Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2024-07-18 Architectural Review Board Agenda Packet
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD Regular Meeting Thursday, July 18, 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 ten (10) 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 ACTION ITEMS Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Ten (10) minutes, plus ten (10) minutes rebuttal. All others: Three (3) minutes per speaker. 2.4075 El Camino Way [23PLN‐00202, Palo Alto Commons]: Consideration of an Amendment to a Planned Community Zone District (PC‐5116) to allow additions to an existing 121 unit Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility. The additions would include 16 Assisted Living Units and 172 sf of support space. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Modifications to Existing Facilities). Zoning District: PC‐5116 (Planned Community) STUDY SESSION Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 3.Study Session to Review the Draft Ordinances Updating Lighting Standards (Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.40.250) and introducing Bird Safe Design standards (PAMC Section 18.40.280) APPROVAL OF MINUTES Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 4.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for February 29, 2024 5.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for March 7, 2024 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, July 18, 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 to ten(10) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree notto speak individually. The Chair may limit Public Comments to thirty (30) minutes for allcombined 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 ACTION ITEMS Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Ten (10) minutes, plus ten (10) minutes rebuttal. All others: Three (3) minutes per speaker. 2.4075 El Camino Way [23PLN‐00202, Palo Alto Commons]: Consideration of an Amendment to a Planned Community Zone District (PC‐5116) to allow additions to an existing 121 unit Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility. The additions would include 16 Assisted Living Units and 172 sf of support space. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Modifications to Existing Facilities). Zoning District: PC‐5116 (Planned Community) STUDY SESSION Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 3.Study Session to Review the Draft Ordinances Updating Lighting Standards (Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.40.250) and introducing Bird Safe Design standards (PAMC Section 18.40.280) APPROVAL OF MINUTES Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 4.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for February 29, 2024 5.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for March 7, 2024 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, July 18, 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 to ten(10) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree notto speak individually. The Chair may limit Public Comments to thirty (30) minutes for allcombined 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 ProjectsACTION ITEMSPublic Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Ten (10) minutes, plus ten (10) minutes rebuttal. All others: Three(3) minutes per speaker.2.4075 El Camino Way [23PLN‐00202, Palo Alto Commons]: Consideration of anAmendment to a Planned Community Zone District (PC‐5116) to allow additions to anexisting 121 unit Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility. The additions would include16 Assisted Living Units and 172 sf of support space. Environmental Assessment: Exemptfrom the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act in accordance with CEQAGuidelines Section 15301 (Modifications to Existing Facilities). Zoning District: PC‐5116(Planned Community)STUDY SESSIONPublic Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.3.Study Session to Review the Draft Ordinances Updating Lighting Standards (Palo AltoMunicipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.40.250) and introducing Bird Safe Design standards(PAMC Section 18.40.280)APPROVAL OF MINUTESPublic Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.4.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for February 29, 2024 5.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for March 7, 2024 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, July 18, 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 to ten(10) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree notto speak individually. The Chair may limit Public Comments to thirty (30) minutes for allcombined 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 ProjectsACTION ITEMSPublic Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Ten (10) minutes, plus ten (10) minutes rebuttal. All others: Three(3) minutes per speaker.2.4075 El Camino Way [23PLN‐00202, Palo Alto Commons]: Consideration of anAmendment to a Planned Community Zone District (PC‐5116) to allow additions to anexisting 121 unit Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility. The additions would include16 Assisted Living Units and 172 sf of support space. Environmental Assessment: Exemptfrom the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act in accordance with CEQAGuidelines Section 15301 (Modifications to Existing Facilities). Zoning District: PC‐5116(Planned Community)STUDY SESSIONPublic Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.3.Study Session to Review the Draft Ordinances Updating Lighting Standards (Palo AltoMunicipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.40.250) and introducing Bird Safe Design standards(PAMC Section 18.40.280)APPROVAL OF MINUTESPublic Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.4.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for February 29, 20245.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for March 7, 2024BOARD 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: July 18, 2024 Report #: 2406-3164 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 Item 1 Staff Report Packet Pg. 5 Item No. 1. Page 2 of 2 Municipal Code Chapter 2.11, Chapter 12.04, Chapter 12.08, Chapter 12.09, Chapter 12.10, or Chapter 12.13 is not eligible for a request for hearing by any party, including the applicant. No action is required by the ARB for this item. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: 2024 Meeting Schedule & Assignments Attachment B: Tentative Future Agenda and New Projects List AUTHOR/TITLE: ARB Liaison1 & Contact Information Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Manager of Current Planning (650) 329-2575 Jodie.Gerhardt@CityofPaloAlto.org 1 Emails may be sent directly 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, Rosenberg 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 August 1, 2024 •660 University – Ad Hoc August 15, 2024 •525 University Avenue/530 Lytton Avenue Master Sign Program (2nd formal) 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. __ Item 1 Attachment B-2024 Agenda and New Projects List 0718 v2 Packet Pg. 8 AR Major - Board Zone Change 12/21/21 21PLN- 00341 EKALLAS 660 University Mixed use ARB 1st formal 12/1/22, ARB recommended approval 4/22; PTC hearing delayed by applicant; no tentative Council hearing at this time - Planned Community (PC), to Combine 3 Parcels (511 Byron St, 660 University Ave, 680 University Ave/500 Middlefield Rd), Demolish Existing Buildings (9,216 SF Office) and Provide a New Four Story Mixed-Use Building with Ground Floor Office (9,115 SF) and Multi-Family Residential (all floors) Including a Two Level Below-Grade Parking Garage. Proposed Residential Proposed Residential (42,189 SF) Will Include 65 Units (47 Studios, 12 1-Bedroom, 6 2-Bedroom). __ 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; Tentative June 2024 ARB hearing. 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 convalescent 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 - 16 additional convalescent units Community Meeting in October. 2/28/24 and 6/12/24 PTC hearing, 7/18/24 ARB hearing, future PTC and Council hearings needed. 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 additions include 16 Additional Assisted Living Dwelling Units; 5 Studios and 9 One Bedrooms. Zoning District: PC-5116 (Planned Community). Baltay, Chen reported out 6/1 Item 1 Attachment B-2024 Agenda and New Projects List 0718 v2 Packet Pg. 9 Master Sign Program 11/14/23 23PLN- 00308 EKALLAS 525 University Signs NOI Sent 12/15/2023, ARB hearing 5/16/24. 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, one illuminated parking monument, one non-illuminated parking entry ID. Zoning District: CD-C (P) (Downtown Commercial with Pedestrian Shopping Overlay). _____ Master Sign Program 11/15/23 23PLN- 00311 EKALLAS 530 Lytton Signs NOI Sent 12/15/23, ARB Hearing 5/16/24. 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 with Pedestrian Shopping Overlay). ___ 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 Rosenberg/ Hirsch Streamlined Housing Development Review 2/15/2024 24PLN- 00041 23PLN- 00348 (SB 330) 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 NOI Sent 5/2/2024; 60-day Formal Comments Due 6/1 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 Baltay, Adcock Item 1 Attachment B-2024 Agenda and New Projects List 0718 v2 Packet Pg. 10 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 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 NOI Sent 4/28/2024. 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 San Antonio Housing -198 Units NOI Sent 5/23/2024. 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 Housing- Streamlined Housing Development Review 5/28/2024 24PLN- 00152 24PLN- 00023 (Prelim) EKALLAS 4335- 4345 El Camino Housing-29 Units NOI Sent 5/23/2024. Request for Major Architectural Review to allow a housing development project on two noncontiguous lots (4335 & 4345 El Camino Real) including the demolition of an existing commercial building (4335 El Camino Real) and an existing motel building (4345 El Camino Real) and construction of 29 three-story attached residential townhome-style condominiums with associated utilities, private streets, landscaping, and amenities. Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: CS (Service Commercial). Hirsch, Baltay reviewed prelim Major Architectural Review 6/10/2024 24PLN- 00161 24PLN- 00048 (SB 330) SSWITZER 3781 EL CAMINO REAL NOI Sent 7/23/2024. Request for Major Architectural Review to demolish multiple existing commercial and residential buildings located at 3727-3737 & 3773-3783 El Camino Real, 378-400 Madeline Court and 388 Curtner Avenue to construct a new seven-story multi-family residential housing development with 177 units. Two Item 1 Attachment B-2024 Agenda and New Projects List 0718 v2 Packet Pg. 11 levels of above ground parking, rooftop terraces, and tenant amenities are proposed. Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: CN & RM-30. (Previous SB 330 and Builder’s Remedy: 24PLN-00048) Major Architectural Review 6/10/2024 24PLN- 00162 24PLN- 00047 (SB 330) GSAULS 3606 EL CAMINO REAL NOI Sent 7/23/2024. Request for Major Architectural Review to demolish multiple existing vacant, commercial, and residential buildings located at 3508, 3516, 3626- 3632 El Camino Real, and 524, 528, 530 Kendall Avenue to construct a new seven-story, multi-family residential housing development project with 335 units. The new residential building will have a two levels of above ground parking, ground floor tenant amenities, and a rooftop terrace facing El Camino Real and Matadero Avenue. Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: CN, CS, RM-30, RM-40. For More Information (SB 330 and Builder’s Remedy: 24PLN-00047) 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, Formal application will likely be submitted 7/16/2024 - Prescreening for a Planned Housing Zone (PHZ) to build 382 residential rental units comprised of 44 studios, 243 one-bedroom, 86 two-bedroom and 9 three-bedroom units in two buildings. Zoning: CS, CS(H), RM-20. __ Preliminary 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). Item 1 Attachment B-2024 Agenda and New Projects List 0718 v2 Packet Pg. 12 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 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 SB 330 Pre- Application 5/14/2024 24PLN- -00145 CHODGKI 680 University Mixed Use- 110 Units and 9,215 sf of office Note: Submitted as an Alternative to 660 University Rezoning Project. Request for review of an SB330/Builder’s Remedy project that seeks to combine 3 parcels (511 Byron St, 660 University Ave, 680 University Ave/500 Middlefield Rd), demolish existing buildings (9,215 SF Office) and provide a new six (6) story mixed-use building with a roof deck (7 stories per building code). The proposal includes ground floor office (9,115 SF), multi-family residential (all floors), and a two level below-grade parking garage. Proposed residential (75,739 SF) will include 110 units (85 studios, 20 1- bedrooms, 5 2-bedrooms), and 20% of the total units will be provided as on-site below market rate (BMR) units. Environmental Assessment: Pending. Item 1 Attachment B-2024 Agenda and New Projects List 0718 v2 Packet Pg. 13 Zoning District: RM-20. SB 330 Pre- Application 6/19/2024 24PLN- 00171 GSAULS 4015 Fabian SB 330 Pre-Application - Housing development project including demolition of existing structures and development of 100 residential apartment units with supporting use, including amenity spaces, lobby, leasing office, and a parking garage with one space per unit. Zoning District: GM (General Manufacturing). Environmental Review: Pending. The proposed project use consist of 100 for-rent residential apartment units with supporting use that include amenity spaces, lobby, leasing, and parking in a garage at one space per unit. Item 1 Attachment B-2024 Agenda and New Projects List 0718 v2 Packet Pg. 14 Item No. 2. Page 1 of 9 Architectural Review Board Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: July 18, 2024 Report #: 2405-3099 TITLE 4075 El Camino Way [23PLN-00202, Palo Alto Commons]: Consideration of an Amendment to a Planned Community Zone District (PC-5116) to allow additions to an existing 121 unit Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility. The additions would include 16 Assisted Living Units and 172 sf of support space. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Modifications to Existing Facilities). Zoning District: PC-5116 (Planned Community) RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s): 1. Review and provide initial comments and continue to a date uncertain. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The subject project proposes to add 16 assisted living units and 172 sf of support space to an existing 121-unit facility (Palo Alto Commons). Palo Alto Commons was built as a Planned Community Development (PC), with Ordinance 3775. It is located on the same parcel as a 44-unit independent senior living building, The Avant, which was constructed in accordance with PC Ordinance 5116, amending PC-3775 (Attachment H). The PC-5116 would need to be amended to allow for increases in density, floor area, and lot coverage for the 16 additional units and support space. The additions would be consistent with the existing building height and daylight plane. This proposed Amendment has been previously reviewed by City Council and the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) to provide early feedback. Following an ARB recommendation, it would return to the PTC for a recommendation and be forwarded to Council for a final decision. The purpose of this report is to consider and provide feedback on the project as it relates to the ARB findings for approval and taking into account feedback from Council and the PTC. The Item 2 Staff Report Packet Pg. 15 Item No. 2. Page 2 of 9 application is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, which includes modifications to existing facilities. BACKGROUND Project Information Owner: Stephen Reller, R and M Properties Architect: Daniel Bowman, IPAOC Representative: Charlene Kussner, WellQuest Living Legal Counsel: Frank Petrilli, Coblentz Patch Duffy & Bass LLP Property Information Address:4075 El Camino Way Neighborhood:Ventura Lot Dimensions & Area:110,642 sf, irregular shaped lot Housing Inventory Site:No Located w/in a Plume:No Protected/Heritage Trees:Yes, street trees Historic Resource(s):No Existing Improvement(s):Palo Alto Commons: 83,511 sf, 3 stories, 32’6” height, built 1989 The Avant: 47,500 sf, 3 stories, built 2014 Existing Land Use(s):Senior Assisted Living, Senior Independent Living Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North: Single Family Residential (R-1) West: Multi-Family Residential (RM-20) East: Multi-Family Residential (RM-20), Goodwill Store, and Preschool (CN) South: Animal Care, Retail, Mixed-Use (CN) Special Setbacks:No Aerial View of Property: Item 2 Staff Report Packet Pg. 16 Item No. 2. Page 3 of 9 Source: Google Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans/Guidelines Comp. Plan Designation:Multiple-Family Residential (MF), Neighborhood Commercial (CN) Zoning Designation:Planned Community (PC-5116) 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 X Context-Based Design Criteria applicable X SOFA Phase 1 (2000)Within Airport Influence Area SOFA Phase 2 (2003) Prior City Reviews & Action City Council:Prescreening: August 7, 20231 1 The staff report for the August 7, 2023 is available online at: https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=12606 Item 2 Staff Report Packet Pg. 17 Item No. 2. Page 4 of 9 PTC:Initial Review: February 28, 20242 and June 12, 20243 HRB:None ARB:None The City Council reviewed a Prescreening application for this project on August 7, 2023. At this time, the project contained 14 units. Overall, councilmembers expressed support for the concept plans. The PTC held a public hearing to consider the project on February 28, 2024. During the hearing, commissioners provided comments with respect to uncertainty about the daylight plane, asked for more information on the parking, and asked for a noise study. reviewed the project. A video recording of the PTC meeting is available online: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x31bhPueFFk. On June 12, 2024, the PTC reviewed the 16- unit proposal and recommended that the project be forwarded to the ARB. The PTC asked that the ARB consider the following items in particular in its review of the project: 1. The feasibility and relative benefit to the Wilkie Way residents of, increasing the setback for newly constructed units to 20 ft to meet 18.38.150 2. The use of privacy glazing and screening, or alternative locations for windows, similar to the IR Guidelines, for windows facing Wilkie Way residences 3. How noise can be further mitigated, such as insulated windows 4. How landscaping can be used for privacy purposes Project Description The proposed project includes 16 additional units and two ground floor additions for a total of 172 sf of new office/administrative space. The 10 foot setback adjacent to the R-1 neighborhood is maintained, with the units added to existing “stepbacks” on this side and in other notches around the building. The new units range in size from 319 sf to 738 sf. Since the initial plans, the upper floor additions have been moved back, to approximately 12 ft from the property line for the second floor and approximately 20 ft for the third floor. A location map is included in Attachment A. The project plans are provided in Attachment I. ANALYSIS The project plans presented to the ARB at this time are consistent with the plans that were presented to the PTC. The applicant intends to revise the plans following this hearing to address comments from both the PTC and ARB as well as department comments from various departments. 2 The staff report for the February 28, 2024 PTC hearing is available online at: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/2/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/planning-and- transportation-commission/2024/ptc-2.28-public-agenda-2.pdf 3 The staff report for the June 12, 2024 PTC hearing is available online at: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/2/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/planning-and- transportation-commission/2024/ptc-6.12-public-agenda-2.pdf Item 2 Staff Report Packet Pg. 18 Item No. 2. Page 5 of 9 Neighborhood Setting and Character Adjacent uses include The Avant Independent Living facility on the same parcel, and multifamily residential (RM-20) to the west, single-family (R-1) residential to the north, and the Goodwill store (CN) to the east. Across El Camino Way, West Meadow Drive, and El Camino Real there are other multi-family and commercial uses. Heights in the area range from one to three stories and include a variety of architectural styles. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans and Guidelines4 The site has a Comprehensive Plan land use designation that includes both Multiple-Family Residential, for a portion of the site adjacent to single-family, and Neighborhood Commercial for the portion towards El Camino Way. Multiple-Family Residential land use designation permits densities ranging from 8 to 40 units and 8 to 90 persons per acre and indicates that densities should be on the lower end of the scale next to single-family residential areas. Neighborhood Commercial land use designation includes shopping centers as well as street-front stores serving the immediate neighborhood. Higher density residential and mixed-use projects may be allowed in specific locations. Although assisted living is considered a commercial use under State and Local Code, the project provides senior living facilities that align with the multiple-family and neighborhood commercial land use designations. The project includes the addition of senior living units to an existing facility. Therefore, no change is proposed to the existing land use. This project would support the following policies: •Policy L-1.3 Infill development in the urban service area should be compatible with its surroundings and the overall scale and character of the city to ensure a compact, efficient development pattern •Policy L-1.6 Encourage land uses that address the needs of the community and manage change and development to benefit the community •Policy L-2.3: As a key component of a diverse, inclusive community, allow and encourage a mix of housing types and sizes, integrated into neighborhoods and designed for greater affordability, particularly smaller housing types, such as studios, co-housing, cottages, clustered housing, accessory dwelling units and senior housing. •Policy L-2.8 When considering infill redevelopment, work to minimize displacement of existing residents. •Policy L-2.9 Facilitate reuse of existing buildings 4 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online: bit.ly/PACompPlan2030 Item 2 Staff Report Packet Pg. 19 Item No. 2. Page 6 of 9 Zoning Compliance5 Attachment B provides a detailed review of the proposed project’s consistency with PC-5116, as well as the CN zoning standards for comparison. Because the existing Planned Community zone district ties to the specific existing development, the proposed project modifications would be considered an amendment to the existing PC Ordinance. The following key modifications are proposed to the existing PC Ordinance and associated development plan: •The density and provided units would increase by 16 units •The allowed lot coverage and floor area would increase to accommodate the approximately 6,890 sf addition •The minimum setback would decrease from 8 feet to 6 feet for the property line adjacent to Goodwill •The parking ratio provided would reduce from 0.47 spaces per unit to 0.41 spaces per unit, as no additional spaces are being provided. However, this is consistent with the standard code requirement for this use, which is one space per 2.5 beds. Daylight Plane The PTC discussed at length which daylight plane should apply to this project: either the 3:6 daylight plane as required by PAMC 18.38 (Special Requirements) or the 45-degree angle R-1 daylight plane (PAMC 18.12.040) and PC-3775. If this project was for a new commercial development, staff would apply PAMC 18.38.150, as this is the required daylight plane for commercial projects. See Code language below: “Sites sharing any lot line with one or more sites in any RE, R-1, R-2, RM or any residential PC district shall be subject to a maximum height established by a daylight plane beginning at a height of ten feet at the applicable side or rear site lines and increasing at a slope of three feet for each six feet of distance from the side or rear site lines until intersecting the height limit otherwise established for the PC district; provided, however, that for a use where the gross floor area excluding any area used exclusively for parking purposes, is at least sixty percent residential, the daylight planes may be identical to the daylight plane requirements of the most restrictive residential district abutting each such side or rear site line until intersecting the height limit otherwise established for the PC district. If the residential daylight plane, as allowed in this section, is selected, the setback regulations of the