an update and called out the wording on the chart for the 3150 El Camino project and commented the description reads in a way that makes it sound like the garage will extend out 84 feet. Additionally he requested clarification on the below market rate units for the 800 San Antonio project. Ms. Gerhardt responded there will be 11 low-income housing units, with five units listed as below 120% Area Median Income (AMI). Study Session 3. 3600 MIDDLEFIELD ROAD [22PLN-00406]: Request for Preliminary Architectural Review to reconstruct Palo Alto Fire Station 4. The proposed 7,800 square foot, LEED Silver, single-story building would replace the existing 2,800 square foot single-story fire station. Environmental Assessment: Not a Project. The formal application will be subject to CEQA. Zoning District: PF (Public Facility). For more information contact the project planner at Garrett.Sauls@cityofpaloalto.org. Chair Hirsch requested site visit information from the Boardmembers. Vice Chair Baltay commented he visited the site. Boardmember Rosenberg stated she visited the site. Manager of Current Planning Jodie Gerhardt requested a 10-minute break to allow IT to fix the technical difficulties with the microphones. The ARB Reconvened after 7 minutes with all Boardmembers present except for Boardmember Thompson. Senior Planner Garrett Sauls provided the staff report for the proposed Fire Station at 3600 Middlefield Road. The building would replace the existing 2,800 square foot single-story fire station with a 7,800 square foot, LEED Silver, single-story building. Mr. Sauls stated he will be providing the staff report and will then present the applicants presentation with them at the microphone for discussion. The 1.75-acre property contains an existing Palo Alto electric substation and is also bounded by the Covenant Presbyterian Church, the Little League and Mitchell Park and is located at the corner of Middlefield and East Meadow Drive. The applicant is looking to include 12 parking stalls, three emergency vehicle loading bays and an emergency generator. Currently 14 trees exist, with 10 trees proposed to be removed, most of which run along the south-eastern side boarder of the property where the fence is located for the perimeter of the substation. The applicant is trying to achieve a LEED style Silver Green building which is one of the highest standards for LEED design development. The front elevation faces Middlefield Road and will be built off the existing driveway with a proposed design incorporating wood porcelain cladding material as well as vertical cladding plaster material and a bay front window system for the emergency vehicles. The rear of the building faces the presbyterian church with three bay window systems for access onto East Middlefield Drive, one of bays would not exit the front onto Middlefield Road. Samples of the proposed building materials have been provided for ARB review which identifies the texture and color of the material. The applicant is looking for ARB feedback for massing, site planning of the plans provided, Item 4 Attachment A Minutes of Februrary 16 2023 Packet Pg. 46 Page 3 of 12 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 02/16/23 and material selection. Staff recommended the ARB Boardmembers review the application and provide comments. No formal action was requested for the pre-screening item. Valerie Tam with Public Works Engineering introduced BRW Architecture’s Chris Ford and Megan Zhang as consultants who provided the applicant’s presentation for the proposed Palo Alto Fire Station No. 4 replacement project. Mr. Ford provided background information about the site constraints due to the existing substation, the operational sequence of the fire station, and some of the collaborative decisions that evolved by working with public works and the Fire Department on how to arrange the site. The building was designed with the intent to keep the trees along Middlefield intact, including an older tree in need of care, and the back side of the building was designed around the substation. Vehicle exit from the building onto Middlefield is critical. The vehicles will return to the building from the rear access point and the staff parking will also be in the rear driveway area. The current side entrance driveway for substation utility workers will remain in place and is proposed to also accommodate station visitors. The building will contain a visitors meeting room component and two parking spaces will be added in the current side driveway that the utility workers access, for the use of visitors. For large meetings there will be parking also available on the church side of the property, so not to interfere with fire station staff parking. The living quarters for the attendants is on the Middlefield Road side of the building located as far from the intersection and Middlefield Road as possible to defer noises while they sleep. An exercise and equipment room will be located behind the living quarters at the back side of the building. There will be a building exit from the fitness area. Megan Zhang continued the presentation and provided information on the 3D massing of the fire station. It was a request of the City Manager and Fire Department to have the building