Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-11-16 Architectural Review Board Agenda PacketARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD Regular Meeting Thursday, November 16, 2023 Council Chambers & Hybrid 8:30 AM Pursuant to AB 361 Palo Alto City Council meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with the option to attend by teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safety while still maintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose to participate from home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe and participate in the meeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged if attending in person. The meeting will be broadcast on Cable TV Channel 26, live on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen Media Center https://midpenmedia.org. Visit https://bit.ly/PApendingprojects to view project plans and details. Commissioner names, biographies, and archived agendas and reports are available at https://bit.ly/paloaltoARB.  VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/96561891491) Meeting ID: 965 6189 1491    Phone: 1(669)900‐6833 PUBLIC COMMENTS Public comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or an amount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutes after the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance to arb@CityofPaloAlto.org and will be provided to the Board and available for inspection on the City’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you are referencing in your subject line. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson's presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. The Chair may limit Public Comments to thirty (30) minutes for all combined speakers. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak for Study Sessions and Action Items to two (2) minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers. PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted only by email to arb@CityofPaloAlto.org at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Once received, the Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. To uphold strong cybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storage devices are not accepted. CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL PUBLIC COMMENT  Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS The Chair or Board majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management. CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS 1.Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2) Tentative Future Agenda Items and 3) Recently Submitted Projects STUDY SESSION Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 2.Study Session: Summary of Focus Group Review and Feedback on the Existing SB 9 Standards APPROVAL OF MINUTES Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 3.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for October 19, 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 4.123 Sherman [21PLN‐00172]: Ad Hoc Review of Previously Approved Project to Review Minor Design Details for Windows and Screens as well as the Design of the Retail Space per the Conditions of Approval 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, November 16, 2023Council Chambers & Hybrid8:30 AMPursuant to AB 361 Palo Alto City Council meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with theoption to attend by teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safetywhile still maintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose toparticipate from home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe andparticipate in the meeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged ifattending in person. The meeting will be broadcast on Cable TV Channel 26, live onYouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen MediaCenter https://midpenmedia.org. Visit https://bit.ly/PApendingprojects to view project plansand details. Commissioner names, biographies, and archived agendas and reports are availableat https://bit.ly/paloaltoARB. VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/96561891491)Meeting ID: 965 6189 1491    Phone: 1(669)900‐6833PUBLIC COMMENTSPublic comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or anamount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutesafter the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance toarb@CityofPaloAlto.org and will be provided to the Board and available for inspection on theCity’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you are referencing in your subjectline.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified aspresent at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson's presentation will be allowed up tofifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking membersagree not to speak individually. The Chair may limit Public Comments to thirty (30) minutes forall combined speakers. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak for Study Sessions andAction Items to two (2) minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers. PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted only by email to arb@CityofPaloAlto.org at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Once received, the Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. To uphold strong cybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storage devices are not accepted. CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL PUBLIC COMMENT  Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS The Chair or Board majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management. CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS 1.Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2) Tentative Future Agenda Items and 3) Recently Submitted Projects STUDY SESSION Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 2.Study Session: Summary of Focus Group Review and Feedback on the Existing SB 9 Standards APPROVAL OF MINUTES Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 3.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for October 19, 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 4.123 Sherman [21PLN‐00172]: Ad Hoc Review of Previously Approved Project to Review Minor Design Details for Windows and Screens as well as the Design of the Retail Space per the Conditions of Approval 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, November 16, 2023Council Chambers & Hybrid8:30 AMPursuant to AB 361 Palo Alto City Council meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with theoption to attend by teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safetywhile still maintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose toparticipate from home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe andparticipate in the meeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged ifattending in person. The meeting will be broadcast on Cable TV Channel 26, live onYouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen MediaCenter https://midpenmedia.org. Visit https://bit.ly/PApendingprojects to view project plansand details. Commissioner names, biographies, and archived agendas and reports are availableat https://bit.ly/paloaltoARB. VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/96561891491)Meeting ID: 965 6189 1491    Phone: 1(669)900‐6833PUBLIC COMMENTSPublic comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or anamount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutesafter the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance toarb@CityofPaloAlto.org and will be provided to the Board and available for inspection on theCity’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you are referencing in your subjectline.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified aspresent at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson's presentation will be allowed up tofifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking membersagree not to speak individually. The Chair may limit Public Comments to thirty (30) minutes forall combined speakers. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak for Study Sessions andAction Items to two (2) minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers.PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted onlyby email to arb@CityofPaloAlto.org at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Once received,the Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. To uphold strongcybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storage devices are notaccepted.CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALLPUBLIC COMMENT Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker.AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONSThe Chair or Board majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management.CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS1.Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2) Tentative FutureAgenda Items and 3) Recently Submitted ProjectsSTUDY SESSIONPublic Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.2.Study Session: Summary of Focus Group Review and Feedback on the Existing SB 9StandardsAPPROVAL OF MINUTESPublic Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.3.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for October 19, 2023BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS ANDAGENDASMembers of the public may not speak to the item(s).ADJOURNMENTAD HOC COMMITTEE4.123 Sherman [21PLN‐00172]: Ad Hoc Review of Previously Approved Project to ReviewMinor Design Details for Windows and Screens as well as the Design of the Retail Space per the Conditions of Approval 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: November 16, 2023 Report #: 2311-2199 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. No action is required by the ARB for this item. Item 1 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 4     Item No. 1. Page 2 of 2 ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: 2023-2024 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. 5     Architectural Review Board 2023-2024 Meeting Schedule & Assignments 2023-2024 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 7/06/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Cancelled Rosenberg 7/20/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Cancelled 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 1/04/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Cancelled 1/18/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 2/01/2024 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- 2024 Meeting Schedule & Assignments     Packet Pg. 6     Palo Alto Architectural Review Board Tentative Future Agenda The following items are tentative and subject to change: Meeting Dates Topics December 7, 2023 •70 Encina: Request for Preliminary Architectural Review for 10 Housing Units •North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan: Second Study Session December 21, 2023 •824 San Antonio Road (Assisted Living) 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 Assigned Ad Hoc AR Major - Board 9/16/20 20PLN- 00202 CHODGKI 250 Hamilton Ave. 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 Zone Change 12/21/21 21PLN- 00341 EFOLEY 660 University Mixed use ARB 1st formal 12/1/22, ARB 2nd formal tentative for Jan - 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 __ Item 1 Attachment B-Tentative Agenda and Pending Projects List     Packet Pg. 7     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 06/16/2022 22PLN- 00201 CHODGKI 739 SUTTER AV Housing Prelim 11/18/21, Formal Resubmitted 7/21, 11/2 ARB hearing, pending resubmittal- 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 __ Site and Design 10/27/2022 22PLN- 00367 CHODGKI 2501 EMBARCAD ERO WY Public Utility – Water Filtration Application Resubmitted 8/8/23; 11/2 ARB Hearing, pending resubmittal- 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 1/19/2023 23PLN- 00010 EFOLEY 800-808 San Antonio Road Housing 8/17 ARB; Waiting on resubmittal, tentative January 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. Rosenberg, Hirsch Reported out 5/4 Major Architectural Review 1/04/2023 23PLN- 00058 CHODGKI 420 Acacia Residential- 16 units replacing surface parking lot NOI sent 3/7/23, October 5 ARB hearing - Request for Major Architectural Review for a 16-unit Multi-family Residential Townhome Project. The Project will Provide 15% Below Market Rate On-site and Includes Requested Concessions and Waivers in Accordance with the State Density Bonus. The SB 330 pre-application was deemed Rosenberg, Hirsch Reported out 5/4 Item 1 Attachment B-Tentative Agenda and Pending Projects List     Packet Pg. 8     compliant on February 2, 2023. Zone District: RM-30 and R-1. Environmental: Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 (infill development)— documented exemption currently under preparation. Major Architectural Review 3/22/23 23PLN- 00061 EFOLEY 702 Clara Street Housing – 3 units NOI sent 4/21. Application Resubmitted 10/19. Request for Major Architectural Review and Individual Review to Allow the Construction of Three new two-Story homes approximately 1700sf Square Foot each, to be located on the same Lot, Subdivision Major Architectural Review 5/5/2023 23PLN- 00110 CHODGKI 3000 El Camino Office NOI Sent 6/6/23; Resubmitted 9/25; NOI Sent 10/25. Request for a Major Architectural Review to convert an existing 10,000 square foot movie theater into new office space. Zoning District: Planned Community (PC-4637 and 2533). Baltay, Rosenberg Major Architectural Review 6/8/2023 23PLN- 00136 23PLN- 00003 and - 00195 – SB 330 GSAULS 3150 El Camino Real Housing - 380 units NOI sent 7/6. Request for Major Architectural Review for construction of 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. Staff is reviewing the project to ensure the requested concessions and waivers are in accordance with the State Density Bonus laws. Rosenberg, Hirsch Reported out 5/4 on SB 330 Rosenberg, Hirsch Reported out on 8/17 Major Architectural Review 7/19/2023 23PLN- 00181 EFOLEY 824 San Antonio Road Housing – 16 senior units, 12 convalescen t units Submitted 7/19/23. Notice of Incomplete sent 8/20/23. Targeting Jan hearing. Request for Major Architectural Review to allow the Demolition of an existing 2-Story office building and the new construction of a 4-Story private residential senior living facility, including 15 independent dwelling units, 12 assisted living dwelling units and 1 owner occupied unit. Common space amenities on all floors, underground parking, and ground floor commercial space. Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: CS (Commercial Services). PC Amendment 8/9/2023 23PLN- 00202 EFOLEY 4075 El Camino Way Commercial — 14 additional assisted living units Submitted 8/9/23. Community Meeting in October. Targeting Jan PTC, and Feb ARB hearing. Request for a Planned Community Zone Amendment to Allow New Additions to an existing Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility consisting of 121 Units. The New additions include 14 Additional Assisted Living Dwelling Units; 5 Studios and 9 One Bedrooms. The total Proposed 135 Units are for Assisted Living and for the elderly in need of day-to-day care for Memory Issues. Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: PC-5116 (Planned Community). Baltay, Chen reported out 6/1 Item 1 Attachment B-Tentative Agenda and Pending Projects List     Packet Pg. 9     Preliminary Architectural Review 10/30/2023 EFOLEY 70 Encina Housing Submitted 10/30; tentative ARB scheduled 12/21. Request for Preliminary Architectural Review to Allow a New 3-story, approximately 22,000 sf building (1.84 FAR) and full site improvements to replace an existing surface parking lot. The project includes 10 new 3-story townhouse residential units around a common central courtyard. Environmental Assessment: Not a Project. The Formal Application Will be Subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review. 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 Assigned Ad- Hoc Prescreening Council SB 330 Pre- Application 07/07/2022 22PLN- 00227 23PLN- 00149 GSAULS 3400 EL CAMINO REAL Housing – 382 units Heard by Council on 9/19/22, SB 330/Builder’s Remedy application submitted 6/14/23, 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. __ Council Pre- Screening 2/8/2023 23PLN- 00036 THARRIS ON 1237 SAN ANTONIO Public Utility Heard by Council on 6/5/23 - 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). __ Preliminary Architectural Review 4/11/2023 23PLN- 00058 CHODGKI 640 Waverley Mixed-use ARB prelim hearing 6/15/23; waiting on formal application. 