same adjoining residential district shall be imposed.” However, given the buildable area for this site was well documented in the 1987 PC Ordinance, the 45 degree daylight plane has been established for this site. For review purposes, both daylight 5 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: bit.ly/PAZoningCode Item 2 Staff Report Packet Pg. 20 Item No. 2. Page 7 of 9 planes are shown in the plan set on page A5.7. The proposed addition does not encroach into the 45-degree daylight plane. Most of the additions and parts of the existing building would encroach into the 3:6 daylight plane. Multi-Modal Access & Parking Hexagon Transportation Consultants prepared a parking study (Attachment D), which the City’s Office of Transportation has reviewed. The study reflects an observation of the peak parking over three days in March. The study shows that with the gate open, there is adequate parking, as fewer cars entered the site than there are parking spaces. The study looked only at on-site conditions and did not observe off-site parking, such as on-street parking. In researching the existing conditions, staff found that the original 1987 PC Ordinance requires a commuter program for employees, including distributing information regarding public transportation options, providing or reimbursing transit passes, and carpool coordination. There is currently no record of this being implemented; therefore, staff is requiring the applicant to submit a new TDM plan to implement, improve, and monitor these requirements. The TDM plan is currently being prepared and must be reviewed and approved by the City’s Office of Transportation prior to a decision on the proposed project. The applicant has also attempted to improve parking conditions on site. They sent a letter to all residents and visitors (Attachment F) explaining parking options for staff and visitors. However, it is currently not clear to staff how visitors can access the parking garage, as most parking is behind a gate that requires a member of the Palo Alto Commons staff to open. This project is located on the VTA 22 bus line, but is not within walking distance of a CalTrain station or other public transportation. Bike parking has not been finalized by the Office of Transportation, however the project includes four short term and two long term bike parking spaces. The current building has no bike parking. Response to PTC Motion The PTC asked the ARB to consider the following items in their motion: 1. Consider the feasibility, and relative benefit to the Wilkie Way residents of, increasing the setback for newly constructed units to 20 ft to meet 18.38.150. Out of the 16 proposed units, three are on the first floor, and do not face the Wilkie Way neighborhood. Seven are on the second floor, setback approximately 12 feet in most locations. There are also six units in the third-floor addition, currently at 19-21 ft stepped back depending on the unit. Therefore, this would primarily affect units on the second floor. The increase in the setback from approximately 12 feet to 20 feet would be a significant modification and may result in a loss of units or create smaller units. However, the applicant has not provided details that illustrate this impact. Item 2 Staff Report Packet Pg. 21 Item No. 2. Page 8 of 9 2. Consider use of privacy glazing and screening, or alternative locations for windows, similar to the IR Guidelines, for windows facing Wilkie Way residences. Privacy should be balanced with the recognition that most of these units only have one or two windows, and the residents spend many more hours of the day in their homes than a typical resident. Windows have been angled away from direct views when possible, but 7 of the 14 second and third floor units have at least one window facing towards a Wilkie Way property line, and four of them are setback 12’3”-12’7”. As discussed in #4 below, landscaping may be a suitable option where the windows cannot be reduced or moved, however, the applicant and neighbors have some reservations about this solution. 3. Consider how noise can be further mitigated, such as insulated windows This consideration primarily focused on a discussion of how noise from seniors living at the facility may impact Wilkie Way residents based on a neighbor’s comment that they can occasional hear residents at Palo Alto Commons. Although the PTC included this in their motion, there were mixed feelings about the need for adding measures to the project to address this. Staff would not recommend applying measures to address this concern. Not only would any analysis of this be speculative, but Assembly Bill 1307 specifically indicates that social noise generated by residents is not an impact that may be considered under CEQA. Therefore, the Noise Study prepared for the project focused on mechanical equipment noise, and found there would be no noticeable increase in operational noise as a result of the project (which includes the addition of new HVAC units). 4. Consider how landscaping can be used for privacy purposes There is existing mature landscaping along the property line, and two additional screen trees are proposed with the project. Neighbors are mixed on the use of screening landscaping, as they feel it contributes to shade in their yards. FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT The applicant is responsible for staff and consultant costs to process this application in accordance with applicable fees through the City’s deposit-based recovery program. The applicant will also be required to pay development impact fees for any additional square footage added to the site. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least ten days in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Daily Post on July 5, 2024, which is 13 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on July 3, 2024, which is 11 in advance of the meeting. Public Comments Eighteen neighbors commented at the June 12, 2024 PTC meeting and spoke both in favor of and against the project. A summary of their comments is as follows: Item 2 Staff Report Packet Pg. 22 Item No. 2. Page 9 of 9 •Several individuals, some of whom are current residents of The Avant spoke of the services Palo Alto Commons provides to the community, including a high level of care for those who need it. •Wilkie Way neighbors spoke about visitors parking on Wilkie Way, and the inaccessibility of the current parking conditions. They also expressed concerns about privacy impacts. •Some neighbors would prefer the 3:6 daylight plane and/or a 20ft setback be used for the new units As of publishing this report, no additional emails have been received. Prior emails are available on the project webpage and in Public Comments to the PTC meetings and prior Staff Reports. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The subject project has been assessed 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. A Categorical Exemption is being prepared in accordance with CEQA Guideline Section 15301 (Existing Facilities). ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Location Map Attachment B: Zoning Comparison Table Attachment C: Parking Study Attachment D: Noise Study Attachment E: Applicant’s Letter Regarding Daylight Plane Attachment F: Applicant’s Letter Regarding Parking Attachment G: Applicant’s Letter Regarding Public Benefits Attachment H: PC Ordinance 5116 and 3775 Attachment I: Link to Project Plans Report Author & Contact Information ARB6Liaison & Contact Information Emily Kallas, AICP, Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (650) 617-3125 (650) 329-2575 emily.kallas@cityofpaloalto.org jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org 6 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org Item 2 Staff Report Packet Pg. 23 24 24 24 fort_Inn Goodwill_Industries Camino Court Apts Palo Alto _Commons B2 B1 B3 B4 163.2' 163.2' 163.2' 163.2' 163.2' 163.2' 163.2' 163.2' 163.2' 163.2' 163.2' 163.2' 163.2' 163.2' 163.2' 163.2' 163.2' 163.2' 163.2' 163.2' 163.2' 163.2' 163.2' 163.2' 163.2' 163.2' 163.2' 163.2' 163.2' 163.2' 163.2' 163.2' 163.2' 163.2' 163.2' 163.2' 163.2' 163.2' 163.2' 163.2' 163.2' 163.2' 163.2' 163.2' 163.2' 163.2' 163.2' 163.2' 163.2' 163.2' 163.2' 163.2' 163.2' 163.2' 163.2' 163.2' 163.2' 163.2' 163.2' 163.2' 163.2' 163.2' 163.2' 163.2' 163.2' 163.2' 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' 66.3' 66.2' 55.7' 92.3' 39.3' 30.7' 117.4' 54.0' 117.4' 54.0' 117.4' 54.0' 117.4' 53.0' 117.1' 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' 0' 117.1'56.8' ' 105.2' 0.0' 105.1' 30.0' 7.4'11.1'12.6'15.9' 46.6' 37.7' 48.6' 105.1' 105.2' 30.0' 105.3'105.3' 30.0' 5.3'3' 40.0' 44.0' 83.0' 44.0' 83.0' 38.0' 83.0' 0' 83.0' 44.0' 3.0' 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' 208.9'150.4' 449 91.0 161.1' 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' 263.3' 225.2' 138.1' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 40.0' 115.0'40.0' 115.0' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 99.4' 129.8' 135.1' 9.4' 58.6'30.7' 24.7' 118.5' 188.8' 180.0' 124.7' 9.4' 80.7' 131.0' 38.7' 151.6' 130.5'54.3' 151.6'50.0' 120.0'65.0' 120.0' 65.0' 150.4'208.8' 150.0'208.8' 157.4' 138.1'150.8' 170.4' 107.3' 188.8' 117.8' 31.4' 46.0' 110.6' 20.0' 30.0' 120.0' 5.0' 27.1' 129.8' .5'.2' .1' 99.4' 129.8' 135.1' 9.4' 58.6'30.7' 24.7' 118.5' 188.8' 99.4' 129.8' 135.1' 9.4' 58.6'30.7' 24.7' 118.5' 188.8' 99.4' 129.8' 135.1' 9.4' 58.6'30.7' 24.7' 118.5' 188.8' 99.4' 129.8' 135.1' 9.4' 58.6'30.7' 24.7' 118.5' 188.8' 99.4' 129.8' 135.1' 9.4' 58.6'30.7' 24.7' 118.5' 188.8' 99.4' 129.8' 135.1' 9.4' 58.6'30.7' 24.7' 118.5' 188.8' 99.4' 129.8' 135.1' 9.4' 58.6'30.7' 24.7' 118.5' 188.8' 99.4' 129.8' 135.1' 9.4' 58.6'30.7' 24.7' 118.5' 188.8' 99.4' 129.8' 135.1' 9.4' 58.6'30.7' 24.7' 118.5' 188.8' 99.4' 129.8' 135.1' 9.4' 58.6'30.7' 24.7' 118.5' 188.8' 99.4' 129.8' 135.1' 9.4' 58.6'30.7' 24.7' 118.5' 188.8' 50.0' 182.9' 50.0' 183.0' 50.0' 15.0' 120.8'76.0' 161.2' 90.9' 282.0' 76.0'120.8' 76.0'120.8' 44.5' 87.0' 44.5' 87.0' 46.5' 87.0' 46.5' 87.0' 45.5' 87.0' 45.5' 87.0' 45.5' 87.0' 45.5' 87.0' 100.0' 87.0' 100.0' 87.0' 50.0' 183.0' 50.0' 183.0' 70.0' 178.0' 70.0' 178.0' 177.9' 46.5' 178.0' 46.5' 50.0' 178.0' 50.0' 178.0' 100.0' 60.0' 100.0' 60.0' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 50.0' 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' 50.0' 99.9' 50.9' 119.8' 30.9' 31.4' 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' 50.0' 119.6' 50.0' 119.8' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0'120.0' 52.1' 120.0' 52.1' 50.1' 100.7' 50.0' 103.9' 50.0' 100.7' 50.0' 100.7' 50.0' 100.7' 50.0' 100.7' 50.0' 183.1' 50.0' 182.9' 50.0' 183.0' 50.0' 183.1' 50.0' 183.0' 50.0' 183.1' 50.0' 183.0' 50.0' 183.0' 1.6'1.3' 30.7' 26.8' 100.0' 60.0' 105.0' 145.3' 160.0' 120.1' 70.0' 12.2'73.1' 50.3' 53.5' .8'.1' 30.7' 2.8' 50.0' 50.3' 53.3' 141.3' 53.1' 150.2' 11.9' 50.5' 127.9' 55.9' 117.2' 61.2' 117.2' 62.0' 107.3' 104.8' 104.8' 66.8' 104.8' 66.8'104.8' 66.8' 104.8' 70.1' 38.8' 46.0' 31.2' 47.8' 33.7' 45.4' 99.7' 50.0' 100.7' 50.0' 100.7' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 100.7' 50.0' 100.7' 50.0' 77.0' 60.0' 75.0' 104.8 74.9' .7' 57.7' 99.9' 231.2' 55.0' 60.0'71.7' 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' 50.1' 103.9' 50.0' 107.1' 50.1' 107.1' 50.0' 110.3'25.0' 25.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.2' 50.0' 100.2' 50.0' 101.9' 50.1' 110.3' 50.0' 113.5' 113.5' 50.0' 116.7' 50.1' 101.9' 50.1' 102.0' 102.0' 50.1' 103.8' 103.8' 50.1' 50.1' 12.0' 38.2' 220.0' 269.1' 220.4' 268.9' 142.6' 162.6' 177.4' 19.6'18.8' 145.9' 228 22.7' 6'67.6'67.6' 67.5' 34.8' 22.8' 70.3' '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' 20.4'160.7' 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' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 115.0' 40.0' 17.6'19.4' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 98.6' 98.4'98.4' 98.5' 56.6' 63.0' 56.9' 63.0' 178.0' 50.0' 178.0' 98.4' 93.0' 93.0' 98.5'98.5'85.0' 98.5'85.0' 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' 388.0' 392.6' 392.6' 100.0' 128.0' 24.5' 357.0' 179.5' 29.8' 179.3' 519.6' 59.6 0.8 326.1 4071 61 618 4121 4133 4020 598 3945 40254023 4021 575 573 569 4041 548 4113 4111 4073 4101 4104 4117 4119 4127 4131 451 453 455 457 459 461 463 4079 4069 4065 4059 4082 4085 4060 4072 4076 4080 4084 4054 4040 4075 404 432 4125 4131 4139 4110 4104 3943 393 383 420 270 4039 4043 4042 4055 4050 4056 229 483 487 456 550 552554 594 596 568580 510 514 518 526 530 534 538542 546 550 554 558 4109 4129 4102 502 506 4128 3999 4129 4112 4044 4025 405 4106 4108 4060 522 4070 617 567 4054 4062 4080 4094 4091407540614055 4031 4040 4050 3981 460 478 4037 4045 4143 4115 465 467 469 471 4109 4121 4119 4117 4115 4111 4020 4030 360 380 4085 4091 4073 370 4149 330 321 319 4103 350 401 363 343 323 380 360 340 320 300 310 3996 4022 390 4059 4065 4060 4071 4079 408 4070 4068 301 303 4032 4042 4052 4062 4072 330 4021 4033 410 430 470 473 480 407 417 427 437 457 450 475 477 556558 560 562 564 566 570 572574 576 578 582 584586 588590 592 549 545 541 537 533 529 525 521 4101 4105 4117 4121 4125 4126 4110 4113 412241184114 577 4106 415 421 425 4100 4102 4135 4100 405 4062 4068 50 SECOND STREET MACLANE WILKIE WAY WEST MEADOW DRIVE V EL CAMINO WAY EL CAMINO REAL CAMINO CT EL CAMINO WAY WEST MEADOW DRIVE E) VISTA AVENUE WISTERIA LANE VILLA VISTA (PRIVATE) PARK BOULEVARD DRISCOLL PLACE JACOBS COURT (PRIVATE) EL CAMINO REA L EL CAMINO REAL EL CAMINO REAL RM-20 PF RM-20 RM-30 930 RM-30 R-1 CN PC-5116 PC-4511 RM RM-2 R R-2 tynter 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 Current Features 0' 120' Attachment A 4075 El Camino Way Location Map CITY OF PALO ALTOINCORPORATED CAL I F ORN I A P a l o A l t o T h e C i t y o f AP R I L 1 6 1 8 9 4 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto ekallas, 2024-02-08 10:45:19 Attachment A. Location Map (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) Item 2 Attachment A: Location Map Packet Pg. 24 ATTACHMENT B ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 4075 El Camino Way, 23PLN-00202 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.16 (CN DISTRICT) AND EXISTING PCs (5116, 3775) Exclusively Non-residential Development Standards Regulation Required CN Existing (PC 5116 and PC 3775) Proposed Site Area, width and depth None 110,642 sf Irregularly shaped 110,642 sf Irregularly shaped Minimum Front Yard (El Camino Way) 0-10 feet to create an 8-12 foot effective sidewalk width (1), (2), (8) 14.5 ft 14.5 ft Rear Yard (Closest to Wilkie Way) 10 feet abutting residential districts 10 ft 10 ft Interior Side Yards None N/A left 8 ft other sides N/A left 8 ft other sides 6 ft at proposed addition Street Side Yard (W. Meadow Drive) 20 feet (2)20 ft 20 ft Build-to-lines 50% of frontage built to setback on El Camino Way 33% of side street built to setback on W. Meadow Drive (7) Approximately 7.5 ft (2.3%) built to front setback Approx. 7.5 ft plus 2 corners (8.2%) built to street side setback No change, complies Max. Site Coverage 50% (55,321 sf)47.4% (52,470 sf)48.5% (53,668 sf) Max. Building Height 25 ft and 2 stories 32 ft 5 in 32 ft 5 in New addition max height 28 ft Max. Floor Area Ratio (FAR)0.5:1 (55,321 sf) residential 0.4:1 (44,257 sf) non- residential 0.9:1 (99,578 sf) total 0.43:1 (47,500 sf) Independent Senior Living (The Avant) 0.76:1 (83,511 sf) Assisted Living (Palo Alto Commons) 1.18:1 (131,011 sf) total 0.43:1 (47,500 sf) Independent Senior Living (The Avant) 0.82:1 (90,379 sf) Assisted Living (Palo Alto Commons) 1.25:1 (137,906 sf) total Daylight Plane for lot lines abutting one or more residential zone districts other than an RM-40 or PC Zone R-1 is 45 degrees at 10 ft (6) Complies Complies (1) No parking or loading space, whether required or optional, shall be located in the first 10 feet adjoining the street property line of any required yard. (2) Any minimum front, street side, or interior yard shall be planted and maintained as a landscaped screen excluding areas required for access to the site. A solid wall or fence between 5 and 8 feet in height shall be constructed along any common interior lot line.. (6) The initial height and slope shall be identical to those of the most restrictive residential zone abutting the site line in question. (7) 25 foot driveway access permitted regardless of frontage, build-to requirement does not apply to CC district. (8) A 12 foot sidewalk width is required along El Camino Real frontage Item 2 Attachment B: Zoning Comparison Table Packet Pg. 25 Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) Type Required Existing PC Proposed Vehicle Parking 0.75 per Senior Housing Unit (33 spaces) 1 per 2.5 beds Assisted Living (57 spaces) 41 spaces Independent Senior Living (The Avant) 57 spaces Assisted Living (Palo Alto Commons) 41 spaces Independent Senior Living (The Avant) 57 spaces Assisted Living (Palo Alto Commons) Complies Bicycle Parking None per Senior Housing Unit 1 per 25 beds Assisted Living (2 LT) None 4 short term 2 long term Loading Space 1 loading space for 10,000-99,999 sf. 2 required for 100,000- 199,999 sf. None No change Item 2 Attachment B: Zoning Comparison Table Packet Pg. 26 Memorandum Date: April 2, 2024 To: Ms. Carolyn Mogollon From: Gary Black and Jonathan Chang Subject: Parking Study for the Proposed Assisted Living Facility Expansion at 4075 El Camino Way in Palo Alto, California Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. has completed a parking study for the proposed expansion to the existing assisted living facility at 4075 El Camino Way in Palo Alto, California. The project would add 18 new units to the existing 121-unit facility. The facility has 48 parking spaces in a garage and 7 spaces in a front parking lot, for a total of 55 parking spaces. The parking study was conducted to determine if the existing number of parking spaces provided on-site would be sufficient with the addition of the new units. Data Collection Hexagon determined that the peak parking occupancy period for this location is on Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday from 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM. As seen in Table 1, Hexagon collected parking counts on these days in March of 2024. Table 1 Parking Counts Based on the parking data collected, a ratio for number of parking spaces required for each dwelling unit in the facility was determined in Table 2. There are a total of 55 parking spaces provided on-site. Thus, Hexagon has determined that the total capacity that the parking garage and parking lot can accommodate is 289 units. Time Occupied Spaces Time Occupied Spaces Time Occupied Spaces 9:00am 19 9:00am 19 9:00am 20 9:30am 22 9:30am 21 9:30am 18 10:00am 17 10:00am 19 10:00am 21 10:30am 21 10:30am 22 10:30am 21 11:00am 21 11:00am 23 11:00am 23 Peak OCP 22 Peak OCP 23 Peak OCP 23 March 19, 2024 March 21, 2024 March 22, 2024 Item 2 Attachment C: Parking Study Packet Pg. 27 4075 El Camino Way Parking Study April 2, 2024 P a g e | 2 Table 2 Parking Ratio Conclusions The project proposes to add a total of 18 new units to the existing 121-unit facility. That would amount to a total of 139 units. 139 units is well within the determined maximum capacity of 289 units, thus the additional units added to the development would not cause any issues with insufficient parking. Parking Occupancy Parking Ratio Dwelling Units 23 0.19 121 55 0.19 289 Item 2 Attachment C: Parking Study Packet Pg. 28 429 E. Cotati Avenue Cotati, CA 94931 Tel: 707-794-0400 Fax: 707-794-0405 www.illingworthrodkin.com illro@illingworthrodkin.com M E M O Date: May 9, 2024 To: Carolyn Mogollon, AICP Project Manager, David J. Powers & Associates, Inc. From: Carrie J. Janello Senior Consultant, Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. Michael S. Thill Principal Consultant, Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. SUBJECT: Palo Alto Commons Project, 4075 El Camino Way, Palo Alto, CA – Noise and Vibration Assessment The Palo Alto Commons Project would expand the existing 121-unit assisted living facility (83,511 square feet) located at 4075 El Camino Way in Palo Alto, California. The expansion would include the addition of 18 new units totaling 6,816 square feet, primarily located on the second and third floors. The project requests an amendment to the existing Planned Community Permit for the site to allow for the proposed expansion. No increase in parking or modifications to the circulation of the site are proposed. This memo evaluates construction noise and vibration levels and operational noise levels resulting from the proposed expansion. The construction noise and vibration levels are assessed relative to thresholds established by the City of Palo Alto and the State of California, and where necessary, controls are recommended as part of a construction management plan. Operational noise levels are also assessed, and where necessary, mitigation measures are recommended to reduce project impacts to a less-than-significant level. Regulatory Background California Department of Transportation. Caltrans identifies a vibration threshold of 0.5 in/sec PPV for buildings structurally sound and designed to modern engineering standards, 0.3 in/sec PPV for buildings that are found to be structurally sound but where structural damage is a major concern, and a conservative limit of 0.25 in/sec PPV for historic and some old buildings. Item 2 Attachment D: Noise Study Packet Pg. 29 Carolyn Mogollon, AICP May 9, 2024 Page 2 City of Palo Alto 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Chapter 4 of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan (Natural Environment) discusses noise. The following goals and policies apply to the proposed project: Goal N-6: An environment that minimizes the adverse impacts of noise. Policy N-6.3 Protect the overall community and especially sensitive noise receptors, including schools, hospitals, convalescent homes, senior and child care facilities and public conservation land from unacceptable noise levels from both existing and future noise sources, including construction noise. Policy N-6.5 Protect residential and residentially-zoned properties from excessive and unnecessary noise from any sources on adjacent commercial or industrial properties. Policy N-6.6 Apply site planning and architectural design techniques that reduce overall noise pollution and reduce noise impacts on proposed and existing projects within Palo Alto and surrounding communities. Policy N-6.7 While a proposed project is in the development review process, the noise impact of the project on existing residential land uses, public open spaces and public conservation land should be evaluated in terms of the increase in existing noise levels for the potential for adverse community impact, regardless of existing background noise levels. If an area is below the applicable maximum noise guideline, an increase in noise up to the maximum should not necessarily be allowed. Policy N-6.8 The City may require measures to reduce noise impacts of new development on adjacent properties through appropriate means including, but not limited to, the following: • Orient buildings to shield noise sensitive outdoor spaces from sources of noise. • Construct noise walls when other methods to reduce noise are not practical and when these walls will not shift similar noise impacts to another adjacent property. • Screen and control noise sources such as parking lots, outdoor activities and mechanical equipment, including HVAC equipment. • Increase setbacks to serve as a buffer between noise sources and adjacent dwellings. • Whenever possible, retain fences, walls or landscaping that serve as noise buffers while considering design, safety and other impacts. • Use soundproofing materials, noise reduction construction techniques, and/or acoustically-rated windows/doors. • Include auxiliary power sources at loading docks to minimize truck engine idling. • Control hours of operation, including deliveries and trash pickup, to minimize noise impacts. Policy N-6.9 Continue to require applicants for new projects or new mechanical equipment in the Multifamily, Commercial, Manufacturing or Planned Community districts to submit an acoustical analysis demonstrating compliance with the Noise Ordinance prior to receiving a building permit. Policy N-6.11 Continue to prioritize construction noise limits around sensitive receptors, including through limiting construction hours and individual and cumulative noise from construction equipment. Item 2 Attachment D: Noise Study Packet Pg. 30 Carolyn Mogollon, AICP May 9, 2024 Page 3 Policy N-6.13 Minimize noise spillover from rail related activities into adjacent residential or noise- sensitive areas. City of Palo Alto Municipal Code. The noise ordinance of the City of Palo Alto limits noise levels caused by stationary noise sources and construction on adjacent residential properties. The applicable portions of the noise code are as follows: 9.10.030 Residential property noise limits. (a) No person shall produce, suffer or allow to be produced by any machine, animal, or device, or any combination of same, on residential property, a noise level more than six (6) dB above the local ambient at any point outside the property plane. 