be a public safety beacon to serve the community and be pedestrian friendly. Due to the presence of little leaguers and attendees of the church it was determined to have the main vehicle massing in the center of the building rather than on the corner. The after-life recyclability of the building materials, durability for minimal maintenance and aesthetics of the building were the top three factors in choosing the building materials. The side of the building will be vertical porcelain cladding is durable, vandalism proof, is recyclable, and has a 10- and 20-year warranty on fade. Chair Hirsch inquired if there were Board questions for the staff report or public comments and there were none. Vice Chair Baltay requested specific information on how the fire engines would exit the building and turn northbound onto Middlefield Road and if exit onto East Meadow was considered due to the high volume of traffic on Middlefield Road. Mr. Ford explained the current vehicles have sensors that turn the traffic signal in the direction of the fire station and that system is proposed to stay in place. An extensive operations review was conducted with the Fire Department and his recollection was one of the reasons was due to the legacy vantage of that being the direction the staff was used to. Boardmember Rosenberg expressed concern that all parties involved in the project are on the same page with what aspects of the station could stand to be changed and what aspects should stay the same and agreed that portion of Middlefield Road is quite congested during certain periods during the day, and this would be the best time to make any needed adjustments. Item 4 Attachment A Minutes of Februrary 16 2023 Packet Pg. 47 Page 4 of 12 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 02/16/23 Palo Alto Deputy Fire Chief Steve Lindsey replied early in the design process they explored other options and found access to Middlefield kept response times lower and provided more options for traveling north or south from the exit driveway. Boardmember Rosenberg questioned if the two existing curb cuts on East Meadow would remain the same. Mr. Ford explained the middle curb cut would be widened to meet the city standards for The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant driveway, as it has previously always been an exit only. Public Works had indicated in previous meetings there may be changes along East Meadow to accommodate bike lanes. Boardmember Rosenberg inquired about an arrow on the traffic flow plans for the area leaving the barn door fueling area that was not on the traffic flow side and confirmed the driveway is intended to be entrance and exit, however the traffic from the barn door area is exit only. Additionally, it appears the vehicle in the reserved bay would back into the bollards in front of the barn door area. Ms. Zhang replied that the square with the two circles are not bollards, it is the underground tank for the fueling center and the flow of the non-emergency vehicle would be exiting through the entrance of the inbound driveway; and there were no consideration for three pull throughs in the building. Boardmember Rosenberg asked if the reserve truck would have to exit the entrance driveway on the lower portion of the property. Mr. Ford stated that arrow had been blocked as it is not a common flow area since it’s used for the non- fire station public work vehicles and the area leaving the barn door is exit only. The reserved engine is always backed into the bay when parked and would be exiting the building in a forward direction. Boardmember Rosenberg questioned if the electrical substation would have any noise affect on the sleeping quarters for the firemen and women, and inquired if third pane windows or black out curtains are used to ensure proper rest for the on-duty fire personnel. Chief Lindsey answered the current rooms are very close to the proposed rooms and there have not been any complaints about noise obtrusion thus far. Mr. Ford explained it is normal practice to install extra sound control on the windows and walls of the sleeping quarters for fire stations with operable windows for needed escape. Ms. Zhang added of the samples provided for the board, the darker color is the color of the siding material, and the lighter color is the texture sample and confirmed Boardmember Rosenberg’s inquiry of the material for the underside of the soffit eaves. Boardmember Rosenberg questioned the intent of the location of the lobby visitor entrance and the proximity from the visitor parking. Mr. Ford stated they were challenged with how to balance the accessibility of the visitors entrance to the building with the location of the parking area and had to keep in mind the accessibility of someone in need of emergency help and them being able to access the emergency button quickly at the front of the building from the main traffic area. Item 4 Attachment A Minutes of Februrary 16 2023 Packet Pg. 48 Page 5 of 12 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 02/16/23 Boardmember Rosenberg inquired about where the washing of the rigs would take place. Mr. Ford stated they clean in the back of the building and not in the bay. There are accommodations for washing the vehicles