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 __ Item 1 Attachment B-Tentative Agenda and Pending Projects List     Packet Pg. 10     Assessment: Not a Project. The Formal Application Will be Subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review. Zoning District: CD-C(P) (Downtown Commercial). Council Pre- Screening 5/2/2023 23PLN- 00105 EFOLEY 3265 El Camino Housing – 44 units Council Prescreening scheduled 9/11 to rezone from CS to PHZ to develop a 5-story multi-family residential building with 44 housing units that would be 100% affordable for teachers Rosenberg, Thompson reported out 8/17 Preliminary Architectural Review 7/6/2023 23PLN- 00171 CHODGKI 425 High Street Commercial Preliminary Hearing Held 9/7; waiting on formal application submittal. Request for Preliminary Architectural Review to provide feedback on a proposal to add a new 4th floor (2,632 square feet) for either a new office use (existing hotel to remain) or to provide eight new guest rooms to the existing three-story Hotel Keen structure. Environmental Assessment: Not a Project. Zoning District: CD-C (P) (Downtown Commercial-Community with Pedestrian Combining District). Preliminary Architectural Review 8/29/2023 23PLN- 00231 CHODGKI 616 Ramona Commercial Submitted 8/29/23. ARB Prelim hearing; waiting on formal application submittal. Request for Preliminary Architectural Review to Allow the Partial Demolition and remodel of an Existing 8,357 square foot, Commercial Building with the addition using TDR and exempt floor area earned from ADA Upgrades. Environmental Assessment: Not a Project. The Formal Application Will be Subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review. SB 330 Pre- Application 11/01/2023 23PLN- 00296; 23PLN- 00297 GSAULS 3997 Fabian Housing – up to 350 units SB 330 Pre-Application - Request for a 292 or 350-unit apartment development in an 8-story structure. Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: GM (General Manufacturing). Note: project has not changed but previous SB 330 pre-apps expired so new SB 330 pre-apps for the same two proposals were filed. Chen, Hirsch reported out 8/17 Item 1 Attachment B-Tentative Agenda and Pending Projects List     Packet Pg. 11     Item No. 2. Page 1 of 7 Architectural Review Board Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: November 16, 2023 Report #: 2309-1993 TITLE Study Session: Summary of Focus Group Review and Feedback on the Existing SB 9 Standards RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) review and comment on the feedback on the SB 9 Objective Standards from the SB 9 Standards Focus Group (focus group). EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report transmits a summary of the focus group’s review of the objective design standards for SB 9 development projects, which the ARB reviewed in three meetings in 2023. The ARB did not review and comment on the objective standards for Urban Lot Splits under SB 9. The ARB purview does not include review of SB 9 development. Staff intends to bring the attached modified standards, along with ARB study session minutes, to the City Council in December 2023. BACKGROUND Council Actions In May 2023, the City Council adopted a Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) ordinance1 modifying Title 18 Zoning. The ordinance replaced interim ordinances that accompanied SB 9 objective development standards. With adoption of the interim ordinances, the City Council adopted objective standards for SB 9 development on single-family residential lots and for lot splits under SB 9. These actions were to comply with state laws enacted in 2021 (SB 9 and SB 478). The online SB 9 ordinance is found in PAMC Chapter 18.42, section 18.42.180. Under this section, Item (e) Development Standards, sub-item (2) states: (2) All construction pursuant to this section shall comply with objective design standards adopted by the City Council. However, an applicant seeking to deviate from the objective design standards (except to the extent necessary to construct a unit of 800 square feet) may elect to submit an application under the base requirements of Chapters 18.10, or 18.12, including, if applicable, Single Family Individual Review. 1 Link to March 2023 ordinance Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 12     Item No. 2. Page 2 of 7 In March 2022, Council had adopted interim ordinance #5546, which clarified items in a prior interim ordinance (#5542). Council also then authorized the Department of Public Works to adopt additional standards for off-site improvements. Links are provided (within the Planning and Transportation Commission report that is in a link below) below to earlier Council SB 9 reports, minutes, presentations, and videos from Council meetings on December 6, 2021 and January 10, 2022. Council’s actions on December 6, 20212 included direction to “refer work on a permanent ordinance to the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) and Architectural Review Board (ARB) work plans for 2022” and “look at what aspects of the Eichler guidelines could be used for objective standards”. PTC Review On February 8, 2023, the PTC reviewed and recommended the SB 9 ordinance that Council then adopted in May 2023, since the permanent ordinance modified Titles 18 and 21 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code within the PTC’s purview. The PTC received the Council-adopted SB 9 objective standards for development and lot splits in the PTC packet with the draft ordinance, but the meeting was focused on the ordinance as a separate effort to move it expeditiously to Council. The PTC report3 and minutes4 are available online. Staff intended to return in late spring to the PTC to further discuss the objective standards but the ARB’s focus on the standards stretched across three ARB meetings. The focus group discussion process suggested by the ARB became the next step. Additionally, staff was concerned another SB 9 state law (SB 450) might reach the governor’s desk and necessitate further ordinance changes in 2023 within the PTC’s purview. Therefore, staff did not return to the PTC in 2023 for discussion of the objective standards. SB 450 was not signed in October 2023, but there is an expectation the bill will resume its progress in 2024. One section of the adopted ordinance (PAMC 18.42.180 item (e) Development Standards, Sub- item (3)) was of particular interest, as it states, (3) If the application of any development standard or design standard would necessarily require that one or more proposed units be less than 800 square feet, such standard shall be relaxed to the minimum extent necessary to allow construction of a unit or units of at least 800 square feet. The Director may publish regulations governing the order in which objective standards shall be waived or relaxed in such circumstances. A PTC member expressed interest in seeing the Director’s regulations referred to in item 3 when the standards returned to the PTC; these regulations had not been drafted at the time 2 Link to December 6, 2021 summary minutes www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/2/agendas-minutes- reports/agendas-minutes/city-council-agendas-minutes/2021/12-december/20211206/20211206amccs.pdf 3 Link to February 2023 PTC staff report: www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas-minutes- reports/agendas-minutes/planning-and-transportation-commission/2023/ptc-2.08-sb9-ordinance.pdf 4 Link to PTC 2/8/23 meeting minutes www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/2/agendas-minutes- reports/agendas-minutes/planning-and-transportation-commission/2023/ptc-2.8.2023-summary-minutes.pdf Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 13     Item No. 2. Page 3 of 7 (and have not been drafted to date). In 2024, staff may prepare these Director’s regulations and present them to the PTC for review and comments. ARB Review Spring 2023 The Architectural Review Board (ARB) reviewed the ODS at the regularly scheduled ARB meetings5, on March 16, April 20, and May 18, 2023, to provide feedback. The ARB feedback in the spring of 2023 was comprehensive but can generally be summarized as follows: •Most of the feedback indicated some of the standards were overly restrictive •ARB members called out where standards “doubled up”, such as regulating the second- floor massing using a combination of setbacks, step-backs, and the daylight plane, and regulating height through both interior and exterior height limits, including both eave heights and roof heights •ARB members wanted to increase the flexibility of design options, such as allowing more different types of window trim and window configurations •ARB members did not propose any changes to the privacy requirements SB9 Focus Group Staff facilitated a focus group of local architects to gain additional feedback. The focus group was selected from a list of recent/frequent project applicants who had applied for SB 9 and/or Individual Review projects, and were familiar with Palo Alto’s Zoning Code, and the Planning Entitlement and Building Permit processes. The focus group reviewed the ARB’s comments on the SB 9 ODS, meeting over the course of several weeks in late September to early October 2023. In general, their feedback was consistent with the feedback received by ARB. The findings of the group and staff’s proposed modifications to the standards are the subject of this report. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs), Process, and Checklists 5 Link to ARB agenda, reports and meeting minutes: March: www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/architectural-review- board/2023/arb-3.16-public-agenda.pdf minutes: www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/2/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/architectural- review-board/2023/arb-minutes-3.16.2023.pdf April: www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/2/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/architectural- review-board/2023/arb-4.20-public-agenda.pdf minutes; www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas- minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/architectural-review-board/2023/arb-4.20.2023-minutes.pdf May www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/2/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/architectural- review-board/2023/arb-5.18-public_agenda.pdf minutes: www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/architectural-review- board/2023/arb-approved-minutes-5-18-23.pdf Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 14     Item No. 2. Page 4 of 7 Staff provides links in the footnotes to SB 9 FAQs6, SB9 project checklists7, SB 9 process8 explanations and affidavit9 form. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Staff has compiled the ARB and focus group feedback to propose modifications to the ODS and proposes to simplify the ODS in a manner that is still consistent with the intent of the Individual Review Guidelines and responsive to the ARB and focus group’s comments. Existing SB9 Objective Design Standards The SB 9 Objective Design Standards (ODS) City Council adopted on January 10, 2022 with the Interim Ordinance were modeled after the Individual Review guidelines for two story homes for expediency. The City has received only a handful of SB 9 project applications. Staff believes that a contributing factor is that the adopted ODS are arduous. Proposed Modification to SB9 Objective Design Standards The proposed changes are presented in Attachment A (Objective Design Standards Crosswalk). The attachment shows both the existing and proposed text of ODS. It also categorizes them into the following applicability areas: all, two story (including two story next to one story), new homes on an Urban Lot Split parcel larger than 5,000 sf, and Eichler neighborhoods. In response to these groupings, the standards have been renumbered. Lastly, the attachment includes a brief summary of any changes made to the text. Modifications to the ODS are proposed to be simplified in the following ways: •Some ODS are proposed for deletion, explained in detail below; the most common reason was redundancy with the Zoning Code and/or other ODS •Some ODS are edited for clarity and/or brevity •Some ODS are edited to better convey the design intent, or provide flexibility to better suit a wide range of architectural styles 6 Link to SB9 FAQs: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/development-services/planning- review/2.-sb-9/sb-9-faqs-dec-2021.pdf 7 Links to SB9 checklists: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/4/development-services/planning- review/2.-sb-9/sb9-two-unit-checklist-jan-2022.pdf https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/3/development-services/planning-review/2.-sb-9/sb9- subdivision-checklist-jan-2022.pdf 8 www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/3/development-services/planning-review/2.-sb-9/sb9-prelim- handout-jan-2021-virtual.pdf 9 Link to affadavit form: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/development-services/planning- review/2.-sb-9/sb9-owner-occupied-affidavit-dec-2021.pdf Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 15     Item No. 2. Page 5 of 7 •Some ODS are edited to only apply in certain scenarios such as two-story houses, two- story houses in a one-story context, and Urban Lot Splits resulting in lot sizes greater than 5,000 sf •The ODS for Eichler Neighborhoods were included in the Council-adopted ODS, but they are proposed to be grouped together for readability. Deletion of 18 ODS The following Objective Design Standards are proposed for deletion: SB-9 Objective Design Standards Reason for Proposed Deletion 1.2D: DUPLEX PARKING REQUIREMENT: In the case of a duplex, when parking spaces are required, the parking space for each unit shall be a covered parking space. One covered space is required by PAMC 18.52 for all SB 9 units regardless of configuration, unless exempted from parking requirements by State Law. 1.5A: CONTEXTUAL FRONT MASSING STEPBACK: Where a home on an abutting lot across a side lot line is single-story or has a second-floor area less than 500 square feet, a proposed structure shall have a one-story building volume at least 15-foot wide and 15-foot deep at the front side of the house set forward of any second-floor street facing wall plane. Redundant with 2.5A (now A2) and requiring a larger one-story roof form adjacent to a one- story house is not necessary. 1.5B: CONTEXTUAL SIDE MASSING STEPBACK: Where a home on an abutting lot across a side lot line is single-story or has a second-floor area less than 500 square feet, each proposed structure located within 20 feet of the side lot line shall step back the upper floor from the lower floor along that side of the structure at least 7 feet for at least 50 percent of the depth of the structure. Feedback indicated the Daylight Plane was the preferred way to regulate this. 2.1A: UPPER FLOOR FRONT FAÇADE AREA: Where an abutting lot across a side lot line has a single- story home or home with no more than 500 square feet on the second floor, the front facade's visible wall area on the upper floor shall be no greater than 50 percent of the front facade's visible wall area on the first floor. Wall area includes the area defined by porches, windows, and wall surfaces under gables. On corner lots, the front facade shall be the facade at the shorter frontage. The 2nd floor façade width would be sufficiently regulated by the daylight plane. This was also very difficult to interpret and calculate. Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 16     Item No. 2. Page 6 of 7 2.2A: FIRST FLOOR LEVEL: The finished first floor level shall not be more than 18 inches above existing grade. In Eichler Tracts, the finished first floor level shall not be more than 12 inches above existing grade. In a flood zone, the first-floor level may be set at the minimum allowed above grade to meet code requirements. For a lot removed from the flood zone due to on-site grading, the measurement shall be taken from revised grade. This is sufficiently addressed by the other height restrictions and was potentially overly strict in flood zones. 2.2B: FLOOR-TO-FLOOR HEIGHT: The height from the first finished floor to the second finished floor shall not exceed 10'-6”. Feedback indicated regulating interior height was overly restrictive. The exterior height limits are sufficient to not need to regulate interior height. 2.2C: SECOND FLOOR WALL PLATE HEIGHT: The wall plate height (i.e., interior wall height at exterior wall) on the second floor shall not exceed 9 feet for roofs with pitches 3:12 or lower; 8'-6" for roofs with pitches greater than 3:12 up to 9:12; and 8 feet for roofs with pitches 9:12 or greater. The exterior height limits are sufficient to not need to regulate interior height. 2.2D: PARAPET HEIGHT: Parapets shall not exceed 1 foot above the roof surface over second floor roofs. The overall height limits are sufficient. 