9.10.060 Special Provisions. The special exceptions listed in this section shall apply, notwithstanding the provisions of Sections 9.10.030 through 9.10.050. Said exceptions shall apply only to the extent and during the hours specified in each of the following enumerated exceptions. (a) General Daytime Exception. Any noise source which does not produce a noise level exceeding seventy (70) dBA at a distance of twenty-five feet under its most noisy condition of use shall be exempt from the provisions of Sections 9.10.030(a), 9.10.040 and 9.10.050(a) between the hours of eight a.m. and eight p.m. Monday through Friday, nine a.m. and eight p.m. on Saturday, except Sundays and holidays, when the exemption herein shall apply between ten a.m. and six p.m. (b) Construction. Except for construction on residential property, construction, alteration and repair activities which are authorized by valid city building permit shall be prohibited on Sundays and holidays and shall be prohibited except between the hours of eight a.m. and six p.m. Monday through Friday, nine a.m. and six p.m. on Saturday provided that the construction, demolition or repair activities during those hours meet the following standards: (1) No individual piece of equipment shall produce a noise level exceeding one hundred ten (110) dBA at a distance of twenty-five (25) feet. If the device is housed within a structure on the property, the measurement shall be made outside the structure at a distance as close to twenty-five feet from the equipment as possible. (2) The noise level at any point outside of the property plane of the project shall not exceed one hundred ten (110) dBA. (3) The holder of a valid construction permit for a construction project in a non- residential zone shall post a sign at all entrances to the construction site upon commencement of construction, for the purpose of informing all contractors and subcontractors, their employees, agents, materialmen and all other persons at the construction site, of the basic requirements of this chapter. (A) Said sign(s) shall be posted no less than three feet and no more than five feet above the ground level, shall be visible from the adjacent street, and shall be of a Item 2 Attachment D: Noise Study Packet Pg. 31 Carolyn Mogollon, AICP May 9, 2024 Page 4 white background, with black lettering, which lettering shall be a minimum of one and one-half inches in height. (B) Said sign shall read as follows: CONSTRUCTION HOUSE FOR RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES MONDAY-FRIDAY 8:00 A.M. TO 6:00 P.M. SATURDAY 9:00 A.M. TO 6:00 P.M. SUNDAY/HOLIDAY CONSTRUCTION PROHIBITED Existing Noise Environment The project site is bordered by single-family residences to the northeast and the Goodwill of Silicon Valley to the southeast. Other land uses in the project vicinity include single-family residences and the Acme Children’s Center to the southeast, opposite West Meadow Drive; Vision Care for Animals and the Animal Hospital of Palo Alto to the southwest, opposite El Camino Way; and single- and multi-family residences to the southwest, opposite El Camino Way and El Camino Real. The noise environment at the site and in the surrounding area results primarily from transportation- related noise sources such as vehicular traffic along El Camino Real and train passbys along the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR). Local traffic and aircraft also contribute to the ambient noise environment. A noise monitoring survey, consisting of two long-term (LT-1 and LT-2) and two short-term (ST- 1 and ST-2) noise measurements, was conducted between Monday, April 1, 2024, and Thursday, April 4, 2024, to document existing conditions in the project vicinity. All measurement locations are shown in Figure 1. Long-term noise measurement LT-1 was made along West Meadow Drive, approximately 50 feet northwest of the centerline. Hourly average noise levels at LT-1 typically ranged from 52 to 67 dBA Leq during daytime hours (7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.) and from 42 to 56 dBA Leq during nighttime hours (10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.). The day-night average noise level on Tuesday, April 2, 2024, and Wednesday, April 3, 2024, was 59 dBA Ldn. The daily trend in noise levels at LT-1 is shown in Figures A1 through A4 of Appendix A. LT-2 was made along the northeastern boundary of the site, near the shared property line with the residence located at 4040 Wilkie Way. Hourly average noise levels at LT-2 typically ranged from 48 to 62 dBA Leq during daytime hours and from 42 to 53 dBA Leq during nighttime hours. The day-night average noise levels on Tuesday, April 2, 2024, and Wednesday, April 3, 2024, were 57 dBA Ldn and 54 dBA Ldn, respectively. The daily trend in noise levels at LT-2 is shown in Figures A5 through A8 of Appendix A. Short-term noise measurements ST-1 and ST-2 were made on Monday, April 1, 2024, between 10:30 a.m. and 10:50 a.m. ST-1 and ST-2 were made from an open space area on the project site. ST-1 was positioned in the center of the open space, approximately 30 feet from the nearest Item 2 Attachment D: Noise Study Packet Pg. 32 Carolyn Mogollon, AICP May 9, 2024 Page 5 building façade of the existing senior assisted living center. ST-1 was positioned as far as possible from existing buildings, while ST-2 was positioned close to the existing buildings. These locations were selected to quantify any potential reflected noise from the building close to ST-2. The dominant noise sources at ST-1 and ST-2 included jet aircraft (49 to 58 dBA) and train horns (55 to 61 dBA). Background ambient noise levels produced by vehicular traffic ranged from 42 to 43 dBA. During the first 10-minute measurement period for both measurements, emergency sirens generated noise levels of 55 to 64 dBA, which increased the average 10-minute Leq. The 10-minute Leq measured at ST-1 and ST-2 ranged from 46 dBA without the emergency sirens to 50 dBA with the sirens. Table 1 summarizes the noise measurement results. There were no appreciable differences in measured noise levels due to noise reflected from the building. TABLE 1 Summary of Short-Term Noise Measurements (dBA) Noise Measurement Location Date, Time Measured Noise Level, dBA Lmax L(1) L(10) L(50) L(90) Leq ST-1: center of open space near the northeastern property line 4/1/2024, 10:30-10:40 64 59 54 46 42 50 4/1/2024, 10:40-10:50 60 57 48 43 41 46 ST-2: along the building façade in the open space near the northeastern property line 4/1/2024, 10:30-10:40 64 59 53 45 43 50 4/1/2024, 10:40-10:50 61 57 46 43 42 46 Item 2 Attachment D: Noise Study Packet Pg. 33 FIGURE 1 Aerial Image of the Project Site and Surrounding Area with Long- and Short-Term Measurement Locations Identified Source: Google Earth, 2024. Item 2 Attachment D: Noise Study Packet Pg. 34 Construction Noise and Vibration Assessment Temporary Construction Noise Construction of the project would be completed in one phase over approximately 18 months beginning in January 2025. Construction activities would occur between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on weekdays. During each phase of construction, there would be a different mix of equipment operating, and noise levels would vary by phase and vary within phases, based on the amount of equipment in operation and the location at which the equipment is operating. Noise impacts resulting from construction depend upon the noise generated by various pieces of construction equipment, the timing and duration of noise-generating activities, and the distance between construction noise sources and noise-sensitive areas. Construction noise impacts primarily result when construction activities occur during noise-sensitive times of the day (e.g., early morning, evening, or nighttime hours), the construction occurs in areas immediately adjoining noise-sensitive land uses, or when construction lasts over extended periods. Section 9.10.060(b) of the City of Palo Alto Municipal Code states that construction activities are permitted between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and between 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays provided that no individual piece of equipment produces a noise level exceeding 110 dBA at a distance of 25 feet or noise levels of 110 dBA are exceeded anywhere outside the property plane. If the equipment is housed in a structure, the 110 dBA would be enforced at a distance of 25 feet from the structure. All construction activities are prohibited on Sundays and holidays. The construction of the project would require minimal construction equipment. During the site preparation phase and grading/excavation phase, a mini excavator will be used. Similarly, during the construction of the building exterior, a small forklift would be used. The typical maximum instantaneous noise levels for a Bobcat E10 mini excavator would range from 59 to 67 dBA Lmax at a distance of 25 feet. A small forklift would produce similar noise levels. Maximum instantaneous noise levels are expected to comply with the City of Palo Alto’s threshold of 110 dBA. Reasonable regulation of the hours of construction, as well as regulation of the arrival and operation of heavy equipment and the delivery of construction material, are necessary to protect the health and safety of persons, promote the general welfare of the community, and maintain the quality of life. With the incorporation of construction best management practices as a project condition of approval, construction noise exposure at sensitive receptors would be reduced as much as possible resulting in a less-than-significant impact. Item 2 Attachment D: Noise Study Packet Pg. 35 Carolyn Mogollon, AICP May 9, 2024 Page 8 Construction Best Management Practices Implement the following construction best management practices: • Construction will be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and between 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays for any on-site or off-site work within 300 feet of any residential unit. • The contractor shall use “new technology” power construction equipment with state-of- the-art noise shielding and muffling devices. All internal combustion engines used on the project site shall be equipped with adequate mufflers and shall be in good mechanical condition to minimize noise created by faulty or poorly maintained engines or other components. • The unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines shall be prohibited. • Staging areas and stationary noise-generating equipment shall be located as far as possible from noise-sensitive receptors such as residential uses. • Substitute nail guns for manual hammering, where feasible. • Substitute electrically powered tools for noisier pneumatic tools, where feasible. • A “noise disturbance coordinator” shall be designated to respond to any local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator would determine the cause of the noise complaints (e.g., beginning work too early, bad muffler, etc.) and institute reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem. A telephone number for the disturbance coordinator would be conspicuously posted at the construction site. The implementation of these measures would reduce construction noise levels emanating from the site, minimizing disruption and annoyance. Considering that construction is temporary, with the implementation of these controls, as well as the Municipal Code limits regulating allowable construction hours, the impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. Temporary Construction Vibration Construction phases would include demolition, site preparation work, foundation work, and new building framing and finishing. As noted previously, the construction of the project would only require minimal construction equipment (i.e., mini-excavator and forklift). For structural damage, the California Department of Transportation recommends a vibration limit of 0.5 in/sec PPV for new residential and modern commercial/industrial structures, 0.3 in/sec PPV for older residential structures, and a limit of 0.25 in/sec PPV for historic and some old buildings. The 0.3 in/sec PPV vibration limit would apply to properties near the project site and the 0.25 in/sec PPV vibration limit would apply to the nearest historic property. Item 2 Attachment D: Noise Study Packet Pg. 36 Carolyn Mogollon, AICP May 9, 2024 Page 9 According to the historical inventory of the City of Palo Alto,1 there are no historical buildings located within 200 feet of the proposed project site. Additionally, the Goodwill building and medical office buildings surrounding the site were constructed post-World War II and would not be considered older buildings subject to the 0.25 in/sec PPV threshold. Conservatively, the 0.3 in/sec PPV threshold for older residential buildings is applied to all existing off-site structures surrounding the project site. Table 2 presents vibration levels produced by typical construction equipment at a distance of 25 feet. These vibration levels represent heavy construction equipment that would not be used on the project site. However, these data are used to illustrate that even under worst-case conditions, vibration levels generated by the construction of the project would remain low. Vibration levels would vary depending on soil conditions, construction methods, and equipment used. Table 2 summarizes the vibration levels at each of the surrounding buildings in the project vicinity. Vibration levels are highest close to the source and then attenuate with increasing distance at the rate �𝐷𝐷𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝐷𝐷��1.1 , where D is the distance from the source in feet and Dref is the reference distance of 25 feet. TABLE 2 Vibration Levels for Heavy Construction Equipment at 25 feet and the Nearest Surrounding Buildings Equipment PPV at 25 ft. (in/sec) Estimated Vibration Levels at Nearest Building Façades Surrounding the Project Site, in/sec PPV NE Res. (10ft) SE Res. & Children’s Center (150ft) SW Goodwill (40ft) SW Medical Offices (225ft) Hydromill (slurry wall) in soil 0.008 0.022 0.001 0.005 0.001 in rock 0.017 0.047 0.002 0.010 0.002 Hoe Ram 0.089 0.244 0.012 0.053 0.008 Large bulldozer 0.089 0.244 0.012 0.053 0.008 Caisson drilling 0.089 0.244 0.012 0.053 0.008 Loaded trucks 0.076 0.208 0.011 0.045 0.007 Jackhammer 0.035 0.096 0.005 0.021 0.003 Small bulldozer 0.003 0.008 0.000 0.002 0.000 Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, Federal Transit Administration, Office of Planning and Environment, U.S. Department of Transportation, September 2018, as modified by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc., April 2024. As shown in Table 2, the nearest older residential building to the northeast would be about 10 feet from the nearest expected construction area. At this distance, construction vibration levels from large construction equipment would be at or below 0.24 in/sec PPV, which is below the conservative 0.3 in/sec PPV threshold. Smaller equipment would be best represented by the “small bulldozer,” which would produce vibration levels below 0.01 in/sec PPV at the nearest buildings. This is a less-than-significant impact. 1 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/planning-amp-development-services/historic- preservation/historic-inventory/city-historic-inventory-list.pdf Item 2 Attachment D: Noise Study Packet Pg. 37 Carolyn Mogollon, AICP May 9, 2024 Page 10 Operational Noise Assessment A significant impact would result if the proposed project would result in a substantial permanent increase in noise levels at sensitive receptors in the vicinity. A substantial increase would occur if: a) the noise level increase is 5 dBA Ldn or greater, with a future noise level of less than 60 dBA Ldn; or b) the noise level increase is 3 dBA Ldn or greater, with a future noise level of 60 dBA Ldn or greater. Based on the ambient noise levels measured at the project site and the surrounding area, existing residential receptors surrounding the site would be exposed to existing noise levels below 60 dBA Ldn. Assuming a standard 1% to 2% traffic volume increase per year along the surrounding major roadways, which is typical for built-out areas such as this, a 2 dBA Ldn increase would be estimated by 2044. Therefore, the future noise levels at the residential receptors to the northeast would remain under 60 dBA Ldn, while the future noise levels at the residential receptors to the southeast would exceed 60 dBA Ldn. A significant noise increase would occur at the northeast residences if project-generated operations would permanently increase noise levels by 5 dBA Ldn and at the southeast residences if project-generated operations would permanently increase noise levels by 3 dBA Ldn. Section 9.10.040 of the Municipal Code states that any noise generated at the project site shall not exceed ambient levels at residential properties by 6 dBA or at commercial properties by 8 dBA. The northeast residences have existing ambient noise levels represented by LT-2, with daytime noise levels ranging from 48 to 62 dBA Leq (average of 52 dBA Leq) and nighttime noise levels ranging from 42 to 53 dBA Leq (average of 48 dBA Leq). The southeast receptors (including the residences and children’s center) and southwest receptors (including the Goodwill and medical offices) would be represented by noise levels measured at LT-1, which include daytime noise levels of 52 to 67 dBA Leq (average of 57 dBA Leq) and nighttime noise levels of 42 to 56 dBA Leq (average of 49 dBA Leq). Conservatively, daytime and nighttime thresholds applied at the property lines of the surrounding receptors are summarized in Table 3. TABLE 3 Summary of Operational Noise Thresholds Applied at Each Receiving Property Line Receptor Daytime Leq, dBA Nighttime Leq, dBA Northeast Residences 58 54 Southeast Residences & Children’s Center 63 55 Southwest Goodwill 65 57 Southwest Medical Offices 65 57 Project Traffic A traffic study was not required for the proposed project. The additional units included in the project expansion would generate project trips insignificant compared to the traffic volumes along the surrounding roadways. Therefore, the additional project trips would not result in a measurable or detectable noise level increase over the existing ambient noise environment. The project would not result in a permanent noise increase of 3 dBA Ldn or more at noise-sensitive receptors in the project vicinity. This is a less-than-significant impact. Item 2 Attachment D: Noise Study Packet Pg. 38 Carolyn Mogollon, AICP May 9, 2024 Page 11 Mechanical Equipment The project would install new mechanical equipment for heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC). Two condensing units (Daikin RXYQ96TTJU) will be installed on the rooftop of the building, and 30 interior fan coils (Daikin FXAQ07PVJU) will be installed within the new residential units. According to the manufacturer’s specification sheet for the Daikin condensing units, noise levels would be 61 dBA at 3 feet. The Daikin wall-mounted units would generate indoor noise levels of 31 to 36 dBA at 3 feet. These quiet units would, therefore, not be audible at the residential exteriors. Surrounding off-site receptors would only be exposed to noise levels generated by the rooftop condensing units. Assuming the equipment runs continuously during the daytime and nighttime hours, the estimated day-night average noise level for the Daikin condensing unit would be 67 dBA Ldn at 3 feet. The rooftop condensing units would be 28 feet above the ground, and with setbacks of 10 feet or more from the edge of the rooftop, minimum attenuation of 15 dBA was calculated for each unit at each receiving receptor surrounding the site. Note, the residences to the northeast would be completely shielded by the existing assisted living building and would not be exposed to mechanical equipment noise generated by the project additions. Each of the neighboring northeast residences would be exposed to different mechanical equipment noise levels from the additions. Table 4 summarizes the total noise level exposure from mechanical equipment associated with the on-site additions, as estimated at each of the northeast residential property lines identified in Figure 2. Table 4 also summarizes the estimated noise levels at Goodwill. FIGURE 2 Northeast Residential Receptors with Direct Line-of-Sight to the Additions on the Northeast Building Façade Item 2 Attachment D: Noise Study Packet Pg. 39 Carolyn Mogollon, AICP May 9, 2024 Page 12 TABLE 4 Estimated Operational Noise Levels for Residential Condensing Units Receptor Distance from Rooftop Condensing Units, feet Hourly Leq, dBA Ldn, dBA Noise Level Increase, dBA Ldn R1 95 to 205 < 20a 24a 0 R2 65 to 155 21a 27a 0 R3 55 to 130 23a 29a 0 R4 60 to 125 23a 29a 0 R5 60 to 125 22a 29a 0 R6 60 to 140 22a 28a 0 R7 85 to 180 < 20a 25a 0 R8 125 to 225 < 20a 23a 0 Goodwill 40 to 120 26a 32a 0 a Minimum attenuation of 15 dBA was applied to ground-level receptors due to setbacks and elevation of the rooftop equipment. Based on the estimated noise levels in Table 4, mechanical equipment Leq noise levels would not exceed the City’s daytime or nighttime thresholds. For all existing receptors, the noise level increase due to mechanical equipment would not be measurable or detectable (0 dBA Ldn increase). This would be a less-than-significant impact. Potential for Reflected Train Noise There is concern that the additional residential units proposed along the northeast façade of the building would reflect train horn noise upon the rear areas of Wilkie Way residences. Reflected noise could be of concern if the design of the northeast building façade was relatively flat reflecting plane parallel to the UPRR and Wilkie Way. Figure 3 shows the views of the northeast façade of the building under existing and proposed project conditions. As shown in Figure 3, the northeast building façade is not a flat surface capable of focusing sound energy at Wilkie Way residences. The varied angles of the building scatter potential reflected noise in several directions, depending on the angle of incidence of the noise. The design of the building itself, under existing and proposed conditions, limits the potential for reflected train horn noise. Furthermore, the façades of the additional units proposed by the project make up a small percentage of the overall northeast façade, further limiting potential reflections. Simultaneous noise measurements were made during the noise survey at ST-1 and ST-2 to demonstrate reflections experienced under existing conditions close to, and away from the building. These measurements were made to simulate potential reflections that could occur as a result of the project. ST-1 was made in the center of the open space area, as far as possible from the building façade to minimize the potential reflections of sound energy, and ST-2 was made near the building façade to maximize the potential reflections of sound energy. As noted previously, the predominant noise sources measured at ST-1 and ST-2 included jet aircraft (49 to 58 dBA) and train horns (55 to 61 dBA). Maximum noise levels produced by these sources varied between the two measurement positions by up to 1 dBA. A 1 dBA change in noise levels is only detectable in a laboratory environment and would not be detectable at Wilkie Way residences. A similar increase in noise levels could be expected with the project assuming reflections under practical conditions. Theoretically, assuming 100 percent of the sound energy, or all of the train noise, were to be reflected by the project back to a particular receptor along Wilkie Way, a maximum noise level Item 2 Attachment D: Noise Study Packet Pg. 40 Carolyn Mogollon, AICP May 9, 2024 Page 13 increase of 3 dBA would be expected. A 3 dBA increase in noise levels is barely detectable outside of a laboratory environment. Therefore, the potential for reflected train horn noise would be less- than-significant under both practical and theoretical conditions. (24-045) Item 2 Attachment D: Noise Study Packet Pg. 41 Carolyn Mogollon, AICP May 9, 2024 Page 14 FIGURE 3 Existing and Proposed Views of the Northeast Building Façade Item 2 Attachment D: Noise Study Packet Pg. 42 Carolyn Mogollon, AICP May 9, 2024 Page 15 APPENDIX A Item 2 Attachment D: Noise Study Packet Pg. 43 Carolyn Mogollon, AICP May 9, 2024 Page 16 Item 2 Attachment D: Noise Study Packet Pg. 44 Carolyn Mogollon, AICP May 9, 2024 Page 17 Item 2 Attachment D: Noise Study Packet Pg. 45 Carolyn Mogollon, AICP May 9, 2024 Page 18 Item 2 Attachment D: Noise Study Packet Pg. 46 Carolyn Mogollon, AICP May 9, 2024 Page 19 Item 2 Attachment D: Noise Study Packet Pg. 47 Carolyn Mogollon, AICP May 9, 2024 Page 20 Item 2 Attachment D: Noise Study Packet Pg. 48 Carolyn Mogollon, AICP May 9, 2024 Page 21 Item 2 Attachment D: Noise Study Packet Pg. 49 Carolyn Mogollon, AICP May 9, 2024 Page 22 Item 2 Attachment D: Noise Study Packet Pg. 50 Frank Petrilli D (415) 268-0503 fpetrilli@coblentzlaw.com April 10, 2024 Emily Kallas, Planner Amy French, Chief Planning Official Planning and Development Services emily.kallas@cityofpaloalto.org amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org Re: Palo Alto Commons: Applicable Daylight Plane and Setback Requirements Dear Emily and Amy: Our client, Palo Alto Commons, LP, is the owner of the Palo Alto Commons residential care facility for the elderly located at 4075 El Camino Way in Palo Alto. As you are aware, our client