Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-04-20 Architectural Review Board Agenda PacketARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD Regular Meeting Thursday, April 20, 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 ACTION ITEMS Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Ten (10) minutes, plus ten (10) minutes rebuttal. All others: Three (3) minutes per speaker. 2.Chair and Vice Chair Elections 3.Discuss the draft Annual Report and Work Plan, suggest changes, and recommend submission of the Draft Work Plan to the City Council STUDY SESSION Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 4.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. 5.Ad Hoc Committee Report: Objective Standards Phase 2 for Townhomes Revised Attachment A APPROVAL OF MINUTES Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 6.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for March 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 7.3300 El Camino Real [21PLN‐00028]: Ad‐Hoc Committee Review of Previously Approved Project to Review Architectural and Landscape Element Design Changes 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, April 20, 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 ACTION ITEMS Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Ten (10) minutes, plus ten (10) minutes rebuttal. All others: Three (3) minutes per speaker. 2.Chair and Vice Chair Elections 3.Discuss the draft Annual Report and Work Plan, suggest changes, and recommend submission of the Draft Work Plan to the City Council STUDY SESSION Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 4.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. 5.Ad Hoc Committee Report: Objective Standards Phase 2 for Townhomes Revised Attachment A APPROVAL OF MINUTES Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 6.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for March 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 7.3300 El Camino Real [21PLN‐00028]: Ad‐Hoc Committee Review of Previously Approved Project to Review Architectural and Landscape Element Design Changes 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, April 20, 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 ProjectsACTION ITEMSPublic Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Ten (10) minutes, plus ten (10) minutes rebuttal. All others: Three(3) minutes per speaker.2.Chair and Vice Chair Elections3.Discuss the draft Annual Report and Work Plan, suggest changes, and recommendsubmission of the Draft Work Plan to the City CouncilSTUDY SESSIONPublic Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.4.Study Session to Review and Discuss the City's Local Objective Standards for Senate Bill9 (SB 9) Residential Units and Urban Lot Splits Previously Approved by Council Along withthe City’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.5.Ad Hoc Committee Report: Objective Standards Phase 2 for TownhomesRevised Attachment AAPPROVAL OF MINUTESPublic Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 6.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for March 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 7.3300 El Camino Real [21PLN‐00028]: Ad‐Hoc Committee Review of Previously Approved Project to Review Architectural and Landscape Element Design Changes 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, April 20, 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 ProjectsACTION ITEMSPublic Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Ten (10) minutes, plus ten (10) minutes rebuttal. All others: Three(3) minutes per speaker.2.Chair and Vice Chair Elections3.Discuss the draft Annual Report and Work Plan, suggest changes, and recommendsubmission of the Draft Work Plan to the City CouncilSTUDY SESSIONPublic Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.4.Study Session to Review and Discuss the City's Local Objective Standards for Senate Bill9 (SB 9) Residential Units and Urban Lot Splits Previously Approved by Council Along withthe City’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.5.Ad Hoc Committee Report: Objective Standards Phase 2 for TownhomesRevised Attachment AAPPROVAL OF MINUTESPublic Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.6.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for March 16, 2023BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS ANDAGENDASMembers of the public may not speak to the item(s).ADJOURNMENTAD HOC COMMITTEE7.3300 El Camino Real [21PLN‐00028]: Ad‐Hoc Committee Review of Previously Approved Project to Review Architectural and Landscape Element Design Changes 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: April 20, 2023 Report #: 2304-1244 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 Board members 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 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 and potential 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. Pursuant to 18.77.070(b)(5) any project relating to the installation of cabinets containing communications service equipment or facilities, pursuant to any service subject to Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 2.11, Chapter 12.04, Chapter 12.08, Chapter 12.09, Chapter 12.10, or Chapter 12.13 is not eligible for a request for hearing by any party, including the applicant. Item 1 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 5     Item No. 1. Page 2 of 2 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 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 Hirsch 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, Rosenberg 4/6 – Rosenberg, Thompson July August September October November December Item 1 Attachment A-2023 Meeting Schedule & Assignments     Packet Pg. 7     Palo Alto Architectural Review Board Tentative Future Agenda The following items are tentative and subject to change: Meeting Dates Topics May 4, 2023 •3001 El Camino Affordable Housing Project •1020 E Meadow May 18, 2023 •360 Waverley Preliminary Review •180 El Camino Real-Façade Modifications for Arhaus at Stanford Shopping Center •123 Sherman Avenue (2nd formal) (TBD) June 1, 2023 •3200 Park Boulevard (Development Agreement) Pending ARB Projects The following items are pending projects and will be heard by the ARB in the near future. The projects can be viewed via their project webpage at bit.ly/PApendingprojects or via Building Eye at bit.ly/PABuildingEye. 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) Item 1 Attachment B-Agenda and New Projects List     Packet Pg. 8     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 6/16/21 21PLN- 00172 EFOLEY 123 SHERMAN AV Office ARB 1st formal 12/1/22, Tentative ARB 5/4/23 - 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, 10/26 and 11/30; HRB hearing 1/12/23; ARB hearings 12/15/22, 1/19/23, 4/6/23 – 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) and GM (general manufacturing). Environmental Assessment: A Draft EIR was circulated on September 16, 2022 for a 60-day review period. AR Major - Board 06/16/2022 22PLN- 00201 CHODGKI 739 SUTTER AV Housing Prelim 11/18/21, NOI sent 7/15/22, Revised Plans submitted 4/3/23- 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 is subject to the current regulations in effect. Zoning District: RM-20 (Low Density Multi-Family Residential). Environmental Assessment: Pending Item 1 Attachment B-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; 2nd formal hearing 3/2/23, Tentative ARB 5/4/23 - 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). Site and Design 10/27/2022 22PLN- 00367 CHODGKI 2501 EMBARCADE RO WY Public Utility – Water Filtration On hold pending discussions with Menlo Park City Council on shared costs- 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). 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). Minor Board 01/18/2023 23PLN- 00009 THARRIS ON 180 El Camino Commercial Tentative ARB 5/4/23 - 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. Item 1 Attachment B-Agenda and New Projects List     Packet Pg. 10     Minor Architectural Review 1/24/2023 23PLN- 00015 GSAULS 3200 EL CAMINO REAL Hotel In discussions with applicant regarding parking requirements, may remain staff level - 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. Major Architectural Review 1/04/2023 23PLN- 00058 CHODGKI 420 Acacia Residential- 16 units replacing surface parking lot Submitted February 6, 2023; NOI sent March 7, 2023- 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. Preliminary Architectural Review 4/11/2023 23PLN- 00058 CHODGKI 360 Waverley Mixed-use Submitted 4/11/23. Request for Preliminary Architectural Review to Allow the Demolition of an Existing Residential Home and Construction of a four-story, approximately 10,392 Square Foot mixed-use commercial/residential building with basement and a below-grade Residential parking. Environmental Assessment: Not a Project. The Formal Application Will be Subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review. Zoning District: CD-C(P) (Downtown Commercial). Potential Projects This list of items are pending or recently reviewed projects that have 1) gone to Council prescreening and would be reviewed by the ARB once a formal application is submitted and/or 2) have been reviewed by the ARB as a preliminary review and the City is waiting for a formal application. Permit Type Submitted Permit # Project Mgr.Address Type Work Description Prescreening Council 06/13/2022 22PLN- 00198 EFOLEY 70 Encina AV Housing – 20 units 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. Prescreening Council 07/07/2022 22PLN- 00227 GSAULS 3400 EL CAMINO REAL Housing – 382 units 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: CS, CS(H), RM-20. Preliminary AR 12/20/2022 22PLN- 00406 GSAULS 3600 Middlefield Public Facility 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 single-story fire station. Item 1 Attachment B-Agenda and New Projects List     Packet Pg. 11     SB 330 Pre- Application 1/10/2023 23PLN- 00003 GSAULS 3150 El Camino Real Housing - 380 units 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. 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). Council Pre- Screening 2/8/2023 23PLN- 00036 THARRIS ON 1237 SAN ANTONIO Public Utility Council Pre-Screening request by Valley Water 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). SB 330 Pre- Application 300 Lambert Housing – 45 units SB 330 Pre-Application - Request for a proposed 5-story housing development project utilizing Builder's Remedy. The project includes 45 residential units and two floors of below grade parking (85 spaces) in a 3:1 FAR building. Nine units will be designated as BMR/Low Income Units. Two parcels 280 and 300 Lambert Ave, previously used as automotive repair facilities, would be merged. Zoning District: CS. Item 1 Attachment B-Agenda and New Projects List     Packet Pg. 12     Item No. 2. 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: April 20, 2023 Report #: 2304-1296 TITLE Chair and Vice Chair Elections RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB): 1. Elect a new Chair and Vice-Chair to serve from April 20, 2023 to April 4, 2024 BACKGROUND Section 3.1 of the Architectural Review Board (ARB) By-Laws states: “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.” At the request of the Chair and Vice Chair at the March 20, 2023 hearing, this election was agendized for the second hearing in April to allow for all board members to be present for the elections. There is no express procedure for Chair and Vice Chair elections. Where the ARB’s bylaws and procedural rules are silent, the presiding officer may decide questions of procedure, though any boardmember may appeal a decision to the ARB as a whole. The process for the most recent past election practices is summarized below: 1. Nominations for Chair are made from the floor. Boardmembers may nominate anyone, including themselves. A second is required for the nomination. 2. The nominee states whether they will accept the nomination. 3. The Boardmembers who moved and seconded the nomination make a brief statement on why they support the nomination. 4. Nominees may also make a brief statement regarding their candidacy. Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 13     Item No. 2. Page 2 of 2 5. Other Boardmembers may give comments or ask questions to the nominees. 6. The ARB will take a vote after all nominations have been made, seconded, and the nominees have stated whether they will accept. 7. A majority vote is required for confirmation. 8. The entire process is repeated for Vice Chair election. AUTHOR/TITLE: Claire Raybould, Senior Planner Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 14     Item No. 3. 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: April 20, 2023 Report #: 2304-1252 TITLE Discuss the draft Annual Report and Work Plan, suggest changes, and recommend submission of the Draft Work Plan to the City Council RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s): 1. Discuss the draft Annual Report and Work Plan, suggest changes, and recommend submission of the Draft Work Plan to the City Council. BACKGROUND The ARB Chair is expected to prepare an annual report/work plan by the second quarter of each calendar year with help from staff and the ARB members. City Council reviews the plan and provides feedback annually at a dedicated City Council meeting. The plan must be submitted to the City Clerk in May for Council consideration in June, prior to the end of the fiscal year. The plan should include the results of the prior year’s plan and activities included in the board’s work for the next fiscal year. The Council Handbook has a template for work plan development. If new issues arise during the year, the work plan can be amended and forwarded to Council for review and approval. ANALYSIS An ARB annual report is required in the Bylaws and reviews the prior year, while the Council’s new work plan requirement is to look forward on the next fiscal year. A draft plan has been prepared by the ARB Chair and staff (Attachment A) using Council’s new template. The attached plan includes a summary of the ARB’s accomplishments from last year and how they aligned with last year’s work plan goals. The ARB is asked to review this document, suggest updates, and add any additional tasks as needed. Council is scheduled to review this plan—as well as all other board and commission work plans—and adopt any changes to this plan in June 2023. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Draft Annual Report and Work Plan Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 15     Item No. 3. Page 2 of 2 AUTHOR/TITLE: Claire Raybould, Senior Planner Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 16     Architectural Review Board 2023-2024 Workplan Staff Liaison: Claire Raybould, AICP, Senior Planner Lead Department: Current Planning, Planning and Development Services Division About the Board The Architectural Review Board is composed of five members at least three of whom are architects, landscape architects, building designers or other design professionals. Terms are for three years. See Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 2.21. Residency is not required. For ARB webpage go to bit.ly/paloaltoARB. Current Boardmembers •David Hirsch (Chair) •Peter Baltay (Vice Chair) •Osma Thompson •Yingxi Chan •Kendra Rosenberg Mission Statement The Architectural Review Board reviews and makes recommendations to the Planning Director on the building design, site planning, landscape planning, massing and facades, material selection, lighting, signage and other related issues for most major new construction including additions and renovations that alter the exterior building face. The type of buildings reviewed include commercial, industrial, and multiple-family residential. In addition, the ARB is a resource as knowledgeable observers of many varied urban environments, to assist Palo Alto as it develops area plans to accommodate additional housing. The ARB Scope of Review is fully noted in Title 18 of the Municipal Code, Chapter 18.76 under Section 18.76.020 Prior Year Accomplishments •The ARB takes prides in its collaborative process of review, where members meld their individual opinions and experience into one democratic summary that improves proposed projects and therefore the quality of the Palo Alto built environment. This past year, the ARB reviewed over 20 projects including 10 major multi-family housing and commercial projects as well as larger retail modifications in Stanford Shopping Center, meeting Goal 1 of the annual work plan for 2022-2023. •The ARB provided valuable feedback to assist Council with respect to the permanent parklet program as well as updates to the city’s tree protection ordinance. The feedback assisted Council in adopting permanent parklet standards related to a new ordinance related to a permanent parklet program. This work was consistent with Goal 2 of the fiscal year 2023 work plan. Item 3 Attachment A-Draft ARB Workplan FY 24     Packet Pg. 17     •The ARB used its expertise in coordination with staff and their consultant to develop Objective Standards from the City’s existing subjective guidelines and findings that are unique to the City. This will help to ensure that housing development projects continue to meet the City’s high-quality design standards while also going through the City’s streamlined review process. This work satisfied Goal 3 of the 2022-2023 work plan. •The ARB held an awards ceremony on September 21st to celebrate outstanding projects that have been built in the city between 2015 and 2020, meeting objective 4 of the annual Work Plan for 2022-2023. •The ARB adopted updates to its by-laws to conform with Council’s new handbook and again more recently to address new changes to the Brown Act in accordance with Council’s direction, meeting Goal 5 of the 2022-2023 annual work plan. •The ARB provided feedback for the Homekey project, prioritizing this critical housing project for the homeless. The ARB’s feedback ensured that the project is well designed to address the residents needs and is appropriate to its location within the Baylands with respect to colors and massing. •The ARB reviewed and swiftly approved amendments to the Stanford Medical Center Master Signage program to accommodate new directional signage, ensuring ease in locating needed medical services. PROJECT/GOAL 1:Review Planning applications for conformance with ARB Findings and Objective Standards BENEFICIAL IMPACTS TIMELINE RESOURCES NEEDED MEASURE OF SUCCESS STATE MANDATED / LOCAL LAW / COUNCIL-APPROVED This is the Board's main mission and serves to ensure the City develops high quality projects On-Going Planning staff prepare staff reports, packets and presentations. They ensure paper plan sets and material boards are ready for ARB review. Other departments, such as, City Attorney, Urban Forestry, Transportation, etc., may be required from time to time. Consultants, including CEQA consultants, may also be required. Issuance of recommendations on projects and high-quality architecture throughout the City. Yes HIGH PRIORITY LOWER PRIORITY COUNCIL-DIRECTED POLICY UPDATE •Projects that include new housing units that will help with City reach its regional housing needs allocation (RHNA) •New office projects that will exacerbate the City's jobs/housing imbalance N/A PROJECT/GOAL 2: Assist the City as it considers modifications to various Objective Standards; Provide feedback based on research from projects as they go through the objective standards ministerial processes; Suggest ways to better address different housing typology and address Objective Standards applicability to Coordinated Area Plans. BENEFICIAL IMPACTS TIMELINE RESOURCES NEEDED MEASURE OF SUCCESS STATE MANDATED / LOCAL LAW / COUNCIL-APPROVED Item 3 Attachment A-Draft ARB Workplan FY 24     Packet Pg. 18     Streamline the objective standard ministerial review process and ensure that projects using the ministerial review process/objective standards conform to the City’s Comprehensive Plan, Goals and Policies, including its high-quality design standards Provide high level modifications to objective standards to Council by Fall 2023; If directed by Council, work with staff to propose specific code language for Council adopted by the end of FY 2024 Additional staff at Planning so that the quality and completeness of the work is maintained. Council Approval No HIGH PRIORITY LOWER PRIORITY COUNCIL-DIRECTED POLICY UPDATE •Modifications to address townhome projects •Modifications to address SOFA I and SOFA II areas •Modifications based on implementation of the objective standards for projects under review (addition of standards or modifications to existing standards based on experience implementing the standards) N/A No PROJECT/GOAL 3: Discuss specific Comprehensive Plan Goals, Policies, Programs or Design Guidelines the ARB would like to further explore/implement; If the City Council directs outreach to boards and commissions, provide comments on a preliminary schedule for the development of new Coordinated Area Plans for San Antonio, California Avenue, Downtown, El Camino Real areas. BENEFICIAL IMPACTS TIMELINE RESOURCES NEEDED MEASURE OF SUCCESS STATE MANDATED / LOCAL LAW / COUNCIL-APPROVED This project would enhance implementation of the City's Comprehensive Plan On-going Planning staff to help research policies and programs; coordination with long range planning section staff. Increased adherence to Comprehensive Plan policies No HIGH PRIORITY LOWER PRIORITY COUNCIL-DIRECTED POLICY UPDATE •Provide input on development standards for the GM Zoned properties between San Antonio and Fabian Way, which will be required to rezone to allow multi- family housing in accordance with the proposed Housing Element •Explore modifications to zoning code and/or land use as needed to facilitate and encourage mixed-use development of surface parking lots in the downtown area without loss of parking and on Stanford lands •Modifications to the El Camino Real and South El Camino Real Design Guidelines •Coordinated Area Plan for the San Antonio Area No Item 3 Attachment A-Draft ARB Workplan FY 24     Packet Pg. 19     Item No. 4. Page 1 of 3 Architectural Review Board Staff Report From: Jonathan Lait, Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: April 20, 2023 Report #: 2304-1251 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. BACKGROUND SB9 legislation is now Government Code Section 65852.21. Per Council’s request, staff asked the ARB to review the SB 9 Objective Standards previously adopted in conjunction with the interim ordinance (Ordinance 5538). On February 8, 2023, the PTC recommended Council approve a permanent ordinance, scheduled for City Council review on May 15, 2023. The February 8th PTC report1 included the approved objective standards, known as Objective Standards (IR Crosswalk) for SB9 Development and Urban Lot Split Objective Standards. Verbatim minutes from the PTC hearing are viewable online.2 On March 16, 2023, the ARB conducted a study session regarding the objective standards with respect to unit design under SB 9, as well as urban lot splits under SB 9. The ARB provided feedback on where the objective standards may be confusing or difficult to comply with, possibly in ways that could impact the quality of the final design. The ARB continued the study session to a date uncertain. The ARB noted that staff would not need to present the content again at the next study session. The ARB excerpt meeting minutes are attached to this report (Attachment A). 