Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-05-02 Architectural Riview Board Agenda PacketARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD Regular Meeting Thursday, May 02, 2024 Council Chambers & Hybrid 8:30 AM Architectural Review Board 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. T h e   m e e t i n g   w i l l   b e   b r o a d c a s t   o n   C a b l e   T V   C h a n n e l   2 6 ,   l i v e   o n 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. Board member 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. Signs and symbolic materials less than 2 feet by 3 feet are permitted provided that: (1) sticks, posts, poles or similar/other type of handle objects are strictly prohibited; (2) the items do not create a facility, fire, or safety hazard; and (3) persons with such items remain seated when displaying them and must not raise the items above shoulder level, obstruct the view or passage of other attendees, or otherwise disturb the business of the meeting. 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. 2.3980 El Camino Real [24PLN‐00041]: Request for Streamlined Housing Development Review to Allow the Redevelopment of the Buena Vista Village Mobile Home Park into Two Parcels, Featuring a new 100% Affordable Housing Development. One Parcel Would Include a 61‐Unit Multi‐Family Apartment Building; the Other Parcel Would Include a 44‐ Unit, Occupant Owned Mobile Home Park. The proposed 61‐Unit Development and Work within the City’s Public ROW is Subject to the City’s Review. Redevelopment of the Mobile Home Parcel is Subject to HCD Rerview. The Project Includes a Request for Concessions and Waivers Pursuant to State Density Bonus Law. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act in Accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 (In‐fill Development). Zoning District: RM‐20. 3.Study Session to provide feedback on the Pre‐Approved Parklet Designs and the Associated Draft User Guide. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 4.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for December 7, 2023 5.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for December 21, 2023 BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS AND AGENDAS Members of the public may not speak to the item(s). ADJOURNMENT 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, May 02, 2024Council Chambers & Hybrid8:30 AMArchitectural Review Board meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with the option to attendby teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safety while stillmaintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose to participatefrom home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe and participate in themeeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged if attending inperson. T h e   m e e t i n g   w i l l   b e   b r o a d c a s t   o n   C a b l e   T V   C h a n n e l   2 6 ,   l i v e   o nYouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen MediaCenter https://midpenmedia.org. Visit https://bit.ly/PApendingprojects to view project plansand details. Board member 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. Signs and symbolic materials less than 2 feet by 3 feet are permitted provided that: (1) sticks, posts, poles or similar/other type of handle objects are strictly prohibited; (2) the items do not create a facility, fire, or safety hazard; and (3) persons with such items remain seated when displaying them and must not raise the items above shoulder level, obstruct the view or passage of other attendees, or otherwise disturb the business of the meeting. 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. 2.3980 El Camino Real [24PLN‐00041]: Request for Streamlined Housing Development Review to Allow the Redevelopment of the Buena Vista Village Mobile Home Park into Two Parcels, Featuring a new 100% Affordable Housing Development. One Parcel Would Include a 61‐Unit Multi‐Family Apartment Building; the Other Parcel Would Include a 44‐ Unit, Occupant Owned Mobile Home Park. The proposed 61‐Unit Development and Work within the City’s Public ROW is Subject to the City’s Review. Redevelopment of the Mobile Home Parcel is Subject to HCD Rerview. The Project Includes a Request for Concessions and Waivers Pursuant to State Density Bonus Law. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act in Accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 (In‐fill Development). Zoning District: RM‐20. 3.Study Session to provide feedback on the Pre‐Approved Parklet Designs and the Associated Draft User Guide. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 4.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for December 7, 2023 5.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for December 21, 2023 BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS AND AGENDAS Members of the public may not speak to the item(s). ADJOURNMENT 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, May 02, 2024Council Chambers & Hybrid8:30 AMArchitectural Review Board meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with the option to attendby teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safety while stillmaintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose to participatefrom home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe and participate in themeeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged if attending inperson. T h e   m e e t i n g   w i l l   b e   b r o a d c a s t   o n   C a b l e   T V   C h a n n e l   2 6 ,   l i v e   o nYouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen MediaCenter https://midpenmedia.org. Visit https://bit.ly/PApendingprojects to view project plansand details. Board member 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.Signs and symbolic materials less than 2 feet by 3 feet are permitted provided that: (1) sticks,posts, poles or similar/other type of handle objects are strictly prohibited; (2) the items do notcreate a facility, fire, or safety hazard; and (3) persons with such items remain seated whendisplaying them and must not raise the items above shoulder level, obstruct the view orpassage of other attendees, or otherwise disturb the business of the meeting.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.2.3980 El Camino Real [24PLN‐00041]: Request for Streamlined Housing DevelopmentReview to Allow the Redevelopment of the Buena Vista Village Mobile Home Park intoTwo Parcels, Featuring a new 100% Affordable Housing Development. One Parcel WouldInclude a 61‐Unit Multi‐Family Apartment Building; the Other Parcel Would Include a 44‐Unit, Occupant Owned Mobile Home Park. The proposed 61‐Unit Development and Workwithin the City’s Public ROW is Subject to the City’s Review. Redevelopment of theMobile Home Parcel is Subject to HCD Rerview. The Project Includes a Request forConcessions and Waivers Pursuant to State Density Bonus Law. EnvironmentalAssessment: Exempt from the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act inAccordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 (In‐fill Development). Zoning District:RM‐20.3.Study Session to provide feedback on the Pre‐Approved Parklet Designs and theAssociated Draft User Guide.APPROVAL OF MINUTESPublic Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.4.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for December 7, 20235.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for December 21, 2023 BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS AND AGENDAS Members of the public may not speak to the item(s). ADJOURNMENT 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, May 02, 2024Council Chambers & Hybrid8:30 AMArchitectural Review Board meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with the option to attendby teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safety while stillmaintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose to participatefrom home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe and participate in themeeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged if attending inperson. T h e   m e e t i n g   w i l l   b e   b r o a d c a s t   o n   C a b l e   T V   C h a n n e l   2 6 ,   l i v e   o nYouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen MediaCenter https://midpenmedia.org. Visit https://bit.ly/PApendingprojects to view project plansand details. Board member 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.Signs and symbolic materials less than 2 feet by 3 feet are permitted provided that: (1) sticks,posts, poles or similar/other type of handle objects are strictly prohibited; (2) the items do notcreate a facility, fire, or safety hazard; and (3) persons with such items remain seated whendisplaying them and must not raise the items above shoulder level, obstruct the view orpassage of other attendees, or otherwise disturb the business of the meeting.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.2.3980 El Camino Real [24PLN‐00041]: Request for Streamlined Housing DevelopmentReview to Allow the Redevelopment of the Buena Vista Village Mobile Home Park intoTwo Parcels, Featuring a new 100% Affordable Housing Development. One Parcel WouldInclude a 61‐Unit Multi‐Family Apartment Building; the Other Parcel Would Include a 44‐Unit, Occupant Owned Mobile Home Park. The proposed 61‐Unit Development and Workwithin the City’s Public ROW is Subject to the City’s Review. Redevelopment of theMobile Home Parcel is Subject to HCD Rerview. The Project Includes a Request forConcessions and Waivers Pursuant to State Density Bonus Law. EnvironmentalAssessment: Exempt from the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act inAccordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 (In‐fill Development). Zoning District:RM‐20.3.Study Session to provide feedback on the Pre‐Approved Parklet Designs and theAssociated Draft User Guide.APPROVAL OF MINUTESPublic Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.4.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for December 7, 20235.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for December 21, 2023BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS ANDAGENDASMembers of the public may not speak to the item(s). ADJOURNMENT 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: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: May 2, 2024 Report #: 2404-2915 TITLE Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2) Tentative Future Agenda Items and 3) Recently Submitted Projects RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) review and comment as appropriate. BACKGROUND The attached documents are provided for informational purposes. The Board may review and comment as it deems appropriate. If individual Board members anticipate being absent from a future meeting, it is requested that this be brought to staff’s attention when considering this item. The first attachment provides a meeting and attendance schedule for the current calendar year. Also included are subcommittee assignments, which are assigned by the ARB Chair as needed. The second attachment is a Tentative Future Agenda that provides a summary of upcoming projects or discussion items. The hearing dates for these items are subject to change. The attachment also has a list of pending ARB projects and potential projects. Approved projects can be found on the City’s Building Eye webpage at https://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning. Any party, including the applicant, may request a hearing by the ARB on the proposed director’s decision(s) within the 10-day or 14-day appeal period by filing a written request with the planning division. There shall be no fee required for requesting such a hearing. However, there is a fee for appeals. Pursuant to 18.77.070(b)(5) any project relating to the installation of cabinets containing communications service equipment or facilities, pursuant to any service subject to Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 2.11, Chapter 12.04, Chapter 12.08, Chapter 12.09, Chapter 12.10, or Chapter 12.13 is not eligible for a request for hearing by any party, including the applicant. Item 1 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 5     Item No. 1. Page 2 of 2 No action is required by the ARB for this item. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: 2024 Meeting Schedule & Assignments Attachment B: Tentative Future Agenda and New Projects List AUTHOR/TITLE: ARB Liaison1 & Contact Information Claire Raybould, AICP, Principal Planner (650) 329-2116 Claire.Raybould@CityofPaloAlto.org 1 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@CityofPaloAlto.org. Item 1 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 6     Architectural Review Board 2024 Meeting Schedule & Assignments 2024 Meeting Schedule Meeting Dates Time Location Status Planned Absences 1/4/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Cancelled 1/18/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 2/1/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Cancelled 2/15/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 2/29/2024 9:00 AM Hybrid Retreat 3/7/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 3/21/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Canceled 4/4/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 4/18/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 5/2/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 5/16/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular Rosenberg 6/6/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular Chen 6/20/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular Adcock 7/4/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Cancelled 7/18/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 8/1/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 8/15/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 9/5/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 9/19/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 10/3/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 10/17/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 11/7/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 11/21/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 12/5/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 12/19/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 2024 Ad Hoc Committee Assignments Assignments will be made by the ARB Chair January February March April May June Hirsch, Adcock 4/4 July August September October November December Item 1 Attachment A - 2024 Meeting Schedule & Assignments     Packet Pg. 7     Palo Alto Architectural Review Board Tentative Future Agenda The following items are tentative and subject to change: Meeting Dates Topics May 16, 2024 •Work Plan •525 University/535 Lytton Master Sign Programs •800 San Antonio Ad Hoc June 6, 2024 •640 Waverley (1st formal) •Lighting and Bird Safe Glazing Ordinances 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 CRAYBOU 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 9/26/19. Zoning District: PF. __ AR Major - Board 12/21/21 21PLN- 00341 EKALLAS 660 University Mixed use ARB 1st formal 12/1/22, ARB 2nd formal tentative for April - Planned Community (PC), to Combine 3 Parcels __ Item 1 Attachment B-2024 Agenda and New Projects List 0502     Packet Pg. 8     Zone Change (511 Byron St, 660 University Ave, 680 University Ave/500 Middlefield Rd), Demolish Existing Buildings (9,216 SF Office) and Provide a New Four Story Mixed-Use Building with Ground Floor Office (9,115 SF) and Multi-Family Residential (all floors) Including a Two Level Below-Grade Parking Garage. Proposed Residential Proposed Residential (42,189 SF) Will Include 65 Units (47 Studios, 12 1-Bedroom, 6 2-Bedroom). AR Major - Board 06/16/2022 22PLN- 00201 CRAYBOU 739 SUTTER AV Housing Prelim 11/18/21, Formal Resubmitted 7/21, 11/2 ARB hearing, Resubmitted February 8, 2024. Tentatively Approved March 19, 2024; Appealed to Council, Council Approved 4/22- 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 Chen,Adcock Site and Design 10/27/2022 22PLN- 00367 CRAYBOU 2501 EMBARCA DERO WY Public Utility – Water Filtration Application Resubmitted 8/8/23; 11/2 ARB Hearing, Resubmitted 2/5; PTC recommended approval 2/28 ARB recommended approval 4/4; Council tentative May 2024.- 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 EKALLAS 800-808 San Antonio Road Housing 8/17 ARB; Resubmitted 1/29/24; 3/7/24 hearing, 4/4/24 AdHoc, 4/10 PTC, 5/6 Council - 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 Rosenberg, Hirsch Reported out 5/4 Item 1 Attachment B-2024 Agenda and New Projects List 0502     Packet Pg. 9     Council prescreening on 8/15. Major Architectural Review 3/22/23 23PLN- 00061 EKALLAS 702 Clara Street Housing – 3 units No activity from applicant since November 2023; Request for Withdrawal or resubmittal sent to applicant. 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 CRAYBOU 3000 El Camino Office NOI Sent 6/6/23; Resubmitted 9/25; NOI Sent 10/25; Resubmitted 1/24/24, NOI Sent 2/23/24. 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- 00277 (Map) 23PLN- 00003 and - 00195 – SB 330 GSAULS 3150 El Camino Real Housing - 380 units NOI sent 11/3/23. Pending Resubmittal. 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 EKALLAS 824 San Antonio Road Housing – 16 senior units, 12 convalescen t units 12/21/23 ARB hearing; pending resubmittal. 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. Zoning District: CS (Commercial Services). ___ PC Amendment 8/9/2023 23PLN- 00202 EKALLAS 4075 El Camino Way Commercial — 14 additional assisted living units Community Meeting in October. 2/28/24 PTC hearing, second PTC tentative May 2024. 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. Zoning District: PC-5116 (Planned Community). Baltay, Chen reported out 6/1 Master Sign Program 11/14/23 23PLN- 00308 EKALLAS 525 University Signs NOI Sent 12/15/2023, Tentative ARB hearing 6/6/24. Master Sign Program to allow for the installation of one illuminated monument, one illuminated canopy address, one illuminated wall property ID, one parking ID w/ uplight, _____ Item 1 Attachment B-2024 Agenda and New Projects List 0502     Packet Pg. 10     one illuminated parking monument, one non-illuminated parking entry ID. Zoning District: CD-C (P) (Downtown Commercial). Master Sign Program 11/15/23 23PLN- 00311 EKALLAS 530 Lytton Signs NOI Sent 12/15/23, Tentative ARB Hearing 6/6/24. Master Sign Program for the installation of 1 illuminated monument, 1 illuminated address, 1 illuminated wall property ID, 1 parking ID w/ uplight, 1 illuminated parking blade and 1 non-illuminated parking entry ID. This application is being reviewed along with 435 Tasso and 525 University. Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: CD-C (P) Downtown Commercial District (Pedestrian Shopping). ___ Major Architectural Review 1/10/2024 24PLN- 00012 GSAULS 3265 El Camino Real Housing NOI Sent 1/10/24. PTC 4/10/24; ARB 4/22/24. Request for rezoning to Planned Community (PC)/Planned Home Zoning (PHZ). New construction of a 5-story 100% affordable multifamily housing development with 44 dwelling units and ground level lobby and parking. Zoning District: CS. Rosenberg, Thompson reported out 8/17 on prescreening plans Rosenberg/ Hirsch Streamlined Housing Development Review 2/15/2024 24PLN- 00041 CHODGKI 3980 El Camino Real Affordable Housing NOI Sent 3/15/24. Plans resubmitted-ARB Study Session 5/2/24. Request for a Major Architectural Review Board application to allow the redevelopment of the Buena Vista Village mobile home park into two parcels, featuring a new affordable housing development with a 61-unit multi-family apartment building on one parcel and a 44- unit, occupant owned mobile home park on the second parcel. Zoning District: RM-20 Baltay, Chen Major Architectural Review 3/6/2024 24PLN- 00064 CHODGKI 640 Waverley Mixed-Use NOI Sent 4/5/24. ARB tentatively Scheduled 6/6/24. Request for a Major Architectural Review Board application to allow the construction of a new four-story, mixed use commercial and residential building with below grade parking. The ARB held a preliminary review on 6/15/23. Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: CD-C(P). Rosenberg, Hirsch Major Architectural Review 4/02/2024 24PLN- 00100 CHODGKI 156 California Mixed-Use Request for Major Architectural Review in accordance with California Government Code 65589.5(D)(5) “Builders Remedy" which proposes to redevelop two lots located at 156 California Avenue and Park Blvd. Lot A, 156 California Ave ( 1.14 ACRE) is situated at the corner of Park and California, Lot B, Park Blvd. (0.29 ACRE) is at the corner of Park and Cambridge Avenue; the reinvention of both sites will include the conversion of an existing parking lot and Mollie Stone's Grocery Store into a Mixed Baltay, Adcock Item 1 Attachment B-2024 Agenda and New Projects List 0502     Packet Pg. 11     Use Multi Family Development. This project consists of three integrated structures; (1) 7 Story Podium Building with 5 levels of TYPE IIIB Construction over 2 levels of TYPE I Construction, 15,000 square feet will be dedicated to the Mollie Stone Grocery Store, (1) 17 Story Tower, (1) 11 Story Tower, both Towers will be proposed and conceptualized as TYPE IV Mass Timber Construction. Environmental Assessment: Pending Zoning District: CC(2)(R)(P) and CC(2)(R) (Community Commercial) SB 330 Pre-app submitted 11/21/24 Zone Change 03/28/2024 24PLN- 00095 EKALLAS 70 Encina Housing- 10 Units Request for Planned Community Zone Change (PHZ) to allow construction of a new 3-story, 22,552 sf building (1.86 FAR); to include ten (10) residential condominium units organized around a common access court that provides both vehicular and pedestrian access and full site improvements to replace the existing surface parking area. Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: CC, (Community Commercial). ARB prelim held 12/7 Hirsch, Adcock Major Architectural Review 4/23/2024 24PLN- 00120 EKALLAS 762 California Housing - 198 Units Request for Major Architectural Review to Allow CA GOV CODE 65589.5(D)(5) “Builders Remedy" which proposes the demolition of three existing commercial buildings and the construction of a 7-story multi-family residential building containing 198 rental apartments. This is 100% Residential Project. Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: (CS) AD. Baltay, Chen 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. __ Item 1 Attachment B-2024 Agenda and New Projects List 0502     Packet Pg. 12     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 Preliminary ARB hearing held 11/2; 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. Preliminary Architectural Review 12/19/2023 23PLN- 00339 EKALLAS 1066 E Meadow Private School ARB Hearing 1/18/24; pending formal application. Request for Preliminary Architectural Review to Consider the Deconstruction of an Existing 35,000 Square Foot Commercial Building, and Construction of a new 2-Story, 46,000 sf School Building. It Will Contain Classrooms, Administrative Offices, and a Multi-Purpose Room. Site Improvements Include Parking, a Play Area, and a Rooftop Garden. Zoning District: ROLM Rosenberg, Adcock Preliminary Architectural Review 1/25/2024 24PLN- 00023 CHODGKI 4335/4345 El Camino Real Housing Preliminary Review Application Withdrawn. Request for Preliminary Architectural Review to allow demolition of an existing commercial building (4335 El Camino Real) and an existing motel building (4345 El Camino Real) and to redevelop the two parcels with a 28-unit multi-family townhome style development project with associated utilities, private streets, landscaping, and amenities. Hirsch, Baltay SB 330 Pre- Application 2/15/2024 24PLN- 00047 CHODGKI 3606 El Camino Real Housing SB 330 Pre-Application. Request for review of an SB330 Pre-Application for a Builder's Remedy project consisting of construction of a 315-unit multifamily residential rental and condo map, to include five levels of Type IIIA construction over 2 levels of Type IA residential parking (with 388 spaces) and residential support spaces. The project comprises the following parcels: 137-08-016, 137- 08-070, 137-08-077, 137-08-079, 137-08-080, 137- 08-081, & 137-08-088. Street addresses include: Item 1 Attachment B-2024 Agenda and New Projects List 0502     Packet Pg. 13     3508-3628 El Camino Real and 528-530 Kendall Ave. Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: (CN, CS,RM-30, RM-40) Neighborhood Commercial, Commercial Service, High Density Multiple-Family Residential, Multiply Family Residential, and Commercial Service. SB 330 Pre- Application 2/15/2024 24PLN- 00048 CHODGKI 3781 El Camino Real Housing SB 330 Pre-Application. Request for review of an SB330 Pre-Application for a Builder's Remedy project to construct a 169-unit multifamily residential rental and condo map project comprising 5-levels of Type IIIA construction over 2 levels of Type IA residential parking with 215 parking spaces and residential support spaces. The project includes the following parcels: 132-41-019, 132-41-020, 132-41- 083, & 132-41-084; and the following street addresses: 3727-3781 El Camino Real, 388-400 Curtner Street. Zoning District: (CN, RM-30,) Neighborhood Commercial, Multiply Family Residential. SB 330 Pre- Application 4/10/2024 24PLN- 00107 GSAULS 531 Stanford Housing SB 330 Pre-Application for a housing development project that proposes 30 new detached single-family homes and six new below- market-rate units in a standalone multi-family building on the approx. 1.18-acre project site at the intersection of Stanford Avenue and El Camino Real. 20% of the units would be deed restricted for lower-income households. Zoning: RM-30. Environmental Assessment: Pending. SB 330 Pre- Application 4/15/2023 24PLN- 00111; 24PLN- 00112 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. Chen, Hirsch reported out 8/17 Item 1 Attachment B-2024 Agenda and New Projects List 0502     Packet Pg. 14     Item No. 2. Page 1 of 10 Architectural Review Board Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: May 2, 2024 Report #: 2404-2901 TITLE 3980 El Camino Real [24PLN-00041]: Request for Streamlined Housing Development Review to Allow the Redevelopment of the Buena Vista Village Mobile Home Park into Two Parcels, Featuring a new 100% Affordable Housing Development. One Parcel Would Include a 61-Unit Multi-Family Apartment Building; the Other Parcel Would Include a 44-Unit, Occupant Owned Mobile Home Park. The proposed 61-Unit Development and Work within the City’s Public ROW is Subject to the City’s Review. Redevelopment of the Mobile Home Parcel is Subject to HCD Rerview. The Project Includes a Request for Concessions and Waivers Pursuant to State Density Bonus Law. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act in Accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 (In-fill Development). Zoning District: RM-20. RECOMMENDATION Conduct a study session to provide feedback on whether minor adjustments to the application would result in closer adherence to the objective design standards contained in Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 18.24, Objective Standards, consistent with the streamlined review for housing development projects pursuant to 18.77.073. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In December 2023, the Santa Clara County Housing Authority (SCCHA) submitted a compliant pre-application in accordance with Senate Bill (SB) 330 to effectively freeze development standards for the proposed redevelopment for 180 days. On February 15, 2024, the Santa Clara County Housing Authority (SCCHA) submitted a formal application for Streamlined Housing Development review. The proposed project includes an affordable 61-unit apartment development on a portion of the subject parcel located at 3980 El Camino Real (see Attachment A, Location Map). The applicant intends to file a separate Vesting Tentative Map Application with the City to subdivide the existing lot into two parcels. The second parcel would be redeveloped with 44 mobile homes, which is processed through the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). The total development Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 15     Item No. 2. Page 2 of 10 would be 105 units; 40% of units will be provided at a rate affordable to households earning 30% of Area Median Income (AMI), 40% of the units would be provided at a rate affordable to households earning 50% AMI and the remaining 20% would be provided at a rate affordable to households earning 80% AMI. The project is a housing development project in accordance with the Housing Accountability Act and qualifies for a Density Bonus based on the percentage and income level restrictions on the provided units. The project is also eligible for four concessions as well as unlimited waivers, or changes to the objective development standards, to accommodate the development in accordance with the State Density Bonus allowances (California Government Code §65915) and PAMC Chapter 18.15. The project plans are included in Attachment F. The City, acting as the lead agency in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, anticipates that the project will be exempt from CEQA in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 (infill exemption). The documentation to support this exemption is currently being prepared and will be completed prior to a decision on the project. BACKGROUND Project Information Owner:Santa Clara County Housing Authority (SCCHA) Architect:Van Williams Meter Pollock (VMWP), Preeti Srinivasan Representative:Kris Adhikari, SCCHA Legal Counsel:Not Applicable Property Information Address:3980 El Camino Real Neighborhood:Barron Park Lot Dimensions & Area:~219 (w) x ~338 (L), (1.692 acres) Housing Inventory Site:Not Applicable Located w/in a Plume:Not Applicable Protected/Heritage Trees:Protected trees, See discussion below Historic Resource(s):HRE currently being prepared Existing Improvement(s):79 residential units (30,414 sf); Single-story; constructed in 1970 Existing Land Use(s):Mobile Home Park/RVs Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North: Single family residential (R-1) West: Multi-family Land Use (RM-30 Zoning) East: Commercial Land Use (CS Zoning); lot will be split such that RM-20 will be adjacent to the new apartment parcel South: Multi-family Land Use (PC 2930 Zoning) Aerial View of Property: Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 16     Item No. 2. Page 3 of 10 Source: Google Satellite Maps Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans Comp. Plan Designation:Multi-family Residential Zoning Designation:Low Density Multi-family Residential (RM-20) Yes Yes Yes Baylands Master Plan/Guidelines (2008/2005) El Camino Real Guidelines (1976) Housing Development Project Downtown Urban Design Guidelines (1993) South El Camino Real Guidelines (2002) Utilizes Chapter 18.24 - Objective Standards Individual Review Guidelines (2005) Within 150 feet of Residential Use or District Context-Based Design Criteria applicable SOFA Phase 1 (2000)SOFA Phase 2 (2003)Within Airport Influence Area Prior City Reviews & Action Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 17     Item No. 2. Page 4 of 10 City Council:Council held a study session on March 4, 2024 to provide feedback on the proposed project’s initial design and related actions, including modifications to the tri-party regulatory agreement for the site. PTC:None HRB:None ARB:None In June 2016, Council approved a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the SCCHA, the County of Santa Clara, and the City of Palo Alto to provide up to $14.5 million in City affordable housing funds in support of the Housing Authority’s potential acquisition of the Buena Vista Mobile Home Park for deed restricted affordable housing. The SCCHA purchased the park in 2017 with the support of these funds. After an assessment of the park’s conditions, it was found that the park contained an array of hazards such as: failing utilities, many coaches near their end-of-life with structural and health issues, and lack of code-compliance. With the purchase, SCCHA agreed with the City and County to improve and protect the park as affordable housing through a tri-party regulatory agreement which focused on maintaining affordable housing, enhancing the habitability of the property, avoiding resident displacement, and investing in rehabilitation and improvements. The tri-party agreement includes an improvements timeline and some expected outcomes. Since the onset of the agreement, the Housing Authority has: • Relocated Park residents as needed (e.g., to new mobile homes), • Removed trash and abandoned cars, • Conducted necessary home repairs, • Installed new utilities, • Replaced aged sewer and water lines, • Replaced paving, • Demolished abandoned coaches (i.e., mobile homes), • Capped unused utilities for safety, • Provided spaces for services and an afterschool program, and • Worked to bring the Park into compliance with various laws. Council held a study session on February 13, 2023 in which SCHAA provided an update on these ongoing efforts at the site. Project Description On February 15, 2024, the SCCHA submitted a formal application for Streamlined Housing Development review for a 61-unit apartment development on a portion of the site. Attachment C shows the project plans for this development. The SCCHA intends to submit a subsequent application for a Vesting Tentative Map to subdivide the existing parcel into two parcels and to redevelop one of the parcels with a 61-unit apartment complex and the other parcel with a 44- unit mobile home development. Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 18     Item No. 2. Page 5 of 10 Requested Entitlements, Findings and Purview: The following discretionary applications are being requested and are subject to the ARB’s purview: • Streamlined Housing Development Review: The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC 18.77.073. Streamlined Housing Development Review applications require a study session with the ARB and recommendations are forwarded to the Planning & Development Services Director for action following the review. Action by the Director is appealable to the City Council if filed within 14 days of the decision. Streamlined Housing Development projects are evaluated against specific findings. Both of the findings must be made in the affirmative to approve the project. Failure to make any one finding requires project redesign or denial. Draft findings for this project are provided in Attachment B. SCCHA has not yet filed their application for a Tentative Map; however, a tentative map is required to subdivide the existing parcel into two parcels. Filing and processing of a Tentative Map and Final Map would be made a condition of approval of this project. The ARB’s purview of the formal application is limited by the following state law: • Housing Accountability Act (Government Code 65589.5): The project constitutes a “housing development project” under the Housing Accountability Act. The Housing Accountability Act Section 65589.5(j) requires that when a proposed housing development project complies with applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards, a local agency may only deny or reduce the density the project or reduce its density if the agency first finds that (1) the development would have a specific adverse impact on public health or safety unless disapproved, or approved at a lower density; and (2) there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact, other than the disapproval, or approval at a lower density. ANALYSIS Staff from all relevant departments are reviewing the Streamlined Housing Development Review application for consistency with the municipal code and all other relevant state and federal regulations. As detailed in the executive summary, this site is unique in that the proposed Vesting Tentative Map and entitlement for the apartment complex will be processed through the City, but the mobile home redevelopment will be processed through HCD. This analysis reflects staff’s review for work within the public right of way (ROW) and for the 61-unit apartment complex. Comprehensive Plan and Design Guidelines There are no specific plans or design guidelines that are relevant to the proposed project. Overall, the project site is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, including the land use designation and applicable goals and policies. The project site has a multi-family land use designation. The Land Use and Community Design Element of the Comprehensive Plan states for this land use that: “The permitted number of housing units will vary by area, depending on Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 19     Item No. 2. Page 6 of 10 existing land use, proximity to major streets and public transit, distance to shopping and environmental problems. Net densities will range from 8 to 40 units and 8 to 90 persons per acre. Density should be on the lower end of the scale next to single-family residential areas. Densities higher than what is permitted may be allowed where measurable community benefits will be derived, services and facilities are available, and the net effect will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Population densities will range up to 2.25 persons per unit by 2030.” The density of the proposed 61-unit development would be 36 dwelling units per acre (DU/AC) based on the proposed parcel boundaries in accordance with the planned subdivision map which complies with the Comprehensive Plan although it ranges toward the higher end of what is allowed. Staff notes that overall, the development across the two parcels would equate to a density of 23 DU/AC. Zoning Compliance1 A table summarizing the proposed project’s consistency with applicable RM-20 zoning standards is included in Attachment C. The proposed project complies with all applicable codes or is seeking, through the state density bonus provisions, permission to deviate from certain code standards in a manner that is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance and state density bonus law. Specifically, the applicant is seeking a density bonus, four concessions and four waivers: • Density Bonus: 36 DU/AC, where 20 DU/AC is permitted. This is an 80% density bonus, which is permitted for a project providing the amount of deeply affordable units proposed. • Concession 1: Height (36 feet where 30 feet is allowed) • Concession 2: Façade breaks (less than 2 feet in depth) • Concession 3: Unit Entries 18.24.020(b)(4)(E) (ground floor units not designed to face path or common open space) • Concession 4: Percent of Frontage Dedicated to Utilities and Surface Parking 18.24.06(C)(7)(A) • Waiver 1: Floor Area (0.99:1.0 where 0.5:1.0 is allowed) • Waiver 2: Private Open Space-No Private Open Space provided where 50 sf per unit is required • Waiver 3: Site Open Space of 24% where 35% is required • Waiver 4: Parking lot shading requirement (future coverage of 33% where 50% is required) The SCCHA has expressed that they are still exploring whether the project could be revised to comply with the façade break requirement, as discussed further below. Justification for this concession as well as unit entries has also not yet been provided to show that this concession is necessary to reduce costs. Modifications to the design to comply with the code or submittal of additional information related to these concessions would be required prior to approval. Objective Design Standards 1 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: bit.ly/PAZoningCode Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 20     Item No. 2. Page 7 of 10 The project is subject to the Objective Design Standards set forth in PAMC Section 18.24. A summary of each standard and how the project complies with that standard is provided in Attachment D. The project does not appear to comply with the following standards, all of which are listed as requested concessions: •Ground floor unit direct connection to path or common open space •Façade breaks •Percentage of frontage dedicated to utilities and parking The ground floor units do not have a direct connection to the pathway or to the open space, and therefore does not comply with PAMC Section 18.24.040(b)(4)(E). It’s unclear to staff, without more information. About whether this could be feasible. But it’s also unclear whether this would be desirable in this circumstance as the units in this case are fronting a parking lot. Common open space would need to be reduced to allow for the few ground units that could open to the common open space, which may create noncompliance with the common open space requirements. Staff is seeking the ARB’s feedback in particular on this requested concession. The project does not appear to meet the façade break requirements for all facades facing residential uses. The applicant has requested a concession but is exploring options for how to bring the project into conformance with this requirement. Therefore, ARB’s feedback is also requested, in particular, with respect to this requirement. The project also does not comply with the percentage of frontage dedicated to utilities and parking. However, substantial redesign would be required to revise the circulation in order to bring the project into conformance while still meeting the utility requirements. The circulation as designed is also important to the flow of traffic as well as safety requirements. Multi-Modal Access & Parking The proposed project creates a secondary access point off of Los Robles for vehicles. While providing only one curb cut from Los Robles would be better from a bicyclist/pedestrian perspective, this addition ensures better circulation on site and reduces the volume of traffic traveling along the private road where residents are crossing to access shared amenities. Parking is provided on site and meets the minimum requirements for standard parking spaces. However, a car loading space is required in accordance with the Zoning Code for projects of more than 50 units. The project exceeds the Code requirements for parking by two spaces; therefore, one of these spaces should be used. Currently many residents park along the frontage; therefore, the project improves the existing condition by providing more parking on site and utilizing the frontage to improve the pedestrian connection. An access easement over the sidewalk will be required as a condition of approval of the project and incorporated into the proposed tentative map. Bicycle parking is provided at grade and a pathway meeting the minimum requirements for pike/ped access is provided. The project does not appear to comply with the parking lot shading requirements. As summarized in Attachment C most of the requirements have been met. However, the overall shading does Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 21     Item No. 2. Page 8 of 10 not meet the 50% requirement. Therefore, modifications to the project would be warranted to address this requirement. Consistency with Application Findings The project is still under review and modifications are needed to bring the project into conformance with the code. However, the findings for approval are provided in Attachment B. Regulatory Agreement There is an existing tri-party Regulatory Agreement recorded on the property from 2017. For consistency with the redevelopment plans, the Regulatory Agreement will need to be amended or replaced. The Housing Authority has expressed its commitment to delivering the same number of required housing units at the same affordability levels in the new agreements. City staff and Housing Authority staff will discuss the amendments and anticipate seeking Council approval to draft and/or execute agreements based on the revised terms approval. FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT In June 2016, Council authorized the expenditure of $14.5 million in City affordable housing funds to support the Housing Authority’s potential acquisition of the Buena Vista Mobile Home Park for deed restricted affordable housing. The money was utilized to acquire the site in 2017. The redeveloped Buena Vista Community will have two separate development budgets: one for the mobile home park and one for the proposed apartments. With the State's award of nearly $25 million in Manufactured Housing Opportunity and Revitalization funds, the mobile home park is fully funded. The Housing Authority is continuing to work on the financing plan and funding applications for the apartment building. Most immediately, the Housing Authority intends to apply to the State for funding under the Multifamily Finance Super NOFA (notice of funding availability). The application dates have not been released, but in previous funding rounds, the application is typically available in late May/early June and due in early July. The Housing Authority intends to apply for approximately $10 million in State funding. If the application is successful, the Housing Authority would next apply for tax credits. If the application is not successful, the Housing Authority will work to identify an alternative financing source prior to applying for tax credits. No additional funding is requested from the City at this time. The formal application is a cost recovery project and the SCCHA has paid the required deposit fee in accordance with the municipal fee schedule for processing of this application. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT Van Meter Williams Pollack (VMWP) on behalf of the Santa Clara County Housing Authority (SCCHA) began the community engagement process in early 2019 but was disrupted by the COVID pandemic. In the Fall of 2022, Santa Clara County Housing Authority (SCCHA), VMWP, and Associated Right of Way Services, Inc. (AR/WS) worked with Engage FORA to resume the community engagement process for the redevelopment of the Buena Vista Mobile Home Park (BVMHP). The engagement process included: Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 22     Item No. 2. Page 9 of 10 • 4 interactive workshops • resident advisor 1-on-1s • 3 property tours • monthly newsletters • on-site tours of a new coach • frequent FAQs • 3 resident education sessions • website updates • 3 community-building events The Buena Vista residents value their community and want to preserve its affordability. From a development perspective, resident priorities included the questions of timeline, process, choices for their future homes, renter versus owner options, and costs associated. However, input from residents also influenced several aspects of the design, including: • Colors, material, and architectural style • Massing and orientation of the apartment building • The size of the new mobile homes Residents also stressed the importance of amenities like play areas, a place for a homework club with computers, indoor and outdoor community gathering and event spaces, a dog run, and garden beds. At the Council Study session in March, a number of residents and local advocates for the mobile home park spoke about the project. Comments primarily focused on questions and comments about the relocation plan, which, at the time, had not yet been released. Some commenters more generally discussed transparency in the process, expressed the desire for larger units (primarily for the ownership units), and mentioned their interest in owning versus renting. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The City will serve as the lead agency in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. The project is anticipated to be exempt from the provisions of CEQA in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 (infill exemption). The CEQA analysis will assess the whole of the action, including the subdivision and the 44-unit mobile home development. The County Housing Authority is also seeking federal funding from Housing and Urban Development (HUD); therefore, HUD will serve as the lead agency for NEPA. The City will serve as the responsible entity preparing the Environmental Analysis in accordance with federal regulations. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Location Map Attachment B: Streamlined Housing Development Findings Attachment C: Zoning Consistency Analysis Attachment D: Objective Design Standards Comparison Checklist Attachment E: Applicant’s Project Description and Requested Waivers and Concessions Attachment F: Project Plans Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 23     Item No. 2. Page 10 of 10 Report Author & Contact Information ARB2 Liaison & Contact Information Claire Raybould, AICP, Principal Planner Claire Raybould, AICP, Principal Planner (650) 329-2116 (650) 329-2116 Claire.Raybould@cityofpaloalto.org Claire.Raybould@cityofpaloalto.org 2 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 24     10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Cottages Shop115114 107 82 83 84 14 85 113112111 110 109 108 106 105 104 103 63 65 52 4635 4536 4437 19 20 22 23 1086 87 9 24 25 8 21 22 Cottages 89 7 26 5 29 1 31 30 2 3 4 77 78 79 80 81 61 57 59 Office &_Home The Nest Hotel 54 64 53 51 34 38 18 13 12 21 11 88 23 Cottage 27 6 28 Laundry &_Restrooms 40 4239 56 62 102 101 Glass Slipper Hotel 32 48 70 68 67 66 73 72 71 69 49 Comfort_Inn 75 Goodwill_Industries Palo Alto _Commons 74 76 60 50 58 5543 41 33 47 B2 B1 B3 B4 16 17 15 60.0'113.4'60.0'113.4' 60.0' 113.4' 88.4' 39.3' 39.6' 113.4' 64.6' 88.4' 64.6'113.4' 39.6' 39.3' 113.4' 60.0'113.4' 60.0' 63.0'88.0' 39.3' 38.0' 113.0' 113.0' 61.0'113.0' 61.0'50.0' 169.0' 57.9' 169.0' 57.9' 160.0' 49.7' 9.1' 176.7' 34.3' 19.0' 134.7' 108.0' 50.2' 159.0' 31.2'34.3' 50.0' 100.3' 50.0' 100.3' 91.3' 100.3' 71.3' 31.4' 80.3' 5.3'9.1' 49.7' 150.0' 55.0' 159.0' 135.0' 45.0' 106.0' 45.0' 106.0' 45.0' 106.0' 45.0' 106.0'106.0' 21.8' 20.7' 71.6' 26.3' 67.6' 50.0' 114.5' 50.5' 107.2' 50.0' 107.2' 25.4' 25.9' 96.5' 35.9'4.3' 121.6' 2.2' 106.8' 106.0' 50.0' 106.0' 50.0' 106.0' 9.1'18.3'47.3' 39.7' 51.3' 23.1' 32.1' 50.0' 50.0' 128.9' 109.7' 58.0' 130.8' 60.0' 130.8' 60.0' 130.8' 130.8' 60.0' 130.8' 60.0' 130.8' 60.0' 130.8' 60.0' 130.8' 60.0' 130.8' 60.0' 130.8' 60.0' 130.8' 60.0' 65.9' 38.0' 28.3' 77.7' 67.0' 130.8' 6.7' 22.9'58.8' 4.0' 60.5' 29.0' 103.9' 130.8' 62.5' 130.8' 62.5' 130.8' 80.5'130.8' 80.5' 130.8' 72.0'130.8' 72.0' 130.8' 70.0'130.8' 70.0' 130.8' 50.0' 130.8' 50.0' 130.8' 50.0' 31.4' 110.8' 70.0'60.0' 135.0' 60.0' 135.0' 60.0' 135.0' 60.0' 135.0' 60.0' 135.0' 60.0' 135.0' 60.0' 135.0' 60.0' 135.0' 60.0' 135.0' 65.0' 135.0' 65.0' 45.3' 64.8' 32.9' 53.2' 130.8' 82.0' 89.0' 83.7' 60.5' 99.4' 32.1'58.7' 74.8' 22.1' 47.0' 13.0' 126.2' 27.6' 18.6'24.0' 135.0' 38.0'49.0' 20.0' 49.7' 22.1' 55.0' 40.0' 135.0' 115.0' 99.2' 155.0'234.2' 115.0' 234.2' 50.0' 106.0' 50.0' 106.0' 100.0' 106.0' 25.0' 60.5' 58.8' 4.0' 99.4' 9.1'18.3'47.3' 66.2' 105.0' 41.3' 105.0' 80.0' 39.3' 105.0' 41.3' 39.3' 80.0' 66.3'38.0' 39.3' 88.8' 63.0'113.8'61.0'113.8' 61.0'113.8' 107.7' 6.7' 41.3' 66.3' 220.0' 269.1' 220.4' 268.9' 220.0' 269.1' 220.4' 268.9' 220.0' 269.1' 220.4' 268.9' 220.0' 269.1' 220.4' 268.9' 220.0' 269.1' 220.4' 268.9' 220.0' 269.1' 220.4' 268.9' 220.0' 269.1' 220.4' 268.9' 220.0' 269.1' 220.4' 268.9' 220.0' 269.1' 220.4' 268.9' 220.0' 269.1' 220.4' 268.9' 220.0' 269.1' 220.4' 268.9' 220.0' 269.1' 220.4' 268.9' 220.0' 269.1' 220.4' 268.9' 105.0' 66.3' 105.0' 105.0' 66.2' 105.0' 66.3' 105.0' 66.3' 105.0' 66.2' 105.0' 66.2' 66.3' 105.0' 66.2' 105.0' 66.3' 105.0' 66.3' 105.0' 66.3' 105.0' 66.2' 105.0' 66.2' 105.0' 66.3' 105.0' 66.3' 105.0' 66.2' 105.0' 66.2' 105.0'105.0' 66.3' 80.0' 39.3' 41.3' 55.7' 92.3' 39.3' 30.7' 117.4'54.0' 117.5' 54.0' 117.4'54.0' 117.6' 54.0' 117.5' 35.3' 127.4' 98.1' 1.9' 110.4' 52.3' 2.7' 117.6' 24.6' 24.9' 110.4' 54.0' 117.4' 54.0' 117.4' 53.0' 117.1' 53.0' 117.2' 55.0' 220.0' 269.1' 220.4' 268.9' 220.0' 269.1' 220.4' 268.9' 220.0' 269.1' 220.4' 268.9' 220.0' 269.1' 220.4' 268.9' 220.0' 269.1' 220.4' 268.9' 220.0' 269.1' 220.4' 268.9' 220.0' 269.1' 220.4' 268.9' 220.0' 269.1' 220.4' 268.9' 220.0' 269.1' 220.4' 268.9' 220.0' 269.1' 220.4' 268.9' 220.0' 269.1' 220.4' 268.9' 220.0' 269.1' 220.4' 268.9' 220.0' 269.1' 220.4' 268.9' 53.0' 117.0' 53.0' 117.1'56.8' 109.5' 24.9' 33.5' 117.0' 108.3' 125.7'42.1' 109.5' 65.0' 75.0'125.7' 43.0' 105.2' 30.0' 105.1' 30.0' 7.4'11.1'12.6'15.9' 46.6' 37.7' 48.6' 105.1' 105.2' 30.0' 105.3' 30.0' 105.3' 30.0' 105.3' 30.0' 105.3' 40.0'81.7' 15.9' 12.6 ' 11.1'11.4' 26.0'12.8'20.1' 83.0' 58.1' 79.0' 44.0' 83.0' 44.0' 83.0'38.0' 83.0' 38.0' 83.0'44.0' 83.0' 44.0' 83.0'44.0' 83.0' 44.0' 83.0'38.0' 83.0' 38.0' 83.0'54.0' 83.0' 54.1' 83.0' 76.3' 15.9'12.6' 11.1' 9.4' 78.0' 2.0'22.0' 40.0' 22.0'2.0' 78.0' 30.0' 100.0' 28.0' 100.0' 30.0' 100.0' 30.0' 100.0' 30.0' 78.0' 2.0' 22.0' 28.0' 22.0'2.0' 78.0' 9.4' 11.1'12.6'15.9' 76.3' 40.0' 53.0' 83.0' 52.8' 83.0'38.0' 83.0' 38.0' 83.0' 38.0' 83.0' 38.0' 83.0' 55.0' 127.4' 35.2' 107.7' 92.8' 113.0' 60.8'113.0' 61.0' 130.1' 221.7' 224.8' 45.0' 106.0' 45.0' 106.0' 90.0' 106.0' 90.0' 106.0' 53.2' 83.0' 53.0' 83.0'44.0' 83.0' 44.0' 83.0' 38.0' 83.0' 38.0' 83.0' 44.0' 83.0' 44.0' 83.0' 44.0' 83.0' 44.0' 83.0' 54.2' 83.0' 54.0' 83.0' 156.7' 56.0' 140.0' 53.9' 140.0' 34.0' 140.0' 56.0' 110.0' 37.2' 105.0' 13.0'35.0'8.1'9.2' 45.0'10.0'16.9' 16.7' 77.0'23.0'11.4'14.9' 96.5' 48.0' 105.0' 78.0' 26.0' 59.5' 14.9' 31.0' 49.0' 19.0'15.0' 43.0' 15.0'19.0' 49.0' 24.0' 64.0' 24.0' 72.0' 24.0' 72.0' 24.0' 72.0' 13.0' 10.0' 5.0' 64.0' 30.0' 105.0' 30.0' 105.0' 30.0' 105.0' 30.0' 105.0' 30.0' 105.0' 30.0' 105.0' 52.0'11.9' 45.0' 9.2'8.1'35.1' 17.6' 83.0' 44.0' 83.0' 44.0' 83.0' 11.9' 209.1' 133.0' 18.0'3.0' 158.9' 25.7' 16.4'25.0' 134.7' 43.2' 2.9' 183.1' 16.0' 150.3' 11.9' 209.1' 133.0' 18.0'3.0' 158.9' 25.7' 16.4'25.0' 134.7' 43.2' 2.9' 183.1' 16.0' 150.3' 11.9' 209.1' 133.0' 18.0'3.0' 158.9' 25.7' 16.4'25.0' 134.7' 43.2' 2.9' 183.1' 16.0' 150.3' 11.9' 209.1' 133.0' 18.0'3.0' 158.9' 25.7' 16.4'25.0' 134.7' 43.2' 2.9' 183.1' 16.0' 150.3' 11.9' 209.1' 133.0' 18.0'3.0' 158.9' 25.7' 16.4'25.0' 134.7' 43.2' 2.9' 183.1' 16.0' 150.3' 11.9' 209.1' 133.0' 18.0'3.0' 158.9' 25.7' 16.4'25.0' 134.7' 43.2' 2.9' 183.1' 16.0' 150.3' 11.9' 209.1' 133.0' 18.0'3.0' 158.9' 25.7' 16.4'25.0' 134.7' 43.2' 2.9' 183.1' 16.0' 150.3' 11.9' 209.1' 133.0' 18.0'3.0' 158.9' 25.7' 16.4'25.0' 134.7' 43.2' 2.9' 183.1' 16.0' 150.3' 11.9' 209.1' 133.0' 18.0'3.0' 158.9' 25.7' 16.4'25.0' 134.7' 43.2' 2.9' 183.1' 16.0' 150.3' 11.9' 209.1' 133.0' 18.0'3.0' 158.9' 25.7' 16.4'25.0' 134.7' 43.2' 2.9' 183.1' 16.0' 150.3' 146.0' 32.4' 53.9' 134.7' 7.3'.7'5.5' 35.9' 37.9' 150.9 16 78 120 20.2 58.3' 1.8' 99.5' 60.0' 100.0' 40.0' 100.0' 39.5' 100.0' 150.4' 449 161.1' 6.0' 44.4' 146.0' 54.1' 171.8' 50.3' 161.1' 40.0' 13.0' 11.9' 209.1' 133.0' 18.0'3.0' 158.9' 25.7' 16.4'25.0' 134.7' 43.2' 2.9' 183.1' 16.0' 150.3' 11.9' 209.1' 133.0' 18.0'3.0' 158.9' 25.7' 16.4'25.0' 134.7' 43.2' 2.9' 183.1' 16.0' 150.3' 11.9' 209.1' 133.0' 18.0'3.0' 158.9' 25.7' 16.4'25.0' 134.7' 43.2' 2.9' 183.1' 16.0' 150.3' 11.9' 209.1' 133.0' 18.0'3.0' 158.9' 25.7' 16.4'25.0' 134.7' 43.2' 2.9' 183.1' 16.0' 150.3' 11.9' 209.1' 133.0' 18.0'3.0' 158.9' 25.7' 16.4'25.0' 134.7' 43.2' 2.9' 183.1' 16.0' 150.3' 11.9' 209.1' 133.0' 18.0'3.0' 158.9' 25.7' 16.4'25.0' 134.7' 43.2' 2.9' 183.1' 16.0' 150.3' 11.9' 209.1' 133.0' 18.0'3.0' 158.9' 25.7' 16.4'25.0' 134.7' 43.2' 2.9' 183.1' 16.0' 150.3' 11.9' 209.1' 133.0' 18.0'3.0' 158.9' 25.7' 16.4'25.0' 134.7' 43.2' 2.9' 183.1' 16.0' 150.3' 11.9' 209.1' 133.0' 18.0'3.0' 158.9' 25.7' 16.4'25.0' 134.7' 43.2' 2.9' 183.1' 16.0' 150.3' 11.9' 209.1' 133.0' 18.0'3.0' 158.9' 25.7' 16.4'25.0' 134.7' 43.2' 2.9' 183.1' 16.0' 150.3' 208.8' 150.0' 70.0' 178.0' 50.0' 178.0' 178.0' 100.0' 60.0' 100.0' 60.0' 50.0' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 50.0' 30.9' 109.3' 52.5'89.2' 31.4' 32.4' 113.9' 50.0' 109.3' 50.3' 119.5' 50.0' 113.9' 6.0' 44.4' 119.6' 52.1' 119.5' 52.1' 119.7' 119.6' 50.0'119.7' 50.0'120.0' 52.1' 120.0' 52.1' 1.6'1.3'30.7' 26.8' 100.0' 60.0' 105.0' 105.0' 19.1' 165.6' 55.7' 284.1'284.1' 169.2' 284.1' 169.2' 194.1' 37.2' 110.0'162.1' 15.7' 130.0' 57.7' 99.9' 231.2' 100.3' 209.9' 165.6' 19.1' 135.0'115.0' 125.0' 15.7' 105.0' 120.0' 55.0' 55.0'31.5' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 50.0' 100.0' 31.4' 30.9' 120.0' 50.9' 203.0' 51.8' 203.0' 203.0' 51.8' 203.0' 203.0' 51.8' 203.0' 220.0' 269.1' 220.4' 268.9' 142.6' 162.6' 177.4' 19.6'18.8' 145.9' 67.8' 34.8' 67.9' 34.9'67.7' 22.8' 67.8' 22.8' 22.8' 67.7' 22.8' 67.7' 22.7' 67.6' 22.8' 67.6'67.6' 34.8' 67.5' 34.8' 67.6' 22.8' 67.7' 22.8' 70.3' 31.1'57.3' 20.4' 18.1'22.7' 70.3' 22.8' 70.3' 22.8' 70.3' 22.8' 70.3' 22.8' 70.3' 22.8' 70.4' 22.8' 82.9' 24.7' 92.9' 24.7' 92.9' 22.8' 102.9' 13.9' 102.9' 21.8' 3.1'16.0' 26.7' 99.0' 117.2' 3.1'16.0'26.7' 43.6' 255.8' 21.0' 9.5'14.3' 6.4' 16.6' .8' 15.7' 15.7'17.2' 1.7' 11.0' 3.8' 16.3' 20.5' 2.2'6.5'5.6'1.3' 133.0' 20.4' 57.3' 20.0' 160.7' 20.0' 57.4' 20.4' 145.8' 4.0'2.2'8.1' 61.9' 16.7'40.9'69.5' 22.7' 70.4' 22.8' 70.4' 5.6'1.3' 23.9' 70.4' 26.5' 31.6' 4.2' 31.9' 31.6' 62.2' 9.5' 14.3'6.4'16.6' 73.7' 4.2' 31.9' 73.7' .8' 15.7' 15.7'17.2' 1.7' 11.1' 3.8' 16.3' 20.5' 2.2'6.5' 27.1' 70.4' 14.1' 20.4' 57.4' 22.7' 70.4' 22.7' 70.4' 22.7' 70.4' 22.8' 70.4' 22.7' 70.4' 22.7' 70.4' 22.8' 70.4' 22.7' 70.4' 22.7' 70.4' 22.8' 70.4' 27.1' 70.4' 18.0'4.0'2.2'8.1' 61.9' 29.4' 69.5' 27.1' 81.4' 22.7' 81.4' 11.5'7.9' 9.9' 82.9' 107.1' 30.3' 45.0' 8.5'37.0'10.0' 5.0' 64.0' 48.0' 8.0' 69.0'38.7' 12.6' 81.2' 85.8' 74.0' 74.0' 100.0' 100.0' 100.0' 100.0' 64.0' 64.0' 64.6' 64.6' 75.5' 138.0' 173.6' 116.0' 116.0' 35.5'10.0' 151.0' 72.6'49.2' 49.2' 138.0' 138.0'138.0' 91.8'91.8' 45.8' 48.0' 50.2' 72.5' 113.4' 113.4'113.4' 113.4'113.4' 56.5' 56.5'61.5' 62.0' 62.0' 42.1' 18.2' 113.2' 90.0' 54.4' 113.8' 61.0' 113.2' 61.5' 61.5' 113.0' 113.0'113.0' 113.0'113.0' 113.0' 60.0' 60.0'61.5' 61.5' 245.0' 245.0' 90.0' 90.0' 57.2'52.0' 11.0' 35.5' 24.0' 20.7' 7.9' 48.6' 48.6' 7.9'20.7'31.6' 20.5' 8.0'8.0' 53.2' 53.2' 20.5'31.2' 20.0' 20.0' 9.1'9.1' 58.0' 58.0' 31.5' 31.4' 31.0' 20.3' 20.3' 8.4'8.4' 59.7' 59.7' 31.8' 31.2' 30.9' 31.9' 21.3' 21.3' 21.0' 21.0' 75.3' 7.8'7.8' 9.8'9.8' 55.6' 55.6' 47.1' 47.1'30.9' 26.5' 16.1'16.7'4.8' 117.2' 30.0' 39.3' 92.2' 81.8' 89.0' 89.0' 89.0'81.8' 36.5' 53.7' 53.7' 42.4' 30.8' 30.4' 24.4'24.4'6.8'6.8'54.0' 54.0' 31.2' 5.6'5.6' 26.0' 26.0' 54.9' 54.9' 87.5' 54.5' 54.5' 27.9' 32.8' 31.1' 32.5'24.8' 24.8' 24.0' 24.0' 7.2'7.2' 6.8'6.8' 18.8'11.4'5.2' 45.0' 8.5'8.0' 54.4'10.0' 11.9' 68.9' 49.2' 47.7' 119.2' 107.1' 19.0' 124.7' 57.4' 57.4'57.4' 57.4' 52.0' 52.0' 116.8' 116.8' 63.9'117.0' 126.2' 49.7' 20.0'49.0' 33.0' 7.6'31.0' 52.9'78.3' 61.4' 36.2' 76.3' 76.3' 28.8'28.8'23.0' 23.0' 77.0' 128.0' 18.2' 52.9' 31.0' 142.4' 51.1' 23.8' 23.8' 87.9' 87.9' 94.3' 94.3' 33.0' 169.0' 106.0'135.0' 106.0' 67.5' 67.5' 67.5' 67.5' 106.0' 106.0' 106.0' 106.0' 75.0' 75.5' 119.0' 119.0' 110.5' 240.0' 184.0' 126.0' 42.6' 76.6' 52.5' 100.5' 155.0' 100.3' 388.0' 392.6' 392.6' 100.5' 100.0' 128.0' 24.5' 357.0' 179.5' 29.8' 179.3' 519.6' 74.2' 59.6 0.8 326.1 47.3' 47.3' 2.2'2.2' 60.0' 135.0' 60.0' 135.0' 60.0' 135.0' 60.0' 135.0' 130.0' 208.9' 82.6' 108.7' 60.7' 50.35' 48.9' 21.5' 221.7' 581.2' 581.3' 338.9' 338.6' 3948 701 730 736 709 3994 3891 3925 3860 3868 3874 3862 3870 3895 3849 508 510 512 520 3847 3837 4032 4020 703 4052 689 677 672 684 4021 4033 3989 4050 4121 4168 4134 4102 4085 4060 4071 4061 618 4121 4133 4010 4012 4014 4016 4022 4026 4042 4015 40114007 4008 4005 570 4010 5744009 3975 6783959 630 3898 3895 3972 4020 598 3945 40254023 4021 575 573 569 4041 548 4171 4113 4111 4073 4065 4059 4085 4060 4072 40544040 4075 3939 3929 3870 3876 3878 3886 3941 3943 443 393 383 420 449-465 483 487 456 550 552554 594 596 568580 510 514 518 526530534 538542546 550 554 558 562 561 4109 4102 3901 3980 3990 502 506 3999 3801 3824 3998 3911 3933 4044 4025 405 4060 491 3967 522 3864 740 3935 3885 3881 3879 3875 581 571 563 553 543 3880 3850 3866 3790 3804 716 709 708 717 725 3998 685 693 4065 4070 4075 4145 617 4161 4023 663 659 637 4051 4041 40354029 578 4017 4018 4043 39603944 3924 3924B 3887 3890 3888 3886 3884 3882 3878 3880 3899 3891 3889 567 4054 4062 4080 4094 40914075406140554031 4040 4050 3981 460 478 4037 4045 4115 4020 4030 3890 3892 3894 3898 3916 3883 3903 38853877 513 3897 3839 363 343 323380 360 340 320 300 310 3996 390 303 522 502 410 430 470 473 480 407 417 427 437 457 450 475 477 556558 560562 564 566 570 572574 576 578 582 584586 588590 592 557 553 549 545 541 537 533 529 525 521 4101 4105 4117 4121 4125 4126 4110 4113 412241184114 542 577 4106 4100 3896 3872 4062 4068 504 506508 510512 514516 524 526 528 MACLANE WILKIE WAY EL CAMINO WAY EL CAMINO REAL VENTURA AVENUE EL CAMINO REAL EL CAMINO REAL EL CAMINO REAL LA SELVA DRIVE MAGNOLIA DRIVE SOUTH VILLA VERA VILLA REAL (PRIVATE) VILLA VISTA (PRIVATE) LOS ROBLES AVENUE LA DONNA AVENUE CAMPANA DRIVEENCINA GRANDE DRIVE VERDOSA DRIVE VISTA AVENUE WISTERIA LANE VILLA VISTA (PRIVATE) DRISCOLL PLACE CAMPANA DRIVE VERDOSA DRIVE CYPRESS LANE JACOBS COURT (PRIVATE) A D R I V E EL CAMINO REAL EL CAMINO REAL EL CAMINO REAL RM-20 CS PF RM-30 RM-20 RM-20 RM-30 PC-2930 RM-30 PC-5116 PC-4511 CommunityCenter Tennis Court KEYS SCHOOL MIDDLE CAMPUS This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Project Site 0' 219' Attachment A: Location Map CITY OF PALO ALTOINCORPORATED CALI FORNIA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f APRIL 1 6 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto chodgki, 2024-02-20 08:18:49 (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) Item 2 Attachment A: Location Map     Packet Pg. 25     4 2 0 2 ATTACHMENT B ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL In order for the ARB to make a future recommendation of approval, the project must comply with the following Findings for Architectural Review as required in Chapter 18.76.020 of the PAMC. Finding #1: The application complies with all applicable and objective standards in the Comprehensive Plan, the Palo Alto Municipal Code, and other City plans or policies. Finding #2: Approving the application will not result in a specific, adverse, impact upon the public health or safety, which cannot feasibly be mitigated or avoided in a satisfactory manner. As used in this Section, a "specific, adverse impact" means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete. Item 2 Attachment B: Streamlined Housing Findings for Approval     Packet Pg. 26     4 1 9 8 ATTACHMENT C ZONING CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS 3980 El Camino Real, 24PLN-00041 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.13 (RM-20 DISTRICT) Regulation Required Proposed Minimum/Maximum Site Area, Width and Depth 8,500 sf area, 70-foot width, 100- foot depth Irregular ~338.65 feet L X ~219.74 feet W 73,711 sf (1.69 acre) Minimum Front Yard 20 feet 30 feet Rear Yard 10 feet 70 feet, 8 inches Street Side Yard 16 feet Not Applicable Interior Side Yard (for lots greater than 70 feet in width) 10 feet 35 feet, 4 inches from east side 72 feet, 8 inches from west side Max. Building Height 30 feet 36 feet Concession Requested Side Yard Daylight Plane 10 feet at interior side lot line then 45 degree angle Complies Rear Yard Daylight Plane 10 feet at rear setback line then 45-degree angle Complies Max. Site Coverage 35% (plus an additional 5% for covered patios or overhangs) (8,294 sf) 28% (20,373 sf) Max. Total Floor Area Ratio 0.5:1 (36,855 sf)0.86:1 (63,291 sf) Concession requested Residential Density 11 to 20 units per acre (19 to 34 units) 61 DU on 1.69 acre = 36 units per acre Complies with State Density Bonus Law Minimum landscape/ Site Open Space 35% (5,847 sf)24% (17677 sf) Waiver Requested Minimum Usable Open Space 150 sf per unit 150.4 sf per unit Minimum Common Open Space 75 sf per unit 5,463 sf (89.5 sf per unit) Minimum Private Open Space 50 sf per unit None Waiver Requested Item 2 Attachment C: Zoning Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 27     4 1 9 8 Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking) for Multiple-Family Residential Type Required Proposed Vehicle Parking 1 per studio unit 1 per 1-bedroom unit 1.5 per 2-bedroom or larger unit(1) =77 Spaces Tandem parking is permitted for multiple-family and two-family uses at a maximum of 25% of the units(1) 79 – 3-bedroom units; 24 spaces 0% tandem Loading Area Residential and mixed-use structures with fifty (50) or more dwelling units shall provide at least one (1) on-site, short-term loading space for passenger vehicles, to be used by taxicabs and similar transportation and delivery services None Proposed Bicycle Parking One (1) Long-term bicycle parking space per unit=61 spaces One (1) short-term bicycle parking space per 10% of units=6 spaces 72 LT spaces; sixe (6) ST spaces (1) In accordance with state density bonus law, only 1.5 parking spaces is required, and all units may have tandem parking. Therefore, although this requirement does not meet the city’s local code requirements, this allowance is provided per state law without the need for an additional waiver/concession. Regulation Required Proposed 5-foot planting strip Complies Minimum required interior landscaping=7.5% 9.3% Landscape islands minimum 5x5 Minimum 6x18 Landscape islands every 10 spaces in a row Complies Parking lot Design Minimum 1 tree per 6 parking stalls Number of parking spaces: 79 Number of tree required: 13 Number of trees in landscape islands: 8 Number of trees on perimeter: 13 Total number of trees counted: 21 Item 2 Attachment C: Zoning Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 28     4 1 9 8 Tree plantings should shade 50% of the parking lot surface areas in 15 years Tree Canopy area required: 11,829(50%) Tree canopy area provided: 7,833 (33%) Item 2 Attachment C: Zoning Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 29     City of Palo Alto Objective Design Standards: Checklist Page 1 4 1 9 9 Objective Design Standards Checklist The Objective Design Standards Checklist is a tool to evaluate a project’s compliance with the Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 18.24). The Checklist is not the Zoning Ordinance. Applicants shall be responsible for meeting the standards in the Zoning Ordinance. To simplify evaluation of the Zoning Ordinance, language in the Checklist may vary from the Zoning Ordinance. (Note: sf = square feet) If a standard is not applicable to applicant’s project, please write N/A in Applicant’s Justification column. 18.24.020 Public Realm/Sidewalk Character Check Standard Sheet #Applicant’s Justification (b)(1) Sidewalk Widths (A) In the following districts, public sidewalk width (curb to back of walk) is at least: •Commercial Mixed-Use District: CN, CS, CC, CC(2), CD-C, CD-S, CD-N, PTOD: 10 ft •El Camino Real: 12 ft •San Antonio Road, from Middlefield Road to East Charleston Road: 12 ft And consists of: Does not apply (RM-30 Zone District and not any of these streets (despite the address, frontage is on Los Robles) Pedestrian clear path width of 8 foot minimum: ______ feet ☐ Landscape or furniture area width of 2 foot minimum: ______ feet ☐ If the existing public sidewalk does not meet the minimum standard, a publicly accessible extension of the sidewalk, with corresponding public access easement, shall be provided. ☐ (B) Public sidewalks or walkways connecting through a development parcel (e.g. on a through lot with a public access easement, leading to a commercial entry) must be at least 6 feet wide. Not applicable; not a through Lot (C) The width of walkways designed to provide bicycle access (e.g. pathway to bike racks/lockers) must be at least 12 feet wide, consisting of: Complies Pedestrian clear path width (8 feet min.): 8’2”☒ Clear space/buffer – (2 feet min. on each side of path): 3’11”ft & 4’ ft A1.10A Walkways meeting requirement provided from sidewalk to bike racks Item 2 Attachment D: Objective Design Standards Comparison Checklist     Packet Pg. 30     City of Palo Alto Objective Design Standards: Checklist Page 2 4 1 9 9 ☒ (B)Primary building entries shall provide at least one seating area or bench within 30 feet of building entry and/or path leading to building entry. On arterials (see Map T-5), except Downtown, seating areas or benches shall not be located between the sidewalk and the curb; OR A2.10 Courtyard seating is located wihin 30 feet of the path leading to the primary building entry Pic k O n e ☐Existing seating areas or benches that are already located in the public right-of-way within 50 feet of the building entry. Check Standard Sheet #Applicant’s Justification (B)(2) Street Trees 1. One street tree provided for every 30 linear feet of public sidewalk length and located within six feet of the sidewalk. L0.03 Sufficient number of trees provided along Los Robles streetscape a. Length of parcel frontage/public sidewalk length: 581’ 4”ft b. Street Trees required (i.e. frontage/30 feet): 19 trees ☒ c. Street Trees provided: 22 trees (B)(3) Accent Paving Parcels abutting University Avenue between Alma Street and Webster include accent paving along the project frontages, as indicated below: Not Application •Brick paving at corners ☐ •Brick trim mid-block ☐Parcel abutting California Avenue between El Camino Real and Park Blvd include decorative glass accent paving along project frontages Not Applicable (B)(4) Mobility Infrastructure ☒ (A) On-site micromobility infrastructure (e.g. bike racks/lockers) is located within 30 feet of the primary building entry and/or on a path leading to the primary building entry; OR A0.11 Proposed short-term bike racks are within a path leading to the primary building entry Pic k O n e ☐Existing micromobility infrastructure (e.g. bike racks/lockers) is already located within 50 feet of project site and located in a public right-of-way. Item 2 Attachment D: Objective Design Standards Comparison Checklist     Packet Pg. 31     City of Palo Alto Objective Design Standards: Checklist Page 3 4 1 9 9 18.24.030 Site Access Check Standard Sheet #Applicant’s Justification (b)(1) Through Lot Connections ☐ Through lots located more than 300 feet from an intersecting street or pedestrian walkway shall provide a publicly accessible sidewalk or pedestrian walkway (with public access easements) connecting the two streets. Not Applicable, not a through lot (b)(2) Building Entries ☐ Primary Building Entries shall be located from a public right-of-way. If there is no public right-of-way adjacent to the building, entries shall be located from a private street or Pedestrian Walkway. A1.10A Primary building entry accessed from a short walkways leading from the public ROW (b)(3) Vehicle Access ☐(A) Vehicle access shall be located on alleys or side streets when they abut the property. Not Applicable, no alleys adjacent site ☐ (B) Except for driveway access and short-term loading spaces (e.g. taxi), off-street parking, off-street vehicle loading (delivery trucks), and vehicular circulation areas are prohibited between the building and primary building frontage. A1.10 No parking or circulation area is located between the building frontage and street. (b)(4) Loading Docks and Service Areas Loading and service areas shall be integrated into building and landscape design and located to minimize impact on the pedestrian experience as follows: ☒(A) Loading docks and service areas shall be located on façades that do not face a primary building frontage A0.13 Trash staffing area is located at the rear of the building, with trash pickup planned along an internal street ☒ (B) Loading docks and service areas located within setback areas shall be screened by a solid fence, or wall, or dense landscaping and separated from pedestrian access to the primary building entry to avoid impeding pedestrian movement/safety. A0.13 There are no loading docks or service area located within setback areas. Trash is at the rear of the building. Item 2 Attachment D: Objective Design Standards Comparison Checklist     Packet Pg. 32     City of Palo Alto Objective Design Standards: Checklist Page 4 4 1 9 9 18.24.040 Building Orientation and Setbacks Check Standard Sheet #Applicant’s Justification (b)(1) Building Corner Elements (less than 40 feet in height) Corner buildings less than 40 feet in height and end units of townhouses (all end units) or other attached housing products that face the street shall include all of the following features on their secondary building frontage (where B is the primary frontage): (A) height and width of corner element shall have a ratio greater than 1.2:1. a. Secondary building frontage height: 36 feet b. Secondary building frontage length: 22 feet☐ c. Secondary building frontage height to width ratio: ~28 A3.10 (B) minimum of 15 percent fenestration area. a. Total secondary building frontage façade area: 6286 sf b. Secondary building frontage façade fenestration area: 1532sf☐ c. Percent of fenestration area __24.4___ % Che c k A l l ☐(C) At least one facade modulation with a minimum depth of 18 inches and a minimum width of two feet. Complies (b)(2)(A) & (B) Treatment of Buildings Corners on Corner Lots (40+ feet in height) Corner Buildings 40 feet or taller in height shall include at least one of the following special features: A. Street wall is located at the minimum front yard setback or build-to line for a minimum aggregated length of 40 feet on both facades meeting at the corner and includes one or more of the following building features: ☐i. An entry to ground floor retail or primary building entrance located within 25 feet of the corner of the building. ☐ii. A different material application and/or fenestration pattern from the rest of the façade. Che c k O n e o r M o r e wit h i n A o r B ☐iii. A change in height of at least 4 feet greater or less than the height of the adjacent/abutting primary façade. Ch eck On e or Mo re wit hin A or BB. An open space with a minimum dimension of 20 feet and minimum area of 450 square feet. The open space shall be at least one of the following Not Applicable, less than 40 feet in height Item 2 Attachment D: Objective Design Standards Comparison Checklist     Packet Pg. 33     City of Palo Alto Objective Design Standards: Checklist Page 5 4 1 9 9 ☐i. A publicly accessible open space/plaza. ☐ii. A space used for outdoor seating for public dining. ☐ iii. A residential Common Open Space adjacent to a common interior space (i.e. lobby, retail, etc.) and less than two feet above adjacent sidewalk grade. Fences and railing shall be a minimum 50% open/transparent. (b)(3) Primary Building Entry The primary building entry meets at least one of the following standards: ☐A. Faces a public right-of-way. ☒B. Faces a publicly accessible pedestrian walkway.A0.14 Primary building entry faces a publicly accessible pedestrian walkway connected to the sidewalk C. Is visible from a public right-of-way through a forecourt or front porch that meets the following standards: i. For residential buildings with fewer than seven units, building entry forecourts or front porch minimum dimensions of (min. 36 sf and min. dimension of 6 feet required): ___ sf and ___ ft. min. dimensionCh e c k O n e o r M o r e ☐ ii. For commercial buildings or residential buildings with seven or more units, building entry forecourts or front porch minimum dimensions of (min. 100 sf and a min. width of 8 feet required): 100 sf and 8’2” min. width A0.14 Primary building entry is located off of a forecourt of the specified size (b)(4) Ground Floor Residential Units A. Finished Floor Height for Ground Floor Units ☐ The finished floor of ground floor residential units, when adjacent to a public right-of- way, must be within the minimum and maximum heights according to setback distance from back of walk identified in Figure 2a and 2b of the Zoning Ordinance. Calculate minimum ground floor finished floor height: A0.14 0 feet required C h e c k A ll t h a t A p p l y☐Setback adjacent to public right of way: 20 feet Item 2 Attachment D: Objective Design Standards Comparison Checklist     Packet Pg. 34     City of Palo Alto Objective Design Standards: Checklist Page 6 4 1 9 9 ☐ Minimum ground floor finished floor height: 0_ feet 𝒚 = ―𝟒 𝟏𝟓(𝒙)+ 𝟏𝟔 𝟑 where 𝑥 = setback length from back of walk, in feet and 𝑦 = ground floor finished floor height, in feet ☐Sites with slopes greater than 2% along building façade – Average height of finished floor: _____ feet ☐Sites located in flood zones – the minimum ground floor finished floor height shall be defined by FEMA, less flood zone elevation: _____ feet B. Setback Trees Ground floor units with a setback greater than 15 feet must have at minimum an average of one tree per 40 linear feet of facade length, within the setback area. Setback length: 30 feet Amount of linear frontage: 25 feet Trees required: 1 tree ☐ Trees provided: 1 tree A1.10 One tree provided in setback area at los robles avenue along the single ground floor 2BR frontage C and D. Front Setback ☒C. Ground floor residential entries are setback a minimum of 10 feet from the back of public sidewalk; OR A1.10A Building setback 30 feet; no ground floor entries facing the street Pic k O n e ☐D. Where no minimum building setback is required, all ground floor residential units must be set back a minimum 5 feet from back of public sidewalk. Check Standard Sheet #Applicant’s Justification E. Unit Entry A minimum 80% of ground floor residential units that face a public right-of-way or publicly accessible path, or open space shall have a unit entry with direct access to the sidewalk, path, or open space for minimum. Concession requested under state density bonus law ☐ a. Total number of ground floor residential units facing a public right-of-way, publicly accessible path, or open space: 0 units Item 2 Attachment D: Objective Design Standards Comparison Checklist     Packet Pg. 35     City of Palo Alto Objective Design Standards: Checklist Page 7 4 1 9 9 b. 80% of total units in (a): ____ units c. Subset of number of units in (a) that have a unit entry with direct access to the sidewalk, path, or open space: ____ entries (b)(5) Front Yard Setback Character Required setbacks provide a hardscape and/or landscaped area to create a transition between public and private space. The following standards apply, based on intended use and exclusive of areas devoted to outdoor seating, front porches, door swing of building entries, and publicly accessible open space and meet the following: (A). Ground-floor retail or retail like uses have a minimum of 10% of the required setback as landscape or planters.A0.14 Property management office is the only retail-like use at the ground floor along the street frontage i. Minimum setback area (setback x frontage x 10%): 66.5 sf ☒ ii. Landscape or planter area in required setback: 359.4 sf (B). Ground-floor residential uses have a minimum of 60% landscaped area in the required setback area. A0.14 Only one ground floor unit has street frontage along Los Robles Avenue i. Minimum setback area (setback x frontage x 60%): 375 sfChe c k A l l t h a t A p p l y ☒ ii. Landscape area in required setback: 500 sf (b)(6) Side Yard Setback Character (A) Each detached dwelling unit shall have at least one usable side yard, at least six feet wide, between the house and fence or other structure, to provide outdoor passage between the front and rear yards. Not Applicable 18.24.050 Building Massing Check Standard Sheet #Applicant’s Justification (b)(1) Upper Floor Step Backs and Daylight Planes Item 2 Attachment D: Objective Design Standards Comparison Checklist     Packet Pg. 36     City of Palo Alto Objective Design Standards: Checklist Page 8 4 1 9 9 (A) When the height of the subject building is more than 20 feet above the average height (i.e. average of low and high roof elevations) of an adjacent building(s), an upper floor step back shall start within two vertical feet of the average height of the adjacent building. The step back shall be a minimum depth of six feet along both the façade on the primary building frontage and the façade facing the adjacent building, and the step shall occur for a minimum of 70% of each façade length. i. Proposed building height: _____ feet ii. Average building height of the adjacent building(s): _____ feet ☐ iii. Building height where upper floor step back begins: ____ feet ☐(B) Notwithstanding, subsection (A), when adjacent to a single-story building, the upper floor step back shall occur between 33 and 37 feet in height. Not applicable since the subject building is not 20 feet taller than the average height of the adjacent building ☐ (C) If a project meets the following criteria, a daylight plane with an initial height of 25 feet above grade at the property line and a 45-degree angle shall be required. This daylight plane is required if all of these criteria are met: i. The project is not subject to a daylight plane requirement, pursuant to district regulations in Title 18; and ii. The project proposes a building which is more than 20 feet above the average height (i.e., average of low and high roof elevations) of an adjacent building(s); and iii. The project abuts residential units in the side or rear yard. Daylight plane requirement as per zoning only applies to rear property line and interior side yard property line (b)(2) Privacy and Transitions to Residential Uses When a building abuts a residential use on an interior side and/or rear property line, the building shall break down the abutting façade and maintain privacy by meeting all of the following: Che c k A l l ☐ (A) Landscape Screening. A landscape screen that includes a row of trees with a minimum one tree per 25 linear feet and continuous shrubbery planting. This screening plant material shall be a minimum 72 inches (6 feet) in height when planted. Required trees shall be minimum 24” box size. L4.11, L4.12 Continuous planting area shown along interior side and rear property lines. 16 trees currently shown at the side property line (14 required), and 9 along the rear property line (7 required) Item 2 Attachment D: Objective Design Standards Comparison Checklist     Packet Pg. 37     City of Palo Alto Objective Design Standards: Checklist Page 9 4 1 9 9 ☐ (B) Façade Breaks. A minimum façade break of 4 feet in width, 2 feet in depth, and 32 square feet of area (i.e. 8 ft tall minimum) for every 36 to 40 feet of façade length Concession requested under state density bonus law ☐ (C) Maximum Amount of Transparent Windows. Within 40 feet of an abutting structure, no more than 15% of the facing façade area shall be windows or other glazing. Additional windows are allowed in order to maintain light, if fixed and fully obscured Not applicable, no part of the building is within 20 feet of facing residential windows ☐ (D) Windows. Within 30 feet of facing residential windows (except garage or common space windows) or private open space on an adjacent residential building, facing windows on the subject site shall meet the following: (i) Window sills at and above the 2nd floor shall be at least five feet above finished floor; or (ii) Windows shall have opaque or translucent glazing at or below five feet above finished floor; or (iii) Windows shall be angled up to 30 degrees (parallel to window) to face away from the adjacent privacy impacts; and (iv) Landscape screening shall be 24-inch box size or larger and eight+ feet height at planting; 50% evergreens; and located to align with proposed second floor windows at maturity. Not applicable. No part of the building is within 30 feet of facing residential windows ☐ (E). Balconies: Within 30 feet of residential windows (except garage or common space windows) or private open space on an adjacent residential building, balconies and decks on the subject site shall be designed to prevent views: (i) No sight lines to the adjacent property window or open space are permitted within five feet above the balcony or deck flooring and a 45- degree angle downward from balcony railing. (ii) Submit section view of proposed balcony/deck and abutting residential windows and/or private open space. (iii) Provide balcony/deck design measure which may include: a. Minimum 85% solid railing b. Obscure glass railing c. Barrier with min. 18" horizontal depth from railing (e.g., landscape planter) Not applicable since proposed building has no balconies Item 2 Attachment D: Objective Design Standards Comparison Checklist     Packet Pg. 38     City of Palo Alto Objective Design Standards: Checklist Page 10 4 1 9 9 (b)(3)(A) & (B) Maximum Façade Length facing a street or public path Buildings 70 feet in length or greater and greater than 25 feet in height For building facades 70 feet in length or greater and facing a public street, right- of-way, or publicly accessible path shall not have a continuous façade plane greater than 70% of the façade length without an upper floor modulation, of at least 2 feet in depth façade length featuring continuous plane: 27 feet, 7 inches Total Façade length: 123 feet ☐ Percent of façade length without upper floor modulation (a/b) (maximum 70%): 22.4% A3.10 Continuous facades annotated in south elevation Buildings 250 feet in length or greater (A) Buildings 250 feet in length or greater, which face a public street, right-of- way, or publicly accessible path, shall have at least one vertical façade break with a minimum area greater than 400 square feet and a width greater than or equal to two times the depth a. Total Building length: _____ feet ☐ b. Number of vertical façade breaks: ___ breaks add width, depth, area Not applicable since street elevation is 123 feet Buildings between 150 feet and 250 feet in length (B) Buildings 150 to 250 feet in length, which face a public street, right-of-way, or publicly accessible path, shall have at least one vertical façade break with a minimum area greater than 64 square feet and a minimum width of 8 feet and minimum depth of 4 feet. a. Total Building length: _____ feet Pic k O n e C a t e g o r y ☐ b. Number of vertical façade breaks: ___ breaks, add width, depth, area Not applicable since street elevation is 123 feet Check Standard Sheet #Applicant’s Justification (b)(4) Special Conditions: Railroad Frontages All parcels with lot lines abutting railroad rights-of-way shall meet the following standards on the railroad-abutting façade(s): Not applicable, does not abut railroad ROW Item 2 Attachment D: Objective Design Standards Comparison Checklist     Packet Pg. 39     City of Palo Alto Objective Design Standards: Checklist Page 11 4 1 9 9 ☐(A) A minimum facade break of at least 10 feet in width and six feet in depth for every 60 feet of façade length. Che c k All ☐(B) For portions of a building 20 feet or greater in height shall not have a continuous façade length that exceeds 60 feet. (b)(5) Diversity of Housing Types ☐ A diversity of housing types (e.g. detached units, attached rowhouses/townhouses, condominiums or apartments, mixed use) are required for projects on large lots: •Less than one acre lots: minimum 1 housing types •1 to 2-acre lots: minimum 2 housing types; or •More than 2-acre lots: minimum 3 housing types A1.10 The apartment site is 1.69 acres and features an apartment building with multiple unit types. The complete development (4.5 acres) features multiple housing types- apartments, RV trailers, and manufactured homes 18.24.060 Façade Design Check Two or More Standard Sheet #Applicant’s Justification (c)(1) Base-Middle-Top ☐ Buildings three stories or taller and on lots wider than 50 feet shall be designed to differentiate a defined base or ground floor, a middle or body, and a top, cornice, or parapet cap. Each of these elements shall be distinguished from one another for a minimum of 80% of the façade length through use of three or more of the following four techniques: ☐ i. Variation in Building Modulation: Building modulation shall extend for a minimum 80% of the façade length feet, and shall include one or more of the following building features. ☐a. Horizontal shifts. Changes in floor plates that protrude and/or recess with a minimum dimension of 2 feet from the primary facade. Che c k o n e or m o r e i f sel e c t e d ☐ b. Upper floor step backs. A horizontal step back of upper-floor façades with a minimum 5 foot stepback from the primary façade for a minimum of 80% of the length of the façade Item 2 Attachment D: Objective Design Standards Comparison Checklist     Packet Pg. 40     City of Palo Alto Objective Design Standards: Checklist Page 12 4 1 9 9 ☐ c. Ground floor step back. A horizontal shift of the ground floor facade with a minimum depth of 2 feet for a minimum 80% of the length of the façade. Ground floor step backs shall not exceed the maximum setback requirements, where stated ☒ii. Variation in Façade Articulation: Façade articulation modulation shall include one or more of the following building features. ☐ a. Horizontal and/or Vertical Recesses or Projections. Recesses or projections such as a pattern of recessed grouping of windows, recessed panels, bay windows or similar strategies. The recess or projection shall be a minimum 4 inches in depth. A3.10- A3.12 Pattern of recessed and projections, coupled with window groupings shown on each façade. However, the projections are not a minimum of 4 feet in depth; therefore also complies with datum lines ☐ b. Horizontal and/or Vertical Projections. Projections such as shading, weather protection devices, decorative architectural details, or similar strategies. Che c k o n e o r m o r e i f s e l e c t e d ☒ c. Datum Lines. Datum lines that continue the length of the building, such as parapets or cornices, with a minimum 4 inches in height or a minimum 2 inches in depth and include a change in material Façade design includes a box- like framing feature of a different material/color that acts as a datum line. ☒iii. Variation in two of the following: ☒a. Fenestration Size ☐b. Fenestration Proportion ☐c. Fenestration Pattern Che c k t w o i f sel e c t e d ☒ d. Fenestration Depth or Projection A0.14 Variety of fenestration size and projection shown ☒iv. Variation in two of the following: ☒a. Façade Material Che c k tw o i f sel e c t ed ☐b. Facade Material Size A0.14 Variety of materials and colors shown Item 2 Attachment D: Objective Design Standards Comparison Checklist     Packet Pg. 41     City of Palo Alto Objective Design Standards: Checklist Page 13 4 1 9 9 ☐c. Façade Texture and Pattern ☒d. Façade Color (c)(2) Façade Composition Building facades shall use a variety of strategies including building modulation, fenestration, and façade articulation to create visual interest and express a variety of scales through a variety of strategies. All facades shall include a minimum of three of the following façade articulation strategies to create visual interest: ☒A. Vertical and horizontal recesses such as a pattern of recessed grouping of windows or recessed panels. The recess shall be a minimum 4 inches in depth. A3.10- A3.12 Pattern of recesses and projections, coupled with window groupings shown on each façade ☐B. Vertical and horizontal projections such as shading and weather protection devices or decorative architectural details. Projections shall be a minimum 4 inches in depth. ☒ C. Datum lines that continue the length of the building, such as cornices, with a minimum 4 inches in depth, or a minimum 2 inches in depth and include a change in material. A3.10- A3.12 Façade