submitted an application to add 18 units to the existing 121-unit senior facility which requires amending an existing Planned Community (PC) Permit. That proposal was discussed by the PTC as a prescreening item on February 28. In response to the Staff presentation and exchanges with Commissioners at that meeting, and given what appeared to be some confusion about the applicable daylight plane standard, our client asked us to evaluate the applicable daylight plane and setback standards that apply to the project. The analysis below discusses the existing approvals and historic Zoning Code regulations for the property, and provides our evaluation of what the project’s applicable daylight plane and setback requirements are. In brief, we believe the same standards that applied to the original project in 1987 continue to apply, such that the daylight plane standard shown on the current plans is correct. After reviewing the Code, the prior PC ordinance and the plans, we can appreciate that this issue is complicated and we hope you find our analysis helpful. I. Introduction To The Original PC Ordinances And Historic Zoning Code By way of background, Palo Alto Commons was initially approved by Ordinance No. 3775 in 1987, which rezoned the property to a PC district (1987 PC Ordinance attached as Exhibit 1). The 1987 PC Ordinance identifies a 10 foot side yard setback and a 45 degree daylight plane angle, starting at 10 feet in height at the lot line, as shown in the excerpt below:1 1 Ordinance No. 3775, PDF p. 23. Item 2 Attachment E: Applicant's Letter Regarding Daylight Plane Packet Pg. 51 City of Palo Alto April 10, 2024 Page 2 019659.0001 4880-8294-5714.6 Based on our review, the 1987 PC Ordinance is consistent with the side yard setback and daylight plane restrictions in the 1987 Zoning Code (which, for our purposes, has not been materially amended since that time). More specifically, section 18.38.150 of the Zoning Code subjects PC developments to “special requirements” if the property shares any lot line with residential districts. Those “special requirements” include daylight plane restrictions, which differ between non-residential uses and residential uses where the gross floor area is at least 60 percent residential: Sites sharing any lot line with one or more sites in any RE, R-1, R- 2, RM or any residential PC district shall be subject to a maximum height established by a daylight plane beginning at a height of ten feet at the applicable side or rear site lines and increasing at a slope of three feet for each six feet of distance from the side or rear site lines until intersecting the height limit otherwise established for the PC district; provided, however, that for a use where the gross floor area excluding any area used exclusively for parking purposes, is at least sixty percent residential, the daylight planes may be identical to the daylight plane requirements of the most restrictive residential district abutting each such side or rear site line until intersecting the height limit otherwise established for the PC district. If the residential daylight plane, as allowed in this Item 2 Attachment E: Applicant's Letter Regarding Daylight Plane Packet Pg. 52 City of Palo Alto April 10, 2024 Page 3 019659.0001 4880-8294-5714.6 section, is selected, the setback regulations of the same adjoining residential district shall be imposed.2 In short, this provision says that non-residential uses were (and remain) subject to a more restrictive daylight plane angle and residential uses were (and remain) subject to different daylight planes that effectively mirror the setback and daylight plane requirements that apply in the abutting residential district (here, the side yard standards in the R-1 district3). Summarized below are the differing daylight plane requirements as applied to PC developments with side yards bordering an R-1 district: Summary of PC District Daylight Plane Requirements Measured From Beginning Height Daylight Plane Angle Non-Residential Use Lot Line 10 feet Increasing slope of 3 feet for each 6 feet of distance (or ~27 degrees) >60% Residential Use Lot Line 10 feet 45 degrees Because the code section quoted above speaks to both side and rear yards, it is important to emphasize that the applicable daylight plane and setback standard in this table are those set forth in the R-1 district’s interior side yard requirements since that side of the property is considered an interior side yard under the City’s Zoning Code. The reason the side of the property bordering the R-1 district is considered a “side lot line” is because it is not a front or rear lot line. The property is considered a “corner lot” because it abuts two or more streets (El Camino Way and West Meadow Drive) having an angle of intersection of 135 degrees or less (approximately 90 degrees).4 The “front lot line” of a corner lot is defined as the shorter lot line abutting a street.5 Compared to El Camino Way, the property has a shorter lot line along West Meadow Drive, which makes its frontage along that street its front lot line. A “rear lot line” is defined as the lot line not intersecting a front lot line and which is most distant from and most closely parallel to the front lot line.6 This makes the western side of the property, bordering the RM-20 district, the rear lot line because it doesn’t intersect the front lot line and is roughly parallel with it. As a result, what remains is the side of the property bordering the R-1 district, which is considered a “side lot line” because it is not a front or rear lot line, and an “interior” lot line because it is not abutting a street.7 2 Zoning Code, § 18.38.150(e). 3 The property also borders an R-2 district parcel, which shares identical daylight plane restrictions with the R-1 district. 4 Zoning Code, § 18.04.030(a)(84)(A). 5 Zoning Code, § 18.04.030(a)(91)(A). 6 Zoning Code, § 18.04.030(a)(91)(C). 7 Zoning Code, § 18.04.030(a)(91)(D), (B). Item 2 Attachment E: Applicant's Letter Regarding Daylight Plane Packet Pg. 53 City of Palo Alto April 10, 2024 Page 4 019659.0001 4880-8294-5714.6 II. The 1987 Project Conformed to the Zoning Code, Which Required A Residential Daylight Plane Angle The 1987 project satisfied the R-1 district’s side yard daylight plane requirements by providing a 45 degree daylight plane angle starting at 10 feet in height at the side lot line, and side yard setback regulations, by providing at least a 6 foot interior side yard setback.8 Instead of providing a 6 foot interior side yard setback, the 1987 project provided a larger setback of 10 feet to satisfy a different subsection of the Zoning Code requirements for PC sites sharing a lot line with residential districts.9 But that larger setback, governed by a different subsection of the “special requirements” section in the Zoning Code, is not relevant to the applicable daylight plane standard which is 45 degrees. As a consequence, and by virtue of conforming exactly to the R-1 side yard requirements, it seems apparent to us that the 1987 project must have been considered a “residential use,”10 which triggered the Zoning Code’s PC-specific residential daylight plane and setback regulations. If that was not the case, then different daylight plane and setback standards would have been imposed on the project back in 1987. III. The Same Daylight Plane And Setback Applies Today Because The Zoning Code Remains Substantively Unchanged And The Project Is Still A “Residential Use” Since 1987, the relevant Zoning Code regulations and the project’s use remain unchanged. The Zoning Code’s PC district “special requirements” are substantively unchanged,11 and the adjoining R-1 district continues to require a 45 degree side yard daylight plane starting at an initial height of 10 feet at the project’s interior side lot line, in addition to a 6 foot interior side yard setback. Second, the project continues to qualify for these R-1 district daylight plane and setback requirements because it is still a “residential use.”12 Therefore, the project remains subject to the same suite of daylight plane and setback regulations that it was developed under in 1987. 8 Zoning Code, § 18.12.040, Table 2. 9 Zoning Code, § 18.38.150(c). 10 Ordinance No. 3775, § 2(c), referred to the project as a “residential use” that “will generate less employment than the commercial uses permitted under the existing zoning.” We cannot at this time provide evidence that the 1987 project’s gross floor area was at least 60 % residential (Zoning Code, § 18.38.150(e)), but we assume this to be the case based on the amount of residential units provided an d the ultimate daylight plane required. 11 Since 1987, Zoning Code, § 18.38.150 was only updated in 2022 by Ordinance No. 5548 (§ 9), but those changes did not alter the relevant daylight plane regime. 12 The project proposes to add 18 senior units to an established “residential use,” which was already at least 60% residential (by virtue of being 100% residential) in 1987. Item 2 Attachment E: Applicant's Letter Regarding Daylight Plane Packet Pg. 54 City of Palo Alto April 10, 2024 Page 5 019659.0001 4880-8294-5714.6 We understand that there may be some confusion about whether a senior facility can be a “residential use,” when its units may not count toward the City’s RHNA obligations. Although the project’s units do not contain “cooking … facilities”13 and are not “dwelling units” for purposes of the Zoning Code and RHNA, a recent superior court decision14 and the 1987 Ordinance make clear that a residential use does not become non-residential if its units lack kitchens. Even without kitchens, the project’s senior residents continue to live in the units and to treat them as permanent and continuous places of residence. The nature of the “use” is residential. The Zoning Code is also consistent with this analysis. The Zoning Code does not specifically define residential care facilities for the elderly, but does define “supportive housing” and “transitional housing,” which are other specialty housing types that are typically regulated by the State (and also do not count against RHNA needs, much like other specialty housing types like group housing). Supportive and transitional housing units do not always contain kitchens, but the Zoning Code considers both to be “residential use[s] of property.”15 Therefore, there are at least two other examples in the Zoning Code of “residential uses” that can provide units without kitchens. Perhaps more importantly, State law also defines the facility as a “residential” development. The project constitutes a “senior citizen housing development” as defined in Sections 51.3 and 51.12 of the Civil Code.16 Civil Code Section 51.3 defines a “senior citizen housing development” as a “residential development developed, substantially rehabilitated, or substantially renovated for, senior citizens that has at least 35 dwelling units,” and in turn broadly defines “dwelling units” as “any residential accommodation other than a mobilehome.” That is also why senior housing projects are also subject to the Housing Accountability Act, entitled to special considerations under the State Density Bonus Law, and so on. For all of these reasons, we feel confident that the daylight plane standard shown on the current plans is correct and that Palo Alto Commons has been rightfully subject to a 45 degree daylight plane angle starting at 10 feet in height at the interior side lot line, and a 10 foot interior side yard setback, since 1987. 13 Zoning Code, § 18.04.030(a)(46). 14 A Ventura Superior Court decision from 2021 held that senior residential projects contain “residential uses” for purposes of triggering the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) (Yes In My Back Yard vs. City of Simi Valley (Case No. 56-2020-0539590-CU-WM-VTA)). Because seniors would use the living units as their residences (i.e., be a place where they actually live), the court held that the development would qualify as a “residential use” for purposes of the HAA. 15 Zoning Code, § 18.04.030(a)(135.5), (138). 16 Gov. Code, §§ 65915(b)(1)(c), 65915(f)(3)(A). Item 2 Attachment E: Applicant's Letter Regarding Daylight Plane Packet Pg. 55 City of Palo Alto April 10, 2024 Page 6 019659.0001 4880-8294-5714.6 We hope you find our analysis helpful. Please do not hesitate to reach out if we can be of further assistance or if you have questions. Very truly yours, Frank Petrilli FRP:CES Cc: Molly Stump, City Attorney Enclosure Item 2 Attachment E: Applicant's Letter Regarding Daylight Plane Packet Pg. 56 019659.0001 4853-3288-9014.1 Exhibit 1 Ordinance No. 3775 (1987 PC Ordinance) Item 2 Attachment E: Applicant's Letter Regarding Daylight Plane Packet Pg. 57 ORDINANCE NO. 3775 ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENI..>ING SEC'riON Hl.08.040 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE (THE ZONING MAP) TO CHANGE THE CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY KNOWN AS 4047, 4075 AND 4085 EL CAMINO WAY . FROM RM-2 AND CN TO PC. The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: S~CTION 1. Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the •zoning Map•, is hereby amended by changing the zoning of certain property known as 4047, 4075 and 4085 El Camino Way from RM-2 (Medium Density Multiple Family Residence District} and CN (Neighborhood Commercial District) to PC (Planned Community District). Said property is shown on a map attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 2. The City Council hereby finds with respect to the subject property that: (a) The use or uses proposed for the site are of such characteristics that the application of general districts or combining districts will not provide sufficient flexibility to allow the proposed develop ment which is to provide housing for the elderly. The increased density and decrP.ased parking requirements will allow small~r units to be constructed of a size suitable to the elderly within the same buildi~g envelope allowed under the RM-2 zone. ( b} Development of tQf! site under the provisions of the PC district will result in public benefits not otherwise attainable by application of the regulations of general districts or combining districts in that housing for the elderly, including residential care, is a public need, considering Palo .Alto's elderly popu lation, and this type of facility ~s not being pro vided in the community by other projects. (c) Th& use or uses permitted and the site de velopment regulation$ applicable within the district shall be consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, and shall be compatible with existing and poten tial uses on adjoining sites or within the general vicinity, in that the project will have minimal traf fic or noise impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. Furtherrnorei the residential use will generate less employment than lhe commercial uses permitted under the existing zoning. SECTION 3. The plans attached hereto as Exhibit "B", as amended show1ng 121 units, constitute the development plan and are incorporated herein by this reference. Said development plan is 1 • Item 2 Attachment E: Applicant's Letter Regarding Daylight Plane Packet Pg. 58 approved p\ursuant to Section 1 B .68.120 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, subject to the following conditions: (a) CONDITIONS OF USE. The uses shall be limited to 121 apartment ~nits ~ the elderly who can no longer live independently. ;s shall also include food preparation and dinirig, ;mmunity rooms, and office facilities for provision 6f services to apartment residents. The facility shall be licensed as a Residential Care Facility for the elderly under the State of California Health and Welfare Agency, Department of Social Services Title 22, Section 87102(a}, or successor legislation which requires the provision of at least the following services: 1. Use of a residential care unit, either a studio or one bedroom. 2. 3 meals a day. 3. Security in the form of 24 hours supervisory personnel on duty, controlled access into the facility and emergency devices located in each residential care unit. 4. Personal care in dressing, bathing and other personal hygiene. 5. Supervision but not administration of medication. 6. Transportation in the form of a van to provide ~ccess for personal needs such as banking, hair care, prescriptions, stores, church, activiti~s oriented tow~rds social abilities such as various senior facilities in the City of Palo Alto including the Senior Coordinating Council and the Senior Day Health Program. 7. Programs to provide entertainment, health and inter action. 8. Coordination with doctors and other outside contractors regarding health services. 9. The Developer shall establish and administer a program which shall give preference for .:>ccup.ancy to Palo Alto t:esidents and their families. If the stated uses change, then the project will require an amendment to the PC zone approved by the 2. Item 2 Attachment E: Applicant's Letter Regarding Daylight Plane Packet Pg. 59 City Council and shall be required to comply with parking requirements associated with the new use. (b) IMPROVEMENTS. 1. Parking for at least 55 cars shall be provided on site -.as indicated on the approved plan •. A portion of the underground parking shall be .accessible to guests. The management shall provide on-site van service for residents. Manage~ent shall charge residents with cars a parking fee to be approved by the Director of Planning and Community Environment in addition to the regular monthly rent and service charge. Developer shall submit a preliminary plan (attached hereto as Exhibit nc"), which may consist of a simple line drawing to show how additional parking spaces will be provided in the event a prop~sal is received to change the use from the PC zone for a residential care facility for the elderly to a use equivalent to multi-family housing, with the attendant parking requirements. 2. To satisfy the Below Market Rate Program ot the Comprehensive Plan, the developer shall make an in-lieu contribution in the amount of $205,200, adjusted to the Consumer Price Index (all urban consumers -San Francisco-Oakland) p~ior to the issuance of an occupancy permit for the development. This fee shall be used to .reduce the cost of some apartment units for low and moderate income seniors. An agreement setting forth the terms of such a reduction in cost shall be negotiated and agreed to by the City, the developer and the Palo Alto Hqusing Corporation prior. to the issuance of an occupancy permit. 3. The developer shall obtain approval of and record a parcel m~p merging ·the three existing parcels, prior to issuanee of a build~ng permit~ 4. Complete water and sewer flow calculations are needed at the time of building plan check to show that the off-and on-site water and sewer system will provide the required fire and sanitary - flows needed to serve the development. Any improvements to the system will be at the owner's expense. 5. The developer shall replace damaged curb, gutter, and sidewalk on El Camino Way. 6. A soil~ report sh~ll be prepared to specifically address the proposed shoring for garage . 3. ''.· ... Item 2 Attachment E: Applicant's Letter Regarding Daylight Plane Packet Pg. 60 excavation ahd the elevation of the water table at the site prior to issuance of a building permit. 7. Storm drainage from the site shall be piped directly into the existing storm drain running along the east side of w~ M~adow Drive. The on-site~ draina9e system shall be designed with excess capacity so that water can be detained on-site during peak flow periods. 8. A drainage plan shall be submitted to ~uolic works Engineering for approval prior to completion of construction drawings. Surface drainage over the sidewalk is not permitted. Drainage patterns shall not adversely affect abutting properties. 9. Underground garage pump/sump system shall be designed to operate effectively in the event of a power failure by means of: a. a back-up emergency power generator; b. an oversized sump with capacity to hold the ~ccurnulated water; or c. a method subject to the City Engineer's approval. 10. No street tree shall be removed without permission from the-Division of Parks and Open Space. The trees on El Camino Way may be replaced with pyrus aristocat. New camphor trees on West Meadow Drive shall be planted behind the sidewalk. 11. The d~~eloper shall apply for an encrochment permit from Public Works Engineering prior t.o finalizir,'3 plans for encroachment into the public right-of-way. ' 12. Space for a pad-mount transfo~mer is required. Electric meters must be grouped on the first floor. 13. Title 24 regarding handicapped requirements for apartments shall apply. 14. Mound-ing for landscaping bf:!hind the sidewalk shall not exceed three feet in elevation with respect to the driveway grade. 15. Prior to application for an occupancy permit, the developer shall submit to the Director of Planning and Community Environment for approval, a 4. ... ,. ·( ,. Item 2 Attachment E: Applicant's Letter Regarding Daylight Plane Packet Pg. 61 detailed written description of how the following aeasures will be iMplemented and monitored: a. Maintenance in a central location ot ti•ely information regarding commute alternatives and distribution of same to all new employees. The infor•ation should include all relevant transit system ti•etables, information about ridesharing from RIDES for Bay Area Comauters, Inc. and County Transit, information on the ouildings' and the Cityts bicycle facilities. b. A means to provide or reimburse employees for transit passes. ~. Assurance that the property manager will provide each employee with the RIDES car pool match list application form and information package at least once each year. 16. Detailed landscaping plans and color palette shall return to the Architectural Review Board for tinal ap~roval prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit. Information about the final color sche~e shall u~ s~nt to the Planning Commission upon ARB approval. 17. Developer shall be responsible for the costs of undergrounding and service conversions for electric, telephone, and street lighting and fo~ all services now provided by utility poles 401 and 402 on El CaMino Way~ such undergrounding to extend to but not include utility pole 403. 18. Notwithstanding any of the provisions of Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 9.10, construction hours on the site shall be limited to the hours between 6:00 a.m., and 6:00 p.m.1 Monday through Friday, the hours of 9:00a.m., to 5:00p.m., on Saturdays, and there shall be no construction ~llowed on sundays and holidays. (c) DEVELOPMENT Sf,HEDULE. Construction shall begin no later than one year following City Council approval of the zone change and shall be completed within 18 months of the start of ~on~~ruction. (d) ANNL~L REPORT. The m~\nagement f,hall provide the City with an c::.nnual project r ~port with the following in format ion: 1. Occupancy/Vacancy st•tus 5. ,., ,, ,', ..... ·,. ·_, 1( Item 2 Attachment E: Applicant's Letter Regarding Daylight Plane Packet Pg. 62 2. Number and age of occupants 3. Nu•ber ot employees 4. Numoer of residents and employees who use parking spaces S. Copy of Renewal License for. Residential Care Facility SECTION 4. In the event that Sect ion 3, subparagraph (a)( 9) of th1s ord1nance is for any reason held to be unconstitutional or unlawful, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this ordinance or any part thereof. SeCTION ~. The Council finds that this project will have no significant adverse environmental impact. SECTION 6. This ord ina nee shall become e f ff'1.:t i ve upon the commencement of the thirty-first day after the d~te of its passage. It-.THUDUCED: October 5, 1987 PASSED: October 26, 1987 AYBS: Bechtel, Cobb, Fletcheri Leby, Patitucci, Sutorius, Woolley NOE!:>: Renzel ABS'l'ENTIONS: None /iliSEN'I': Klein APPROVED: Mayor Sr. f ss1stant C1ty Attorn~y II 6. Item 2 Attachment E: Applicant's Letter Regarding Daylight Plane Packet Pg. 63 ZOIIE C FROM AM TO P Item 2 Attachment E: Applicant's Letter Regarding Daylight Plane Packet Pg. 64 (.,) 1--m -:a:: >< LIJ i: ,, 1\ .... ' '' . ., f -l ·l... '-----~-· ·11~.·.·· ' = J.· : ' .. ~a/SI!i/J •.·. •• .. · .: ... · -~··· : . l I I , I . • I 1b,;& KIW : 8 'f ----------(··-~ .. l1t:~ ... ·· .. :.~.·.·.·~.-........ "'.-.~ •... ~.· ..• · .. · ..... ·~.4.-= •. D ••• ~.-." ••• :n.:.~ •. ~.-.;,_~ •.. ~.~.;,.• ~.~.·_;_~_ .• · ... ·_·'." .. • .. · ____ .._ __ _._lilli..i .... '.i.i!•''~ Item 2 Attachment E: Applicant's Letter Regarding Daylight Plane Packet Pg. 65 u 1--CD -X >< L&J • ~, ' ' ' ' ' ' \ .... • • ~~ -· ~ ' , ' .... " ... " ---... ,. ...... .-:.=.. . ~-···-"' ---""'"'· ', ' ' " \,· , ., '-. •• fB) (' f-'f 7"1 e. it/It· Item 2 Attachment E: Applicant's Letter Regarding Daylight Plane Packet Pg. 66 ' • ' ' i ' • ' -- . • ., • ' , . - • ' ... , "' '.\7 ... \ I ' \ : \). \ . / ,. 6 ~· 8118fHX3 I ' __ _. .. ,--· .. ,. \ I I I I . ·,·,~·· .. .. .. ·,-. -i l . ~ . "j ., ' ~ '' ' •' ,. 1 . ' . ~ ] ···:·J. .. : ·, iJ ·.• -'·_,:. '· . :'! ... , i I 'l j ··~ _J •·. '· .. ~ ; ·.·!. ·•.· .· .. '. J ';;J •li !! ;1 ·-:., Item 2 Attachment E: Applicant's Letter Regarding Daylight Plane Packet Pg. 67 ~,. •. _. / { / I ' . ' : . \ !.; ~..._ ' . .., \ -,. ' ' .·J·r, :f.:: · ... ~ .. p·. I '' l \ :~.i :' \ ' ' -~ ·"i ~ . . .,, ' · .. -·' ... . ' .,.._.._.._ ..... _:t~g.w:;:" _____ ..., _____ -l~:.:.:--~-~~·----:.:w;,:"';.