in the back of the building, the water run off goes into the sewer unless the storm grade is opened. Boardmember Chen inquired about the north elevation of the drawing in the slide presentation not appearing to match the floor plans and the window placement isn’t on the floor plan. Ms. Zhang explained the north elevation is the kitchen and dining area and on the floor plan the windows are located above the kitchen sink. The next window is located in the day room. Vice Chair Baltay commented he believes the elevation drawing is not yet in sync with the floor plan but probably not important in this phase. Boardmember Chen asked how the fire fighters access the bedrooms from within the building. Ms. Zhang replied they go through the day room and living space due to the emissions from the trucks when parking them in the bays and often they get different calls for different vehicles and they don’t want the trucks to disturb the ones who may still be resting. Chair Hirsch inquired about the detailing of the perimeter fence material. Mr. Ford answered they have not yet chosen that material and welcome any suggestions the Board may have. One of the LEED goals is to use recyclable material if possible. There would be a deconstruction standard for the existing wood fencing that is currently in medium condition. Some of the fencing between the fire station and the substation could likely be repurposed. The patio fencing off of Middlefield Road will need to be replaced due to wear from the bushes. Chair Hirsch requested clarification about the traffic flow of the reserved vehicle. Chief Lindsey explained the rear bay is for the reserve truck and the traffic flow consisted of the vehicle backing into the bay when parked. The vehicle would exit the rear bay from a frontal direction and would not be used for emergency calls as it is the reserve vehicle for when the main emergency vehicles are out for maintenance or being used in community events, in which case it is taken to the station that needs it without the emergency signals and sirens and it would make a turn from the building to exit onto East Meadow Drive. Flaggers are used to retrieve the vehicle. Chair Hirsch inquired about future detailed landscape and sidewalk plans. Mr. Ford replied to Chair Hirsch that the landscape and paving plan will be part of the application final review. They have acquired the help of an arborist consultant to assist with the older oak in the front of the building to help facilitate how to design the area in such a manner to not further disturb the tree and determine the care the tree needs now. One of the factors to consider with the landscaping is the detention basin. They received an engineer’s report after the submittal of information currently being reviewed that suggested there may be a need for a retention area that could alter the current landscaping plans. The original idea was to plant low-level landscape along East Meadow to replace the trees that will have to be removed. Item 4 Attachment A Minutes of Februrary 16 2023 Packet Pg. 49 Page 6 of 12 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 02/16/23 Chair Hirsch questioned the reason for the sliding door in the back area and if the current driveway to the area is gravel. Mr. Ford answered the sliding fence door was to distract the general public from accessing the operational zone which is utilized for fueling other emergency vehicles and the current gravel driveway will be paved. Chair Hirsch asked if consideration had been given to making the outdoor exercise area for the firefighters more private and not accessible to cars. Mr. Ford stated they would be consulting with the station captain and firefighters about their needs for the area prior to finalizing the plans. The perimeter will be fenced. Chair Hirsch inquired about samples of the white plaster material on the front of the building. Ms. Zhang stated the plaster sample was not provided because the public art committee has expressed an interest in having art on the white plaster portion of the building. They will finalize the plaster material once it’s determined if art will be added. Chair Hirsch inquired if the windows on the south elevation are full frontal windows. Ms. Zhang said the fire chief had expressed a concern that there may be too many windows so that may be a change that would be included in the final review. Chair Hirsch suggested lessening the amount of glass in that location since there isn’t much to look at outside the windows. Vice Chair Baltay inquired about the existing fuel tank and why it’s imperative to leave it in the current location and if adding a fuel component is typically involved with new development of fire stations. Ms. Zhang indicated the cost of moving the tank is quite high and would involve additional environmental requirements due to the nature of having fuel onsite an this location is the only fire station in the city that has a fuel site due to the substation utility trucks also using it to refuel. Police, fire, and utilities use the fueling station. Vice Chair Baltay asked about the condition of the fuel station. Ms. Zhang suggested the site has seen better conditions; there are steps they will need to take to ensure it’s more water-tight. Vice