1 PTC report with attachments B and C https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes- reports/agendas-minutes/planning-and-transportation-commission/2023/ptc-2.08-sb9-ordinance.pdf 2 February 8, 2023 PTC meeting minutes https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes- reports/agendas-minutes/planning-and-transportation-commission/2023/ptc-3.8-approved-verbatim-minutes- 2.8.23.pdf Item 4 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 20     Item No. 4. Page 2 of 3 Two ARB members submitted written comments to staff following the March 16th ARB meeting. Staff noted the standards these members commented on in the below report section. DISCUSSION The intent of the first study session was for the ARB to: •Receive staff’s presentation on the adopted standards and background information regarding the City’s actions related to SB 9 legislation •Provide initial feedback and hear from members of the public. This second study session is for the ARB to complete the session with any additional comments. Staff can pull up topic area slides during the discussion, to help the ARB complete the session. Staff intends to convene a group of stakeholders in the coming months to ensure there is sufficient feedback from the community. Staff also plans to review the very few SB 9 cases processed thus far in Palo Alto, summarize any ‘lessons learned’ and consider potential refinements to the SB9 standards and additional changes to the permanent ordinance that references the use of these adopted standards. The presentation of standards refinements is unlikely until sometime after the 2023 State Legislative session concludes. Staff is watching the current SB9 ‘cleanup bill’, SB 450, as it proceeds through the legislative process; the bill would “prohibit a local agency from imposing objective zoning standards, objective subdivision standards, and objective design standards that do not apply uniformly to development within the underlying zone.” That said, the ARB’s input at this stage is important as staff prepares for the next stages in this process. Chen Comments Boardmember Chen submitted a general comment regarding developments next to single-story homes. She noted that a number of these requirements are too restrictive and might be overly restrictive to applicants that decide to do SB9 projects earlier given that adjacent single-story homes could be torn down to build new 2-story buildings in the future. Chen noted that most of her comments are based on the highest density scenario for SB9 development (two primary units plus two ADUs on a single lot). The standards noted in her comments as areas of proposed discussion included: Standard 1: 1.1C Planting Strip, 1.2B Garage Width, and 1.5 Step backs Standard 3: 3.2 A, Roof form variation, and 3.4A Gable roof forms Standard 4: 4.2A, Wall Alignment, and 4.2B Facade element spacing Standard 5: 5.2A Bedroom window location Item 4 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 21     Item No. 4. Page 3 of 3 Hirsch Comments Chair Hirsch highlighted numerous standards for further discussion. In summary, several of his comments indicated where diagrams would be useful to applicants and highlighted requirements that he believed were overly restrictive as to the massing of the building. He noted that massing should rely more on a set height of the building and daylight plane. Comments related to massing were consistent with the feedback from board members who expressed concern regarding the strict setbacks for upper floor levels in addition to the daylight plane requirements. Chair Hirsch noted in his comments to staff that there was not an expectation for staff to provide responses to his comments as part of the study session, but later this could be helpful. The standards noted in his comments as areas of proposed discussion included: Standard 1: 1.1A, 1.1B, 1.1D, 1.1F, 1.2A, 1.2D, 1.3A, 1.4, 1.5A, B, C, 1.6 Site Planning Standard 2: 2.1A, 2.1B, 2.2C, 2.3A, 2.3B, 2.4, 2.5A Building Height and Massing Standard 3: 3.5A Contextual Roof Pitch Standard 4: 4.1A,4.2A, 4.3A, 4.4A, 4.5A, Facades focal point, composition, and entrances Standard 5: 5.2A, 5.2B, 5.2C, 5.2D, 5.4A Privacy requirements ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Meeting minutes from March 16, 2023, ARB study session AUTHOR/TITLE: Claire Raybould, Senior Planner Item 4 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 22     Page 1 of 15 Architectural Review Board Meeting Excerpt Summary Minutes: 03/16/23 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD EXCERPT MINUTES: March 16, 2023 Council Chamber & Zoom 8:30 AM Present: Chair David Hirsch, Boardmember Yingxi Chen, Boardmember Kendra Rosenberg, Boardmember Osma Thompson, Vice Chair Peter Baltay Study Session 1. 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 SB9 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. Chair Hirsch requested the staff presentation. Vice Chair Baltay stated he would be recusing himself from this item on the advice of the City Attorney relative to current projects that Vice Chair Baltay has in the city. He would be available to rejoin them once the item was completed. Boardmember Rosenberg stated as an over abundance of caution, she also has a project in progress, but it has already been permitted and approved with an ADU. She has recused herself from all her other projects in Palo Alto, she does not have any Senate Bill 9 (SB9) projects in Palo Alto. Boardmember Thompson stated she had nothing to disclose. Boardmember Chen reported she has a similar situation to Boardmember Rosenberg, she has ADU projects in Palo Alto, but not any SB9 projects. Chair Hirsch stated he was retired and had no projects. Amy French, Chief Planning Official, introduced the item and stated she would begin the presentation before passing it to Emily Foley for more detailed information. SB9 (Government Code 66411.7) is the California Home Act which created a ministerial process for two-unit housing development on single- family residential (SFR) parcels. It enabled urban lot splits for a one-time subdivision of an existing SFR parcel into two parcels. Approvals must be based only on objective standards and cannot preclude construction of 2 units of less than 800 square feet. Denials are only permitted if projects do not meet objective standards or if there are “specific, adverse impacts” on public health and safety. There are now limitations on how jurisdictions can regulate SB9 projects, including setback and parking requirements Item 4 ARB 03-16-23 draft minutes excerpt SB9     Packet Pg. 23     Page 2 of 15 Architectural Review Board Meeting Excerpt Summary Minutes: 03/16/23 and requirement that attached buildings must be allowed. The parcels affected by SB9 are all SFR zoned properties within urbanized areas except for environmentally sensitive areas and environmental hazard areas (if specific mitigations are not possible) and listed historic properties and districts. Additionally, demolition is generally not permitted for rental units or deed-restricted rental units. City Council adapted Palo Alto’s municipal code and associated development review processes to accommodate SB9 by adopting an urgency ordinance on December 6, 2021 and interim ordinance on January 10, 2022. Council adopted urban lot split standards and refined the previously presented standards on March 31, 2022, which were further amended in accordance with Ordinances 5542 adopted on January 24 2022 and 5546 adopted on April 11, 2022. The Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) recommended City Council adopt a permanent ordinance on February 8, 2023 to replace the interim Ordinances which included no proposed changes to the standards at this time. Staff’s recommendations are that the ARB review and comment on the adopted objective standards for urban lot splits and review and comment on the adopted objective standards for SB9 based on the Individual Review (IR) guidelines which informed the formation of the SB9 Objective Standards. The standards on the urban lot splits only apply to qualifying SB9 projects within Palo Alto, and Public Works Director is authorized to publish Objective Standards regarding Adjacent Public improvements related to SB9 projects. Council asked staff to share the approved standards with the PTC and ARB for consideration related to a permanent ordinance citing the standards and modifications to the SB9 standards can be accomplished outside the Council timeline for adopting the permanent ordinance. After a year into the new standards, staff has found there may be potential amendments to the standards to include: o Increasing the size of detached units for larger lots to enable more use of cottage cluster development and of SB9. o Modify lot split standards for larger lots and irregular shaped lots such as Residential Estate lots in the hills of Palo Alto Ms. French continued with the SB9 approval processes, criteria, and objective zoning standards, objective subdivision standards, and design review standards, and their limitations which may apply to SB9 urban lot split standards. Emily Foley, Project Planner, continued the presentation with information about different scenarios that are allowable lot splits on R1 and RE zones properties. The criteria are that there be four units built under SB9. Chair Hirsch inquired if the diagram shown was representative of site orientation for lot splits. Ms. Foley explained that the diagram was attempting to show different scenarios. However, the orientation of the split units is based on the size of the lots, not all units would necessarily be seen from a street view if one unit was behind another. The process for building a one story home or a one story home with an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) or Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit (JADU) requires the building permit process. A two-story home requires the IR process, a two-story home with an ADU could be processed through the IR process OR the IR objective standard ministerial process OR SB9 process while a two-story home with a second home would follow the SB9 process. Two units and two detached ADU’s on a single lot would be an SB9 process and a subdivision of an R-1 or RE lot would be the SB9 process OR possible parcel map if the lot was more than 12,000 square feet (SF). Item 4 ARB 03-16-23 draft minutes excerpt SB9     Packet Pg. 24     Page 3 of 15 Architectural Review Board Meeting Excerpt Summary Minutes: 03/16/23 Chair Hirsch requested clarification that ministerial means a project wouldn’t be seen by the ARB. Ms. Foley responded that ministerial means discretionary, the IR application is considered a discretionary review application, however it is handled at the staff level. There are discretionary projects that don’t necessarily come before the ARB. Three or more units are considered multi-family so those would always come before the ARB, but under SB9, an applicant is allowed to build up to four units using objective standards and a ministerial process. Boardmember Rosenberg requested an explanation of what would the circumstances that applicant building a two story home with an ADU would choose the IR, IR objective or SB9 process. Ms. Foley stated that the IR objective process doesn’t exist, the slide is outdated, it would be the SB9 objective standards to build a story home with an ADU whereas the IR process is using the current IR guidelines. At the time it was established, staff was hoping that the objective standards will streamline the Individual review process by taking out the discretionary back and forth process that often happens in some applications, however staff does not want to eliminate that as an option because they did their best to ensure the objectives design standards were that they were in line with the current IR guidelines. There are cases where some may perceive them as being more restrictive. Boardmember Chen commented it seems like SB9 pertains more to housing development that is no more than two housing units per lot and in that case, and asked why a two-story home without an ADU seems like it qualifies for an SB9 process instead of an IR. Ms. Foley responded that the way the SB9 Ordinance is written, it applies to the construction of two or more units, but that is also something that can be considered with how the objective design standards could be apply to houses that are currently going through the IR process. Boardmember Rosenberg commented that if they were trying to streamline the IR process, SB9 really is focused on multi units on single family lots so a two-story home that’s just the one home, SB9 would really only applies when there’s more than one unit. Ms. Foley explained SB9 is a State Law which encourages increased housing production on single family lots. The individual review process is a uniquely Palo Alto thing, although most city’s have some type of discretionary process for larger homes. Duplexes or two-story use is now allowed in the IR or RE zone. Previously there had been some confusion about whether duplex means the units are inherently attached, they can be attached or detached. As a part of an SB9 process the property owner can choose to do a lot split. There are certain qualifications the project must meet, however the minimum lot size in Palo Alto is currently 6,000 SF, that would be reduced to 2,400 SF and it would require it be a minimum of a 60/40 split. The smaller of the two lots cannot be less than 40% of the existing whole lot. The City has previously required there be street frontage by doing a flag lot or easement or having 20 feet of street frontage, the point with the ADUs is there’s a maximum of four units. The setbacks have been reduced to increase the buildable area when doing an SB9 project. The rear and side setbacks have been reduced to 4” which is the same as the ADU setback requirement. The front yard requirement is unchanged at (20’, varies). Chair Hirsch inquired if the rear building could be two stories. Ms. Foley replied no, the objective design standards do limit having second story within the rear yard. Item 4 ARB 03-16-23 draft minutes excerpt SB9     Packet Pg. 25     Page 4 of 15 Architectural Review Board Meeting Excerpt Summary Minutes: 03/16/23 Boardmember Rosenberg added that an ADU is allowed to be built up to 16 feet tall, even in that rear setback. Boardmember Thompson inquired if the same setbacks are required for corner lots. Ms. Foley stated that the street side yard is identified as a different yard type in the zoning code, with ADUs it was determined that the streetside setback was considered a side and could be built at the 4” setback, but staff has not yet had to visit what that would look like for an SB9 project. Boardmember Rosenberg stated that’s a really good question because in the past ADUs typically on a corner lot, they consider the short side the front side, regardless of what the address is. The street side of the ADU have to be respected regardless due to it being a special setback. Ms. Foley responded that special setbacks are a third item that do have to be respected no matter what and Boardmember Rosenberg was correct that the zoning code does always identify the shorter of the two frontages as being the front, however for a streetside setback for ADUs, they are allowed to be four feet. Boardmember Rosenberg stated in theory the SB9 would follow that ADU setback on that streetside as well. Ms. Foley stated staff is assuming that came directly from the state, in that they would be consistent in that interpretation. Boardmember Rosenberg stated that in the case where they split a corner lot such that one lot was no longer a corner lot, it would require a setback along its face. If they don’t split the lot, it changes the requirements quite a bit for what can be developed on that property and where. Ms. Foley stated if they split that lot they would have one corner lot and one interior lot and the new interior lot would use the interior lot setback rules. Boardmember Rosenberg clarified if they didn’t split the lot and wanted SB9, the applicant would be allowed to pull the sides out to the 4” setbacks along that entire length. Ms. Raybould stated Boardmember Rosenberg was correct. Now the front yard would become what the streetside yard was, so they would then have to respect the streetside setback of 20 feet. Ms. Foley stated it would depend on the configuration of the corner lot. It could be split without changing which one had the front setback. Boardmember Rosenberg stated the point she was trying to make was that in certain situations the rules, in the way they are written, have a lot of unintended consequences. One being in the example of the corner lot, staff may be accidentally encouraging someone to split or not split the property based on how the rules are written and how the applicant can best capture the use of the lot. As the ARB moves forward, they will need to be mindful of some of those issues because that would be a notable difference on some of the corner lots and oddly shaped lots. It is the exception to the rules that is going to be the where the meat of the pie is. Item 4 ARB 03-16-23 draft minutes excerpt SB9     Packet Pg. 26     Page 5 of 15 Architectural Review Board Meeting Excerpt Summary Minutes: 03/16/23 Ms. French stated the Planning Commission has recently made more changes to the ADU Ordinances. Staff went to City Council in December with another change due to State Law. Their intention was to get feedback from HCD on the most recent changes that were put before the Planning Commission so they could mitigate the interim process. They will return to the ARB once they have less of a moving target situation with the changes that are being made on the State level. Boardmember Rosenberg commented that part of the reason it’s such a moving target is due to the ADU standards being so new, and they keep changing. Now there is SB9, and all of the things together are making the process quite complicated. Ms. Foley stated the conversation was a good transition to the next slide in the presentation as it explains more one of the consequences that had been referenced in the conversation. Chair Hirsch questioned if the objective standards for ADUs on corner lots recognize that there will be an elevation facing one way or another. Ms. Foley stated ADUs are not inherently part of an SB9 project, and ADUs will still be following the current ADU laws so the objective standards do not do design for ADUs necessarily, and in the same way that when they look at an IR project and an ADU is included in one of those, it is recognized that based on State law, ADUs are always ministerial projects that just need to check those boxes of what the zoning code requires for ADUs. Chair Hirsch clarified his question in that when there is a lot split and the ADU is put in the corner of the property, what determines which side is the elevation. Ms. Foley replied the zoning code always defines the front yard as being the shorter of the two frontages and it’s possible that’s in a lot split that would change it, it’s also possible that the lot split wouldn’t change which one is front. If it’s 60’ on one side and 100’ on the other and you split it into two 30x100’s the front stays the same. Additionally, when you are looking at the objective design standards, IR Guideline 4 refers to façade composition and does acknowledge that the owner should take advantage of the duel street frontages to present units with windows. The allowable floor area changes when a lot is split. This would apply more for larger lots due to the way floor area is calculated. When you have a 6,000 SF lot, the total allowable floor area is 3,350 SF, which when you split the lot, each lot is 3,000 SF with an allowable floor area on each lot being 2,150 SF for a total of 4,300 SF for both properties. The additional 800 SF does not apply to SB9 projects. Ms. French presented how the Objective Standards translated from the IR Guidelines. The SB9 Objective Design Guidelines were based upon the IR Guidelines. o Guideline ONE: Site Planning: Garage, driveway, and house o Guideline TWO: Neighborhood compatibility for height, mass, and scale o Guideline THREE: Resolution of architectural form, massing, and roof lines o Guideline FOUR: Visual Character of street facing façades and entries o Guideline FIVE: Privacy from second floor windows and decks. Each IR Guideline is further broken down into key points and the SB9 objective standards converted the existing discretionary key points into objective standards. An example using Guideline One: site planning, Item 4 ARB 03-16-23 draft minutes excerpt SB9     Packet Pg. 27     Page 6 of 15 Architectural Review Board Meeting Excerpt Summary Minutes: 03/16/23 Keypoint-5; Locate and upper floor well back from the front façade and/or away from side lot lines if the home is adjacent to small or one-story homes. Objective Standard 1.5B: Contextual Massing Stepback states where a home on an abutting lot across a side lot line is single story or has a second-story floor area less than 500 SF, 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. Because an urban lot split could potentially be narrower than a standard lot, the Keypoint is trying to discourage having a two-story wall plane if the side set back is less than 20’. The second floor needs to be stepped 7’ back for at least half of the total length of the house. This would apply to standard Palo Alto lot sizes. Ms. French added that in the RE district the IR guidelines do not apply for regular two-story homes, only in the R-1 and some houses adjacent to R-1 it applies. It’s rare that the 20 foot setback on the side in the R-1, but because the SB9 applies to RE but not R-1, the math can get confusing. Boardmember Thompson commented that if the house is within 20 feet of the property line, and the upper level is 7 feet setback in relationship to the side yard, if the house is 10 feet from the side yard that triggers then the upper level would be at 17 feet from the side yard. Boardmember Rosenberg stated that she would have to argue in that case that penalizes someone who has already built farther away from the setback and inquired if that 7-foot setback is from the existing wall of the house or from the setback line. Ms. Foley replied it is from the existing or proposed wall of the house on the first floor. In cases where there is maybe a rear garage, you have an eight or nine- or ten-foot driveway rather than a six-foot minimum setback, that will change the amount of setback by two or three feet. Boardmember Rosenberg felt that unfairly penalizes people and it becomes much more subjective than objective and if that standard is set that if the house was built within 20’ of the property line, then it should be off of their setback. During the lot splits, if they have to have a 10’ wide driveway and then an additional 7 feet after that, they might all of a sudden not be allowed to build a second floor because you’re required to have a 15-foot by 15-foot second floor minimum. She was concerned that there’s some unfair penalization of some existing standards, some of that clarification would be helpful. Ms. French commented that was a great point and that she would