·""-·-~---t-r---.....;'.~ . ..,··-·---+~---------~--r---,._.__ .......... _________ _. ____________________ ...,...rT--,.....,..,..-.-~ .. r , · 1 • -~~"~! I I () \ ' . ,} ,, ,; • (;;.,. \_'!; •· 1 + WII,X'i;f"Co~~ -1 ·;· t + ~F ' 6'~C: ... t'\•" -·· .. --.-....--:-...,.-' -+ '' • \ .. I I \ ' ' I .• ..t .... '' \ 'i .. r ... ',"J- . '! •' ~ .. , ' ., 1 r----· ... j I , ···~·.: + '(......._ - ,...,._~iM·t ·•• -~ ~~~~~-.· \ ' .. ~ ~ fiiWZ!WW-PC. ~ap\t, CUI B): ...... fWI!IIirt, - o--. / ' I +--·----+ l .... ~.: . .-1-. '·.~ / . I '< -. . .,-:· . .; . -.., .· ... I ... :--1···. I '" __ ... ·-·· . -· J -------~1 I f" t / ··~ ~-·.~:-t;; r-~rr ;'kfA 1!'1 n"i/?!'N/., ~--~·~ 1 ... -7..-lH'e : I I \ I I I 1 I -iii ·'· ';·. ;w ... ·. ::1·. . ~. ,, ~ ... .' i Item 2 Attachment E: Applicant's Letter Regarding Daylight Plane Packet Pg. 68 I r ' ! '· ' t f •• t. L ! •• r I , r ~ L ~· .. . , .>:., :~ '· ~-' . ' : •. '• _/ '-; ~-.• / '. . • _;_f • '· '•. ' ..... -·,, ... ,_ .' i' ' ,. j ' • I GENERAL NOTES r_::t~,"-1"'!;c.:r· ·-r-·c Sts t=-:• .... L ... ~'( ~",t..~ .• ~ -~"~":"t_.. ~--'I . -.: I . f'tl....'if-f:(,.~·;l.~H~L.~ l·~-~'l.J !:<t! 1):·..;--t~ .~.-\Pfo'-i·r . : ~· ij .. ·' ~ ·, '' ' i ' ' I - · .. I \5 , I ;: L/:(·~~ (OIIH/Jr~ G~·L<•:5, ·':r J r~oor '1 -:c[ ru c~ tol~ Ul'i11':', To ~:.r. !f.TD. <1/ 4 I lYP. 0::-l':tE:.i'l. ,::t, -. jl<. "'!'-( -· • f'Zr~':,_'!?FJ1i"'l'<l_.. (.).ro-e, r· ::.c_.·-r-r F-t.::. !"1.-t·~r.:.L·(- tlllifilN\.f•t A~;>~ (,·;;.. '(fl .. .o.·1~r£A<1'E A6:; ~ '-"~. • ,A'Z>·>Il,.--ff.<.J C:u~~¢1?.1 (,,...-,.,,,, .. ··"' 21 lf."!l~ PUI-f. • tv'li:~to 1.:. j,. !... (.AY<. I;; tifT P~ , 1 c:>E 0 · • iJit F!:; Y.f~lf· :·tu"':f"'F·V C,..!! .. •(lf1-VC.> 'fA:::t-1 UNIT \0 ~ViC-eO co~Af"L'I ~<-:-rt"'r ! . • &t!rtz-4r.MCl' /LL ("l''PHI ·~t 1 '<"·il(~'''l1 fd-i... JHPi"''D'..4f<L-N~.s,o.;:. ..... t?. r2>U IVPI!-1 q 1/f'<., 1 (~~ - Te> c..:''Nf?:.>( Hr·nt '"~nLt -z1 I" •Jt:.t(~(.ry •-'1 1~!-<',..>1(.../<t'f.?':O lt·~~41Ct,}.l!':t-lj~.,.. ~ ... r!Z'r:'F'"'""\...1.]. 1c /. LJt..l·Ti'_;, r.·e:4'{"'\.ltt:{;; r.tt. . .Hlf;~ t... t.tt;, ·~ tl-~(.~..,,::; l'iV.-.t... ,,.,. r!..-c.,:·r-e. '-'· tftA"TtfiC'f -/HoT 't.J.A1f;J2.. : ne-'"li:'!S'rij~J...L.--tiHtj<;.., jt:' P.f-~r:J..~ H:..< H/ ;o-.. l I • tf.W.!i·li f-'~}<L. ~.ll.~~ M,J.. t--t:.:· I)Nt~)f.; W /WA~ GlRC:::vU.T(;,. FPOt-. ~~ f1~ ~~. :-HOT W.A~FI., 'SIMI~~- -;( li" C.:-·d~Hc*:f -r.r.c.pp.:)-C,!!·O~ UNITS ) .,.L fJLlJi~l't .. • f'Ef.lh'HcR fill!•-. ' 1. n I • ,. ·'I II i(f"'l . ' ' !' I~ klf:rtiT :: • .-._JICi'YJ...'f,_ t:~ \·~~ .. i ~t=-:11 · !:;:Jfr;..:._ ~J .. Nf:;'-:(/ ... ~):. J.,f2E'i;.·;: I Vv'.AY; 4-J....I.<~9'>'A-~ l..'¢*"";''(~. • i?YTH~~o~ t'i"l·':'.J'~6 ~,c,., .. ,,q At>J/cfi'T 1t· !'(-! jj " I ,-;,_,. "" .. '! /' t )~ ~ ,, r-_. ..... , 1--. II .11 0 ' 1!.""'"1' r'-1?'-1 -.~'I r ~--·1 -..: I tl It e-1..o1Y.. -e>tf '.7( Sd .. J·tl-cn1.-. ·.!'~ ~~-~.-c:..c-~ 12 t"V:>r..r. t r·~ ~ J,! '" '·t"'A<-e-s 1-..... ,.,.l.~'H (.1. t,vr?.r·M !!C.,. 1~ f!.f':,.'t?tl-lT • )'! ;> q lf1 ~ !¢f I .~rf'. ' ' '' •;;.~< ,; :. '. '':::::::::-:: .... =: ... :": .. :------------------~-·-----------------------------------1·"------------------.;....;.. __ ~----.... ~~-.. ----~------·'·· --------------,------.. -;-~,:-.... +. .• :--""!"'--~.~.-. .. --... ,.;-----.~----~..1 ~~~---.!~~~ }'{~~~ ~~.{ ~ ~--'~ '· /_: ' ', ·'' -~-//·._ ·_: :~ :':·'._..' '-· ·.:t ... • ., ___ ~J;. . ./J<~·_:.;_--'.:_---'-- ' . -·· ,···. ' ..... ... ,· Item 2 Attachment E: Applicant's Letter Regarding Daylight Plane Packet Pg. 69 i .. ,., ,. •, ·~' _-·,_> ·._ .).4<: .'>1t ... ~ ... ~:,. l-'.\ ' -+ 1 I --r- ' i J l ' li ----~ +-.. -1--~ -t-·-----. I I I .. · ... ,('···_· •' ' I . F itXl-+-I_;_ i I ; 1-:1 i J. I ···-n :I I I ! i ' / ,_ - 1. I :· ,' ·. I I I I j I i ' I .1 I ,. ~ \ -- I I. 1\ ' / . . '!: -: -t / " / / '"' ' / ,/ 'y' / -------------·. ·2,2.<01 J '' '··· ~J ... -' . ' ' $ " ) r r ,-:· ' . . • -·-. t' . . \ :-__.._ I I ' I 4 • ·I.·· ., ··-1 .:a '' ' ·.: ,. ' Item 2 Attachment E: Applicant's Letter Regarding Daylight Plane Packet Pg. 70 r· i4.J, r .. ~-.·. t ~' ,•:-· " ' .. r-·· l ',. '· ~>; .. :·:. •,!,. ··.._· ·. I~ £' .' . ' .. ; i' ·-~ ·.• .. ' : ·"' ·~ I / < / / A. / " / • . , . .:: ' . A / " / ' / ' < \ I f ' ' . ~ ' :. . •, I_ ,~ ,__ __ ...,.... ______ ---------·-----~-------------------~7--:204' / ( I '-I ' ' ' .. ' ' 1. -~-----+ . ' ., .. / _/ ·/ / r-- I I r.-At-Af. 1"o P~!M<;it I ~T to:~ . ;,.. ' ' ~~:, + ~ 00 i . · .. -f;,_,c;lc,lltt; -~ -~-;; l:~ ./) ... ·· ·. 1 ~'*"P' i;~-r¥ ~{~.,+7.Qb. . · · · IT '<of' . f' ~'!'!~"""" . . . ·--17.. 0 ... · , . ' . -...... '-_, .:··•·, ' . . . : . .. ... u.e:r"-tt'f "..;, ...... ~.r····~-· l!l.,_ u ; "' ..... i.,~t? ~ f41v1r~ 'qf,"'":~-@.. f v;~ •.. 1.11~· ~r :t· . .. . ·: < ··.~:.:~.f-:~" : .. -.:_,. /f'l7·,. G:.~~'. -~~ri -+----+--~===-1'11_..-_"tt4_~~-· ._':U .... ~..,..e ________ ----:--~~:--·.......;;:;:;;. ;; ..• ;;.®;. ··.;);o;;i.-::···:;;'';;:'.::: ~;;-~~· 'td.i S:·~~J7;·: ·;""·~ .... ~..;.·~"1-.~:;t!. o~_·.·~~"_.· ·_!:..,;.;· . f'o:-1-----"'~-------i-:.."1 ~F ~.· :i~~Tf· · ..• <j:t. o' ~~-. ~~~~ .... --~- . ,;· ,-·~-.· '' • . \ .. _(' . .' .. •' . !· -.' ,I I 'f '~ ' ,-. ·, ... ! cJ'l'" ' t '_), _;" _-;~\ •. ,~· &_L _ _;.; .--'.i:.~.-~: -~--"'" :~:{.·.'~~. ·-~ .:..i, ~ .. ., . . .-.' ' . •' ',, ,,' ,·, . "'~;}~. ·.<-;_·· .. ,.:_,~·' : ")·~~'.;.: . "' ' : .. ''' fA~lti4 f. 'F. CJ.-~Y. -I -00 . l ., ' +-. :JJ ' -~~l~ .. ···· . ' . . ' .•.. ;::;~-·-;~ :c.~·y tQe' . .. _ . . -._..... . ' ··. ., .. · .. -' \' '-·1-'''' ! . ·: ... .i. '' ,f' '-; . ~-. ' . ~ '-' . ..... ..... ,,_ ·. . . ~ ,/.+' .'..,_ ·. --:.""'-..~ .... -.. ,l ...... -. ' I I ' I ii· • , .. :··· ' .·· I ' . \c ·.·. >, ;r . ·J .. · ., ' ' _· '"\ I· . ' Item 2 Attachment E: Applicant's Letter Regarding Daylight Plane Packet Pg. 71 l ~ f· ~ '·' • r , ~; . •. t'; ; •. .... '! ~: ... ' ' ~. ' . .. • ' . . -,._ . ..}\., . .", :·· ,. . ' . . . . ,..-...... --~ . ' .. -' . ~~~.·&~1 ~· .. ··~~-! ....... . ... .. .. i • I ! I ··, . I I \ '1', ~ ., • ... ,...... . ....,.v· :...,.I ,lW'l'· I:, .... ·: ·~-~~ . :.;., ·, ·'. ,' -~ - ~-·- .-., . ' ., ·' ·'·' . ',\ ' .. ..... -~-- I, , }. - -~ -. .. I I'., ' ' • j" 0 I> ~· .• ,: • • .p • I q H ' / / ./ ··~--n-~____j ~~ 1 ~ ~ .. .~~~~ ·. ,:;-·· •, I ' ' J., ~-" . ... l .. •· .~ r ' . -! . ' . ~ l:' ~ ···I .. .:,:. i:l ~-: .. ' . -,~l :--, .. ,' '·'- ~-.. :... •-. . -.. . ' ._ .... .... ' . ~ ., .. Item 2 Attachment E: Applicant's Letter Regarding Daylight Plane Packet Pg. 72 : ~ .. - ' r ,, ' ,_.. ' , .. t· .• ~{·, >,, 1··._.·.:_·. c ' " •.·· . ,_.·· ' ' . ' .... ,_ ... . ;; ·' .1;''. ·-~--,. '"'' i I. ',. ' ...... _ ., I I ' _J I ' .. i \ !l I I } (~l?t•,... <-1"•Pte> --.--L T~~t;. ~~N-~ .-~·-- • -··' I(Ji~A; i11!> >A·r-r' ·,:• ..,. ---- (~) r-· 0· ( t I I ----1 ------t l .... \-,-.,...· '2~/.---~,.~t;'" ·. .,. •.. ·lfJ...ie. s-.1\f. ,.. :~~!!:' "-...:. ' ' I I .. I ·: \)''', • · .... . ' ,' .l 11 1'7 !1' . l ~--~-,------------~------------·-----1--...... . ' ~~~4~ iii' *"'~·~~~4 ;, ' . .,. " . ' '' ft!rt. :~-A . ~-~1!)-f..H:"r .~.(~f-jkt,.;. r~·-·· •t>#~ .. . · •l . ': '., , .. ·~ ~ . :. ' ·,_' /-' .-... ·--.::·-~-~ . ·-;,:· .·; \ . ··;-i ·.-~; ... : ,\ '· .. '.•·' ·; •' ., ..... ···; .,· "-, \~: .fb.o ~-;~~\ ~\ '. '· I ; '"".' ·' : '~ ',, '·~·. :_~;· ·~·<~::;,3,(~· I ;-'· ..... ' ., • ,,! ; ·, ' ~· -~. ,; . ' ... 1 ...:.·.~,: . ' ~:,_·, ·-----~----+ e-.---"+ ) ~1\:r-_. 1: kVJ ~f -/~L. .;~:l!'lf· !'f-' ····k· f;>!=j(j::. ~::-:'='=":;:.':.:-_-:=. :;;::..::=tl I I I 1.' f·l I\ ( :.;: ~-... ' '·\.j //l / I r-A 1..-U' N-y· 'T rr· ! r.,~ 1- 0 rt e.~ 1 T o :::.;;_.ua,.(,. .ii ~..,., ~. ·V v :-.. t..e-r· t2.r:, '--.......:~-.:'1.; ;-;-1 ~~. Uttlj -re-lf<"~l!o !4-:nt l>~e.. 1~~---····Db·\; ; .. -' •. ~~·: ' ' .. ·._ .....,. . ~.:. .. ···Ax« t. I· .. ·. , ' ,"_'• 410 ~. ~ .... : ...... . ' ' ,' ' ,.,~·:_i_.7' ~ ,J . ' . t I I ,, ) .,I• .· ... ·. ·'~> ... · ... ~,.. ......... . I !,IE:_-f."? T 1 ''II t• !.--: ~.; it' t-v.-.-.1 -~MIL'? b I (;(, fi'JH" ~ ul!-i J1" \ -~~ -' I ~~ l l I I --·--------'~· i J . ~ '.· ' : '' ... ··\. . _!; •·· _i':~i::~-~~ .. : "a~~£~ .. . I:. •• I . Item 2 Attachment E: Applicant's Letter Regarding Daylight Plane Packet Pg. 73 • • .,)' (· t~;.. f"'-, , +--··· ,,,, ___ . , ----~~- ..... , ... :.:::·· .. ', .. , l SOUTHEAST·· .. · _ffl:;f,V)\~·-i- '~ . .:.-·-' ' :.,._'!"i<N D6J:) U"VllO~J;:I . ~ ,(!!, ,· ~J(.t_ , I~ Pf¥' C::OVIZ.T 1, .. ,·. / / -·~ ·~ .. , , I I • • ·l ~· •, ~ ·1 ,,·,,··t .. · .... ~ ~-~~. ; ~- 4' . .~_ ~ .. -~ •. !'!' ·~ ~ Item 2 Attachment E: Applicant's Letter Regarding Daylight Plane Packet Pg. 74 .,[ •,;, ,. ·.;. ..... \ \ \. \ .,.----~-'1 J. . - SOUTH. B.EVATION + • '"l :.' ·Mt·~l.!!"!!.'';llllit . ..._'Q!'!"'J ~"""""'~~.eli-: ............. · .. ··~ i •; ..... T lr----ir-1 Ul ;t L :J : • ':,1" •·· l . ; t .. ·~' • Item 2 Attachment E: Applicant's Letter Regarding Daylight Plane Packet Pg. 75 r r-r , I ' .:.....J ' r .... ' ..:-.... , _.r--t ------,--------···-+ _./·· ' I ' .· I I 1, _ ..... -.-.,_-.' ·&~· ...... ' . '~ .... -:. . ,' .6·. -· .. • : of .·).. ~-.... . -· ·.' ··- .. -:-.. -:4.' -' .... • r I ! U<l'! ~"..t-' Ltr{e. c·p-~;;,.,,-:..-rw1 ~~~~;, t~·rtL-e (~,~1'1'') ... &Ll1W1W.<f' ~----,_____________ '] ~;:;-t"""--------------·---·--···'!---·-------·-· r---~ I . I ! I I l I \ , 1 Item 2 Attachment E: Applicant's Letter Regarding Daylight Plane Packet Pg. 76 1 . I ,_. l ~ ' r r:. ....... ., ''f"' '''-! 1-'1-~'t"'-~r. j "' ... ! '-~~ . -· ~ h·· f"'·· r-·-·--.... ; ' • ,. l I I l ' ,. ~ "'7'="==;;r'7"'""'~""'""""*"+ Ll I I ' J. I ,. ' / ... ~·-·: . ' 11.· •• · .. - f ; '· ~.)....~: "'" • ...;~ .• ' '~· .. ·;' '.· ~~l .. ~r~ ('f""-t?\~t>J ... ~1\Q!!ti.i:t '· l ~ ra:-( -··'· ~ ' I I I I ' ' ' \ .! .. ,. I J ' 1 l r ' ! l l 'l • J . ' ~ ... \ . \ ·''·" '· ~ -, Item 2 Attachment E: Applicant's Letter Regarding Daylight Plane Packet Pg. 77 .,.. •• 111!!1 ... -111!111 ... ___ '!"!"' _______ !!"' ..•. -~-....-~-....·.':"",...,., •. ..-,., ... , ,...,,; -,.,,,-c.J .. ; -.· ·: .. • .· . , __ ,,, -~-· ' . k ~-- t' ' r t: f ~ • ~ r r ~ t • • !:...:' ~' [' ~ '· ' •• ~ . ·~·~ 1~-~ ... · .. _,,#' ._,' ,• .. ~- ~ OJ ill CL.DJ ~ -·- .. .. -"' ~ ·------~ ----- Item 2 Attachment E: Applicant's Letter Regarding Daylight Plane Packet Pg. 78 • ,, r 1. ' ~.; • ·-:· '. ,.,. '-,1·· SQ!ITHWEST -A .•. -~~: .. " .·. :~ ... II •'•1 .. ' D. DOG ELEVATION __ .t __ . '• ,._.. ~ :· -~ .. ....,II.~ . .,~·'· .. -~ .. • --~-. .... ~ ' .. . ... , . . ; -~ ,,-_7'f?' --: .... --, • ~-:''cj!. ,•- '· .· -,,.· '','. " ·'', . ~'.' " ' .. ' NORTHWEST ELEVATION ·.• ., . •. LJ []''""l I 1' ' ":;:;.-:-~ [_I[ I! ~ tTl!]~ [CIJ n-rt L~. 1!____....11=+-!1 LLlJ -<=-1~ ~ •,· ·, .j .. ,," "' Item 2 Attachment E: Applicant's Letter Regarding Daylight Plane Packet Pg. 79 ~--.... . ,., ~ .-, .... . -· __ r-1 ........... J 48M.wn.J<,JE EL CAMINO WAY : .. ,.._ ·\dtf.·_·; .,.,.~~--... · ··-~ ,,.. ·---::l ~: ... . ... • '' ·'" i ·.' ~-.. :-''•, ,, .·--1-·•· . ·s ; ' -~. L--~----~ . . ,• ·;· ,_· . ... 'I .. ·-,· ' ' . '·: . -~,; ':.; ... " '"',.; .. 'I< . ·.,. ; . ,; . ' •\' \,' . .. : -· :_·; __ . B. ~ : .... i 't0'4. ;w1iillf ~ ~' .. ..: t'.: ...• ""'·' ' t EL CAMINO WAY SECTION· E·E ·fi},· i ,i, ~ ·· · ~ ~rr ;" 1' t1. f""..NO ~ ~W'-.'"1~- . J ------- :o': ! / ·~ .. -:... . ~ ,· ' . -.~ ..... ' ~-. ....: ·--"""•· ... ·:~ .... ~:·-:--·· --·· 'I. \ . ' ··J '' ! ... .• ... •. .. Item 2 Attachment E: Applicant's Letter Regarding Daylight Plane Packet Pg. 80 r· • . . . . . . . ' f .. . ' ~: : ' ~. t ~· '. I ' ' ~:' '\ l,••••••••!l••••••z•••a .. •••••••~lll•••••,•••••• .. ~~~-,•~~~·•llll.t .. IIIIIP•••IIJ.!I,_!I"•u•s•sq•. !!1'1111!1.•'•,..""'-~,·~:.01."'·~·~,.,,, ......... -. ........ ---.. ~""' .. ,:".~"•''".· ~·~~-.-..... "'· -:.-:.:-.:-."'-::-~~,_.....,."· -~·-;,_;;. ~~~ .. ~~~~~· • .. , j l .. 1 ; -;- ... .. -, .. ~:-~rr~9"·- +-------------+ I . I I I -; I I I '""~ .!-+ ' ~;;, ~ ..... ·~ ~fi. ~~~f_.J t . .IVIN~ ~ · I.!,J I U<-. UNIT"; · T(f'~'Aj_ .. -~-.----'~· ... ._. ---~· -----••<p•··-........... -~·,_, • . --~ --::;· ,.~;"'!. .~~-~~--• ...-'"": ·~~ _,.~---~ ruru: to r..+t, A-~ ''-4\? '"·"• rr~-1 !·~··· ' .,.~ ~ ·' p ••. J n'/ ( ;.-1, . .., '1 V. c1t~ur·r·~ K-1 4t~·F.. '<,te r:..,..t~) -·;..:r·-.!-. .............. Hl"rtt~lt>L ~~ Pll'ol ~ .,-.,.r \ I I I 1 I __ __._ ____ --§.---;; .:O.U:.t N '!' ~ld'ti!. : ,A.,-!~ .. ~.,.~ I..!IIRJ""''-' 0: '-,J.J~ ) . .. ~. ,,;--- 1f !f'f:AL rJ>.t l. ·' ··.·'1 I --~-- 1' I : < Item 2 Attachment E: Applicant's Letter Regarding Daylight Plane Packet Pg. 81 ·' I.' t. .. ~ .: . '·f·· ~--... ' :-.·· ~t 1"'', .. .:~.~-,;. __ - . . . ' -~-----,-,------·-. -· -.. , ..... _,._,~,·-~:·-~-~~-.. ~~~~-~~--~~ ... -.~~~"-:_~~~-~-~ ••• .. _ ... EL CAMINO WAY .. .. .... ---·-·----~ ., ... ... .;..· . .,.,; (•'' . l ------~.... ~ .... ·-----__ _. ... + -~ . !!DII!O"':"'""' :,;,""···~. --;:,~-.~~·.:.,;:J~.''II-"::_" ;; .... ---..... ~- r ' I . ,,;-·' . ' ·aooowu. . :--·;:_ ___ ·-------------... ----------___ , __ , ___ _. 1 r·----·--··------~ ·• -~ .. ~·~:-~~1.-_·:~·-•;'~·-··-. . ..... ·-· . ·' ....... ,.:,.;.,-.,. "'GQODWIJ.. '. ---r· I I ... ; .. -..... ~-·---··. ----------- I -------'-'----4=-~-r---·-----"~ .... ·: •·+ ~-~-...... ' -........:...' ., .......... ---~--;.."'-... -~-· .. I _____ ) __ I i . I _ .... ..., 'i l ' ' ......... _ ._-_ : I r I .. /, ' ' DEC 21 ~"' o~:iJ ':l· l,...l ')'~ 41?·~ ...... I 2 ~ ~;;() ".... ~N ~I'Cf');...; j NOON & 2:30 PM ~-...... _...., __ /'-. / ·" ···Ui:.'21 ,. : ,: ... ...:. .. ,. .. ' .... ·. \ ' _;,._·. ' -'_ 1 :" .. _· ·-~'4.'10 tf'M--· ifl . · ... -· -.. ,I • ~ Qlao.:r ., t1laleesr ea.~ .. , P.J : Qi:;) .. ,.,..., .1~~~ ()(X)_:~ FQft ~ToMe) ' ' I •• • . , ... t_:_ Item 2 Attachment E: Applicant's Letter Regarding Daylight Plane Packet Pg. 82 r . ' i ''·. '' .. ,. ,, •· .· t;, .. (, ~,, ,, ;, __ ,;_. r , .. • ' '·, I j4.a:> ·.: · ... -.·.~~/'<·,··-·· •'• 1, •• . 1 .• :. :·:, ,.·. \·.' ' . ~ ' '~· .. _ ..... '' .. ' -·: '' 0 0 0 I i~·::~ • ... ;_ ' .• ·,.. f ' ', ..... :.; . . ' '' ·, ... '· ",.# •• ,.,·, i .... ·' , . .--· .. ' ..... " EL I, .. .-.' .' . ·•',• .. :.;- l". ·'' . -<. ·\ .. \ ' ' ··:·,. ' :·. '. ' " '' ·~ ' ' ,, '. · .. ·,, T ... <' ~ ' ' I ·• ,, ' . ' ~-,, ' ' ~·-- ·_,. -"·. ' ·. ,. '' .: -: ·- . '·/··. • •. :.:. '< -;·. -.. / "/:". '' "· . ·.1_ '• I • '· ·.. . ~-~. ·, . ; .. : '.,.:, •• 1-· ;t ' Ill ,' '' I: Ill ), ' f. . ,' . . :, .. ~- ·-, .. : .... ··; 5": '' '(····,, ' ::r. ' ' L ..... •'" ,'( . ,-'; ', ,· -·· :·· .. ·-::-. '!. ,;_ ·' . ~:-. •,' . ': . '· .. , . . ·,,;,_• ,. . · .... .-·. ·. ·.· .. -· .. -·. · __ :·:_.· . .. '· ' _\ :··.·; ... •. '}. ··_· '· '·. -,_ ., .. ·<'•(,. '•,' ~ . ' · ...... ~ ~ .. > ~•_' I ...... - ' :•- .. --·~·,------;---··-·~---·--·-· [ t~><! -,;. T'.:;;, ···-···-···· ft··-· "' ·-·.~-. ...:· ..... -- r.t.. lto!DIO'\Tes ft.O~LIJ..IS IJ,O, W. lt-IDIC:,..O.T es;· ""'~ or-~ . .~ · ... ,.~·-. ' .,, " ,., ---)'( ... ~~ .~:I '-~ ·~ 4:;' ~:r--~· ·i I ' ' rul r-!,'' ' "' ,, 1 I l " ' ,,cP laJ > -a: 0 ?: 0 0 <t l.rJ ~ ..... (/) LLI ;: I I I ll I ~ ti • .,. ·-·: -~--- , I ·• ~ i4i ~ ··~, •. '",•\ ' . '~ .. , . ··: ~- Item 2 Attachment E: Applicant's Letter Regarding Daylight Plane Packet Pg. 83 ' '' • ' !; ' ?W L \ . i -6. a 2 . \ 2 a: .. .), • 5 ! i . . .: . ' . us; .. ' j ... ,WE \ \ .... ~ .. \ ' \ r 9 JWU'en ::;, ~J~=·Ier; ·' . .. ,.· .. ·. ··-:·.·:·-\i ',, '' ,·-.i ' ,_-~ Item 2 Attachment E: Applicant's Letter Regarding Daylight Plane Packet Pg. 84 .... : ;!i· \ ,, to~ ~: i:.'.· ,,. : ~ (- i . . ~ ~-,·.' ~i } r::- ~ ...... ~ k ~- [. I ' ,. ~\· i_i::. ~ •... ~-;·. L / \ ·' . . ~- ··- .',•· ·._·.--· i ;'- :l#~ _ .. ·.· .· . ~-... ·· '. ~ '"''· ':-·' . / . .. :~··· . ._ ... -~---· J ... ···r . ' .. ;' -,-\ . . ,; ... ),'. _;•. _.: #: .::--·~ • -_ ' .· ,· · ... :':.....---.• ~;..._;_.,!,-': .·_ -'~~ ... ~ ... --___ :\ -.J 'i-·.'1.),./,• . '·' .i.i. .i '· \ ., . f ',I. j r I I _, 1 • •• -:.. ! ' ' • ' ' \ \ ( , I ._._ "'• \ ! ......-~---.... ' _Jj,.: - • ;: ~ .. •· .. · "!'"!!!! . Item 2 Attachment E: Applicant's Letter Regarding Daylight Plane Packet Pg. 85 r. , I ,, t .. i ·. 1__--+ l -·t - ·. :.. . : ~ . , LA.ND sc~I\P.-i; . P-LANl· . . ... -· . ' . -~-· ' I [ ' L-J l I •. . . ' L----+ I JIAZl~.,. DI!TM-.. ·~ WAY . ---____ .. -'----·---------------..,..-----.;._-----'-·-'-------------· -·-------· ---- i, _,·,,~··::;:-::.:::~~-~~--~-;-~~-~--~: -·~$l ' .. -~-. _ _j . . I I,,TYJii WALl< _.,-r -~' I . ' I . I ' . ' ~-------. ! I .. . i .l i ,• : ·, ·,-. ,;baLl k •• h11tcd fo:t ao!l.,.•kl4 f!.alab ou;lo •• oah Pt.fh-111. a.ac~ret•, eclaita4 agr•P"•' ..-erau ••• · k_ia•. . · · Walkl!l'« •'lll'he•• ~1· h .. t!IJ....,. .•Hhoat net• ... • •w~.,••-Uflte4 •(14>•:jll,•St pal .. ')• · . .. . > ' ' • ' ' • • • • ' • • • • • • ' ' • ' • 0 ' ' ~ • ~ -~ . • '· . 1' ! ' • ' • ." ' : ·-• : -••• ' I . :'I . . ' ... ' • : . • ''' ~ ! .'~'' ' • : 'loaa; •. ac•p!i _,itetlil.r•• ·lil!,haile "~·••• eut •dll _.,. .. ~aeu• fer ; ~·~:tore 'it.hla _.._.. alr.d vU! _prnUa •.SU 1roap caa.,.uatlaa .. ~h•f 'Itt ·.\ui~~-· c-udt.aa or -•uuulit:: pl..,... la c\c ·. . t•.r•hl'• ··. llir4,. ~~~~·. wUl 11•. plaa•A. ~o pn'-'•• .. _.u,. · . ~atoit41~t •!14 acc·aitt_ .•• i~C.. ... lll,f•!'•al •·.--·~ ~~It •n• h ,,r.,i•h"l •Hia a .atora1o · .CI'~UU aad wo~lt ,_.oa.;ll far &n•laf •~•·-'••~~' ir. ~t !'l~·~u:. · A toaau,~a hi 't11a_ c:.u~u . · · , ·, U•l' t;tltr" U · t'e · •"••l•a •· aall« Ia 'lUe~C , . tire t ... lltalot OliU ·-~~··. •• ae~t,a ?t.,.d ucoa_t. ~i.at, •• . .,.u .. ·~·•••• • a~l• nlo1ill~aa •••~•· a,_suak ~hll •eli••••• dUwo he. r-.1,. or a~oup caoko-•ta, tllo caulta 'Ifill ~lu 1r~llle •. aallllnh• pUe•; tor 4lac~&cata•• n · •••• pla7lq. · :,._ . ' -. ~NOTESi '. . . . . . t ._, ......... ·1-1/.L!~ ~ -~ I . ' r wooo: a:aa· DETAIL 1'JIIEES TO PB'Uf .J 1-:.....:.;;..;_..;;._+-o.t. ~ -~ I I ' ~~ J f ,. t· 3 · ..... " I . ,, •• • . . I I • ' 1 I .!;~ ., .. .;; i i ll l . '·~ :E •· Item 2 Attachment E: Applicant's Letter Regarding Daylight Plane Packet Pg. 86 r ,, •• .. ,-._., ~-. ~· ' . ' . ' . :.·-~- !:J ,.· .. 4· .. - 1-··.--~--. ./;-_+'.; ''(.'• . ' ' . . ' ' ~-' . -·. ~~ ' . "':': '~I"~ --~-'-,' :·· '•, ·.' . ,' ., . ~--~~~~~w--~~~~~~~~~~~~~ffiffi~~~~~~~~~ 111-f'P----'---L1 Jl t~ I ~ ---'-"1~0 1i ' ~ -' -~-------..... ,I ...... .J<,.S..!""'-----'J.ol~ 1'1111 ,..,~ ---~==::t....t:===========~=====~=====::t.J:=~-~ I I .·.-. ·. ' I ' ., I I I 2"~ ~~~ ---+-----:---7----------~ I I I I I I I I ~----J~~ ~--------4---~.~~-----~--------------~~--------------------~' ~·~~ l I I I I I I I II ...jll.o4-·-T-----~ ><~e !'>tJW!-~ wuel't~ ---"--t---· ·--' -~---.:__--·-----·--J 11-WIU.t'eJ,? <?It f'!Oe~ I 1'1 "'F-P 1::> I HU> P LArt, 1 I 1\IC:zt."'!a..---~~-~~ 0fl'! ,..,~ ---, ~ ------------- ' -~:.t_~vpfo~ I I I I I I I ------___:_ -· ---_____!-_j__ tfom:rr l~~c. r* ~1.£..: , •• ~ 1'-o" l . ,- 1 I I I I I I I I 1-- I 4'·..::>" I ,, li!i~ - ' ' 1 '1 I J I • ·-' . ~ .. ' ' I I , \. . I J . ~- ' I i ' . ' 1 I \ ' : ' :. r T ·o··-.............. . > • \ • ·.··f,~ .. H+-r--~·r ; r • i-·· '. · .. ~ .. ·.o.·· .. <;·r-rr .. I ' ; '/ ... 1 . ._ ' . : I . -', ·... ' . ~' _, • ~ ·' ,.. -.l .~. ~-· . .. . . • • . ·' ' ' tourtj/\rN --~vAL.~ : Ia= 1 L..o 1 , .. "'j t '-·-~.· r"f · ITr· ' . I ~-11~,-rrr·-, ,_. -. -H'--~ . / I !; I . ./ \ \ I ' It· 41%" ~· ....:.'•.,.....-'--T-Jir--"' a,-"P' ~~-. \ \ . = ' -~ . "' ' l ~,~~:::; t ' ,, . ' 1 ' ·' I II ,j r . . ·· ·· It I '. ; . . I j • I. --:-::~· r~, -r-rr- 1 I ' . ... ,, .-·· · l~.·~~··.z . : '. 1-<'• 1 . . vtJr? "".~ ' . ' . +-·---- ·r .... ' . ' ". -- I • •;, • I • • • . .. ·, ..... _,.,·,-·\-. :; ' '.,. ...... ~ ~ . ,· ~ ... ·~ \ . ~ ' .· ·:' ' . ~ •' . .. · .. " 1 ------: r1 ;J,.,~ r:J·fr~ r~----~----------~~ . . . . .-. ' -1 ' ~ -G&'-l'?~W. -~ -t2.tf ... ~z:~:t¢;1_ . .. .•. ', ., ' ., -''. ~-. I I • I a· 1 . I . ~-. ,., I , .. l ' . ' J.· I I I 'Z • .· l Item 2 Attachment E: Applicant's Letter Regarding Daylight Plane Packet Pg. 87 ' '· ' I· . 1. ' ~ ~· . '' • ~-- ~- :.-- i. ~--. . ' ~·. ' . ~~' ' ~ .· . t. ;: . -.-' :)<' ' ~ r- ,,·,-: -- I i ~~ I L I I ' , I I I~ ! [ ~;,ev ··•I ,-, . CJ ... ·,. •. ,/ ( .EL CAMINO· .WAY i ' "'"' . <\-~~~~-.. _"t' ···: .. , .. , . .. -" -.. I .I I t I ! • ·-: .-·. ··rl. ./ I .j ->~,!-·,· "• ,' . ·: .l . ' 1 I : I . · ... . . , . ; ,,, ' . ' ' ~· . .' ·. ' -; . ; r• -, ' . : ' .. ~- ' -;-. ' .. ~-· ; "" 1. !Q {£.) , ' . ,.. . :· ' . -~ ' . . ,·.!. '~ ',< . •.i, . ~ ' .. ,' .... -... ·~ ' . /' ;14··· ' .. :. ~~~.· u··-~t...,... ' ; ... -~ :-;~~~· . .,, ~ .•. . JG:I>UIJI'l/ lf.!m"ll'lllaii<I»lf nD«L. ~~1~·~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~=m~--~~~._~~~·~~· ~--.. ~~ ,· • a· l.· l~ .. . . • " • J ' ....... •' '!• I····. -.. ..• I 1 • . . .lilff.··· .'1 .;~ ~ ~Xj i ~1 lt • . ~ -~ -~ J " •, :1. .:, Item 2 Attachment E: Applicant's Letter Regarding Daylight Plane Packet Pg. 88 r I I' ! ' : ~ ,,,· ·t;', · .. i ;.· ':t:!l;:··· .,·, . :· .•.. ·r ' L • : : : ' ~~ ~ ';! i :r;'j ·.: , •,'i;'•, ., :)i. ·.; __ ... ':," ' ~ I ,,.,\ '· .\• ,'' -~ '<·, ~ '' ', ' I • ':,• . " ~ • i ·Jc.· :··· '·,"J Item 2 Attachment E: Applicant's Letter Regarding Daylight Plane Packet Pg. 89 '; ; ' 'I ·~' ' ' ' i 1 '·.•I'· I , •• .. :;. Item 2 Attachment E: Applicant's Letter Regarding Daylight Plane Packet Pg. 90 "q I•' ·I·''' 'I Item 2 Attachment E: Applicant's Letter Regarding Daylight Plane Packet Pg. 91 ','r'• ·.~ ,,, (, '•·•.·· Item 2 Attachment E: Applicant's Letter Regarding Daylight Plane Packet Pg. 92 I : -: . ~ . ' ' . ' ~ ' . Item 2 Attachment E: Applicant's Letter Regarding Daylight Plane Packet Pg. 93 In order to enhance the parking experience for all members of the Palo Alto Commons community, we have established the following Community Parking Policy. This policy is designed to ensure fair and efficient use of our parking spaces, maintaining a harmonious environment for residents and their guests. •Designated Parking Areas: a. Palo Alto Commons has a total of 58 parking spots b. Additionally, there are 41 parking spots at the Avant, the independent living community located on the right side of Palo Alto Commons. •Authorized Users: a. Only residents, family members, and staff members are allowed to use the parking spaces at Palo Alto Commons and the Avant. b. Visitors and guests of residents are also permitted to use our parking facilities. c. Private Care Givers can only park at nearby public parking. Our Concierge can provide assistance. •Overflow Parking for Visitors: a. In the event that parking at Palo Alto Commons is full, visitors and guests are allowed to park in the Avant garage or on the street of El Camino Rear. b. The concierge will have the authority to assist and guide visitors to alternative parking solutions, ensuring their convenience. •Staff Parking Guidelines: a. Staff members are requested not to park in the residential areas located behind the building of Palo Alto Commons, specifically prohibited on Wilkie Way. This is to reserve those spaces for homeowners and their own guests. b. Staff members are encouraged to park on El Camino Real, public parking right of way areas and cross the street carefully at the street light. •Gate Access to Avant Parking Garage: a. If visitors cannot find parking within Palo Alto Commons, the concierge will facilitate access to the Avant parking garage. b. This additional parking option is designed to accommodate overflow situations and ensure a smooth parking experience for all community members. c. A sign at the entrance of driveway to redirect visitors to call the concierge asking for parking assistance. •Parking Management on Busy Days: a. During busy days or special events, we encourage staff members to carpool whenever possible. b. A shuttle service may be arranged to transport staff members from off-site parking areas to the community entrance, reducing the demand for on-site parking. C. Community will provide valet parking services to guests and visitors. •Effective Communication: a. Regular communication will be maintained with residents, family members, and staff regarding parking updates, events, and any changes to the parking policy. b. Feedback from the community will be actively sought to address concerns and continually improve our parking management strategy. Item 2 Attachment F: Applicant's Letter Regarding Parking Packet Pg. 94 245 Fischer Ave., Suite B2, Costa Mesa, California 92626 W: ipaoc.com CA: 714-557-2448 TX: 713-805-9097 4075 El Camino Way Public Benefits One of the large public benefits that our project will provide is providing more housing within Palo Alto. There is definitely a housing need within the city, especially for seniors that need to be taken care of. With our added units, we will be able to accommodate more residents. Thereby allowing aging citizens of Palo Alto to be able to stay in town when they need assistance. This will also allow the family members and other visitors to not have to drive way out of town to be able to see their loved ones. This also shows how our project can help reduce traffic city wide. And locally, our senior residents are unable to drive, so they won’t have an impact to traffic. Our property also provides jobs to the surrounding area and with this proposed increase in units, will allow us to increase our staffing by a few roles. With this proposed project, we will have an opportunity to update the exterior look of our building. This will include a new paint scheme, as well as adding new sloped roofs (there are none now). Those proposed sloped roofs will help soften the exterior to our building. Another aspect that will help soften the building is that we are proposing to add 2 small trees in the open space facing the residential neighbors in the back. They will be small so that they help block the views but won’t add any shade to their properties. The proposed changes to the building will also have minimal impact to shading the neighbor ’s properties since we will be fully outside of the daylighting plane. Lastly with this proposed project, we will be able to update and enlargen the existing trash enclosure to be able to provide space for both recycling bins and compost bins. As well as be able to add both short term and long term bike parking. Helping reduce the environmental impact of our building. Item 2 Attachment G: Applicant's Public Benefit Statement Packet Pg. 95 Ordinance No. 5116 Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (the Zoning Map) to Amend PC-3775 (Palo Alto Commons, 3075 El Camino Way) to include the Palo Alto Commons Addition, involving a Change in the Classification of Properties Known as 4035, 4037, 4039, 4041, 4043, 4045, and 4075 El Camino Way from RM-15 and CN, to PC Planned Community for a New Building to House a 44-Unit Expansion of the Existing Senior Assisted Rental Housing Facility The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. (a) Stephen Reller ("the Applicant" or "the Property Owner") formally applied on December 9, 2009, to the City for approval of a rezoning application ("the Project") of property known as 4035, 4037, 4039, 4041, 4043, 4045, and 4075 EI Camino Way ("the Subject Property) and zoned RM-15 and CN, to Planned Community and join the subject property with the existing PC-3775 for a single combined lot for a Senior Assisted Rental Housing Facility accommodating the uses specifically set forth in Section 4 of this Ordinance. (b) The Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC), after a duly noticed public hearing held on June 16,2010, initiated the Project and forwarded it to the Architectural Review Board (ARB) for review and recommendation. (c) The ARB, after duly noticed public hearings held on August 19, 2010, and November 4, 2010, reviewed the project design and recommended that the City Council approve the project with the associated draft conditions of approval 'Exhibit B.' (d) The PTC, after a duly noticed public hearing held January 26,2011, reviewed the project, including the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration and this Ordinance, and recommended that Section 18.08.040 (the Zoning Map) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code be amended, subject to conditions of approval (Exhibit B), to rezone the Subject Property to Planned Community to permit construction ofthe proposed project located as shown on 'Exhibit A,' attached to this document and incorporated by reference. Draft conditions of the project approval 'Exhibit B' attached to this document and incorporated by reference were presented to the PTC for review and comments. (e) The Council, after a duly noticed public hearing held on March 21,2011, and after due consideration of the proposed project, the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program, the analysis of the project by City staff, and the recommendations from the PTC and the ARB, finds that the proposed Ordinance is in the public interest and will promote the public health, safety and welfare, as hereinafter set forth. 