design includes a box- like framing feature of a different material/color that acts as a datum line ☐D. Balconies, habitable projections, or Juliet balconies (every 20 to 40 feet) with a minimum 4 inches in depth. ☒E. Screening devices such as lattices, louvers, shading devices, or perforated metal screens. A3.11, A3.14 Perforated metal sunshades shown along the West Elevation ☒F. Use of fine-grained building materials, such as brick or wood shingles, not to exceed 8 inches in either height or width. A3.14 One of the proposed materials- cement fiber board lap siding is a fine-grain material, with exposure less than 8 inches Ch e c k T h r e e o r M o r e ☒G. Incorporate a minimum of three colors, materials, and/or textures across the whole building. A3.14 Multiple color and materials shown (c)(3) Compatible Rhythm and Pattern (A) Buildings shall express a vertical rhythm and pattern that reflects the size and scale of a housing unit and/or individual rooms and spaces. This may be achieved with building modulation to create vertically oriented façades (height greater than the width of the façade), façade articulation and fenestration repetitive vertically oriented patterns. Depending on the length of the façade, the following standards apply: Item 2 Attachment D: Objective Design Standards Comparison Checklist     Packet Pg. 42     City of Palo Alto Objective Design Standards: Checklist Page 14 4 1 9 9 ☐ i. For continuous façades less than 100 feet in length, the façade shall have vertically oriented patterns of vertical recesses or projections, façade articulation, and/or fenestration. -Not applicable since no façade is less than 100 feet in length ii. For continuous façades 100 feet or greater in length, the façade shall include either: ☐ a. A vertical recess or change in façade plane with a minimum 2 feet deep vertical shift modulation for a minimum 4 feet in width to establish a vertical rhythm between 20 to 50 feet in width; OR The façade articulation employs a pattern of projections and recesses to highlight the rhythm of housing unitsChe c k O n e ☐b. A vertical recess or projection with a minimum depth of 2 feet that establishes the vertical rhythm between 10 to 16 feet in width (B) Residential mixed-use buildings ☐i. Vertical Patterns and Modulation: Façades shall use vertical patterns of building modulation, façade articulation, and fenestration. Does not apply, exclusively residential Che c k O n e o r Mo r e ☐ ii. Horizontal Patterns and Modulation: Façades that use horizontal articulation and fenestration patterns shall use a vertical massing strategy with a minimum 4 feet wide and 2 feet deep vertical shift in modulation at least once every 50 feet of façade length. (C) Storefronts ☐Storefront uses shall express a vertical rhythm not to exceed 30 to 50 feet in width.Doesn’t apply, exclusively residential (c)(4) Emphasize Building Elements & Massing (A)(i) Building Entries within Façade Design. Primary building entries shall be scaled proportionally to the number of people served (amount of floor-area or number of units accessed). Building entries inclusive of doorway and façade plane shall meet the following minimum dimensions: ☐a. Individual residential entries: 5 feet in width ☐b. Shared residential entry, such as mixed-use buildings: 8 feet in width ☐c. Commercial building entry: 20 feet in widthChe c k A l l ☐d. Storefront entry: 6 feet in width Item 2 Attachment D: Objective Design Standards Comparison Checklist     Packet Pg. 43     City of Palo Alto Objective Design Standards: Checklist Page 15 4 1 9 9 (ii) Primary building entries (not inclusive of individual residential entries) shall include a façade modulation that includes at least one of the following: ☒a. Recess or projection from the primary façade plane (minimum 2 feet).A0.14 Primary building entry is recessed over 8 feet Che c k O n e or M o r e ☒b. Weather protection that is a minimum 4 feet wide and 4 feet deep by recessing the entry, providing an awning or using a combination of these methods A0.14 Upper floor overhang provides weather protection at the main entry (c)(5) Storefront/Retail Ground Floors A. Ground floor height shall be a minimum 14 feet floor-to-floor OR shall maintain a 2nd floor datum line of an abutting building. a. Ground floor height (minimum 14 feet): _____ feet; OR☐ b. Height of 2nd floor datum line of abutting building: _____ feet B. Transparency shall include a minimum 60 percent transparent glazing between 2 and 10 feet in height from sidewalk, providing unobstructed views into the commercial space. a. Façade area between 2 feet and 10 feet: _____ square feet b. Transparent glazing area between 2 feet and 10 feet: _____ square feet ☐ c. Percentage of transparent glazing (minimum 60%): _____ % ☐C. If provided, bulkheads and solid base walls measure between 12 and 30 inches from finished grade D. Primary entries shall include weather protection by recessing the entry, providing an awning or using a combination of these methods. a. Weather protection width (minimum 6 feet): _____ feet☐ b. Weather protection depth (minimum 4 feet): _____ feet ☐ E. Awnings, canopies and weather protection: (i) When transom windows are above display windows, awnings, canopies and similar, weather protection elements shall be installed between transom and display windows. These elements should allow for light to enter the storefront through the transom windows and allow the weather protection feature to shade the display window. (ii) Awnings may be fixed or retractable Not Applicable, no retail proposed (c)(6) Other Non-Residential Ground Floors ☐(A) Ground floor height must be a minimum 14 feet floor-to-floor OR match the 2nd floor datum line of an abutting building Project is 100% residential Item 2 Attachment D: Objective Design Standards Comparison Checklist     Packet Pg. 44     City of Palo Alto Objective Design Standards: Checklist Page 16 4 1 9 9 ☐Ground floor height (minimum 14 feet): _____ feet; OR Pic k On e ☐Height of 2nd floor datum line of abutting building: _____ feet (B) Minimum of 50% transparent glazing between 4 and 10 feet in height from sidewalk or terrace grade, providing unobstructed views into the commercial space Façade area between 4 feet and 10 feet: _____ square feet Transparent glazing area: _____ square feet ☐ Percentage of transparent glazing (minimum 50%): _____ % (C) Primary entries include weather protection that is a minimum 6 feet wide and 4 feet deep by recessing the entry, providing an awning or using a combination of these methods. Weather protection width (minimum 6 feet): _____ feet☐ Weather protection depth (minimum 4 feet): _____ feet (c)(7) Parking/Loading/Utilities (A) Entry Size No more than 25% of the site frontage facing a street shall be devoted to garage openings, carports, surface parking, loading entries, or utilities access. On sites with less than 100 feet of frontage, no more than 25 feet. Site frontage: 228 feet Frontage devoted to garage openings, carports, surface parking, loading entries, or utilities access: 129’7” ☐ Percent of frontage devoted to garage openings, carports, surface parking, loading entries, or utilities access _____ % Concession requested in accordance with state density bonus law (B) Above Ground Structured Parking ☐ Above grade structured parking levels facing a public right-of-way or publicly accessible open space/path, with the exception of vehicular alleys, must be lined with commercial or habitable uses with a minimum depth of 20 feet No above ground parking proposed (C)&(D) Partially Sub-Grade Structured Parking ☐Partially sub-grade parking must not have an exposed façade that exceeds 5 feet in height above abutting grade at back of sidewalk. No sub-grade parking proposed Item 2 Attachment D: Objective Design Standards Comparison Checklist     Packet Pg. 45     City of Palo Alto Objective Design Standards: Checklist Page 17 4 1 9 9 ☐Partially sub-grade parking must be screened with continuous landscaping and shrubbery with minimum height of 3 feet and be located within 10 feet of the sub-grade parking. 18.24.070 Residential Entries Pick One or More (A – E) Standard Sheet #Applicant’s Justification (b)(1) Ground Floor Unit Entries Where ground floor residential unit entries are required, one or more of the following entry types shall be provided: ☐(A) Stoop ☐(i) Stoops provide entry access for a maximum of two ground floor units. ☐(ii) Stoop heights are within one step of finished floor height of adjacent unit. ☐(iii) Stoop entry landings are a minimum 5 feet in depthChe c k A l l i f Sel e c t e d ☐(iv) The maximum stoop height from the back of sidewalk grade is 5 feet. Not Applicable, ground floor residential unit entries not required ☐(B) Porch ☐(i) Porches provide entry access for a maximum of one ground floor unit. ☐(ii) Porch heights are within one step of finished floor height of adjacent unit. ☐(iii) Porches are large enough so a 6-foot by 6-foot square can fit inside Ch e c k A l l i f Sel e c t e d ☐(iv) The maximum porch height from the back of sidewalk grade is 5 feet. Not Applicable, ground floor residential unit entries not required ☐(C) Patio Entry ☐(i) Patio entries provide access for a maximum of two ground floor units. ☐(ii) Patio entries are large enough so a 5-foot by 5-foot square can fit inside of the patio for each unit ☐(iii) The patio shall include at least one of the following features to define the transition between public and private space:Che c k A l l i f Sel e c t e d Pic k On e or Mo re☐a. Row of shrubs: not exceeding 42 inches in height located between the sidewalk and the patio. One gallon size and max 3 feet on center Not Applicable, ground floor residential unit entries not required Item 2 Attachment D: Objective Design Standards Comparison Checklist     Packet Pg. 46     City of Palo Alto Objective Design Standards: Checklist Page 18 4 1 9 9 ☐b. Fence: not to exceed 36 inches in height located between the sidewalk and the patio with a gate or fence opening to provide access ☐ c. Metal, Wood, or Stone Wall: not to exceed 36 inches in height located between the sidewalk and the patio with gate or opening, AND a minimum 18-inch landscape strip is located between the wall and the abutting pedestrian way and entirely landscaped ☐(D) Terrace ☐(i) Terraces provide entry access for multiple ground floor units. ☐(ii) Terraces are a maximum height of 30 inches above the grade of the back of the adjacent sidewalk or accessway. Ch e c k A l l i f Sel e c t e d ☐(iii) Walls, fences and hedges on Terraces are a maximum of 42 inches tall and have a minimum transparency of 40 percent. Not Applicable, ground floor residential unit entries not required ☐(E) Frontage Court ☐(i) Frontage courts provide entry access for multiple ground floor units. ☐(ii) The minimum frontage court width along a primary frontage is 25 feet. ☐(iii) The maximum frontage court width along a primary frontage is 50% of the facade length or 80 feet, whichever is less. ☐(iv) The minimum Frontage Court depth is 25 feet. Ch e c k A l l i f S e l e c t e d ☐(v) The maximum Frontage Court depth is 50 feet or a ratio not to exceed 2:1 depth to width. Not Applicable, ground floor residential unit entries not required 18.24.080 Open Space Check Standard Sheet #Applicant’s Justification (b)(1) Private Open Space ☐(A) Floor area includes clear space with a minimum dimension of a circle with a six- foot diameter. Not Applicable, no private open space proposed in accordance with waiver ☐(B) Minimum clear height dimension of 8’-6” feet. ☐(C) Directly accessible from a residential unit. Item 2 Attachment D: Objective Design Standards Comparison Checklist     Packet Pg. 47     City of Palo Alto Objective Design Standards: Checklist Page 19 4 1 9 9 ☐(D) Balconies are not located within the daylight plane. (b)(1)(E) Private Open Space - Ground Floor Patios ☐(i) RM-20 and RM-30 districts: Minimum 100 square feet of area, the least dimension of which is 8 feet for at least 75% of the area. ☐(ii) RM-40 districts: Minimum 80 square feet of area, the least dimension of which is 6 feet for at least 75% of the area ☐(iii) Street facing private open space on the ground floor shall meet the finished floor height for ground floor residential standards in section 18.24.040(b)(4) (b)(2) Common Open Space ☐(A)&(B) Minimum 200 square feet of area. Area shall include a space with a minimum dimension of a circle with a 10-foot diameter.A0.04 Overall common open space has an area of 5,463 sf; area can accommodate an 10’ circle ☐(C) A minimum of 60% of the area shall be open to the sky and free of permanent weather protection or encroachments. Trellises and similar open-air features allowed A1.10A 420 sf of the common open space is covered by a trellis, leaving 92.3% open to sky ☐ (D) Notwithstanding subsection (1), courtyards enclosed on four sides shall have a minimum dimension of 40 feet and have a minimum courtyard width to building height ratio of 1:1.25 Not Applicable, courtyard if not enclosed ☐(E) Common open space provides seating. L1.11- L.1-13 Variety of seating shown ☐(F) Common open space has a minimum 20% of landscaping.A0.04 Façade design also includes a box-like framing feature of a different material/color that acts as a datum line. ☐(G) Planting in above grade courtyards has minimum soil depth of 12 inches for ground cover, 20 inches for shrubs, and 36 inches for trees._Not Applicable 18.24.090 Materials Check Standard Sheet #Applicant’s Justification Item 2 Attachment D: Objective Design Standards Comparison Checklist     Packet Pg. 48     City of Palo Alto Objective Design Standards: Checklist Page 20 4 1 9 9 ☐ (b)(1) Primary, secondary, and accent materials are allowed or prohibited as in the Residential and Residential Mixed-use Material List, which may be updated from time to time by the Director of Planning with a recommendation by the ARB. See webpage for list - https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/News-Articles/Planning-and-Development- Services/Multifamily-Mixed-Use-Objective-Standards A3.14 Materials comply 18.24.100 Sustainability and Green Building Code Check Standard Sheet #Applicant’s Justification ☐ (b) See Chapter 16.14: California Green Building Standards additional requirements for green building and sustainable design. Notwithstanding Section 18.24.010(c), these regulations may not be modified through alternative compliance. A0.07 Project complies with GalGreen Tier 2 and is proposed to be all electric Item 2 Attachment D: Objective Design Standards Comparison Checklist     Packet Pg. 49     2 STREAMLINED HOUSING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW | Buena Vista Commons Updated: Apr 11, 20241. Introduction a. Project Description Buena Vista Commons is the apartment component of a larger redevelopment occurring at the Buena Vista Mobile Home Park (Park), Palo Alto’s only mobile home park, located at 3980 El Camino Real, in the Barron Park neighborhood. Buena Vista Commons is proposed as a 61-unit apartment building, which occupies 1.69 acres of the existing 4.5 acre property. The location has been used for housing since at least the 1950s, when Buena Vista first converted from a car camp along El Camino Real to a mobile home park with spaces and hook-ups for homes. It eventually became a critical part of natural affordable housing stock in Palo Alto. Buena Vista Mobile Home Park had its last substantial renovation in 1970. As a result, the infrastructure is outdated and insufficient, the Park is overcrowded, and many homes require replacement. Buena Vista Commons is a critical part of the redevelopment that is necessary to address overcrowding at the Park and to achieve other project goals that are shared between the City, County and Housing Authority: to make substantial physical improvements, ensure financial sustainability, and maintain over 100 affordable homes. Buena Vista Commons will be deed-restricted as 100% affordable housing. The apartment will serve existing renters who live at the Buena Vista Mobile Home Park, and it will increase affordable housing opportunities to more families in Palo Alto. Among the current resident population of the Park, a 2023 income recertification found that 90% of all current households are low-income (below 80% AMI and over half of households are very low-income (below 50% AMI). The average affordability level for each home at Buena Vista Commons is expected to be below 42% of AMI. The proposed project preserves affordable housing among the Park community and helps meet the larger community need for more affordable housing in Palo Alto. Aerial illustration of Buena Vista Commons- the proposed 3-story apartment building Item 2 Attachment E: Applicants Project Description     Packet Pg. 50     3 STREAMLINED HOUSING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW | Buena Vista Commons Updated: Apr 11, 2024 The location for Buena Vista Commons is an important one for more housing. It sits in the Barron Park neighborhood, which is an area that is rich in resources for families. It is less than a half-mile away from an elementary school, grocery store, public transit, and other restaurants, parks and cafes. In addition, housing costs throughout the Bay Area, including Palo Alto, have continued to skyrocket over time. Projects such as ours are critical to preserve and expand affordable housing opportunities in Palo Alto, helping maintain and increase socioeconomic and racial diversity. Immediately adjacent land uses to this site are another affordable housing property (Oak Manor Townhouses) to the west, commercial businesses to the east, and single family residential to the north. Through its design features, Buena Vista Commons will bring energy efficiency, community cohesion, and curb appeal. It will also use materials that are intended to maintain well over time. For energy efficiency, Buena Vista Commons will be all-electric, use natural flooring, use Energy Star appliances, have bicycle parking, and will be setup to accommodate electric vehicle charging. For the resident community, it will have a barbecue area, teen room, community room, and resident services offices. And compared to the built structures at Buena Vista Mobile Home Park today, the apartment will have playful angles, fresh colors, and new trees that will make it attractive to passers- by in the Palo Alto community. Barron Park neighborhood Adjacent building: Oak Manor Townhouses by Alta Housing Barron Park Elementary School Adjacent commercial building along El Camino Real Item 2 Attachment E: Applicants Project Description     Packet Pg. 51     4 STREAMLINED HOUSING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW | Buena Vista Commons Updated: Apr 11, 2024 b. Project Team c. About the Santa Clara County Housing Authority (SCCHA) • Santa Clara County Housing Authority (SCCHA): Is the project developer. SCCHA is a public agency whose mission is to provide and inspire affordable housing solutions to enable low-income people and families in Santa Clara County to achieve financial stability and self-reliance. • The John Stewart Company: The John Stewart Company has been Property Manager at Buena Vista Mobile Home Park since 2020 and will remain property manager for Buena Vista Commons. They are experienced with affordable housing compliance requirements, such as annual income recertifications. • Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP: Real estate and land use attorneys. • Van Meter Williams Pollack LLP: Architect. • Sandis Civil Engineers: Civil Engineer. • Associated Right of Way Services, Inc.: Relocation consultant. Santa Clara County Housing Authority is a public agency whose mission is to provide and inspire affordable housing solutions to enable low-income people and families in Santa Clara County to achieve financial stability and self- reliance. It is one of the original 39 Moving to Work agencies (out of 3,200 nationwide public housing authorities), which gives it a special designation to make strategic program and policy changes. The Housing Authority was established in 1967. One of its functions is as a developer and asset manager for affordable housing. It currently owns nearly 3,500 homes throughout Santa Clara County. It has an active development pipeline of over 1,200 homes, which is through large master-plan projects, smaller development sites, and deeply mission driven developments like Buena Vista. Currently, Bellarmino Place, Alvarado Park, and the Pavilion Inn are under construction and will provide 257 affordable homes for seniors, families , and transitional aged youth in San Jose when they are completed in 2024 and 2025. Our projects have utilized various different funding sources, including private and public sources such as Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) and conventional loans. In addition to housing development and ownership, the Housing Authority administers federal rental assistance to over 19,000 households through the Housing Choice voucher program. Item 2 Attachment E: Applicants Project Description     Packet Pg. 52     5 STREAMLINED HOUSING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW | Buena Vista Commons Updated: Apr 11, 2024 To date, we have conducted a robust community and resident engagement process, going as far back as July 2017. Community and resident engagement has been organized into three distinct phases. Phase 1 was Listening and Learning with Buena Vista residents, which took place from July 2017 through October 2022. During this phase there were town hall meetings, design exercises and surveys. The goal at that stage was to understand resident questions and needs, gather stakeholder preferences and information. Questions during this phase were things such as: “What do you love about Buena Vista today?” and “What are your hopes for the future?” The responses to those questions helped inform the initial concepts and ideas before design began in earnest. Phase 2 was Formal Community Design Engagement, which took place from October 2022 to December 2023. This is the main component of community and resident engagement that informed design. The Community Engagement Report included in the Supplemental Documents section of this Project Description further outlines this period of the engagement process. The activities that took places were town hall style meetings, small group meetings, bus tours, various written communication and other activities. Residents were informed about what changes their feedback resulted in. Phase 3 is Post-Entitlements and Construction Outreach. This phase has not yet begun, but it is part of ongoing engagement where we will continue to provide information on the development process to impacted households, inform leaders and elected officials about the development timeline, and be available for community stakeholder input. 2. Community Engagement Photos from various townhalls Item 2 Attachment E: Applicants Project Description     Packet Pg. 53     6 STREAMLINED HOUSING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW | Buena Vista Commons Updated: Apr 11, 2024 The project site, 3980 El Camino Real is currently the Buena Vista Mobile Home Park. The overall site has a gross area of 4.5 Acres and is situated alongside the commercial corridor of El Camino Real. Today is contains a variety of housing types- including RVs, park model RVs, mobile homes, cottages, and a single-family home. The site also includes an amenity building comprising laundry and shower rooms, as well as a small office area. The site is located in the Barron Park neighborhood of Palo Alto, and has one street frontage along Los Robles Ave. It can also be accessed from El Camino real via an access easement on the adjacent property. Immediately north- east of the site is a multi-tenant commercial building and a Valero gas station. On the south-west side, the site is adjacent to another affordable housing property (Oak Manor Townhouses). The site abuts lower density housing developments on the north-east and across Los Robles. The site is not located in a special flood hazard area as determined by FEMA. It is located in a liquefaction zone, but not in a delineated earthquake fault zone as identified by the California Geologic Surveys regulatory Zone map of Earthquake Zones. To create the new apartment building Buena Vista Commons, the existing site will require a parcel split. The resultant 1.69 Ac parcel to the south-west is proposed as the site for the apartment building. The remainder is envisioned to continue being mobile home park- with upgraded units and new utilities. The site is currently owned by the Santa Clara County Housing Authority (SCCHA), through the subsidiary entity of Poco Way HDC. SCCHA acquired the Park in 2017, with financial contributions made by the City of Palo Alto and County of Santa Clara. 3. Project Details a. Site PROJECT DESCRIPTION Buena Vista Village is a mobile home park in Palo Alto located at 3980 El Camino Real. The lot (APN 137-11-103) is currently zoned RM-20. The property now contains a variety of housing types, including RVs, park model RVs, mobile homes, cottages, and a single-family home. This redevelopment includes replacing all units, replacing all utilities, and converting to 100% electric. The park will be redeveloped as a hybrid model that includes both coaches and a multi-family apartment building. The park will split into two parcels, with approximately two-thirds of the park remaining a mobile home park and receiving all new utilities and coaches. One-third will be redeveloped into a multi-family apartment. Rehabilitation of the existing park including approximately all new units, new office and laundry facilities, all new utilities, and new site amenities and landscaping. The 44 new occupant-owned units include 1, 2, 3 & 4BR units consisting of Park Model RVs and Manufactured Housing (mobile homes). The new 3-story apartment building consists of 61 family units- with unit sizes ranging from Junior 1BR, 1BR, 2BR and 3BR units. The project also includes a standalone building for a community room with a shared courtyard and patio spaces. Amenities in the main building include a, teen room & homework club, bike room, laundry room and storage areas. Management offices and resident services are located off a main entry and lobby. The project includes a new streetscape with new parallel parking, trees, stormwater treatment areas, sidewalk, and bike lane. A new shared driveway entrance from Los Robles will create a new main street with access for residents and visitors to both the park and the apartments. Project: Client: JOB #: SCALE: | DATE: 1/4" = 1'-0" BUENA VISTA COMMONS 3980 EL CAMINO REAL,PALO ALTO, CA 94306 SANTA CLARA COUNTYHOUSING AUTHORITY 505 W. JULIAN STREET,SAN JOSÉ, CA 95110 PROJECTDESCRIPTION SANDIS1700 S. WINCHESTER BLVD., SUITE 200CAMPBELL, CA 95008PLURAL STUDIO2742 17TH STREETSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94110MILLENNIUM DESIGN ANDCONSULTING, INC. PO BOX 737ALAMO, CA 94507 EMERALD CITY ENGINEERS,INC. 2222.1 A0.00 12/05/202350% DD CIVIL ENGINEERLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTJOINT TRENCH MEP ENGINEER PA PLANNING-ENTITLEMENTS PRE-APP 21705 HIGHWAY 99LYNNWOOD, WA 98036 ELEMENT STRUCTURALENGINEERS, INC. STRUCTURAL ENGINEER 39675 CEDAR BLVD #295CNEWARK, CA 94560 PROJECT IMAGE VICINITY MAP EL CAMINO REAL 0'300'1200'600' ALMA ST LOS ROBLES W MEADOW DR APPROVAL STAMPS RECEIVED, REVIEWED & REVISION STAMPS OVERALL SITE APARTMENT SITE ID DATE NAME PVicinity Map showing the overall site and proposed parcel split Item 2 Attachment E: Applicants Project Description     Packet Pg. 54     7 STREAMLINED HOUSING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW | Buena Vista Commons Updated: Apr 11, 2024 In early 2019, SCCHA began working with Van Meter Williams Pollack LLP (VMWP) on the redesign and renovation of the Buena Vista Mobile Home Park. Through a series of evolving design challenges and iterations, the design program for the redevelopment ultimately landed on a hybrid model- including a new apartment building and a mobile home park as well as infrastructure upgrades and new amenities. b. Design Buena Vista Commons is the new apartment building piece of the redevelopment. It is currently envisioned as a 3-story building with a single street frontage along Los Robles Ave. It comprises 61 units ranging from Junior 1-BRs to 1-, 2- and 3-BR units. The apartment site also includes an internal street known as Main Street, that provides access to the mobile home park from Los Robles Ave. This will be shared between the two sites via a future access easement. The building is configured as a C-shaped building with a courtyard in the middle. The 2 wings and the courtyard help it connect to the adjacent mobile home park and create a welcoming space with amenities that will be shared by residents of both developments. The courtyard also connects across the internal Main street to proposed recreation areas in the mobile home park. This configuration is a result of multiple design iterations and incorporating resident and stakeholder feedback- the massing was flipped around to open up to the mobile home park. The building maintains a generous 60-70’ setback from the existing property lines to the side and rear. The adjacent properties to the rear are lower density residential, and the setback is buffered with surface parking and a planting area. The ground floor includes a lobby and 2 office suites- one for onsite Property Management and another for Resident Services. The Lobby and Property Management offices are located at the entry corner at Main Street and Los Robles. This helps to address resident concerns over safety and access to the site. The ground floor also includes a spacious Teen Room that will house the Homework Club. Homework Club is an important part of the Buena Vista community and supports the kids who currently live here. There is also a Community Room located off the central courtyard. Both the Community Room and Teen Room are intended to be shared by residents of the apartment building as well as the residents of the upgraded mobile home park. Other resident amenities in the apartment building include a laundry room, bike room and a storage room. Concept view of Buena Vista Commons Item 2 Attachment E: Applicants Project Description     Packet Pg. 55     8 STREAMLINED HOUSING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW | Buena Vista Commons Updated: Apr 11, 2024 Sustainability is integral to the design of Buena Vista Commons. Green building principles are a key to environmental responsibility and also help us create comfortable, high quality living spaces for future residents- many of whom will be relocating from the current mobile home park. Sustainable design will help to keep the building’s operating costs low, while also helping to keep monthly utility bills manageable for the residents. Buena Vista Commons will be designed to meet the City of Palo Alto’s Green building ordinance. For new multifamily construction, this entails CALGreen Mandatory Plus Tier 2 with local amendments. The project is also currently aiming to meet LEED for Homes- which promotes the design and construction of high-performance green homes. A combination of these two rating systems will ensure a comprehensive approach to green design that translates across design disciplines. Planned features at this time include: rooftop solar panels, EV charging, low-flow water fixtures, Energy Star appliances and biotreatment areas spread across the site. c. Sustainability The apartment building site will also include 79 surface parking spaces at the side and rear. Approx. 61% of these spaces are planned to have EV charging equipment installed at the outset, with the remaining spaces planned to be EV-ready. Rooftop solar panels are also being planned for the building. The overall redevelopment plan has a thoughtful landscape design that incorporates resident feedback received over time. It aims to create communal spaces and respite areas across the site. The apartment site includes a courtyard with an outdoor BBQ area and shaded seating. In response to stakeholder feedback about the lack of trees at Buena Vista currently, plenty of planting areas with trees and planned biotreatment are shown throughout the site. In addition to incorporating feedback from residents and stakeholders, the project has been designed to respond to the City of Palo Alto’s Objective Design Standards. This entitlements package also includes the streetscape design for the complete site along Los Robles Ave. The current design shows a new sidewalk, new street parking, and planting bulb-outs, all while retaining existing underground and overhead utilities along Los Robles. New utilities serving the apartment building and the mobile home park are planned to be located along Los Robles. Item 2 Attachment E: Applicants Project Description     Packet Pg. 56     9 STREAMLINED HOUSING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW | Buena Vista Commons Updated: Apr 11, 2024 Buena Vista Commons will provide 61 rental apartments comprised of a mix of studio/junior one-bedroom (with an embedded bedroom), one-bedroom, two-bedroom, and three-bedroom apartments. The apartments will have affordability restrictions at or below lower income levels, defined as 80% of the area median income. In practice, it is our intention and plan to provide the affordable units at lower income levels as determined by multiple regulatory agreements that will be held on the property including those held with the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (CTCAC) and the tri-party regulatory agreement that is held between the City of Palo Alto, County of Santa Clara, and Santa Clara County Housing Authority. A development goal of Buena Vista is to maintain it as an affordable housing asset for the long-term, while preventing the displacement of all existing households. To that aim, any households currently residing at the Buena Vista site who are moderate or high-income will be allowed to remain, however, those units will be made available to lower income households at affordable rents after the returning households voluntarily vacate their units. This provision is codified in the tri- party regulatory agreement. The tables below show the current income limits of eligible households, based on household size, as determined by the CTCAC. The 80% of AMI incomes affording to California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) are included for reference, as these figures are what the City of Palo Alto uses to define “low income.” The project’s monthly rents are determined by the CTCAC to ensure that rents are affordable to the lower-income residents earning between 30% to 80% of AMI. The following table shows the range of net rents (after utilities) currently projected to be charged to residents during the first year of operations based on CTCAC’s currently published rents. We note that if the project were to receive project-based rental assistance, the rents paid by residents could be even lower, as they would only need to pay 30% of their income towards rent. d. Affordability PROPOSED MONTHLY RENTS Unit Type Monthly Rent Junior 1-Bedroom Apartment $829-2,677 1-Bedroom Apartment $882-2,677 2-Bedroom Apartment $595-3,212 3-Bedroom Apartment $1,203-3,711 Item 2 Attachment E: Applicants Project Description     Packet Pg. 57     10 STREAMLINED HOUSING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW | Buena Vista Commons Updated: Apr 11, 2024 The following table summarizes the income and rent restrictions that will apply to this project to receive the state density bonus. *Existing tenants at the property will be allowed to return to the apartment regardless of whether they income qualify at move-in. Those units are considered as restricted low-income units because the tri-party regulatory agreement requires that future units will be made available to lower income households at affordable rents after any initial moderate or high-income households voluntarily vacate their units. After any initial moderate or high- income households vacate their units, those units will continue be restricted as low-income units with affordable rents for at least an additional 55 years or greater. Unit Type Number of Units Unit Square Footage (approx.)Maximum Affordability Restriction* Junior 1-BR 2 490 SF 80% of AMI 1-BR Apartment 27 470-490 SF 80% of AMI 2-BR Apartment 16 700-780 SF 80% of AMI 3-BR Apartment 15 920-990 SF 80% of AMI Total Restricted Units 60 Total Non-Restricted Units (Manager)1 (2-BR Unit) TOTAL PROJECT UNITS 61 Item 2 Attachment E: Applicants Project Description     Packet Pg. 58     11 STREAMLINED HOUSING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW | Buena Vista Commons Updated: Apr 11, 2024 The 2030 Comprehensive Plan land-use designation for the site is “Multi-Family Residential”, and the site is currently zoned “RM-20”. As per PAMC 18.13.010: RM-20 is a low-density multiple-family residence district is intended to create, preserve and enhance areas for a mixture of single-family and multiple-family housing which is compatible with lower density and residential districts nearby, including single-family residence districts. The RM-20 residence district also serves as a transition to moderate density multiple-family districts or districts with nonresidential uses. Permitted densities in the RM-20 residence district range from eight to twenty dwelling units per acre. 4. Zoning and Development Standards a. Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code ZONING INFORMATION COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Multi-Family Residential Allowed Uses Commercial and Retail uses that serve the immediate neighborhood, Mixed- use (housing+retail) CURRENT ZONING Zoning District: RM-20 Allowed Uses Multi-family housing compatible with lower density and residential districts nearby, including single-family residence districts [transition district]. Height Limit 30’ Max Density 20 du/ac Setbacks Front yard: 20’ Interior Side yard: 10’ Interior Rear yard: 10’ Street Side and Rear yards: 16’ Site open space 35% min. Usable open space 150 sq ft per unit min. Common open space 75 sq ft per unit min. Private open space 50 sq ft per unit min. Max FAR 0.5 Parking (Multi-family residential) 1 per micro/studio unit, 1 per 1-bedroom unit, 2 per 2-bedroom or larger unit (at least one covered). Tandem parking allowed for any unit requiring two spaces, up to a maximum of 25% of total required spaces. 1 bike parking space per unit (100% long-term) Item 2 Attachment E: Applicants Project Description     Packet Pg. 59     12 STREAMLINED HOUSING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW | Buena Vista Commons Updated: Apr 11, 2024 The project uses The Housing Crisis Act (SB 330) and the California State Density Bonus Law (AB 1763). The eligibility for both laws is as described: The project meets eligibility criteria under SB 330 because it complies with the following provisions: 1. The project will replace all existing or demolished protected units. 2. The project will include at least as many residential dwelling units as the greatest number of residential dwelling units that existing on the project site within the last five years. 3. Existing residents are allowed to occupy their units until six months before the start of construction. 4. The developer agrees to provide the affordable rental unit occupants relocation benefits and a right of first refusal for units available in the new development at an affordable rent for the household. The project meets eligibility criteria under AB 1763 because it complies with the following provisions: 1. One hundred percent of the total units are for lower income households except that 20 percent of the total units may be for moderate-income households. 2. The applicant agrees and ensures the continued affordability of all very low and low-income rental units that qualified the applicant for the award of the density bonus for 55 years. 3. For a one hundred percent affordable project, rent for 20 percent of the units shall be set at affordable rent using definitions in the Health and Safety Code, and rent for the remaining units may be regulated using rents and incomes as determined by CTCAC regulations. Currently, there is a tri-party regulatory agreement held by the City, County, and Housing Authority. It restricts all units under an affordability covenant for 75 years from 2017. It is expected that this regulatory agreement will be amended and recast by the time of construction start, starting a new 75 year term to ensure the long-term affordability for 100% of units. b. Eligibility for Streamlining c. Regulatory Agreement Item 2 Attachment E: Applicants Project Description     Packet Pg. 60     Attachment F Project Plans In order to reduce paper consumption, a limited number of hard copy project plans are provided to Board members for their review. The same plans are available to the public, at all hours of the day, via the following online resources. Directions to review Project plans online 1. Go to: bit.ly/PApendingprojects 2. Scroll down to find “3980 El Camino Real” and click the address link 3. On this project specific webpage you will find a link to the project plans and other important information Direct Link to Project Webpage 3980 El Camino Real – City of Palo Alto, CA Item 2 Attachment F: Project Plans     Packet Pg. 61     Item No. 3. Page 1 of 11 Architectural Review Board Staff Report From: Special Projects Advisor Lead Department: City Manager’s Office Meeting Date: May 2, 2024 Report #: 2404-2891 TITLE Study Session to provide feedback on the Pre-Approved Parklet Designs and the Associated Draft User Guide. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Board (ARB): 1. Review and provide feedback on the Pre-Approved Parklet Designs and the Associated Draft User Guide. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Staff introduced the pre-approved parklet design project scope, outreach strategy, and timeline to the ARB in a study session on February 15, 20241. Board members provided feedback on the approach and design standards and established an ad-hoc committee, consisting of Chair Baltay and Vice-chair Rosenberg. This staff report summarizes the comments received, modifications made to the approach and designs based on those comments, and presents refined proposed pre-approved parklets designs as well as the associated draft User Guide. Proposed changes to the adopted ongoing parklet standards (Attachment A) reflect feedback from the ARB and are attached for reference. They will be brought forward for Council consideration. Staff requests that the ARB provide feedback on the pre-approved parklet designs and associated draft user guide (Attachment B). Council is scheduled to consider this project on June 3, 2024. 1 Staff report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/architectural- review-board/2024/arb-2.15-parklets.pdf Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 62     Item No. 3. Page 2 of 11 BACKGROUND In 2020, Palo Alto joined cities throughout the Bay Area in expanding opportunities for outdoor dining in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, including a pilot parklet program. Ordinance 5500 was an emergency ordinance that temporarily permitted businesses, such as restaurants, retail, and personal services to operate outdoors on both public and private property. In 2021,2 Council directed staff to develop an ongoing parklet program with the input of the Architectural Review Board (ARB). Staff worked with the ARB, and City Council received updates and provided feedback on the Parklet Program in May 20223, October 20224, and March 20235. In these hearings and study sessions staff worked with the ARB to develop an ongoing parklet program and resolve numerous complexities including fire safety fire safety/use of propane heaters, parklet size, traffic protection, parklet encroachment over neighboring storefronts, parklet fees, and cleaning responsibilities. With ARB’s feedback incorporated, Council approved the Ongoing (formerly Permanent) Parklet Program on September 11, 20236 and directed staff to work with the Architectural Review Board to develop parklet designs, based on the newly adopted parklet design standards., citing the Beverley Hills Parklet Guide as an example for parklet prototypes. On March 11, 20247, Council extended the Interim Parklet Program to July 31, 2024, and phased in enforcement for the Ongoing Parklet Program through November 1, 2024. Existing interim parking lot eating/drinking uses were extended through December 31, 2024. The extended timeline aligns with the Emerson Street re-paving project and allows many parklets to remain open for outdoor dining during the summer months. A full history of the temporary and ongoing parklet program is available in Attachment C. Ongoing Parklet Program Standards and Pre-approved Parklet Designs On February 15, 2024, staff introduced the pre-approved design parklet project to the ARB and received feedback on: 1) Ongoing parklet program design standards: Board members recommended several changes and clarifications to the ongoing parklet design standards including: 2 Staff report: https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Public/CompiledDocument?meetingTemplateId=3457&compileOutputType=1 3 Staff report: https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Public/CompiledDocument?meetingTemplateId=3643&compileOutputType=1 4 Staff report: https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Public/CompiledDocument?meetingTemplateId=9096&compileOutputType=1 5 Staff report: https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Public/CompiledDocument?meetingTemplateId=1093&compileOutputType=1 6 Staff report: https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Public/CompiledDocument?meetingTemplateId=13022&compileOutputType=1 7 Staff report: https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Public/CompiledDocument?meetingTemplateId=13515&compileOutputType =1 Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 63     Item No. 3. Page 3 of 11 •Reduce the gap between parklets for parklets in angled parking spaces to align with their existing setback requirement from the edge of the parking space. •Clarify the 3-foot emergency access every 20 feet requirement. •Reduce the 3-foot setback from the travel lane for angled-parking spaces to 2- feet (which is the setback standard for parallel parking space parklets). •Reduce the 42” enclosure height requirement to allow for sightlines across the public right-of-way. •Remove the minimum roof height requirement and change the maximum roof height to 11’ from 12’. •Require minimum 7’- 6” head clearance under any roof, in accordance with code requirements. •Remove the requirement for gutters and leaders. •Allow planters in parklet designs. •Remove regulations on furnishings. 