add that the R-1 zone also has combining districts, some of which are 10-foot setbacks as the minimum setback for the sides, as opposed to the six feet, and some have an 8’ set back. There are different R-1 zones and of course you have the RE which allows SB9. Ms. Foley stated it also combines into other ones and she felt they aren’t going to get into those right now, but if you are adjacent to a single story house, there also has to be an additional 2’ under the typical daylight plane. They also don’t consider that under SB9 you could be using 4-foot side setbacks instead of the 6’ or the 8’ or the 10’, just because the example shown limits it to 7’, where the daylight plane hits could be further restrictive or not. Boardmember Rosenberg inquired how they could simplify some of that. Ms. Foley stated they would love it to be simplified. Item 4 ARB 03-16-23 draft minutes excerpt SB9     Packet Pg. 28     Page 7 of 15 Architectural Review Board Meeting Excerpt Summary Minutes: 03/16/23 Chair Hirsch inquired why they would change the daylight plane concept at all. Ms. Foley answered because typically in their current application of the IR standards in response to how it is currently subjective with things like well back from side lot lines and illustrations where it’s not touching the daylight plane, it’s been interpreted over the last 20 years, to be additionally reduced from the daylight plane. Chair Hirsch stated he has a sub-standard lot on his house but held to the daylight plane as they controlling dimension of the second story. It was critical and he wouldn’t have been able to build the house at all if he didn’t have the right to build it to the daylight plane and he finds it sufficiently distant from the neighbors and doesn’t understand how this happened along the way. Boardmember Rosenberg commented there’s a nearby city and they have an ordinance that is very similar to this where the second story always has to be stepped back in the front and on the sides and you end up drive around that city and you see a lot of “cake-toppers”, where it looks more like wedding cakes, and she was inclined to say that when you allow the daylight plane to be the ruling factor instead of the setbacks, the goal is the respect your neighbor and not be an imposition in massing or in hogging daylight and wind. The daylight plane is highly effective in this and if that volume should be enough. The additional restriction of seven foot from this and from that, can cause a lot more issues than it’s worth and it doesn’t benefit anybody and penalizes the homeowner and can create some funky architecture. It makes it much more difficult to hit a moving target, where if you go with a setback or daylight plane and call it a day, that buildable envelope should just be respected and that could be it, and it could stay that simple. Boardmember Rosenberg stated that was her two cents. Chair Hirsch stated his two cents as well. Boardmember Thompson suggested the Board let staff continue with the presentation. Chair Hirsch inquired what Boardmember Thompson’s opinion was and stated if they didn’t provide their opinions they would have to circle back anyway. Ms. French stated that things change on the ADUs as it gets handed down from the State, so these kinds of things happen each year as they get feedback and push back. Ms. Foley provided additional examples which restrict the second floor area due to setbacks in combination with other objective standards. In cases where there are flood zones, instead of being 18”, it’s 24” to allow more room to stay in compliance with the flood zone, since the required floor height is likely to be higher. In the case of neighborhood compatibility for height, mass, and scale, at least one single-story building form with dimensions no greater than 16’ in height, no less than 8’ in depth, and no less than 12’ in width shall be placed on each street facing building side. This was intended to limit the amount of flat two-story wall planes there are on any given house. Ms. French stated that on the Palo Alto Municipal Code Title 21 for subdivisions, sections were modified so that the city could require lot splits have access to adjoin the public right of way. Three types of lot splits were considered in that process, and it also depends upon the street frontage which dictates the way the design of the addition would go and provided example drawings for side by side, the flag lot, and the flag lot with easement. For a single-family home, you cannot do a flag lot for an R-1 property, unless Item 4 ARB 03-16-23 draft minutes excerpt SB9     Packet Pg. 29     Page 8 of 15 Architectural Review Board Meeting Excerpt Summary Minutes: 03/16/23 there’s historical preservation. For SB9, they use the 10’ minimum easement for clearance of an automobile. Public Works also has standards that are objective standards, however the Public Works director can modify public improvement standards similarly that the City can modify the SB9 standards that have been adopted, outside of the ordinance process. The goal is to keep the SB9 standards ministerial, including the urban lot splits. Handouts are in process, the consultants Urban Planning Partners who are working on handouts to try to help the public see what the opportunities are and to clarify the ministerial requirements eligibility, with links available to help people explore State law. Boardmember Rosenberg thanked staff for the presentation and commented that it’s a lot of information and pretty complicated, and she appreciates the time and effort that put into tying it all together. Ms. Raybould stated that her understanding is that they have the objective standards, if they can’t meet the SB9 objective standards it doesn’t necessarily mean that they can’t design how they want to, it just means that they have to chose to go through staff’s discretionary process to do so. It’s impossible to think of every design, some projects have come in for example, with roof lines that don’t fall within the objective standards even though it’s not an unreasonable design. They can choose to still move forward with the design of their choice, they just have to do it through the discretionary process. Staff is trying to strike a balance. They would like to streamline the process, and not create more work for staff, but also having strict enough standards that staff is comfortable with allowing people to move forward and no that they are still going to fall within what the City would see as reasonable under their IR process, which has been fairly successful with coming up with good designs for the community. And still retaining some ability to work with applicants that may not be able to meet every objective standard. Boardmember Thompson reminded Chair Hirsch he may want to call for Public Comments and questions for the public hearing. Chair Hirsch stated it’s a question of how staff looks at the standards. As he looked through it from an outside view, he took one house through the discretionary process and was quite pleased with the results, and questioned what staff is seeking in terms of feedback. Ms. Raybould responded that the ARB’s feedback is important, examples of what they’ve already pointed out is very helpful. As they’ve gone through the changes made in the last year, the larger lots in the RE zone, there is possibly more potential with those lots than what’s been restricted under the objective standards in their current form. There could be more opportunities either in the lot split standards and/or the objective standards that may speak better to some of the larger lots to better provide for more housing. Ms. French asked Veronica Dao, Administrative Associate III, if there were any public comments, Ms. Dao stated she did not have any speaker cards that were submitted. Ms. Foley stated the first example is within the Ordinance itself rather than in the objective standards which is why she wanted to call that example out specifically. Currently, taking a more conservative view when initially drafting the ordinance, in cases where three or four units are being developed simultaneously, it states that the maximum unit size is 800 SF, but the change makes it unattractive to homeowners and development. Item 4 ARB 03-16-23 draft minutes excerpt SB9     Packet Pg. 30     Page 9 of 15 Architectural Review Board Meeting Excerpt Summary Minutes: 03/16/23 Boardmember Chen commented the first thing most people want to know is whether or not they qualify for the SB9, and in the case of flood zones there was a scenario provided in which a project wouldn’t qualify and requested clarification on if all houses in Palo Alto qualify for SB9 projects. Ms. Foley replied to Boardmember Chen that the exact language in the Code says that the subject parcel cannot be located within the 100-year flood zone unless Public Work’s standards can be met. So those Public Works standards are really just having that finished floor outside of the flood zone and elevated. The majority, if not all, of flood zone R1 properties are usually able to meet those requirements. Boardmember Chen asked if an ADU has already been built and if the property owner wants to rebuild the primary home, could the project qualify as an SB9 project. Boardmember Rosenberg commented that’s an interesting question because if there is an ADU already built on a property with a small house, can they split the lot and then on the new split portion build the new two-story and have that go under SB9 rules and regulations or would that have to go under IR rules and regulations. Ms. Foley stated they would be able to use SB9 objective standards for that. Ms. Raybould added it would no longer be considered an ADU. Ms. Foley stated those were two different situations. Boardmember Rosenberg clarified that if there were an existing property that is 10,000 SF and there’s a smallish house on it with a detached ADU, can they split that 10,000 SF while keeping the house and the ADU on one property, thus creating a new property that is bare and wanting to build a two-story house, would that new two-story house would then fall under SB9 regulations rather than IR due to the lot split. Ms. Foley explained that any unit built on a property that is the result of an urban lot split would follow the SB9 standards. Boardmember Chen requested clarification that in the situation Boardmember Rosenberg stated, if they did not do the lot split, would the rebuild of the main house remain under the IR process. Ms. Foley stated based on how it’s currently written, the applicant would have the option to do either. Boardmember Chen commented that it seems that most applicants would choose the faster way to build a larger house when based on community comments, that’s not necessarily what Palo Alto residents are wanting in their city. Ms. Foley stated that an IR project takes between three and six months with two to three rounds of staff review. There is the possibility that neighbors would initiate a hearing process. The majority of them do go through at the staff level and then proceed to the building permits, but it is a two step process. For the SB9 projects, although in terms of formal applications there is only the building permit and no ability for neighbors to appeal and starting a hearing process, because there are so many objective standards, the City is requiring the project to go through a preliminary process, which in terms of feedback everyone has been in favor of that feedback, staff hasn’t done too many of those types of those projects so they aren’t yet seeing what the length of that process may be. The objective standards will likely need some refining Item 4 ARB 03-16-23 draft minutes excerpt SB9     Packet Pg. 31     Page 10 of 15 Architectural Review Board Meeting Excerpt Summary Minutes: 03/16/23 before they get to the point where someone building a new two-story single family house by itself is viewing this process as preferable. Boardmember Rosenberg inquired how the Board wants to proceed. She has read through the material and has a list of items that she’s made from Keypoint to Keypoint. Boardmember Thompson said it might be helpful if Boardmember Rosenberg goes first. Boardmember Rosenberg commented that a lot of the Keypoints seemed to try to find exceptions for oddly shaped lots. It seemed they are trying to encourage shared driveways, if that’s the case it might be better to have a 20’ wide driveway. Keypoint 1.2A is highly problematic for pie shaped lots. She would like the Board and Council to consider adding an addendum saying that pie shaped lots and flag lots would be exempted from those requirements. The standard makes sense for rectangular lots. Even a large irregular shaped lot could work, but the more narrow lots with street frontage, there has to be an allowance for the garage to be the façade. There’s a lot of benefits to that. On 1.2B, it states a 12 feet wide garage, is that a 12 feet wide minimum garage, with a maximum of 30% of the total façade? Ms. Raybould stated the 12 feet minimum was not for the garage, it was for the portion of the house. Ms. Foley stated if you’re building a house from setback to setback, your garage is always allowed to be at least 12 feet, but if your buildable frontage is more than 36 feet, then the garage cannot take up more than 30% of that. Boardmember Rosenberg commented that the verbiage states it can be 12’, when it is better stated by saying it should be 12’ minimum because anything less than that is bike storage. Ms. French stated there’s a 10’ clearance on the interior of a garage so, depending on the shared wall of the house, staff is not going make them do less than 12 feet. Boardmember Rosenberg clarified as long as the 10’ x 20’ foot interior is met it’s considered a garage. Ms. French stated that was correct. Boardmember Chen commented that in 1.2B, the garage width as stated, means they are discouraging a two-car garage at the street front. Boardmember Rosenberg agreed with Boardmember Chen’s comment. They have to have a pretty wide house if you’re maxing people out at 30%. There’s no way that’s going to happen on a pie shaped lot. Ms. Foley commented they generally try to encourage two-car garages, the way the Keypoint was phrased in the original IR guidelines is to located garages to be subordinate to and minimally visible and significantly less prominent than the house, as a result of that, one car garages are encouraged, doing rear garages are encouraged and there is a contractual rear setback where if the majority of the house on the street has a rear garages then a new house is required to have that rear garage. There’s a handful of houses that have a rear alley access and in those cases they have to have the house off of that alley. Additionally, due to the way the floor area calculation is structured where covered parking counts towards the floor area, by the zoning code you are only required to have one covered parking and one uncovered Item 4 ARB 03-16-23 draft minutes excerpt SB9     Packet Pg. 32     Page 11 of 15 Architectural Review Board Meeting Excerpt Summary Minutes: 03/16/23 parking, that also discourages two car garages because many home owners don’t want that additional 200 SF to go towards parking when it can be incorporated into the house. Boardmember Chen inquired that under SB9 it could be different than a traditional single-family home. Ms. Raybould clarified they only allow two units on each lot so only four units are allowed only if a lot split is done under SB9. Boardmember Chen stated they could if they had 2 primary with 2 ADUs. Boardmember Rosenberg stated in that case no one is accounting for parking. Chair Hirsch commented he agreed, the reality is going to be much different than that. Boardmember Rosenberg commented in the case of the shared one driveway leading up to a cottage style lot plan of 4 units, there would have to be covered carports, some place to put their cars. When the property is being shared by four families, parking needs to be considered. Ms. French stated another consideration are the electric charging stations that are now required. There is an electrification ordinance that has been taken to the Planning Commission that will be continuing on to the Council, staff is working on considerations of noise and heat pump water equipment and such. Many people may use garages to have their vehicle charged. Chair Hirsch stated he has a comment about one with regard to walkway separations. They have to have a planting strip and asked what the requirements are for those and why is it necessary to have a planting strip. Ms. Foley stated it is to provide visual separation between what’s driveway and what’s walkway and to limit the entire space as being used as driveway. Chair Hirsch stated he feels that’s a very specific element that doesn’t necessarily need to be included specifically for every house. He has that type of specificity for a lot of the material. Boardmember Rosenberg agreed that some of it feels like an overreach and not necessary. Ms. Raybould questioned if the ARB feels that the width of that is unnecessary or simply the standard in general. Boardmember Rosenberg stated she feels the standard in general. Some of it feels like it’s overly specific and not really necessary, for example, why is it that SB9 projects needs to account for a planting strip between a walkway and a driveway when it may never come up, it may be too tight… the City is seems to be accounting for every inch they can get. Ms. Foley commented she believes there is a zoning code that addresses that, she’s trying to pull it up. Staff had discussed maximum width of driveways and maximum width of walkways and pathways in the zoning code. Ms. French stated comments like these are very helpful for the practical development of the SB9 projects, if there are considerations where they should be looking at their zoning codes as well, those are also helpful. Staff does do periodical comprehensive zoning code updates. Item 4 ARB 03-16-23 draft minutes excerpt SB9     Packet Pg. 33     Page 12 of 15 Architectural Review Board Meeting Excerpt Summary Minutes: 03/16/23 Boardmember Thompson stated it seems like that standard is coming from the IR guideline of minimizing driveway paving impacts in order to highlight yards and pedestrian entry ways, so she can see where that would come from. Boardmember Rosenberg commented in theory she likes it but in practice it’s adding an extra hurdle that if the goal is to encourage SB9 developments and if the goal is to encourage more of this density housing, it’s a bit of a nit-picky requirement to have in place for the applicants to have to deal with. Boardmember Thompson responded she hears that point and believes that Ms. Raybould also make a good point that we can’t account for everything. It seems like right now the process is the IR for the most part, which seems to be going well. This is just to help lots that might not even need to go through that process. This will be the in-between that makes it flow through to processes faster. She is slightly less inclined to remove all of those because there is the complication that a lot of them won’t apply to a lot of lots. If they accept that, the alternative is still not a bad process. Boardmember Rosenberg agreed that’s correct and it does need to be made clear that the discretionary process is still an option for the lots that the IR standards don’t comply. Chair Hirsch stated they need to keep it as simple as possible, and make the process work so people don’t have to go to the discretionary process. [Crosstalk] Boardmember Rosenberg raised the point of would they really want to go through the discretionary process because they don’t like the planting strip, it seems ridiculous. Ms. Raybould stated the goal of this process is to strike a balance. Generally, staff have taken a pretty conservative approach to these objective standards initially because they took the position of, they had to conform to the letter of the law. The goal of this process and moving forward with a permanent ordinance, is to think about it a little bit more and find the balance between what will streamline projects and allow people to move forward without creating unnecessary review times but also meet the high quality standards that staff is seeing through the IR process. Ms. French added that many cities are in the same process where they did something more quickly just to get something they’ve been using to work, and now they’ve had a number of projects they can tell the story and figure out going forward, if there’s something else they should be considering. Chair Hirsch commented that’s the reason the ARB is saying what they are about this particular type of detail. They are trying to make it more simple for the designer to decide the more specific details. Another example would be the types of trees that can be planted on property lines. Ms. Foley replied she believes the screening landscaping only specifies that it’s only one tree or shrub per 25’ and it does require it to be evergreen but if there is a recommended list, they are allowed to propose other species. Chair Hirsch inquired if that was true even under this process. Boardmember Thompson inquired where there’s a species list defined. Item 4 ARB 03-16-23 draft minutes excerpt SB9     Packet Pg. 34     Page 13 of 15 Architectural Review Board Meeting Excerpt Summary Minutes: 03/16/23 Ms. Raybould stated it does reference evergreen trees versus deciduous. Boardmember Rosenberg commented that does make sense in terms of wanting to make sure they still maintain that level of privacy throughout the year, providing they aren’t saying it must be a specific tree. Similar cities use various trees for planting, and that can be respected. Boardmember Thompson commented there’s a benefit to deciduous trees for thermal comfort and energy savings, maybe that should also be a consideration and not just privacy. That made her also wonder if the daylight plane also considers winter angles of the sun. Boardmember Rosenberg replied that it does not consider winter sun angles. The goals of this one seem different, one is a privacy goal from the neighbor, considering the closeness in proximity and density goals, she would consider privacy more important. On properties with yard space there is definitely room for those considerations. Chair Hirsch stated he is also bothered that evergreen trees are more like walls and there are other ways to create privacy. His personal preference is that windows are glazed in such a way that you can’t see through them on the side yard. Boardmember Rosenberg commented that’s where she and the Chair disagree. She loves that in her back yard it’s all oleander and she loves that all she sees is green. Her neighbor has an ADU and because of her oleander she isn’t able to see the roof line of the ADU. Boardmember Thompson commented that for her it’s not so much about preference as it is about thinking about sustainability as they increase their density. Part of the standards should also consider the sustainable aspects as well. She would love for there to be more considerations for passive building throughout the standards. Green roofs could be incentivized. They are great thermal masses, great for bees, et cetera. Boardmember Rosenberg commented that is an excellent point and Boardmember Thompson just opened a can of worms in that they must comply with the new