1 110112 sh 8260510 Item 2 Attachment H: PC Ordinances 5116 and 3775 Packet Pg. 96 (f) The Council finds that (1) the Subject Property is so situated, and the use or uses proposed for the site are of such characteristics that the application of general districts or combining districts will not provide sufficient flexibility to allow the Project; and (2) development of the Subject Property under the provisions of the PC planned community district will result in public benefits not otherwise attainable by application of the regulations of general districts or combining districts; and (3) the use or uses permitted, and the site development regulations applicable within the district shall be consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, and shall be compatible with existing and potential uses on adjoining sites or within the general vicinity. SECTION 2. Section 18.08.040 ofthe Palo Alto Municipal Code, the "Zoning Map," is hereby amended by changing the zoning of the Subject Property from "CN Neighborhood Commercial", "RM-15 Multifamily Residential" to add the Subject Property to the existing "PC Planned Community 3775" creating anew "PC Planned Community 5116". The terms related to the existing PC remain in effect in Ordinance 3775 and the terms related to the Subject Property are contained in this Ordinance. SECTION 3. The City Council hereby finds with respect to the Subject Property that the project ("the Project") as depicted on the Development Plans dated December 21, 2010, incorporated by reference, comprises a senior rental housing development that includes the following components: (a) The replacement of 4071 square feet of existing commercial space and one existing single family residence with 56,609 square feet of rental senior housing space, including support uses; (b) Forty-four (44) rental senior housing units, comprising 48,950 square feet; (c) New underground parking garage containing 38 parking spaces on one level; (d) New surface parking and drop-off area accommodating three parking spaces; ( e) Retention of the 81,200 square foot senior housing facility, including underground parking garage and a surface parking lot with 55 parking space total; (f) Removal and replacement of all street trees along the E1 Camino Way frontage of the new property; (g) New automobile driveways along EI Camino Way to access new surface parking and drop-off area; and (h) Retention and protection of three oaks on site (two to be relocated), and three redwoods. SECTION 4. The Development Plan dated received December 27, 2010, and any approved supplemental materials, for the Subject Property, as submitted by the applicant pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code Section (P AMC) 18.38.090, shall be subject to the following permitted 2 110112 sh 8260510 Item 2 Attachment H: PC Ordinances 5116 and 3775 Packet Pg. 97 and conditional land uses and special limitations on land uses, development standards, parking and loading requirements, modifications to the development plans and provision of public benefits outlined below, and conditions of approval, attached and incorporated as "Exhibit B". (a) Permitted and Conditionally Permitted land uses for the Subject Property shall be allowed and limited as follows: Permitted Uses: (1) Senior Housing; (2) Eating and Drinking Services for use by residents, employees, and their guests; (3) Personal Services for use by residents, employees, and their guests; (4) Retail Services (excluding liquor stores) for use by residents, employees, and their guests; (5) Recreational Facilities for use by residents, employees, and their guests; (6) Administrative Offices for administration of Palo Alto Commons; (7) Parking Garage and surface parking lot for use by residents, employees, and guests, with a combined parking ratio of 0.9 spaces per unit; (8) Medical care for residents as is customarily associated with senior assisted living facilities; and (9) Accessory Uses. (b) Development Standards: Development Standards for the Subject Property site shall comply with the standards prescribed for the (PC) zone district (Chapter 18.38), and as modified in Section 4(a) above. ( c) Modifications to the Development Plan and Site Development Regulations: Once the project has been constructed consistent with the approved Development plan, any modifications to the exterior design of the Development Plan or any new construction not specifically permitted by the Development Plan or the site development regulations shall require an amendment to this Planned Community zone, unless the modification is a minor change as described in PAMC 18.76.050 (b) (3) (e), in which case, the modification may be approved through the Minor Architectural Review process. Any use not specifically permitted or conditionally permitted by this Ordinance shall require an amendment to the PC Ordinance. (d) Public Benefits: 110112 sh 8260510 Development of the Subject Property under the provisions of the PC Planned Community District will result in public benefits not otherwise attainable by application of the regulations of general districts or combining districts. The 3 Item 2 Attachment H: PC Ordinances 5116 and 3775 Packet Pg. 98 Project includes the following public benefits that are inherent to the Project and in excess of those required by City zoning districts: (1) Rental senior assisted housing (with provisions for aging in place); (2) Roadway, pedestrian, and bus stop improvements; and (3) A contribution of$100,000 to Avenidas to be ear-marked for the age at home program for low-income seniors. (e) Development Schedule: The project is required to include a Development Schedule pursuant to P AMC 18.38.100. The approved Development Schedule is set forth below: Construction of the Project shall commence on or before June 2012, unless a change in the development schedule is approved by the Director of Planning and Community Environment. Any approved schedule extension shall not exceed one year and only one such extension without a hearing shall be allowed, pursuantto P AMC 18.38.130. The project shall be constructed and occupied by June 30,-2014, unless extended by the Director to June 30, 2015. SECTION 5. Council approves the Architectural Review, finding that: (a) The design is consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the City's Comprehensive Plan in that the site is designated CommerciallMultiple Family Residential and the Comprehensive Plan Table indicates compliance with applicable policies; (b) The design is compatible with the immediate environment of the site in that the project is the expansion of a rental senior housing facility located between existing residential and commercial development; (c) The design is appropriate to the function of the project in that the design responds to the adjacent residential uses, while providing a welcoming and comfortable environment for the seniors to live in and providing improved pedestrian amenities for their use; (d) In areas considered by the board as having a unified design character or historical character, the design is compatible with such character. The proposal is a new building located near but not on EI Camino Real and providing a buffer between that busy corridor and the low density residential located behind; ( e) The design promotes harmonious transitions in scale and character in areas between different designated land uses. The proposed project is located along EI Camino Way, just back from EI Camino Real, and provides a buffer between that busy corridor and the low density residential located on the parcels to the rear of the site; 4 110112 sh 8260510 Item 2 Attachment H: PC Ordinances 5116 and 3775 Packet Pg. 99 II (f) The design is compatible with approved improvements both on and off the site in that the proposed project includes a new building, new sidewalks and crosswalks, and improvements to the nearby existing bus stop; (g) The planning and siting of the various functions and buildings on the site create an internal sense of order and provide a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and the general community in that the proposed project provides a comfortable entrance through the port cochere, a central gathering area around the existing mature oak, and significant common rooms for residents and visitors to use; (h) The amount and arrangement of open space are appropriate to the design and the function of the structures in that program focuses more on common shared spaces, both external and internal for the use of the residents while providing some small private space for most residential units; (i) Sufficient ancillary functions are provided to support the main functions ofthe project in that the proposal includes significant common areas including dining room, kitchen, swimming pool, fitness room, and lounge. Additionally, the project also proposes improvements to the sidewalks, crosswalks, and bus stop in the area for access to the area for non-drivers; (j) Access to the property and circulation thereon are safe and convenient for pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles in that the proposal includes improvements to the pedestrian access, bus stop, and is conditioned to meet the bicycle parking requirements; (k) Natural features are appropriately preserved and integrated with the project in that the existing healthy oak tree central to the site is preserved, and the building designed around it. Two other oaks are also proposed to be kept, but relocated onsite; (1) The materials, textures, colors and details of construction and plant material are appropriate expressions of the design and function in that the proposed design includes a combination of materials that helps in breaking up the mass of the building; (m) The landscape design concept for the site, as shown by the relationship of plant masses, open space, scale, plant forms and foliage textures and colors create a desirable and functional environment and the landscape concept depicts an appropriate unity with the various buildings on the site, in that the landscaping has been kept simple to accent the existing mature trees and provide outdoor areas for the residents to enjoy; 5 110112 sh 8260510 Item 2 Attachment H: PC Ordinances 5116 and 3775 Packet Pg. 100 (n) Plant material is suitable and adaptable to the site, capable of being properly maintained on the site, and is of a variety which would tend to be drought resistant and to reduce consumption of water in its installation and maintenance once conditions are met to reduce planning beneath the existing oak tree; (0) The project exhibits green building and sustainable design that is energy efficient, water conserving, durable and nontoxic, with high-quality spaces and high recycled content materials. The following considerations should be utilized in determining sustainable site and building design: (1) Optimize building orientation for heat gain, shading, daylighting, and natural ventilation; (2) Design of landscaping to create comfortable micro-climates and reduce heat island effects; (3) Design for easy pedestrian, bicycle and transit access; (4) Maximize on site stormwater management through landscaping and permeable paving; (5) Use sustainable building materials; (6) Design lighting, plumbing and equipment for efficient energy and water use; (7) Create healthy indoor environments; and (8) U secreativity and innovation to build more sustainable environments. The design incorporates energy conservation measures through green building techniques. (P) The design is consistent and compatible with the purpose of architectural review, which is to: (1) Promote orderly and harmonious development in the city; (2) Enhance the desirability of residence or investment in the city; (3) Encourage the attainment of the most desirable use of land and improvements. (4) Enhance the desirability ofliving conditions upon the immediate site or in adjacent areas; and (5)' Promote visual environments which are of high aesthetic quality and variety and which, at the same time, are considerate of each other. The design is consistent for all of the reasons and findings enumerated above. SECTION 6. Indemnification. To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the . "indemnified parties") from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside, or void this Ordinance or any permit or approval authorized hereby for the project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the 6 110112 sh 8260510 Item 2 Attachment H: PC Ordinances 5116 and 3775 Packet Pg. 101 City its actual attorneys fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its choice. SECTION 7. Acceptance by the applicant. If the Applicant does not accept and agree to the terms of this Ordinance in writing prior to the second reading. of the Ordinance and within 30 days of the Council's adoption, the question of the appropriate zoning of the Subject Property shall be referred to the PTC for their consideration and recommendation. SECTION 8. A mitigated negative declaration (MND) for this project was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and circulated for public review for a 20- day period beginning June 11,2010. The City Council considered and approved the MND and Mitigation Monitoring Program at its meeting of March 21, 2011. SECTION 9. This Ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day after the date ofits adoption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: March 07,2011 March 21,2011 BURT, ESPINOSA, HOLMAN, KLEIN, PRICE, SCHARFF, SCHMID, SHEPHERD,YEH APPROVED: ~~. ~yor APPROVED AS TO FORM: "Jt.(. ~ 7 110112 sh 8260510 Director of Planning and Community Environment Item 2 Attachment H: PC Ordinances 5116 and 3775 Packet Pg. 102 City of Palo Alto (ID # 1395) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 3/7/2011 March 07, 2011 Page 1 of 7 (ID # 1395) Council Priority: Title: Palo Alto Commons PC Amendment Subject: Public Hearing: Approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Adoption of an Ordinance to Amend the Existing Palo Alto Commons Planned Community (“PC”) to Add a 0.83 Acre Site and Rezone it to PC from CN and RM- 15 for a New 3-story Building Providing 44 Senior Assisted Living Rental Units at 4041 El Camino Way From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff, the Architectural Review Board (ARB), and the Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC) recommend that City Council: 1.Approve the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment L), in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and 2.Adopt the proposed Ordinance (Attachment A), an amendment to the existing Palo Alto Commons Planned Community (PC-3775) zone district to add the 0.83 acre site (subject property) to the existing 1.7 acre site, and construct a senior assisted rental housing facility to replace the existing buildings at 4041 El Camino Way. Executive Summary This report conveys to the City Council the unanimous recommendations of the Architectural Review Board, Planning and Transportation Commission, and staff to approve the proposed 44- unit senior assisted living rental project as an amendment and addition to the existing Palo Alto Commons Planned Community Zoning District. The City Council’s review includes the Mitigated Negative Declaration/Environmental Assessment of the proposed project and the amendment of PC-3775 to include a 0.83 acre site with a new building with 44 new units. The project furthers the City’s housing diversity goals and retains six protected oak and redwood trees onsite. Concerns expressed in earlier meetings about the mass of the proposed building and the number of proposed parking spaces were addressed by the applicant and were discussed in hearings with the Architectural Review Board and the Planning and Transportation Commission. Background Item 2 Attachment H: PC Ordinances 5116 and 3775 Packet Pg. 103 March 07, 2011 Page 2 of 7 (ID # 1395) Existing Conditions Palo Alto Commons is an existing senior assisted housing facility developed on a 1.7 acre site based on Planned Community (PC) Zone 3775, approved by City Council in 1987. Palo Alto Commons consists of 121 senior rental units (with 140 beds), totaling 81,200 square feet of floor area. The existing 2-and 3-story facility contains a dining facility, kitchen, and activity rooms on the first floor, and both surface parking and below grade parking facilities providing 55 parking spaces. The public benefit was considered to be intrinsic to the existing PC, an assisted living facility needed by the community. The proposed expansion site, located immediately west of the existing senior facility, is comprised of three developed properties located on El Camino Way between West Meadow Drive and El Camino Real, with El Camino Way addresses 4037, 4039, 4041, 4043 and 4045. The expansion site contains a single-family home and two small commercial buildings on three lots. The front half of the site is currently zoned Neighborhood Commercial (CN) and the rear half of the site is zoned Low Density Multiple Family Residential allowing up to 15 units per acre (RM- 15 zone district). The site’s existing zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan land use designations for the site, Neighborhood Commercial and Multi-Family Residential. The properties to the east are zoned Single-Family Residential (R-1), the property to the north is zoned Multi-Family Residential (RM-15), and the property to the south is the existing Palo Alto Commons facility Planned Community. Project Description The applicant’s project description and development program statement for the proposed PC district zone change are provided in Attachment E. The proposed 44-unit senior assisted housing facility (aka Commons Addition) would include 8 studio apartments, 17 one-bedroom apartments and 19 two-bedroom apartments. The new building would provide common areas and recreation facilities, including a lounge, fitness room, indoor pool, common bathroom, and dining room. The below grade parking facility would provide 38 parking spaces. Three parking spaces and a drop-off area would be provided at grade. The total proposed floor area is 56,672 square feet, which is a 1.57:1 floor area ratio (FAR) for the site, resulting in an overall FAR of 1.17:1 when combined with the existing Palo Alto Commons. The area of the below grade parking facilities is not included in the FAR. The vehicle access from El Camino Way to the new underground parking facility would be provided using the access to the existing parking facility on the Palo Alto Commons site, with new driveways provided for the at grade parking and drop-off areas. The layout and location of the proposed building have been dictated primarily by the location of the existing protected, mature oak trees on the site and the applicant’s intention to reduce visual impacts on adjacent residential neighbors. The variable height and architectural treatment of the project are in response to the existing context. Item 2 Attachment H: PC Ordinances 5116 and 3775 Packet Pg. 104 March 07, 2011 Page 3 of 7 (ID # 1395) Discussion Zoning The proposed project is submitted as a Planned Community zone because this type of small unit, rental housing facility for seniors, with age in place care, does not fit within any of the land uses defined within the zoning code. A zoning comparison table is included as Attachment D and shows a comparison to RM-30, as the most applicable zone for this use, and CN, the existing zoning designation for the site. Staff is recommending the Planned Community Zone for this type of project because its public benefit is truly integral to the project, and because small senior units and their unique character were not taken into consideration in the Zoning Code. The proposed units per acre is above what is allowed in zoning, but the 86 persons per acre, is within the 8 to 90 persons per acre allowed within the site’s (Multiple Family Residential) designation in the Comprehensive Plan. The need for a PC zone for this type of project can be clearly seen in that there hasn’t been any senior housing facility successfully approved in Palo Alto without use of a PC zone. Below Market Rate (BMR) housing requirement The City does not have any BMR Requirements applicable to rental housing. Board/Commission Review & Recommendations The Architectural Review Board considered the proposed project at three hearings. The applicant responded to the August 19, 2010 preliminary ARB comments by submitting revised designs, which the ARB formally reviewed and approved on November 4, 2010 (Staff Report included as Attachment I). The ARB requested six follow-up items return for consent calendar review (architectural and landscaping details, report out on conversations with neighbors over oak tree locations, and fencing adjacent to Jacobs Court). The ARB unanimously recommended approval of the plans after reviewing the follow-up items (Staff Report included as Attachment J). The Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC) considered the proposed project at two hearings. The preliminary hearing and project initiation occurred on June 16, 2010 (Staff Report included as Attachment H), where the P&TC comments focused on the environmental review, feasibility of the project without a PC, project need for a PC, project design, parking, and economic impacts. For the formal P&TC hearing on January 26, 2011 (Staff Report included as Attachment K) these issues were addressed through a revised environmental document, discussion of project conflicts with zoning and provision of public benefits, the revision of the design during ARB review, additional parking analysis (available online at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=26075), additional economic analysis described in the project description (Attachment E), and the Resource Impacts section, below. The P&TC unanimously recommended approval of the draft ordinance, project plans, and environmental document. Public Benefit Public benefits are required