Chair Baltay inquired if the training room and conference room would be available for community use. Chief Lindsey said the training room would be available for firefighters, with possible opportunity for Office of Emergency Services (OES) as they have submitted a request to use the new fire station as their emergency substation on the south side of town. It would also be available for Paramedic and Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) continued education courses who are currently having to utilize the Stanford University campus facility. Chair Hirsch asked about the Captain’s office being surrounded by glass. Item 4 Attachment A Minutes of Februrary 16 2023 Packet Pg. 50 Page 7 of 12 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 02/16/23 Mr. Ford indicated that the Captain’s office is considered a “watch nest” so they are able to know what is going on in their surroundings and if vehicles pull up in front in need of emergency or critical care. Boardmember Rosenberg inquired if they also needed to have eyes on the apparatus bay. Chief Lindsey replied that is no longer a need like it used to be in prior years. The critical needs expressed are visuals of the street, front apron area and the lobby. Boardmember Rosenberg asked what the proximity would be from the training area to the public restrooms. Ms. Zhang answered the restrooms are located behind the secured area to prevent random people from accessing the firefighters area unnoticed. Boardmember Rosenberg questioned if the building will be all electric, Ms. Zhang responded that was correct. Ms. Tam added that Public Works will be holding public outreach meetings that will begin after the first formal ARB hearing, similar to the Fire Station No. 3 process. If any further questions arise, they can be directed to Valerie Tam or the project manager by email. Vice Chair Baltay expressed a concern about the community generally prefer to be involved prior to landscape, paving, and entrance and exit plans have been created. Vice Chair Baltay commented that the proposal is excellent overall, and very close to meeting their required findings. The items he would like to see considered include the property being overly constrained by the existing fuel tank which prevents them from shifting the entrance off of Middlefield further from the building and allowing the parking to be closer to the building and encourages Public Works to strong consider relocating the fuel stating so the traffic on the rear side is not as limited for navigation through the area considering the cost going into the project and the current plans seem poorly thought out, particularly given the current condition of the pumping station and the multiple departments which access it. The building massing has a low key residential form that is appropriate for the neighborhood and is disappointed they aren’t doing more to make the building look more like the important civic part of the community that it is and perhaps they are feeling too limited by the Palo Alto process. The new building resembles a house and Vice Chair Baltay doesn’t believe that is what is expected since there are no houses in the general vicinity of the station. Broader roof over hangs and more vertical components would make a nice statement. It’s a shame there isn’t corner glazing at the lobby corner so you can see the intersection at Middlefield Road and East Meadow. It’s the eyes on the street that make that pedestrian and community connection. He’s disappointed the material for the massing is printed wood and believes if it doesn’t make sense to use actual wood, they could put more consideration into finding something that looks more like wood. Vice Chair Baltay extended a question to the City, by asking if this is truly the best use of the land. Could they find something where they could build a taller and more dense building. In final, he requested Public Works consider putting forth an effort to begin the community outreach process sooner, so the community is able to make inquiries and be a part of the process before the drawings are completed. Item 4 Attachment A Minutes of Februrary 16 2023 Packet Pg. 51 Page 8 of 12 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 02/16/23 Boardmember Chen thanked everyone for the presentation and believes the site plan is appropriate considering the current land constraints and the massing is appropriate for the neighborhood. She understands her colleagues concerns regarding the massing, however, believes the Eichler feel of the building matches that of the neighborhood. The scale is appropriate and pedestrian friendly and that is important given the pedestrian traffic that will take place along the building because of the multiple schools nearby. Overall, Boardmember Chen believes it is a successful design and would like to see more developed landscape and paving plans in the next submittal and make sure the floor plans match the elevation drawings. Boardmember Rosenberg thanked everyone for the presentation and commented a building of this nature much be functional first and design considerations not a factor if that requirement isn’t met and agrees with Vice Chair Baltay’s comments regarding the fuel tank. This project is a