State Law density requirements and the City has to figure out how they do that in the most responsible way possible. While the ARB’s focus is on architecture and aesthetics and being good neighbors, they haven’t been considering the electrical grid, or the sanitary sewer systems, water usage, or fire considerations. None of that is being discussed, however those are items that are outside of the purview of the ARB. Boardmember Thompson questioned if those are truly outside the purview of the ARB. Chair Hirsch intervened that they needed to move on and wanted to comment about 1.5B. Boardmember Rosenberg stated she thinks garages on pie shaped lots and flag shaped lots needs to be exempted, and considerations need to be made for pie and flag shaped lots for the two-story issue. Chair Hirsch commented that 1.5B is very restrictive and agreed with Boardmember Rosenberg that it will be very problematic in certain situations. Boardmember Rosenberg commented they need to get more focus on daylight plane setbacks, and looking at the first image of the presentation it looks like a cute fourplex. That couldn’t be built with any Item 4 ARB 03-16-23 draft minutes excerpt SB9     Packet Pg. 35     Page 14 of 15 Architectural Review Board Meeting Excerpt Summary Minutes: 03/16/23 of these standards. If that’s what they are encouraging to be built, they need to write the laws that allow that. It feels like the intent is Palo Alto is encouraging with the current standards are mini cul-de-sacs everywhere. If that’s the goal, these standards are well written for that purpose. Chair Hirsch requested they take a detailed look at 1.5B and see if it’s possible to create something that’s not so restrictive. Boardmember Rosenberg commented the 7’ should be from the property setback. By saying from existing houseline, it’s unfair to the people that own the house. Boardmember Thompson agreed that it is forcing a step back and to respond to Boardmember Rosenberg’s question she believes it’s intended to create a visual break. Chair Hirsch stated the daylight plane does that. Ms. Raybould added the intent is to create a visual break in the wall. Boardmember Rosenberg stated she would have to argue that 7’ is pretty intense for a visual break. That could be accomplished easily with 3’ and still maintain buildability. Seven feet is the minimum dimension of a room, a staircase could be built in 7’. Requiring it because they don’t like the way it looks feels restrictive. Adding that she would write it to say it has to stay a minimum of 7’ from the existing setback and no less than 2’ from the existing wall. Boardmember Chen posed the question of how a driveway would affect that. Ms. French added that it’s like a big math problem. It could be where they draw the new lot line for the urban lot split will change the setback and it will be less than 7’ so you could end up with a 4’ setback from the existing wall. Ms. Foley stated that would not apply in that case, it would only apply if you were building one two-story house and one one-story house under SB9, if you were building two two-story houses then SB9 wouldn’t apply at all. Boardmember Rosenberg stated her concern is that they are going to say 7’ back from the lower floor and then you have to have a minimum 15’ wide two-story building and then both the neighbors are single story, you can only get a 12’ wide second story and they would be out. It’s too restrictive. Ms. French reminded that they could do it, but they would have to go through discretionary review. Ms. Raybould still questions if the intent was 7’ step back from the wall, it does seem like a large distance. Boardmember Thompson commented that 4’ or 5’ might feel better, when you go down 10’ to 2’ to 10’, it doesn’t seem to flow. Chair Hirsch stated he has 3’ on his house and it works perfectly for the daylight plane. Boardmember Thompson stated maybe the 4’ would be a good compromise. Boardmember Rosenberg commented a lot of this is compromise, there’s a lot of information before them and they could nitpick to death and in an attempt to make sure they don’t do that … Item 4 ARB 03-16-23 draft minutes excerpt SB9     Packet Pg. 36     Page 15 of 15 Architectural Review Board Meeting Excerpt Summary Minutes: 03/16/23 Chair Hirsch stated they should go over the major items and make a decision. They already agreed that 1.5B is a significant one and suggested they include the review for the daylight plane as a possibility instead of using specific numbers. Boardmember Rosenberg added that while it’s important to keep in mind the neighbors, Palo Alto is requiring them to build by certain standards when what is being built may not still be there in two years. Boardmember Thompson agreed sticking to the daylight plan is a good compromise and they should call it a day and asked if it was going to circle back again. Ms. Raybould stated she believed there would be more opportunities going forward and for the interest of time for this study session, they could consider highlighting the key issues of each category even if they do not yet have the solutions at this point. That way staff can think about those key issues and come back with suggestions. Chair Hirsch wondered if it makes more sense for the ARB to take it home and write up their comments. Boardmember Rosenberg agreed she feels she could have a list and submit it to the other ARB Boardmembers to see where they get an agreement, and questioned if they would be allowed to do that. Ms. French stated staff would prefer they do that through the staff liaison and share in that manner. It would be great to isolate to what each Boardmember provided, and come back with those initially and have staff come up with alternatives based on the comments they received. Boardmember Rosenberg agreed that would be beneficial due to the fact they aren’t even through the second set of comments. Chair Hirsch stated he would ask that every Boardmember take a good look at the information and say which ones they feel are critical, maybe try to keep it to ten each. Ms. French stated they could continue the study session, if there are areas where it would be an ordinance change, they would have to do notifications. Boardmember Thompson stated maybe at the next study session they could go straight to the discussion because they already received the staff presentation. Chair Hirsch and Boardmember Rosenberg both agreed. Boardmember Rosenberg questioned if a motion was needed to continue the study session. Ms. French stated it’s not necessary however it might be good to show the intention to the public that there will be another study session. Chair Hirsch called for a five-minute break and to allow Vice Chair Baltay to return to the meeting. The ARB took a break. Item 4 ARB 03-16-23 draft minutes excerpt SB9     Packet Pg. 37     Item No. 5. 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: April 20, 2023 Report #: 2304-1250 TITLE Ad Hoc Committee Report: Objective Standards Phase 2 for Townhomes RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB): 1. Review and provide informal comments. No formal action is requested. BACKGROUND This is a continuation of the discussion and presentations given by the Ad Hoc Committee on November 17, 2022, December 1, 2022, and December 15, 2022. When the Objective Design Standards for Housing Development Projects were adopted in July 2022, it was understood that modifications to these standards would likely be needed. Hence, the ARB Chair formed an Ad Hoc Committee to review the adopted standards and suggest changes to the full Board. This Committee is comprised of Chair Hirsch and Board member Chen. ANALYSIS The Committee spent considerable time examining Palo Alto’s Townhome communities, visiting similar projects in neighboring communities, and researching online. While this is an ongoing effort, the Committee feels there are many issues that could be modified in the code to address future projects. For the December 15, 2022 hearing, the ARB Ad Hoc Committee provided the attached summary (Attachment A) of key recommendations for code changes to add to the objective standards codified in 18.24. To inform the discussion, the Committee will present photographs and illustrations that were used to inform its recommended changes. The discussion of modifications is intended to focus on the key recommendations of the committee as a continued discussion from the December 15, 2022 hearing. However, the discussion could include feedback on the other objective standards that should be considered based on experience from projects moving forward through the review process. These could include modifications for clarity or to add to the existing standards. Any Zoning Code Item 5 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 38     Item No. 5. Page 2 of 2 amendments proposed by staff based on this feedback, if directed by Council, would be subject to Planning and Transportation Commission review and recommendation, prior to Council review and action. Therefore, these amendments cannot affect any projects currently on file with the Department of Planning and Development Services. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Ad Hoc Committee’s Key Recommendations for Modifications to Objective Standards to Address Townhomes AUTHOR/TITLE: Claire Raybould, Senior Planner Item 5 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 39     Regulations for Townhomes – Objective Zoning: 1. The maximum length of any linear grouping of Townhomes is 130 feet not including entry elements or bay windows, Each unit must include a minimum front yard 5 feet deep by the width of the unit. The exterior areas adjacent to first floor and separate from the required unit’s walkway and entry path and entry door must be landscaped with shrubbery that separates it from the public sidewalk or be defined by a private entry court with the solid portion no greater than 3’-6” between its side unit or the public right-of-way. 2. No more than 3 attached Townhomes within a cluster of 5 units or 4 in a cluster of 6 units can repeat the same elevation, window format, surface pattern and cornice height. The maximum number of attached units with common walls shall not exceed 7 units. 3. Corner units that face two streets must have a change in the roof line to a higher elevation unless the entire units parapet or roof line is taller than the adjacent unit and must have two or more of the following elevation treatments so that it is distinguished from the repetitive units. a. minimum 4’ deep covered entry patio. b. A wrap around corner window or 2.5’ projecting bay window on one or more floors. c. A tower element that may penetrates the height limitation of the R-30 but does not exceed 50 feet in height. d. A projecting bay window on the front or side elevation or both. e. A setback area of differing material and/or color from the major facade material. f. A balcony extending a minimum of 4’ from the face of the building and is 6’ wide. 4. The base building color treatment must include at least two colors and two basic materials. If the face of the window trim elements and other facade defining trimming are 4” or larger, then the trim can be considered the second color, if the trim is used on 70% of all windows. Otherwise a second color shall be used on a significant element of the facade such as a bay window or large form defining area a minimum of 8’ by 8’. An exception to this regulation allows a single color if the entire unit has a different color. A maximum of 7 different colors are allowed. 5. Townhomes located on major streets or boulevards or facing two streets can exceed the R-3 height requirements by one story but cannot exceed the 50 foot height limitation. Emphasis on increasing the importance of the street is achieved by selecting two or more of the following: a. Increase the scale of the entry area and doorway. b. Increase the window dimensions and their surrounds and the cornice dimension. c. Provide the front areaway within the property with a defined structure that separates it from the sidewalk and the neighboring home. d. Increase the height of the building by a full story or a partial story consistently on all units or at end units or in a consistent repeating pattern of units. 6. All Townhomes projects on all sites greater than 200x400 feet must have one street of the longest dimension with a sidewalk and street trees. (see xxx for tree frequency) 7. While 3 different prototypes are preferred, a minimum of two separate prototypes of townhome design are required between one half acres and two acres. Above three acres, three prototypes are required. The difference between typologies must include a significant variation Item 5 Attachment A Key Recommendations for Modifications to Objective Standards     Packet Pg. 40     of internal planning and exterior elevation treatments. End unit variations are not separate prototypes. 8. Pedestrian paths on the side of housing clusters that connect the front to the rear and located between the townhome clusters where the unit entry is on the opposite side must be a minimum of 12 feet wide with a minimum 4 foot sidewalk and the adjacent areas fully landscaped. Bay windows of 2.5 foot projections may penetrate this area as long as no windows directly face each other across its width. 9. All major, general public pedestrian passages between clusters must be a minimum of 16 feet wide. A minimum 4 feet perimeter of planting areas and pedestrian amenities such as seating areas must be incorporated in the design and are required throughout the pedestrian way. Such amenities can include bicycle racks or other mobility devices. 10. Tandem parking is permitted for a maximum of 50% of the units, but must be equally distributed between the clusters. 11. A Cul-de-Sac arrangement of parking entries between clusters is permitted. Vehicles in such a parking scheme cannot cross a pedestrian path that provides access to the unit entries on the opposite side or connects to another series of units with garages across an intervening pedestrian path. 12. All Townhome projects 40 units or greater must provide centrally located common green spaces or linear public pedestrian paths such as Paseos equivalent to a minimum of 5% of the gross property area of the Townhomes. Such areas must be exclusively for pedestrian use. Private unit entries or required front yards do not count towards the requirement. 13. The design of the Townhome project must integrate its internal pedestrian, bike and vehicular system with the surrounding areas in order to maintain the connectivity and continuity. 14. Prominent site areas at the major visual corners of the project must be emphasized with structures that, like the cluster corner units, are distinct and identifiable than their neighboring Townhomes, which can be achieved by utilizing at least 3 of the modulations noted in a-g of # 3 above. ARB Ad Hoc Objective Zoning Committee: David Hirsch, Chair Yingxi Chen, Boardmember Item 5 Attachment A Key Recommendations for Modifications to Objective Standards     Packet Pg. 41     Revised Regula�ons for Townhomes – Objec�ve Zoning 1.The maximum length of any linear grouping of Townhomes is 150 feet not including entry elements or bay windows on end units, each unit must include a minimum front yard 5 feet deep by the width of the unit. 2.The exterior areas adjacent to first floor and separate from the required unit’s walkway and entry path and entry door must be landscaped with shrubbery that separates it from the public sidewalk or be defined by a private entry court with the solid por�on no greater than 3’-6” between its side unit or the public right-of-way. 3.No more than 3 at ached Townhomes within a cluster of 5 units or 4 in a cluster of 6 units can repeat the same eleva�on, window format, surface pat ern and cornice height. The maximum number of at ached units with common walls shall not exceed 7 units. 4.Corner units that face two streets or private pathways must have a change in the roof line and must have two or more of the following eleva�on treatments so that it is dis�nguished from the repe��ve units. a.minimum 4’ deep covered entry pa�o. b.A wrap around corner window c.A tower element that may penetrate the height limita�on of the R-30 but does not exceed 50 feet in height. d.A projec�ng bay window on the front or side eleva�on or both on one or more floors. e.A setback area of differing material and/or color from the major facade material. f.A balcony extending a minimum of 4’ from the face of the building and is 6’ wide or a Juliet- balcony. 5.The base building color treatment must include at least two colors and two basic materials. If the face of the window trim elements and other facade defining trimming are 4” or larger, then the trim can be considered the second color, if the trim is used on 70% of all windows. Otherwise, a second color shall be used on a significant element of the facade such as a bay window or large form defining area a minimum of 8’ by 8’. An excep�on to this regula�on allows a single color if the en�re unit has a different color from its neighboring unit. A maximum of 7 different colors are allowed. 6.Townhomes located on major streets or boulevards or facing two streets can exceed the R-3 height requirements by a full story or par�al story but cannot exceed the 50-foot height limita�on. Emphasis on increasing the importance of the street is achieved by selec�ng two or more of the following: a.Increase the scale of the entry area and doorway. b.Increase the window dimensions and their surrounds and the cornice dimension. c.Provide the front areaway within the property with a defined structure that separates it from the sidewalk and the neighboring home. d.Increase the height of the building by a full story or a par�al story consistently on all units or at end units or in a consistent repea�ng pat ern of units. 7.All Townhomes projects on all sites greater than 2 acres must have one street of the longest dimension with a sidewalk and street trees. 8.While 3 different prototypes are preferred, a minimum of two separate prototypes of townhome design are required between one acre and two acres. Above two acres, three prototypes are required. The difference between typologies must include a significant varia�on of internal planning and exterior eleva�on treatments. A typology is a dis�nctly different design format such as a free standing units versus an at ached cluster or a cluster of units in which all of the featured elements of the design for each house is dis�nctly different in size or massing or that one series of townhomes Item 5 Attachment A Revised Regulations for Townhomes Item 5 Attachment A Revised Regulations for Townhomes     Packet Pg. 42     has balconies or enclosed projec�ons such as bay windows, or one series has stoops. End unit varia�ons are not a separate prototype. 9. Pedestrian paths on the side of housing clusters that connect the front to the rear and located between the townhome clusters where the unit entry is on the opposite side must be a minimum of 12 feet wide with a minimum 4-foot sidewalk and the adjacent areas fully landscaped. Bay windows of 2-foot projec�ons may penetrate this area as long as no windows directly face each other across its width. 10. All major, general public pedestrian passages between clusters must be a minimum of 16 feet wide. A minimum 4 feet perimeter of plan�ng areas and pedestrian ameni�es such as sea�ng areas must be incorporated in the design and are required throughout the pedestrian way. Such ameni�es can include bicycle racks or other mobility devices. 11. Tandem parking is permit ed for a maximum of 50% of the units, but must be equally distributed between the clusters. 12. A Cul-de-Sac arrangement of parking entries between clusters is permit ed. Vehicles in such a parking scheme cannot cross a pedestrian path that provides access to the unit entries on the opposite side or connects to another series of units with garages across an intervening pedestrian path. 13. All Townhome projects 30 units or greater must provide centrally located common green spaces or linear public pedestrian paths such as Paseos equivalent to a minimum of 10% of the gross property area of the Townhomes. Such areas must be exclusively for pedestrian use and include three of the following passive and ac�ve recrea�on spaces and furnishings; pathway border plan�ngs, trees, children’s play spaces, small group gathering areas, open non-programmed lawn areas, canopy or gazebo or open paved sea�ng and tables area with or without cooking facili�es. Private unit entries or required front yards do not count towards the requirement. 14. The design of the Townhome project must integrate its internal pedestrian, bike and vehicular system with the surrounding areas in order to maintain the connec�vity and con�nuity. 15. Townhome projects must be analyzed in rela�on to poten�al impacts to the neighboring requirements, so that, for example, the through pedestrian, bicycle or vehicular access requirements of adjacent uses is studied in rela�on to the proper func�oning of the Townhouse requirements in order to avoid any conflict with normal opera�ons of both areas. 16. Orienta�on of clusters to provide adequate natural light. 17. Required setback dimension of units from the public street and sidewalk to the building footprint. Descrip�on of the required plan�ng, width of the required pathway and separa�on and privacy of adjacent entries. 18. Regula�ons for the inclusion of a specific loca�on and number of parking spaces for guests and maintenance worker parking with limita�ons on the distance or convenience to all townhome units. This ruling recognizes that this type of development is much denser than other single family residen�al zones. 19. Regula�ons for privacy such as distances from window to window or required offsets. 20. Garbage collec�on and delivery/loading area should be designed to allow the vehicle enter and exit safely, ideally without having to back up. ARB Ad Hoc Objec�ve Zoning Commit ee: David Hirsch, Chairman Yingxi Chen, Board member Item 5 Attachment A Revised Regulations for Townhomes     Packet Pg. 43     Item No. 6. 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: April 20, 2023 Report #: 2304-1278 TITLE Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for March 16, 2023 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) adopt the attached meeting minutes. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Minutes of March 16, 2023 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 6 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 44     Page 1 of 21 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 03/16/23 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD DRAFT MINUTES: March 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, Boardmember Yingxi Chen, Boardmember Kendra Rosenberg, Boardmember Osma Thompson Absent: Vice Chair Peter Baltay (arrived at 8:38) Chair Hirsch stated there was not a need to read the Resolution Authorizing Use of Teleconferencing for the Architectural Review Board During Covid-19 State of Emergency. Oral Communications Veronica Dao, Administrative Associate III, stated there were none. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Claire Raybould, Senior Planner and ARB Liaison reported the Ad Hoc meeting for the Silicone Bank Project scheduled for March 16 was cancelled. City Official Reports 1. Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2) Tentative Future Agenda items and 3) Recently Submitted Projects Ms. Raybould displayed the ARB meeting schedule and said Boardmember Chen had a planned absence for the next hearing, and items scheduled for that meeting include a full project review for 3200 Park Boulevard - the Fry site development agreement, Chair and Vice Chair elections, and a study session on the annual report and Council work plan. New submitted projects include a formal application for the 420 Acacia project, staff will look to schedule a first hearing at a future meeting. Chair Hirsch inquired if the 420 Acacia is the project for townhouses by Charities. Ms. Raybould responded that Charities owned a large parcel and split and sold a portion of the property. The application was submitted by Dividend Housing. Chair Hirsch suggested that would be a good project for preliminary preview prior to the formal hearing and asked if that would be a possibility. Item 6 Draft Minutes of March 16 2023     Packet Pg. 45     Page 2 of 21 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 03/16/23 Ms. Raybould stated if the project is seen by an ad hoc hearing, it would count as one of their five allotted hearings. Chair Hirsch questioned if that had been confirmed. Ms. Raybould stated she had and that the project could not be seen for an ad hoc hearing for approval, however it could be reviewed for general objective feedback by an ad hoc committee of two Boardmembers. Chair Hirsch commented it would not be for a hearing, just a general overview preview. Boardmember Thompson stated Vice Chair Baltay had joined the meeting and requested clarification that if two Boardmembers review the project and provide architectural feedback, it would count as a hearing, and requested additional information on what Chair Hirsch was requesting regarding an ad hoc. Ms. Raybould stated it would not count as a hearing, however the intent would not be to get subjective architectural feedback from only two Boardmembers early in the project, because it may not represent the full Board’s decision. Chair Hirsch stated that it had been discussed previously that the ARB may want to consider doing an initial preview of a submitted application for objective feedback on possible additional information the Board need for the formal hearing. Boardmember Thompson clarified the ad hoc would be intended to provide a content review. Ms. Raybould added the feedback could be returned in a non-formal email format or through communications with staff. Chair Hirsch commended Ms. Gerhardt for creating the list of projects presented at the meetings and the benefit of having it was intended for the ARB to be made aware of a project prior to seeing it at a formal hearing, it would be useful to include the name of the applicant rather than just the application number. Ms. Raybould responded staff could add that information in the project description. Chair Hirsch used the Fry project as an example of splitting the review process and inquired who made the decision to see that project in pieces rather than the project as a whole. Ms. Raybould stated staff made the decision with the purpose of trying to get early feedback on the pieces, however they didn’t want to move forward with the Cannery portion of the building until they received feedback from the Historical Resources Board. It was also meant to provide enough review time for the ARB for each section of the project due to the size of it in its entirety. Ms. Raybould noted that they are now starting the formal hearings on each portion. This project is a development agreement for a planned community, so there is flexibility in the number of hearings allowed. The Housing Accountability Act projects are the projects that are limited to five hearings. For the formal hearing scheduled in April and beyond, every aspect of the Fry project will be submitted as a whole. Vice Chair Baltay commented that this project is an example of how an early ad hoc review may have been helpful so that the decision to split the project would have included everyone concerned, the ad hoc could Item 6 Draft Minutes of March 16 2023     Packet Pg. 46     Page 3 of 21 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 03/16/23 have provided feedback on the process as well as the content, and for that reason he supported Chair Hirsch’s position on having an earlier preliminary review of a project through an ad hoc committee. Ms. Raybould responded to Chair Hirsch’s question about whether a project is removed from the list once it is approved, that the 3300 El Camino project is still active, with staff looking to bring it forward during the April 20 meeting. Chair Hirsch asked if the 3150 El Camino project was the project by Acclaim. Ms. Raybould replied that was correct. Chair Hirsch suggested the 3150 El Camino project may also benefit from a preliminary content review with an ad hoc committee. Ms. Raybould answered the proposed developer had not yet submitted their actual application, however all of the information had been submitted for the SB330 pre-application and is available online under their pending projects. The information required for SB330 pre-applications include an undefined basic elevation such as massing drawings, and a site plan. The SB330 pre-application has been deemed complete for 3150 El Camino, however the formal application has not been filed. Chair Hirsch stated that he and Boardmember Rosenberg will be the preview ad hoc committee for content review for the 3150 El Camino project and the 420 Acacia project. Ms. Raybould stated she would send the links out for the information of the two properties, in addition to the 800 San Antonio project that was discussed in the previous meeting, and the submittal list that staff works from for the information required in a project application that is submitted for a hearing. Chair Hirsch inquired if staff would be present for the ad hoc meeting so should the Boardmembers review the material that was submitted online. Vice Chair Baltay commented the preliminary ad hoc reviews would not be a wise choice of staff’s time, a possible process might be to review the project material and then ask questions if they had them, and staff could set up a meeting with staff if necessary. Boardmember Thompson inquired how the ad hoc would relay the feedback to staff. Vice Chair Baltay stated his understanding was the ad hoc would report their feedback during the next scheduled meeting, so not to tie up more time than is needed. Chair Hirsch stated this is more like a process and development and it seems it would be a good idea to present their feedback as a list items requested, and the list can be shared with the Board at an appropriate time. Boardmember Rosenberg clarified the goal of the ad hoc is to provide insight as to what information is missing that the ARB will want to see for any given application submitted, so that really wouldn’t need to even be shared with the Board, it is more a communication from the ad hoc committee via staff to the applicant. She did believe the feedback might be better served in written format than a phone call. Item 6 Draft Minutes of March 16 2023     Packet Pg. 47     Page 4 of 21 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 03/16/23 Chair Hirsch noted that he felt there have been projects with information missing that the ARB wanted to see and this would be a good option in preventing delays during hearings and inquired if 340 Portage was also a part of that project and Ms. Raybould responded that it was a portion of the Fry and Cannery projects, that members of the public had requested staff refer to the Cannery project as 340 Portage since it has several addresses. Chair Hirsch stated the townhomes for that project is one that the Boardmembers has invested a good amount of time on and requested that project be pushed to the next meeting so Boardmember Chen could be present for the hearing and she has a scheduled absence at the next meeting. Ms. Raybould responded staff could get the project pushed to the April 20 meeting Agenda. They are anticipating 123 Sherman possibly moving forward on that hearing as well, and possibly the Stanford Shopping Center/Our House project. In addition, they expect an ad hoc report for the 3300 El Camino project. Boardmember Thompson inquired if 3200 Park Boulevard was still scheduled. Ms. Raybould confirmed that was correct. Study Session 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 SB9 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. Chair Hirsch requested the staff presentation. Vice Chair Baltay stated he would be recusing himself from this item on the advice of the City Attorney relative to current projects that Vice Chair Baltay has in the city. He would be available to rejoin them once the item was completed. Boardmember Rosenberg stated as an over abundance of caution, she also has a project in progress, but it has already been permitted and approved with an ADU. She has recused herself from all her other projects in Palo Alto, she does not have any Senate Bill 9 (SB9) projects in Palo Alto. Boardmember Thompson stated she had nothing to disclose. Boardmember Chen reported she has a similar situation to Boardmember Rosenberg, she has ADU projects in Palo Alto, but not any SB9 projects. Chair Hirsch stated he was retired and had no projects. Amy French, Chief Planning Official, introduced the item and stated she would begin the presentation before passing it to Emily Foley for the more detailed information. SB9 (Government Code 66411.7) The California Home Act which created a ministerial process for two-unit housing development on single Item 6 Draft Minutes of March 16 2023     Packet Pg. 48     Page 5 of 21 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 03/16/23 family residential (SFR) parcels. It enabled urban lot splits for a one-time subdivision of an existing SFR parcel into two parcels. Approvals must be based only on objective standards and cannot preclude construction of 2 units of less than 800 square feet. Denials are only permitted if projects do not meet objective standards or if there are “specific, adverse impacts” on public health and safety. There are now limitations on how jurisdictions can regulate SB9 projects, including setback and parking requirements and requirement that attached buildings must be allowed. The parcels affected by SB9 are all SFR zoned properties within urbanized areas except for environmentally sensitive areas and environmental hazard areas (if specific mitigations are not possible) and listed historic properties and districts. Additionally, demolition is generally not permitted for rental units or deed-restricted rental units. City Council adapted Palo Alto’s municipal code and associated development review processes to accommodate SB9 by adopting an urgency ordinance on December 6, 2021 and interim ordinance on January 10, 2022. Council adopted urban lot split standards and refined the previously presented standards on March 31, 2022, which were further amended in accordance with Ordinances 5542 adopted on January 24 2022 and 5546 adopted on April 11, 2022. The Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) recommended City Council adopt a permanent ordinance on February 8, 2023 to replace the interim Ordinances which included no proposed changes to the standards at this time. Staff’s recommendations are that the ARB review and comment on the adopted objective standards for urban lot splits and review and comment on the adopted objective standards for SB9 based on the Individual Review (IR) guidelines which informed the formation of the SB9 Objective Standards. The standards on the urban lot splits only apply to qualifying SB9 projects within Palo Alto, and Public Works Director is authorized to publish Objective Standards regarding Adjacent Public improvements related to SB9 projects. Council asked staff to share the approved standards with the PTC and ARB for consideration related to a permanent ordinance citing the standards and modifications to the SB9 standards can be accomplished outside the Council timeline for adopting the permanent ordinance. After a year into the new standards, staff has found there may be potential amendments to the standards to include: o Increasing the size of detached units for larger lots to enable more use of cottage cluster development and of SB9. o Modify lot split standards for larger lots and irregular shaped lots such as Residential Estate lots in the hills of Palo Alto Ms. French continued with the SB9 approval processes, criteria and objective zoning standards, objective subdivision standards and design review standards and their limitations which may apply to SB9 urban lot split standards. Emily Foley, Project Planner, continued the presentation with information about different scenarios that are allowable lot splits on R1 and RE zones properties. The criteria are that there be four units built under SB9. Chair Hirsch inquired if the diagram shown was representative of site orientation for lot splits. Ms. Foley explained that the diagram was attempting to show different scenarios. However, the orientation of the split units is based on the size of the lots, not all units would necessarily be seen from a street view if one unit was behind another. The process for building a one story home or a one story home with an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) or Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit (JADU) requires the Item 6 Draft Minutes of March 16 2023     Packet Pg. 49     Page 6 of 21 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 03/16/23 building permit process. A two-story home requires the IR process, a two-story home with an ADU could be processed through the IR process OR the IR objective standard ministerial process OR SB9 process while a two-story home with a second home would follow the SB9 process. Two units and two detached ADU’s on a single lot would be an SB9 process and a subdivision of an R-1 or RE lot would be the SB9 process OR possible parcel map if the lot was more than 12,000 square feet (SF). Chair Hirsch requested clarification that ministerial means a project wouldn’t be seen by the ARB. Ms. Foley responded that ministerial means discretionary, the IR application is considered a discretionary review application, however it is handled at the staff level. There are discretionary projects that don’t necessarily come before the ARB. Three or more units are considered multi-family so those would always come before the ARB, but under SB9, an applicant is allowed to build up to four units using objective standards and a ministerial process. Boardmember Rosenberg requested an explanation of what would the circumstances that applicant building a two story home with an ADU would choose the IR, IR objective or SB9 process. Ms. Foley stated that the IR objective process doesn’t exist, the slide is outdated, it would be the SB9 objective standards to build a story home with an ADU whereas the IR process is using the current IR guidelines. At the time it was established, staff was hoping that the objective standards will streamline the Individual review process by taking out the discretionary back and forth process that often happens in some applications, however staff does not want to eliminate that as an option because they did their best to ensure the objectives design standards were that they were in line with the current IR guidelines. There are cases where some may perceive them as being more restrictive. Boardmember Chen commented it seems like SB9 pertains more to housing development that is no more than two housing units per lot and in that case, and asked why a two-story home without an ADU seems like it qualifies for an SB9 process instead of an IR. Ms. Foley responded that the way the SB9 Ordinance is written, it applies to the construction of two or more units, but that is also something that can be considered with how the objective design standards could be apply to houses that are currently going through the IR process. Boardmember Rosenberg commented that if they were trying to streamline the IR process, SB9 really is focused on multi units on single family lots so a two-story home that’s just the one home, SB9 would really only applies when there’s more than one unit. Ms. Foley explained SB9 is a State Law which encourages increased housing production on single family lots. The individual review process is a uniquely Palo Alto thing, although most city’s have some type of discretionary process for larger homes. Duplexes or two-story use is now allowed in the IR or RE zone. Previously there had been some confusion about whether duplex means the units are inherently attached, they can be attached or detached. As a part of an SB9 process the property owner can choose to do a lot split. There are certain qualifications the project must meet, however the minimum lot size in Palo Alto is currently 6,000 SF, that would be reduced to 2,400 SF and it would require it be a minimum of a 60/40 split. The smaller of the two lots cannot be less than 40% of the existing whole lot. The City has previously required there be street frontage by doing a flag lot or easement or having 20 feet of street frontage, the Item 6 Draft Minutes of March 16 2023     Packet Pg. 50     Page 7 of 21 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 03/16/23 point with the ADUs is there’s a maximum of four units. The setbacks have been reduced to increase the buildable area when doing an SB9 project. The rear and side setbacks have been reduced to 4” which is the same as the ADU setback requirement. The front yard requirement is unchanged at (20’, varies). Chair Hirsch inquired if the rear building could be two stories. Ms. Foley replied no, the objective design standards do limit having second story within the rear yard. Boardmember Rosenberg added that an ADU is allowed to be built up to 16 feet tall, even in that rear setback. Boardmember Thompson inquired if the same setbacks are required for corner lots. Ms. Foley stated that the street side yard is identified as a different yard type in the zoning code, with ADUs it was determined that the streetside setback was considered a side and could be built at the 4” setback, but staff has not yet had to visit what that would look like for an SB9 project. Boardmember Rosenberg stated that’s a really good question because in the past ADUs typically on a corner lot, they consider the short side the front side, regardless of what the address is. The street side of the ADU have to be respected regardless due to it being a special setback. Ms. Foley responded that special setbacks are a third item that do have to be respected no matter what and Boardmember Rosenberg was correct that the zoning code does always identify the shorter of the two frontages as being the front, however for a streetside setback for ADUs, they are allowed to be four feet. Boardmember Rosenberg stated in theory the SB9 would follow that ADU setback on that streetside as well. Ms. Foley stated staff is assuming that came directly from the state, in that they would be consistent in that interpretation. Boardmember Rosenberg stated that in the case where they split a corner lot such that one lot was no longer a corner lot, it would require a setback along its face. If they don’t split the lot, it changes the requirements quite a bit for what can be developed on that property and where. Ms. Foley stated if they split that lot they would have one corner lot and one interior lot and the new interior lot would use the interior lot setback rules. Boardmember Rosenberg clarified if they didn’t split the lot and wanted SB9, the applicant would be allowed to pull the sides out to the 4” setbacks along that entire length. Ms. Raybould stated Boardmember Rosenberg was correct. Now the front yard would become what the streetside yard was, so they would then have to respect the streetside setback of 20 feet. Ms. Foley stated it would depend on the configuration of the corner lot. It could be split without changing which one had the front setback. Boardmember Rosenberg stated the point she was trying to make was that in certain situations the rules, in the way they are written, have a lot of unintended consequences. One being in the example of the Item 6 Draft Minutes of March 16 2023     Packet Pg. 51     Page 8 of 21 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 03/16/23 corner lot, staff may be accidentally encouraging someone to split or not split the property based on how the rules are written and how the applicant can best capture the use of the lot. As the ARB moves forward, they will need to be mindful of some of those issues because that would be a notable difference on some of the corner lots and oddly shaped lots. It is the exception to the rules that is going to be the where the meat of the pie is. Ms. French stated the Planning Commission has recently made more changes to the ADU Ordinances. Staff went to City Council in December with another change due to State Law. Their intention was to get feedback from HCD on the most recent changes that were put before the Planning Commission so they could mitigate the interim process. They will return to the ARB once they have less of a moving target situation with the changes that are being made on the State level. Boardmember Rosenberg commented that part of the reason it’s such a moving target is due to the ADU standards being so new, and they keep changing. Now there is SB9, and all of the things together are making the process quite complicated. Ms. Foley stated the conversation was a good transition to the next slide in the presentation as it explains more one of the consequences that had been referenced in the conversation. Chair Hirsch questioned if the objective standards for ADUs on corner lots recognize that there will be an elevation facing one way or another. Ms. Foley stated ADUs are not inherently part of an SB9 project, and ADUs will still be following the current ADU laws so the objective standards do not do design for ADUs necessarily, and in the same way that when they look at an IR project and an ADU is included in one of those, it is recognized that based on State law, ADUs are always ministerial projects that just need to check those boxes of what the zoning code requires for ADUs. Chair Hirsch clarified his question in that when there is a lot split and the ADU is put in the corner of the property, what determines which side is the elevation. Ms. Foley replied the zoning code always defines the front yard as being the shorter of the two frontages and it’s possible that’s in a lot split that would change it, it’s also possible that the lot split wouldn’t change which one is front. If it’s 60’ on one side and 100’ on the other and you split it into two 30x100’s the front stays the same. Additionally, when you are looking at the objective design standards, IR Guideline 4 refers to façade composition and does acknowledge that the owner should take advantage of the duel street frontages to present units with windows. The allowable floor area changes when a lot is split. This would apply more for larger lots due to the way floor area is calculated. When you have a 6,000 SF lot, the total allowable floor area is 3,350 SF, which when you split the lot, each