for any Planned Community zone. The existing PC, Palo Alto Item 2 Attachment H: PC Ordinances 5116 and 3775 Packet Pg. 105 March 07, 2011 Page 4 of 7 (ID # 1395) Commons, was approved with an acknowledgment that the use itself, senior housing, was a public benefit. The public benefit of this project is primarily the rental senior housing with facilities for aging in place. In addition to this primary benefit, the applicant proposes pedestrian improvements and facilities along El Camino Way between East Meadow and El Camino Real to the north, upgrades to the existing bus stop on El Camino Real, extensive planting, new walkways and a crosswalk in front of the Commons Addition development, and a $100,000 donation to Avenidas to be ear-marked for the age-at-home program for low-income seniors. Green Building This project is one of the first projects to participate in the City’s LEED-ND Pilot Program under PAMC 18.44. The goal of the program is to promote sustainable neighborhoods by looking at how a single parcel can enhance a community’s access to alternative transportation, resource efficiency and environmental sensitivity. The project’s LEED-ND scorecard, modified for Palo Alto, is provided as Attachment F to this report. According to the applicant, the current design meets all of the prerequisites of the LEED-ND program and achieves 28 of the 30 points targeted by the pilot program. Many of the points were achieved through its location, having access to many diverse uses and housing. The applicant identified an additional 11 points which could be applied, but not without extra expense to the project. For example, dedicated space would be needed for local food production and for the amount of secured bicycle storage to obtain those points. Projects reviewed this year are not yet required to comply with the LEED- ND program, but rather only to submit documentation showing the level of compliance. This provides information that Council will evaluate at the end of the year in determining whether to implement or change the program to make it mandatory. The project will also be required to meet the Build It Green, GreenPoint Rated program at the time of building permit and throughout construction under PAMC 16.14. The project must meet all of the program’s prerequisites and achieve at least 70 points. A significant amount of points are being claimed for a design that provides for significant energy efficiency measures. Timeline Initiation by P&TC June 16, 2010 Preliminary ARB Hearing August 19, 2010 ARB Hearing (Approval)November 4, 2010 ARB Hearing (Approval on Consent)December 2, 2010 Formal P&TC Hearing January 26, 2011 City Council Hearing March 7, 2011 Resource Impact Revenues The new Palo Alto Commons project has a number of one-time and ongoing General Fund revenue impacts once built. The following ongoing revenue estimates are net of revenue streams from the current site. Expected revenues are as follows: Item 2 Attachment H: PC Ordinances 5116 and 3775 Packet Pg. 106 March 07, 2011 Page 5 of 7 (ID # 1395) Revenues One-Time Ongoing Impact Fees (1)$299,740 Documentary Transfer Tax (2)$ 14,025 Property taxes (3)$17,673 Utility Users Tax (4)$ 4,627 Sales Taxes (5)$ 3,800 Total Revenues $304,559 $26,100 (1)These consist of traffic, park, community center and library impact fees. The fees are estimated based on the number and size of the units and on trips generated by the new development. A final calculation is completed and fees are paid at building permit issuance. PAUSD impact fees are not included in the above calculation but will be paid to the school district. (2)Transfer of ownership for the property occurred approximately 3 years ago so the City has already recognized the transfer tax revenue. Amount cited above is based on the purchase value. (3)Ongoing property taxes were calculated based on the estimated future value of property and improvements less the assessed value of property at time of purchase. It should be noted that current property owner is appealing the assessed value so the estimated ongoing tax could be lower if appeal is successful. (4)The Utility Users Tax is based on expected gas, electric, and water usage based on square footage and estimated telephone expenses. (5)Once residents occupy units and workers attend them, there will be taxable expenditures in the City. Above estimate is based on anticipated spending patterns of residents and workers. The businesses on the current site provide services and do not generate sales taxes that are material to the analysis. It should be noted that the developer has estimated, based on $7.0 million in construction costs, that the City could realize $70,000 in one-time use taxes. Staff is reluctant to confirm this estimate because appropriate use tax direct payment permits must be obtained and used by prime and/or sub-contractors to report taxes to the State. Thus, realizing the $70,000 will take diligence on the part of the developer and contractors; staff will encourage them to implement the measures necessary to achieve this goal. Expenses Item 2 Attachment H: PC Ordinances 5116 and 3775 Packet Pg. 107 March 07, 2011 Page 6 of 7 (ID # 1395) This is a cost-recovery project; the applicant is reimbursing the City’s costs to cover staff expenses involved in analyzing the proposal, preparing environmental documents and reports for public hearings, and checking building permit plans. At this time, the new Commons project will not result in any additional direct costs for the City. As noted in prior housing development proposals, the cumulative addition of housing units will have an impact on City costs such as police services. Since this project serves seniors, for example, it can be expected that calls for paramedic services will increase. Paramedic fees, however, should recoup the cost of service. It is difficult to calculate the cost consequences of individual developments to the General fund, but it is important to realize that that additional service expenses may be needed at a future date and will offset revenues generated by projects such as the new Commons units. Policy Implications The proposed project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan land use designation and policies and staff believes there are no other substantive policy implications. A table of applicable Comprehensive Plan policies is included as Attachment C. Environmental Review This project is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements. The draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration was available for public review between June 11 and July 1, 2010. Revisions were made in December, 2010, to include regulations regarding GHG thresholds developed since the release of the initial draft, and in consideration of comments received at public hearings, but no new impacts were found, and no new mitigation measures were needed, so no recirulation was necessary. The mitigation measures to address potential impacts in the areas of Biological Resources (Protected Trees), Hazards and Hazardous Materials (potential existing asbestos-containing materials and lead-based paint materials, potential water contamination), Noise (rooftop equipment, interior noise, construction & delivery hours), and Transportation and Traffic (parking & driveway design, bicycle parking) have been accepted by the applicant. COURTESY COPIES Sandy Sloan Stephen Reller Attachments: ·Attachment A: Palo Alto Commons PC Ordinance and Exhibits (PDF) ·Attachment B: Location Map (PDF) ·Attachment C: Comprehensive Plan Policies (PDF) ·Attachment D: Zoning Comparison (PDF) ·Attachment E: Project Description (PDF) ·Attachment F: LEED-ND Checklist (PDF) Item 2 Attachment H: PC Ordinances 5116 and 3775 Packet Pg. 108 March 07, 2011 Page 7 of 7 (ID # 1395) ·Attachment G: Oak Tree Impact Analysis (PDF) ·Attachment H: June 16, 2010 P&TC Staff Report and Minutes (PDF) ·Attachment I: ARB Staff Report November 4 (PDF) ·Attachment J: ARB Staff Report December 2 (PDF) ·Attachment K: Jan. 26, 2011 P&TC Staff Report and Minutes (PDF) ·Attachment L: Environmental Review (PDF) ·Attachment M: Plans (Hardcopies provided to Councilmembers and Libraries Only)(TXT) Prepared By:Jennifer Armer, Planner Department Head:Curtis Williams, Director City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager Item 2 Attachment H: PC Ordinances 5116 and 3775 Packet Pg. 109 ComfortInn May Flower Motel GoodwillIndustries The Barclay Apartments Camino Court Apts Su Hong Restaurant Building 1 Palo Alto Commons Clubhouse B2 B1 B3 B4 FLORALES DRIVE GEORGIA AVENUE EL CAMINO REAL OND STREET MACLANE WILKIE WAY WEST MEADOW DRIVE VICTORIA PLACE EL CAMINO WAY EL CAMINO REAL CAMINO CT EL CAMINO WAY THAIN WAY THAIN WAY EL CAMINO REAL MAYBELL AVENUE PENA COURT WEST MEADOW DRIVE DAVENPORT WAY JAMES ROAD WILKIE WAY WILKIE COURT TENNESSEE LANE WEST CHARLESTON ROAD TREET PARK BOULEVARD TENNESSEE LANE WILKIE WAY CAROLINA LANE WEST CHARLESTON ROAD CAROLINA LANE REAL (PRIVATE) (PRIVATE) VE SA DRIVE VISTA AVENUE WISTERIA LANE VILLA VISTA (PRIVATE) BARCLAY COURT WES DRISCOLL PLACE VERDOSA DRIVE JACOBS COURT (PRIVATE) INTERDALE WY PENINSULA SPRUCE LANE RICKEY'S WAY EL CAMINO REAL EL CAMINO REAL EL CAMINO REAL RM-15 RM-15 RM-30 2930 RM-30 R-1 CN PC-3775 PC-3023 PC-4511 PC-3041 RM-15 PF PC-5034 RM-30 CS CS(H) RM-15 PC-3133 RM-40 RM-30 PC- 4190 R-1(S) R-1 CS(L) PF CS CS (AD) RM-15 R-1(7000) R-2 This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. 0' 298' Palo Alto Commons & Proposed Addition CITY OF PALO ALTOI N C O R P O R A T E D CAL I F ORN I A P a l o A l t o T h e C i t y o f A P R I L 1 6 1 8 9 4 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2010 City of Palo Alto jarmer, 2011-02-09 11:13:33 (\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) Item 2 Attachment H: PC Ordinances 5116 and 3775 Packet Pg. 110 Item 2 Attachment H: PC Ordinances 5116 and 3775 Packet Pg. 111 Item 2 Attachment H: PC Ordinances 5116 and 3775 Packet Pg. 112 Item 2 Attachment H: PC Ordinances 5116 and 3775 Packet Pg. 113 Item 2 Attachment H: PC Ordinances 5116 and 3775 Packet Pg. 114 Item 2 Attachment H: PC Ordinances 5116 and 3775 Packet Pg. 115 Item 2 Attachment H: PC Ordinances 5116 and 3775 Packet Pg. 116 Item 2 Attachment H: PC Ordinances 5116 and 3775 Packet Pg. 117 Item 2 Attachment H: PC Ordinances 5116 and 3775 Packet Pg. 118 Item 2 Attachment H: PC Ordinances 5116 and 3775 Packet Pg. 119 Item 2 Attachment H: PC Ordinances 5116 and 3775 Packet Pg. 120 Item 2 Attachment H: PC Ordinances 5116 and 3775 Packet Pg. 121 Item 2 Attachment H: PC Ordinances 5116 and 3775 Packet Pg. 122 Item 2 Attachment H: PC Ordinances 5116 and 3775 Packet Pg. 123 Item 2 Attachment H: PC Ordinances 5116 and 3775 Packet Pg. 124 Item 2 Attachment H: PC Ordinances 5116 and 3775 Packet Pg. 125 Item 2 Attachment H: PC Ordinances 5116 and 3775 Packet Pg. 126 Item 2 Attachment H: PC Ordinances 5116 and 3775 Packet Pg. 127 Item 2 Attachment H: PC Ordinances 5116 and 3775 Packet Pg. 128 If you need assistance reviewing the above documents, please contact the Project Planner or call the Planner-on-Duty at 650-617-3117 or email planner@cityofpaloalto.org Project Plans In order to reduce paper consumption, a limited number of hard copy project plans are provided to Council 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 “4075 El Camino” and click the address link 3. Click on “Tell me more about 4075 El Camino Way” 4. On this project-specific webpage you will find a link to the project plans and other important information Direct Link to Project Webpage: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Current- Planning/Projects/4075-El-Camino-Way Item 2 Attachment I: Project Plans Packet Pg. 129 Item No. 3. Page 1 of 12 4 4 8 4 Architectural Review Board Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: July 18, 2024 Report #: 2404-2883 TITLE Study Session to Review the Draft Ordinances Updating Lighting Standards (Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.40.250) and introducing Bird Safe Design standards (PAMC Section 18.40.280) RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) conduct a study session to review and provide feedback on the draft ordinances updating the existing lighting standards (PAMC Section 18.40.250) that align with Dark Sky principles and introducing Bird Safe Design standards (PAMC Section 18.40.280). EXECUTIVE SUMMARY As directed in accordance with the Implementation Plan for Council priorities and to comply with Comprehensive Plan Policy L-6.3, staff has drafted ordinances to reduce light pollution and protect avian species. The draft lighting ordinance modifies the existing lighting standards to reduce light pollution in alignment with Dark Sky principles. The draft bird-safe design standards ordinance requires bird-safe design principals to be incorporated into building design to better protect avian species. The draft ordinances reflect: •feedback received from the ARB during a previous study session, •a review of model ordinances from Dark Sky International and the Santa Clara Audubon Society, •consultation with architects and designers, conversation with retailers and suppliers, •working with a consultant for technical assistance, and •research on regulations implemented in other jurisdictions. Staff will consider revisions to the draft ordinances based on comments from the ARB and community members. The revised draft ordinances will be presented to the Planning and Item 3 Staff Report Packet Pg. 130 Item No. 3. Page 2 of 12 4 4 8 4 Transportation Commission for its recommendation to Council. Council consideration is tentatively scheduled for September 2024. BACKGROUND On July 3, 2014, the Architectural Review Board (ARB) received a presentation (Attachment D) from the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society entitled ‘Building with Birds in Mind.’ Since that time, requirements related to bird safety have been applied on a case-by-case basis through conditions of approval. On February 13, 2023, the Council selected and approved the 2023 City Council Priorities and Objectives. Under the Climate Change and the Natural Environment (CC&NE) category, Council directed staff to initiate an evaluation of strategies to protect natural habitats such as bird safe glass and wildlife protection from light pollution in accordance with implementation measure CC&NE 6. On Monday January 29, 2024, Council included “Climate Change and the Natural Environment: Protection and Adaptation” as a continued priority for this year. Planning and Development Services has worked with advocates, researched the topic, collaborated across departments, and consulted with a team from Michael Baker International (MBI). MBI provided additional background information and expertise on bird-safe design, to prepare the draft ordinance. Conversation with architects, designers, retailers, and suppliers further informed the current version. The ordinance would build upon and incorporate existing lighting standards codified in PAMC Section 18.40.250 (Attachment A) as well as input from stakeholders related to light pollution and avian safety in the built environment. On February 15, 20241, the ARB reviewed the concept presented by staff for both Dark Sky and Bird Safe Design regulations. The ARB expressed its opinion that staff should explore differentiated management approaches for distinctive areas within the city (e.g., foothills, Baylands, and urbanized areas) for both ordinances. In addition, the ARB recommended exempting residential uses from the Bird Safe Design ordinance to avoid hindering housing production efforts with added high costs to features such as windows for multi-family uses and burdensome costs to small projects, such as single-family uses. With respect to lighting, the ARB requested staff investigate alternative methods for regulating brightness level (e.g. per square foot, per acre for lots, and per foot for string lights) to ensure a more equitable application of the ordinance. Lighting and DarkSky International 1 Link to the recorded ARB meeting on February 15, 2024: https://midpenmedia.org/architectural-review-board- 77-2152024/ Item 3 Staff Report Packet Pg. 131 Item No. 3. Page 3 of 12 4 4 8 4 The term “dark sky” generally refers to movement and achievement of significant reduction in light pollution so that the sky returns or becomes closer to its natural nighttime darkness. Jurisdictions can implement regulations to decrease light pollution, and many cities have adopted dark sky ordinances in an effort to reduce light pollution. DarkSky International is a recognized worldwide authority combatting light pollution.2 The organization publishes guidance for communities seeking to achieve a “dark sky” and decrease light pollution. The framework focuses on the five principles, which have been incorporated into the proposed ordinance: 1. Useful: Use light only if it is needed. All light should have a clear purpose. Consider how the use of light would impact the area, including wildlife and their habitat. 2. Targeted: Direct light so it falls only where needed. Use shielding and careful aiming to target the direction of the light beam so that it points downward and does not spill beyond where it is needed. 3. Low Level: Light should be no brighter than necessary. Use the lowest light level required. Be mindful of surface conditions, as some surfaces may reflect more light into the night sky than intended. 4. Controlled: Use light only when it is needed. Use controls sch as timers or motion detectors to ensure that light is available when it is needed, dimmed when possible, and turned off when not needed. 5. Warm-colored: Use warmer color lights where possible. Limit the amount of shorter wavelength (blue-violet) light to the least amount needed. Bird Safe Design Bird safe glass regulations are intended to protect the natural environment by enhancing bird- safety features in the built environment. The City's Comprehensive Plan includes a policy and associated program related to bird-friendly design. •Policy L-6.3: Encourage bird-friendly design. o Program L6.3.1: Develop guidelines for bird-friendly building design that minimizes hazards for birds and reduces the potential for collisions. Through the draft ordinance, the City seeks to establish regulations to reduce avian mortality as it relates to the built environment, particularly windows and other glass features on buildings. The ordinance would implement the Comprehensive Plan policy and establish uniform standards for development applications, eliminating the need for a case-by-case approach. Project Description The proposed project is a staff-initiated code amendment updating the City’s lighting standards and introducing new bird safe design standards. Lighting Ordinance 2 Link to the DarkSky International website: https://darksky.org/who-we-are/advocates Item 3 Staff Report Packet Pg. 132 Item No. 3. Page 4 of 12 4 4 8 4 The draft ordinance updates the City’s existing lighting standards (18.40.250) to address light pollution through several key measures. The proposed amendments align with Dark Sky principles, promoting reduced light pollution overall. To ensure consistent enforcement and simplify compliance for property owners, these regulations would apply uniformly across the entire city. Additionally, the ordinance mandates shielding for all exterior lighting fixtures to further minimize light trespass. While maintaining the foot-candle measurement as the primary means of controlling light trespass, the ordinance introduces a new color temperature limit of 3,000 Kelvin. To further reduce excess lighting, the ordinance mandates automatic extinguishment or motion-sensor activation for exterior lights by 10:00 p.m. or whenever people are not present, whichever is later. Bird Safe Design To enhance bird safety, the draft ordinance would amend Chapter 18.40 (General Standards and Exceptions) to create a new section establishing bird safe design standards. The ordinance includes a requirement to comply with at least one of three Bird-Safe Treatment options for all applicable buildings. Having several options to choose from provides more flexibility for applicants. These principles go beyond limiting untreated glass on building facades. They also encourage alternative approaches approved by qualified professionals and promote broader design practices that reduce bird collisions. Some exemptions are recommended for historic structures, small ground-floor retail storefronts, and particular residential projects. ANALYSIS The proposed ordinances incorporate comments from the February ARB study session, the provisions included in model ordinances from Dark Sky International and the Santa Clara Audubon Society for Dark Sky regulations (Attachment C), and a review of regulations on both Dark Sky and bird safe design from other jurisdictions (Attachment D). Lighting Ordinance Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.40.250 includes standards for lighting. Staff updated this section to include additional lighting standards to achieve a reduction in light pollution and for consistency with Dark Sky principles. The updated ordinance has the following components: •Applicability •Shielding •Illumination Level •Lighting Control •Special Purpose Lighting Applicability The proposed requirements would apply the updated exterior lighting standards uniformly across the city instead of having different requirements for different areas. Staff believe this Item 3 Staff Report Packet Pg. 133 Item No. 3. Page 5 of 12 4 4 8 4 approach would make the regulations easier for applicants and property owners to understand and comply with the requirements. Review of similar standards in neighboring jurisdictions revealed no differentiation based on the presence of natural environments within city limits. Implementing consistent regulations across the city aligns with practices in neighboring communities and ensures a more equitable application of the requirements. Shielding Existing lighting requirements address shielding for pedestrian and security lighting, architectural lighting, and lighting fixture location. Staff recommend expanding these requirements to encompass all light fixtures to reduce light pollution. Limited exceptions are proposed for low-voltage landscape lighting, low-voltage lighting for illuminating outdoor art or public monuments, lighting on a property line, and string lighting. Illumination Level Following the recommendations from Dark Sky International and the Santa Clara Audubon Society, staff initially proposed maximum brightness requirements measured in lumens. Lumens are a measurement unit of lighting brightness, commonly used in other jurisdictions, but can be a complex concept for enforcement purposes. Therefore, staff has revised the ordinance to retain the existing foot-candle measurement as the primary means to mitigate light trespass from exterior lighting to adjacent properties. In addition to maintaining the foot-candle measurement, staff also considered color temperature limitations. While initial discussions with environmental advocates from the Santa Clara Audubon Society and the Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter favored a 2,700 Kelvin limit due to its reported wider availability, public safety concerns emerged. Specifically, there were concerns about a lower color temperature potentially affecting visibility in critical areas. A minimum color temperature of 4,000 Kelvin is recommended for public safety purposes. Taking these concerns into account, along with practices in neighboring jurisdictions with dark sky ordinances, staff determined a 3,000 Kelvin limit offered a balanced approach, though the ARB may want to consider a higher limit for safety-sensitive uses. Lighting Control The existing lighting requirements encourage the installation of timers and dimmers to reduce light glare for both exterior and interior lighting during nighttime hours. Additionally, shielding of interior lighting fixtures to prevent glare and light trespass beyond the property line is required. Building on these existing guidelines, staff propose enhanced lighting control measures for all outdoor lighting. The proposed ordinance would require extinguishment of exterior lights or motion-sensor activation by 10:00 p.m., or whichever time comes later when there is no person present in the outdoor area. To further minimize unnecessary light usage, the motion sensors would deactivate after a maximum of 10 minutes. It is important to note that while the updated ordinance proposes these automatic extinguishment measures for exterior lighting, the existing standards for interior lighting would remain unchanged. Item 3 Staff Report Packet Pg. 134 Item No. 3. Page 6 of 12 4 4 8 4 Special Purpose Lighting The Special Purpose Lighting Subsection introduces new standards for and addresses four key categories: outdoor security lighting, outdoor recreational facilities lighting, gasoline service station lighting, and string lighting. •Outdoor Security Lighting. Requirements for outdoor security lighting mirror general lighting standards, including requirements for lighting control and shielding. The provision prohibits the use of floodlights and limits luminaires to a maximum of 100 watts or 1,600 lumens, whichever is lower. •Outdoor Recreational Facilities Lighting. Outdoor Recreational Facilities Lighting. Lighting for any