2) Pre-approved parklet design standards: The ARB recommended that the pre-approved parklet designs allow for a high level of design flexibility and customization, and that design requirements focus on safety as opposed to aesthetics. The ARB also recommended that the pre-approved parklet platform frame be designed for pressure- treated wood construction as well as light-gauge steel. Staff have incorporated the feedback from Board members for the ongoing parklet standards into the proposed pre-approved parklet designs. Ad Hoc Committee On March 19, 2024, an ad-hoc committee consisting of Chair Baltay and Vice-chair Rosenberg provided additional feedback on the pre-approved parklet designs including the following: •Provide 2-3 options for post-beam connections including angled brackets, and bolted brackets. •Provide 2 roof design options: flat roof and shed roof. •Allow 12-inch roof overhang on the sidewalk side and 6-inch roof overhang on all other sides. •Prohibit the following roof materials: corrugated acrylic, and heavy materials such as clay or stone tile. Following the ARB discussion, staff will make final modifications to the pre-approved parklet designs and User-Guide based on any recommendations from the ARB. Staff is scheduled to return to Council in June to request approval of the proposed changes to the ongoing standards, the pre-approved designs and user-guide. The standards would become effective on July 1, 2024. Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 64     Item No. 3. Page 4 of 11 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The purpose of this project is to provide Palo Alto businesses with a pre-approved parklet option that meets the adopted permanent parklet standards, allows for design customization, and has a streamlined approval process through the City’s Public Works Department. Pre- approved parklets would not be mandatory; businesses can continue to develop custom parklets with a discretionary review process. The project includes the pre-approved parklet plan sets and shop drawings as well as a user-guide on designing a parklet. The draft pre-approved parklets include two key elements: 1)A basic structural parklet frame. The pre-approved design will provide prescriptive details and specification for connections and structural standards to meet parklet standards. The structural frame design can be scaled up to any sized parklet. 2)Pre-approved design standards and materials for parklet finishes including: •Roof coverings •Flooring •Rails •Sidewalls •Planters This approach allows businesses to customize the finishes of their parklet as long as they meet the pre-approved specifications. The User-Guide will guide businesses through the design and application process for a pre-approved parklet. The key success factors for the program are: •The majority of restaurants choose to use the pre-approved designs because of ease of use and cost. •The permit process is streamlined. •Parklets are inviting spaces and activate the public realm. ANALYSIS Based on board member feedback at the February 15, 2024, study session, staff made several modifications to the pre-approved parklet designs and approach. Modifications to the parklet design standards will also be presented to Council for their consideration along with the proposed pre-approved parklet designs and user guide. Where staff is recommending modifications to the parklet standards based on Board member feedback, the proposed revisions are reflected in the draft pre-approved parklet designs. Proposed Revisions to the Ongoing Parklet Program Standards Attachment A includes the redlined ongoing parklet program standards with proposed revisions for reference; these will be brought forward for Council’s consideration in June. Table 1 summarizes the key changes. Table 1: Summary of Ongoing Parklet Program Standard Changes Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 65     Item No. 3. Page 5 of 11 Topic Current Adopted Standard ARB/ad-hoc Recommendation Staff recommendation Proposed revisions to Adopted Standards Gap between Parklets (pg. 3 Attachment A) 8ft gap required between all parklets (4ft for each parklet) Consider reducing the gap requirement. Recommend reevaluating the required gap for angled spaces given their different setback standards Implement ARB recommendation. Angled parklets require 3ft setback from adjacent parking space. Parklets will not require adjustment when added/ removed next to each other. - 8ft gap between parallel pkg space parklets (4ft each) - 6ft gap between angled pkg space parklets (3ft each) 3ft Emergency Access every 20 ft (pg. 14) Fire may require parklets to implement a 3ft gap in their parklet every 20 ft for fire access. Clarify the 3-foot emergency access every 20 feet requirement. Consider removing as it is duplicative of gap between parklet requirement above. Implement ARB recommendation. Fire confirmed the gap between parklets will be sufficient. To reduce confusion, Fire confirmed this can be removed. Standard removed. Roof height (pg. 11) Min. 8’ max 12’Remove the minimum roof height requirement and require minimum 7’6” head clearance under any roof, in accordance with code requirements. Reduce the maximum roof height from 12’ to 11’. Implement ARB recommendation. Min. head clearance: 7’6”, max height 11’ Gutters/ leaders (pg. 11) Gutters/leaders required Remove requirement for gutters and leaders. Implement ARB recommendation. Standard removed. Furnishing standards (pg. 17) Furnishings must be high-quality, durable, outdoor- rated, and non- reflective. Street furniture incl. tables, chairs, benches, etc. shall be all-weather and of a high-quality material. Remove furniture aesthetic standards. Implement ARB recommendation. Standards removed. Planters (pg. 14-15) Not permitted Planters shall be permitted and incorporated into the design of parklets. Implement ARB recommendation. Following additional analysis (see Attachment D) staff recommend that decorative planters Planters may be incorporated into parklet designs. Planters shall be made of either wood, steel, cold Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 66     Item No. 3. Page 6 of 11 made of only wood, steel, plastic, or fiberglass may be permitted on parklets. Planters made of brittle materials that are at risk of shattering on impact, such as clay, porcelain, and concrete would remain prohibited. form steel, plastic, or fiberglass. Roof overhang (pg. 11) No overhang permitted Allow 12” overhang along the sidewalk side and 6” overhang on all other sides. Implement modified ARB recommendation. Staff recommend allowing overhangs on the sidewalk and travel lane side of the parklets. However, do not recommend an overhang on the sides of parklets due to fire access. See discussion below. Allow 6” overhang along sidewalk side and travel lane side. No overhang permitted on parklet sides. Setback from rear-edge of angled parking space (pg. 6) 3-feet Consider reducing to 2-feet, consistent with parallel parking space setback. Staff do not recommend changes to this standard due to traffic safety and sightlines for turning vehicles from driveways and alleyways. See discussion below. No change; maintain 3-feet. Enclosure Height (pg. 13) 42-inches enclosure Lower height to align with handrail requirement of 34- 38” to allow for sightlines across the public right-of-way Staff do not recommend changes to this standard due to safety concerns; enclosure could be constructed to allow a visual connection. No change; maintain 42-inches enclosure height Roof Overhang Based on feedback from board members and the ad hoc committee staff recommends modifications to the design standards to allow the roof to overhang 12” over the sidewalk and 6” on all other sides. Staff recommend allowing a parklet roof to extend 6” over the sidewalk and 6” over the travel lane within the 2-foot buffer. Any roof extension beyond 6” over the sidewalk may interfere with business signage and would require case-by-case review. Staff also recommend that the roof not extend over the sides of the parklet into the setback from the adjacent parking space (or the setback between parklets). Any overhang at the sides Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 67     Item No. 3. Page 7 of 11 of a parklet interferes with emergency fire access. For example, a 6” overhang would reduce the 6-foot gap between angled parklets to 5-feet. Setback from Rear-Edge of an Angled Parking Space Board members and the ARB ad hoc committee suggested reducing the required 3-foot setback from the rear-edge of an angled parking space (see Figure 1 below) to 2-feet, which is consistent with the setback requirement for parklets in parallel parking spaces. Staff recommends maintaining the 3-foot setback to preserve the vehicle sight distance from adjacent driveways and alleys. Parklets in angled spaces are much deeper than parklets in parallel spaces and they extend further into the travel lane. Figure 1: Setback from Rear-edge of angled parking space Enclosure Height The ARB and ad-hoc committee suggested reducing the 42-inch enclosure height to allow for sightlines across the public realm. The ad-hoc committee suggested aligning the enclosure height with the California Building Code (CBC) handrail height requirement of 34-38-inch and require the enclosure withstand 200 pounds of lateral force of either 50 lbs per linear foot or a concentrated load of 200 lbs applied at the top of the rail, whichever is more restrictive. Staff is not recommending reducing the 42-inch enclosure height requirement, but the enclosure could be constructed to allow visual access as long as it is able the withstand the load requirements as noted above. Draft Pre-Approved Parklet and Design standards In addition to changes to the overall ongoing parklet program design standards, staff have continued to develop and refine the pre-approved parklet designs to be consistent with the proposed revisions to the design standards based on Board member and the ad-hoc committee’s feedback. Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 68     Item No. 3. Page 8 of 11 Staff request the ARB review the pre-approved parklet components including: 1. The structural frame 2. The pre-approved design standards and materials for the parklet roof coverings, rails, sidewalls, flooring, and planters. 1. Structural Frame The structure will include three components: the platform frame, vertical frame, and roof frame. The structural frame can be scaled up to the desired size and will allow for the following parklet configurations: •Parklet with no roof •Parklet with a roof (flat roof or shed roof): o Solid roof o Lattice roof o Fabric roof Platform frame Staff recommend the platform frame is constructed using light-gauge steel only. The ARB and ad-hoc committee recommended that the platform frame includes both light gauge steel and pressure treated wood material options. The ARB referenced typical wood decks and porches as an example of outdoor wooden structures. The ARB also expressed concern about light-gauge steel rusting overtime from weather exposure. Staff revisited the material options for the platform but continued to encounter engineering challenges with a wooden platform. The source of the issue is the height of the curb. If the curb is less than 6” tall, a wood frame base needs to be constructed of materials such as 4x4s or 4x6s and they must be spaced close together to be ripped down to the street slope. A typical wood deck is usually built with 2x8 or 2x10 framing sitting on concrete dados or footings, however, the public right-of-way does not provide the height for this kind of assembly, and installing footings in the public right-of-way is not feasible. The City’s standard curb is 6” high and the minimum street slope is 2%. However, actual curb heights range from 4” to 7”, and actual street slopes range considerably and accurate measurements require special tools like electronic levels. Given the variable site conditions, wood platforms would not be a reliable and consistent platform option for all businesses. Requiring businesses to determine their curb height and street slope for the entire parklet area as a pre-requisite to their parklet application adds an additional hurdle that may over-complicate or deter businesses from utilizing the pre-approved designs. Additionally, the City’s Chief Building official noted that pressure treated wood will rot if the cut ends are not property treated and maintained and noted that proper connectors and fasteners Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 69     Item No. 3. Page 9 of 11 would need to be selected that are compatible with the specified pressure treated material. Otherwise, the fasteners a hardware will corrode and create a failure point. As a result, staff recommend utilizing hot-dipped galvanized light-gauge steel framing for the platform construction. This material is also readily available, can be assembled on-site, it should not rust, and will be able to meet the parklet’s structural requirements within the public right- of-way site conditions and spacing. The city’s Chief building officially noted that cut ends would rust if not primed. Priming of cut ends could be specified in the shop drawings to address this. Vertical frame In accordance with the ad-hoc committee’s suggestions, staff recommend the vertical frame (railing and roof posts) is constructed using light-gauge steel or pressure-treated wood. Roof frame In accordance with the ad-hoc committee’s suggestions, staff recommend the following roof frame design: •Material: light-gauge steel or pressure treated wood •Shape: Shed or flat roof •Design: o 6-inch overhang at the sidewalk; 6-inch overhang along the travel lane; no overhang on the parklet sides. o Solid roof, lattice roof, or open framing with fabric shades. 2. Pre-approved design standards and materials Table 2 outlines the recommended standards for each parklet component and reflects feedback from board members Table 2: Recommended Pre-Approved Parklet Design Standards Parklet Component Pre-approved standard Materials Notes from ad-hoc committee Roof Coverings n/a Allowed materials: •Pressure-treated wood •Exterior grade wood •Steel •Fabric (flame retardant) •Corrugated metal •Plywood (with treatment) •Asphalt tiles •Wood shingles Prohibited materials: •Clay •Porcelain tile •Acrylic corrugated plastic •Vinyl •Soft plastic •Tarps The ad-hoc committee recommended against using heavy materials such as clay or stone tile due to their weight. Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 70     Item No. 3. Page 10 of 11 FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT Fees for the parklet program have been adopted by the City Council. There are no additional fiscal impacts related to this action. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT On April 24, 2024, staff will host a meeting with business owners to provide an update on the timeline, phased-in enforcement, and receive feedback on the draft pre-approved parklet designs. Given this report is published prior to the April 24th meeting, staff will present feedback from this meeting to the ARB in person on May 2nd. Project Timeline Late-March/early- April 2024 Stakeholder outreach / ARB review for Pre-approved parklet designs May 2, 2024 Architectural Review Board review of draft pre-approved parklet designs June 3, 2024 Council consideration of pre-approved parklet designs Enclosure rails/ Railing •Height TBD •Shall resist lateral force of either 50 lbs per lineal foot or a concentrated load of 200 lbs applied at the top of the rail whichever is more restrictive. •Any gaps shall be smaller than 4” sphere. Allowed materials but not limited to: •Pressure-treated wood •Exterior grade wood •Steel Prohibited materials: •Particle board •Vinyl •Soft plastic •Tarps Flooring •Finishing and slip resistance: BH min. 0.6 coefficient of friction. •Must be exterior rated. Prohibited materials: •Metal •Glass •Interior materials Sidewalls n/a Allowed materials for solid sidewall: •Plexiglass Allowed materials for open sidewalls: •Pressure-treated wood •Exterior grade wood Planters n/a Allowed materials: •Pressure-treated wood •Exterior grade wood •Steel, Cold form steel •Plastic •Fiberglass Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 71     Item No. 3. Page 11 of 11 July 1, 2024 1. Adopted Standards for ongoing parklets go into effect 2.Parklet Pre-applications due to City •Indicate intent to build/continue parklet •Indicate interest in pre-approved parklet design 3.Parklet License Fees due 4.Emerson Street parklets must be removed July/August 2024 Emerson Street repaving project August 1, 2024 Any parklet without a pre-application must be removed August 2024 Pre-approved parklet design and associated drawings available for use August 2024 Parklet Applications accepted; pre-approved parklet applications will have shorter review time September 2024 Parklet construction (with applicable permits) November 1, 2024 Parklets must be in compliance with new standards ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The installation of parklets over existing paved surfaces is exempt from environmental review pursuant to CEQA guidelines section 15303 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Proposed Revisions to the Ongoing Parklet Design Standards Attachment B: Draft User-Guide Attachment C: Overview of the History of the Parklet Program Attachment D: Supplemental Planter Analysis Report Author & Contact Information ARB8 Liaison & Contact Information Ashwini Kantak, Special Projects Advisor Claire Raybould, AICP, Principal Planner ashwini.kantak@cityofpaloalto.org (650) 329-2116 Claire.Raybould@cityofpaloalto.org 8 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 72     PALO ALTO ONGOINGPERMANENT PARKLETS PROGRAM (Proposed modifications to the adopted standard) I. INTRODUCTION The City of Palo Alto has developed an Permanent ongoing Parklet Program that will allow for parklet installations in eligible areas of Palo Alto. The program is designed with the intended purpose of supporting the vibrancy of the public realm and enhancing the civic experience of diners, pedestrians, motorists, and cyclists. The following standards outline the requirements for parklet installation including location, materials, and design. The City of Palo Alto will review all parklet permit applications and will only approve parklets that are able to meet the standards. Due to the unique circumstances of each proposed parklet location, some parklets may require additional review by key departments (as outlined). All parklets—including installations previously installed under the pilot parklet program—will require a new Permanent ongoing Parklet Permit from the City of Palo Alto. Application requirements are outlined in Section IV (A) Submittal Requirements. Parklets are permitted in conjunction with legally existing and permitted eating and drinking establishment uses as well as commercial uses including retail establishments. Any and all business activity must be contained within the parklet space and not encroach into the sidewalk, public right‐of‐ way, or roadway. II. GLOSSARY Due to the unique design and placement of parklets, there are several terms with distinct meanings that should be understood in order to implement the standards. 1. Enclosure—Barrier/railing that follows the parklet edge. 2. Platform Edge—The outermost edge of the parklet platform. 3. Parklet Footprint—The total area within the platform edge that can be utilized by a project applicant. 4. Platform—Base of the parklet that is at grade with the sidewalk. 5. Travel Lane—Portion of the street with active automobile traffic. 1 DRAFT Item 3 Attachment A: Proposed Revisions to the Ongoing Parklet Design Standards     Packet Pg. 73     FIGURE 1: Key Terms III.LOCATION AND SETBACK REQUIREMENTS A. Location The location of a parklet is dependent on the eligibility criteria, which varies based on the type of parking space a parklet will occupy (parallel parking spaces, angled spaces, and non‐standard spaces). 1. Eligibility a. Parklets are only permitted in the University Ave and California Ave downtown areas b. Parklets are only permitted on streets with speed limits of 25 mph or less. c. Parklets are only permitted on streets with a running slope (grade) of 5 percent or less. d. Parklets cannot be installed in any portion of a travel lane at any time. e. When located near an intersection, parklets must be located at least 20 feet from the rear most boundary of a crosswalk at the nearest intersection of the street corner. If there is an existing planter in the curb lane within 20 feet of the crosswalks, this distance may be reduced. f. Parklets are not permitted in any existing restricted area (i.e., loading zone, no parking zone, bus zone, etc.). g. Parklets must be located directly in front of the parklet operator’s storefront. i. Parklets may extend beyond the applicant’s store front but may not extend any structures above the parklet barrier (e.g., sidewalls, roofs, trellises) beyond the parklet operator’s storefront without a letter of consent (see section VI. 12). h. If a parklet extends in front of neighboring storefront(s) or proposes to extend in front of neighboring storefront(s), written notice will be sent to the affected neighbor(s) at the time of permit application and annual renewal. The business adjacent to the affected neighbor(s) will also receive notices. 2 DRAFT Item 3 Attachment A: Proposed Revisions to the Ongoing Parklet Design Standards     Packet Pg. 74     i. If the affected neighbor(s) or adjacent business wish to claim the same parking space(s) for their own parklet, they must notify the City in writing within 30 days of the notice. 1. If a competing claim for the space from the adjacent business is confirmed, the affected neighbor has first priority over the space. However, a parklet permit application must be submitted by the affected neighbor within 60 days of the first notice to claim the space. 1. If a competing claim for the space from the adjacent business is confirmed, and the affected business does not claim the space, the adjacent business and original parklet permittee shall split the space. a. The Space shall be split from the centerline. b. For parallel parking spaces, and each parklet shall maintain a minimum 4‐foot setback from the centerline, creating a minimum 8‐foot gap between parklets. a.c. For angled parking spaces, each parklet shall maintain a minimum 3‐foot setback from the centerline, creating a minimum 6‐ foot gap between parklets. 2. If applicable, a parklet owner must remove and/or alter their parklet (applying for applicable permits) within 90 days of receiving notice of a competing claim for the space(s). 2. Parklet Size and Quantity a. Parklets with roofs or trellises shall be a maximum of 350 square feet in size. b. Businesses are allowed up to two (2) parklets. 3. Parallel Parking a. Standard parallel parking space dimensions are as follows: i. Parallel parking space adjacent to a curb: 8‐feet wide and 20‐feet long ii. Parallel parking space adjacent to a wall: 10‐feet wide and 20‐feet long b. For parallel parking spaces, the parklet structure must be set back 48 inches (4 feet) from adjacent marked parking spaces. This 4‐foot setback must be kept clear at all times for emergency access. c. The platform edge shall be 2 feet back from the outer edge of the parking space it occupies. For all parallel parking spaces located on public streets within the City of Palo Alto, this shall be 2 feet from the exterior edge (closest to traffic) of marked parking T’s (where they exist). This is shown in Figure 2. d. In no case shall a parklet be placed within the 2‐foot area measured from the outer edge of the parking space. These 2 feet shall be kept clear at all times. The only objects which shall lawfully occupy this space are reflective delineator posts, or their equal. e. Parallel parking spaces adjacent to a curb typically measure 8 feet wide by 20 feet long. The dimensions of a parklet in one parking space could be 6 feet wide and 12 feet long. This is because of the 2‐foot setback from the outer edge of the parking space and the 4‐foot setbacks from the adjacent parking spaces. 3 DRAFT Item 3 Attachment A: Proposed Revisions to the Ongoing Parklet Design Standards     Packet Pg. 75     f. Parallel parking space measurements may vary across the City of Palo Alto. As a result of this variation, some parklets may measure less than 6 feet wide. If the existing parking stall width is less than 8 (eight) feet, the parklet shall be 2 feet less than the parking stall width. g. Parklets located in the downtown area that are between a bulb‐out tree planter do not require a 4‐foot setback from the adjacent parking spaces. 4 DRAFT Item 3 Attachment A: Proposed Revisions to the Ongoing Parklet Design Standards     Packet Pg. 76     FIGURE 2: Dimensions of a Parallel Parking Space Parklet Image not to scale 4. Angle Parking Spaces a. Standard angled parking space dimensions are as follows: i. 45‐degree angle parking space: 8.5‐feet wide and 21.2‐feet long ii. 60‐degree angle parking space: 8.5‐feet wide and 19.7‐feet long iii. 75‐degree angle parking space: 8.5‐feet wide and 20.2‐feet long iv. 90‐degree angle parking space: 8.5‐feet wide and 17.5‐feet long b. A parklet in an angle parking space shall consist of up to 4 contiguous angles parking spaces. c. A parklet platform shall be 3 feet back from the rear edge of the existing angled parking space. For angled parking spaces located on public streets within the City of Palo Alto, this shall be 3 feet from the exterior edge (closest to traffic) of the marked parking stall. This is shown in Figure 3. d. In no case shall a parklet be placed within the 3‐foot area measured from the rear edge of the parking space. These 3 feet shall be kept clear at all times for emergency access. e. The only objects which shall lawfully occupy this space are reflective delineator posts, or their equal. f. For angled parking spaces, the edge of the parklet must be set back 3 feet from the adjacent parking space on either space. i. Angled parking space measurements may vary across the City of Palo Alto. As a result of this variation, some parklets may measure less than the standard 8.5‐feet wide. If the existing parking stall width is less than 8.5‐feet, the parklet shall be setback 3 feet from the parking stall striping. ii. For non‐standard angled parking spaces, the edge of the parklet structure must be set back 3 feet from the adjacent parking space on either side. (This 5 DRAFT Item 3 Attachment A: Proposed Revisions to the Ongoing Parklet Design Standards     Packet Pg. 77     applies to all angle parking spaces along University Avenue as nearly all are substandard). FIGURE 3: Dimensions of an Angled Parking Space Parklet Image not to scale B.Parklet Setbacks 1. Setbacks a. As stated above, all parklets in parallel parking spaces must be setback 4 feet from the adjacent parking spaces. This setback shall be delineated by a concrete wheel stop affixed to the street (see figure 2 above and ‘Traffic Safety’ below). i. The setback between two adjacent parallel space parklets shall be 8 feet (two 4‐foot setbacks). b. As stated above, all parklets in angled parking spaces must be setback 3 feet from adjacent parking spaces and 3 feet from the rear edge of the parking space (see figure 3). i. The setback between two adjacent angled space parklets shall be 8 6 feet (two 43‐foot setbacks). c. All parklets are required to include 15‐foot setback from adjacent driveways, as measured from the highest point of the curb cut (i.e., the top of the adjacent driveway wing). d. Parklets are prohibited in front of active driveways or on curved street segments. e. The setback may not contain seating and must be clear at all times for emergency access. 2. Sidewalk Area 6 DRAFT Item 3 Attachment A: Proposed Revisions to the Ongoing Parklet Design Standards     Packet Pg. 78     a. Neither the construction nor operation of the parklet shall interfere with, obstruct, or otherwise diminish the adjacent sidewalk and pedestrian path of travel. b. All walkways and sidewalks shall maintain at least 8 feet clear path of travel. C.Other Location Criteria 1. Proximity to Utilities and Public Facilities a. Parklets must not block public utilities, bus stops, driveways, telecommunication vaults, or other in‐ground infrastructure. i. Parklets shall not be placed over gas main or gas services due to potential hazards. b. Parklets located next to alleys (as defined under PAMC 18.04.030(a)8) must be set back at least 15 (fifteen) feet from the driveway, as measured from the highest point of the curb cut (i.e., the top of the adjacent driveway wing). c. Parklets shall be placed no closer than 50 feet from a bus stop loading zone. d. Parklets shall be placed no closer than 15 feet from fire hydrants. e. Parklets shall not be placed within a 5‐foot radius of a manhole cover to allow for maintenance access. f. Parklets shall be placed no closer than 5 linear feet from a storm drain catch basin. Parklet construction and design must allow access to the catch basin and shall not obstruct the catch basin. g. In the event a proposed parklet location is in conflict with public infrastructure (i.e., public signage, benches, etc.), the applicant shall reach out to Public Works to evaluate the possibility of relocating the infrastructure. If relocation is not possible, the applicant shall redesign the parklet to fit with the existing infrastructure. 2. Fire Safety a. No portion of the parklet or associated seating shall block FDC or associated equipment. b. The business address shall be visible from the street and shall not be fully obstructed by the parklet and associated materials. i. Subject to direction from the Fire Marshal, address signage may be required on parklets subject to the following standards: 1. Address numbers shall be a minimum of one‐half inch (0.5") stroke by four inches (4") high. 2. The street number shall be displayed, not the street name. 3. The street number shall be a contrasting color to the background material. 3. Street Trees a. Structures built as part of a parklet (e.g., platform, barriers, sidewalls, roofs) must be at least 3 feet away from tree trunks or major branches. i. Encroachment of structures to tree trunks or major branches closer than 3 feet must be approved by urban forestry. b. To discourage patrons from stepping on tree wells and possibly damaging tree roots, where needed, a railing shall be installed on the parklet platform 7 DRAFT Item 3 Attachment A: Proposed Revisions to the Ongoing Parklet Design Standards     Packet Pg. 79     adjacent to the tree well. This will alter the path patrons travel, limiting persons stepping on the tree roots. 4. Bike Facilities a. Bicycle racks or other bicycle facilities shall not be removed, made unusable, or otherwise disturbed or obstructed by the construction or operation of a parklet. i. Any parklet design that proposes such disruption shall require review by and approval of the Office of Transportation. b. Applicants are encouraged to incorporate bike parking into their parklet design. 5. Accessibility a. The sidewalk and parklet path of travel must comply with the appropriate Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California Building Code (CBC) chapter 11B accessibility provisions. (See Section IV.5) b. The parklet path of travel must comply with CBC chapter 10 exiting requirements. IV. PARKLET DESIGN The following guidelines describe both the safety and design requirements for parklet applications including standards for: A. Platform B. Enclosure C. Traffic Safety D. Furnishings & Fixtures A.Platform 1. Structural a. Parklets shall be constructed with quality materials and shall be of natural durable wood (such as redwood, cedar, etc.), preservative treated wood, light‐gauge steel, or other engineered material suitable for exterior conditions. b. The parklet platform must support 100 pounds per square foot of live load. c. All fastening hardware and fasteners adjacent to and into preservative treated wood must be made of one of the following: hot‐dipped zinc coated galvanized steel, stainless steel, silicon bronze, or copper. 2. Drainage & Ventilation a. The underside of the platform shall be constructed to allow for seasonal drainage. b. Adequate cross ventilation shall be installed to allow for the surface to dry within 12–24 hours. c. Openings under the platform shall be screened with corrosion‐resistant material with a maximum 0.25‐inch mesh. 8 DRAFT Item 3 Attachment A: Proposed Revisions to the Ongoing Parklet Design Standards     Packet Pg. 80     d. Parklets shall not impede the flow of curbside drainage. The parklet design shall include a minimum 6.5‐inch wide clearance from sidewalk curb along the entire length of the parklet. Openings at either end of the parklet shall be covered with screens to prevent debris buildup beneath the parklet and in the gutter. The closure decking must be removable for easy access for under platform inspection as needed. See Figure 4 for suggested platform attachment design details. 3. Platform Attachment a. The parklet shall be anchored to the City street and/or curb. Any anchoring proposed into the public street will require Underground Service Alert (USA) markings and additional staff review. Platform system shall be anchored at maximum of 6 feet apart in each direction to the roadway to avoid movement during an earthquake. See Figure 4. i. Limit anchoring to 6‐12 inches embedment in the street. b. The grate support along the curb face shall be anchored to the curb. The anchor shall be installed perpendicular to the curb (per the detail provided in figure 4). i. The manner of anchoring shall be through a pre‐drilled hole into the curb and a concrete anchor bolt. Limit anchoring to 3‐4 inches embedment in the curb. 9 DRAFT Item 3 Attachment A: Proposed Revisions to the Ongoing Parklet Design Standards     Packet Pg. 81     FIGURE 4: Platform Attachment Detail 10 DRAFT Item 3 Attachment A: Proposed Revisions to the Ongoing Parklet Design Standards     Packet Pg. 82     4. Roofs a. Structural i. Complete roof framing plan, which includes horizontal and vertical bracing, is required to be submitted with structural calculations that meet the standards in the 2022 California Building Code. A licensed civil and/or structural engineer who is registered in the State of California, shall stamp and sign the plan and associated calculations, as well as conduct an onsite structural observation to ensure the roof structural system and its supporting elements were built according to the plans prior to occupancy. ii. All connector hardware and fasteners shall be resistant to corrosion and listed as compatible to the framing material. iii. Roofs may be a solid uniform material or open construction (i.e., trellis, pergola, etc.) iv. Roofs shall not be attached or connected to a building. v. Roofs shall slope toward the street to ensure rainwater drains into the street. vi. Gutters and rain leaders are required. vii. Roofs shall not extend over the public sidewalk. vi. The roof’s outer edges along the travel lane and sidewalk may extend 6 inches beyond parklet footprint at 8 feet or above to allow for attachment of the rain leaders and gutters only. viii.vii. The roof shall not extend over the sides of the parklet into the setback from adjacent parking spaces or parklets. b. Height/location i. The roof shall have a minimum head clearance of 7 feet, 6 inches be a minimum height of 8 feet provided the adjacent sidewalk is at least 8 feet wide. If the adjacent sidewalk is less than 8 feet wide, the applicant will need to consult with the Palo Alto Fire Department. ii. A parklet roof shall measure no taller than 12 feet,11 feet, as measured from the platform grade. iii. Roofs are not permitted in front of any neighboring storefronts without a letter of consent (see section IV. 12). c. Materials i. Rooftops may be open or solid. ii. Open roofs may be of flame retardant fabric, pressure‐treated wood, or exterior grade wood i.iii. Solid roofs may be of material may be of plywood sheathing, polycarbonate sheets, or sheet metal. 1. If plywood sheathing is used, it must be painted or stained. ii.iv. Rooftops may not be made of corrugated acrylic or heavy materials, such as clay or stone tiles. iii.v.If fabric shade sails or similar fabric coverings are proposed, the fabric cover shall be limited to the top portion of the parklet and not extend to additional sides perpendicular to the street or sidewalk. All fabrics and all interior decorative fabrics or materials shall be flame retardantresistant in 11 DRAFT Item 3 Attachment A: Proposed Revisions to the Ongoing Parklet Design Standards     Packet Pg. 83     accordance with the provisions set forth in CCR, Title 19, Division 1, chapter 8. 1. The applicant shall provide certification that the fabric covering is flame resistant with any of the following: 1. NFPA 701 certification 2. ASTM E84 or UL 723 iv.vi. Roof material may be a solid uniform material or open construction (i.e., trellis, pergola, etc.). v.vii. All exposed wood is required to be treated for exposure to weather. 5. Accessibility a. The parklet shall comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). b. The surface of the parklet platform must be flush with the adjacent sidewalk with a maximum gap of 0.25 inches and 0.25 inches vertical tolerance. c. A minimum 4‐foot‐wide accessible path of travel and 5‐foot‐diameter (60 inches) turnaround space must be maintained within the parklet. d. Any abrupt changes in elevation exceeding 4 inches along an accessible path of travel shall be identified by 6‐inch‐tall warning curbs. e. Parklets shall utilize outdoor grade reflective tape to mark changes in grade. f. At least 5 percent of the seating spaces and 5 percent of the standing spaces shall be accessible. Accessible spaces must meet the following requirements: i. International Symbol of Accessibility displayed at the table. ii. Table surface between 28 to 34 inches. iii. Minimum 27 inches of space from the floor to the bottom of the table. iv. Knee clearance extends at least 19 inches under the table. v. Total clear floor area of 30 inches by 48 inches per seat vi. Maintain an accessible path of travel to the accessible table. FIGURE 5: Accessible Table and Chair ADA Requirements 12 DRAFT Item 3 Attachment A: Proposed Revisions to the Ongoing Parklet Design Standards     Packet Pg. 84     FIGURE 6: Example Floorplan B.Enclosures 1. Dimensions & Load a. For user safety, parklets are required to include a continuous enclosure along the parklet’s platform edge adjacent to the travel lane and parking spaces. The sidewalk edge of the parklet may be enclosed or open. i. All parklets in which alcoholic beverages are served shall be enclosed on all sides of the parklet edge, as required by the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. b. The enclosure shall be 42 inches in height, measured from the surface of the platform. c. Any gaps in the enclosure shall be smaller than a 4‐inch sphere. d. The enclosure must be capable of withstanding at least 200 pounds of horizontal force. 2. Palo Alto Fire Department (PAFD) Emergency Access (Figure 7) 13 DRAFT Item 3 Attachment A: Proposed Revisions to the Ongoing Parklet Design Standards     Packet Pg. 85     a. The PAFD may require a minimum 3‐foot‐wide emergency gap, with vertical and horizontal clearance, for every 20 feet of enclosure length. b. The gap must be kept clear of any tables, chairs, bike racks, poles, walls, roofs, or other elements. c. The barrier in the emergency access gap shall be easily removable by emergency personnel and provide a latch or hinge that allows easy access. i. The latch shall be placed on the outside of the barrier, facing the travel lane. ii. The hinge shall open a minimum of 90 degrees. iii. Any gaps in the barrier shall be smaller than a 4‐inch sphere. FIGURE 7: Emergency Access Example 3.2. Design a. Enclosure materials must be high‐quality, durable, and non‐reflective including but not limited to pressure‐treated wood, hardwood, steel, concrete planters, etc. i. Materials that are not permitted: particle board, vinyl, soft plastic or tarps. b. Street facing colors used on the exterior of enclosure must be matte‐finish paint or opaque stain. c. Parklets shall integrate and/or incorporate vegetation into the enclosure (edge treatment) at least every 6 feet. d. The height of any plants contained within planters in setback shall not impede or obstruct the view from the travel lane to the sidewalk and vice‐versa. 14 DRAFT Item 3 Attachment A: Proposed Revisions to the Ongoing Parklet Design Standards     Packet Pg. 86     i. Plant material shall not impede or hinder pedestrian and vehicular visibility. e. Decorative planters shall be made of plastic, wood, steel, cold form steel, or fiberglass. 3. Floor a. Parklet floor must be made of exterior‐rated material. They cannot be made of metal glass, or interior materials. i. The floor mush have finishing and slip resistance (BH is a minimum of 0.6 coefficient of friction). 4. Sidewalls a. Parklets may include sidewalls between a hard, transparent screen between the enclosure and the roof to provide a windscreen for parklet users. b. The sidewalls can be solid and transparent or open and semi‐transparent: a.c. Solid sidewalls: i. The sidewall screen must be completely transparent and not obstruct sightlines from the travel lane to the sidewalk and vice‐versa. ii. Materials that are not permitted: vinyl, soft plastic, glass or tarps. iii. Sidewalls are not permitted in front of any neighboring storefronts without a letter of consent (see section IV. 12). d. Semi‐transparent sidewalls: iii.i. The sidewall can be pressure‐treated wood or exterior grade wood. C.Traffic Safety 1. Wheel Stops a. Parallel parking stalls: i. When a parklet is adjacent to active parallel parking spaces, a wheel stop must be installed to delineate the 4‐foot setback from adjacent parking spaces (see figure 2 above). The wheel stop shall measure 3 feet long by 4 inches high (see figure 9). It shall be constructed of concrete or rubber. b. Angled parking stalls: i. When a parklet is adjacent to an active angled parking space, a wheel stop must be installed in the center of the parking space next to the parklet structure (see figure 3 above). ii. Angled parking stalls with wheel stops shall also have “No Parking” painted between the buffer zone and wheel stop. iii. Angled parking stalls with wheel stops shall also have a planter behind the wheel stop to promote visibility. c. Affixing Wheel Stops i. Drilled‐in Wheel stops: A permittee will need (USA) clearance to anchor a wheel stop into the road. FIGURE 8: Wheel Stop DRAFT 15 Item 3 Attachment A: Proposed Revisions to the Ongoing Parklet Design Standards     Packet Pg. 87     d. Location (parallel parking space) i. The wheel stop shall be placed 1 foot from the curb at the edge of the front parking space. ii. A wheel stop shall be placed 1 foot from the curb at the edge of the rear parking space. iii. Wheel stops shall be placed 4 feet from the parklet structure. e. Location (angled parking space) i. The wheel stop shall be centered in the parking space next to the parklet structure (see Figure 3 above). f. Exceptions i. Parklets extending the length between two in‐street tree wells, as on University Avenue, may omit wheel stops. ii. Wheel stops are not required between two adjacent parklets with no active parking stalls between them. 2. Reflective Delineators a. The parklet shall include installation of the California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) approved delineator posts or flexible bollards. Examples of these devices are illustrated in Figures 10 and 11. FIGURE 9: Reflective Delineator (Left Travel FIGURE 10: Reflective Delineator (Right Travel Lane)Lane) b. Location i. Delineator posts shall be surface mounted to the roadway via epoxy and/or glue down methods. 