significant investment to be trying to arrange it around an aging fuel tank. Big picture, that is an item that needs to be thoroughly investigated and considered now before it affects the circulation, design and functionality if becomes a problem that needs to be addressed at a later time. She appreciates that the building looks like an Eichler but also agrees that the building could go bigger and more bold in design. The lobby could be a little bigger and the frontal glass overlooking the intersection would be a nice feature. When looking at the frontal massing, the entrance to the building appears to get lost and could use some additional pop feature. The exercise facility has the potential to include a garage door where they could truly spill out into more of an indoor/outdoor space, and that would also be a nice feature for the firefighters in the kitchen area for outdoor dining. Boardmember Rosenberg appreciates that they worked with the property angles, it’s a great opportunity to make great use of those angles and she’s looking forward to seeing the project return. Chair Hirsch thanked the Board for their comments and stated the planning concept was well thought out and the space on the lot was well utilized as with the functional aspect of the building and agreed with his colleagues comments regarding the aesthetics of the corner of the building which is an important part of the building, it would be a shame not to take advantage of the opportunity to do more for the presentation of the entrance of the building. There’s no reason the building has to emulate an Eichler building when it could take a shape of it’s own. The massing could be a variety of cubistic elements to make that corner more interesting. Detailing the space outside of the conference room with more glass could make it more of an outdoor welcoming space and more multi directional. He believes the placement of the fuel tank is sufficient providing there’s not a potential for erosion and contamination of the space in the future and its equipment will parallel the life of the building. The landscaping still needs work, and he looks forward to seeing those details in the future. In addition, he agrees with the prior comments about making the building more of a civic statement. Chair Hirsch is encouraged by the planning but questions if the Eichler similarity is necessary. Mr. Ford added the fire trucks have an optical system that when it turns and hits the traffic signal at the intersection it turns the light green for them and appreciated all of the comments and takes to heart the comments about the corner of the building and will factor that into the comments of the arborist who mentioned it would be a waste to design something around the beautiful tree when it’s in a state of condition that it may not make it. They will review the information with the client and appreciate the advice. Item 4 Attachment A Minutes of Februrary 16 2023 Packet Pg. 52 Page 9 of 12 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 02/16/23 Chair Hirsch commented he would like to support Vice Chair Baltay’s comment regarding the wood print massing material and they could have chosen something that looked more similar to wood. If the design of the front entrance changes, the material might change with it. It is an important area to consider and he’s confident they could do more with it. There is a relationship between the final design and what the materials may end up being. Boardmember Rosenberg added she believed the wood print material was a clever solution for being fire retardant, recyclable and easily maintained. Boardmember Chen stated she appreciates the wood appearance and believes the material is appropriate. Action Items 4. Review and Adoption of the Revised Architectural Review Board By-Laws to Address Remote/Virtual Meeting Attendance Senior Planner and ARB Liaison Claire Raybould stated she does not have a formal staff presentation for this item, however the changes to the former procedures in the bylaws have been provided in the Agenda packet Staff Report, with strike-out underlines for the bylaws that have been edited and provided a brief summary of the changes that were discussed by the Board in previous meetings. Regarding State law allowances for remote attendance of meetings, a city is allowed to make as many edits as needed providing the state requirements for remote access are met. City Council adopted a version for City Council and based on what was adopted, staff is recommending changes can only be made five times. The Board can attend under “Just Cause” for 20% of the ARB’s meetings, or emergency circumstances. Those would not require the additional noticing that would be needed. What constitutes just cause is limited and listed under the new bylaws in Section 4. Vice Chair Baltay inquired if they could attend remotely without just cause. Ms. Raybould responded they would be allowed to do that, however there would have to be proper noticing in order to do so. If one of the Boardmembers were traveling for work and wanted to attend the meeting via remote, that would not constitute just cause to do so without the proper noticing, unless they were traveling on behalf of the State or City. Vice Chair Baltay questioned