lot is 3,000 SF with an allowable floor area on each lot being 2,150 SF for a total of 4,300 SF for both properties. The additional 800 SF does not apply to SB9 projects. Ms. French presented how the Objective Standards translated from the IR Guidelines. The SB9 Objective Design Guidelines were based upon the IR Guidelines. o Guideline ONE: Site Planning: Garage, driveway, and house o Guideline TWO: Neighborhood compatibility for height, mass, and scale Item 6 Draft Minutes of March 16 2023     Packet Pg. 52     Page 9 of 21 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 03/16/23 o Guideline THREE: Resolution of architectural form, massing, and roof lines o Guideline FOUR: Visual Character of street facing façades and entries o Guideline FIVE: Privacy from second floor windows and decks. Each IR Guideline is further broken down into key points and the SB9 objective standards converted the existing discretionary key points into objective standards. An example using Guideline One: site planning, Keypoint-5; Locate and upper floor well back from the front façade and/or away from side lot lines if the home is adjacent to small or one-story homes. Objective Standard 1.5B: Contextual Massing Stepback states where a home on an abutting lot across a side lot line is single story or has a second-story floor area less than 500 SF, 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. Because an urban lot split could potentially be narrower than a standard lot, the Keypoint is trying to discourage having a two-story wall plane if the side set back is less than 20’. The second floor needs to be stepped 7’ back for at least half of the total length of the house. This would apply to standard Palo Alto lot sizes. Ms. French added that in the ER district the IR guidelines do not apply for regular two-story homes, only in the R-1 and some houses adjacent to R-1 it applies. It’s rare that the 20 foot setback on the side in the R-1, but because the SB9 applies to RE but not R-1, the math can get confusing. Boardmember Thompson commented that if the house is within 20 feet of the property line, and the upper level is 7 feet setback in relationship to the side yard, if the house is 10 feet from the side yard that triggers then the upper level would be at 17 feet from the side yard. Boardmember Rosenberg stated that she would have to argue in that case that penalizes someone who has already built farther away from the setback and inquired if that 7-foot setback is from the existing wall of the house or from the setback line. Ms. Foley replied it is from the existing or proposed wall of the house on the first floor. In cases where there is maybe a rear garage, you have an eight or nine- or ten-foot driveway rather than a six-foot minimum setback, that will change the amount of setback by two or three feet. Boardmember Rosenberg felt that unfairly penalizes people and it becomes much more subjective than objective and if that standard is set that if the house was built within 20’ of the property line, then it should be off of their setback. During the lot splits, if they have to have a 10’ wide driveway and then an additional 7 feet after that, they might all of a sudden not be allowed to build a second floor because you’re required to have a 15-foot by 15-foot second floor minimum. She was concerned that there’s some unfair penalization of some existing standards, some of that clarification would be helpful. Ms. French commented that was a great point and that she would add that the R-1 zone also has combing districts, some of which are 10-foot setbacks as the minimum setback for the sides, as opposed to the six feet, and some have an 8’ set back. There are different R-1 zones and of course you have the RE which allows SB9. Ms. Foley stated it also combines into other ones and she felt they aren’t going to get into those right now, but if you are adjacent to a single story house, there also has to be an additional 2’ under the typical Item 6 Draft Minutes of March 16 2023     Packet Pg. 53     Page 10 of 21 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 03/16/23 daylight plane. They also don’t consider that under SB9 you could be using 4-foot side setbacks instead of the 6’ or the 8’ or the 10’, just because the example shown limits it to 7’, where the daylight plane hits could be further restrictive or not. Boardmember Rosenberg inquired how they could simplify some of that. Ms. Foley stated they would love it to be simplified. Chair Hirsch inquired why they would change the daylight plane concept at all. Ms. Foley answered because typically in their current application of the IR standards in response to how it is currently subjective with things like well back from side lot lines and illustrations where it’s not touching the daylight plane, it’s been interpreted over the last 20 years, to be additionally reduced from the daylight plane. Chair Hirsch stated he has a sub-standard lot on his house but held to the daylight plane as they controlling dimension of the second story. It was critical and he wouldn’t have been able to build the house at all if he didn’t have the right to build it to the daylight plane and he finds it sufficiently distant from the neighbors and doesn’t understand how this happened along the way. Boardmember Rosenberg commented there’s a nearby city and they have an ordinance that is very similar to this where the second story always has to be stepped back in the front and on the sides and you end up drive around that city and you see a lot of “cake-toppers”, where it looks more like wedding cakes, and she was inclined to say that when you allow the daylight plane to be the ruling factor instead of the setbacks, the goal is the respect your neighbor and not be an imposition in massing or in hogging daylight and wind. The daylight plane is highly effective in this and if that volume should be enough. The additional restriction of seven foot from this and from that, can cause a lot more issues than it’s worth and it doesn’t benefit anybody and penalizes the homeowner and can create some funky architecture. It makes it much more difficult to hit a moving target, where if you go with a setback or daylight plane and call it a day, that buildable envelope should just be respected and that could be it, and it could stay that simple. Boardmember Rosenberg stated that was her two cents. Chair Hirsch stated his two cents as well. Boardmember Thompson suggested the Board let staff continue with the presentation. Chair Hirsch inquired what Boardmember Thompson’s opinion was and stated if they didn’t provide their opinions they would have to circle back anyway. Ms. French stated that things change on the ADUs as it gets handed down from the State, so these kinds of things happen each year as they get feedback and push back. Ms. Foley provided additional examples which restrict the second floor area due to setbacks in combination with other objective standards. In cases where there are flood zones, instead of being 18”, it’s 24” to allow more room to stay in compliance with the flood zone, since the required floor height is likely to be higher. In the case of neighborhood compatibility for height, mass, and scale, at least one single-story building form with dimensions no greater than 16’ in height, no less than 8’ in depth, and no Item 6 Draft Minutes of March 16 2023     Packet Pg. 54     Page 11 of 21 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 03/16/23 less than 12’ in width shall be placed on each street facing building side. This was intended to limit the amount of flat two-story wall planes there are on any given house. Ms. French stated that on the Palo Alto Municipal Code Title 21 for subdivisions, sections were modified so that the city could require lot splits have access to adjoin the public right of way. Three types of lot splits were considered in that process, and it also depends upon the street frontage which dictates the way the design of the addition would go and provided example drawings for side by side, the flag lot, and the flag lot with easement. For a single-family home, you cannot do a flag lot for an R-1 property, unless there’s historical preservation. For SB9, they use the 10’ minimum easement for clearance of an automobile. Public Works also has standards that are objective standards, however the Public Works director can modify public improvement standards similarly that the City can modify the SB9 standards that have been adopted, outside of the ordinance process. The goal is to keep the SB9 standards ministerial, including the urban lot splits. Handouts are in process, the consultants Urban Planning Partners who are working on handouts to try to help the public see what the opportunities are and to clarify the ministerial requirements eligibility, with links available to help people explore State law. Boardmember Rosenberg thanked staff for the presentation and commented that it’s a lot of information and pretty complicated, and she appreciates the time and effort that put into tying it all together. Ms. Raybould stated that her understanding is that they have the objective standards, if they can’t meet the SB9 objective standards it doesn’t necessarily mean that they can’t design how they want to, it just means that they have to chose to go through staff’s discretionary process to do so. It’s impossible to think of every design, some projects have come in for example, with roof lines that don’t fall within the objective standards even though it’s not an unreasonable design. They can choose to still move forward with the design of their choice, they just have to do it through the discretionary process. Staff is trying to strike a balance. They would like to streamline the process, and not create more work for staff, but also having strict enough standards that staff is comfortable with allowing people to move forward and no that they are still going to fall within what the City would see as reasonable under their IR process, which has been fairly successful with coming up with good designs for the community. And still retaining some ability to work with applicants that may not be able to meet every objective standard. Boardmember Thompson reminded Chair Hirsch he may want to call for Public Comments and questions for the public hearing. Chair Hirsch stated it’s a question of how staff looks at the standards. As he looked through it from an outside view, he took one house through the discretionary process and was quite pleased with the results, and questioned what staff is seeking in terms of feedback. Ms. Raybould responded that the ARB’s feedback is important, examples of what they’ve already pointed out is very helpful. As they’ve gone through the changes made in the last year, the larger lots in the RE zone, there is possibly more potential with those lots than what’s been restricted under the objective standards in their current form. There could be more opportunities either in the lot split standards and/or the objective standards that may speak better to some of the larger lots to better provide for more housing. Item 6 Draft Minutes of March 16 2023     Packet Pg. 55     Page 12 of 21 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 03/16/23 Ms. French asked Veronica Dao, Administrative Associate III, if there were any public comments, Ms. Dao stated she did not have any speaker cards that were submitted. Ms. Foley stated the first example is within the Ordinance itself rather than in the objective standards which is why she wanted to call that example out specifically. Currently, taking a more conservative view when initially drafting the ordinance, in cases where three or four units are being developed simultaneously, it states that the maximum unit size is 800 SF, but the change makes it unattractive to homeowners and development. Boardmember Chen commented the first thing most people want to know is whether or not they qualify for the SB9, and in the case of flood zones there was a scenario provided in which a project wouldn’t qualify and requested clarification on if all houses in Palo Alto qualify for SB9 projects. Ms. Foley replied to Boardmember Chen that the exact language in the Code says that the subject parcel cannot be located within the 100-year flood zone unless Public Work’s standards can be met. So those Public Works standards are really just having that finished floor outside of the flood zone and elevated. The majority, if not all, of flood zone R1 properties are usually able to meet those requirements. Boardmember Chen asked if an ADU has already been built and if the property owner wants to rebuild the primary home, could the project qualify as an SB9 project. Boardmember Rosenberg commented that’s an interesting question because if there is an ADU already built on a property with a small house, can they split the lot and then on the new split portion build the new two-story and have that go under SB9 rules and regulations or would that have to go under IR rules and regulations. Ms. Foley stated they would be able to use SB9 objective standards for that. Ms. Raybould added it would no longer be considered an ADU. Ms. Foley stated those were two different situations. Boardmember Rosenberg clarified that if there were an existing property that is 10,000 SF and there’s a smallish house on it with a detached ADU, can they split that 10,000 SF while keeping the house and the ADU on one property, thus creating a new property that is bare and wanting to build a two-story house, would that new two-story house would then fall under SB9 regulations rather than IR due to the lot split. Ms. Foley explained that any unit built on a property that is the result of an urban lot split would follow the SB9 standards. Boardmember Chen requested clarification that in the situation Boardmember Rosenberg stated, if they did not do the lot split, would the rebuild of the main house remain under the IR process. Ms. Foley stated based on how it’s currently written, the applicant would have the option to do either. Boardmember Chen commented that it seems that most applicants would choose the faster way to build a larger house when based on community comments, that’s not necessarily what Palo Alto residents are wanting in their city. Item 6 Draft Minutes of March 16 2023     Packet Pg. 56     Page 13 of 21 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 03/16/23 Ms. Foley stated that an IR project takes between three and six months with two to three rounds of staff review. There is the possibility that neighbors would initiate a hearing process. The majority of them do go through at the staff level and then proceed to the building permits, but it is a two step process. For the SB9 projects, although in terms of formal applications there is only the building permit and no ability for neighbors to appeal and starting a hearing process, because there are so many objective standards, the City is requiring the project to go through a preliminary process, which in terms of feedback everyone has been in favor of that feedback, staff hasn’t done too many of those types of those projects so they aren’t yet seeing what the length of that process may be. The objective standards will likely need some refining before they get to the point where someone building a new two-story single family house by itself is viewing this process as preferable. Boardmember Rosenberg inquired how the Board wants to proceed. She has read through the material and has a list of items that she’s made from Keypoint to Keypoint. Boardmember Thompson said it might be helpful if Boardmember Rosenberg goes first. Boardmember Rosenberg commented that a lot of the Keypoints seemed to try to find exceptions for oddly shaped lots. It seemed they are trying to encourage shared driveways, if that’s the case it might be better to have a 20’ wide driveway. Keypoint 1.2A is highly problematic for pie shaped lots. She would like the Board and Council to consider adding an addendum saying that pie shaped lots and flag lots would be exempted from those requirements. The standard makes sense for rectangular lots. Even a large irregular shaped lot could work, but the more narrow lots with street frontage, there has to be an allowance for the garage to be the façade. There’s a lot of benefits to that. On 1.2B, it states a 12 feet wide garage, is that a 12 feet wide minimum garage, with a maximum of 30% of the total façade? Ms. Raybould stated the 12 feet minimum was not for the garage, it was for the portion of the house. Ms. Foley stated if you’re building a house from setback to setback, your garage is always allowed to be at least 12 feet, but if your buildable frontage is more than 36 feet, then the garage cannot take up more than 30% of that. Boardmember Rosenberg commented that the verbiage states it can be 12’, when it is better stated by saying it should be 12’ minimum because anything less than that is bike storage. Ms. French stated there’s a 10’ clearance on the interior of a garage so, depending on the shared wall of the house, staff is not going make them do less than 12 feet. Boardmember Rosenberg clarified as long as the 10’ x 20’ foot interior is met it’s considered a garage. Ms. French stated that was correct. Boardmember Chen commented that in 1.2B, the garage width as stated, means they are discouraging a two-car garage at the street front. Boardmember Rosenberg agreed with Boardmember Chen’s comment. They have to have a pretty wide house if you’re maxing people out at 30%. There’s no way that’s going to happen on a pie shaped lot. Item 6 Draft Minutes of March 16 2023     Packet Pg. 57     Page 14 of 21 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 03/16/23 Ms. Foley commented they generally try to encourage two-car garages, the way the Keypoint was phrased in the original IR guidelines is to located garages to be subordinate to and minimally visible and significantly less prominent than the house, as a result of that, one car garages are encouraged, doing rear garages are encouraged and there is a contractual rear setback where if the majority of the house on the street has a rear garages then a new house is required to have that rear garage. There’s a handful of houses that have a rear alley access and in those cases they have to have the house off of that alley. Additionally, due to the way the floor area calculation is structured where covered parking counts towards the floor area, by the zoning code you are only required to have one covered parking and one uncovered parking, that also discourages two car garages because many home owners don’t want that additional 200 SF to go towards parking when it can be incorporated into the house. Boardmember Chen inquired that under SB9 it could be different than a traditional single-family home. Ms. Raybould clarified they only allow two units on each lot so only four units are allowed only if a lot split is done under SB9. Boardmember Chen stated they could if they had 2 primary with 2 ADUs. Boardmember Rosenberg stated in that case no one is accounting for parking. Chair Hirsch commented he agreed, the reality is going to be much different than that. Boardmember Rosenberg commented in the case of the shared one driveway leading up to a cottage style lot plan of 4 units, there would have to be covered carports, some place to put their cars. When the property is being shared by four families, parking needs to be considered. Ms. French stated another consideration are the electric charging stations that are now required. There is an electrification ordinance that has been taken to the Planning Commission that will be continuing on to the Council, staff is working on considerations of noise and heat pump water equipment and such. Many people may use garages to have their vehicle charged. Chair Hirsch stated he has a comment about one with regard to walkway separations. They have to have a planting strip and asked what the requirements are for those and why is it necessary to have a planting strip. Ms. Foley stated it is to provide visual separation between what’s driveway and what’s walkway and to limit the entire space as being used as driveway. Chair Hirsch stated he feels that’s a very specific element that doesn’t necessarily need to be included specifically for every house. He has that type of specificity for a lot of the material. Boardmember Rosenberg agreed that some of it feels like an overreach and not necessary. Ms. Raybould questioned if the ARB feels that the width of that is unnecessary or simply the standard in general. Boardmember Rosenberg stated she feels the standard in general. Some of it feels like it’s overly specific and not really necessary, for example, why is it that SB9 projects needs to account for a planting strip Item 6 Draft Minutes of March 16 2023     Packet Pg. 58     Page 15 of 21 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 03/16/23 between a walkway and a driveway when it may never come up, it may be too tight… the City is seems to be accounting for every inch they can get. Ms. Foley commented she believes there is a zoning code that addresses that, she’s trying to pull it up. Staff had discussed maximum width of driveways and maximum width of walkways and pathways in the zoning code. Ms. French stated comments like these are very helpful for the practical development of the SB9 projects, if there are considerations where they should be looking at their zoning codes as well, those are also helpful. Staff does do periodical comprehensive zoning code updates. Boardmember Thompson stated it seems like that standard is coming from the IR guideline of minimizing driveway paving impacts in order to highlight yards and pedestrian entry ways, so she can see where that would come from. Boardmember Rosenberg commented in theory she likes it but in practice it’s adding an extra hurdle that if the goal is to encourage SB9 developments and if the goal is to encourage more of this density housing, it’s a bit of a nit-picky requirement to have in place for the applicants to have to deal with. Boardmember Thompson responded she hears that point and believes that Ms. Raybould also make a good point that we can’t account for everything. It seems like right now the process is the IR for the most part, which seems to be going well. This is just to help lots that might not even need to go through that process. This will be the in-between that makes it flow through to processes faster. She is slightly less inclined to remove all of those because there is the complication that a lot of them won’t apply to a lot of lots. If they accept that, the alternative is still not a bad process. Boardmember Rosenberg agreed that’s correct and it does need to be made clear that the discretionary process is still an option for the lots that the IR standards don’t comply. Chair Hirsch stated they need to keep it as simple as possible, and make the process work so people don’t have to go to the discretionary process. [Crosstalk] Boardmember Rosenberg raised the point of would they really want to go through the discretionary process because they don’t like the planting strip, it seems ridiculous. Ms. Raybould stated the goal of this process is to strike a balance. Generally, staff have taken a pretty conservative approach to these objective standards initially because they took the position of, they had to conform to the letter of the law. The goal of