2.6A: ATTIC HEIGHT: Unused attic spaces shall not exceed 5 feet in height. The Zoning Code FAR and height regulations already discourage this. 2.6B: EXTERIOR WALL HEIGHT: No exterior wall shall exceed 22 feet in height as measured from existing grade to the eave or parapet. Portions of walls under rakes such as at gables or shed roof forms may exceed this height. Feedback indicated the 22ft felt arbitrary, and other standards such as 1.5C, 2.3A, and the daylight plane sufficiently regulate this 3.1B: ENTRY HEIGHT: Exterior entry forms shall not exceed 12 feet in height as measured from existing grade. The Zoning Code FAR and height regulations already discourage this. 3.3A: INCOMPLETE ROOF FORMS: Truncated hip and gable roof forms shall not be permitted at second floor roofs on two-story structures or roofs at single story structures. Note: A truncated roof form is where the roof planes do not extend to a ridgeline; rather they terminate with a flat roof or roof well. Feedback indicated that truncated roof forms can be a useful tool in reducing overall height. Typically, this is not visible from the public right of way. It also unnecessarily restricts historically recognized forms such as Dutch gables. 4.2A: WINDOW ALIGNMENT: Windows on two- story wall planes that face a street shall be aligned vertically unless there is a change in exterior materials from the lower floor to the upper floor. Feedback indicated this was overly restrictive, “aligned vertically” was also unclear to interpret. 4.2B: FAÇADE ELEMENT SPACING: Focal points such as porches, large/featured windows, and bay windows shall be spaced at least 5 feet Feedback indicated this was overly restrictive, particularly for smaller units. It For example, it also prevents “large windows” from being under a porch. Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 17     Item No. 2. Page 7 of 7 horizontally apart from each other when placed on the same level/floor. 5.1A: PRIVACY DIAGRAM: Site Privacy Diagram must show the proposed second-floor plan including windows, major on-site vegetation, and all elements on the neighboring property within 25 feet of the subject property line. For adjacent sites show major vegetation, building footprints, windows (indicate size and location), and patios within 25 feet of the property lines shall be provided in the project plan set. This is a submittal checklist requirement, not a Design Standard. 5.2A: BEDROOM WINDOW LOCATION: Organize the second-floor plan so at least one bedroom has its largest/egress window facing the front lot line. On corner lots, at least one bedroom’s largest/egress window shall also face the street side lot line. The privacy requirements already encourage this. 5.2C: STAIR WINDOW PRIVACY: Stair windows facing interior side lot lines within 20 feet of the lot line shall have permanent obscure glazing or exterior mounted permanent architectural privacy screens to at least 5 feet above the landing. Combined with 5.2B (now B10). 5.3A: SECOND FLOOR WINDOW SIZE ALONG SIDE LOT LINES: Any upper-level window or window grouping located less than 20 feet from a side interior lot line (measured perpendicularly) shall not have more than 30 square feet of glazing. The privacy requirements already encourage this, and/or sufficiently mitigate privacy for larger windows. As a result of these changes, the average project is subject to meeting 36 standards. Under the currently adopted standards, applicants functionally need to read all 63 to find the approximately 50 standards that likely applied to their project. Proposed Standards Reformatted The proposed ODS (Attachment B) reflect staff’s efforts toward usability; the end user can look at the standards applicable to the project they propose. A version with no annotations is viewable in Attachment B. The intent is for an applicant to be able to go through the list and clearly find which ODS are applicable to their property and/or proposed project. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Objective Design Standards Revision Crosswalk Attachment B: Proposed Objective Design Standards (no annotations) AUTHOR/TITLE: Amy French, Chief Planning Official Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 18     Attachment A Objective Design Standards Revision Crosswalk Applicability Current SB-9 Objective Design Standards Proposed SB-9 Objective Design Standards Type of Change all 1.3C: FRONT SETBACK Where the contextual front yard setback does not apply, the front setback shall be no less than the average front setback of the homes on lots to either side of the subject lot. (Note: In all cases, the zoning minimum front setback or special setback would still apply.) A1: FRONT SETBACK Where the contextual front yard setback does not apply, the front setback shall be no less than the average front setback of the homes on lots to either side of the subject lot, up to a maximum of 30 feet. Otherwise, the zoning minimum front setback or special setback would still apply. Added that in no circumstance would this standard create a setback larger than 30 ft. on a property where the contextual front yard setback does not apply all 4.3C: STUCCO TEXTURE: When stucco is used it shall be steel-troweled ‘Smooth’ or ‘Santa Barbara’ texture as described in the Technical Services Information Bureau, Chapter 5 - Plaster Textures & Acrylic Finishes (2011). For additions, stucco texture on the addition shall be allowed to match the stucco texture of the existing house. A2: STUCCO TEXTURE: When stucco is used it shall be steel-troweled ‘Smooth’ or ‘Santa Barbara’ texture as described in the Technical Services Information Bureau, Chapter 5 - Plaster Textures & Acrylic Finishes (2011). For additions, stucco texture on the addition shall be allowed to match the stucco texture of the existing house. No change all 4.4A: CONTEXTUAL PORCH ENTRIES: If porches (i.e. roofed, street-facing porches with posts/colu mn(s) and more than 3 feet deep), occur on at least 50 percent of homes on the block of the subject lot (counting only homes on the subject lot side of the street), the proposed house shall include a street-facing porch no less than 6 feet deep and 8 feet wide. A3: CONTEXTUAL PORCH ENTRIES: If porches (i.e. roofed, street-facing porches with posts/column(s) and more than 3 feet deep), occur on at least 50 percent of homes on the block of the subject lot (counting only homes on the subject lot side of the street), the proposed house(s) with street frontage shall include a street-facing porch no less than 6 feet deep and 8 feet wide. Clarified this only applies to houses with street frontage all - parking 1.1A: DRIVEWAYS: One curb cut and driveway per street frontage. Shared driveways are encouraged but require an easement to which the City is a third party. A4: DRIVEWAYS: One curb cut and driveway per street frontage. Shared driveways are encouraged but require an easement to which the City is a third party. No change all - parking 1.1C. PLANTING STRIP: A minimum two-foot wide, landscaped planting strip is required between a driveway and/or uncovered parking space and an interior lot line. A5. PLANTING STRIP: A minimum two-foot wide, landscaped planting strip is required between a driveway and/or uncovered parking space and an interior lot line. No change Item 2 Attachment A: SB 9 Objective Design Standards Revision Crosswalk     Packet Pg. 19     all - parking 1.1F: DRIVEWAY MATERIALS: Driveway and uncovered parking surfaces that exceed 10 feet in width shall not have asphalt or grey concrete surfaces. They must have a decorative surface to blend with the landscape such pavers, brick, or colored concrete. A6: DRIVEWAY MATERIALS: Driveway and uncovered parking surfaces that exceed 10 feet in width shall not have asphalt or grey concrete surfaces. They must have a decorative surface to blend with the landscape such as pavers, brick, or colored concrete. No change all - parking 1.2A: GARAGE LOCATION: Attached or detached garages/carports must be located a minimum of 5 feet behind the forwardmost plane of the front facade or 3 feet behind the forwardmost plane of the street-side façade. The forwardmost façade plane may be a building wall or porch with posts/columns and must be at least 12 feet wide. A7: GARAGE LOCATION: Attached garage door(s) adjacent to the front setback must be located a minimum of 5 feet behind the forwardmost plane of the front facade or 3 feet behind the forwardmost plane of the street-side façade. The forwardmost façade plane may be a building wall or porch with posts/columns and must be at least 12 feet wide. Simplified text, detached garages are already required to be back from the front property line all - parking 4.5A: GARAGE DOOR DESIGN AND MATERIALS: The garage door shall match the material, color, and panel design pattern of the entry door or window fenestration. A8: GARAGE DOOR DESIGN AND MATERIALS: The garage door shall match the material, color, and panel design pattern of the entry door, window fenestration, or exterior cladding material. Added option for garage door to match exterior cladding material all - parking 4.5B: GARAGE DOOR SIZE: The maximum garage door width shall be 16 feet and the maximum garage door height shall be 8 feet. If two single-wide garage doors are used instead of one double-wide door, each door's maximum width shall be 9 feet and maximum height 8 feet. A9: GARAGE DOOR SIZE: When visible from the street, the maximum garage door width shall be 16 feet and the maximum garage door height shall be 8 feet. If two single-wide garage doors are used instead of one double-wide door, each door's maximum width shall be 9 feet and maximum height 8 feet. No change all - privacy 5.4B: ROOF DECK NOT PERMITTED: A roof deck (i.e., a deck above of the first level of a single-story building or second level of a two-story building) shall not be permitted. A10: ROOF DECK NOT PERMITTED: A roof deck (i.e., a deck above of the first level of a single-story building or second level of a two-story building) shall not be permitted. No change all - roof 2.1B: ROOF HEIGHT FOR VARIED ROOF PITCHES: Roof height shall be limited to 27 feet for roofs with pitches 9:12 or greater, 25 feet for roofs with pitches 3:12, up to 9:12, and 22 feet for roofs with pitches less than 3:12. Properties in flood zones shall be permitted to increase building height by one- A11: ROOF HEIGHT FOR VARIED ROOF PITCHES: Roof height shall be limited to 27 feet for roofs with pitches 9:12 or greater, 25 feet for roofs with pitches 3:12, up to 9:12, and 22 feet for roofs with pitches less than 3:12. Properties in flood zones shall be permitted to increase building height by one-half foot for each foot that the base flood elevation exceeds existing grade. No change Item 2 Attachment A: SB 9 Objective Design Standards Revision Crosswalk     Packet Pg. 20     half foot for each foot that the base flood elevation exceeds existing grade. all - roof 3.2A: ROOF FORM VARIATION: No more than two types of roof forms shall be used (examples of two forms are hip and gable roofs or shed and flat roofs). A12: ROOF TYPE VARIATION: No more than two types of roof shall be used (examples of two types are hip and gable roofs or shed and flat roofs). Eliminated word "form", as the intent was to limit roof typologies not limit roof massing all - roof 3.2B: ROOF PITCH VARIATION: No more than two roof pitches shall be used (e.g., 4:12 and 12:12; 6:12 and flat). A13: ROOF PITCH VARIATION: No more than two roof pitches shall be used (e.g., 4:12 and 12:12; 6:12 and flat). No change all - roof 3.4A: GABLE ROOF FORMS: No more than three gable forms on an elevation facing a public street. A14: GABLE ROOF FORMS: No more than three gable forms on an elevation facing a public street. No change all - windows 3.4B: BAY WINDOWS: No more than two bay windows on an elevation facing a public street. A15: BAY WINDOWS: No more than two bay windows on an elevation facing a public street. No change all - windows 4.1A: FAÇADE VISUAL FOCAL POINT: Each street facing building elevation shall have a significant visual focal point, defined as either: (a) at least 50 square feet of glazing in a large window, multi-panel window or glazed door, or bay window form, or (b) a roofed or trellised porch at least 6 feet deep and 8 feet wide and no more than 12 feet tall. A16: FAÇADE VISUAL FOCAL POINT: Each street facing building elevation shall have at least 20 square feet of glazing in a large window, multi- panel window or glazed door, or bay window form, with minimum dimensions of 3 ft.Moved porch option to 2.5A (now B2) all - windows 4.3A: WINDOW TO WALL DETAILING: Window frames shall be recessed at least 2 inches from the exterior wall face or have trim at least 3.5 inches wide on all four window sides. Stucco over foam shall not be used as window trim. A17: WINDOW TO WALL DETAILING: Window frames shall be recessed at least 2 inches from the exterior wall face or have trim at least 2 inches wide and 0.5 inches thick on all four window sides. Stucco over foam shall not be used as window trim. Changed minimum window trim from 3.5 wide to 2 in wide and .5 in thick all - windows 4.3B: WINDOW PATTERNS: Window fenestration with divided lite appearance shall have exterior applied muntin bars (i.e., true or simulated divided lites). A18: WINDOW PATTERNS: Window fenestration with divided lite appearance shall have exterior applied muntin bars (i.e., true or simulated divided lites). No change two story 1.3D: SECOND FLOOR STEPBACKS: Second floor area shall not be permitted within B1: SECOND FLOOR LOCATION: Second floor area shall not be permitted within the standard side or No change Item 2 Attachment A: SB 9 Objective Design Standards Revision Crosswalk     Packet Pg. 21     the standard side or rear setbacks of the underlying single family zoning district. rear setbacks of the underlying single family zoning district. two story 2.5A: SINGLE-STORY BUILDING FORMS: At least one single-story building form (excluding garages) with dimensions no greater than 16 feet in height, no less than 8 feet in depth, and no less than 12 feet in width shall be placed on each street facing building side. Location shall be either: (a) fully forward of the second floor's wall face, or (b) partially forward or aligned with the second floor's wall face if the one- story form is at a building corner. B2: SINGLE-STORY BUILDING FORMS: All houses with frontage on the street shall have either: (a) a one story building form (excluding garages) at least 6 feet forward of the second floor wall face, and at least 10 feet wide; or (b) a protruding porch or one story roof overhang at least 6 feet deep, and at least 8 feet wide. Created a choice of options by moving the minimum porch option from 4.1A (now A16) to here. Slightly reduced the size of the one-story form, clarified the relationship of the first floor to the second floor. two story height 2.3A: CONTEXTUAL FIRST FLOOR EAVE HEIGHT: The height of the first floor's street facing roof edges (i.e., eaves or parapets) shall not exceed 18 inches above the average height of the first-floor eave or parapet of the homes on the abutting lots at side lot lines as measured at those homes' eaves nearest the subject lot. This first-floor roof edge height limit shall also extend 15 feet back from the building corner. This standard shall be 24 inches within a flood zone if either of the abutting homes’ first-floor level does not meet current flood zone regulations. This standard applies to the eave side of pitch roof forms and not the rake side such as at a gable. B3: CONTEXTUAL FIRST FLOOR EAVE HEIGHT: The height of the first floor's street facing roof edges (i.e., eaves or parapets) shall not exceed 18 inches above the height of the first-floor eave or parapet of the homes on the abutting lots at side lot lines as measured at those homes' eaves nearest the subject lot. This first-floor roof edge height limit shall also extend 15 feet back from the building corner. This standard shall be 24 inches within a flood zone if either of the abutting homes’ first- floor level does not meet current flood zone regulations. This standard applies to the eave side of pitch roof forms and not the rake side such as at a gable. No change two story height 2.3B: CONTEXTUAL SECOND FLOOR EAVE HEIGHT: The height of the upper floor's street facing roof edge (eave or parapet) shall not exceed 18 inches above either: (a) the average height of the upper floor street facing eave or roof edge of homes to each side, or (b) in the case of only one home having a second floor, the height of that home's eaves. B4: CONTEXTUAL SECOND FLOOR EAVE HEIGHT: The height of the upper floor's street facing roof edge (eave or parapet) shall not exceed 18 inches above either: (a) the average height of the upper floor street facing eave or roof edge of homes to each side, or (b) in the case of only one home having a second floor, the height of that home's eaves. No change Item 2 Attachment A: SB 9 Objective Design Standards Revision Crosswalk     Packet Pg. 22     two story height 3.1A: GARAGE HEIGHT AND MASS: Maximum height of a roof over an attached garage shall not exceed 15 feet in height as measure from existing grade. The maximum garage wall plate height shall not exceed 10 feet. B5: GARAGE HEIGHT AND MASS: Maximum height of a roof over an attached garage shall not exceed 15 feet in height as measure from existing grade. The maximum garage wall plate height shall not exceed 10 feet. No change two story balcony 5.4A: SECOND FLOOR BALCONY LIMITATIONS: No more than one second floor deck/balcony