why the ARB was going through the process of making the determination when there isn’t much flexibility. Ms. Raybould stated City Council is allowing flexibility with allowing Boardmembers to be remote more often provided they followed standard noticing procedures. The City Council’s intention is to encourage in-person attendance but allow each Board to make their own determination of how many times you can attend, not under just cause or emergency circumstances. Vice Chair Baltay thinks this process is ridiculous. There are already three pages of bylaws that are now doubled, for rules that most of them won’t be able to follow. He is unable to support changing the bylaws to that level of detail when it’s not the intent or purpose of bylaws. The bylaws for SB2449 allow members Item 4 Attachment A Minutes of Februrary 16 2023 Packet Pg. 53 Page 10 of 12 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 02/16/23 to attend remote under sick leave, he doesn’t understand why that can’t be a one-line addition to the bylaws. Chair Hirsch inquired why it’s important to have the level of details that are provided in the edits. Manager of Current Planning Jodie Gerhardt commented that they were advised by the City Attorney to include the language added into the bylaws. Staff could create a separate internal document if approved by the attorneys. Another option would be to never allow remote attendance. Additionally, under AB 2449 they could opt to allow remote attendance only four times, which would cut the staff’s notice requirements in half. Boardmember Rosenberg stated the different between remote attendance and standard remote attendance in that if they were in a hotel room for standard remote attendance the Boardmember would be required to post a notice on the hotel door and allow people into their hotel room. The Boards intent was to allow remote attendance if they were sick and Boardmember Rosenberg failed to see how the current changes are helping that intent. Vice Chair Baltay read a section that stated under standard remote notice requirements the Boardmember would have to state at the beginning of the meeting that the remote location was ADA accessible and there’s not an architect any where that would state that from a hotel room. Ms. Gerhardt stated that they’ve established the standard remote procedures are not going to work for the ARB. That is the law, the ARB is allowed to not take advantage of it if they so choose. AB 2449 Attendance does allow Boardmembers to attend remotely, just cause or emergency circumstances are required. Ms. Raybould stated they do not have to include the Standard Remote procedures if the Board does not intend to use them. Under AB 2449 four meetings are allowed providing it falls under just cause. Being sick is considered just cause, however they will be limited to four times it could be used within a calendar year. Chair Hirsch inquired what the ramifications would be if they went over the four. Ms. Gerhardt shared the legal reasons that constitute just cause. Vice Chair Baltay commented that being able to attend remotely for just cause can certainly be valuable and the Boardmembers are professional enough to not abuse that limit. He would like to see each Boardmember be allowed 3 instances each and inquired if they could make a recommendation to Council. Ms. Raybould stated they have to concede to Brown Act Regulations. Vice Chair Baltay stated the Brown Act is governed by State law and cities must conform to State Law. Bylaws are intended for cities to establish procedures for running the Board. If the intent isn’t to do anything different, the changes don’t need to be made. MOTION: Vice Chair Baltay moved, seconded by Chair Hirsch, to request the City Attorney revisit the changes to the bylaws based on the ARB’s comments. VOTE: 4-0-0-1 (Boardmember Thompson absent) Item 4 Attachment A Minutes of Februrary 16 2023 Packet Pg. 54 Page 11 of 12 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 02/16/23 Ms. Raybould requested clarification on the motion. Vice Chair Baltay stated the intent is for the City Attorney to create a more consolidated version of the bylaws. Ms. Gerhardt suggested staff make this item a continuance so they can bring back the changes made by the attorney. Vice Chair Baltay stated the motion was intended to be a continuance. Approval of Minutes 5. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for December 15, 2022 MOTION: Vice Chair Baltay moved, seconded by Boardmember Chen, to approve the meeting minutes for December 15, 2022, as amended. VOTE: 4-0-0-1 (Boardmember Thompson absent) Boardmember Questions, Comments or Announcements Ms. Raybould commented Boardmember Thompson is supposed to be at the Ad-Hoc meeting and is absent due to illness and requested another Boardmember sit in her place. Vice Chair Baltay agreed to take her place. Ms. Raybould had a question regarding the size of the plan sets and asked if anyone desired a larger plan set for projects, they could be produced. Chair Hirsch requested they agree the plans could be presented on the large screen, or a larger printed set would be needed. Vice Chair Baltay stated traditionally Boardmembers have been allowed to request a full set. It might make sense