this process and moving forward with a permanent ordinance, is to think about it a little bit more and find the balance between what will streamline projects and allow people to move forward without creating unnecessary review times but also meet the high quality standards that staff is seeing through the IR process. Ms. French added that many cities are in the same process where they did something more quickly just to get something they’ve been using to work, and now they’ve had a number of projects they can tell the story and figure out going forward, if there’s something else they should be considering. Item 6 Draft Minutes of March 16 2023     Packet Pg. 59     Page 16 of 21 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 03/16/23 Chair Hirsch commented that’s the reason the ARB is saying what they are about this particular type of detail. They are trying to make it more simple for the designer to decide the more specific details. Another example would be the types of trees that can be planted on property lines. Ms. Foley replied she believes the screening landscaping only specifies that it’s only one tree or shrub per 25’ and it does require it to be evergreen but if there is a recommended list, they are allowed to propose other species. Chair Hirsch inquired if that was true even under this process. Boardmember Thompson inquired where there’s a species list defined. Ms. Raybould stated it does reference evergreen trees versus deciduous. Boardmember Rosenberg commented that does make sense in terms of wanting to make sure they still maintain that level of privacy throughout the year, providing they aren’t saying it must be a specific tree. Similar cities use various trees for planting, and that can be respected. Boardmember Thompson commented there’s a benefit to deciduous trees for thermal comfort and energy savings, maybe that should also be a consideration and not just privacy. That made her also wonder if the daylight plane also considers winter angles of the sun. Boardmember Rosenberg replied that it does not consider winter sun angles. The goals of this one seem different, one is a privacy goal from the neighbor, considering the closeness in proximity and density goals, she would consider privacy more important. On properties with yard space there is definitely room for those considerations. Chair Hirsch stated he is also bothered that evergreen trees are more like walls and there are other ways to create privacy. His personal preference is that windows are glazed in such a way that you can’t see through them on the side yard. Boardmember Rosenberg commented that’s where she and the Chair disagree. She loves that in her back yard it’s all oleander and she loves that all she sees is green. Her neighbor has an ADU and because of her oleander she isn’t able to see the roof line of the ADU. Boardmember Thompson commented that for her it’s not so much about preference as it is about thinking about sustainability as they increase their density. Part of the standards should also consider the sustainable aspects as well. She would love for there to be more considerations for passive building throughout the standards. Green roofs could be incentivized. They are great thermal masses, great for bees, et cetera. Boardmember Rosenberg commented that is an excellent point and Boardmember Thompson just opened a can of worms in that they must comply with the new State Law density requirements and the City has to figure out how they do that in the most responsible way possible. While the ARB’s focus is on architecture and aesthetics and being good neighbors, they haven’t been considering the electrical grid, or the sanitary sewer systems, water usage, or fire considerations. None of that is being discussed, however those are items that are outside of the purview of the ARB. Item 6 Draft Minutes of March 16 2023     Packet Pg. 60     Page 17 of 21 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 03/16/23 Boardmember Thompson questioned if those are truly outside the purview of the ARB. Chair Hirsch intervened that they needed to move on and wanted to comment about 1.5B. Boardmember Rosenberg stated she thinks garages on pie shaped lots and flag shaped lots needs to be exempted, and considerations need to be made for pie and flag shaped lots for the two-story issue. Chair Hirsch commented that 1.5B is very restrictive and agreed with Boardmember Rosenberg that it will be very problematic in certain situations. Boardmember Rosenberg commented they need to get more focus on daylight plane setbacks, and looking at the first image of the presentation it looks like a cute fourplex. That couldn’t be built with any of these standards. If that’s what they are encouraging to be built, they need to write the laws that allow that. It feels like the intent is Palo Alto is encouraging with the current standards are mini cul-de-sacs everywhere. If that’s the goal, these standards are well written for that purpose. Chair Hirsch requested they take a detailed look at 1.5B and see if it’s possible to create something that’s not so restrictive. Boardmember Rosenberg commented the 7’ should be from the property setback. By saying from existing houseline, it’s unfair to the people that own the house. Boardmember Thompson agreed that it is forcing a step back and to respond to Boardmember Rosenberg’s question she believes it’s intended to create a visual break. Chair Hirsch stated the daylight plane does that. Ms. Raybould added the intent is to create a visual break in the wall. Boardmember Rosenberg stated she would have to argue that 7’ is pretty intense for a visual break. That could be accomplished easily with 3’ and still maintain buildability. Seven feet is the minimum dimension of a room, a staircase could be built in 7’. Requiring it because they don’t like the way it looks feels restrictive. Adding that she would write it to say it has to stay a minimum of 7’ from the existing setback and no less than 2’ from the existing wall. Boardmember Chen posed the question of how a driveway would affect that. Ms. French added that it’s like a big math problem. It could be where they draw the new lot line for the urban lot split will change the setback and it will be less than 7’ so you could end up with a 4’ setback from the existing wall. Ms. Foley stated that would not apply in that case, it would only apply if you were building one two-story house and one one-story house under SB9, if you were building two two-story houses then SB9 wouldn’t apply at all. Boardmember Rosenberg stated her concern is that they are going to say 7’ back from the lower floor and then you have to have a minimum 15’ wide two-story building and then both the neighbors are single story, you can only get a 12’ wide second story and they would be out. It’s too restrictive. Ms. French reminded that they could do it, but they would have to go through discretionary review. Item 6 Draft Minutes of March 16 2023     Packet Pg. 61     Page 18 of 21 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 03/16/23 Ms. Raybould still questions if the intent was 7’ step back from the wall, it does seem like a large distance. Boardmember Thompson commented that 4’ or 5’ might feel better, when you go down 10’ to 2’ to 10’, it doesn’t seem to flow. Chair Hirsch stated he has 3’ on his house and it works perfectly for the daylight plane. Boardmember Thompson stated maybe the 4’ would be a good compromise. Boardmember Rosenberg commented a lot of this is compromise, there’s a lot of information before them and they could nitpick to death and in an attempt to make sure they don’t do that … Chair Hirsch stated they should go over the major items and make a decision. They already agreed that 1.5B is a significant one and suggested they include the review for the daylight plane as a possibility instead of using specific numbers. Boardmember Rosenberg added that while it’s important to keep in mind the neighbors, Palo Alto is requiring them to build by certain standards when what is being built may not still be there in two years. Boardmember Thompson agreed sticking to the daylight plan is a good compromise and they should call it a day and asked if it was going to circle back again. Ms. Raybould stated she believed there would be more opportunities going forward and for the interest of time for this study session, they could consider highlighting the key issues of each category even if they do not yet have the solutions at this point. That way staff can think about those key issues and come back with suggestions. Chair Hirsch wondered if it makes more sense for the ARB to take it home and write up their comments. Boardmember Rosenberg agreed she feels she could have a list and submit it to the other ARB Boardmembers to see where they get an agreement, and questioned if they would be allowed to do that. Ms. French stated staff would prefer they do that through the staff liaison and share in that manner. It would be great to isolate to what each Boardmember provided, and come back with those initially and have staff come up with alternatives based on the comments they received. Boardmember Rosenberg agreed that would be beneficial due to the fact they aren’t even through the second set of comments. Chair Hirsch stated he would ask that every Boardmember take good look at the information and say which ones they feel are critical, maybe try to keep it to ten each. Ms. French stated they could continue the study session, if there are areas where it would be an ordinance change, they would have to do notifications. Boardmember Thompson stated maybe at the next study session they could go straight to the discussion because they already received the staff presentation. Chair Hirsch and Boardmember Rosenberg both agreed. Boardmember Rosenberg questioned if a motion was needed to continue the study session. Item 6 Draft Minutes of March 16 2023     Packet Pg. 62     Page 19 of 21 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 03/16/23 Ms. French stated it’s not necessary however it might be good to show the intention to the public that there will be another study session. Chair Hirsch called for a five-minute break and to allow Vice Chair Baltay to return to the meeting. The ARB took a break. Action Items 3. Review and Adoption of the Revised Architectural Review Board By-Laws to Address Meeting Attendance in 2023 Boardmember Thompson stated that for the record Vice Chair Baltay has rejoined the meeting. Ms. Raybould summarized that in the last session, the ARB feedback that staff received was that there wasn’t really an interest in following the standard noticing procedures separate from what is provided under AB 2449 which allows for remote attendance through just cause and emergency circumstances so what is presented today is a change to the by-laws that is much simplified in comparison to what was presented at the previous meeting. It simply references back to the allowances under AB 2449 for just cause and emergency circumstances attending remotely. Staff did feel it was important for everybody’s clarification that the by-laws included what that 20% would be, which is four total hearings. Staff created an internal protocol for remote ARB hearing attendance. Chair Hirsch asked for ARB questions or comments. Vice Chair Baltay confirmed that the sum total of the changes is now Article 6, Section 6.3, which has been added, and there were no other changes. Ms. Raybould stated that was correct. Boardmember Thompson asked if there were any comments from the public on this. Ms. Dao stated there was no public comment. Vice Chair Baltay commented that Boardmember Thompson was not present at the meeting when this item was first discussed and one of his concerns had been that attending remotely doesn’t change how the ARB functions. The pushback from staff was that they could only attend remotely based on noticing requirements and reason for absence, and Vice Chair Baltay further wondered if they should, as a Board, push to have something that works better for them. Boardmember Thompson stated she believed that this was in line with the ARB attendance protocol and for her benefit, having a just cause being a work related item is not on there and questioned why. Ms. Raybould stated the allowances are derived from State Code and work-related absences are not allowed under AB 2449. What they previously looked at was there is a protocol that can be followed, that talks about standard remote attendance procedures but it’s very onerous and what was expressed to staff was there wasn’t an interest in using that. The way they have wrote it is that if the Boardmembers choose to do that, they still can, however there are a number of procedures that staff has to follow which include advance noticing to the public, making the space you are located in available to members of the public, Item 6 Draft Minutes of March 16 2023     Packet Pg. 63     Page 20 of 21 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 03/16/23 and as Vice Chair Baltay notated, assuring that it’s ADA compliant. Even though staff removed all that extra language, if the Boardmembers ever chose to do that they could certainly work with them to assure compliance. To simplify things, since there didn’t seem to be much interest in following all of those procedures, they didn’t include all the extra language in the by-laws. Boardmember Thompson stated her position on this has evolved somewhat since they have begun to meet again in person. There’s a tremendous benefit to being at the meeting in person and they have planned absences for a reason and felt that she’s okay with things the way they were written. She believes they are a better Board when they are all in person. MOTION: Boardmember Thompson moved, seconded by Vice Chair Baltay, to approve staff’s recommended changes to the By-Laws. VOTE: 5-0-0-0 Approval of Minutes 4. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for February 16, 2023. Chair Hirsch introduced the item and called for any additions, deletions, or changes. Boardmember Thompson abstained due to her being absent for that meeting. Boardmember Rosenberg stated she had no adjustments or comments. MOTION: Vice Chair Baltay, seconded by Boardmember Chen, moved to approve the meeting minutes for February 16, 2023, as presented. VOTE: 4-0-1-0 (Boardmember Thompson abstained) Boardmember Questions, Comments or Announcements Chair Hirsch stated he will be out of town from July 13 to July 26, 2023. Ms. Raybould stated that Boardmember Rosenberg has a planned absence on the July 20 meeting, if there are any other planned absences there will not be a quorum. Boardmember Thompson stated that Boardmember Rosenberg absence is planned for the July 6 meeting and inquired if Vice Chair Baltay would be taking over as Chair. Vice Chair Baltay stated there will be a vote for the next Chair at the next scheduled meeting. Boardmember Thompson stated that Boardmember Chen would not be present for the next meeting. Chair Hirsch asked if the item to vote on a new Chair could be deferred for one meeting. Item 6 Draft Minutes of March 16 2023     Packet Pg. 64     Page 21 of 21 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 03/16/23 Ms. Raybould answered she believes that’s the case. Boardmember Thompson commented it would be a good idea to have the full Board present to make that decision. The Board Election will be pushed to the April 20, 2023 meeting. Adjournment Chair Hirsch adjourned the meeting. Item 6 Draft Minutes of March 16 2023     Packet Pg. 65     Item No. 7. Page 1 of 5 Architectural Review Board Staff Report From: Jonathan Lait, Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: April 6, 2023 Report #: 2303-1194 TITLE 3300 El Camino Real [21PLN-00028]: Ad-Hoc Committee Review of Previously Approved Project to Review Architectural and Landscape Element Design Changes 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 October 20, 2022 Architectural Review Board hearing documents: Staff Report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes- reports/agendas-minutes/architectural-review-board/2022/arb-10.20.2022-3300-ecr.pdf Minutes: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes- reports/agendas-minutes/architectural-review-board/2022/arb-12.01.2022-minutes- 10.20.2022.pdf Video: https://midpenmedia.org/architectural-review-board-10202022/ 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 D. Item 7 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 66     Item No. 7. Page 2 of 5 A. Enhanced Landscape on El Camino Real Frontage The ARB recommended that the applicant enhance their landscape plan along the El Camino Real Frontage to incorporate a linear park to activate the street and better respond to El Camino Real Design Guideline 2.3.1.2 and 3.2.5. ECR Guideline 2.3.1.2 - states that the Stanford Research Park frontage “should reinforce the important of the El Camino Real frontage. New buildings should be built up to or close to the sidewalk, and the frontage improved with street entries, wide sidewalks, street trees and pedestrian amenities.” ECR Guideline 3.2.5 - states that “surface parking areas, including driveways, should not occupy more than 50% of a property frontage along El Camino Real, and continuous parking lot frontage may not exceed 120 feet.” Applicant’s Response: See the attached drawings for refinements to the landscape strip design along El Camino Real. Staff’s Analysis: The applicant has expanded the size of the corner pedestrian plaza at Hansen Way and El Camino Real and added fixtures to attract pedestrians to use the space. However, to create a linear park, staff would suggest the applicant add a decomposed granite (DG) walkway from the corner plaza to the front entrance plazas. The applicant has stated this is infeasible. 10/20 Submitttal 4/6 Submittal B. Consider Adding Texture to El Camino Real Façade The ARB recommended that the applicant modify their existing façade on El Camino Real to incorporate additional textures to add additional articulation to the street facing side of the building. Item 7 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 67     Item No. 7. Page 3 of 5 Applicant’s Response: See the attached drawings for the proposed changes to the façade facing El Camino Real. Two new framed balconies are proposed on the second floor that provide for greater articulation and visual texture to the façade. Staff’s Analysis: The applicant has provided the requested modifications. 10/20 Submittal 4/6 Submittal C. Develop Interior Mechanical System Design The ARB recommended that the applicant prepare a design for a potential interior mechanical duct system that will demonstrate the visibility of the system from the street. The ARB had concerns that, given the visibility of the space, a mechanical system that was not properly installed will detract from the appeal of the building. Applicant’s Response: The intent is for the future main ductwork design (along with any runners) to be laid out in a way to contain and conceal as much as possible with respect with the interior tenant improvement build out. Staff’s Analysis: The applicant did not provide the requested documentation to satisfy this requirement. When staff reached out to the applicant about this, the applicant communicated that they wanted to discuss this again with the ARB. Item 7 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 68     Item No. 7. Page 4 of 5 D. Add Operable Windows to the Building The ARB recommended that the applicant incorporate operable windows into the design of their building. Applicant’s Response: See attached drawings for the proposed locations of the added operable windows on the second floor along the El Camino Real façade. Staff’s Analysis: The applicant has provided the requested windows on the El Camino Real façade. There does not appear to be any added windows on other façades. 4/6 Submittal E. Consider Activation Element on Ground Floor The ARB recommended the applicant incorporate an additional element at ground level to encourage pedestrian activity to and through the site. The ARB did not require that ground floor retail be included in the building and discussed broadly that they would be supportive of a mobile facility or other feature that would complement the linear park recommendation they made. Applicant’s Response: See attached plans for the proposed site enhancement at the corner of El Camino Real and Hansen Way. Item 7 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 69     Item No. 7. Page 5 of 5 Staff’s Response: The applicant has provided pedestrian plazas at the front of the building to activate this area and there are additional seating areas along El Camino Real. F. Other Minor Modifications Following the October 20, 2022 ARB hearing, staff received a letter from the Santa Clara Valley Audobon Society (SCVAS) noting their concerns with the amount of glazing used for the building and the potential impacts it may have on birds migrating near the site. As SCVAS noted, the City’s Comprehensive Plan Policy L-6.3 and L-6.3.1 indicates that buildings should incorporate “bird-friendly” designs and that the City should develop guidelines for developers. Typically, these designs seek to incorporate etching, patterns, or other mechanisms visible to bird that will help reduce collisions with glazing. Staff spoke with the individual who provided the letter to the City and highlighted condition of approval #8 in the draft conditions of approval which requires bird-safe glazing on the building and provides direction to refer to the San Francisco Guidelines for Bird Safe Glazing. The applicant has incorporated bird safe glazing into the building design as shown on Sheet 3 of the Ad-Hoc plan set. This glazing will apply to all sides along the entirety of the building which serves to meet the City’s current conditions and Comprehensive Plan policies. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Location Map Attachment B: Applicant Responses to ARB Comments Attachment C: SCVAS Letter Attachment D: Project Plans AUTHOR/TITLE: Garrett Sauls, Planner Item 7 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 70     2 1B 1C 1A 1 2A 705.1' 1227.7' 381.8' 1133.4' 81.2' 33.3'11.0' 22.1' 35.2' 70.7' 40.0' 75.5' 182.5' 24.0'35.2' 22.1' 11.0' 33.3' 81.2' 67.0' 94.7' 176.3' 108.6' 70.0' 199.7' 149.7' 65.6' 149.7' 65.7' 199.7' 50.0' 199.7' 50.0' 199.7' 50.0' 199.7' 50.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 49.9' 150.0' 49.9' 150.0' 166.4' 32.5'1.9' 108.2' 6.6' 270.2' 100.0' 149.8' 150.0' 149.8' 150.0' 100.0' 40.0' 149.7' 200.0' 49.9' 150.0' 199.7' 10.0' 49.9' 150.0' 49.9' 150.0' 49.9' 200.0' 50.0' 200.0' 198.3' 100.0' 199.7' 98.9' 148.9' 71.4' 179.8' 75.8' 114.9' 105.3' 199.4' 98.2' 50.0' 55.3' 20.8' 60.7' 93.6' 55.0' 113.0' 60.7' 21.0' 28.8' 75.0' 60.0'93.6' 52.0' 33.1' 59.8' 75.0'97.5' 63.6' 144.3' 58.1' 68.3' 590.8' 182.6' 705.1' 50.0' 55.3' 26.4' 58.7' 69.7' 87.8' 90.0' 100.0' 40.0' 100.0' 50.0' 199.7' 276.0' 100.0' 242.1' 29.5' 54.7' 26.3' 49.9' 200.0' 50.0' 200.0' 2.0' 126.4' 109.3' 90.0'115.3' 55.3' 63.7' 6.3' 15.7' 90 186.7' 61.8' 109.3' 500 87.2' 112.2' 44.1' 15.5' 96.1' 139.5' 50.0' 139.5' 50.0' 66.9' 200.0' 66.9' 200.0' 116.5' 151.0' 143 137.6' 158.7' 39.0' 88.7' 78.0' 7.3'0 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 47.9' 150.0' 150.0' 95.7' 50.0' 200.0' 72.6' 200.0' 72.6' 208.0' 498.2' 526.6' 381.8' 105.0' 76.4' 159.0'159.0' 159.0' 91.7' 91.7' 148.7' 51.0' 51.0' 148.7' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 150.0' 150.0' 99.8' 99.8' 199.7' 165.4 85.1 34.6 150.