shall be permitted per dwelling and shall: (a) only be permitted on a street facing facade, (b) be located at least 20 feet from any interior side lot line, and (c) be limited in size to no more than 40 square feet. B6: SECOND FLOOR BALCONY LIMITATIONS: No more than one second floor deck/balcony shall be permitted per dwelling and shall: (a) only be permitted on a street facing facade, (b) be located at least 10 feet from any interior side lot line with a 5.5 foot tall solid privacy wall, or be located at least 30 feet from any interior side lot line, and (c) be limited in size to no more than 40 square feet. Added privacy wall requirement to allow balconies within 10 feet of a side property line two story landscaping 1.4A: SCREENING LANDSCAPE: Plant screening trees with a species having a typical mature height of at least 25 feet, and mature canopy width of 15 feet at a quantity of at least one per 25 linear feet along each interior lot line. Existing trees to be retained that are at least 25 feet tall and 15 feet wide may substitute for required planting on a one-to-one ratio. Three closely spaced tall screening shrubs with a mature height of at least 20 feet and mature width of at least 5 feet may be substituted for one screening tree. B7: SCREENING LANDSCAPE: For two story houses, plant screening trees with a species having a typical mature height of at least 25 feet, and mature canopy width of 15 feet at a quantity of at least one per 25 linear feet along each interior lot line. Existing trees to be retained that are at least 25 feet tall and 15 feet wide count towards the required planting. Three closely spaced tall screening shrubs with a mature height of at least 20 feet and mature width of at least 5 feet may be substituted for one screening tree. Clarified text two story landscaping 1.4B: PLANTING TYPE AND SIZE: Screening trees and shrubs shall be specified by botanical name with at least 50 percent of screening trees and shrubs being evergreen. Screening trees shall be specified and planted at 24-inch box size or larger and 8 feet height or taller. Screening shrubs shall be specified and planted at 15-gallon size or larger and 8 feet or taller. B8: PLANTING TYPE AND SIZE: When required, screening trees and shrubs shall be specified by botanical name with at least 50 percent of screening trees and shrubs being evergreen. Screening trees shall be specified and planted at 24-inch box size or larger and 8 feet height or taller. Screening shrubs shall be specified and planted at 15-gallon size or larger and 8 feet or taller. Clarified text two story landscaping 1.4C: PLANTING ADJACENT PUE’S: Where an easement such as a PUE exist along an interior lot line, trees are required to be B9: PLANTING ADJACENT PUE’S: Where an easement such as a PUE exist along an interior lot line, trees are required to be planted on the same No change Item 2 Attachment A: SB 9 Objective Design Standards Revision Crosswalk     Packet Pg. 23     planted on the same side of the easement as the building, but not within the easement. side of the easement as the building, but not within the easement. two story landscaping 5.2D: PRIVACY LANDSCAPE: Privacy screening landscape shall be located to align with proposed second floor windows across side and rear lot lines and between windows at facing units on a single property. Privacy screening landscape shall be evergreen and per size and planting standards shown in Standard 1.4. B10: PRIVACY LANDSCAPE: Privacy screening landscape shall be located to align with proposed second floor windows across side and rear lot lines and between windows at facing units on a single property. Privacy screening landscape shall be evergreen and per size and planting standards shown in Standard B7. No change two story windows 5.2B: SECOND FLOOR WINDOW PRIVACY: For any window on an upper floor, facing an interior lot line that is located less than 20 feet from a side lot line or less than 30 feet from a rear lot line, one of the following shall be used: (a) permanent obscure glazing, or (b) exterior mounted permanent architectural privacy screens that block views more than 70%, or (c) windows with sills above 5 feet from the finished floor level. B11: SECOND FLOOR WINDOW PRIVACY: For any window on an upper floor or in a stairway, facing an interior lot line that is located less than 20 feet from a side or rear lot line, one of the following shall be used: (a) permanent obscure glazing to at least 5 feet from the finished floor, or (b) exterior mounted permanent architectural privacy screens that block views more than 70%, or (c) windows with sills above 5 feet from the finished floor level. In a stairway, the finished floor is the height of the landing. This standard shall also apply to first floor windows when the finished floor height is 2 feet or more above grade. Simplified distance to 20 ft from any interior lot line, combined stairway requirements from 5.2C two story windows 5.3B: SECOND FLOOR OPERABLE WINDOWS ALONG SIDE LOT LINES: Operable casement windows on the upper level with a sill height less than 5 feet above the finished floor and within 20 feet of an interior side lot line shall be hinged so the windows open towards the public street. Horizontal sliding windows shall not be permitted facing and within 20 feet of an interior side lot line, unless the windowsill height is at least 5 feet above the finish floor level. B12: SECOND FLOOR OPERABLE WINDOWS ALONG SIDE LOT LINES: Operable casement windows on the upper level with a sill height less than 5 feet above the finished floor and within 20 feet of an interior side lot line shall be hinged so the windows open towards the public street. Horizontal sliding windows shall not be permitted facing and within 20 feet of an interior side lot line, unless the windowsill height is at least 5 feet above the finish floor level. No change Item 2 Attachment A: SB 9 Objective Design Standards Revision Crosswalk     Packet Pg. 24     two story adjacent to 1 story 1.5C: SIDE DAYLIGHT PLANE CLEARANCE: Where a home on an abutting lot across a side lot line is single-story or has a second- floor area no more than 500 square feet, the proposed structure(s) shall maintain at least 2 feet clearance from the second-floor roof edge or wall parapet to the side daylight plane as measured perpendicularly to the side daylight plane. B13: SIDE DAYLIGHT PLANE CLEARANCE: Where a home on an abutting lot across a side lot line is single-story or has a second-floor area no more than 500 square feet, the side daylight plane shall be measured from 8 ft above average grade instead of 10 ft. In the case of an Urban Lot Split, the daylight plane only applies to the original property lines.Simplified how this is measured two story adjacent to 1 story 3.5A: CONTEXTUAL ROOF PITCH: On properties adjacent to single story homes along either interior side lot line, roof pitches on new two-story buildings shall be 6:12 or lower. B14: CONTEXTUAL ROOF PITCH: On properties adjacent to single story homes along either interior side lot line, roof pitches on new two-story buildings shall be 6:12 or lower. No change large lot 1.1B: DRIVEWAY WIDTH: 18-foot maximum driveway width (inclusive of uncovered parking) within a front or street side yard setback. C1: DRIVEWAY WIDTH: 18-foot maximum driveway width (inclusive of uncovered parking) within a front or street side yard setback. Now applies only to Urban Lot Splits with resultant parcel(s) larger than 5,000 sf large lot 1.1D WALKWAY SEPARATION: Walkways shall be separated from driveways by a minimum of 4 feet of landscape planting or extend sideways (that is, perpendicular) from driveway so that no additional parking or paved turnaround space is created in a front or street side yard beyond that of the maximum allowed driveway width. C2: WALKWAY SEPARATION: Walkways shall be separated from driveways by a minimum of 4 feet of landscape planting. Now applies only to Urban Lot Splits with resultant parcel(s) larger than 5,000 sf large lot 1.2B: GARAGE WIDTH: An attached or detached garage/carport facing the street shall be no more than 30 percent of the total facade width facing that street, except that it may be 12 feet wide in any circumstance. C3: GARAGE WIDTH: An attached garage or carport facing the street shall be no more than 30 percent of the total facade width facing that street, except that it may be 12 feet wide in any circumstance. Now applies only to Urban Lot Splits with resultant parcel(s) larger than 5,000 sf, removed detached garage since that does not affect the façade width large lot 1.3A: SECOND FLOOR SIZE: The maximum floor area above the first-floor level: (a) shall not exceed 35 percent of total gross floor area on the lot except as noted in subsection (b) or Standard 1.3B. (b) shall not exceed 30 percent of the total gross floor area where an abutting lot along a side lot line has a one-story home or home with no C4: SECOND FLOOR SIZE: The maximum floor area above the first-floor level shall not exceed 35 percent of allowable gross floor area for the lot. Now applies only to Urban Lot Splits with resultant parcel(s) larger than 5,000 sf Item 2 Attachment A: SB 9 Objective Design Standards Revision Crosswalk     Packet Pg. 25     more than 500 square feet of second floor area. small lots 1.3E. SECOND FLOOR AREA ON FLAG LOTS AND SUBSTANDARD LOTS: On flag lots (or similar lots without street frontage) and/or substandard lots, if the maximum allowed total floor area is greater than 70 percent of the buildable lot area, floor area may be placed on a second level. The maximum second floor area allowed shall be the area in excess of 70 percent of the buildable lot area or 300 square feet, whichever is greater. D1. SECOND FLOOR AREA ON FLAG LOTS AND SUBSTANDARD LOTS: On flag lots (or similar lots without street frontage) and/or substandard lots, if the maximum allowed total floor area is greater than 70 percent of the buildable lot area, floor area may be placed on a second level. The maximum second floor area allowed shall be the area in excess of 70 percent of the buildable lot area or 300 square feet, whichever is greater. No change eichler 1.2C: EICHLER TRACT GARAGES: In mapped Eichler Tracts, a garage or carport may be located forward of the front facade plane of the house so long as the garage or carport is: (a) no more than 21 feet wide, (b) has a roof pitch of 3:12 (slope of 3 vertical feet for every 12 horizontal feet) or less, and (c) has a maximum height of no more than 12 feet above existing grade. E1: EICHLER TRACT GARAGES: In mapped Eichler Tracts, a garage or carport may be located forward of the front facade plane of the house so long as the garage or carport is: (a) no more than 21 feet wide, (b) has a roof pitch of 3:12 (slope of 3 vertical feet for every 12 horizontal feet) or less, and (c) has a maximum height of no more than 12 feet above existing grade. No change eichler 1.3B: EICHLER TRACT SECOND FLOOR SIZE: Where a property is in a mapped Eichler Tract, and not in a single-story overlay zone, the maximum floor area of the second floor shall not exceed 25 percent of the total gross floor area on the lot. E2: EICHLER TRACT SECOND FLOOR SIZE: Where a property is in a mapped Eichler Tract, and not in a single-story overlay zone, the maximum floor area of the second floor shall not exceed 35 percent of the total gross floor area on the lot. Size increased to 35% to allow flexiblility on smaller lots eichler 1.5D: EICHLER TRACT SIDE DAYLIGHT PLANE CLEARANCE: In mapped Eichler Tracts the clearance from any roof edge to the side daylight plane as measured perpendicularly from the daylight plane shall be at least 4 feet. E3: EICHLER TRACT SIDE DAYLIGHT PLANE CLEARANCE: In mapped Eichler Tracts the side daylight plane shall be measured from 6 ft above average grade instead of 10 ft. In the case of an Urban Lot Split, the daylight plane only applies to the original property lines.Rephrased for clarity Item 2 Attachment A: SB 9 Objective Design Standards Revision Crosswalk     Packet Pg. 26     eichler 2.1C: EICHLER TRACT ROOF HEIGHTS: In mapped Eichler Tracts the maximum roof height shall not exceed 22 feet, as measured from existing grade to the roof surface for a pitched roof, or 20 feet for a flat roof surface or parapet. Properties in flood zones shall be permitted to increase building height by one-half foot for each foot that the base flood elevation exceeds existing grade. E4: EICHLER TRACT ROOF HEIGHTS: In mapped Eichler Tracts the maximum roof height shall not exceed 22 feet, as measured from existing grade to the roof surface for a pitched roof, or 20 feet for a flat roof surface or parapet. Properties in flood zones shall be permitted to increase building height by one-half foot for each foot that the base flood elevation exceeds existing grade. No change Eichler 2.5B: Within mapped Eichler Tracts, garages may serve as the form in Standard 2.5A, and no roof pitch shall exceed 3:12. (See Standard 3.2C). E5: Within mapped Eichler Tracts, garages may serve as the one-story form in Standard 2.5A. No change eichler 3.2C: ROOFLINES IN EICHLER TRACTS: In mapped Eichler Tracts rooflines shall meet the following: (a) roof pitches no more than 3:12, (b) gable, shed, butterfly or flat roof forms (note: hip roofs with flat roofs at eaves permitted; see Illustration 1D of the IR guidelines for example), and (c) 2-foot minimum overhangs at eave and rake sides of roof forms for at least 50 percent of roof edges. E6: ROOFLINES IN EICHLER TRACTS: In mapped Eichler Tracts rooflines shall meet the following: (a) roof pitches no more than 3:12, (b) gable, shed, butterfly or flat roof forms (note: hip roofs with flat roofs at eaves permitted; see Illustration 1D of the IR guidelines for example), and (c) 2-foot minimum overhangs at eave and rake sides of roof forms for at least 50 percent of roof edges. No change eichler 4.3D: EXTERIOR MATERIALS IN EICHLER TRACTS: In mapped Eichler Tracts, exterior wall cladding shall be vertical board channel or flush siding, wood tongue and groove board siding, wood nickel-gap siding, smooth fiber cement panels, or metal panels. Board- form concrete, concrete block, or stucco may be used as a secondary material but collectively these materials shall not account for more than 30 percent of all non-glazed wall surfaces. E7: EXTERIOR MATERIALS IN EICHLER TRACTS: In mapped Eichler Tracts, exterior wall cladding shall be vertical board channel or flush siding, wood tongue and groove board siding, wood nickel-gap siding, smooth fiber cement panels, or metal panels. Board-form concrete, concrete block, or stucco may be used as a secondary material but collectively these materials shall not account for more than 30 percent of all non-glazed wall surfaces. No change eichler 4.4B: ENTRIES IN EICHLER TRACTS: In mapped Eichler Tracts an entry porch projecting forward of the front wall of the house shall not be used. A recessed void at the facade or a courtyard entry may be used in lieu of a porch. A covered trellis used as a colonnade E8: ENTRIES IN EICHLER TRACTS: In mapped Eichler Tracts, a projecting entry porch shall not be used. A covered trellis used as a colonnade or a side porch that does not project forward of the facade at the entry would not be considered an entry porch. Simplified text Item 2 Attachment A: SB 9 Objective Design Standards Revision Crosswalk     Packet Pg. 27     or a side porch that does not project forward of the facade at the entry would not be considered an entry porch. delete 1.2D: DUPLEX PARKING REQUIREMENT: In the case of a duplex, when parking spaces are required, the parking space for each unit shall be a covered parking space. Z 1.2D: DUPLEX PARKING REQUIREMENT: In the case of a duplex, when parking spaces are required, the parking space for each unit shall be a covered parking space. One covered space is required by PAMC 18.52 for all SB 9 units regardless of configuration, unless exempted from parking requirements by State Law. delete 1.5A: CONTEXTUAL FRONT MASSING STEPBACK: Where a home on an abutting lot across a side lot line is single-story or has a second-floor area less than 500 square feet, a proposed structure shall have a one-story building volume at least 15-foot wide and 15- foot deep at the front side of the house set forward of any second-floor street facing wall plane. Z 1.5A: CONTEXTUAL FRONT MASSING STEPBACK: Where a home on an abutting lot across a side lot line is single-story or has a second-floor area less than 500 square feet, a proposed structure shall have a one-story building volume at least 15-foot wide and 15-foot deep at the front side of the house set forward of any second-floor street facing wall plane. Redundant with 2.5A (now B2), and requiring a larger one-story roof form adjacent to a one-story house is not necessary. delete 1.5B: CONTEXTUAL SIDE MASSING STEPBACK: Where a home on an abutting lot across a side lot line is single-story or has a second- floor area less than 500 square feet, each proposed structure located within 20 feet of the side lot line shall step back the upper floor