16 DRAFT Item 3 Attachment A: Proposed Revisions to the Ongoing Parklet Design Standards     Packet Pg. 88     ii. Reflective delineators must be installed at the outside corners of the parklet. The channelizers or posts must align with the end of the platform and not encroach on the travel lane. iii. Additional delineators must be placed every 10 feet (maximum spacing) in the 2‐foot buffer (parallel spaces) or 3‐foot buffer (angled spaces) zone along the lane of travel—but not in the lane of travel. c. Dimensions i. Right side of trave lane – Delineators shall be 42 inches high and white with white reflective bands for use on the right side of a travel lane. ii. Left side of travel lane – Delineators shall be 42 inches high and be white with yellow reflective bands if used on the left edge of a travel lane. d. Maintenance i. Maintenance of the delineator posts shall be the responsibility of the permit holder. ii. Permittee shall replace any missing or damaged delineators within 24 hours of a delineator’s failure or within 24 hours’ notice from the City. D.Furnishings & Fixtures 1. Materials a. Parklet furnishings and fixtures must be high‐quality, durable, outdoor‐rated, and non‐reflective including but not limited to: hardwood, steel, concrete, etc. i. Materials that are not permitted: particle board and vinyl. 2. Electrical Power Supply a. A weatherproof GFCI electrical outlet may be installed (with applicable permits) on the exterior of the building at a minimum of 10 feet above the walking surface. i. Electrical power supply to the parklet, including the outlet, shall comply with permanent wiring methods as outlined in the adopted California Electrical code. b. Power cords between the building and the parklet shall be secured to one (1) single overhead guide wire between the building and the parklet structure. i. No extension cords shall be permitted for fixed lighting or heaters. c. No power cords or conduits are allowed on or under the sidewalk. d. Parklet power source shall not be pulled from city sidewalk lighting or supported by trees. e. Generators are not allowed in association with parklets. 3. Lighting a. The following types of lighting and fixtures are permitted: i. String lights; ii. Solar powered and/or rechargeable battery powered table lights; and b. The use of electrical adaptors and power strips are prohibited. c. All lighting must be rated for exterior use, listed, and carry a product certificate for its intended use by a recognized electrical testing laboratory. 17 DRAFT Item 3 Attachment A: Proposed Revisions to the Ongoing Parklet Design Standards     Packet Pg. 89     d. Lighting must be LED only e. Lighting shall be limited to the parklet area and not encroach into any portion of the public sidewalk. f. Lighting shall be of the lowest intensity and energy use adequate for its purpose and be designed to focus illumination downward to avoid excessive illumination above the light fixture with a maximum of 100 watts or 1600 lumens, whichever is greater, per fixture. g. Applicants interested in lighting should consider solar‐powered lighting that use a rechargeable battery. h. If installing permanent lighting on the parklet or adding the exterior GFCI receptacle at the building per IV(D)2a, an electrical permit shall be obtained and shall comply with permanent wiring methods as outlined in the adopted California Electrical code. 4. Heaters a. Electrical heaters are allowed on parklets. i. Electric heaters must be an outdoor approved type ii. Electric heaters must be located on the parklet in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions and specifications. iii. Electric heaters must be placed at least 3 feet away from any combustible materials or as required by Manufacturer’s installation instruction, whichever is more restrictive. iv. A fire extinguisher is required to be mounted within sight and have appropriate signage per the Fire Code. v. Use of electric heaters must comply with the power supply requirements in section IV.D.2. vi. Any electrical equipment must be listed and carry a product certificate for its intended use by a recognized electrical testing laboratory. b. Propane heaters are permitted with a HAZMAT permit and CERS submittal. i. hazmat permit is required for storage and use of liquid propane gas. A site plan with the desired location of each heater is required at time of the hazmat permit application. A final onsite hazmat inspection will be conducted to ensure the proper spacing of heaters form combustibles and emergency access/egress and storage of LPG. 1. Proposed outdoor storage of 20‐pound containers requires plan review and inspection. 2. On‐site storage of 20‐pound propane contains (5 gal) is prohibited indoors. 3. Propane storage is not allowed in the public right‐of‐way. 4. If businesses do not have an approved private outdoor storage area, all propane containers must be removed from the premises at the close of business every day. 5. LPG Heaters are not permitted on the sidewalk in the pedestrian path of travel 18 DRAFT Item 3 Attachment A: Proposed Revisions to the Ongoing Parklet Design Standards     Packet Pg. 90     6. LPG heaters cannot be placed underneath overhead canopies, awnings, inside buildings or tents and they must have 5‐feet clearance from any flammable materials 7. Any use of a portable heater, portable generator, candles, open flame or any activity regulated by the Fire code must be approved and permitted by the Palo Alto Fire Department separately from the parklet permit. 5. Umbrellas a. Permitted Umbrella Types: i. Table Umbrella ii. Tilting Umbrella iii. Off‐set/ Cantilever Umbrella b. No portion of an umbrella shall extend beyond the edge and/or enclosure of the parklet on any side. c. No umbrella shall obstruct the view from the street between 3 and 8 feet, measured from the street, from any side. 6. Signage a. Parklet signage is limited to 6 square feet and shall be limited to the name of the business and shall be non‐illuminated and non‐reflective. Letters can be no taller than 15 inches. b. Businesses are permitted one sign on their parklet, total. c. Signs must be affixed to the outer most portion of the parklet enclosure no higher than 36 inches from the street grade. d. No form of advertising is permitted to be painted or mounted on any surface or area of the parklet. e. If a signage post is in conflict with the proposed parklet, the applicant shall reach out to Public Works to evaluate the possibility of relocating the post. If relocation is not possible, the applicant shall redesign the parklet to fit with the existing post. f. Any existing parking signs installed adjacent to the parklet shall be removed from the sign post by the applicant and retuned to the Public Works Department. 7. Seating & Furniture a. Accessibility i. The establishment must provide 5 percent accessible seating for each type of seating provided (table, booth, etc.) or a minimum of one seat per type, whichever is greater, in an outdoor seating area where the slope is no greater than 2 percent in any direction. ii. Such ADA accessible seating shall be of the same size and appearance as the establishment’s other outdoor seating. iii. Refer to Section IV(A)(5) for additional accessibility requirements b. Street Furniture i. Street furniture including tables, chairs, benches, etc. shall be all‐weather, and of a high‐quality material. FIGURE 11: Street Furniture Examples 19 DRAFT Item 3 Attachment A: Proposed Revisions to the Ongoing Parklet Design Standards     Packet Pg. 91     8. Landscape a. Vegetation shall be comprised of native, low‐water use, and drought‐tolerant plants. b. No plants shall have thorns, spikes, or sharp edges. c. Poisonous or invasive plants are not permitted. 9. Televisions a. Televisions are not permitted in parklets. V. Operational Standards A. Private Control 1. Parklets will be considered under the control of the permit holder. The permit holder is responsible for securing the parklet and any fixtures and furnishings contained within it at all times, including during hours when the associated business is not in operation. Alcohol ServiceB. 1. Businesses with parklets that serve alcoholic beverages on the parklet shall include appropriate fencing or other barriers to delineate the space and adhere to Department of Alcohol Beverage Control (ABC) regulations. a. As described in the Enclosure section above, all parklets in which alcoholic beverages are served shall be enclosed on all sides of the parklet edge, as required by the department of alcoholic beverage control. 2. All physical requirements of ABC should be reflected in the design submitted for review. 3. A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is required to allow alcohol service at a parklet. Site MaintenanceC. 1. Parklets and the sidewalk adjacent to the parklet shall be kept clean and litter free. Any food or drink stain shall be cleaned up immediately. Power washing is required monthly. 2. The drainage grates at the side of the parklet shall be maintained and kept clean and clear at all times to allow free flow of water. Any debris and leaves shall be removed immediately by the permittee. D.Hours of Operation 1. The parklet shall adhere to the same approved hours of operation as the associated business. 2. In the Neighborhood Commercial (CN) or Service Commercial (CS) zone districts, a CUP is needed to operate between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. and approval conditions for 20 DRAFT Item 3 Attachment A: Proposed Revisions to the Ongoing Parklet Design Standards     Packet Pg. 92     operations during these hours are to ensure the operation is compatible with the abutting (or within 50 feet of) residential property. E.Amplified Sound 1. Amplified is not permitted on parklets. Any ambient sound may only originate from the interior of the business’s occupied building. VI.PERMIT APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS A.Submittal Requirements 1. Site Plan—Site plan shall be drawn to scale on 11 x17 tabloid paper, include all pertinent dimensions and the following information: a. Location of the business frontage b. Dimensions of the parklet platform c. ADA accessibility measurements d. Setbacks from adjacent parking spaces and the adjacent traffic lane e. Locations of traffic protection improvements including wheel stops, reflective delineators, etc. f. Location of public utilities including any manhole covers, gutter drains, fire hydrants, and FDCs, light poles, etc. and their distances to the parklet g. Any adjacent installations on the sidewalk including utility boxes, street signs, bike racks, street furniture, street trees, tree wells, etc. and their distances to the parklet h. Existing parking space striping i. Crosswalks, bus stops, driveways and their distances to the parklet j. Width of sidewalk k. Planters (if applicable) 2. Floor Plan a. Floor Plan of the proposed parklet showing the following information: i. Total number and location of tables and seats and/or benches on parklet ii. Dimensions of tables, seats, and benches on parklet 3. Elevations a. Elevation drawing showing the following information: b. Height and design of platform railings/enclosure c. Height and design of roof (if applicable) d. Heating, lighting, other electrical equipment e. Power connection (show distance from ground to overhead wire) f. Storm water drainage g. Cross‐section drawing of parklet 4. Construction Drawing showing the following information: a. Structural drawings b. Structural calculations for the enclosure c. Complete roof framing plan (for parklets with roofs), including the following: i. horizontal and vertical bracing, 21 DRAFT Item 3 Attachment A: Proposed Revisions to the Ongoing Parklet Design Standards     Packet Pg. 93     ii. structural calculations that meet the standards in the 2022 California Building Code. iii. Stamp and signature from a licensed civil and/or structural engineer who is registered in the State of California d. Heating, lighting, other electrical equipment e. Electrical power connection/source 5. Pictures of Existing Conditions—The application should include at least three photos showing existing built parklet, if applicable, the proposed parking space(s) converted into a parklet, adjacent sidewalk and store frontage 6. List of materials and equipment a. Materials palette showing the following information: i. Proposed materials for platform ii. Proposed materials for railings/enclosure iii. Proposed furnishings iv.iii. Roof material (if applicable) b. Equipment sheet including: i. Image of equipment ii. Any manufacturer instructions c. Planters d. Type of plants 7. Parklet Information: a. Number of parking spaces requested b. Perpendicular or angled spaces c. Color of curb d. Proposed use of parklet e. Business hours of operation f. Parklet Designer/ Architect/ Engineer/ Construction Firm contact (if applicable) g. Signage (if applicable) 8. Business Information a. Business Address b. City of Palo Alto Business License Number 9. Business Owner Information 10. Property Owner Information (if different than applicant) 11. Insurance Documents 12. Letter(s) of Consent – A parklet applicant must get a letter of consent from the neighboring ground‐floor tenant(s) if the applicant’s parklet has any structure above the enclosure (e.g., sidewall, roof, trellis) that is not in front of the applicant’s storefront (see Appendix A). a. Parklet sponsor must obtain an up‐to‐date letter of consent for any future license renewals as requested by Public Works during future permit renewal processes. i. If a parklet sponsor cannot obtain an up‐to‐date letter of consent, or if parklet occupancy is not in accordance with the terms of any applicable law, these regulations, and/or any permit requirement, the parklet sponsor is responsible for the removal of any structure of the parklet permit extending into a neighboring frontage within 90‐days. 22 DRAFT Item 3 Attachment A: Proposed Revisions to the Ongoing Parklet Design Standards     Packet Pg. 94     13. Indemnity Acknowledgement Failure to MaintainB. A parklet sponsor who fails to properly and sufficiently maintain the cleanliness, safety, and accessibility of their parklet may be subject to violations and fines. If maintenance issues are not resolved, the City may revoke the encroachment permit and the parklet sponsor may be required by the City to remove the parklet at their own expense. C.Utility Maintenance & Public Safety Because a parklet may sit atop buried utilities, there may be instances where a parklet will need to be removed to access a utility beneath it. In the event of necessary utility maintenance or the unlikely event of a utility failure such as a gas leak or water main break that threatens public safety, the City or utility owner may remove parklets with little or no notice. Parklet sponsors are responsible for the cost of re‐installing and restoring any damage to the parklet. In instances of advanced notice (such as street repaving, planned maintenance, etc., the parklet sponsor may need to remove and reinstall the parklet at their sole expense. If the sponsor cannot remove the parklet, the City will remove the parklet. D.Parklet Removal If for some reason the parklet sponsor decides no longer wants to maintain a parklet, the parklet sponsor is responsible for notifying the City and removing it at the parklet sponsors’ own expense. Immediately upon removal the parklet area shall be cleaned and restored to its previous condition to the satisfaction of the City. E.Parklet Fees Parklets are subject to the following fees outlined in the City’s Fee Schedule: 1. Permit Application Fee 2. Deposit Fee (refundable) 3. Permit Renewal Fee 4. Annual License Fee a. This fee will be charged per square foot based on the total parklet platform area. 23 DRAFT Item 3 Attachment A: Proposed Revisions to the Ongoing Parklet Design Standards     Packet Pg. 95     Appendix A: Sample Letter of Consent 24 DRAFT Item 3 Attachment A: Proposed Revisions to the Ongoing Parklet Design Standards     Packet Pg. 96     DRAFT PRE-APPROVED PARKLET USER GUIDE Item 3 Attachment B: Draft User Guide     Packet Pg. 97     The Pre-Approved Parklet User Guide provides step-by-step instructions for creating your own parklet using pre-approved designs. The guide is designed to assist you from initial design through construction and maintenance. Ideal for business owners, parklet operators, and designers, this guide simplifies the process by focusing on approved specifications and compliance with local regulations. This guide is tailored to help you seamlessly navigate the process of constructing your pre- approved parklet by integrating essential steps directly into each section. Here's how to use it effectively: ABOUT THE USER GUIDE 1.Follow the Embedded Checklists: Each page of the guide includes a specific checklist related to that section's content. These checklists ensure that you meet all necessary requirements and adhere to City regulations. 2.Make Decisions: As you complete each checklist, you'll be prompted to make decisions regarding elements such as materials, dimensions, and additional features. This approach allows you to tailor the pre-approved designs to fit your specific needs and preferences. 3.Document your parklet details in "My Parklet" Sections: Alongside the checklists and decision points, you'll find "My Parklet" sections. Here, you can write the details of your choices and the specifications of your parklet design. This documentation will help you track your progress and ensure that every aspect of your parklet is planned and executed according to plan.2 Item 3 Attachment B: Draft User Guide     Packet Pg. 98     STEP 1: SITE PLANNING Applicable Locations The parklet is located in an eligible area within the University Avenue and California Downtown areas. See Appendix A for maps of the eligible areas. Site Requirements The parklet does not obstruct a restricted zone - loading zone, bus zone, no parking zone, public utilities, telecommunication vaults Crosswalk Clearance: minimum 20’ setback from a crosswalk Note: not applicable if there is a bulb-out between the parklet and crosswalk Driveway and alleyway clearance: minimum 15’ setback from any driveways and alleyways Note: Setback not needed if there is a bulb-out between the parklet and crosswalk Fire Hydrant Clearance: minimum 15’ setback from a fire hydrant. Manhole Cover: minimum 5’ setback from a manhole cover Storm Drain Catch Basin: minimum setback from a storm drain catch basin Encroaching over a neighboring property Applicable Parking Stalls The parklet is located in front of your business. If required, you have a letter of consent from your neighbor. See the next page to determine if you need a letter of consent from your neighbor Confirm your parklet site meets the requirements below. These requirements ensure a safe streetscape for pedestrians, vehicles, and parklet patrons. 1.1 CHECKLIST 1.1.a 1.2 1.2.a 1.2.b 1.2.c 1.2.d 1.2.e 1.2.f 1.3.a 1.3 3 Item 3 Attachment B: Draft User Guide     Packet Pg. 99     STEP 2: LETTER OF CONSENT (LOC) REQUIREMENT Letter of Consent Requirement Parklet does not have a roof or sidewalls: letter of consent not required. Parklet does have a roof or sidewalls: •Does not extend beyond applicant’s storefront: letter of consent not required.•Does extend beyond applicant’s storefront: letter of consent is required. Review the letter of consent (LOC) requirements below. 2.1 2.1.a Parklet applicants must obtain a letter of consent from adjacent ground-floor tenant(s) to extend a roof, trellis, or sidewall, beyond their own storefront. Parklets without a roof, trellis, or sidewalls, may extend in front of a neighbor without a letter of consent. No LOC Needed 2.1.b Parklet with a roof extending over their neighbor Parklet with no roof extending over their neighbor Parklet with no roof 4 No LOC Needed LOC Needed Item 3 Attachment B: Draft User Guide     Packet Pg. 100     STEP 3: PARKLET ENVELOPE Parklet Envelope Parallel Angled 11’ MAX ROOF HEIGHT 7’6” MIN HEAD CLEARANCE 42” ENCLOSURE HEIGHT 5 Item 3 Attachment B: Draft User Guide     Packet Pg. 101     STEP 3: PARKLET ENVELOPE Parklet Size Parklets with a roof or trellis can be a maximum of 350 square feet. Parklets in Parallel Parking Spaces The parklet must be setback 4’ from the adjacent marked parking space. This setback must be kept clear at all time for emergency access. Note: Setback not needed if there is a bulb-out between the parklet and crosswalk. The parklet must be setback 2’ from the outer edge of the parking space “T” along the travel lane. This setback must be kept clear at all times. The only objects permitted in this setback are reflective delineator posts. The distance between parklets in parallel parking spaces shall be minimum of 8’. Parklets in Angled Parking Spaces The parklet must be setback 3’ from the adjacent marked parking space. This setback must be kept clear at all time for emergency access. Note: Setback not needed if there is a bulb-out between the parklet and crosswalk. The parklet must be setback 3’ from the outer edge of the parking space along the travel lane. This setback must be kept clear at all times. The only objects permitted in this setback are reflective delineator posts. The setback between parklets in angled parking spaces shall be minimum of 6’. My Parklet What is your parking space type (circle one): Parallel Angled How many parking spaces will you use?____________________________________ What is your parklet’s approximate size after the setbacks: ___________square feet •Length (feet): _______________ •Width (feet):________________ •Area (square feet): ___________ Confirm your parklet meets the requirements below. Determine your parklet size. 3.1 CHECKLIST 3.1.a 3.2 3.2.a 3.2.b 3.2.c 3.3 3.3.a 3.3.b 6 Item 3 Attachment B: Draft User Guide     Packet Pg. 102     STEP 4: SELECT YOUR PARKLET TYPE Parklet with no Roof Parklet with a Roof Flat Roof Shed Roof Solid Roof Lattice Roof Fabric Roof 4.1 Choose what type of parklet you want to build. Parklet Type: Choose One Roof Shape: Choose One2 Roof Type: Choose One3 The roof will not extend beyond applicant’s storefront: letter of consent not required. The roof will extend beyond applicant’s storefront: letter of consent is required. Letter of Consent: Select the applicable requirement4 7 Item 3 Attachment B: Draft User Guide     Packet Pg. 103     STEP 5: PREPARE FOR YOUR DESIGN Confirm which components your parklet will have for the frame and finishes. 2 Roof frame Planters 1 Parklet Frame – vertical and roof frame Parklet Finishes Parklets with roofs will also require the following: Roof to frame connection Posts Flooring Enclosure STEP 6 STEP 7 Parklets with roofs will also require the following: Parklets with or without a roof: Parklets with or without a roof: Roof coverings Sidewalls STEP 8 STEP 9 STEP 10 STEP 11 8 Item 3 Attachment B: Draft User Guide     Packet Pg. 104     STEP 6: DESIGN YOUR PARKLET FRAME Select your designs for the parklet post, roof frame and roof-frame connection Parklets With or Without a Roof Parklet Post Material The parklet post shall be constructed the following approved materials. Please select one of the following: •Light-Gauge Steel •Pressure-treated wood Parklet With A Roof Parklet Roof Frame Material The parklet roof frame shall be constructed the following approved materials. Please select one of the following: •Light-Gauge Steel •Pressure-treated wood Parklet Roof Frame Connection (for parklets with a roof) Parklet Roof Frame Connection Design Select one of the following design options for your Roof- Frame connection. The connection material will be consistent with your roof frame material selection: •Option 1: Diagonal Brackets •Option 2: Standard Connection CHECKLIST Option 1 Option 2 Light Gauge steel example Wood example 6.1 6.1.a 6.2 6.2.a 6.3 6.3.a 9 Item 3 Attachment B: Draft User Guide     Packet Pg. 105     STEP 7: DESIGN YOUR PARKLET FLOORING Select a flooring product for your parklet. The flooring product will be installed overtop the parklet platform frame and will be flush with the sidewalk. Parklet Flooring Requirements (for parklets with or without a roof) Materials The parklet flooring shall be an exterior-grade material The parklet flooring shall not be one of the following prohibited materials: metal, glass, materials designed for interior use. Safety The parklet flooring has a finishing & slip resistance of BH minimum 0.6 Coefficient of Friction 7.1 7.1.a 7.1.b 7.2.c My Parklet Flooring (for parklets with or without a roof) Select Option 1 or 2 below. Option 1: Select one of the following flooring materials (see product specifications attached) Option 2: Select a flooring material that meets the requirements above and attach the product specifications to your parklet application CHECKLIST Flooring material name:_______________________________ Meets the requirements above. Product Specification attached. 7.2 10 Item 3 Attachment B: Draft User Guide     Packet Pg. 106     STEP 8: DESIGN YOUR PARKLET ENCLOSURE Select enclosure finishes for your parklet. The enclosure will connect to a horizontal rail that extends between posts. Parklet Enclosure Requirements (for parklets with or without a roof) Material The parklet enclosure shall not be one of the following prohibited materials: particle board, vinyl, soft plastic or tarps. Safety Any gaps in the enclosure shall be smaller than 4” sphere 8.1 8.1.a 8.2.a My Parklet Enclosure (for parklets with or without a roof) Select Option 1 or 2 below. Option 1: Select one of the following enclosure material and designs (see specifications attached) Option 2: Select an enclosure material that meets the requirements above and attach the product specifications to your parklet application CHECKLIST Enclosure material name:_______________________________ Meets the requirements above. Product Specification attached. 8.2 11 Item 3 Attachment B: Draft User Guide     Packet Pg. 107     STEP 9: DESIGN YOUR PARKLET PLANTERS Select planter designs for your parklet. Parklets in parallel parking spaces will locate planters on either side of the parklet. Parklets in angled parking spaces will locate planters along the outer edge; parallel to the travel lane. Parklet Planter Requirements (for parklets with or without a roof) Material The parklet planter shall be constructed of wood, steel, cold form fiberglass, or plastic materials. The following materials are prohibited: clay, porcelain, and concrete. Safety The planter shall be bolted to the parklet floor. 9.1 9.1.a 9.2.a My Parklet Planter (for parklets with or without a roof) Select Option 1 or 2 below. Option 1: Select one of the following planter material and designs (see specifications attached) Option 2: Select a planter material that meets the requirements above and attach the product specifications to your parklet application CHECKLIST Planter material name:_______________________________ Meets the requirements above. Product Specification attached. 9.2 Parallel parklet Angled parklet 12 9.1.b Item 3 Attachment B: Draft User Guide     Packet Pg. 108     STEP 10: DESIGN YOUR PARKLET ROOF COVERINGS If your parklet will have a roof, select the roof covering and designs for your parklet roof. Roof coverings will be affixed to your roof frame. Parklet Roof Covering Requirements (for parklets with a roof) Design The parklet roof design shall be one of the following: solid roof, open framing, fabric shades. Materials The following materials are permitted for roof coverings: pressure-treated wood, exterior-grade wood, steel, fabric (flame retardant), corrugated metal, plywood (with treatment), asphalt tiles, wood shingles. The roof material shall be maximum 20psf in weight. The following materials are prohibited: clay, porcelain tile, acrylic corrugated plastic, vinyl, soft plastic, tarps. 10.1 10.1.a 9.2.a My Parklet Roof Covering (for parklets with a roof) Select Option 1 or 2 below. Option 1: Select one of the following roof material and designs (see specifications attached) Option 2: Select a roof covering material that meets the requirements above and attach the product specifications to your parklet application CHECKLIST Parklet Roof Design: ________________________________) Roof covering material name:_______________________________ Meets the requirements above. Product Specification attached. 9.2 13 Item 3 Attachment B: Draft User Guide     Packet Pg. 109     STEP 11: DESIGN YOUR PARKLET SIDEWALLS If your parklet will have sidewalls, select the design from the options below. Sidewalls will be affixed to your posts. Parklet Sidewall Requirements (for parklets with or without a roof) Design Parklets may include either a solid transparent sidewall or an open semi-transparent sidewall. Materials The following material is permitted for solid sidewalls: plexiglass The following materials are permitted for open sidewalls: pressure-treated Wood (stained or painted), exterior grade wood 11.1 11.1.a 11.2.a My Parklet Sidewalls (for parklets with a roof) Select Option 1, 2, or 3 below. Option 2 (if including sidewalls): Select one of the following sidewall material and designs (see specifications attached) Option 3 (if including sidewalls): Select a sidewall design and material that meets the requirements above and attach the product specifications to your parklet application CHECKLIST Parklet Roof Design: ________________________________ Roof covering material name:_______________________________ Meets the requirements above. Product Specification attached. 11.2 Parallel parkletImage to be updated to show sidewalls in final version Option 1: The parklet will not include sidewalls. 11.2.a 14 Item 3 Attachment B: Draft User Guide     Packet Pg. 110     STEP 12: HEATING Heaters are not required but are permitted in parklets in accordance with Section IV.D.4 of the Parklet Standards. Review the requirements below and indicate your selection. Electric Heaters Electric heaters must be an outdoor approved type Electric heaters must be located in accordance with manufacturing instructions and placed at least 3 feet away from any combustible materials or as required by manufacturer’s instruction, whichever is more restrictive. A fire extinguisher is required to be mounted within sight and have appropriate signage per the Fire Code. Use of electric heaters must comply with the power supply requirements in section IV.D.2 of the parklet standards. Any electrical equipment must be listed and carry a product certificate for its intended use by a recognized electrical testing laboratory. Propane Heaters Propane heaters are permitted with a valid HAZMAT permit from the Palo Alto Fire Department and CERS submittal. Propane heaters are prohibited in parklets with a roof or trellis. My Parklet Parklet heater and type: No heaters Electric heaters Propane heaters (if yes, see section below) If using propane: Your parklet will not have a roof. You will obtain a HAZMAT permit. IMPORTANT: If using propane heaters, parklet applications will not be approved until a valid HAZMAT permit is provided. Heating Devices (for parklets with or without a roof) Heating devices are not required for operation, however, if a parklet wishes to include heating in conjunction with their parklet, they shall comply with the requirements below: 12.1 CHECKLIST 12.1.a 12.2.b 12.2.c 12.2.d 12.2 12.2.e 12.2.a 12.2.b 15 Item 3 Attachment B: Draft User Guide     Packet Pg. 111     STEP 13: TRAFFIC SAFETY Review the requirements below for parklet traffic safety. These measures will apply to all parklets following parklet design, approval, and construction. Wheel Stops (see section IV.C of the parklet standards for full details) When a parklet is adjacent to active parallel parking spaces, a wheel stop must be installed to delineate the 4-foot setback from adjacent parking spaces. When a parklet is adjacent to an active angled parking space, a wheel stop must be installed in the center of the parking space next to the parklet structure The wheel stop shall measure 3 feet long by 4 inches high. It shall be constructed of concrete or rubber. Parklets extending the length between two in-street tree wells, as on University Avenue, may omit wheel stops. Wheel stops are not required between two adjacent parklets with no active parking stalls between them. Reflective Delineator The parklet shall include installation of the California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) approved delineator posts or flexible bollards. Delineator posts shall be surface mounted to the roadway via epoxy and/or glue down methods. Reflective delineators must be installed at the outside corners of the parklet. Additional delineators must be placed at least every 10 feet. 13.1 CHECKLIST 13.1.a 13.1.b 13.1.c 13.1.d 13.2 13.1.e 13.2.a 13.2.b Parallel Angled 13.2.c 16 Item 3 Attachment B: Draft User Guide     Packet Pg. 112     STEP 14: OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE Review the requirements below for parklet operations and maintenance. These measures will apply to all parklets following parklet design, approval, and construction. Site Maintenance Parklets and the sidewalk adjacent to the parklet shall be kept clean and litter free. Any food or drink stain shall be cleaned up immediately. Power washing is required monthly. The drainage grates at the side of the parklet shall be maintained and kept clean and clear at all times to allow free flow of water. Any debris and leaves shall be removed immediately by the permittee. Hours of Operation The parklet shall adhere to the same approved hours of operation as the associated business. In the Neighborhood Commercial (CN) or Service Commercial (CS) zone districts, a CUP is needed to operate between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. and approval conditions for operations during these hours are to ensure the operation is compatible with the abutting (or within 50 feet of) residential property. Amplified Sound Amplified is not permitted on parklets. Any ambient sound may only originate from the interior of the business’s occupied building. Alcohol Service Businesses with parklets that serve alcoholic beverages on the parklet shall include appropriate fencing or other barriers to delineate the space and adhere to Department of Alcohol Beverage Control (ABC) regulations. All physical requirements of ABC should be reflected in the design submitted for review. A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is required to allow alcohol service at a parklet. Parklet Removal If a business with a parklet decides they no longer want a parklet, the business is responsible for notifying the City and removing it at the business’s own expense. Immediately upon removal, the parklet area shall be cleaned and restored to its previous condition to the satisfaction of the City. In instances of advanced notice (such as street repaving, planned maintenance, etc.), a business may need to remove and reinstall the parklet at their sole expense. If the sponsor cannot remove the parklet, the City will remove the parklet. 14.1 CHECKLIST 14.1.a 14.1.b 14.2.a 14.3 14.4 14.3.a 14.4.a 14.2 14.2.b 14.4.b 14.4.c 17 Item 3 Attachment B: Draft User Guide     Packet Pg. 113     PERMITTING PROCESS CHECKLIST Review and confirm your parklet design. Compile your application documents. Parklet Design Standards Preparation Review the User Guide Design your parklet Consult with your contractor Pre-Approved Parklet Application Compose and submit: Site Plan Completed User Guide All material product specifications Ministerial Review Plan Approval, Permit Payment & Permit Issuance Construction and Installation (Inspections during Construction) Inspections Continued Maintenance Parklet Renewal (every year) Parklet Removal (as desired/needed) App l i c a t i o n & P e r m i t t i n g Ins t a l l a t i o n Ma i n t e n a n c e Rem o v a l 18 Item 3 Attachment B: Draft User Guide     Packet Pg. 114     APPENDIX A: PARKLET LOCATIONS Item 3 Attachment B: Draft User Guide     Packet Pg. 115     Attachment C: Overview of the History of the Parklet Program • June 23, 20201 (City Council): City Council adopted a pilot parklet program with Ordinance No. 5500, which temporarily permitted businesses to operate outdoors in lieu of normal zoning and parking requirements, and Resolution No. 9909, which provided additional implementation guidelines for the pilot parklet program. • April 19, 20212 (City Council): Council directed staff to develop a permanent parklet program with the input of the Architectural Review Board and extend the pilot program to December 31, 2021. • September 13, 20213 (City Council): The pilot program was extended to June 30, 2022. • April 27th, 2022 (Community Engagement): Staff met with nine (9) members of the Palo Alto business community to provide a preview of proposed permanent parklet program standards. The group included restaurant owners and property owners in the Downtown and one restaurant/business owner from California Avenue. • May 5, 20224 (ARB): Staff presented draft standards for the permanent parklet program to the ARB to receive initial feedback on the draft program standards. • May 9, 2022 5(City Council): Staff presented draft standards for the permanent parklet program to City Council to receive initial feedback on the draft program standards. The City Council extended the pilot program to the end of 2022. • June 1, 2022 (ARB ad-hoc): An ARB ad-hoc committee provided further feedback on the draft program standards. • July 21, 20226 (ARB): Staff presented revised standards to the ARB based on the May 5th ARB meeting, May 9th Council meeting and June 1st ARB ad-hoc committee meeting. o ARB recommendations included in the permanent standards include: allowing clear panels above the enclosure, prohibiting televisions, allowing greater flexibility in the size of plants permitted, prohibiting tent-like structures and vinyl materials. • October 24, 20227 (City Council): City staff returned to the City Council to present the refined permanent parklet standards based on ARB and staff input, receive feedback on the program standards and operations, and extend the temporary parklet program through June 30, 2023. Council directed staff to do the following: o Implement the draft permanent standards upon adoption of a permanent parklet ordinance, 1 Staff report: https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Public/CompiledDocument?meetingTemplateId=3031&compileOutputType=1 2 Staff report: https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Public/CompiledDocument?meetingTemplateId=3457&compileOutputType=1 3 Staff Report: https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Public/CompiledDocument?meetingTemplateId=3325&compileOutputType=1. 4 Staff report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/architectural-review-board/2022/arb-05.05.2022-public-agenda.pdf 5 Staff report: https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Public/CompiledDocument?meetingTemplateId=3643&compileOutputType=1 6 Staff Report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/architectural-review-board/2022/arb-07.21.2022-public-agenda.pdf 7 Staff report: https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Public/CompiledDocument?meetingTemplateId=9096&compileOutputType=1 Item 3 Attachment C: History of the Parklet Program     Packet Pg. 116     o Require a letter of consent in if a parklet used 50% or more of a parking space not in front of their store, and o Return to Council with a recommendation continuing propane use, establishing parklet fees, and limiting amplified sound to only come from buildings. • March 13, 20238 (continued March 27, 2023) (City Council): Staff returned to Council to present revised standards implementing Council’s previous direction, and to receive Council’s feedback on limiting the size and scale of parklets, parklet fees, and letter of consent requirements. Staff recommended that the Council limit parklet size to a maximum of two parallel parking spaces or three angled spaces and require letters of consent consistent with the October 2022 direction. Staff presented several factors that affected the maximum size recommendation; these included fire safety and electrical panel capacity, providing greater certainty around restaurant occupancy increases, and limiting encroachment over neighboring storefronts. After a robust discussion, Council directed staff to implement the following standards: o Require a letter of consent for parklets that extend structures (e.g., sidewalls, roofs, trellises) beyond the applicant’s storefront. Non-structured parklet areas are allowed to extend beyond the applicant’s storefront without a letter of consent. o Tenants who wish to utilize a parking space in front of their store may do so after 90 days. o Limit the size of covered parklets to 350 square feet but allow businesses up to two (2) parklets, provided they are limited in location to the tenant’s street frontage. o Require parklet owners to keep parklet areas and sidewalks clean. Council also directed staff to return with the following: o Incentives for the use of electric heating. o Proposals on greater safety from vehicles such as k-rail or concrete barrier on the leading-edge corners. o A fee recommendation on the low end of fees. • May 8, 20239 (City Council): Council extended the pilot program to March 31, 2024. • September 11, 202310 (City Council): Council adopted the permanent parklet ordinance No. 5594 and standards with changes including: allowing sidewalk dining, and removing references to charging parklet renters to relocate/add bike facilities. Council also adopted fees for the Permanent Parklet Program (No. 5593). In addition, Council directed staff to work with the Architectural Review Board (ARB) to create design standards and uniform guidelines as soon as possible. Council also adopted new permit and license fees for the permanent parklet program. • February 15, 2024 (ARB)11: Staff presented the pre-approved parklet design approach for feedback on the potential pre-approved design options, recommended outreach strategy, and timelines for the design process. 8 Staff report: https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Public/CompiledDocument?meetingTemplateId=1093&compileOutputType=1 9 Staff report: https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Public/CompiledDocument?meetingTemplateId=11199&compileOutputType=1 10 Staff report: https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Public/CompiledDocument?meetingTemplateId=13022&compileOutputType=1 11 Staff report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/architectural-review-board/2024/arb-2.15-parklets.pdf Item 3 Attachment C: History of the Parklet Program     Packet Pg. 117     • March 11, 2024 (City Council)12: Council extended the Interim Parklet Program to July 31, 2024, and phased in enforcement for the Ongoing Parklet Program through November 1, 2024. Existing interim parking lot eating/drinking uses were extended through December 31, 2024. • March 19, 2024 (ARB Ad-hoc): An ARB ad-hoc committee consisting of Chair Baltay and Vice- chair Rosenberg provide feedback on initial design concepts for the pre-approved parklet designs, including post-beam connections, roof design options, overhang, and materials. 