to inform the applicants they would like full sets, but they can produce them digitally. Boardmember Rosenberg commented it is an industry standard that half-sized prints should always be legible. She prefers the smaller sets but it is helpful to see them on the large screen. Boardmember Chen commented it’s good to be flexible. Chair Hirsch stated each Boardmember will request what they individually prefer on each project. Ms. Gerhardt suggested if each Boardmember has a different preference, staff should include that with the checklist they provide to the applicant prior to a hearing; staff will send the checklist to each Boardmember to review for their individual preferences. Item 4 Attachment A Minutes of Februrary 16 2023 Packet Pg. 55 Page 12 of 12 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 02/16/23 Adjournment Chair Hirsch adjourned the meeting. AD HOC Committee 6. 788 San Antonio [19PLN-00079]: Ad Hoc Committee Review of Previously Approved Project to Address Conditions of Approval and Related Architectural and Landscape Element Design Changes 7. 901 California Avenue [22PLN-00142]: Ad Hoc Committee Review of Previously Approved Project to Review Window Modulation and Details of the Terracotta Material. The Project is Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act in Accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15302. Item 4 Attachment A Minutes of Februrary 16 2023 Packet Pg. 56 Item No. 5. Page 1 of 3 1 7 3 0 Architectural Review Board Staff Report From: Jonathan Lait, Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: March 16, 2023 Report #: 2302-0984 TITLE 414 California Avenue [22PLN-00207]: Ad-Hoc Committee Review of a Project Previously Recommended for Approval to Review Colors as well as Architectural and Landscape Design Details RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) Ad-Hoc Committee take one of the following action(s): 1. Discuss the details and revisions and recommend that the Director find that they meet the approval conditions and align with the approval findings; or 2. Provide additional direction to the project applicant and continue the item to a later date. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On January 19, 2023, the ARB recommended approval of the subject project. The ARB also recommended that the project return to the ARB Ad-Hoc Committee to review revised details, along with the applicant’s responses to the ARB’s comments. Links below are to the January 19, 2023 Architectural Review Board hearing documents: Staff Report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes- reports/agendas-minutes/architectural-review-board/2023/arb-1.19-414-california.pdf Minutes:https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas- minutes/architectural-review-board/2023/arb-01-19-23-approved-minutes.pdf Video: https://midpenmedia.org/architectural-review-board-1192023/ AD-HOC COMMENTS Following is a summary of the Ad Hoc Committee items identified in the previous hearing and the applicant’s response to those requests. A memorandum from the applicant is also included in Attachment B and the Project plans reflecting the subcommittee items are included in Attachment C. Façade Colors Item 5 Staff Report Packet Pg. 57 Item No. 5. Page 2 of 3 1 7 3 0 The ARB recommended that the applicant consider different colors for the façade with greater detail and contrast between colors. They asked for color swatches for the proposed paint colors. Applicant’s Response: Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) has taken into consideration these comments and is presenting a new façade color scheme with an increase in contrast as recommended by the ARB. See Sheets 3 and 4 of the Project Plans and linked in Attachment C for the proposed paint colors and chips. A materials board will also be provided at the Committee meeting. Staff’s Analysis: The applicant’s revised paint colors appear to address the ARB’s comments. Lattice Structure Detail The ARB recommended that the applicant provide a detail of the lattice screen showing the corner-edge details and how it will be installed on the building (noting that the design detail should be constructible). Applicant’s Response: Additional details regarding the construction, alignment, and signage have been added to the submission to convey the constructability of the lattice system. See Sheets 5 and 6 show renderings for the construction details for the lattice structure. Staff’s Analysis: The applicant has provided the requested details. Bench and Additional Landscaping on California Avenue The ARB asked that the applicant consider adding a bench and additional landscaping at the front of the building. Applicant’s Response: The additional landscaping has been reviewed along with the addition of a public bench. The increased landscaping to the right of the front door creates an odd proportion at the main building entrance. The size of it would require large plantings and/or grading to make it feel meaningful. Large plantings with deeper root structures would also encroach into the required setback from city utility lines. The tenant improvement project is already increasing the landscaping along the frontage of the building by 700% with the proposed design. Regarding