from the lower floor along that side of the structure at least 7 feet for at least 50 percent of the depth of the structure. Z 1.5B: CONTEXTUAL SIDE MASSING STEPBACK: Where a home on an abutting lot across a side lot line is single-story or has a second-floor area less than 500 square feet, each proposed structure located within 20 feet of the side lot line shall step back the upper floor from the lower floor along that side of the structure at least 7 feet for at least 50 percent of the depth of the structure. Feedback indicated the Daylight Plane was the preferred way to regulate this. delete 2.1A: UPPER FLOOR FRONT FAÇADE AREA: Where an abutting lot across a side lot line has a single-story home or home with no more than 500 square feet on the second floor, the front facade's visible wall area on the upper floor shall be no greater than 50 percent of the front facade's visible wall area on the first floor. Wall area includes the area defined by porches, windows, and wall surfaces under gables. On corner lots, the front facade shall be the facade at the shorter frontage. Z 2.1A: UPPER FLOOR FRONT FAÇADE AREA: Where an abutting lot across a side lot line has a single-story home or home with no more than 500 square feet on the second floor, the front facade's visible wall area on the upper floor shall be no greater than 50 percent of the front facade's visible wall area on the first floor. Wall area includes the area defined by porches, windows, and wall surfaces under gables. On corner lots, the front facade shall be the facade at the shorter frontage. The 2nd floor façade width would be sufficiently regulated by the daylight plane. This was also very difficult to interpret and calculate. Item 2 Attachment A: SB 9 Objective Design Standards Revision Crosswalk     Packet Pg. 28     delete 2.2A: FIRST FLOOR LEVEL: The finished first floor level shall not be more than 18 inches above existing grade. In Eichler Tracts, the finished first floor level shall not be more than 12 inches above existing grade. In a flood zone, the first-floor level may be set at the minimum allowed above grade to meet code requirements. For a lot removed from the flood zone due to on-site grading, the measurement shall be taken from revised grade. Z 2.2A: FIRST FLOOR LEVEL: The finished first floor level shall not be more than 18 inches above existing grade. In Eichler Tracts, the finished first floor level shall not be more than 12 inches above existing grade. In a flood zone, the first-floor level may be set at the minimum allowed above grade to meet code requirements. For a lot removed from the flood zone due to on-site grading, the measurement shall be taken from revised grade. This is sufficiently addressed by the other height restrictions, and was potentially overly strict in flood zones. delete 2.2B: FLOOR-TO-FLOOR HEIGHT: The height from the first finished floor to the second finished floor shall not exceed 10'-6”. Z 2.2B: FLOOR-TO-FLOOR HEIGHT: The height from the first finished floor to the second finished floor shall not exceed 10'-6”. Feedback indicated regulating interior height was overly restrictive. The exterior height limits are sufficient to not need to regulate interior height. delete 2.2C: SECOND FLOOR WALL PLATE HEIGHT: The wall plate height (i.e., interior wall height at exterior wall) on the second floor shall not exceed 9 feet for roofs with pitches 3:12 or lower; 8'-6" for roofs with pitches greater than 3:12 up to 9:12; and 8 feet for roofs with pitches 9:12 or greater. Z 2.2C: SECOND FLOOR WALL PLATE HEIGHT: The wall plate height (i.e., interior wall height at exterior wall) on the second floor shall not exceed 9 feet for roofs with pitches 3:12 or lower; 8'-6" for roofs with pitches greater than 3:12 up to 9:12; and 8 feet for roofs with pitches 9:12 or greater. The exterior height limits are sufficient to not need to regulate interior height. delete 2.2D: PARAPET HEIGHT: Parapets shall not exceed 1 foot above the roof surface over second floor roofs. Z 2.2D: PARAPET HEIGHT: Parapets shall not exceed 1 foot above the roof surface over second floor roofs. The overall height limits are sufficient. delete 2.6A: ATTIC HEIGHT: Unused attic spaces shall not exceed 5 feet in height. Z 2.6A: ATTIC HEIGHT: Unused attic spaces shall not exceed 5 feet in height. The Zoning Code FAR and height regulations already discourage this. delete 2.6B: EXTERIOR WALL HEIGHT: No exterior wall shall exceed 22 feet in height as measured from existing grade to the eave or parapet. Portions of walls under rakes such as at gables or shed roof forms may exceed this height. Z 2.6B: EXTERIOR WALL HEIGHT: No street-facing or interior side-facing exterior wall plane shall exceed 22 feet in height as measured from existing grade to the eave or parapet. Feedback indicated the 22ft felt arbitrary, and other standards such as 1.5C, 2.3A, and the daylight plane sufficiently regulate this delete 3.1B: ENTRY HEIGHT: Exterior entry forms shall not exceed 12 feet in height as measured from existing grade. Z 3.1B: ENTRY HEIGHT: Exterior entry forms shall not exceed 12 feet in height as measured from existing grade. The Zoning Code FAR and height regulations already discourage this. Item 2 Attachment A: SB 9 Objective Design Standards Revision Crosswalk     Packet Pg. 29     delete 3.3A: INCOMPLETE ROOF FORMS: Truncated hip and gable roof forms shall not be permitted at second floor roofs on two- story structures or roofs at single story structures. Note: A truncated roof form is where the roof planes do not extend to a ridgeline; rather they terminate with a flat roof or roof well. Z 3.3A: INCOMPLETE ROOF FORMS: Truncated hip and gable roof forms shall not be permitted at second floor roofs on two-story structures or roofs at single story structures. Note: A truncated roof form is where the roof planes do not extend to a ridgeline; rather they terminate with a flat roof or roof well. Feedback indicated that truncated roof forms can be a useful tool in reducing overall height. Typically, this is not visible from the public right of way. It also unnecessarily restricts historically recognized forms such as Dutch gables. delete 4.2A: WINDOW ALIGNMENT: Windows on two-story wall planes that face a street shall be aligned vertically unless there is a change in exterior materials from the lower floor to the upper floor. Z 4.2A: WINDOW ALIGNMENT: Windows on two- story wall planes that face a street shall be aligned vertically unless there is a change in exterior materials from the lower floor to the upper floor. Feedback indicated this was overly restrictive, “aligned vertically” was also unclear to interpret. delete 4.2B: FAÇADE ELEMENT SPACING: Focal points such as porches, large/featured windows, and bay windows shall be spaced at least 5 feet horizontally apart from each other when placed on the same level/floor. Z 4.2B: FAÇADE ELEMENT SPACING: Focal points such as porches, large/featured windows, and bay windows shall be spaced at least 5 feet horizontally apart from each other when placed on the same level/floor. Feedback indicated this was overly restrictive, particularly for smaller units. It For example, it also prevents “large windows” from being under a porch. delete 5.1A: PRIVACY DIAGRAM: Site Privacy Diagram must show the proposed second- floor plan including windows, major on-site vegetation, and all elements on the neighboring property within 25 feet of the subject property line. For adjacent sites show major vegetation, building footprints, windows (indicate size and location), and patios within 25 feet of the property lines shall be provided in the project plan set. Z 5.1A: PRIVACY DIAGRAM: Site Privacy Diagram must show the proposed second-floor plan including windows, major on-site vegetation, and all elements on the neighboring property within 25 feet of the subject property line. For adjacent sites show major vegetation, building footprints, windows (indicate size and location), and patios within 25 feet of the property lines shall be provided in the project plan set. This is a submittal checklist requirement, not a Design Standard. delete 5.2A: BEDROOM WINDOW LOCATION: Organize the second-floor plan so at least one bedroom has its largest/egress window facing the front lot line. On corner lots, at least one bedroom’s largest/egress window shall also face the street side lot line. Z 5.2A: BEDROOM WINDOW LOCATION: Organize the second-floor plan so at least one bedroom has its largest/egress window facing the front lot line. On corner lots, at least one bedroom’s largest/egress window shall also face the street side lot line. The privacy requirements already encourage this. delete 5.2C: STAIR WINDOW PRIVACY: Stair windows facing interior side lot lines within 20 feet of the lot line shall have permanent obscure glazing or exterior mounted permanent Z 5.2C: STAIR WINDOW PRIVACY: Stair windows facing interior side lot lines within 20 feet of the lot line shall have permanent obscure glazing or exterior mounted permanent architectural privacy screens to at least 5 feet above the landing. Combined with 5.2B (now B11) Item 2 Attachment A: SB 9 Objective Design Standards Revision Crosswalk     Packet Pg. 30     architectural privacy screens to at least 5 feet above the landing. delete 5.3A: SECOND FLOOR WINDOW SIZE ALONG SIDE LOT LINES: Any upper-level window or window grouping located less than 20 feet from a side interior lot line (measured perpendicularly) shall not have more than 30 square feet of glazing. Z 5.3A: SECOND FLOOR WINDOW SIZE ALONG SIDE LOT LINES: Any upper-level window or window grouping located less than 20 feet from a side interior lot line (measured perpendicularly) shall not have more than 30 square feet of glazing. The privacy requirements already encourage this, and/or sufficiently mitigate privacy for larger windows. Item 2 Attachment A: SB 9 Objective Design Standards Revision Crosswalk     Packet Pg. 31     Attachment B SB 9 Objective Design Standards Revised 11/8/2023 Section A: All The following ODS apply to all SB 9 projects A1: FRONT SETBACK Where the contextual front yard setback does not apply, the front setback shall be no less than the average front setback of the homes on lots to either side of the subject lot, up to a maximum of 30 feet. Otherwise, the zoning minimum front setback or special setback would still apply. A2: STUCCO TEXTURE: When stucco is used it shall be steel-troweled ‘Smooth’ or ‘Santa Barbara’ texture as described in the Technical Services Information Bureau, Chapter 5 - Plaster Textures & Acrylic Finishes (2011). For additions, stucco texture on the addition shall be allowed to match the stucco texture of the existing house. A3: CONTEXTUAL PORCH ENTRIES: If porches (i.e. roofed, street-facing porches with posts/column(s) and more than 3 feet deep), occur on at least 50 percent of homes on the block of the subject lot (counting only homes on the subject lot side of the street), the proposed house(s) with street frontage shall include a street-facing porch no less than 6 feet deep and 8 feet wide. A4: DRIVEWAYS: One curb cut and driveway per street frontage. Shared driveways are encouraged but require an easement to which the City is a third party. A5. PLANTING STRIP: A minimum two-foot wide, landscaped planting strip is required between a driveway and/or uncovered parking space and an interior lot line. A6: DRIVEWAY MATERIALS: Driveway and uncovered parking surfaces that exceed 10 feet in width shall not have asphalt or grey concrete surfaces. They must have a decorative surface to blend with the landscape such as pavers, brick, or colored concrete. A7: GARAGE LOCATION: Attached garage door(s) adjacent to the front setback must be located a minimum of 5 feet behind the forwardmost plane of the front facade or 3 feet behind the forwardmost plane of the street-side façade. The forwardmost façade plane may be a building wall or porch with posts/columns and must be at least 12 feet wide. A8: GARAGE DOOR DESIGN AND MATERIALS: The garage door shall match the material, color, and panel design pattern of the entry door, window fenestration, or exterior cladding material. A9: GARAGE DOOR SIZE: When visible from the street, the maximum garage door width shall be 16 feet and the maximum garage door height shall be 8 feet. If two single-wide garage doors are used instead of one double-wide door, each door's maximum width shall be 9 feet and maximum height 8 feet. A10: ROOF DECK NOT PERMITTED: A roof deck (i.e., a deck above of the first level of a single-story building or second level of a two-story building) shall not be permitted. A11: ROOF HEIGHT FOR VARIED ROOF PITCHES: Roof height shall be limited to 27 feet for roofs with pitches 9:12 or greater, 25 feet for roofs with pitches 3:12, up to 9:12, and 22 feet for roofs with pitches less than 3:12. Properties in flood zones shall be permitted to increase building height by one-half foot for each foot that the base flood elevation exceeds existing grade. A12: ROOF TYPE VARIATION: No more than two types of roof shall be used (examples of two types are hip and gable roofs or shed and flat roofs). A13: ROOF PITCH VARIATION: No more than two roof pitches shall be used (e.g., 4:12 and 12:12; 6:12 and flat). A14: GABLE ROOF FORMS: No more than three gable forms on an elevation facing a public street. A15: BAY WINDOWS: No more than two bay windows on an elevation facing a public street. Item 2 Attachment B: Proposed Objective Design Standards (clean)     Packet Pg. 32     A16: FAÇADE VISUAL FOCAL POINT: Each street facing building elevation shall have at least 20 square feet of glazing in a large window, multi-panel window or glazed door, or bay window form, with minimum dimensions of 3 ft. A17: WINDOW TO WALL DETAILING: Window frames shall be recessed at least 2 inches from the exterior wall face or have trim at least 2 inches wide and 0.5 inches thick on all four window sides. Stucco over foam shall not be used as window trim. A18: WINDOW PATTERNS: Window fenestration with divided lite appearance shall have exterior applied muntin bars (i.e., true or simulated divided lites). Section B: Two Story Houses The following ODS apply to two-story houses. B1: SECOND FLOOR LOCATION: Second floor area shall not be permitted within the standard side or rear setbacks of the underlying single family zoning district. B2: SINGLE-STORY BUILDING FORMS: All houses with frontage on the street shall have either: (a) a one story building form (excluding garages) at least 6 feet forward of the second floor wall face, and at least 10 feet wide; or (b) a protruding porch or one story roof overhang at least 6 feet deep, and at least 8 feet wide. B3: CONTEXTUAL FIRST FLOOR EAVE HEIGHT: The height of the first floor's street facing roof edges (i.e., eaves or parapets) shall not exceed 18 inches above the height of the first-floor eave or parapet of the homes on the abutting lots at side lot lines as measured at those homes' eaves nearest the subject lot. This first-floor roof edge height limit shall also extend 15 feet back from the building corner. This standard shall be 24 inches within a flood zone if either of the abutting homes’ first-floor level does not meet current flood zone regulations. This standard applies to the eave side of pitch roof forms and not the rake side such as at a gable. B4: CONTEXTUAL SECOND FLOOR EAVE HEIGHT: The height of the upper floor's street facing roof edge (eave or parapet) shall not exceed 18 inches above either: (a) the average height of the upper floor street facing eave or roof edge of homes to each side, or (b) in the case of only one home having a second floor, the height of that home's eaves. B5: GARAGE HEIGHT AND MASS: Maximum height of a roof over an attached garage shall not exceed 15 feet in height as measure from existing grade. The maximum garage wall plate height shall not exceed 10 feet. B6: SECOND FLOOR BALCONY LIMITATIONS: No more than one second floor deck/balcony shall be permitted per dwelling and shall: (a) only be permitted on a street facing facade, (b) be located at least 10 feet from any interior side lot line with a 5.5 foot tall solid privacy wall, or be located at least 30 feet from any interior side lot line, and (c) be limited in size to no more than 40 square feet. B7: SCREENING LANDSCAPE: For two story houses, plant screening trees with a species having a typical mature height of at least 25 feet, and mature canopy width of 15 feet at a quantity of at least one per 25 linear feet along each interior lot line. Existing trees to be retained that are at least 25 feet tall and 15 feet wide count towards the required planting. Three closely spaced tall screening shrubs with a mature height of at least 20 feet and mature width of at least 5 feet may be substituted for one screening tree. B8: PLANTING TYPE AND SIZE: When required, screening trees and shrubs shall be specified by botanical name with at least 50 percent of screening trees and shrubs being evergreen. Screening trees shall be specified and planted at 24-inch box size or larger and 8 feet height or taller. Screening shrubs