12 Staff Report: https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Public/CompiledDocument?meetingTemplateId=13515&compileO utputType=1 Item 3 Attachment C: History of the Parklet Program     Packet Pg. 118     Date: April 18, 2024 SUB: CITY OF PALO ALTO PARKLET FORCE PROTECTION MEMORANDUM PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA The following memorandum provides supplemental information to the Parklet Force Protection Memorandum provided by Siegfried dated August 1, 2023. As described in Siegfried's analysis, Planters are usually 18” to 24” wide and length may vary between 8ft to 10ft filled with soil. Although these planters are heavy due to presence of soil in it but that is not enough to resist the 6000 lb force requirement for qualifying as a barrier. Therefore, planters wouldn’t qualify as a traffic barrier. The Siegfried analysis also states that the way a planter is constructed is an important consideration, as some materials could shatter and result in flying debris if impacted. To add to this analysis, REI recommends that the use of flexible material would be the safest option for the planter considering that it won’t shatter and cause any hazards for the parklet occupants and minimize the damage. Some of the additional reasons are listed below: o Durability: Flexible materials are generally more durable than brittle ones. They are capable of withstanding minor impacts and deformation without fracturing or shattering. o Adaptability: Flexible materials offer more crea4ve and custom designs to suit specific aesthe4c or requirements due to their greater adaptability in design. Specifically, REI recommends the following material types be used for planters in conjunction with parklets: 1. Wood 2. Steel 3. Cold form Steel 4. Plas4c 5. Fiberglass Item 3 Attachment D: Supplemental Planter Analysis     Packet Pg. 119     STOCKTON SAN JOSE SACRAMENTO MODESTO 3428 Brookside Rd. 111 N. Market St., #300 900 Howe Ave., #200 101 Sycamore Ave, #100 Stockton, CA 95219 San Jose, CA 95113 Sacramento, CA 95825 Modesto, CA 95354 t: 209.943.2021 t: 408.754.2021 t: 916.520.2777 t: 209.762.3580 F:\17projects\17240 Palo Alto On-Call Survey\Civil\Parklet Protection Memorandum\17240 Palo Alto Parklet Protection Memorandum - Rev 1.docx PAGE - 1 - August 1, 2023 Holly Boyd, P.E. Assistant Director Public Works Department City of Palo Alto RE: CITY OF PALO ALTO PARKLET FORCE PROTECTION MEMORANDUM PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND ASSUMPTIONS The City of Palo Alto (City) is transitioning the temporary parklet program to a permanent parklet program. To make this transition, the City’s goal is to provide guidelines for the construction of improvements to provide a safe parklet experience. The inherent risk to parklets and their occupants is the danger posed by adjacent vehicular traffic. Various solutions have been deployed in other jurisdictions ranging from pedestrian guardrails to permanent or detached highway type barriers. The following is a summary of our review of these options and our findings. II. BACKGROUND In conducting our investigation, we reviewed a sample of other Parklet Guidelines and Standards from other jurisdictions and organizations in California. In our limited review of this literature, we found the following design features to be fairly consistent; a. A vehicular speed limit of 25 mph as the roads are typically narrow and have low posted speed limits. b. A minimum of one foot between the edge of traveled way and any barrier. c. Barrier heights ranging from 32 to 48 inches in height. d. Barriers are required to be designed and approved by a professional engineer. e. Barriers were either guardrails, as defined by building codes, or in some cases planter boxes or similar structures used to create a physical separation between parklet occupants and vehicular traffic. f. The barriers were not designed as highway type traffic railings or crash barriers and appeared to act as a deterrent as opposed to a crash barrier. The design requirements for barriers vary. The following is a summary of those prescribed by jurisdictional requirements. A. Guards Guards as prescribed by the California Building Code Section 1015 fall into two categories; 1. Guard railing to keep pedestrians from entering hazardous areas or conditions. Pedestrian guard rails are required to; a. Be a minimum or 42 inches in height. b. Not allow a sphere of 4” to pass through the guardrail. The intent of this provision is to prevent small children from passing through the guardrail. c. Be designed to resist a lateral force of either 50 pounds per lineal foot or a concentrated load of 200 pounds applied at the top of the rail. Item 3 Attachment D: Supplemental Planter Analysis     Packet Pg. 120     STOCKTON SAN JOSE SACRAMENTO MODESTO 3428 Brookside Rd. 111 N. Market St., #300 900 Howe Ave., #200 101 Sycamore Ave, #100 Stockton, CA 95219 San Jose, CA 95113 Sacramento, CA 95825 Modesto, CA 95354 t: 209.943.2021 t: 408.754.2021 t: 916.520.2777 t: 209.762.3580 F:\17projects\17240 Palo Alto On-Call Survey\Civil\Parklet Protection Memorandum\17240 Palo Alto Parklet Protection Memorandum - Rev 1.docx PAGE - 2 - 2. Vehicle barriers used along the sides of parking garages more than one foot above adjacent grades not subject to bus or truck traffic. Vehicle barriers are required to resist a 6,000 pound load 18 to 27 inches above the pavement. B. Traffic Railings Traffic railings are generally barriers designed to prevent vehicles from going off the roadway. The requirements for traffic railings are specified in Caltrans and AASHTO (American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials) standards. These barriers are generally required to be tested at various speeds and approved by governing agencies. Some of the approved railings available for use in parklets may include the following Caltrans standards, however they may not meet the aesthetic goals of the parklet program and will require more area; 1. Type K Temporary Railing (Plan T3A and T3B). Type K Rails are 32 inches in height. Though the title of the plan is “Temporary”, it does provide for long term use if pinned to the pavement as described in plan T3B. 2. Concrete Barrier Type 60M (Plan A76A). This is an unanchored barrier and is 42 inches in height. Caltrans Standards include many other types of barriers such as metal beam guard rails and crash cushions. In addition, Caltrans approves the use of some proprietary pre-manufactured barriers. III. FINDINGS In addition to the barriers described above, we considered the possible use of other barriers such as planters or bollards. The following represents our findings for all barriers investigated; 1. Type K Railing As previously described, Type K railing meets Caltrans requirements for a traffic barrier, however; a. At only 32 inches in height, the railing does not meet the height limit of a 42 inch tall guard rail. Additional railing would need to be attached on top of the K rail to meet this requirement. b. A K rail is intended to deflect the vehicle back into the roadway. This does not mean that it will not move. Any pedestrian or table abutting this barrier could still be affected by a vehicle impact. Type K railing anchored into a foundation could further restrict barrier movement, however, without a testing program, this system performance is unknown and cannot be verified. c. The railing does not protect the pedestrian from flying vehicle debris that may be associated with a vehicle hitting the barrier. 2. Type 60M Railing The comments for K Railing above also apply to Type 60M barriers except that the 60M barrier does meet the requirement for guard railing height. Item 3 Attachment D: Supplemental Planter Analysis     Packet Pg. 121     STOCKTON SAN JOSE SACRAMENTO MODESTO 3428 Brookside Rd. 111 N. Market St., #300 900 Howe Ave., #200 101 Sycamore Ave, #100 Stockton, CA 95219 San Jose, CA 95113 Sacramento, CA 95825 Modesto, CA 95354 t: 209.943.2021 t: 408.754.2021 t: 916.520.2777 t: 209.762.3580 F:\17projects\17240 Palo Alto On-Call Survey\Civil\Parklet Protection Memorandum\17240 Palo Alto Parklet Protection Memorandum - Rev 1.docx PAGE - 3 - Other Barriers Investigated We reviewed other various types of barriers. Our analysis assumed the following; a. Factor of safety of 1.5 against sliding and overturning. b. Vehicle bumper height of 24 inches. c. Pavement coefficient of friction of 0.35. d. Soil passive force capacity of 200 pcf for foundations, 400 pcf for poles. 1. 500 Pound Water or Soil Filled Structure A 500 pound, 18 inch wide, unanchored structure is only capable of resisting a 117 pound lateral force. This does not meet the requirement for a guard rail. This option is not recommended for use as a safety barrier. 2. Planter A planter 42 inches tall by 18 inches wide by 10 feet long filled with soil (80 pcf) is capable of resisting a 490 lb lateral force. This assumes the vehicle hits near the end of the planter causing it to rotate. This meets the requirement of a guard rail but is not sufficient to serve as a traffic barrier. Another consideration is, depending on how the planter is constructed, flying debris from a broken planter may hit a parklet occupant creating an additional hazard. If the planter is constructed of structural concrete or masonry and is anchored to a foundation 48 inches wide by 18 inches deep the lateral force capacity increases to 2,540 pounds. 3. Bollards Bollards typically consist of a concrete filled steel pipe embedded into a concrete foundation. Bollards are commonly used as a device to protect equipment in traffic areas or prevent vehicular access into restricted areas. A Bollard with a 24 inch diameter foundation 36 inches deep is capable of resisting a lateral force of 550 pounds. Bollards, with added horizontal railings, can meet the requirement of a guard rail but are not sufficient to serve as a traffic barrier. IV. CONCLUSION Each type of barrier described and investigated will provide varying levels of protection. Guard rails restrict the parklet occupant from entering the traveled way while traffic railings restrict vehicles from leaving the traveled way. A summary of each barrier’s lateral force capacity is as follows: 1. Guardrails – 200 lbs. at 42 inch height, see the attached detail for minimum configuration and requirements. Barriers with loads applied at 24 inch bumper height; 1. 500 lb. Object – 117 lbs. 2. Planter – Unanchored – 490 lbs. 3. Planter – Anchored – 2,450 lbs. 4. Bollard – 550 lbs. 5. Type K Railing – Capacity per test data. 6. Type 60M Railing – Capacity per test data. Item 3 Attachment D: Supplemental Planter Analysis     Packet Pg. 122     STOCKTON SAN JOSE SACRAMENTO MODESTO 3428 Brookside Rd. 111 N. Market St., #300 900 Howe Ave., #200 101 Sycamore Ave, #100 Stockton, CA 95219 San Jose, CA 95113 Sacramento, CA 95825 Modesto, CA 95354 t: 209.943.2021 t: 408.754.2021 t: 916.520.2777 t: 209.762.3580 F:\17projects\17240 Palo Alto On-Call Survey\Civil\Parklet Protection Memorandum\17240 Palo Alto Parklet Protection Memorandum - Rev 1.docx PAGE - 4 - The values presented provide a degree of magnitude with respect to each barrier’s capacity. However, none of the barriers investigated can guarantee a parklet occupant will not be harmed when a vehicle hits the barrier. We trust the information provided herein will assist you in assessing acceptable risk levels and help provide guidance in the development of your Parklet Design Standards. If you have any questions regarding this proposal, please do not hesitate to call me directly. _________________________________ Paul J. Schneider, QSD, QSP, P.E. President | Managing Principal SIEGFRIED Attachments: Typical Guard Rail Detail.pdf Item 3 Attachment D: Supplemental Planter Analysis     Packet Pg. 123     Item 3 Attachment D: Supplemental Planter Analysis     Packet Pg. 124     Item No. 4. Page 1 of 1 Architectural Review Board Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: May 2, 2024 Report #: 2404-2939 TITLE Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for December 7, 2023 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) adopt the attached meeting minutes. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Minutes of December 7, 2023 AUTHOR/TITLE: ARB Liaison1 & Contact Information Claire Raybould, AICP, Principal 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 4 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 125     Page 1 of 21 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/7/23 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD DRAFT MINUTES: December 7, 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 8:35 a.m. Present: Chair Peter Baltay, Vice Chair Kendra Rosenberg, Boardmember Yingxi Chen, Boardmember David Hirsch, Boardmember Mousam Adcock Absent: Oral Communications None Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Chief Planning Official Amy French 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 Chair Baltay noted there had been a change in the retreat date. Chief Planning Official Amy French stated that was correct, it was scheduled the same day as the Historic Resources Board (HRB) meeting and staff would not be in attendance. It is now scheduled to be held on February 29, 2024. Ms. French also stated they have advertisement to the Public and is invited to speak under Oral Communications. Boardmember Hirsch inquired if the meeting would be recorded. Chief Planning Official Amy French responded that every ARB meeting is advertised in advance to allow for public comment and every meeting is recorded. Chair Baltay expressed an interest in creating an ad hoc subcommittee for 156 California Avenue, an SB330 application that is currently outside the current zoning standards. Boardmember Adcock and Chair Baltay were appointed as subcommittee ad hoc members. Study Session 2. 70 Encina Avenue [23PLN ‐00291]: Request for Preliminary Architectural Review of a Proposed Project Consisting of 10 new Condominium Townhouse Units in a new 3‐Story, 22,230 SF Building Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of December 7, 2023     Packet Pg. 126     Page 2 of 21 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/7/23 (1.84 FAR), and Site Improvements to Replace the Existing Surface Parking Area. The Formal Application Will Include a Rezoning to Planned Home Zoning. Environmental Assessment: Not a Project. The Formal Application Will be Subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review. Zoning District: CC (Community Commercial). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Emily Kallas at Emily.Kallas@CityofPaloAlto.org. Chair Baltay inquired if any Boardmembers had disclosures. Boardmember Chen disclosed she visited the site. Chair Baltay disclosed he visited the site. Boardmember Hirsch disclosed he visited the site. Vice Chair Rosenberg stated she had visited the site. Chair Baltay introduced the item and called for a staff presentation. Project Planner Emily Kallas introduced the preliminary review for 70 Encina Avenue. The proposal is to rezone two Community Commercial (CC) Zoned properties to the Planned Home Zoning (PHZ) to allow for construction of ten residential condominium units in a three story structure on a vacant property, and a Certificate of Compliance to merge two lots. Per the PHZ requirements there would be a net increase in housing with no jobs generated and at least a 20% Below Market Rate (BMR) units provided. In September 2022 there had been a Council pre-screening, however, the project has been substantially redesigned since that screening. Site plan includes ten units arranged around a central driveway courtyard with two units having one parking space, with the rest having two spaces. Outdoor space includes second story balconies and the side yards of the site. The project proposed is three stories high with thirty-eight feet and two inches at its tallest points, fifty feet is allowed. Ms. Kallas presented the elevations for the front and two sides, as well as the rear which is adjacent to Town and Country. The proposed materials include a brick veneer and glass block on the first floor with board and batten siding on the upper floors, as well as bronze and orange metal accents. The considerations for discussion include the relationship between the proposed project and it’s setting the Town and Country parking lot, the site circulation, the usability of ground level open space and overall site landscaping, architectural design, cohesiveness and quality of the materials, and the Consideration of the Context-Based Criteria and Objective Design Standards (ODS). Chair Baltay explained the order of the study session and called for ARB questions for staff. Chair Baltay inquired about the parking lot taking a portion of Town and Country’s parking and how it affected compliance, stating there was a community interest in understanding what was going on. Project Planner Emily Kallas stated the lot was independently owned, and not under the LS Partners who own and operate Town and Country. Owners Ellis Partners have a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan that will not impact parking, making it within their rights to propose a project on this parcel. Chair Baltay questioned if the adjacent properties and parking lots were privately owned and could also be redeveloped. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of December 7, 2023     Packet Pg. 127     Page 3 of 21 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/7/23 Chief Planning Official Amy French stated they did not have Town and Country on the agenda, she was not allowed to go into detail about the site. However, the site is within a half mile radius of the train station and parking under AB 2097 , it is not required for uses other than hotels and event centers within the half mile radius. Boardmember Chen referred to the comment list on packet page 17 and questioned who made the list and if the comments and questions were delivered to applicants prior to the meeting and if applicants have heard staff concerns and responses. Emily Kallas responded that they were staff recommendations, comments, and concerns for the ARB’s discussion. The staff report was forwarded to the applicants when it was published. Boardmember Adcock inquired if this was the only portion of the parking lot that was individually owned. Project Planner Emily Kallas responded that was correct. Boardmember Adcock referenced A 0.3 which shows the parcel with the building layout, and the parcel to the west seems to be privately owned, however, on A 1.01 it appeared to be shown as an existing driveway into Town and Country. Project Planner Emily Kallas referred to sheet A 0.3 showing where the different parcels were located, and the one directly west of the subject site is the driveway entry and is owned by Town and Country. Boardmember Adcock requested clarification that this parcel only has a street frontage on Encina and does not have any other drives for fire access and to the townhouses being proposed on the backside and is a couple hundred feet from any public fire access. Project Planner Emily Kallas stated the site should be treated as an individual lot and as it continues through the formal review process staff and Fire will ensure there is adequate access to the site. Chair Baltay requested confirmation that the service alley appearing to be a public alley in the plans is privately owned by Town and Country, thus could not be considered as a fire emergency access for the site. Ms. Kallas stated that was correct. Vice Chair Rosenberg inquired how the existing lot was zoned. Planner Kallas responded it is zoned as Community Commercial (CC). Vice Chair Rosenberg asked if they were looking to rezone the property to be allowed to build the residences or if that is allowed under CC zone. Project Planner Kallas stated it does not need to be rezoned to allow residential use, however, requires that the floor area is more than what would otherwise be allowed. Vice Chair Rosenberg questioned if the floor area is meeting the CC zoning compliance of a residential development, and if it needs to be mixed use. Project Planner Kallas referred to Attachment B which compares what is being proposed to what is required under the CC zoning district. The only place it varies is in the rear yard setback, which is typically required to be 10 feet, the build to lines which is usually 50% of the frontage built to the front setback, the site coverage which is 7% over what is allowed, and the floor area ratio of 1.84 is being proposed. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of December 7, 2023     Packet Pg. 128     Page 4 of 21 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/7/23 Vice Chair Rosenberg inquired how they are going to be allowed to have these exemptions, and how will they be allowed to have no rear setbacks when Palo Alto usually requires five feet. Project Planner Emily Kallas stated it was a fully discretionary process and provided the process flowchart for Planned Community projects. Chief Planning Official Amy French added that it was legislative as well, so it would go to Council for zoning. Vice Chair Rosenberg clarified that it was being zoned for a specific use and the applicant is asking for it to be used for residential, and they are asking for exceptions to the rules under residential development. Amy French responded the exceptions would be handled through the Planned Community Legislative Act and are all part of the ask that Planning Commission (PTC) could recommend for City Council approval. Vice Chair Rosenberg inquired about the architectural deference to the surroundings, such as neighborhood context, noting that it is in close proximity to Town and Country which is low slung and Mediterranean looking, which the plan is not and questioned whether the requirements for development ask for any respect to its neighbors from an architectural reference. Ms. French stated saying when Staff is looking at projects, they consider the codes and Objective Standards (OS) so they can compare projects to those guidelines. Ultimately the final decision for this site and project will come from City Council . Seeing no more ARB questions for staff, Chair Baltay called for the applicants presentation. Applicant Jeffrey Galbraith greeted Council and thanked them for the opportunity to be heard. Mr. Galbraith The project is surrounded by CC and CS projects and properties well outside the radius of other residential projects. The properties on the north side of Encina are medical and professional offices that support uses on the block and noted the Councils questions on parking, as well as a rear ingress and egress for Town and Country on both sides, with the southern edge being flanked by the service alley behind the shopping center. The northern and southern neighboring buildings along Encina have a mix of materials used and building descriptions. Mr. Galbraith stated they took a pre-screening before Council a little over a year ago for a 20-unit condo that was well received by Council as well as Town and Country, who have since been working to compromise on pairing the building to work for both parties. Mr. Galbraith provided details into the changes of character on the back façade with extensive covering similar to Town and Country. Mr. Galbraith stated after many revisions and trying to maintain a podium concept while taking in consideration the high cost, they needed to find a point where the project could still be viable which led them to the three-story town home concept, getting rid of the concrete construction of the podium and instead using an all-wood concept. The units will now have their own internalized single garage. Mr. Galbraith showed a depiction of the overlay of the site with an axis aisle down the middle for exiting and entering garages and safe distancing. The Courtyard is a vehicular and pedestrian entry with the unit doors facing the Central Courtyard. There are three plans A, B, and C: B and C extruding vertically with some adjustment to the exterior façade. The program yield of the new concept is half of the original 10 condo units, mostly three bedrooms, with at least 20% being affordable. Mr. Galbraith stated they have done material studies looking at similar pallets from the first proposal of lighter tones and wood but have now introduced some board and batten siding, which is also used at Town and Country. They have now decided on a darker pallet with board and batten siding with a light buff brick base on the ground floor. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of December 7, 2023     Packet Pg. 129     Page 5 of 21 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/7/23 while showing slides of the units previously discussed. Mr. Galbraith described the sidewalk and landscaping plans and the terraces which allow access to the Central Courtyard. Chair Baltay thanked Mr. Galbraith and asked Council if there were any questions for the applicant. Vice Chair Rosenberg stated it was a very informative presentation and requested clarification about the addition of the trellises and rock wall and the material that will be used. Mr. Galbraith responded that the material is two layers of woven metal mesh with rock in between, so more like a gabion style rock. Vice Chair Rosenberg noted the edge of the wall was uneven and inquired if it was intentional and if the material for the trellises was to match Town and Country. Mr. Galbraith confirmed that the rock would fill unevenly, and the language and rhythm of Town and Country is post and beam with exposed structure and dark colors, so they wanted to be compatible and pick up on those cues. Vice Chair Rosenberg questioned the 20% below market rate on the BMR units and if that would equate to two. Mr. Galbraith responded Vice Chair Rosenberg was correct. Vice Chair Rosenberg thanked the applicant and stated that was all the questions she had for now. Boardmember Adcock asked for clarification if the additional renderings plans were the plans on the set, which are pretty much the same. Mr. Galbraith responded that was correct. Boardmember Adcock inquired about the fourteen foot wide entry pedestrian gate from Encina, stating it seemed a little narrow for two way traffic and if emergency vehicles would have access. Mr. Galbraith responded that the project was small enough for access and the fire department would not bring the engines inside, but rather use a much higher entry portal. Boardmember Adcock stated that a three story and thirty-foot eve height is what pushed them to the aerial axis which they have exceeded. Mr. Galbraith stated they have had previous meetings with the fire department and there would be more discussion on that. The majority of the bedrooms are all located on the courtyard side so the fire department is able to have ladder access to the third floor from the ground, they would not need a ladder truck to access the courtyard. There is still logistics to work out. Once inside the courtyard, it is thirty feet wall-to-wall, so there is enough room for two cars to pass each other with some buffer on the side and stated the City has a document that lists the required width of the ingress ways based on the number of units, and fourteen feet is allowable for up to ten units. Boardmember Adcock requested clarification that the fence that was indicated in the drawings was the rock wall he was proposing. Mr. Galbraith stated that was correct. Boardmember Adcock referenced the side behind the small patio for each unit and questioned if that is a requirement, as well as the logic behind making people go between units. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of December 7, 2023     Packet Pg. 130     Page 6 of 21 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/7/23 Mr. Galbraith stated those are still being worked through with the fire department and the assumption was the fire department personnel would need to be able to come down the side yards to have access to the rear units. Boardmember Adcock referred to 2.01, the ground floor plan, behind the rock wall, she noted a green patch and asked how it will be maintained knowing that it is landlocked and by people’s property. Mr. Galbraith replied the project is still in early preliminary review with the ARB and was waiting for Council feedback on what they had presented. Chair Baltay inquired why they did not choose to have underground parking and why all the previous proposals maintained at grade parking. Mr. Galbraith stated with the contributing factor was cost, as a ramp for below grade parking would decrease the buildable area of the property. . Chair Baltay questioned the reasoning for going from a five story condo unit to a three story townhome and the rationale between the two designs seeing as it is radically different. Mr. Galbraith stated that it was completely cost driven. They needed to find a way to get the construction costs down enough to make the project feasible. With many of the costs not changing, they still had massive costs for utilities and infrastructure and City fees making it a tough equation to solve. Chair Baltay inquired if the owner would consider building four-stories. Mr. Galbraith stated he did not know, but based on gut feeling it would be no due to the numbers they had studied so far. Chair Baltay thanked Mr. Galbraith for his honest answer and asked for any other Council questions. Boardmember Chen inquired about the functional side for a package delivery room and trash room and how it was to be used by the tenant, and if they would need to go through the front entry and gate to have access. Mr. Galbraith stated that would be the typical strategy, the tenants would go out their front doors to the central courtyard, then around to the trash room. He added hypothetically they could use the rear yard, but in doing so they would be crossing into their neighbor’s yards, and they are still working through the bylaws of the development. Boardmember Chen inquired about the upstairs windows and asked if they had considered offsetting them since they currently are facing each other directly. Mr. Galbraith responded it had been a key concern, but it was determined at the living room level they would have to offset the windows to the corner and people do not typically sit in the corner., so with that they would not see directly across into someone else’s living room. The bedrooms he states they could certainly flip which side the glass goes on if it was felt to be a benefit and felt that was a good comment to bring up. Boardmember Hirsch inquired about the front single units having a reduced area making the tenants maneuver their vehicles in order to get to their garages, and if they had explored that. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of December 7, 2023     Packet Pg. 131     Page 7 of 21 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/7/23 Mr. Galbraith referred to a San Fransico project Fon Grove and how it was a very similar project with the thirty-foot-wide courtyard and the two units at the front. It is negotiable and can be done and was sure that they will be asked to provide vehicular turn radius studies showing feasibility. Boardmember Hirsch questioned whether they had given thought to off the street parking and if that would be a code issue for the two units. Mr. Galbraith responded that typically they are not allowed to have more than one curb cut in a project but if the City had alternate suggestions, they would be happy to look into it. Boardmember Hirsch inquired how the tables in the outside areas would be used. Mr. Galbraith stated those spaces would be used by the tenants with their own ideas on how to use them. Vice Chair Rosenberg commented about the trash in the front of the units and the parking that her colleagues were questioning and suggested possibly flipping the two locations, and the end units which are both on the setback of the sides that sit on the drive aisle of the service alley as she understood that the residential setbacks are ten feet; and requested clarification of having no set back which would become an issue for neighboring future development. Mr. Galbraith stated that it was common for a residential building to be right up to a property line, noting that the more side yard you can cut out, the more space you could potentially use. The rear yard setback fronts a service alley that has back doors, bollards, and trash bins so if they pull the building back it will not be a space used by occupants. They felt that it could be utilized better by pushing the units to the edge and pushing the space to the core so the occupants can enjoy more square footage. Vice Chair Rosenberg questioned the cost calculations of the two final units being tandem spaces versus something similar to the front unit spaces and if that would be a deal breaker. Mr. Galbraith stated that was something they could consider. Boardmember Hirsch noted that if the parking were moved, there would be better access to the front of the building from the courtyard to the garages and trash rooms, but it would change the planning. Mr. Galbraith commented that was true and an interesting thought. Chair Baltay inquired what made them feel this project was compatible architecturally with Town and Country. Mr. Galbraith stated that compatibility comes in the use of materials and the vernacular additions and the trellises; Town and Country has a unique style of its own, and they felt a one story project would not be feasible. Chair Baltay opened the item to public comment. PUBLIC COMMENT Ms. Dao stated there was one public comment card submitted. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of December 7, 2023     Packet Pg. 132     Page 8 of 21 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/7/23 Dean Rubinson, with Ellis Partners, commented he has been the director of development for Ellis Partners in Town and Country Village since 2005 as well as managed the improvements on the property for the last 18 years. Mr. Rubison wished to clarify that Ellis Partners is very supportive of the new housing in Palo Alto and the Bay area but feels the proposed project will degrade Town and Country Village due to the disregard of the contextual urban planning and lack of impact on vehicles, pedestrian parking, and other operational elements. Mr. Rubison stated that future development at this site should preserve its existing amenities, pedestrian scale and architectural character and commented the design does not enhance the living conditions on the site as indicated on the design guidelines of Palo Alto. The proposal only replaces 25% of the existing tree canopy. Mr. Rubison stated that until the proposal could achieve mitigation with the existing constraints the application should be returned for modification. Chair Baltay closed public comment and offered applicant Mr. Galbraith a counter response and he declined. Chair Baltay stated Council’s concern when they reviewed this project initially was the well-being of Town and Country Shopping Center, and did not want the project to negatively impact the shopping center. With that said, Chair Baltay offered the Board a chance to ask questions of Ellis Partners. Boardmember Hirsch inquired about how this piece of property got separated from their facility. Mr. Rubison stated that the owners ground lease the Town and Country facility from the Williams foundation with a seventy-to-eighty-year term, they do not own any of the land. They have been leasing this parcel since 2005 to a separate entity as a parking lot. Mr. Rubison referred to Boardmember Hirsch’s earlier question regarding development on the rest of the site and stated that they could develop additional housing on the site with a similar PHZ process, however there is a specific section in the comprehensive plan requesting it be preserved in its current form and without residential housing. Adding the ten units ignores all the regulations and developing housing or future projects will downgrade the overall experience they are trying to preserve. Boardmember Hirsch inquired if they had ever put any thought into expanding the Town and Country. Mr. Rubison commented they have considered feasibility, however, they would need to replace existing retail parking if they wanted to have other uses and would therefore have to go underground or higher up and the numbers didn’t work out with either. Boardmember Adcock asked if the community development plan prohibits housing while maintaining existing amenities, and inquired if there was anything that would prevent the city from approving this project since the property is privately owned. Mr. Rubison stated that the comprehensive plan states conversion to residential capacity should not be considered at Town and Country Village, and believed the zoning was only allowed for mixed use residential with a certain amount of office space as a component, with a density of 0.15 Floor Area Ratio (FAR). Ms. French commented the zoning code for is permitted to have residential as part of a mixed-use development or designated housing inventory sites in the housing elements, and this parcel is cited for a capacity of four units. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of December 7, 2023     Packet Pg. 133     Page 9 of 21 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/7/23 Planner Kallas reported that of the two sites, one is designated as a housing inventory site in the housing element with a realistic capacity of four units based on the zoning allowance of 1.25 FAR for potential residential development; and being a housing inventory site, it is also allowed to be 100% residential. However, with this project site being composed of two lots, the second is not designated as a housing inventory site and was not sure how that would affect it if mixed-use would be required. Chair Baltay stated that only Council’s staff can provide zone and code information. Boardmember Adcock noted that this development would add vehicles to its site but noticed it would replace more parking space than the property currently has, and questioned if the average daily parking is expected to be 100%; and if replaced, would the additional cars increase the vehicular traffic to the area. Mr. Rubison stated when this site was no longer leased to Ellis Partners two years ago, the owners installed a fence surrounding the forty-two stalls, and expressed concern about the logical place for tenants and service workers entering and exiting their property. Chair Baltay asked staff if they wanted to comment on the fencing. Chief Planning Official Amy French commented she did not have code enforcement information for the fence on hand. Chair Baltay again offered Mr. Galbraith a chance to respond. Mr. Galbraith appreciated the opportunity and stated he wished to clarify the section of the comprehensive plan, it had different types of information, policies and programs. The letter referenced program L2.4.4, which addresses non-residential development potential in community commercial service, commercial downtown, commercial district, and neighborhood commercial district, and converting non-retail commercial FAR to residential FAR. Key consideration is to find out how much commercial development is allowed under the current zoning in the downtown area, and how to incentivize residential development. Section L2.4.4 quoted “conversion to residential capacity should not be considered in Town and Country Village” and confirmed that they have the study sessions around Town and Country Village due to it being a big portion of CC and CS. The owners feel it is a misapplication of the section and not a policy and there has been no policy or text amendment that has stated no residential development. Chair Baltay thanked the applicant and Staff and brought discussion to the Board. Chair Baltay commented the discussion has been mostly about large scale planning and parking in Palo Alto, little of which is a direct purview of ARB, they should discuss these as they see fit and be careful when focusing on the appropriate and compatible design of the building. Chair Baltay directed the discussion to Boardmember Adcock. Boardmember Adcock stated the colors and materials are toned enough and are more compatible compared to what had been previously presented and the project would sit as a backdrop, not a competitor to Town and Country; however expressed concerned about the plans for the back units which would need alley access for emergency services, which could would work with the property being right Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of December 7, 2023     Packet Pg. 134     Page 10 of 21 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/7/23 up against Town and Country Village. Boardmember Adcock commented that she thought it was commendable for their work to reduce the scale and cost of the project and thanked them for their presentation. Boardmember Hirsch commented he agreed with previous comments, and felt the canopy was similar to Town and Country and it was more of an add-on to non-functional space for perimeter aesthetics. The courtyard scheme was terrific, but the element was out of place and if it surrounded the rest of the area and parking lot it would be better. I If the project were to move forward, the parking issues and the first two units’ access to garbage and package rooms do not work as they should. If facing the courtyard, he believed using the PC zoning would allow for additional access from the outside for two parking spaces. Boardmember Hirsch stated he accepted the images of the facades on the building and felt it should not be built. Chair Baltay requested clarification that Boardmember Hirsch stated he did not feel the building should be built. Boardmember Hirsch stated that was correct. Boardmember Chen thanked Staff for their presentations and requested they inform Council of the entire process and history of the design and focus on the building itself. Boardmember Chen stated there where some functional issues and fire concerns, mentioning the code allowing a fourteen-foot-wide gate is a minimum requirement and they should consider the functionality for the tenants daily use., Understanding this development is a challenge, but for the tenants it would be extra work to access their amenities and that should be considered. There was improvement with the materials considering it would be a backdrop to Town and Country Village. On a pedestrian level the colors were too dark and harsh and suggested reconsidering the brick to a different material that focuses on the street level. Referencing sheet A3.04, the dark colors could cause the already limited lit area to be darker. The offsetting of the windows should be reconsidered, specifically the third floor bedrooms. One suggestion might be to flip one side of the unit so not to face the other. The upper floor unit seemed small for the floor plan. Vice Chair Rosenberg stated this is a unique project and would not be an easy one, and felt it was hard to value the capacity to park a single level garage over the capacity of people living in the City that needs communal housing. It will be difficult as this will be the first residential development in this area, but felt it was appropriate to scale down the large condos and a huge step in the right direction. They should pay attention to the future potential of this space and believe that the zero setbacks are inappropriate. The community will have a better connection with Town and Country Village with the closer access to the Shopping Center but will need to respect it’s history. The design architecturally speaking does not match the geometry and the color palette is inappropriate for this location. The parking is an issue for the first and last units and needs to be reworked and suggested adding pedestrian gates leading to Town and Country on the backside. The windows need attention so as to not be installed directly across from one another and reiterated that this project will set the tone for future development in this area and context. Chair Baltay stated he is in agreement with Vice Chair Rosenberg regarding the materiality and geometry not being sufficiently differential to Town and Country Village, suggesting the use of heavier timber posts for trellis construction and more eve treatment would better link it closer to Town and Country’s aspect. He also agreed the courtyard dark colors don’t work, and parking functionality and the trash receptacles are an issue for tenants. Over time Encina will become a larger residential street with three- and four- Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of December 7, 2023     Packet Pg. 135     Page 11 of 21 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/7/23 story buildings and he did not feel the comprehensive plan intended to say Town and Country should not be redeveloped for residential housing, however, it should not be replaced, and the parking area should be seen as a separate parcel fronting Encina Avenue. Chair Baltay expressed concern that the applicants were basically forced into a three-story type townhome development for economic reasons and not meeting requirements such as the parking issue. They should instead consider a four-story building with appropriate setbacks that would not negatively impact the Town and Country and could be beneficial as well. I It might facilitate the residential uses allowing a step back for terraces and provide a middle path to Town and Country allowing more development and better economics. Chair Baltay expressed concern for the people living on Encina as the iron gates for vehicle entry and pedestrian gates on either side closes the building off, and stated they have an opportunity to give the residential housing a stoop onto the street providing a more traditional urban design pattern. The current frontage of the building facing Encina does not have a strong presence and felt there was a different way to go about it. Chair Baltay commented that the massing could be larger, and it could still work. Boardmember Hirsch addressed his previous comment and stated there should be an overall plan for the parking lot and with the new development on Encina Avenue, an elaborate study of the block as a potential residential area would be useful. Boardmember Hirsch expressed it would be unfortunate if the City had to accept something that compromises future possibilities. Chair Baltay commented that the applicant could take the bold step of being the first in bringing a real traditional San Franciscan development, and requested Board comments regarding the massing and if they would accept a larger building as long as it was differential to Town and Country. Boardmember Hirsch commented that it was a piece of land that should be planned from one end to the other, and stated the City needs to address the housing crisis and should look at this site as a potentially great area for dense housing. As presented, this particular project could potentially prevent the rest from being developed. Chair Baltay stated the Board was requested to make comments to the applicant on their proposal and not all of the map was consistent with many things but did not give any clear direction on which way to go. Boardmember Chen commented she agreed with the massing comments and asked the applicant to consider both the Town and Country side and the street side; giving them a different concept for future development along the street as well as new ideas for the materials and colors. Boardmember Chen suggested the applicant provide a prospective view from Town and Country side to better convey how a four or five story building would not have a negative impact to the Center. Vice Chair Rosenberg commented she liked the idea and feels the townhomes are an appropriate scale and would not encourage a four-story building next to Town and Country, however if they stepped back the front townhomes facing Encina, she would not be opposed. Vice Chair Rosenberg feels the three- story on the Town and Country side of the property is appropriate, just the geometry is lacking; the iterations provided were helpful. Four stories would make sense for future residential development, but they need to work with what they currently have and what they have presented was a step in the right direction. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of December 7, 2023     Packet Pg. 136     Page 12 of 21 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/7/23 Project Planner Emily Kallas thanked the Board for their feedback. The ARB took a 14 minute break. The ARB returned with all members present except Vice Chair Rosenberg who joined a few minutes later. Study Session 1. STUDY SESSION: Summary of Focus Group Review and Feedback on the Existing Senate Bill (SB) 9 Standards Continued from November 16, 2023. Chair Baltay introduced the item as a continuation from the November 16, 2023 meeting and called for staff’s summary. Chief Planning Official Amy French continued with Attachment B Items Two Story homes and introduced Consultant Mammarella who joined the meeting on zoom. \Chair Baltay moved into item 7, screening landscape and asked if any Board members had any input. Seeing none he moved into Item 8, planting type and size, and noted he was interested in seeing of the Board had an interest in making native species a requirement, which is also a requirement on the commercial side. Boardmember Hirsch questioned on Item 7 regarding how the screening and landscaping works specifically on tight sights when you can’t have a continuous screening on the sides of a project and what happens in a situation where there is not enough room to plant trees. Planner Kallas explained that the screening requirement is to have one tree per 25 feet of property length, these do not need to be evenly placed, so it would be possible to stagger it in places where there may be basement light wells. Additionally, there may be cases where there is a six foot setback, something that is generally required on Individual Review (IR) project, some SB 9 projects may have as little as four foot setback. That would need to be studied more. They have not heard from the Building or Fire regarding there being a problem with planting trees within the side yard setbacks. Boardmember Hirsch commented that it’s not reasonable to suggest that owners can have a continuous line of trees in all circumstances, but that may be a case for an IR. Chair Baltay noted that in Item 7 if also offers the opportunity to use screening shrubs in lieu of trees. Boardmember Hirsch stated forcing plant screening could potentially limit the use of a six foot setback when it may be needed for light wells, trash bins, or electrical meters. Boardmember Adcock clarified that a tree is required one every 25 feet and if it’s not doable it should be an IR. The allowance to use shrubs instead of trees makes that requirement even easier to fulfill, the requirement should not be eliminated. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of December 7, 2023     Packet Pg. 137     Page 13 of 21 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/7/23 Boardmember Chen agreed the requirement should stay as privacy is important, particularly when the SB 9 projects start coming in and the setback is reduced to four feet. In a four foot setback there is a limitation of the selection of tree species. She’s currently working on a project in which the neighbors do not want anything planted as it will take away from their view. The project owners are fine with that, and questioned if an IR would still be necessary in that case. Planner Kallas the IR process is discretionary which opens the door for other options to consider. Overall, the City encourages privacy landscaping. One of the considerations for SB 9 projects is that neighbors will not have the opportunity to comment because they are ministerial projects. Chair Baltay inquired if it would be possible to add in ministerially if the adjacent property owner waives in writing the privacy landscaping requirements. Chief Planning Official Amy French answered they do not have a mechanism for ministerial projects because they are not handled by a planner that is focused on design review. Once it’s an exception it goes through the IR process. Planner Kallas added there are no notification requirement for SB 9 projects because they are building permit projects rather than planning entitlement projects. The rationale for no notification is that the neighbors do not have an opportunity to appeal the project. Chair Baltay questioned if the 25 foot number is too high. Boardmember Adcock stated that also applies to mature shrubs. A mature width is five feet. Chair Baltay inquired how staff enforces this. Planner Kallas explained that Podocarpus species is a common screening tree and in the IR process staff has a list of other species that are commonly used. There are a couple of websites they use to look up the mature height of a species. The sunset guidelines also use a website called selectatree.com for that information. Chair Baltay expressed favor in reducing the minimum mature height from 25 feet to 13 feet, and the width to 3 feet. Vice Chair Rosenberg suggested knocking it down 10 feet. Chair Baltay reminded these are intended for two story homes. Boardmember Adcock many landscapers will have different mature heights so I may be better to use a range such as 12 to 15 feet. Boardmember Chen said they had in the past required the height of a tree but as tall as the windowsill on the second floor, the math on that will require 15 feet if you include the floor thickness. Chair Baltay inquired if Consultant Mammarella had an opinion. Consultant Mammarella believed they were having a good discussion regarding the height of mature shrubs, mainly the issue of subbing shrubs for trees in a side yard is whether they have the capacity to Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of December 7, 2023     Packet Pg. 138     Page 14 of 21 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/7/23 screen the upper floor of the house rather than being a fence high shrub. Consideration is needed to determine what is already in place. He believed 15 feet is a decent height on mature shrubs. Chair Baltay inquired if there was Board consensus on a minimum of 15 feet high with a minimum width of 3 feet. Everyone agreed. Chair Baltay asked Consultant Mammarella if an adjacent property owner submits in writing a statement that they agree to not have privacy screening, could that be used instead of meeting the requirement. Consultant Mammarella stated when that had come up in the IR review context, they had required some type of landscaping on the side yards, but it was a height concern and would allow them to select items with a more limited height, a compromise that works with the neighborhood. Boardmember Hirsch commented that the city doesn’t have a way of regulating those types of requests. Planner Kallas explained the issue with that type of scenario is that the city can’t require the property owner to reach out to the neighbors that they are filing the project. Chair Baltay continued to pose the question of letting two neighbors agree on privacy to include none, if that is what both parties want. Chief Planning Official Amy French commented they had been ready to move further into the list and spent a good amount of time on something the ARB will never be involved in and suggested that staff take is as advisement with the ARB feedback and continue forward. Chair Baltay requested planning raise the question to Council to see if it’s viable to have an agreement form for neighbors who may not want any privacy screening. Chair Baltay moved into item B8 – Planting type and size and had questioned whether a native species should be included and questioned the 8 feet requirement when planting a shrub. Planner Kallas explained this is a standard condition of approval for Individual Review projects, it is something that staff does as part of the final inspections of projects and something that most applicants have been able to meet. Boardmember Adcock believed the native species is a good idea, but believed if they planned to ask for some amount of native it should also include a percentage. Chair Baltay asked if it was possible for staff to print a list of native trees and their heights to avoid future discrepancies. Planner Kallas responded they currently have a list that is essentially available upon request by the applicants. That list includes evergreen screening landscapes, drought tolerant regionally adapted screen trees, which applicants are able to ask if they don’t know what they want to plant. These projects are also required to meet the other code requirements in the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (WELO) that encourages native species. Boardmember Adcock commented that WELO helps however it’s more about drought tolerance than native. Chair Baltay mentioned he made the suggestion because it’s a clear requirement in the ARB findings under the landscape requirements. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of December 7, 2023     Packet Pg. 139     Page 15 of 21 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/7/23 Moving into item B9, planting in utility easements, Chair Baltay requested clarification if this item requires planting in a Public Utility Easement (PUE) or if it’s saying where to plant if you have one. Planner Kallas responded the intent is to note that public utility easements (the last five feet of rear yard when present) are not exempt from the landscaping requirements of one per twenty-five feet and therefor is more of a reminder to applicants that that landscaping has to be planted outside of the public utility easements. There are height restrictions depending on if the utilities are above or underground. The utilities department preference is for nothing to be planted in the easement. Vice Chair Rosenberg questioned how this would affect ADUs that only have a four foot setback. Planner Kallas explained that the one per twenty-five feet is not intended to create a continuous hedge, it would be typical for there to be the ADU and then two or three trees planted at the five foot line. Vice Chair Rosenberg debated that if there were a 25 foot ADU in length that abuts the 5 foot easement, a notch would have to be cut into the easement in order to plant the tree. Chair Baltay noted that B7 states that the screening has to be within the interior lot lines, the board has been assuming that meant the side lot lines and questioned if the rear lot line was included. Planner Kallas confirmed the rear lot line is included. The privacy landscaping is secondary to the permanent privacy requirements which on the side yard are fairly substantial with the five foot sills and the upscaled glazing, the rear facing windows or side facing windows that are more than 20ish feet away from the property line, you’re allowed to have larger and fairly clear windows; the landscaping in those areas become the primary privacy feature. Consultant Mammarella added this is only a quantity standard. It’s not saying that every twenty-five feet, it’s only saying what quantity has to go in, they have the flexibility to plant it anywhere in the property that makes that work. Chair Baltay questioned if that was true. Planner Kallas replied the one every twenty-five feet applies per property line, but they do not have to be evenly placed. Vice Chair Rosenberg commented that the measurements are appropriate, suggesting the working of the item could be revised to prevent people from placing three trees on a 75 foot lot, together in a corner and calling it a day. The intent is for privacy, which would not be achieved if the trees were planted at will. Chief Planning Official French stated staff would take a look at the wording. Boardmember Hirsch asked what the fencing requirements are at the rear line between two properties. Planner Kallas stated technically per the zoning code fences are not required, it is a choice of the property owners although staff rarely sees an owner who chooses not to have a fence. The maximum height for the interior side that is at least sixteen feet back from the property line and around the rear yard is seven feet. Chief Planning Official French added there are no building permits required for fences on single family properties. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of December 7, 2023     Packet Pg. 140     Page 16 of 21 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/7/23 Chair Baltay asked if there was any way to eliminate B9 altogether and leave it between the applicant and the utility district of where they put the tree. It’s a mistake the way it’s being handled as there will be many lots that will result in trees where people don’t want them. Consultant Mammarella commented that people often see there’s an easement and don’t plan for landscaping and then they get backed into a corner. If the Board feels that the presence of the easement diminishes the need for the landscape, then that would be your sentiment on it. However, if you feel the landscape is important, having the requirement would let the people know they can’t get out of landscaping just because they happen to have an easement they have to accommodate. Chair Baltay suggested wording the item as a landscaping is required even in the presence of an easement. Planner Kallas believed the original expectation was the trees would be on the perimeter of the property, and the standard allows them to be outside of the easement, which is also a requirement anyway. Chief Planning Official French suggested adding shrubs with trees for E-9, so that bamboo could be included. Chair Baltay suggested wording the item as a landscaping is required even in the presence of an easement. Chief Planning Official French stated staff had their feedback and requested the Board move on. Chair Baltay refused and stated he wanted to call a vote and requested Board comments on his request. Vice Chair Rosenberg commented that she appreciated Ms. French’s concept that it could be trees or shrubs, flexibility is important, she is aware of other cities that don’t allow any planting in a utility easement. There is a conflict between trees planted that will later have to be removed because they weren’t initially planted in an allowed area. In a PEU it should only be shrubs, they are easier to cut down, they are easier to replace, and are usually more cost efficient; shrubs can also be placed in mobile containers that can be rolled to a different location quite easily. Chief Planning Official French commented staff would not allow an oak tree to be planted in a PEU, as it is a protected tree. Chief Planning Official French stated that would be an elegant way of stated we change it to only include shrubs so we can move on. Chair Baltay moved on to item B-10 – Privacy screening which seems to repeat what was already discussed and noted if they combine B-10 with B-7 it tends to answer the spacing of the trees concerns. Planner Kallas responded staff would note that feedback. Boardmember Chen questioned regarding B-9 if they should run the shrubs change by the Public works since they have height restrictions due to their equipment in the easement. Planner Kallas responded that staff would look into that. Chair Baltay moved on to B11 – Second Floor Window Privacy and commented that for any upper floor windows, stairways windows, bathroom or hallways windows are not subjective to the privacy requirement and is typically resolved in the IR process. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of December 7, 2023     Packet Pg. 141     Page 17 of 21 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/7/23 Vice Chair Rosenberg referenced minimum sill height of five feet from finished floor automatically prohibiting any emergency egress windows from being on those façades and commented that the unintended consequence of the five foot minimum sill height is that there will never be a bedroom window facing the neighbors. That increases privacy and forces applicants to regulate the windows to the interior of the lot, however, five foot tall windows present a challenge for people who aren’t tall. Chair Baltay responded there is an option of using translucent glazing and is quite usual in the IR process. Staff confirmed for Vice Chair Rosenberg that five feet is used in the IR process. Consultant Mammarella commented that Chair Baltay’s suggested is correct depending on how large the windows measure and what they are facing. Often if there is a large hallway window that faces down into the neighbors house obscure glazing would be required. Those situations are less of a privacy concern but not completely without cause for concern. It’s a case by case basis. Planner Kallas stated that item C addresses the stairway windows and suggested it might be reworded to ensure the understanding is the window is five feet above the stairwell finished landing floor, not the finished ground floor. Consultant Mammarella confirmed for Chair Baltay that the wording of the item is close to the current IR standard. The difference is the distance to the yard. The IR standard does not specify the distance and uses ‘close proximity.’ Boardmember Adcock expressed concern that the item regulates the side yard distance at 20 feet from a yard and an SB 9 project a 20 would never foot space between the project and a neighbor and suggested adding wording to allow a shorter distance for a stairwell window. Consultant Mammarella responded that the item is interpreted such that if the distance is less than twenty feet the regulation applies; if the distance is greater than twenty feet it does not. The code currently states you can’t build a second story less than twenty feet from the rear lot line so it would never apply for a rear lot facing second story window. Planner Kallas added that for context, a 20’ distance from the rear property line comes from Director hearing interpretations when there have been neighbor concerns regarding privacy across rear property lines; property greater than a distance of 20’ is not required to have obscured glazing on windows facing the rear yard. Chair Baltay inquired about the standard applying to first floor windows when the finished floor is more than two feet above grade. Planner Kallas explained that standard is a departure from the IR standard, but consistent with the ADU standards that was recently adopted due to neighborhood concerns about elevated floors in flood zones where the seven foot fence is not sufficient for providing first floor privacy. Chair Baltay asked if the intent is to apply that to all houses in town, as most are above two feet off the ground, this will result in no side windows on a house. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of December 7, 2023     Packet Pg. 142     Page 18 of 21 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/7/23 Chief Planning Official Amy French stated that perhaps there is a setback that can be included. ADU’s can all be four feet from the property line. Normal houses that are not SB 9 projects have to follow current setback standards. Boardmember Adcock stated even normal houses are generally within a twenty foot setback on the side property lines. Chief Planning Official Amy French suggested possibly rewording the last line of the item specifying the four foot setback restriction. Planner Kallas added that the intent was for the first floor windows less than twenty feet away and elevated above grade. This standard was added as part of the change to the ADU code, the ARB may want to consider separating it into a different one for elevated one story house windows overall. Chair Baltay agreed it should be separated out and not be listed under two story privacy and Ms. French’s suggestion made a lot of sense. Add the addition on the setback of four feet, not six feet, then the standard is triggered, much like they do for ADUs. He cannot accept the current level of restriction on a house with a six foot setback on the side yard, one the ground floor windows. Chief Planning Official Amy French responded so noted. Chair Baltay moved into item B12 – Operable windows along the side property line and inquired how the standard applies to a double hung window. Consultant Mammarella responded that this would allow double hung vertical sliding windows, it restricts horizontal sliding windows. Chair Baltay asked what the difference is between the two as related to privacy. Consultant Mammarella answered that the horizontal sliding windows with glazing allows the exterior view when the window is open. There is still some view with the vertical however it has been found that the bottom part of a vertical window has less affect on the view than the entirety of a horizontal open window. Chair Baltay suggested using the specification of hinged window sash, which would encompass tilt turn windows and other privacy concerns. Boardmember Adcock expressed concern that eliminating only one type of window is more a hindrance on architectural language than a solution to privacy issues from adjacent windows. Vice Chair Rosenberg agreed and stated that her concern with a hinged window is those can be opened 100% and there is zero privacy. Overall, she felt they were overregulating windows. Chair Baltay inquired from staff how often operable windows cause privacy concerns. Chief Planning Official Amy French stated they have had several appeals where she stood in bathrooms and based on the direction of the window there were definitely privacy concerns with open windows. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of December 7, 2023     Packet Pg. 143     Page 19 of 21 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/7/23 Planner Kallas added that the standard was also written with the knowledge that there may be a potential requirement for fire egress windows, and they are not allowed to require only fixed windows that would prevent adequate fire egress. The standard was written as a compromise to all of those things. Chair Baltay commented he felt they were making the process too complicated by regulating how a window functions. It’s important to be consistent with the process in the IR standards, this is what is recommended they should stick with it. Consultant Mammarella responded it doesn’t come up in every IR, but it does come up enough to warrant some type of standard. Chair Baltay moved on to B13 – Side Daylight Clearance. The daylight plane requirement was lowered to eight feet from ten feet for side yards. Chief Planning Official Amy French noted this had been dealt with in previous discussions with the ARB about daylight planes, those notes can be forwarded for this process, and expressed an interested in continuing the Eichler section at the December 21st meeting since there are two ad hoc items following this meeting and she has another meeting at noon. Boardmember Hirsch commented that the change in B12 would severely impact existing houses and questioned the reason for the reduction. Planner Kallas spoke regarding the changes in the daylight plane were directly based on prior ARB feedback to not have a daylight plane plus a step back, it’s also consistent with current IR interpretations that when adjacent to a single story house, the City requires them to be two feet below the current daylight plane. The rephrasing here was to eliminate the wording ‘two feet under the daylight plane’ and say the daylight plane is measured form eight feet instead of ten feet. Chair Baltay stated he’s okay with the change. It’s restrictive but to staff’s point the ARB has already discussed the item and that was their prior compromise. Boardmember Hirsch disagreed stating in a tighter situation that would eliminate square footage from some buildings. Chair Baltay responded that people are entitled to go through the discretionary process instead if they’d like and asked for any additional Board comments; noting that the Board’s stance was four members okay with the item and one member strongly objecting to it. Boardmember Hirsch stated he’d like to keep the daylight plane at ten feet. Vice Chair Rosenberg stated she’s a huge advocate for the daylight plane but feels they are again being too overly restrictive. Boardmember Adcock agrees that it may reduce square footage on the first floor as well. Vice Chair Rosenberg inquired about the daylight plane angle. Planner Kallas answered forty-five degrees, and this is something they are currently doing on other IR projects that are adjacent to single family houses. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of December 7, 2023     Packet Pg. 144     Page 20 of 21 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/7/23 Vice Chair Rosenberg stated her vote would be to leave it as it is written. Chair Baltay asked if there is an exception for flood zone properties that have a height increase. Planner Kallas stated not as it is currently written, the way the daylight plane is currently measured, there is one half of the difference between the existing grade and the base flood elevation, which does create an addition bump to the daylight plane, which would apply in this case. Chief Planning Official Amy French suggested adding wording about the flood plane. Chair Baltay agreed that would be important. Boardmember Chen is in agreement with the wording change. Vice Chair Rosenberg also agreed. Boardmember Adcock agreed. Boardmember Hirsch continued his stance against the standard. Chair Baltay moved into item B14 – Contectural Roof Pitch and asked who else on the ARB felt this one was wildly inappropriate. Vice Chair Rosenberg agreed, the owners should be allowed to follow the daylight plane. Chair Baltay requested the standard be removed. Boardmember Hirsch agreed it should be removed. The ARB was in consensus, B14 should be removed. Planner Kallas noted their request and commented that this is something that would get revisited when they look at the ones that specifically pertain to an Eichler context as a subjective standard. Chief Planning Official Amy French requested a vote to continue the Eichler standards to a date certain of December 21, 2023. Motion: Moved by Vice Chair Rosenberg, seconded by Boardmember Chen, to continue section E to a date certain of December 21, 2023. VOTE: 5-0-0 Public Comment None Boardmember Questions, Comments or Announcements Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of December 7, 2023     Packet Pg. 145     Page 21 of 21 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/7/23 None Adjournment Chair Baltay adjourned the meeting at 11:51 a.m. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of December 7, 2023     Packet Pg. 146     Item No. 5. Page 1 of 1 Architectural Review Board Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: May 2, 2024 Report #: 2404-2930 TITLE Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for December 21, 2023 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) adopt the attached meeting minutes. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Minutes of December 21, 2023 AUTHOR/TITLE: ARB Liaison1 & Contact Information Claire Raybould, AICP, Principal 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 5 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 147     Page 1 of 20 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/21/23 4 2 6 7 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD DRAFT MINUTES: December 21, 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 Mousam Adcock Absent: 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. Vice Chair Kendra Rosenberg noted she had a schedule change in which she will not be available for the February 1st meeting. City Official Reports 1. Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2) Tentative Future Agenda items and 3) Recently Submitted Projects Senior Planner and Architectural Review Board (ARB) Liaison Claire Raybould reported the January 4th hearing is planned to be canceled, currently the January 18th hearing is scheduled for 660 University Avenue however that may be pushed out to allow for completion of the environmental analysis pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). There is also a preliminary review for 1066 East Meadow Circle that staff is looking to place on that agenda. New applications include 1066 East Meadow Circle and an SB330 pre-application for Buena Vista Mobile Home. Chair Baltay inquired about the Buena Vista Mobile Home project and expressed an interest in assigning an ad hock committee. Senior Planner Raybould noted with the lengthy break for the holidays she would send out the information for that project via email. The project was filed in the last few days. Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of December 21, 2023     Packet Pg. 148     Page 2 of 20 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/21/23 4 2 6 7 Action Items 2. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 824 San Antonio Road [23PLN-00181]: Consideration of a Major Architectural Review to Allow the Construction of a New four story mixed-use building with 28 dwelling units and 2,694 sf of retail space. Fifteen units will be independent senior living, twelve will be assisted senior living, and one owner’s unit. On site amenities include two common outdoor open spaces, a dining facility, and common indoor space. Environmental Assessment: The Project is Being Evaluated for Consistency with the Previously Certified Housing Incentive Program Expansion and 788 San Antonio Mixed Use Project Environmental Impact Report (SCH # 2019090070). Zoning District: CS (Commercial Services). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Emily Kallas at Emily.Kallas@Cityofopaloalto.org. Chair Baltay introduced the item and called for disclosures. Boardmember Adcock stated she visited the site. Boardmember Yingxi Chen stated she visited the site. Chair Baltay disclosed he also visited the site. Vice Chair Kendra Rosenberg visited the site. Boardmember David Hirsch visited the site. Project Planner Emily Kallas provided background information on 824 San Antonio Road [23PLN-00181] is proposed as a Housing Incentive Program (HIP) project includes a new four-story mixed-use building with 28 dwelling units. Fifteen of the units will be independent senior living, and 12 will be assisted senior living, plus one owner’s unit. All units will meet the definition of a housing unit for Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) purposes. On site amenities include two common outdoor open spaces, a dining facility, and common indoor space. The ground floor also has two retail spaces and a café space, for a total of 2,694 sf of retail. Twenty-nine (29) parking spaces are provided in the below-grade garage. This applicant has indicated that the project is intended to be fully code compliant, including meeting the Objective Design Standards. The project does not currently meet all of the City’s Objective Design Standards, but should it be revised to meet these, the project could then use the City‘s streamlined housing development review process set forth in PAMC 18.77.073. The project may be redesigned to comply with the objective standards or, In lieu of meeting the Objective Design Standards, the project may be evaluated against the Context-Based Design Criteria. Staff is also in the process of evaluating the project to confirm that it is consistent with the previously certified EIR for projects in the Housing Incentive Program area along San Antonio. Modifications from the preliminary review include the masonry material has been removed, and white fiber cement board is proposed instead of dark gray stucco. The metal shade screens have also been changed to white. Additional wood siding has been added to the ground floor. However, the green/planted screen element has been removed from the front façade. Programming of this space has been clarified, it includes hardscape with furniture, a bocce ball court, perimeter trees, and a bioswale. Balconies have been recessed into the building to maintain setbacks and to increase privacy. This slightly reduced the Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of December 21, 2023     Packet Pg. 149     Page 3 of 20 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/21/23 4 2 6 7 unit sizes. A roof deck amenity has been added to the rear half of the roof, with a large trellis, planters, and patio furniture; and the build-to line requirement is now being met on the upper floors, with additional space for circulation on the ground level. Discretionary applications are being requested for Architectural Review – Major (AR): The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC 18.77.070. AR applications are reviewed by the ARB and recommendations are forwarded to the Planning & Community Environment Director for action within five business days of the Board’s recommendation. Action by the Director is appealable to the City Council if filed within 14 days of the decision. AR projects are evaluated against specific findings. All findings must be made in the affirmative to approve the project. Failure to make anyone finding requires project redesign or denial. The findings to approve an AR application are provided in Attachment C. The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the project site is Service Commercial. This project is located on San Antonio Road where mixed-use projects are anticipated. There is 2,922 sf of commercial space, or 0.15 FAR, which is consistent with the allowable FAR under this land use designation. The project is consistent with the policies in the Comprehensive Plan and therefore fulfills the goals of the Plan as well. In particular, the Land Use Element and Housing Element include policy L-2.3 which encourages diverse housing types, including senior housing, as well as Policy 5.1, which encourages the creation of housing, especially for specific uses such as for seniors. The subject project is currently being evaluated in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. Staff is reviewing the project for consistency with the previously certified Housing Incentive Program Expansion and 788 San Antonio Mixed-Use Project EIR (SCH #2019090070). The project would be subject to all relevant mitigation measures required for projects streamlining in accordance with the adopted Environmental Impact Report. Boardmember David Hirsch inquired how many tenants would be in the building. Planner Kallas responded the proposed project would have 28 units and there is a mix of one and two bedroom units. Boardmember Adcock asked if the roof top usage was exclusive for the top floor unit. Planner Kallas explained the roof top does not allow accessibility by all units as per the zoning code. Chair Baltay requested the usages allowed for the rooftop as written per code. Planner Emily Kallas stated it would require access by a common stair. Senior Planner Raybould answered a rooftop open space would need to be accessible by all residents according to 18.40.230. Chair Baltay asked if there are setback requirements from the edge and if elevator access is allowed above the height limit. Planner Kallas referenced the 45 degree angle of the daylight plane from the parapet and answered that the elevator is allowed above the height limit. Chair Baltay called for the applicants presentation. Applicant Kate Conley provided the applicants presentation for the proposed project with Athen Carter from Architects FORA. The goal is to design a senior living facility with amenities. The existing building is one building with one tenant, a boxing and fitness gym. The site is accessible from public transit routes including the VTA 22 and the San Antonio Road protected bike lanes. The daylight plane setbacks on the upper levels are not proposed due to the project being in the Housing Incentive Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of December 21, 2023     Packet Pg. 150     Page 4 of 20 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/21/23 4 2 6 7 program area. They also expect future high density projects on the adjacent properties. The overall design is a Cenoté, which is inspired by an underground lined cave or well. A parti diagram is included the plans. The floor plans include a commercial retail space on the ground floor, residential support in the common areas, and residential assisted living residential units. The second floor features a community room, a dining hall, and a central courtyard. The third and fourth floors are identical and include a community room, a gym, and independent living units. There will be twenty-nine parking spaces in the underground parking area, four of which will be commercial and will include EV car and EV van charging spaces. A bike room is provided for 34 long-term bike spaces. There is a twenty-four foot setback along San Antonio Road, five foot side setbacks and a ten foot rear setback. The project includes an easement alteration to increase the public sidewalk along San Antonio by three feet, for a total of twelve feet wide. A trash staging area and curb cut zone loading zone that can also serve as a pull out for quick deliveries or a fire truck is along San Antonio Road. The new electrical transformer is located between the trash staging area and short term bike parking spaces. A short term delivery space is located at the entrance of the underground parking garage. A path along the south side is for residents and staff only for access to the sixteen additional bike parking spaces in the first floor bike room and can also be accessed by elevator 2. The retail space will be open to the public and resident friendly such as sundries or a coffee bar. These spaces meet the ground floor commercial requirements for mixed use in the Housing Incentive program. Three assisted living apartments and resident support spaces are located on the ground floor for residents who may have mobility impairments and prefer a ground level unit. There is a redwood reflection guard planned to protect the two redwood trees on the property. The rear yard outdoor amenity features a bocce ball court, lounge seating and storm water treatment areas are well as raised garden beds to support communal space for the seniors to foster community. Communal lounges have also been provided for residents to read, gather, and watch facility led movie nights on the projector wall. Support spaces are primarily located on the north side of the main level away from the uses. On the second floor, in addition to the dining room will be a warming area for residents who wish to bring and warm their own food. A walking path has also been included on the second floor per the ARB’s request. The third floor has residential units and a gym, the fourth floor is almost identical other than the gym is a communal area. The roof includes a garden area, the mechanical equipment and screen, which are all accessible by stair 2 and elevator 2. The trash room and staging areas were designed in compliance with the guidelines provided by Palo Alto’s zero waste. Both the independent and assisted living units include full residential kitchens. The independent units feature balconies for private open space. The balconies are tucked back into the unit footprint to provide the clear five foot setbacks requested by the ARB. Underground parking and the ground floor will consist of larger open spaces and concrete construction. The upper three levels will consist of wood framed dwelling units that stack, with the exception of the second floor dining space. The building height is fifty feet measured at the parapet and the rooftop garden features a ten foot tall trellis. There are areas on the site with restricted ground water access for fire safety, and emergency escape and rescue. The project team is in conversation with Palo Alto Fire to determine alternate methods for emergency access as noted on the plan. A focal point in the interior lobby is a sculptural center type skylight. Recessed planters will be in the skylight. The front façade they are proposing to have a local artist design the screen at the primary entry portal as a means of incorporating the public art program requirement and will have 24/7 visibility access to the public. Noting that the screen has not yet been designed, so the wood Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of December 21, 2023     Packet Pg. 151     Page 5 of 20 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/21/23 4 2 6 7 tone screen shown on the front elevation is merely a placeholder. Wood toned screens will be featured on the east and south façades to provide privacy, soft and hard edges, and varied natural and glazed walls. The wood look cladding on the ground level walls and the overhang soffits has been increased to lend natural warmth to the projects material pallet per the ARB preliminary hearing feedback. Off white metal vertical louvered fins as a shading device from the floor to ceiling glass door fronts and at the community rooms facing San Antonio Road. The second floor courtyard overlooks the ground floor redwood garden. The curved balconies will feature hanging plants to soften the hard lines of the exterior and provide light filtering qualities. The C-shaped design of the building takes advantage of the southern exposure and views of the Santa Cruz mountains. Highly recyclable materials are being used whenever possible, with low embodied carbon. Exiting plans have included showing all floors fire ratings of walls, and occupant separation tables if needed, as well as diagrams demonstrating how the Palo Alto objective standards were incorporated into the project. Landscape plans are also available for discussion. Chair Baltay thanked Ms. Conley for the presentation and called for public comments. PUBLIC COMMENTS Ms. Veronica Dao stated there were no public comments. Chair Baltay called for questions of the applicant’s architects. Boardmember Adcock thanked the applicant for the presentation and disclosed that she and Ms. Conley worked together several years ago and commented that the project is interesting and very well thought out and referenced PA Sheet 7 - the first floor and inquired if the resident communal area is separated from the public retail area and if the retail area would access the same trash staging area as the residents. Applicant Kate Conley noted that the intent is that everything in the dark blue on sheet 7 is completely accessible to the public, and the retail would access the same trash room, and noted it could use some refinement for clarity. Anything shown as grey is intended to be residential only spaces that would utilize controlled access such as key cards. Chair Baltay requested clarity of the blue space. It’s listed as retail, however, appears to include half of the building lobby, further asking how the architects intended to keep the area as retail if it’s also private space for the residents. Ms. Conley answered that all of the blue area is intended to be accessible to the public, the lounge seating would be for the coffee bar, which is open to the public, the lobby would also be open to the public. All retail is considered public space, they are still negotiating with staff on where the private entrance to the units will be from the lobby. Chair Baltay asked staff if the City’s code warrants the entrance for residents be through a public retail space such as a coffee shop. Ms. Conley continued and explained stairwell 1 and elevator 1 are immediately accessible inside the door. Manager of Current Planning Jodie Gerhardt responded that this is staff’s initial review of the project, they are still taking a deeper dive into the details. From the front door there will need to be a path for Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of December 21, 2023     Packet Pg. 152     Page 6 of 20 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/21/23 4 2 6 7 residents that is not considered retail. Most of the area could be considered retail, there is still time to refine that. Boardmember Adcock asked what is considered retail, and if the reception area going into the leasing office also being considered retail. Ms. Kallas stated it is not considered part of retail, which is why it is classified as such on the plans. The Leasing Office on the plans is colored grey. Staff is continuing to refine the lobby area between retail and private residential. Due to the way the Housing Incentive program is set up, it is important to classify every square foot of the lobby as either retail or residential, when there are shared spaces, it is something that staff continues to work through as it effects the calculations. Boardmember Adcock referenced PA11.6 or 7.6 regarding the terrace and inquired if the 664 square feet listed as R2 occupancy the paved area, how they are counting the area and confirming they only need one layout of the roof garden area. Additionally, she noted there is not a boundary for what could be considered the assembly space, how would they prevent people from using the entire roof. Ms. Conley explained that the paved area is the space considered for open space, and a boundary would be a great addition. The number of occupants was figured by the building department. The intent of the rooftop is intended for the owners only and would appreciate feedback regarding the open space requirements as that may change the way the rooftop is designed. It only requires one exit because it is an assembly space with less than fifty occupants. Boardmember Adcock stated the boundary of what they are using for the 44 square feet seems to be minimizing how much area is actually being used to reach the occupancy of 44 and urged them to sharpen in on that. Code wise, every area which allows people to stand could be considered as that open space, which may cause the number of exits to increase. Boardmember David Hirsch requested how the residents on the ground floor get to their units and how they distinguish the privacy of the ground floor units as compared to the upper floor units. Ms. Conley stated that currently the ground floor units would be accessed through the coffee bar. Boardmember Hirsch asked if those units are different from the upper units. Ms. Conley responded they are not. Boardmember Hirsch inquired how the public would access the building. Ms. Conley answered they imagine it would be accessed by pedestrians on San Antonio Road, the front has it’s own double door entry, and then there is a double door leading into the public lobby. Additionally, there are four parking spaces in the basement garage that are associated with retail, those patrons would access the retail area using elevator 1 or Staircase 1. Boardmember Hirsch requested information about what the concept is for the retail space commercial area and if the open space is intended to draw folks into the space. Ms. Conley replied they believe the skylight will be a beautiful space for everyone to gather. The commercial space on the ground floor is a requirement for it to be mixed-use as part of the housing incentive program. There is not an option in the current code not to include the retail space. Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of December 21, 2023     Packet Pg. 153     Page 7 of 20 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/21/23 4 2 6 7 Boardmember Hirsch asked for a description of how the community spaces would be used. Ms. Conley responded they have enlisted a senior assisted living provider since the prior meeting with ARB, who has made suggestions about the type of space and activities seniors enjoy. They originally had a darkened theater and reading room, the provided encouraged them to combine it into one big living room with a projector wall for movie nights; a dining, food prep, and beverage bar on the second floor and suggested widening the corridors on the third and fourth floors for informal areas for games. Boardmember Hirsch requested information about the intent of the dining room. Ms. Conley explained that the dining area would have a meal prep area to warm meals that had been prepared offsite, those would be served three times per day, particularly for the assisted living residents. There is also a full sized kitchen in each unit. Boardmember Hirsch asked if the owners could have their way, would they have preferred to have the same amount of retail space that is required. Ms. Conley stated the owner is excited about providing some resident friendly retail on the ground floor, possibly not quite the quantity. It is a very narrow site so it’s a really high bar to meet the 0.5 to 1 ratio. If it were a wider site with more street frontage it would be a lot easier requirement to meet. Boardmember Hirsch asked in general how the program was developed. This project has a pretty high percentage of retail for the number of residents that will live in the building, citing his experience with senior living facilities there was generally a much more modest percentage of retail space, and how the outdoor space will be utilized and accessed. Ms. Conley explained that one of the service providers programs would likely be a shuttle service, particularly those in the assisted living units. Ms. Conley stated she does not have the details on the shuttle service, however, the space marked as pickup and drop-off, is the space intended for that shuttle service or any family members who may be picking up residents. There is also a bench nearby the double doors that will be covered. The curb cut is intended more for deliveries. Boardmember Hirsch inquired about the widening of the sidewalk on San Antonio. Planner Kallas stated that San Antonio Road has a special setback and there’s been discussion regarding whether any of that space could be used in the future to improve bicycle infrastructure. It would not be for the purpose of widening any drive isles of the road. Boardmember Hirsch asked if this project had engaged in conversation with the Office of Transportation. Ms. Conley stated they had not, however, would welcome that discussion. Boardmember Yingxi Chen requested information about how the trash would be taken from the collection room to the staging area for pick up. Ms. Conley explained that facility staff would manage the trash from the sidewalk and through the double gated area. Boardmember Chen inquired about the two bike parking areas and if they were designed for two different groups of people. Ms. Conley stated they reconfigured the bike parking that had been designed all in the underground garage to now include some of the bike parking on the ground floor for the senior residents. The basement bike parking will be more for the facility staff or retail staff. Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of December 21, 2023     Packet Pg. 154     Page 8 of 20 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/21/23 4 2 6 7 Boardmember Chen questioned the short term bike parking which is depicted in two different locations. Ms. Conley replied that is an item they need to fix. The intent was to have short term bike parking in front of the retail. They had been considerable changes after they learned the trash staging requirements and electrical transformer guidelines. Boardmember Chen requested more information about the trees citing the parking plan shows the trees in that area as protected and the landscaping plan shows the trees removed. Ms. Conley confirmed she would find that out before the next hearing. Boardmember Chen asked if the windows on the owner’s unit and the unit below meet the egress requirements for the COAR tin screen shading. Ms. Conley stated they have several areas on the site that don’t meet the emergency escape and rescue requirements so they will have an entire set of alternative means and methods that they are working through with the Department of Fire and Safety. Vice Chair Kendra Rosenberg asked if the loading and unloading space near the front entry is an ADA space and if it is required to be. Ms. Conley stated it is not part of the required parking count, and could be designated as such, however the intent is to leave it open for everyone, but also design it as an accessible space. Vice Chair Rosenberg inquired about the space to the dimpled sidewalk and it’s size, suggesting it is enough space that if one of the mobility impaired residents can utilize it if they don’t want to go over the dimpled sidewalk; and if the existing high voltage electric transformer would remain. Ms. Conley stated her understanding was they would remain. Vice Chair Kendra Rosenberg clarified the transformer behind the garbage staging area was new and required. Ms. Conley confirmed that was the case. The reason for the positioning of the new transformer was due to the view triangles from the adjacent driveway on the south side of the building. Vice Chair Rosenberg asked if the retail space could be combined into one large retail space. Ms. Conley stated she didn’t see why they couldn’t be combined; it was the owner’s desire to have two different tenants. Vice Chair Rosenberg questioned the placement of the ground floor bike parking space as it feels odd to have to walk through the front door and past to coffee shop to get to it. Ms. Conley stated their primary intent was to have it accessed via the side yard, with an auto opener on the gate and door. It was positioned behind the retail because having it front and center in the lobby seemed displaced for the lobby and the retail. Vice Chair Rosenberg asked if the assisted living area would be secured. Ms. Conley answered there will be access control on the door leading to those units. Vice Chair Rosenberg inquired about the possibility of the expansion to the kitchen, and if the second community room may end up as kitchen space. Ms. Conley confirmed that was the option that is being considered. Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of December 21, 2023     Packet Pg. 155     Page 9 of 20 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/21/23 4 2 6 7 Vice Chair Rosenberg asked about the different access points and if they will also be controlled on the second floor. Ms. Conley responded she didn’t believe they were going to have special access between the courtyard and the corridor. Vice Chair Rosenberg questioned the area in front of the second floor unit and if they had considered a balcony area. Ms. Conley replied that there was a strong desire from both the owner and the assisted living provider to not have balconies in the assisted living areas due to the safety risks. Vice Chair Rosenberg continued with floor three and asked if the balconies are five feet deep, recalling at the previous review it was discussed that six feet deep is required, and clarified that a foot could be added, and they would still be within the setback requirements. Ms. Conley stated that was correct. Vice Chair Rosenberg referenced the front elevation and asked if they have the LRV of the white color on the exterior of the building. Ms. Conley stated she could find it for her. Vice Chair Rosenberg continued that the white fins are very white and inquired if there were alternatives. Ms. Conley stated the metal fin panels could be customized and they would match the more creamy Zurich white. Vice Chair Rosenberg commented she appreciated the angles of the renderings; she was able to understand more clearly with the 3D renderings. Ms. Conley responded that the LRV for the Zurich white is 76. Boardmember Adcock referenced PA7.2, and inquired about Stair 3 and the courtyard egressing, which is not egressed for Stairs 1 and 2. Ms. Conley answered Stair 3 is also for fire access to the podium from the street level, so it’s serving a dual purpose. There is a code stipulation that outdoor areas exclusively servicing residential have only one means of egress. The plans depict a worst case scenario with everyone leaving the building from only stairwell 3. Manager of Current Planning Jodie Gerhardt noted that building compliance had already reviewed the plans and would continue to do so to ensure compliance, some of these things had not yet been fully flushed out. Boardmember Adcock asked if food delivery for the second floor dining area would be utilizing the same elevator 1 as the residents. Ms. Conley answered yes. Boardmember Adcock inquired about the lack of gated access into the underground parking lot. Ms. Conley stated that was correct because it is also the designated commercial parking area. Chair Baltay commented that some of the requirements of the City were making the project arduous, specifically the requirement for so much retail space and inquired if there were other ways staff might consider in order to help them cut that required square footage. Planner Kallas stated the zoning was required by the CS district and the Housing Incentive program zoning. The only alternative she was aware of would be to do a Planned Home Zoning (PHZ) project, which is a significantly more intensive process than this being in Architectural Review. A variance would require a hardship based on the property. Ms. Gerhardt stated unless they did a PHZ, it would require changing the code via a text amendment. Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of December 21, 2023     Packet Pg. 156     Page 10 of 20 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/21/23 4 2 6 7 Chair Baltay believed the electrical and trash requirements applied to that as well, by having a serious impact on the design of the building. Ms. Gerhardt stated that Palo Alto has their own electrical entity, and the planning department remains in communication with them often. They have pushed back where they can, however, there are safety regulations not only surrounding the equipment but also the utility employees who access the transformers. They type of changes Chair Baltay was requesting would need to be City Council direction. Chair Baltay inquired about the four spaces for the retail area and if that would allow any type of food service business. Planner Kallas stated the zoning allows for the first 1,500 square feet of retail to not be parked. They would have to look into whether or not the coffee bar could be included in that or if it would require a higher number of spaces. A TDM would be required to see if shared parking would work, and if found that it would, they would then be able to do a Director’s Adjustment for parking. With regard to Planner Kallas’s question of if the parking is included in the initial 1,500, there are different parking requirements for eating establishments, one would be a bigger deduction than the other, she would have to look further into that. Chair Baltay inquired what the ratio is for retail and food service, Planner Kallas stated that regular retail is a ratio of 1:200. Planning Manager Gerhardt answered that coffee such as Starbucks is considered food retail and falls under the retail category with a ratio of 1:50 square feet. Chair Baltay brought the item back to the Board for discussion. Chair Baltay commented he’s concerned about the retail space, with the little amount of square footage available. He found it hard to believe that the building would allow public access for facilities within the lobby with part of the building being designed for assisted living and is dismayed the City’s has set such standards that make the project difficult to work. The retail standards need to be relaxed. It’s disappointing they can’t find a way to make the project less challenging. He has the same concerns with the trash bins. They could be left on the left side facing the building of the drive isle for collection. It makes way more sense than the front of the building. Vice Chair Rosenberg commented that for the purpose of this review for this project she believed they are adequately showing an appropriate amount of retail. She completely supports Chair Baltay’s comments, she believes this developer has found an appropriate solution to the problem. She believes the people will want to go there and having the mingling of a senior facility is a wonderful thing and they have found a way to comply with the current standards in the best they are able to at this time. She also believes that in general Chair Baltay was right on the mark. Seniors shouldn’t be tucked away; they need to have interaction and to be seen and they need liveliness. The project thought out ways to solve the problems in a very clever way. Boardmember Hirsch interjected and stated that as a senior, not all seniors would agree with that and having the younger traffic listening to different much in the lobby of their building. But at the same time, where else would they go to get that interaction. There ought to have been some consideration of the size and use of the facility in deciding if there should be or not be commercial in this type of building. If the space were compressed more, there could be more garden space or more open space. He agreed with Chair Baltay’s comments and on San Antonio Road there’s going to be a greater density of housing, would they really want to use this place as their coffee shop? That may be Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of December 21, 2023     Packet Pg. 157     Page 11 of 20 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/21/23 4 2 6 7 a lack of planning for San Antonio Road. They need a midtown type shopping center for the whole area. It doesn’t make sense to split it up into small pieces in residential buildings. Boardmember Adcock believes they made it work according to the math, however if she were living there, she would feel a loss of privacy having a shop open to the public. The coffee bar is a nice idea, but she didn’t see how it would work in that space. She believed there are ways to push the retail more to the right side of the building and towards the street and move the mail and other areas closer to the units for more privacy, and she’s still not sure they need they third stairwell. Boardmember Chen felt the living part of the project is great and has a luxury type feel. The retail below, she leaned more towards Vice Chair Rosenberg. It’s nice to bring people into the building to make it more lively. It also would depend upon the nature of the business. It doesn’t need retail that creates loud noises, it could be appropriate for the seniors. It could also be a small convenience store so when they need something it’s right there. She felt the applicant found a smart way to solve the problem and meet the requirements of commercial zoning. Boardmember Chen asked the applicant if they felt it was too restrictive for retail or if it was a good add on to the project. Chair Baltay encouraged the applicant to go through the PHZ process and petition for what they actually wanted to do. Boardmember Adcock agreed and wondered how easily the community would find a coffee place that far deep into a senior community. Chair Baltay suggested it could be a very luxurious senior project if they could get the 3,000 square feet for retail and have a movie area, or a cocktail bar with a lit up atrium that was private for the seniors. Vice Chair Rosenberg posed the question that if the retail wasn’t shaded in as retail, would there be an objection with the design of the building. Boardmember Adcock answered that the building has multiple community spaces, and the retail would be one of them. It could be very attractive if it could be resident exclusive; and security is also a concern. If they moved the receptionist further back, stairwell 1 would no longer be monitored. Chair Baltay commented that his concern is with the lack of security from the public zone to the assisted living units. The physical structure of the design is great, the notion that there will be public space that deep into the building, is not. It’s not a change to the architecture, it’s a change to the specified use. Boardmember Hirsch commented that he feels the coffee shop is not a good use in the space and once it is eliminated it opens up many potential better uses for the community, and effects the design of the rest of the building. Vice Chair Rosenberg suggested if safety is a concern, the assisted living units on the ground floor could be moved to the second floor and the area for food prep and dining could be moved to the first Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of December 21, 2023     Packet Pg. 158     Page 12 of 20 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/21/23 4 2 6 7 floor it would make the first floor more of a community only with the retail and dining for the residents and would eliminate the safety concern of the public having easy access to the assisted living units. Boardmember Adcock stated that would then lead to question of who the outdoor open spaces are for. If the retail space is a café, it could be outdoor seating for the café, which goes back to the zoning of the required outdoor space. Senior Planner Raybould stated the outdoor space would be for the residents, with possibly key card access. Chair Baltay suggested the Board move on to the Board discussion of the rest of the building, specifically the roof deck. Boardmember Hirsch commented that the second floor works well from an architectural standpoint, but there is a conflict with the third floor and the jog in the building and the residences shift to the front of the building. The second and fourth floor layouts work well together with the community space in the center of the floor. It is a very small building; it would be much more interesting if the screening were the entirety of the front façade. Dividing it into three pieces on such a small building is too much. Screening that you can move around can be used for privacy, shading, and many other uses. There are a lot of amenity spaces for only 28 tenants. Some of those other uses could be more units in a layout that condenses all of the community areas into one or two areas. Conceptually there would be a much better building if they reconfigured the uses into more of a Cenoté design. Senior Planner Raybould stated she was not comfortable exploring that any further as they are not allowed to encourage the developers to not meet the code. Boardmember Adcock commented on the exterior elevations and materials and referenced PA 5.1, the west street side elevation has the three part front, she recalled they said there would be a replacement of an art piece, which will make that façade much more interesting and will seem more like two vertical sections instead of three. The upper elevations at the upper courtyards could benefit from art as well. The rear east elevation having the pieces as the rest of it dilutes the value of the specialness of the display of art. If those pieces were eliminated in the rear, it would negate the need for egress out of the windows. Colors and materials are good, her concern is how bright white the samples are. It might be alright on the north side, but not on other sides as you drive down the street. She appreciated the trees being saved and the shape and massing of the building be worked around the trees to do so. It is hard to tell how the arc shape changes as you go up the building. It seems to change on every floor, she urged the architects to think through that. Referencing PA 5.1, she is not a fan of the gate to the stairwell. It doesn’t seem like a nice thing to have facing San Antonio. Vice Chair Rosenberg stated that she’s less fussed about gate, suggesting they make it match the artwork to some extent. She believed the stairwell is appropriate considering the size of the balcony. She agreed with her colleagues on the front façade. Looking at the rear façade, it appeared more successful. She did agree that it dilutes the specialness of the other screens, and it would solve the need for egress. Getting a little more consistency on the front façade would be beneficial to the project. She’s okay with the Zurich white, the white metal paneling doesn’t work for her. The paneling on the front façade feels like the wrong material, and the left portion needs to be reworked a bit. She Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of December 21, 2023     Packet Pg. 159     Page 13 of 20 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/21/23 4 2 6 7 liked the entry way and the hood. She also liked the screen. Big picture, she very much appreciated the Cenoté idea. It’s a lovely concept. Having twenty eight people living in the building is going to leave the building feeling empty. It does make sense to have more public access to get a little more life and vibrancy. She suggested having all of the amenities on one floor makes more sense from a security perspective and ease of use. She would also be curious if there would be a need for an onsite live-in caretaker and if there is a unit specified for that. On the north side façade, the balconies could go to the setback line, and they would meet the six foot open space balcony setback and that could be useful on levels 3 and 4. The bike room on the ground level could be smaller. Overall, she believed the project was moving in the right direction. The concept is a good idea, and the usability is successful. Boardmember Chen thanked staff and the applicant for the presentation and believed they did a good job on the overall planning and appreciated the outdoor and active space for the senior living. She was concerned about the trash circulation both from each unit and from the trash room to the staging area along the street. There is still time to find a better solution for both. The retail trash area should also be reconsidered. She agreed that the front elevations seem to have too many elements for such a narrow property. Around the right side it’s divided between the upper and lower levels. The metal screen is nice, however, for the community center side, similar elements might be nice. Chair Baltay commented he agrees with everyone else regarding the front façade, the back façade is more successful with the right and left pairing and the more decorative art feature in the middle. The front façade with the vertical screens on the left above the community center is too much. The building would be more successful if they kept it more simple. With a change to the kitchen, the functionality would fall into place nicely. The white color is too bright, particularly in contrast to the wood paneling. Regarding the building planning, he expressed concern about the drop off area at the front impeding on the front entrance. There’s only a couple of feet that’s not dimpled for ADA accessibility between the corner, and it blocks off the front door in a very inelegant way. He encouraged them to rethink the front entrance as it relates to the drop off area. It’s an important feature that currently doesn’t work well for the entrance. He encouraged reconsideration of the roof deck entrance to a private staircase for the owner to access from their apartment rather than have the elevator go up. If it’s a private roof deck for the owner of the facility, simplify the use and design to make it such. If the intention is to use it for all the residents, there are other issues that need to be addressed, both in the size and how it’s designed. The theme is similar throughout the project, they designed it to comply with all of the constraints, at some point it needs to come together as architecture. As a Board they should be clear about allowing the balconies project another foot. If the balconies could protrude to the setback, to the advantage of the interior, the six foot dimension in the objective standards is the right dimension for the balconies. It also might help with the texturing of the façade. Boardmember Adcock agreed completely, and because it’s a senior facility, there should be enough space for a wheelchair to turn around on the balcony. Boardmember Hirsch agreed. Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of December 21, 2023     Packet Pg. 160     Page 14 of 20 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/21/23 4 2 6 7 Boardmember Chen agreed and clarified that there are no setback’s required for this property. Her understanding was it was just the five feet the ARB requested at the previous review. Planner Kallas explained that the side yard setback in the CS zoning district (interrupted) Senior Planner Raybould stated the setback for residential is five feet. Boardmember Adcock stated in the chart it shows none, but six feet left or right provided. Existing is five feet. Senior Planner Raybould reiterated she believed it’s five feet on the side for residential, then clarified only if it’s abutting. Planner Kallas stated there isn’t a zoning required for a setback but because of fire access, they are required to have the five foot isles around the building. Senior Planner Raybould either way a balcony can project two feet into a setback. Chair Baltay stated as a board, the ARB feels the balconies need to be six feet deep. They are okay with them projecting beyond the plane of the building. Regarding the bicycle access, many seniors are using the three-wheeled style bicycle which can be quite cumbersome, they need to ensure there is adequate access from the street along the side of the building and directly into the shed rather than going through the glazed façade wall from the courtyard area. They also should consider the size of the room. He doubted seniors would go down the ramp and into the back of the parking garage to park their bicycle. Boardmember Hirsch felt there could be better planning in the middle of the care facility, the trash area, the mail room in a way they could gain access with a card front to back. Moving some of the facilities into the blue area and finding a way to expand the retail space would be beneficial. Perhaps curving into the living room area. One of the community rooms upstairs could be a space like that. The benefits of shifting things around would make a huge difference to the project and could open the possibility of having a vaulted ceiling in the lobby. More wood screening on the front would make the building seem friendlier, particularly if it rounded the sides of the building. There is still time to replan as they are required to keep the commercial space. Boardmember Adcock inquired about the height of the building and if that included the parapet, and if the trellis and equipment are allowed to extend higher than fifty feet. Planner Kallas explained the parapet is included in the fifty feed, there are height exceptions for the trellis, stairwell, and HVAC equipment. Chair Baltay noted that earlier in the week staff asked for more time to work through the code requirements for the roof area. Boardmember Hirsch noted that it would be nice if more of the roof was available for all residents. Senior Planner Raybould summarized the Board’s comments, staff heard their thoughts regarding retail, unfortunately they cannot change the code, but they can explore and consider what their options are under the code. They should reconsider the design of the back units on the ground floor Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of December 21, 2023     Packet Pg. 161     Page 15 of 20 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/21/23 4 2 6 7 either for better security or move them to the second floor, the front elevation to be simplified, the balconies extended to six feet, rethinking the drop off space and ensuring the access to the front entrance is clear, considering alternate options for the trash staging area and the stairwell on the right side of the building and the bike room size and accessibility. Planner Kallas added that consideration for removing the rear screen and extending the balconies. MOTION Boardmember Adcock moved, seconded by Vice Chair Rosenberg, to continue the review to a date uncertain based on the feedback received from the ARB. Vice Chair Rosenberg restated her position on keeping the project vibrant, lively and public and the benefits that has on senior living. The vote passed unanimously. The ARB took a 10 minute break. The ARB returned with all members present. Study Session 3. STUDY SESSION: Summary of Focus Group Review and Feedback on the Existing Senate Bill (SB) 9 Standards Continued from November 16, 2023 and December 7. Chair Baltay introduced the item and recalled they were focusing on the Eichler standards and called for staff’s summary. Planner Kallas provided a brief summary of the ARB reviewing standards A-D during the prior two meetings, with section E standards remaining for the Eichler neighborhoods specific standards; and showed a slide presentation of the prior revisions made. Chair Baltay expressed an interest in maintaining the same discussion format as the prior meetings, reviewing each standard and discussing the ones the Board deemed appropriate, and requested clarification on the standards, are they overlays to other standards or replacement standards. Planner Kallas explained it will be a combination, as the discussion unfolded, she would indicate which ones are replacements versus which standards are additions. The Eichler tracts are not on the zoning map, rather are a part of the Eichler design guidelines, there is a map associated with that document that identifies Eichler tracts. These standards would apply to development of an SB 9 project in those sights. Functionally, if a project were seeking a lot split, to add a new structure, the original structure would be allowed to remain as is, whether or not it is an Eichler design. In response to Vice Chair Rosenberg, these standards apply only to development within the Eichler tracts, not necessarily to Eichler designed buildings outside of those Eichler tracts. There are certain neighborhoods that have Eichler like designs. Chair Baltay welcomed Arnold Mammarella as the consultant, citing he had the most experience, and asked him to chime in as the discussions unfold. Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of December 21, 2023     Packet Pg. 162     Page 16 of 20 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/21/23 4 2 6 7 Planning Manager Gerhardt reconfirmed that these guidelines would apply to all homes within an Eichler tract regardless of the style of the home. Most of the style standards talk about massing, even if it’s a modern style building, the City would like the massing to be similar. Vice Chair Rosenberg clarified these standards apply to new SB 9 projects located on Eichler tracts. Chair Baltay moved into the first standard which applied to garage placement and size. Boardmember Adcock referenced not having a structure above twelve feet of grade, and inquired if that height is to the peak or to the eave. Planner Kallas answered it would be to the top of a flat roof, or a sloped roof. Chair Baltay inquired if there was a reason they were allowing a sloped roof. Consultant Mammarella stated a lot of these standards were extracted out of the guidelines, which states roof slopes up to twelve feet are typical. Many roofs have a slope of between 2 and 12 and 1.5 to 12. Some of the numbers are based on the current guidelines in place. Boardmember Adcock mentioned her Eichler home is three to twelve feet on the backside and many of her neighbors are steeper with 4 to twelve and questioned if that is not the standard in Palo Alto. Chair Baltay clarified that this standard is for roof tops over garages. Consultant Mammarella stated that elsewhere in the guidelines they discuss roof structures between three and twelve. There are a handful of Eichler’s built with a flat roof with a central pitch over an atrium, which may also be what this standard refers to, however, there is a very small number of those homes. Chair Baltay confirmed all members are good with the first standard for roofs over garages, and that 21’ seems like an adequate width. Chair Baltay moved on to the second item – the second level floor being limited to 25% of the gross floor area on the lot, which he believed referred to the allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR). Consultant Mammarella confirmed that was true. Planner Kallas explained this was the standard she wanted to call attention to item C-4 which would be moving to section B and applied to all houses regardless of size, limiting it to 35%. Initially, the Eichler standards were set at 30%, as a result of the focus group process, it had been changed to 35% so that there wasn’t a difference between the Eichler and the non-Eichler. Chair Baltay commented that E-2 is essentially the same as C-4, so there isn’t a point in having it listed, and asked for Consultant Mammarella’s input. Consultant Mammarella answered that that initially the intent was to mitigate boxy buildings, this is an element of refinement as the Eichler guidelines are closer to 30%. With the additional information, 35% seems like a better number, which would seem appropriate depending on the lot size. The smaller lot sizes would make it more challenging to get a workable upper floor. A larger lot size could also make it tricky. Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of December 21, 2023     Packet Pg. 163     Page 17 of 20 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/21/23 4 2 6 7 Boardmember Hirsch inquired if it would useful to have a diagram for some of the changes, depicting the limitations of the 35%. Planner Kallas answered yes and based on the prior discussion about C-4, which is similar, all two story houses are being studied for a minimum square footage around 400 square feet. Staff would analyze to ensure at least two bedrooms would fit upstairs. Boardmember Hirsch agreed and questioned if the 35% would work on an Eichler, and realized it’s based on 35% of the allowed floor area of the lot. Planner Kallas stated that the individual review guidelines generally encourage architects to put as much floor area as possible, prior to adding programming to the second floor. Boardmember Chen questioned since the SB 9 allows for two main units and two Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU’s), the 35% of the total ground floor area still excludes the ADU on the first floor. Consultant Mammarella explained he the 35% is the allowed floor area not in consideration of ADUs. ADU’s is a totally separate number, even if it’s attached to the main building. Planner Kallas explained that 35% is of the allowable floor area which would be regardless of how that floor area was divided between two units. Under SB 9, ADUs do not get any ADU bonus floor area. Chair Baltay stated it would be beneficial to clarify in the standard that the FAR that comes out of the ratio of the lot size and 35% is derived from that amount, not 35% plus 800 square feet for the ADU. Planner Kallas read the standard as it’s worded which states not to exceed 35% of the gross floor area of the lot. Planning Manager Gerhardt added that for an SB 9 project, the ADU has to use the gross floor area for the site. This guideline is regulating that gross floor area, specific to SB 9, the additional 800 is not counted in addition to that. Planner Kallas referred to code 18.42.180 that specifies that on parcels that are not the result of an urban lot split, ADUs may be proposed, however the ADUs shall not receive any exemption from floor area. That also means on a lot that is doing a lot split. That ADU is just the second allowable unit, it’s not an accessory dwelling unit per the usual concept. Size wise it’s going to be pretty similar. Vice Chair Rosenberg asked if the 800 square feet would be counted differently between a non-lot split and a lot split, as an SB 9 project. Planner Kallas answered that based on the code, no. Boardmember Chen asked if that also applied to the Junior ADU (JADU). Planning Manager Gerhardt answered that in the spirit of talking about SB 9, it may look and smell like an ADU, but it’s really a second unit. Chair Baltay believed that 35% would also work and inquired if the Board felt Eichler’s merit a special reduction. Board consensus stated leave it, as with a lot split, it would get smaller. Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of December 21, 2023     Packet Pg. 164     Page 18 of 20 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/21/23 4 2 6 7 Boardmember Adcock inquired if there was a map with just the single story overlay. Consultant Mammarella stated of the Eichler tracts, only two of the 30ish tracts applied to single story homes. Chair Baltay inquired if single story overlays would supersede these regulations. Senior Planner Raybould confirmed they can’t have a second floor on the single floor overlays. Planner Kallas stated it doesn’t prevent them from doing an SB 9 project, it just prevents them from having the second story. Chair Baltay commented that is objective, so that is what can be said and requested staff make note of questions that come out of the discussion and make amendments as appropriate; and moved on to the next item. Daylight planes. The daylight planes for Eichler’s start at 8 feet, this proposes it start at 6 feet on the side yards and regular houses start at 10 feet. Planner Kallas clarified that it is 10 in the base zoning, and they made it 8 for SB 9 properties when adjacent to one story houses specifically. When it is adjacent to two story homes this standard does not apply. Boardmember Adcock noted that in an Eichler tract they are much more likely to be next to a single story home. She was concerned about the six feet with the edge of the setback is 4 feet away, which would bring the daylight plane to ten feet, which barely hits the minimum mark and was inclined to say it stays at 8 feet. Chair Baltay inquired if this was something that came out of the Eichler guidelines. Consultant Mammarella stated he wasn’t sure where the six foot number came from, generally when there are very low houses, the second floor is expected to be pushed away from the edge of the lower profile of the house. Planning Manager Gerhardt explained they were trying to codify the individual review guidelines, which does not have a measurement to the daylight planes for houses next to single story homes. Staff wanted additional space next to an Eichler because the massing of the homes are normally smaller. Chair Baltay agreed that 8 feet is a good starting point for the daylight plane. Boardmember Chen agreed. Vice Chair Rosenberg stated she was also fine with that. Boardmember Hirsch agreed. Chair Baltay moved on to E-4, maximum roof heights. Vice Chair Rosenberg noted that this one was written exactly like A-11, why not add the verbiage regarding the 20 feet flat roof and remove E-4. Planner Kallas explained that it would also have to combine E-6 which includes the verbiage for the pitch requirements. Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of December 21, 2023     Packet Pg. 165     Page 19 of 20 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/21/23 4 2 6 7 Vice Chair Rosenberg noted that in combining them it would further restrict A-11, as that allows a flat roof up to twenty-two feet. The question remains do they want to restrict non Eichler homes to 20 feet or allow Eichler’s to have a height of 22-feet. Chair Baltay agreed that allows a loophole in the code and suggested allowing the Eichler’s to go up to 22 feet. Consultant Mammarella noted that A11 allows a 312 roof at 25 feet. Chair Baltay stated the intent is to limit Eichler’s to 22 feet, and they are not concerned with the pitch of the roof limiting it to 20 feet. All Boardmembers agreed, and moved to E-6, roof forms. Roof pitches are limited to 3 and 12. Chair Baltay inquired what would happen if somebody wanted a 12 and 12 center atrium, with a glazed end. Boardmember Adcock noted that would also apply for lot splits on an Eichler tract and somebody was trying to design an ADU in relationship to the main structure. Planner Kallas stated as it’s currently written, they would need to go through the individual review (IR) process to allow that. Boardmember Adcock stated that seemed restricted, commenting that her house is 3 to 12, however her close to half her neighbors pitch is much steeper. Chair Baltay stated that would become quite complicated. He preferred to leave it to the IR process. Vice Chair Rosenberg commented that the intent it to keep Eichler’s lower with a higher daylight plane, once they start singling out different scenarios it becomes very complicated and muddied. Consultant Mammarella added that steeper roof pitches could lead to chunkier houses and E-6 attempts to address the lower plainer elements of the Eichler’s. There will always be the one off situation which is where the IR process is appropriate. Also keeping in mind that additions will always go through the IR process. Standard hip roofs that don’t have a flat edge, Dutch gabled roofs are types that would not apply. Planner Kallas confirmed that section B of this one refers to a specific diagram in the Individual Review guidelines and shared it on screen. Consultant Mammarella stated the diagram predates the Eichler homes but applied to Eichler neighborhoods. The goal was to show a plan of transition without completely ignoring the Eichler context. Chair Baltay commented he’s fine with the standard since it came from the Eichler guidelines. Vice Chair Rosenberg suggested rather than constraining it with the note, add that if a person wants a hip roof, they go through the IR process. All members agreed. Consultant Mammarella stated that was fine as everyone has the option of going through the IR process. Chair Baltay continued to the minimum eaves side. Boardmember Adcock stated that was typical. Consultant Mammarella confirmed there is not a maximum, one can project up into two feet of the daylight plane and project up into four feet without it counting as lot coverage. Typically, Eichler’s have overhangs between 2 and 3 feet. Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of December 21, 2023     Packet Pg. 166     Page 20 of 20 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/21/23 4 2 6 7 Chair Baltay commented it might be prudent to add if they want the eaves bigger on an Eichler it doesn’t count towards lot coverage. Planner Kallas stated that the zoning code and everything in it would still apply to an SB 9 project and allows for eaves up to four feet. If it’s beyond four feet, it starts counting towards lot coverage. Staff is not proposed to change anything about that. Chair Baltay agreed that was fine and summarized that the Board requested they make the change to section B to apply just to single plane roofs and leave the rest. And moved on to E-5, one story form on garages. Planner Kallas responded they did decide to do away with that requirement, she still needed to return to that because B-2 allows it to be part of the building form. Vice Chair Rosenberg suggested moving the item closer to the previous Eichler garage standard. Chair Baltay continued to E-7, all agreed it made sense, he moved on to E-8, no projecting porches. All Boardmembers were also fine with that one. Seeing no more comments Chair Baltay wrapped up the Study session and offered a few minutes to Boardmember Hirsch to express his concerns about SB 9. Boardmember Hirsch stated that was too short of time for too many objections to SB 9 as related to the objection standards. PUBLIC COMMENT Ms. Dao stated there were no public comments. Boardmember Questions, Comments or Announcements None Adjournment Chair Baltay adjourned the meeting at 12:55 p.m. Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of December 21, 2023     Packet Pg. 167