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 149.7' 149.7' 149.7' 115.7' 165.7' 100.0'50.0' 85.1 199.7' 149.7' 250.0' 151.5' 275.2' 14.4' 108.7' 108.7' 52.8' 52.8' 98.8' 67.2' 166.4'166.4' 30.0' 18.0' 18.0' 275.2' 185.2' 190.0' 275.0' 275.0' 275.0' 275.0' 275.0' 119.5' 119.5' 119.5' 119.5' 119.5' 119.5' 5 50.0' 50.0' 50.0 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 250.0' 20.0' 155.0 155.0'155.0' 140.0' 70.0' 88.5' 182.5' 103.0' 24.2' 72.0' 72.0' 24.2' 103.0' 55.0' 55.0' 40.0'54.5' 124.2' 94.5' 94.6' 143.8' 26.5' 13.5' 58.7' 69.7' 59.8' 13.5' 72.1' 5.8' 105.0' 87.2'75 212.7' 128.4' 86.7' 69.1' 49.2' 394.5' 394.5' 472.3' 472.3' 327.5' 53.4' 27.4' 366.1' 17.2' 70.0' 14.6' 725 80.0' 40.0' 102.6' 102.6' 94.7' 142.5'94.4'94.4' 103.2' 55.5' 55.5' 55.0' 55.0'65.9' 113.0'115.0' 115.0'115.0' 115.0'115.0' 94.5'112.7' 112.7' 113.7' 113.7' 113.8' 47.4' 47.4' 47.4' 47.4' 113.8' 62.6'75.0' 28.8' 113.6'113.6' 113.6'113.6' 113.6'113.6' 113.6'113.6' 113.8' 47.4' 47.4' 47.4' 47.4' 47.4' 47.4' 47.4' 47.4' 62.6' 62.6'113.6'113.6' 113.6'113.6' 113.6'113.6' 62.2' 62.2'62.2' 62.2' 75.8' 164.9 199.7 109.85' 458.75' 239.70' 150.05' 129.85' 308.64' 129.85' 102.65' 129.85' 102.56 129.85' 205.99' 129.85' 206.05' 478.7' 109.8' 150.0' 109.8' 133.3' 92.2'92.2' 116.5'116.5' 110.8' 78.3' EL CAMINO REAL MATADERO AVENUE LAMBERT AVENUE EL CAMINO REAL HANSEN WAY EL CAMINO REAL CHIMALUS DRIVE HANSEN WAY ASH STREE ACACIA AVENUE POR TAGE AVENUE OLIVE AVE EL CAMINO REALEL CAMINO REAL This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Highlighted Features Curb Edge Tree (TR) abc Known Structures abc Lot Dimensions Water Feature 0' 142' 3300 El Camino Real CITY OF PALO ALTOINCORPORATED CAL I F ORN I A P a l o A l t o T h e C i t y o f AP R I L 1 6 1 8 9 4 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto gsauls, 2022-02-22 13:28:59 (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) Item 7 Attachment A - Location Map     Packet Pg. 71     Form4 Architecture, Inc. 120 Second St, 2nd Floor, San Francisco, CA 94105 415 775-8748 fax 415 775-8752 3300 El Camino Real: ARB Sub Committee Responses March 14th, 2023 Subcommittee Items as Identified in the October 20th, 2022: A. Enhance landscape strip on ECR – specific to ECRDG Response: See attached drawings for refinements to the landscape strip design along El Camino Real. B. Ask applicant to consider texture to ECR façade Response: See attached drawings for proposed changes to the façade facing El Camino Real. Two new framed balconies are proposed on the second floor that provides the greater articulation and visual texture to the façade. C. Develop interior mechanical system/alternate to understand how space will look from the exte- rior. Response: Intent is for the future main ductwork design (long with any runners) to be laid out in a way to contain and conceal as much as possible with respect with the interior tenant improvement build out. D. Add operable windows Response: See attached drawings for proposed locations of the added operable windows on the second floor along El Camino Real. E. Consider activation element on ground floor or elsewhere on site –not required to be at- tached/within the building Response: See attached plans for proposed new site enhancement at the corner of El Camino Real and Hansen Way. F. Regarding the Santa Clara Valley Audobon Society’s review letter, desire was expressed to have changes made to the building design for bird safety. Response: See attached drawings for addition of frit pattern to be applied to the building’s glass. Item 7 Attachment B - Applicant Response to ARB Comments     Packet Pg. 72     January 12, 2023 To: Garret Salus, Jody Gerhardt, Jonathan Lait Planning and Development Services Department City of Palo Alto CC: Architectural Review Board, Planning Commission, City Council Re:3300 El Camino Real Office Project, Application #: 21PLN-00028 The Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society promotes the enjoyment,understanding,and protection of birds and other wildlife by engaging people of all ages in birding,education,and conservation.In the urban landscape,we focus on light pollution and bird safety as part of our interest in urban ecology and biodiversity.We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the 3300 El Camino Real Office Project.The Project proposes to construct a new two-story,50,355 sf office/R&D project with 40%surface parking and 60% below-grade parking and a 2,517 sf amenity space. 1.Bird Safety The project is located about 150 feet from the riparian corridor of Matadero Creek,and includes trees and vegetation that attract birds.The building consists of expansive surfaces of transparent glass.The location,plantings,and glass create a deadly combination of location-related and structure-related hazards for migratory and resident birds. The Staff reports and the Mitigated Negative declaration do not include enough information to ensure compliance with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Policy L-6.3:“Encourage bird-friendly design.”The Project renderings show glass walls at the ground floor and surrounding roof gardens,see-through glass elements,1 and reflective glass areas.However,the Project plans2 do not mention and provide no information on any bird-safety treatment.In conversation with staff and further research,we understand that the Conditions Of Approval include, The project shall incorporate bird-safe glazing treatment that may include fritting, netting, permanent stencils, frosted glass, exterior screens, and physical grids placed on the exterior of 2 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/planning-amp-development-services/new-development-p rojects/3300-el-camino/c7_3300elc_plan.pdf 1 See-through elements are glass elements where birds can see a flight path through a wall, a corner, or parallel walls Item 7 Attachment C - SCVAS Letter     Packet Pg. 73     January 12, 2023 Page 2 glazing or UV patterns visible to birds. In some cases, bird-friendly treatment is invisible to humans. Vertical elements of the window patterns should be at least 1/4-inch-wide at a minimum spacing of 4 inches or have horizontal elements at least 1/8 inch wide at a maximum spacing of 2 inches. The applicant should reference the San Francisco Guidelines for Bird-Safe Buildings:http://www.sf-planning.org /index.aspx?page=2506. It is not clear which parts and architectural elements of the structure are subject to this condition,and how it will be evaluated.For example -how is a “window ”defined?Will bird safety glazing be required on the entire glazed facade?Will hazardous areas like corners,glazed areas near a green roof and other architectural elements be treated?The Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND)Does not address bird collisions,and provides no detail on how the condition of approval will effectively encourage bird safe design. Palo Alto has yet to develop Program L6.3.1:“Develop guidelines for bird-friendly building design that minimizes hazards for birds and reduces the potential for collisions”Palo Alto seems to refer applicants to the San Francisco Guidelines for Bird-Safe Buildings.3 These guidelines were adopted in 2011 and have been generally appropriate for San Francisco –a dense City that has no surface creeks.Since then,some of the solutions that San Francisco allows have been shown to be ineffective and are no longer recommended.In addition,several Bay Area Cities have recognized the importance of creeks and riparian corridors in the urban/suburban landscape and require 90%of glass facades to be treated with effective glazing treatments for office buildings and other structures,especially if large expanses of glass are proposed,or the projects are within 300 feet of a water feature.Palo Alto should use Cupertino’s ordinance to ensure that the new development implements bird safe design measures4 and prohibits ineffective treatments,such as overhangs and UV glazing.Some Cities allow exemptions based on a biological opinion by a qualified biologist.Palo Alto did not require any biological opinion for the Project and provided ambiguous conditions for bird-safety glazing treatment. Despite the acknowledgement5 that “given the substantial amount of glazing present on the building, bird-safety glazing treatment is integral to the long-term function of the building and safety of birds travel near and around the site”,the City ’s requirements seem to fall short: ●The City’s condition of approval #8 requires the applicant to incorporate bird-safe glazing treatment,but provide a wide spectrum of implementation choices,including “fritting,netting, permanent stencils,frosted glass,exterior screens,and physical grids placed on the exterior of glazing or UV patterns visible to birds”(emphasis added).This direction includes an oxymoron, since UV treatments have been shown to be ineffective and invisible to birds,especially in the 5 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 14743), Oct 29, 2022 4 https://www.cupertino.org/our-city/departments/community-development/planning/non-residential-mixed-u se-development/bird-safe-and-dark-sky 3 http://www.sf-planning.org/index.aspx?page=2506 and https://sfplanning.org/sites/default/files/resources/2019-09/Design%20Guide%20Standards%20for%20Bir d%20Safe%20Bldgs_Final.pdf Item 7 Attachment C - SCVAS Letter     Packet Pg. 74     January 12, 2023 Page 3 early morning and in the evening,when birds are active.UV treatments are also ineffective on cloudy days.Lastly,there are many bird species that cannot see treatments that the human eye cannot see,including hawks that are frequent victims of collision with glass in Palo Alto (SCVAS observations). ●The City requires “Vertical elements of the window patterns to be at least 1/4-inch-wide at a minimum spacing of 4 inches or have horizontal elements at least 1/8 inch wide at a maximum spacing of 2 inches,and refers the applicant to the San Francisco Guidelines for Bird-Safe Buildings6.The spacing of visual cues is good,but It is not clear what are the “vertical elements” that are required to implement such visual cues to birds.The Project plans show no bird-safety glass treatment on the hazardous curtain walls and large facades,near landscaping or green roofs, or on the Project ’s see-through elements. ●Many cities in our region require 90%of glass facades to be treated with effective glazing treatments in areas within 300-ft of a “bird-activity area”,such as a creek or a park.In addition, hazardous architectural elements and see-through situations -especially where situated within 300-ft of a park,a creek or other bird activity areas -are discouraged,or require stronger bird-safety protection regardless of location (See Appendix A). Please require specific and effective glazing treatments, including: ●Elimination of transparent, see-through and other hazardous architectural elements. ●Effective bird-safe glazing treatment to 90%of all glass surfaces.Please require glazing that achieves an American Bird Conservancy Threat Factor rating of no more than 15.A product database that offers rated glazing solutions is available online7. ●Prohibit UV glazing treatments,angled glass and overhangs from being considered bird-safety glazing treatments. 2. Lighting In most species studied to date,including humans,the biological clock is synchronized by light.This mechanism evolved over millions of years in response to the daily and annual cycles of sunlight—day and night and their varying lengths that correspond to the change of seasons.Different species developed activity patterns that correspond to these changes in light intensity and daylength and developed anatomical,physiological and behavioral adaptations suitable for day or night activity and seasonality. The transition to lighting with LED technology saves energy,maintenance requirements,and cost per lighting fixture,but it has introduced unprecedented light pollution into our environment,interfered with biological clocks of most organisms,and has shifted the spectrum of the light to a high blue-light 7 https://abcbirds.org/glass-collisions/resources/ 6 http://www.sf-planning.org/index.aspx?page=2506 Item 7 Attachment C - SCVAS Letter     Packet Pg. 75     January 12, 2023 Page 4 component.These changes have adverse impacts on human health,and devastating impacts to environmental health,ecosystems,and both migrating and resident birds,wildlife species,and even trees in the urban forest.Indeed,outdoor Artificial Light at Night disrupts human sleep and hormonal balance,thereby impacting physical and mental health.Outdoor light at night has been scientifically linked to many contemporary ailments including anxiety disorders,diabetes,various types of cancer and more. Artificial Light at Night impacts plant and animal behavior from the individual level to ecosystem wide disruption.Reproduction,foraging,migration and seasonal dependencies lose ecological synchrony. Birds and insects are especially impacted,due to their (disruptive and often fatal)attraction to light. Migratory birds are attracted to lit environments,where they are increasingly susceptible to collision with man-made buildings. Insects, including many pollinators, are fatally “trapped” in artificial light. Palo Alto’s lighting requirements are based on the State Green Buildings requirements,which primarily aim to save energy (but include some provisions to protect the night sky).The City code,however,does not limit the light that may emit from the building itself at night.Furthermore,Palo Alto does not set a limit on the Correlated Color Temperature of lighting fixtures,allowing the use of fixtures that emit harmful blue light in their spectrum. Please require specific and effective lighting restrictions, including: ●Correlated Color Temperature of no more than 2700K for all outdoor installations ●Blinds to close after 11PM so that light in the building is not visible from outside the building. 3. IS/MND The IS/MND is inadequate since it has not analyzed,discussed or mitigated the potential impact of bird collision. ●Please analyze and discuss the potential impact on bird collision,and provide adequate mitigation. APPENDIX A: Cities’ requirements for bird safety treatment NOTE:Cities that require bird-friendly (or birds-safe)design for buildings and other structures include San Francisco, San Jose, Cupertino, Mountain View, Sunnyvale, Burlingame and others. NOTE:The following summary of Cities regulations reflects the elements of concern that are relevant/applicable to the 3300 El Camino Office Project ’s transparent glazing elements.The summary does not include requirements for addressing highly reflective or mirror-like glass,and does not include specific requirements that are not applicable to office development. Item 7 Attachment C - SCVAS Letter     Packet Pg. 76     January 12, 2023 Page 5 1.City-wide and location Related Hazards Several cities provide regulations throughout the urban landscape,whereas others address location-related hazards.Usually,location-related hazards include projects within 300-feet of park,open space,riparian corridor,hillsides,or a body of water.Some Cities consider the size of the natural/park/water feature in the requirements. a.San Francisco defines location-related hazards as those within,or at 300-feet of (if line of sight exists),areas that are 2-acres or more and dominated by vegetation,including vegetated landscaping,forest,meadows,grassland,or wetlands,or open water.In these locations,Bird-Safe Glazing Treatment is required such that the Bird Collision Zone,as defined below,facing the Urban Bird Refuge consists of no more than 10%untreated glazing.Bird Collision Zone are the portion of buildings most likely to sustain bird-strikes and includes:(i)The building façade beginning at grade and extending upwards for 60 feet,or (ii)Glass facades directly adjacent to landscaped roofs 2 acres or larger and extending upwards 60 feet from the level of the subject roof. b.San Jose requires bird safety treatment within 300-ft of a creek i.Citywide8:For façades with more than 20 percent glazing within 60 feet of grade and located within 300 feet from a body of water,including creeks and vegetated flood control channels;or within 100 feet of a landscaped area,open space,or park larger than one acre in size,apply a bird safety treatment to at least 90 percent of the glazed areas within 60 feet of grade (required ) ii.Downtown9:Use a bird safety treatment on facades within 300 feet of a riparian corridor that have 50% or more glazed surface. c.Mountain View i.Citywide:For Commercial/Mixed-Use,Bird safety is included in REACH Codes10: Bird-safe glass shall be installed on the exterior of the structure where the structure is ≥ than 10,000 square feet or the applicable precise plan requires it. ii.Precise Plans developed after 2020 include specific Bird Safe Design Standards. This includes East Whisman11 and North Bayshore12 Precise Plans.These plans require Façade Treatments -No more than 10%of the surface area of a building ’s total exterior façade shall have untreated glazing between the ground and 60 feet above ground. 12 https://www.mountainview.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=38665 section 5.2 11 https://www.mountainview.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=32005 section 3.11 10 https://www.mountainview.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=31899 MVCC 8.20.11 - 8.20.12 & Table 101.10 9 https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/38781/637268875547770000 section 4.4.2.b 8 https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/69148/637520903552430000 section 3.3.6 Item 7 Attachment C - SCVAS Letter     Packet Pg. 77     January 12, 2023 Page 6 d.Cupertino i.Citywide:Façades of all projects subject to bird-safe development requirements shall have:a)No more than 10%of the surface area of the façade be untreated glass between the ground and 60 feet above ground,and b)No more than 5%of the surface area of the façade be untreated glass between 60 feet above ground and up. ii.Exemptions:The following are exempted from bird-safe treatment regulations: 1)Any historic structure;2)First floor retail storefronts,up to a height of 15’; and,3)Residential development in R1 zoning districts outside of Bird-Sensitive Areas. e.Sunnyvale has guidelines that are implemented as a requirement. i.Within 300-ft of a body of water of one acre or more: ●Avoid the use of multi-floor expanse of reflective or transparent glass in the first 60 feet of the building design,specifically in these area facing the water or open space; ●Limit the amount of glass on ground level stories,especially in areas adjacent to landscaping; ●Consider use of opaque,fritted or etched glass on the ground floor in areas adjacent to landscaped areas. 4.Architectural Element Feature-related Hazards San Francisco Feature-related hazards include free-standing glass walls,wind barriers,skywalks,balconies,and greenhouses on rooftops that have unbroken glazed segments 24 square feet and larger in size. Feature-related hazards can occur throughout the City.Any structure that contains these elements shall treat 100% of the glazing on Feature-Specific hazards. Glass walls adjacent to green roof San Jose ii.Citywide:For non-residential uses,apply a bird safety treatment to glazed areas of any building façade with more than 10 percent glazing that is within 15 vertical feet and 20 horizontal feet of a green roof or a vegetated courtyard, within or outside of the development (required) iii.Downtown:Use a bird safety treatment on the facade of any floor of the building within 15 vertical feet of the level of and visible from a green roof, including a green roof on an adjacent building within 20 horizontal feet,if the facade has 50% or more glazed surface. (required) f.Mountain View i.No special requirements since all glazing requires bird safety treatment g.Sunnyvale Item 7 Attachment C - SCVAS Letter     Packet Pg. 78     January 12, 2023 Page 7 i.Citywide:Reduce glass at top of building,especially when incorporating a green roof into the design 2.Hazardous Architectural Elements (See-through elements,corners,free-standing walls,glass skyways and other hazardous elements) a.San Francisco i.Citywide13:100%of building feature-related hazards shall be treated.Building feature-related hazards include free-standing clear glass walls,skywalks, greenhouses on rooftops,and balconies that have unbroken glazed segments 24 square feet and larger in size. b.San Jose i.Citywide: ●For non-residential uses,apply a bird safety treatment on areas of glazing within 10 feet of a building corner (required) ●Use a bird safety treatment on parallel panes of glass 30 feet or less apart,such as skyways,walkways,and other glass building connectors (required). ●Use a bird safety treatment on transparent atria,free-standing glass features,and glass architectural elements that protrude from the primary building mass. (required). ●Use a bird safety treatment on windows or other glazed areas through which landscaping,water features,or the sky can be seen through the glass (guideline). ii.Downtown:Use a bird safety treatment on areas of glass through which sky or foliage is visible on the other side of parallel panes of glass less than 30 feet apart (required). c.Sunnyvale (Citywide) i.Prohibit glass skyways or freestanding glass walls ii.Avoid transparent glass walls coming together at building corners to avoid birds trying to fly through glass d.Cupertino (Citywide) i.All projects shall:1)Avoid the funneling of flight paths along buildings or trees towards a building façade;2)Avoid use of highly reflective glass or highly transparent glass;and,3)Not include skyways or walkways,balconies, freestanding walls,or building corners made of untreated glass or other transparent materials,or any other design elements that are untreated and 13 https://sfplanning.org/sites/default/files/resources/2019-09/Design%20Guide%20Standards%20for%20Bir d%20Safe%20Bldgs_Final.pdf and https://sfplanning.org/sites/default/files/documents/reports/bird_safe_bldgs/Standards%20for%20Bird%20 Safe%20Buildings%20-%2011-30-11.pdf page 30-31 Requirements for Feature-Related Hazards. Item 7 Attachment C - SCVAS Letter     Packet Pg. 79     January 12, 2023 Page 8 through which trees,landscape areas,water features or the sky are visible from the exterior or from one side of the transparent element to the other. 3.Lighting a.San Jose i.Turn off decorative exterior lighting between 11:00 p.m.and 6:00 a.m.except during June, July, December, and January due to bird migration. b.Sunnyvale (Citywide) i.Turn commercial building lights off at night or incorporate blinds into window treatment to use when lights are on at night; ii.Prohibit up lighting or spotlights; Item 7 Attachment C - SCVAS Letter     Packet Pg. 80     Attachment D Project Plans and Environmental Documents The project plans and environmental documents are only available to the public online. Hardcopies of the plans have been provided to Board members. Directions to review Project plans online: 1. Go to: bit.ly/PApendingprojects 2. Scroll down to find “3300 El Camino Real” 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/3300-El- Camino-Real Item 7 Attachment D - Project Plans     Packet Pg. 81