shall be specified and planted at 15-gallon size or larger and 8 feet or taller. B9: PLANTING ADJACENT PUE’S: Where an easement such as a PUE exist along an interior lot line, trees are required to be planted on the same side of the easement as the building, but not within the easement. B10: PRIVACY LANDSCAPE: Privacy screening landscape shall be located to align with proposed second floor windows across side and rear lot lines and between windows at facing units on a single property. Privacy screening landscape shall be evergreen and per size and planting standards shown in Standard B7. Item 2 Attachment B: Proposed Objective Design Standards (clean)     Packet Pg. 33     B11: SECOND FLOOR WINDOW PRIVACY: For any window on an upper floor or in a stairway, facing an interior lot line that is located less than 20 feet from a side or rear lot line, one of the following shall be used: (a) permanent obscure glazing to at least 5 feet from the finished floor, or (b) exterior mounted permanent architectural privacy screens that block views more than 70%, or (c) windows with sills above 5 feet from the finished floor level. In a stairway, the finished floor is the height of the landing. This standard shall also apply to first floor windows when the finished floor height is 2 feet or more above grade. B12: SECOND FLOOR OPERABLE WINDOWS ALONG SIDE LOT LINES: Operable casement windows on the upper level with a sill height less than 5 feet above the finished floor and within 20 feet of an interior side lot line shall be hinged so the windows open towards the public street. Horizontal sliding windows shall not be permitted facing and within 20 feet of an interior side lot line, unless the windowsill height is at least 5 feet above the finish floor level. B13: SIDE DAYLIGHT PLANE CLEARANCE: Where a home on an abutting lot across a side lot line is single-story or has a second-floor area no more than 500 square feet, the side daylight plane shall be measured from 8 ft above average grade instead of 10 ft. In the case of an Urban Lot Split, the daylight plane only applies to the original property lines. B14: CONTEXTUAL ROOF PITCH: On properties adjacent to single story homes along either interior side lot line, roof pitches on new two-story buildings shall be 6:12 or lower. Section C: Large Lots The following ODS apply to new development of Urban Lot Split parcels which are larger than 5,000 sf. This means the single-family parcel prior to the lot split was 10,000 sf or larger. C1: DRIVEWAY WIDTH: 18-foot maximum driveway width (inclusive of uncovered parking) within a front or street side yard setback. C2: WALKWAY SEPARATION: Walkways shall be separated from driveways by a minimum of 4 feet of landscape planting. C3: GARAGE WIDTH: An attached garage or carport facing the street shall be no more than 30 percent of the total facade width facing that street, except that it may be 12 feet wide in any circumstance. C4: SECOND FLOOR SIZE: The maximum floor area above the first-floor level shall not exceed 35 percent of allowable gross floor area for the lot. Section D: Flag Lots and Substandard Lots The following ODS applies only for projects proposed on an existing flag lot or substandard lot. A lot created by an Urban Lot Split is not subject to this. D1. SECOND FLOOR AREA ON FLAG LOTS AND SUBSTANDARD LOTS: On flag lots (or similar lots without street frontage) and/or substandard lots, if the maximum allowed total floor area is greater than 70 percent of the buildable lot area, floor area may be placed on a second level. The maximum second floor area allowed shall be the area in excess of 70 percent of the buildable lot area or 300 square feet, whichever is greater. Section E: Eichler Neighborhoods The following ODS apply only in mapped Eichler Tracts E1: EICHLER TRACT GARAGES: In mapped Eichler Tracts, a garage or carport may be located forward of the front facade plane of the house so long as the garage or carport is: (a) no more than 21 feet wide, (b) has a roof pitch of 3:12 (slope of 3 vertical feet for every 12 horizontal feet) or less, and (c) has a maximum height of no more than 12 feet above existing grade. Item 2 Attachment B: Proposed Objective Design Standards (clean)     Packet Pg. 34     E2: EICHLER TRACT SECOND FLOOR SIZE: Where a property is in a mapped Eichler Tract, and not in a single- story overlay zone, the maximum floor area of the second floor shall not exceed 35 percent of the total gross floor area on the lot. E3: EICHLER TRACT SIDE DAYLIGHT PLANE CLEARANCE: In mapped Eichler Tracts the side daylight plane shall be measured from 6 ft above average grade instead of 10 ft. In the case of an Urban Lot Split, the daylight plane only applies to the original property lines. E4: EICHLER TRACT ROOF HEIGHTS: In mapped Eichler Tracts the maximum roof height shall not exceed 22 feet, as measured from existing grade to the roof surface for a pitched roof, or 20 feet for a flat roof surface or parapet. Properties in flood zones shall be permitted to increase building height by one-half foot for each foot that the base flood elevation exceeds existing grade. E5: Within mapped Eichler Tracts, garages may serve as the one-story form in Standard 2.5A. E6: ROOFLINES IN EICHLER TRACTS: In mapped Eichler Tracts rooflines shall meet the following: (a) roof pitches no more than 3:12, (b) gable, shed, butterfly or flat roof forms (note: hip roofs with flat roofs at eaves permitted; see Illustration 1D of the IR guidelines for example), and (c) 2-foot minimum overhangs at eave and rake sides of roof forms for at least 50 percent of roof edges. E7: EXTERIOR MATERIALS IN EICHLER TRACTS: In mapped Eichler Tracts, exterior wall cladding shall be vertical board channel or flush siding, wood tongue and groove board siding, wood nickel-gap siding, smooth fiber cement panels, or metal panels. Board-form concrete, concrete block, or stucco may be used as a secondary material but collectively these materials shall not account for more than 30 percent of all non-glazed wall surfaces. E8: ENTRIES IN EICHLER TRACTS: In mapped Eichler Tracts, a projecting entry porch shall not be used. A covered trellis used as a colonnade or a side porch that does not project forward of the facade at the entry would not be considered an entry porch. Item 2 Attachment B: Proposed Objective Design Standards (clean)     Packet Pg. 35     Item No. 3. 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: November 16, 2023 Report #: 2311-2201 TITLE Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for October 19, 2023 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) adopt the attached meeting minutes. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Minutes of October 19, 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 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 36     Page 1 of 11 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 10/19/23 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD DRAFT MINUTES: October 19, 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 8:32 a.m. Present: Chair Peter Baltay, Vice Chair Kendra Rosenberg, Boardmember Yingxi Chen, Boardmember David Hirsch, Boardmember Adcock Absent: None Oral Communications None Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Senior Planner and Architectural Review Board (ARB) Liaison Claire Raybould indicated there were no Agenda changes, additions, or deletions. City Official Reports 1. Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2) Tentative Future Agenda items and 3) Recently Submitted Projects Senior Planner Raybould reported that per the Board’s request, future meeting dates were added to the Agenda and requested the ARB members let her know of any anticipated absences. Discussions have been in place regarding a possible retreat for the ARB on January 11, 2024. It would be a Thursday that would not normally be an ARB scheduled meeting, and the January 4, 2024 meeting will be cancelled. The retreat would likely be a couple of hours during the morning. If January 11 does not work for a retreat, she will set up a doodle pull for other possibilities in January. Chair Baltay commented that a retreat is a formal gathering of the ARB, a public open meeting, and an opportunity to discuss things that are not Quasi-Judicial items. It often helps to provide an opportunity to discuss other items that don’t require a public hearing. To that extent, it is important that everyone attends. It is helpful to inform staff if they are able to attend, and additionally provide ideas on topics to staff. Ms. Raybould reported that upcoming meetings include the first formal study session for the Local Advanced Water purification system being proposed by the city and Mountainview and a housing project for 739 Sutter are scheduled for November 2. There will be a summary report for outreach on SB 9 updates Item 3 Attachment A - Minutes of October 19, 2023     Packet Pg. 37     Page 2 of 11 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 10/19/23 and the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP) is scheduled to return November 16. The item scheduled for December 7 has been postponed until next year as there is more work that they want to do before having a study session, however there are a few other items pending for December 7th. There have not been any new projects added since the most recent ARB meeting. Chair Baltay requested more information regarding the 739 Sutter project. Ms. Raybould responded there was a preliminary review in November 2021, they came back with a formal application in June of 2022. Staff did not see revised plans for that project until April 2023. They are no longer subject to SB 330 requirements; however, they are streamlining under the Housing Development and subject to the Objective Standards and scheduled for an ARB review on November 2, 2023. Action Items 2. STUDY SESSION: 616 Ramona [23PLN-00231]: Request for Preliminary Architectural Review for Modifications to An Office Building Including a Partial Third-Floor Addition Utilizing Transferred Development Rights. Environmental Assessment: Not a Project. The Formal Application will be Subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review. Zoning District: CD-C (P)(Commercial Downtown-Community with Pedestrian Combining District). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Claire Raybould at Claire.Raybould@CityofPaloAlto.org. Chair Baltay stated this item is a study session and disclosures are not necessary and requested staff’s presentation. Ms. Raybould provided the staff presentation for the preliminary study session review of 616 Ramona for façade modifications to an existing office building including a partial third floor addition utilizing transferred development rights. The first floor interior courtyard will be filled in, with a new third level addition to include outdoor space. No additional parking is proposed in accordance with AB 2097, and they paid for 33 spaces in lieu of the downtown parking, and bicycle parking will be added. Additionally, a trash enclosure will be added. Staff is seeking preliminary feedback on the design, colors and materials, and neighborhood context, pedestrian experience for the pedestrian overlays, the bike parking, and the special setback of six feet with the architectural projections that have been proposed. No formal action is requested. Following the preliminary review meeting, the applicant may choose to file a formal application. Chair Baltay asked if there were any questions for staff. Boardmember Chen noted the ground floor level was labeled as office or retail use and inquired if the parking requirements would be different for either outcome. Ms. Raybould explained that the commercial downtown parking requirements are the same for office and retail. Boardmember Adcock asked if the building was being reconstructed. Item 3 Attachment A - Minutes of October 19, 2023     Packet Pg. 38     Page 3 of 11 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 10/19/23 Ms. Raybould answered that the applicants are proposing a remodel, not a full reconstruction and there is a courtyard on the first floor that will be filled in as an add to floor area and using transferred development rights for the addition of the courtyard on the third floor. The portion of the third floor that will be used as office space counts towards floor area, the open space does not count towards floor area. They are maintaining a certain percentage of walls, but the project is considered a substantial remodel which requires the project to comply with current building standards. Chair Baltay called for the applicants presentation. Mr. Ken Hayes with Hayes Group Architects provided the applicants presentation for Hamilton Investors, LLC. And thanked Ms. Raybould for her work on the project. The site is a midblock with an existing a non- conforming grandfathered office building of about 8,300 square feet. It is in the CDCP zone, on the cusp of the CDCP ground floor uses. Mr. Hayes showed several aerial views of the property. The building is located across the street from City Hall plaza. The project statement includes a remodel of an existing two story office building, adding a partial third floor with TDR and ADA bonus floor area, expanding outdoor spaces for the enjoyment of building users and considering integrating mass timber CLT structure system, and integrate sustainable systems and features to improve the buildings environmental response. They are looking to integrate the design of the building to flow with the current buildings surrounding it, using glass, and dark metals and hope to use the mass timer CLT structure system which adds warmth to a building. They intend to utilize solar shading and want to create a connection to the raised City Hall plaza in the third floor open space which will overlook City Hall’s front plaza. All of the service comes in from the rear of the building. At the rear of the building will be the proposed trash enclosure and bicycle parking and storage. A trellis will be used to keep the rooftop mechanical systems discreet. The building is subject to the shrink wrap rule. A step back is being used for the third floor level on the side that abuts the historical building next door, and the building design is intended to relate in context to the historical building in both major and minor massing. Landscaping and bench seating is planned for the front elevation. Chair Baltay thanked the applicant for his presentation and opened the item for public comment. PUBLIC COMMENT Ms. Dao stated there are no public comments. Chair Baltay closed the item to public comment and inquired if there are any Board questions for staff or the applicant. Boardmember Adcock inquired about the TDR transfer of square footage and if it’s required that the floor area stay the same and commented she’s not sure how the CLT will weave into the existing structure, leaving her concerned that it could make the floor areas problematic and it drawings already appear as if the interior floors are not lining up with the exterior mullion. Mr. Hayes responded that they had not yet worked into that level of details for the preliminary review and their objective would be the rated wall for the stair on the interior would align with the mullion on the exterior. In terms of the structure, they are keeping the two long CMU walls of the building, everything Item 3 Attachment A - Minutes of October 19, 2023     Packet Pg. 39     Page 4 of 11 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 10/19/23 else in the interior will be rebuilt. The CLT would be a new structure inside, however they cannot be any taller than the existing building because of the shrink wrap rule. Any exempt floor area can go outside of that envelope. With the removal of the lofted area on the second floor, they were able to add the floor area on the third floor and since it’s only half the footprint of the building, they thought it would be great to make a usable outdoor space for the users of the building. Chair Baltay requested from staff a reminder of what the shrink wrap rule entails. Ms. Raybould explained that the shrink wrap rule requires the non-complying floor area not increase the envelope of the building. You can’t move floor area from basement level or lower levels to above levels, however, they can use transferred development rights to increase that shrink wrap. And you can move floor area down. Which in this case, they took the floor area of the second level to fill in the courtyard with ADA compliant exempt space. Chair Baltay inquired if that is part of the zoning code or a policy. Ms. Raybould stated that it is not specifically clear in the code, but it’s how it’s been interpreted for all projects with transferred development rights in the past. It is not a written policy. Boardmember Adcock asked if the floor area could be increased in height. Ms. Raybould answered that anything that is not transferred development rights has to remain within the envelope of the existing building. Mr. Hayes added anywhere within the