the public place to sit near the entry of this financial establishment, please see the memo provided by the Senior Director of Physical Security for the client. The memo states reasons for concern and recommends against providing a bench. See Sheets 8 and 9 of the plan set for additional details. Staff’s Analysis: The applicant has not provided the suggested landscaping and bench. While staff agrees that increased landscaping and a bench is desirable, the proposed project still meets the architectural review findings and is an improvement from the existing condition. Item 5 Staff Report Packet Pg. 58 Item No. 5. Page 3 of 3 1 7 3 0 Mural on California Avenue Frontage The ARB recommended that the applicant choose one of three options: return to ARB with a final design (with Public Art Director), join California Avenue public mural program, or receive approval/review of Public Art Commission. Applicant’s Response: AVB is excited to engage the City of Palo Alto’s Public Art Commission and members of the community in a courtesy review of their future mural design. They look forward to making a lively contribution to the California Avenue District Public Art Plan. Staff’s Analysis: The applicant has chosen to proceed to the Public Art Commission to review the proposed private art. Staff will ensure this public review opportunity is provided prior to Building Permit issuance. Ivy Attachment Detail Provide a detail of the mechanism used to attached ivy to the side of the building. Applicant’s Response: Please see product data, details, and dimensions for additional information on the ivy cable system shown on Sheet 7 of the Project Plans in Attachment C. Staff’s Analysis: The applicant has provided the requested details. ANALYSIS The ARB Ad-Hoc Committee is encouraged to affirm that these changes address the comments from the January 19, 2023 hearing that have been directed to the Ad Hoc Committee. Otherwise, the Committee should provide direction to staff and the applicant if the submittal requires further refinement. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Location Map Attachment B: Applicant Responses to ARB Comments Attachment C: Project Plans AUTHOR/TITLE: Garrett Sauls, Planner Item 5 Staff Report Packet Pg. 59 Sub-committee: 1.Consider different colors for the façade with greater detail and contrast between colors; provide color specs for the paint to be used; SVB: SVB has taken into consideration and is presenting a new façade color scheme with an increase in contrast as recommended by the ARB Committee. 2.Provide a detail of the lattice screen showing the corner-edge details and how it will install to building (design detail should be constructible); SVB: Additional details regarding the construction, alignment and signage have been added to the submission to convey the constructability of the lattice system. 3.Consider adding a bench and additional landscaping at the front of the building; SVB: The additional landscaping has been reviewed along with the addition of a public bench. The increased landscaping at the front door creates an odd proportion at the main building entrance. The size of it would require large plantings and/or grading to make it feel meaningful. Large plantings with deeper root structures would also impede on the required setback of city utility lines from Urban Forestry. The tenant improvement project is already increasing the landscaping along the frontage of the building by 700% with the proposed design. Regarding the public place to sit near the entry of this financial establishment, please see the memo provided from the Senior Director of Physical Security for the client stating reasons of concern for this item and the recommendation not to have a bench provided. 4.Either return to ARB with a final design (with Public Art Director), join California Avenue public mural program, or receive approval/review of Public Art Commission; SVB: Silicon valley bank is excited to engage the city of Palo Alto’s public art commission and members of the community in an courtesy review of our future mural design. We look forward to making a lively contribution to the California avenue district public art plan. 5.Provide a detail of the mechanism used to attached ivy to the side of the building. SVB: Please see product data, details & dimensions for additional information on the ivy cable system. Motion to return to Subcommittee – 4-1; Rosenberg and Chen to review in Subcommittee Item 5 Attachment A - Applicant Responses to ARB Packet Pg. 60 Attachment B Project Plans In order to reduce paper consumption, a limited number of hard copy project plans are provided to Board members for their review. The same plans are available to the public, at all hours of the day, via the following online resources. Directions to review Project plans online: 1. Go to: bit.ly/PApendingprojects 2. Scroll down to find “414 California Avenue” and click the address link 3. On this project specific webpage you will find a link to the project plans and other important information Direct Link to Project Webpage: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/News-Articles/Planning-and-Development-Services/414- California-Ave Item 5 Attachment B - Project Plans Packet Pg. 61