exterior walls of the building, as long as floor area is not moved up. Ms. Raybould continued that the first level can be changed as much as they want, the second level has to stay within the envelope, and staff can check into the existing code for further clarification. Chair Baltay stated it might be helpful if staff showed earlier presentation of the project that was shown to City Council. He recalled the original version exceeded the shrink wrap rule and inquired what City Council’s response was to that. Ms. Raybould commented that there was a previous pre-screening with Council and what was proposed in the first presentation was moving floor area around in a manner than expanded the envelope of the original building without using TDRs. Staff’s response to the original presentation was that it would require code amendment and needed to be reviewed by City Council for a prescreening. Council was in support of remodeling the existing building, however, not amenable to the idea of changing the downtown code to accommodate the original plans which exceeded the shrink wrap. Boardmember Hirsch commented that in regard to the stair landing line doesn’t line up and inquired if it was held back from the face of the building. Mr. Hayes explained that there is a landing on each mid-floor, which would need to be held back from the glass line. The vertical wall that separates the stair from the occupied space will need to complete the fire separation by integrating it with a mullion, which would create alignment between the two. There is a primary deep recess and a secondary line of mullions. Item 3 Attachment A - Minutes of October 19, 2023     Packet Pg. 40     Page 5 of 11 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 10/19/23 Boardmember Hirsch inquired about the projections from the building on the front of the building that encroaches into the setback. Mr. Hayes stated that there is a special setback that runs down Ramona street for six feet. The two side walls go out from the building to the property line. They plan to infill the existing Travistine façade which is currently setback four feet. The majority of the building is aligning with the current setback of four feet, although they are removing the eyebrow that aligns with the property line. The projections of the new building, the metal cladding detail, extends an additional two feet; the glass line is at the four foot plane. The research still needs to be done to determine what type of projections are allowed in a special setback. Boardmember Hirsch asked how far the proposed canopy would extend. Mr. Hayes replied to it would be at the property line, which is the four foot setback. Boardmember Hirsch requested a description of the steel frame aesthetics of the right hand of the building. Mr. Hayes explained they are trying to create texture and depth for the benefit of solar shading for the front of the building, while also relating to the Spanish colonial revival feel of the current surroundings without having to use wrought iron. Boardmember Hirsch asked what the round circle lighting is within the building. Mr. Hayes commented that it’s entourage, it wasn’t worth the time to ask someone to change it when he saw it. Vice Chair Rosenberg referenced drawing A3.2 and inquired about the interstitial space on the third level and asked if it was part of the mezzanine or part of the roof over the stairwell and toilet. Mr. Hayes stated it was part of the roof over the toilets, as they want to see the whole space above. It is not usable space, and not counted as floor area; additionally, there is no access to the area. Vice Chair Rosenberg requested the terrace view slide and asked where the skylights would be located, as well as the applicants thoughts for the appropriate type and quantity of landscaping planned for around the skylights. Mr. Hayes answered that the skylights would be in the area where the landscaping is on the third floor terrace. The planting has not yet been determined. The intent will be for the light to enter into the space below, they have not yet ironed out the details of if the skylights will be clear or translucent, which will then determine the type of planting that will surround them. The skylights will be lifted above the floor plane as the planters on the terrace level will also be raised. Vice Chair Rosenberg questioned having only two bicycle parking in the rear. Mr. Hayes responded that those are long term bike parking. The short term bicycle parking is in the front of the building, as depicted on drawing A1.0. Transportation has requested that it be moved so that it is in front of the entrance to the building, which will provide more width to the sidewalk. Vice Chair Rosenberg inquired what the requirement is for bicycle parking. Item 3 Attachment A - Minutes of October 19, 2023     Packet Pg. 41     Page 6 of 11 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 10/19/23 Ms. Raybould stated the requirement is for two long term and two short term bicycle parking. Vice Chair Rosenberg asked if access to the rear bike parking would be considered as going down the alleyways. Mr. Hayes stated that was correct. There is a ramp in the back as the alley is higher than the street. Adding an interior door for access to the rear bike parking didn’t make sense as the tenant for the area is an unknown, they didn’t want to limit the rear bike parking to just that tenant. Vice Chair Rosenberg inquired the height of the terrace railing on the third level. Mr. Hayes stated it will be high enough that the roof of the neighboring building is not visible. Vice Chair Rosenberg questioned the capacity they anticipated for using the building. Mr. Hayes answered that he was not prepared to answer that. Ms. Raybould noted that after discussions with fire, they may need to modify the rear railing on the terrace level to include an access point from the deck to an emergency ladder if needed. Mr. Hayes added that the roof at the back of the building is the elevation of the existing building. Boardmember Chen asked if the roof terrace would be open to the public or just the users of the building. Mr. Hayes stated that the intention is for it to be used by the tenant of the building. If there are multiple tenants, the tenant on the third floor would have exclusive use. There will be sliding doors and swinging doors for access. Boardmember Chen referenced the lower soffit line and inquired about their design intent. Mr. Hayes explained that they were relating to the top of the window line of the building next door. The bottom of the opening is right at eight feet. Boardmember Adcock followed up on the roof access from the mezzanine stair. Mr. Hayes explained that the stair would have a ladder that goes through a hatch up onto the roof. Boardmember Adcock asked if the mechanical screen enclosure was purposely designed to not capture the elevator. Mr. Hayes stated he’s not exactly sure, however the elevator will not be extending through the roof. The elevator vent would be in the roof plane. They do not yet have the details of what the mechanical room equipment will entail, and the objective will be to hide as much of that as possible. The 3D solar panels will also be on the roof top. Boardmember Adcock questioned the intent of the trellis material. Mr. Hayes stated currently they are considering metal, however, that is not set in stone. Boardmember Hirsch requested information regarding the restrictive floor height and how that’s going to work since it has yet been determined what type of mechanical equipment will be used. Item 3 Attachment A - Minutes of October 19, 2023     Packet Pg. 42     Page 7 of 11 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 10/19/23 Mr. Hayes explained that they have some core on the second floor with a janitor’s closet, toilet room, and would allow room for fan coils. The two story space would likely include duct distribution. The third floor won’t be an issue. He suspected they would be considering a BRF system. The fan coils would be concealed. Currently there are no plans to drop the ceiling. Boardmember Hirsch asked for a better description of the framework of the building. Mr. Hayes responded that it would either be an ACM product, possibly an aluminum composite metal, or an aluminum plate and set up as a rainscreen that could be cladding similar to the San Mateo County building in Redwood City, with deep recesses and rain screening. The background area will be a warm matte finish that will transition from the shiny building on the corner to the historic building on the opposite side of the proposed building. Chair Baltay asked staff if it would be feasible for the applicant to raise the second level two feet, should that be a request of the ARB; and what would those requirements consist of, could the applicant apply for a variance. Ms. Raybould answered that is something she would have to explore further as her experience with transferred development right projects is limited. Chair Baltay commented that the ARB has raised concern about the heights which are driven by that issue, and he was attempting to open the possibility of them addressing that if possible. Ms. Raybould questioned if the height concerns were more on the right side where the TDRs are above, as it could make a difference if they were using it to expand the area, they may find that a variance would not be needed in that case. Chair Baltay answered he was looking at the left side of the building and the way it aligns with the adjacent building. He believed it would be beneficial if it were a foot or two higher. The same question would apply to the six foot special setback and the projections into that setback. Mr. Hayes pulled up Code 1818.120 and stated it applies just to the downtown. It’s not written as “shrink wrap” and stated that they could argue that raising the floor creates a better pedestrian oriented expression to the building. Chair Baltay clarified that his question was if it could be addressed through a variance, perhaps, or if it would require a hearing before Council as a code amendment. Ms. Raybould stated first they would need to determine if it was allowed without a variance. If a variance was needed, staff would have to consider if the findings could be solved with that variance. Chair Baltay asked how the existing and proposed parking was being measured on the project. Ms. Raybould answered that they are currently meeting required parking through the in lieu program for the existing floor area. With the addition, they would technically be required to provide forty-one spaces, currently there are thirty-three. The city cannot impose a minimum parking requirement because the building is located within a half mile of a major transit CalTrain stop. The only parking requirement that can be imposed is for bicycle parking. There is nothing preventing the City from imposing the Item 3 Attachment A - Minutes of October 19, 2023     Packet Pg. 43     Page 8 of 11 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 10/19/23 Transportation Demand Management Plan or making transit passes as a condition of approval. Internally, staff have been discussing when a project has ten spaces or less that is required, they would be more interested in it being a condition of approval for them to provide transit passes versus a full TDM plan, which requires monitoring components. Chair Baltay inquired if it’s possible to include increasing bicycle spaces as a condition of approval. Ms. Raybould stated she didn’t believe they could impose that as a condition of approval because the requirements related to the TDM plan, and associated actions are outlined in the code as they related to reducing parking requirements. There are other allowances in the code that allow the reduction of vehicle spaces for an increased number of bicycle parking spaces if they felt it was appropriate for the site. Chair Baltay brought the item back to the Board for comments and reminded the ARB that this is a study session. The ARB took a five minute break. The ARB returned with all members present. Chair Baltay continued the meeting with ARB comments. Boardmember Hirsch thanked the applicant for the presentation on what he considered to be an interesting and difficult project. He finds the influence of the project by the Spanish history a bit extreme. It’s a modern building but the color doesn’t necessarily make that distinction, but he appreciates what the elements are trying to do next to the stucco of the historical building. The Spanish building is integral to itself and has a character to its own. He finds that the concerns expressed about the first floor were not adequately represented in the drawings in such a way that it could be appreciated, in regard to the low floor line comparison to the adjacent building. He liked Chair Baltay direction of the possibility of addressing those issues with a variance. He finds the aesthetics are quite nice and the proportions are good for the building as a whole and work well. He appreciates the modern look of the building. The deck is going to be a wonderful addition and the first floor is interesting, although he believes it would be more interesting if it were higher, and they should study that option further. Chair Baltay stated that Vice Chair Rosenberg checked the drawings and asked her to explain the floor to floor height from the first floor to the second floor. Vice Chair Rosenberg referenced sheet A3.1 and noted that the first floor is at zero and the second floor begins at nine feet, six inches. It’s 9’6” floor to floor from the first to the second floor. It is also 9’6” from second floor to third floor. Vice Chair Rosenberg thanked Mr. Hayes for the presentation and commented that she is fond of the aesthetics of the building in general. She would love to see the material board for the samples of colors and textures of the façade with the formal application. She is concerned with them building a three story building that showcases itself as a four story building the way the windows have been partitioned. The third floor has a twenty foot ceiling with the exception of the bathrooms. She loves the terrace and the second floor skylights that shine into the first floor double space. She would caution them to make sure that light does actually get into the building. She would hate to see it get lost in the landscaping of the Item 3 Attachment A - Minutes of October 19, 2023     Packet Pg. 44     Page 9 of 11 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 10/19/23 terrace. Vice Chair Rosenberg is less concerned about the feel of the first floor height since it’s only half of the first floor space in the atrium on the other side. The balance of the building was done quite well. She does see the other Boardmembers concerns with the height on the front façade. She would be supportive of the building being a few feet taller if that is allowed. She would love to see floor area and appreciates the way they explained the use of the TDR. She would love to see more of the rear area in the site plan. It would be helpful to see the alley egress in terms of bike usage. It might be nice to add more bike parking since the space is already there. She would love to see the mechanical systems information and where they are proposed the open ducting versus the closed ducting. They will need to see the special setback specifications, and cleaner details about the third floor railing. She loves the idea of the front façade bench but was not a fan of the location it was shown in the drawing. Overall, the project is great work, she’s looking forward to the next iteration. Boardmember Chen thanked Mr. Hayes for the presentation and commented that there are many features she appreciates in the design. She appreciated that they are doing a remodel versus a demolition, it saves on the carbon produced. She also appreciated their intent of integrating the design with the context of the adjacent historical building and considering the relationship with the City Hall plaza. She likes the open part of the existing second floor by filling in the first floor courtyard. She also really appreciated the south facing terrace and the idea of using skylights to add daylight into the atrium. She is concerned with the low soffit line compared to the adjacent neighbor. Looking at the rendering, other than the glazing hard opening, there is also a second floor projection of the wood pieces, there is another line. If they are able to change the floor to floor height, she would like to see an alternative to the façade design to make the first floor look taller than what it is now. Her first impression of the raised ceiling height on the third floor was if it was necessary, however in looking at it further, she appreciates how it helps to balance the overall appearance of the building and adds height to the outdoor terrace, however they need to work out how it relates to the floor lines. Boardmember Adcock thanked the applicant for the presentation and commented that she finds the project interesting. When she looked at the section on A3.2, she saw that the structure was stepped down in a way that is needed for the terrace and believed that was where they were trying to maintain the relationships to the other buildings. When she read the code, she also wasn’t sure if the code was representative of the building height restriction or floor to floor. She doesn’t believe it’s a variance issue because none of it states floor to floor. She believes it would be prudent for them to see if they can raise the floor to floor height. The third floor doesn’t necessarily need a twenty foot height to keep the same massing look and it would solve the beams situation between the single story and the double heights. She appreciated them keeping the existing floor area. In regard to the stair shaft on the rear, she noted it was turned to maximize the trash area. Her thought was it would be best if they kept the back stair simple to minimize the required rating. The lower roof area on the back side didn’t show mechanical and her belief is that some will be needed to serve the first floor double height, which would also help minimize the duct runs. Addressing that earlier than later will help the plans of the project. Chair Baltay thanked the Board for their comments and stated he agreed with all of them. This is an excellent building that he could easily support. If there is a way to make it a little taller on the ground floor it would really help the building. If they are trying to claim it as retail space, which the ARB encouraged, a 9’6 floor minus the structure and mechanical won’t be enough space. His hope is there is someway that Item 3 Attachment A - Minutes of October 19, 2023     Packet Pg. 45     Page 10 of 11 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 10/19/23 can be addressed without a code amendment. Boardmember Adcock’s suggestion made a lot of sense with regard to raising the right hand side of the building successfully and keeping the height of the existing roof, add new deck which could allow for a reduction of the floor to floor space on the third floor and an addition to the floor to floor space on the first floor. He would really appreciate some creative thinking in resolving those concerns. It would make for a much better building. Ms. Raybould stated they will definitely look into options, and wanted to be clear that the changes to the floor to floor height on the ground level are not a problem. That could definitely be done within the code if they reduced the third floor to floor space. It’s the overall envelope that they would need to explore in terms of their options for adding height. Boardmember Hirsch expressed a concern about the front façade extending into the setback plane and felt an exception for that would be helpful since they are decorative elements. Ms. Raybould indicated that the staff report noted that a variance would be required, however she planned to explore the code more to see if there are other options for that as well. As Boardmember Hirsch noted there have been allowances for that, she would have to research to see of those allowances also apply to special setbacks. Vice Chair Rosenberg questioned if the neighbors are also required to follow the special setback. Ms. Raybould stated that might be the finding as to why this project is unique, since the neighboring building is historic and will never be demolished, and it fully encroaches into the setback. Vice Chair Rosenberg added that the believes the overall building height as drawn is appropriate. She believed the ARB’s comments were geared more towards redistributing the floor to floor heights between the three levels. Chair Baltay invited Mr. Hayes to respond to comments and ask questions if needed. Mr. Hayes stated he appreciated all of the comments and believes that floor to floor heights is an important issue to resolve. His belief is that the shrink wrap rule will stagnate anyone wanting to remodel the original buildings in the downtown area. Chair Baltay took a straw pull of the ARB for allowing that type of building exceed the height by a 10% exception. All members stated they would be in support of that. Mr. Hayes stated that his interpretation was that City Council was warm to the idea for this building, however if the code needed to be changed, it would then apply to the entire downtown and they found that prospect more concerning. Vice Chair Rosenberg noted that the code reads that the ARB can make a finding that an exception could be made if they deemed it appropriate. Chair Baltay requested that Ms. Raybould read that part of the code. Ms. Raybould read “The director may approve minor changes to the buildings footprint height, length, and the building envelope through Architectural Review of minor aesthetic architecture improvements and to improve pedestrian orientation provided there is no increase to the degree of any non-complying Item 3 Attachment A - Minutes of October 19, 2023     Packet Pg. 46     Page 11 of 11 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 10/19/23 features exceptions are provided for rooftop access and amenities in Section 18.18.” The height is not a non-complying feature in this project and Section 18.18 allows for rooftop amenities to exceed the height. Approval of Minutes 3. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for September 21, 2023. Chair Baltay asked for comments or a motion. MOTION: Vice Chair Rosenberg, seconded by Boardmember Chen, to approve the meeting minutes for August 17, 2023 as written. VOTE: 4-0-1 (ABSTAIN by Adcock) Boardmember Questions, Comments or Announcements None Adjournment Chair Baltay adjourned the meeting at 10:14 a.m. Item 3 Attachment A - Minutes of October 19, 2023     Packet Pg. 47     Item No. 4. Page 1 of 4 Architectural Review Board Staff Report From: Jonathan Lait, Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: November 16, 2023 Report #: 2310-2136 TITLE 123 Sherman [21PLN-00172]: Ad Hoc Review of Previously Approved Project to Review Minor Design Details for Windows and Screens as well as the Design of the Retail Space per the Conditions of Approval RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) Ad Hoc Committee take one of the following action(s): •Discuss the details and revisions, and recommend that the Director find they meet the approval conditions and align with the approval findings, or •Provide additional direction to the project applicant and continue the item. BACKGROUND On May 18, 2023,12 the ARB recommended approval of the subject project, which the Director of Planning and Development Services approved on August 29, 2023. Consistent with the ARB’s recommendation, a condition of approval requiring certain aspects of the design to return to an ARB Ad Hoc Committee was incorporated into the approval letter. 1 May 18, 2023 Architectural Review Board Hearing Staff Report for the 123 Sherman Project : https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas- minutes/architectural-review-board/2023/arb-5.18-123sherman.pdf 2 May 18, 2023 Architectural Review Board Hearing Minutes: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas- minutes/architectural-review-board/2023/arb-approved-minutes-5-18-23.pdf Item 4 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 48     Item No. 4. Page 2 of 4 DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS The following items were required to return to the ARB Ad Hoc committee in accordance with the project’s Conditions of Approval (Condition #4 a-e): a. Study feasibility of a café use b. Study feasibility of adding operable windows c. Add additional screens to windows (with glass) d. Add automatic shades to the windows, on sides facing residences e. Study adding as much height as possible to the ground level Additionally, since the time the project was approved, a neighbor has asked if the visual impact of the mechanical screens could be reduced. Condition 4a. Study feasibility of a café use Applicant’s Response: •Commercial brokers have reviewed the project and have concluded that the proposed space provided for a cafe use is appropriate. The space can work for a single tenant or for two tenants. Please refer to page 11 of the Project plans in Attachment B for the layout for a single tenant and page 12 for the layout for two ground floor tenants. Additionally, as noted below for item e, the retail spaces will now be depressed to increase the ceiling height from 9’8” on the approved plans to 11’10”. Staff Analysis: •This condition of approval was based on concerns as to the viability of a café use within this space. The applicant appears to have provided the requested documentation related to the viability of the space for a café use. Staff’s analysis of the floor to ceiling height change and two-tenant scenario is discussed below under Condition of Approval 4e. Condition 4b. Study feasibility of adding operable windows Applicant’s Response: •The approved plans included only one or two single-width doors per terrace, depending on the size. Operable bi-folding retractable doors are now added to all four large outdoor terraces at the second and third floors. This will allow the occupants of the building to enjoy natural ventilation and create an expansive indoor/outdoor experience adjacent to the outdoor terraces. Staff Analysis: •The proposed revisions appear to address this condition of approval and the ARB’s intent. Item 4 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 49     Item No. 4. Page 3 of 4 Condition 4c. Add additional screens to windows (with glass) Applicant’s Response: •On the elevations of Grant Avenue, Sherman Avenue, and Park Boulevard, the stenciled panels installed within the window system will feature clear glass behind the panel, providing depth and filtered shadows. On the north elevation facing the residences, solid walls are installed behind the stenciled panel to provide privacy for the residences. Please refer to pages 15,16,18,20,21, and 23 to see the locations of revised screens. Staff Analysis: •ARB’s direction was to “study adding more of the perforated metal panels over glass so there is a bit of filtered light inside the building”. As a result of that study, the applicants have chosen to maintain the previous number of screens on each façade. There is now clear glass behind some of the screens instead of solid material on the street-facing sides, which meets the ARB intent to add light. The screen panels facing the public streets would have minimal impact to privacy, as all windows will have shades as discussed further below. Condition 4d. Add automatic shades to the windows, on sides facing residences Applicant’s Response: •Automatic shades were already required by Condition of Approval #12. However, this plan set now shows that they will be installed at windows on the elevations facing the residences on the north elevation, Grant Avenue and Sherman Avenue. They will provide full coverage of windows to prevent possible light leakage from 10PM to 6AM, every day. Staff Analysis: •The proposed revisions appear to address this condition of approval and the ARB’s intent to provide shielding towards the residential neighbors. Condition 4e. Study adding as much height as possible to the ground level Applicant’s Response: •The retail floor plate will be depressed 2’-2” to increase the clear height within the retail space from 9’-8” to 11’-10”. Staff Analysis: •Considering the building is at the maximum allowable height, this change creates the ceiling height the ARB requested without affecting the other floors of the building. However, staff notes that the proposed layout for two retail tenants would not appear to meet ADA compliance requirements without a ramp for the second tenant given the proposed recess of the ground floor. As shown on Sheet 25, a ramp is proposed from the entrance off of Park Boulevard which would serve either the single tenant or the tenant Item 4 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 50     Item No. 4. Page 4 of 4 closest to Park Boulevard in the two-tenant plan. Staff asks the Committee to review this proposal to ensure it creates an inviting design. Additional item: Mechanical Screen Applicant’s response: •The design approved by the ARB included a 5-foot tall rooftop mechanical screen along Park Boulevard. After further review of the mechanical system it has been determined that no mechanical equipment will be required in this location. Smith Development would like to remove this screen from the project given neighbor concerns of a visual impact. Please refer to page 3 and 27 for the revised renderings of the project without the 5’ tall mechanical screen. Staff Analysis: •Staff notes that this particular screen was architectural in nature in addition to functional, extending the accent material façade facing the primary street side. While the maximum height of the building is limited to 35 ft, this screen was 40 ft tall due to the 15 ft allowance for mechanical screens. Staff believes removal of the screen has negative impacts on the building design and asks for the Committee to review this aspect. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS The Ad Hoc Committee is encouraged to affirm these submittals meet Approval Condition #4. Otherwise, the Committee should provide direction to staff and the applicant if the submittal requires further refinement. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Location Map Attachment B: Applicant Letter and Plans AUTHOR/TITLE: Emily Kallas, AICP, Planner Item 4 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 51     124-29-008 124-29-017 132-31-081 132-31-074 124-37-014 124-37-015 124-37-059 124-37-016 124-37-013 124-37-056 124-37-057 124-37-058 124-37-060 124-37-061 124-37-017 124-37-018 124-37-019 124-37-020 124-37-055 124-37-054 124-37-053 124-37-052 124-37-051 124-37-062 124-37-012 124-37-011 124-37-010 124-37-009 124-37-008 124-37-007 124-37-006 124-37-005 124-37-068 124-37-069 124-37-050 124-37-049 124-37-048 124-37-047 124-37-043 124-37-044124-37-045 124-37-046 124-37-004 124-37-003 124-37-002 124-37-021 124-37-084 124-37-085 124-37-083 124-37-082 124-37-081 124-37-080 124-37-070 124-37-071 124-37-072 124-37-073 124-37-074 124-37-075 124-37-076 124-37-077 124-37-078 124-37-086 124-37-079 124-29-013 124-29-012 124-29-011 124-29-020 132-31-005 124-29-023 124-29-025 132-31-079 124- 124-37-088 124-37-089 124-37-090 124-37-091 124-37-092 124-37-093 124-37-094 124-37-095 124-37-096 124-37-097 124-37-098 124-37-099 124-37-100 124-37-101 124-37-102 124-37-103 124-37-104 124-37-105 124-37-106 124-37-107 124-37-108 124-37-109 124-37-110 124-37-111 124-37-112 124-37-113 124-37-114 124-37-115 124-37-116 124-37-117 124-37-118 124-37-119 124-37-120 124-37-121 124-37-122 124-37-123 124-37-124 124-37-125 124-37-126 124-37-127 124-37-128 124-37-129 124-37-130 124-37-131 124-37-132 124-37-133 124-37-134 124-37-135 124-37-136 124-37-137 124-37-138 124-37-139 124-37-140 124-37-141 124-37-142 124-37-143 124-37-144 124-37-145 124-37-146 124-37-147 124-37-148 124-37-149 124-37-150 124-37-151 124-37-152 124-37-153 124-37-154 124-37-155 124-37-156 124-37-157 124-37-158 124-37-159 124-37-160 124-37-161 124-29-027 124-29-026 132-31-080 ALMA STREET SHERMAN AVENUE PARK BOULEVARD ALMA STREET OREGON EXPRESSWAY ENUE TREET GRANT AVENUE PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS BOARD 2525-2433 Bldg B 2421 Bldg A 153 Bldg F 113-149 Bldg E 157 Bldg H 161 Bldg K 159 Bldg J 122 Bldg A 150 2501 2555 2625-2655 2557 Bldg L 2559 Bldg M 2561 Bldg N 2565 Bldg O 2563 Bldg P 2567 Bldg Q 2571 Bldg R 2575 Bldg S 2569 Bldg T 2573 Bldg U 2577 Bldg V 2583 Bldg W2579 Bldg X 2581 Bldg Y 2585 Bldg E 2585 Bldg Z 2660 231 123 238 270 200 145 141 Bldg F This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Assessment Parcel Palo Alto Assessment Parcel Palo Alto Assessment Parcel Outside Palo Alto abc Road Centerline Small Text (TC) Curb Face (RF) Pavement Edge (RF) Address Label Points (AP) Highlighted Features Current Features 0' 73' Attachment A Location Map 123 Sherman 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 efoley2, 2022-11-04 14:59:58 Assessor Parcels (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Meta\View.mdb) Item 4 Attachment A_Location Map_123 Sherman     Packet Pg. 52     Attachment B Project Plans In order to reduce paper consumption, a limited number of hard copy project plans are provided to Board members for their review. The same plans are available to the public, at all hours of the day, via the following online resources. Directions to review Project plans and environmental documents online: 1. Go to: bit.ly/PApendingprojects 2. Scroll down to find “123 Sherman” and click the address link 3. On this project-specific webpage you will find a link to the project plans and other important information Direct Link to Project Webpage: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Current- Planning/Projects/123-Sherman-Ave Materials Boards: Color and material boards will be available to view in chambers during the ARB hearing. Item 4 Attachment B- Project Plans     Packet Pg. 53