outdoor recreational facilities or athletic facilities lighting would need to adhere to Illuminating Engineering Society (IES) guidelines based on the type of activity and should only illuminate the playing surface and stands. Light levels should be adjustable for different tasks, and off-site light pollution minimized. Lights must be off by 10:00 p.m., unless in use for active play, in which case timers must be installed to prevent accidental overnight illumination. •Gasoline Service Station Lighting. Consistent with general lighting standards, service station lighting requires all fixtures in the ceiling of canopies to be fully recessed or mounted directly to the underside. This regulation aims to minimize light spillover by prohibiting light fixture placement on top of the fascia. The maximum light intensity level for canopies is set at 12.5 foot-candles, with a maximum luminaire height of 15 feet above finished grade. •String Lighting. String lighting prohibits blinking or chasing effects. Consistent with other outdoor lighting, a color temperature of 3,000 Kelvin or brightness not exceeding 42 lumens is required. In commercial and mixed-use areas, string lighting is restricted to designated outdoor dining or display areas, or to common open space and would be subject to Director approval. String lighting regulations would not apply to holiday or seasonal lighting. Bird Safe Design Ordinance The draft ordinance would establish a new section 18.40.280 under PAMC Chapter 18.40 for the Bird Safe Design standards. The new section has the following components: •Applicability •Bird Safe Treatment •Bird Safe Treatment Location •Alternative Compliance •Bird Safe Design Standards •Exemptions Applicability In initial recommendations, staff proposed the application of bird-safe design standards to all newly constructed buildings or properties undergoing alterations or renovations, regardless of Item 3 Staff Report Packet Pg. 135 Item No. 3. Page 7 of 12 4 4 8 4 development type or zoning district. However, the current staff proposal limits the regulations to projects that require separate planning approval. This limitation was added to avoid triggering bird-safe design standards for smaller projects. The intent is to prevent burdening individual single-family homeowners or smaller development property owners. Bird Safe Treatment Bird-safe treatment includes three options for making buildings safer for birds, requiring at least one option for compliance. •Fenestration and glazing: This is the most common and effective way to address bird collisions, as most occur due to reflectivity on glass or glazing. It provides specific design standards for patterns on fenestration or glass. •Exterior features: Permanent features like screens, shutters, or shading devices can minimize glare and reflection. This option is often more approachable for single-family homeowners or smaller developments than fenestration/glazing (which may not be readily available) or threat factor analysis. •Threat factor: This system, developed by the American Bird Conservancy and architects, quantifies the risk a material poses for bird collisions. Staff proposes a threat factor of 15 or below, consistent with the U.S. Green Building Council's Bird Collision Deterrence Pilot Program. Bird Safe Treatment Location Similar to requirements in other jurisdictions, staff included proposed limitations on where the Bird Safe Treatment should be incorporated at minimum: •Below 40 Feet: Bird Safe Treatment should be incorporated on no less than 90 percent of the facade's surface area between the existing grade and 60 feet above. •Above 40 Feet: Bird Safe Treatment should be incorporated on no less than 60 percent for the portion of the facade exceeding 40 feet in height. The initial height threshold staff considered was similar to other jurisdictions, such as San Francisco and Cupertino, at 60 feet. However, after reviewing additional research, including voluntary requirements on bird-safe design in the California Green Buildings Standards Code (CALGreen), staff adjusted the threshold to 40 feet. This aligns with CALGreen standards and is deemed more appropriate for Palo Alto. Aligning the City’s standards with CALGreen standards is consistent with ARB members’ recommendations. Bird Safe Design Standards While Bird Safe Treatments are central to preventing bird collisions, the proposed standards encompass a broader range of bird-safe design principles. These principles align with best practices commonly found in other jurisdictions. They include: •Bird Hazard Installations. Bird Hazards Installations are defined as “monolithic glazing installations that provide a clear line of sight on the exterior of buildings, including, but Item 3 Staff Report Packet Pg. 136 Item No. 3. Page 8 of 12 4 4 8 4 not limited to, glass awnings, glass handrails and guards, glass wind break panels, or glass acoustic barriers.” The ordinance does not prohibit these structures or components in a building but requires them to be constructed of bird-friendly materials, regardless of their height. •Enhanced Facade Material Requirements. In addition to the standard practices, the ordinance proposes a further restriction. All building facades and exteriors will be required to utilize any reflective building materials with a maximum reflectance level of 20 percent. Exemptions The draft ordinance exempts a few building types from the bird-safe design standards. These exemptions include: •Historic Structures: Buildings with historical designation are exempt, recognizing the importance of preserving cultural heritage. •First-Floor Retail Storefronts: Storefronts on the ground floor, up to 14 feet in height, are exempt to avoid undue burden on small businesses. •100% affordable housing projects, as defined in Section 18.32.030, are exempt from the requirements for Bird-Safe Treatments. This exemption acknowledges the financial constraints faced by these projects, which prioritize providing essential affordable housing while operating within limited budgets. •Single-family homes outside the Bird Sensitive Area are exempt. This area, generally within 300 feet of water features, parks, or open spaces larger than one acre, identifies areas more sensitive to bird populations due to proximity to vegetation and natural features. Since single-family homes generally pose lower risks of bird collisions due to smaller surface areas compared to nonresidential or larger multifamily buildings, and the cost burden of bird-safe design could be disproportionately high for individual homeowners, exempting single-family homes outside the Bird Sensitive Area may be appropriate. DISCUSSION Staff requests ARB members’ feedback on the following items: Lighting Ordinance: Applicability The applicability of the draft Lighting Ordinance currently covers all new structures and exterior modifications that require separate planning approval. Although the applicability currently does not delineate zoning districts or specific areas like the Foothills and Baylands to implement lighting standards, this lack of specificity may create burdens on property owners seeking minor alterations, especially unrelated to lighting. The condition or parameter can be expanded to provide relief to not only single-family homeowners but also to other property owners. The following thresholds are provided for ARB consideration to facilitate discussion and feedback on the appropriate level of this condition, so Item 3 Staff Report Packet Pg. 137 Item No. 3. Page 9 of 12 4 4 8 4 that a good balance is retained, and some cost and maintenance burdens are mitigated for property owners. In addition to new construction, “substantial remodel” can be included in the scope of applicability. This would prevent minor and smaller work on buildings from triggering compliance with the new lighting requirements. Several existing definitions could be considered for “substantial remodel”. •PAMC 16.14.070 has multiple definitions amended from the Building Standards Code, one of which defines "Substantial Remodel" as follows: “SUBSTANTIAL REMODEL (AKA 50-50-50 RULE). Any project or projects that affects the removal or replacement of 50% or more of the linear length of the existing exterior walls of the building, and/or 50% or more of the linear length of the existing exterior wall plate height is raised, and/or 50% or more of the existing roof framing area is removed or replaced, over a 3-year period. Any permit(s) applied for will trigger a review of a 3-year history of the project. This review will result in determining if a substantial remodel has occurred. The Chief Building Official or designee shall make the final determination regarding the application if a conflict occurs.” •California Building Code 2022 defines “Substantial Improvement” as follows: “SUBSTANTIAL IMPROVEMENT. For the purpose of determining compliance with the flood provisions of this code, any repair, alteration, addition or improvement of a building or structure, the cost of which equals or exceeds 50 percent of the market value of the structure, before the improvement or repair is started. If the structure has sustained substantial damage, any repairs are considered substantial improvement regardless of the actual repair work performed.” •California Building Code 2022 defines “Substantial Structural Alteration” as follows: “SUBSTANTIAL STRUCTURAL ALTERATION. An alteration in which the gravity load- carrying structural elements altered within a 5-year period support more than 30 percent of the total floor and roof area of the building or structure. The areas to be counted toward the 30 percent shall include mezzanines, penthouses, and in-filled courts and shafts tributary to the altered structural elements.” Staff prefer to use the existing "substantial remodel" definition in PAMC 16.14.070, as it is a definition the City has adopted and implemented over the years. However, staff recommend adding a new definition to the lighting section to ensure coverage if the existing definition changes due to the Berkeley electrification lawsuit or other future reasons. The additional California Building Code definitions were provided for the ARB to consider if they wish to modify an existing definition or create a new one. The additional definitions provide some thresholds (percentages) to consider. Bird Safe Design Ordinance: Applicability In addition to applying the "substantial remodel" definition to the Lighting section, it can also be considered for the Bird Safe Design Ordinance. The draft Bird Safe Design Ordinance has the same applicability as the Lighting Section: all new structures and exterior modifications that Item 3 Staff Report Packet Pg. 138 Item No. 3. Page 10 of 12 4 4 8 4 require separate planning approval. Almost all single-family homes requiring only building permits would not be captured and would be automatically excluded under the current draft. Applying "substantial remodel" in lieu of "exterior modification that requires separate planning approval" may be a preferable way to apply the new standards. Bird Safe Design Ordinance: Exemptions From conversations with glass retailers, suppliers, and manufacturers, staff found that Bird-Safe Treatments are rarely requested for residential buildings. A few local retailers were aware of bird-safe standards (such as fritted glazing or obscure patterned glass) but confirmed that these are not readily available and must be ordered from suppliers and manufacturers with specific designs to be laminated or baked onto glass. Although no specific dollar amount or percentage difference was provided by retailers and suppliers, they confirmed that treated glass is more expensive than standard glass. There are some general estimates of the cost of implementing bird-friendly design from the "Building Safer Cities for Birds" report by Yale Law School and the American Bird Conservancy.3 Although the cost may vary based on specific project requirements, building types, and local conditions, the report states that implementing bird-safe design would increase costs for new construction by approximately two to ten percent. In addition, single-family homes generally have less glass surface area and are less reflective than larger non-residential buildings. This means single-family homes, or other smaller residential properties, pose a lower risk of bird collisions. As described above, implementing Bird-Safe Treatment could be difficult and expensive, especially for retrofitting existing homes. There are other ways to consider exemptions, especially for single-family homes and smaller residential properties, to relieve the owners from the burden associated with bird-safe design standards. •Bird Sensitive Area. The current draft Bird Safe Design Ordinance incorporates this approach. As detailed in the ordinance, a Bird Sensitive Area is established, generally within a 300-foot buffer of water features, parks, open spaces exceeding one acre, and properties zoned as Open Space. This 300-foot buffer, commonly used in urban planning to protect sensitive areas, has been implemented in San Francisco and Cupertino for bird-safe design. Given that single-family homes are less likely to cause bird collisions due to their smaller size and that bird-safe design could impose a disproportionate financial burden on homeowners, exempting such homes located outside designated Bird Sensitive Areas may be a reasonable solution. However, depending on how the buffer is drawn, it may seem unfair for homes that are immediately adjacent to each other if one is required to comply with bird-safe design standards and the other is not. •Height Threshold. The current draft ordinance requires Bird-Safe Treatment to be incorporated starting at the existing grade. An alternative approach is to increase the 3 "Building Safer Cities for Birds" report by Yale Law School and the American Bird Conservancy: https://law.yale.edu/sites/default/files/documents/pdf/building_safer_cities_for_birds.pdf Item 3 Staff Report Packet Pg. 139 Item No. 3. Page 11 of 12 4 4 8 4 starting height. Berkeley mandates bird-safe design implementation starting at 35 feet and up to 75 feet in height. This approach was adopted due to the limited availability of bird-safe products in local retailers that are typically used by individual homeowners. In addition to cost impacts, this limited availability led to a higher starting point for bird- safe design requirements compared to other jurisdictions that start at ground level. The 35-foot height threshold essentially excluded all single-family homes and some smaller multi-family residential properties in Berkeley. San Francisco also has a 45-foot height parameter as one of the criteria for residential exemption from bird-safe design requirements. However, this approach might result in increased bird collisions, particularly in areas with significant bird populations. Lower-level windows and glazing can still pose risks to birds, especially in areas with abundant vegetation or water bodies that attract them. •Glazing Percentage. San Francisco allows an exemption to incorporate treated glass for residential buildings that are shorter than 45 feet in height and have less than 50% of facades with glazing. Homes that are shorter than 45 feet in height, but have more than 50% of facades with glazing, are required to provide treated glass but only on unbroken and larger size glass areas 24 square feet or larger. This approach provides more flexibility with smaller residential buildings like single-family homes because the requirement for Bird-Safe Treatments will be only required if fenestration and glazing is 24 square feet or larger in size. While individual small windows might seem less hazardous, there is no guarantee that birds collide with windows of larger sizes only due to their flight patterns and behaviors, making a size-based regulation not as effective. NEXT STEPS Staff will consider revisions to the draft ordinance incorporating comments from the ARB and community members as appropriate. The revised draft ordinance will be presented to the Planning and Transportation Commission for its recommendation to the Council for adoption. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW This item is a study session provided to inform the public, to receive feedback from the Architectural Review Board, and comments from the public; therefore, CEQA does not apply. However, the City has reviewed these proposed ordinances in accordance with that authority and criteria set forth in the California Environmental Quality Act. The City, as the lead agency, anticipates that these ordinances will be exempt from CEQA in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15308, which includes actions by regulatory agencies for the protection of the environment. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION & COMMENTS Notice of this study session was published in the Daily Post on July 5, 2024, which is 13 days in advance of the meeting. At the time of this report, no written comments have been received on this agenda item; however, this meeting provides an opportunity for community members to Item 3 Staff Report Packet Pg. 140 Item No. 3. Page 12 of 12 4 4 8 4 provide feedback on the contents of the forthcoming ordinance. One member of the public spoke at the previous hearing on February 15, 2024, noting the importance of implementing Dark Sky and Bird Safe Design ordinance to protect wildlife and reduce bird collisions and fatality. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Draft ordinance Updating Lighting Standards (PAMC Section 18.26.040) Attachment B: Draft ordinance Introducing Bird Safe Design standards (PAMC Section 18.40.280) Attachment C: Model Ordinances from Dark Sky International and Santa Clara Audubon Society Attachment D: Dark Sky and Bird Safe Design regulations from Other Jurisdictions Attachment E: Map of Bird Sensitive Area AUTHOR/TITLE: Kelly Cha, Senior Planner Item 3 Staff Report Packet Pg. 141 Lighting (Repeal PAMC Section 18.40.250) (a)Purpose. The intent of this section is to establish exterior lighting standards to reduce light pollution. Exterior lighting of parking areas, pathways, and common open spaces, including fixtures on building facades and free-standing lighting should aim to: (1) Reduce light pollution and its adverse effects on environment, wildlife habitat, and human health. (2) Minimize the visual impacts of lighting on abutting or nearby properties and from adjacent roadways. (3) Provide safe and secure access on a site and adjacent pedestrian routes. (4) Achieve maximum energy efficiency. (5) Complement the architectural design of the project. (b)Definitions. Notwithstanding the definitions in Chapter 18.04 of the Municipal Code, for purposes of this chapter only, the following words and phrases are defined as follows: (1) “Correlated Color Temperature” or “Color Temperature” means a specification of the color appearance of the light emitted by a light source, measured in Kelvin (K). Warmer color temperatures are a lower number, and cooler color temperatures are a higher number. (2) “Dark Sky Compliant or Equivalent” means a light fixture from which all light emitted, directly or indirectly, is projected below a horizontal plane. (3) “Fully shielded” means a light fixture constructed and installed in such a manner that all light emitted, either directly from the lamp or a diffusing element, or indirectly by reflection or refraction from any part of the fixture, is projected below the horizontal plane (from the bottom of the lamp). (4) “Glare” means light entering the eye directly from a light fixture or indirectly from reflective surfaces that causes visual discomfort or reduced visibility to a reasonable person. (5) “High Intensity Lighting” means lighting that mimic natural daytime lighting for outdoor recreational facilities. (6) “Lamp” means, in generic terms, a source of optical radiation (i.e., “light”), often called a “bulb” or “tube.” Examples include incandescent, fluorescent, high-intensity discharge (HID) lamps, and low-pressure sodium (LPS) lamps, as well as light-emitting diode (LED) modules and arrays. (7) “Light pollution” means the material adverse effect of artificial light, including, but not limited to, glare, light trespass, sky glow, energy waste, compromised safety and security, and impacts on the nocturnal environment, including light sources that are left on when they no longer serve a useful function. (8) “Lumen” means the common unit of measure used to quantify the amount of visible light produced by a lamp or emitted from a light fixture (as distinct from “Watt,” a measure of power consumption). Item 3 Attachment A Draft Ordinance Lighting Packet Pg. 142 (9) “Luminaires” means outdoor illuminating devices, lamps, and similar devices, including solar powered lights, and all parts used to distribute the light and/or protect the lamp, permanently installed or portable. (10)“Seasonal lighting” means lighting installed and operated in connection with holidays or traditions. (11)“Security lighting” means lighting intended to detect intrusions or other criminal activity occurring on a property or site. (12)“String lights” means light sources connected by free-strung wires or inside of tubing resulting in several or many points of light. (c)Applicability. For the purposes of this Section, all new structures and exterior modifications that require separate planning approval shall comply with the lighting standards and guidelines set forth in this section. (d)Lighting Guidelines (1) Lighting of the building exterior, parking areas and pedestrian ways should 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. (2) Unnecessary continued illumination, such as illuminated signs or back-lit awnings, should be avoided. Internal illumination of signs, where allowed, should be limited to letters and graphic elements, with the surrounding background opaque. Illumination should be by low intensity lamps. (e)Lighting Standards (1) Shielding (A) All outdoor lighting shall be fully shielded, directed downward to meet the particular need, and away from adjacent properties and rights-of-way to avoid light trespass. (B) Exterior lighting fixtures shall be mounted less than or equal to 15 feet from grade to top of fixture in low activity or residential parking lots and 20 feet in medium or high activity parking lots. (C) Light fixtures shall be located at least three feet from curbs and ten feet from driveways or intersections, to avoid obstructing clear sight distance triangles. (D) No direct off-site glare from a light source shall be visible above three feet at a public right- of-way. (E) Exceptions for shielding requirements shall be applied to the following types of lighting: (i) Low voltage landscape lighting such as that used to illuminate fountains, shrubbery, trees, and walkways, do not have to be shielded fixtures and may use uplighting, provided that they use no more than ten (10) watt incandescent bulb or LED equivalent or a maximum of 150 lumens, and not directed toward the right-of-way. Item 3 Attachment A Draft Ordinance Lighting Packet Pg. 143 (ii) Low voltage lighting used to illuminate outdoor art or public monuments that do not have to be shielded fixtures. (iii) Lighting located on property lines (including zero lot line developments), provided it is controlled by a motion sensor that automatically extinguishes the lights within 10 minutes of activation. (iv) String Lighting pursuant to Section 18.40.250(e)(3) (2) Lighting Height. (A) Exterior lighting fixtures shall be mounted less than or equal to 15 feet from grade to top of fixture in parking lots in residential development and 20 feet in parking lots with commercial and mixed-use development. (3) Illumination Level (A) All light sources shall be Dark Sky Compliant or Equivalent and have a maintained correlated color temperature of 3,000 Kelvin or less. (B) Where the light source is visible from outside the property boundaries on an abutting residential use, such lighting shall not exceed 0.5 foot-candle as measured at the abutting property line. (C) The maximum light intensity on a site shall not exceed a maintained value of 5 foot-candles. Areas of higher or lower levels of illumination should be indicated on project plans. (4) Lighting Control. Lighting controls shall be implemented to avoid unnecessary outdoor lighting. Automated control systems, such as motion sensors and timers, shall be used to meet the outdoor lighting requirements. (A) All outdoor lighting shall be fully extinguished or be motion sensor operated by 10:00 p.m. or when people are no longer present in exterior areas, whichever is later. (B) All lighting activated by motion sensor shall be set up to extinguish no more than 10 minutes after activation. (C) All lighting shall be automatically extinguished using a control device or system, including but not limited to photocells or photocontrols, when there is sufficient daylight available, except for lighting under canopies or lighting for tunnels, parking garages, or garage entrances. (D) Interior Lighting. Interior lighting shall be shielded to eliminate glare and light spillover beyond the perimeter property line of the development. (E) Exceptions. (i) Any lighting at building entrances, parking areas, walkways, and driveways area required to remain illuminated after 10:00 p.m. by the California Building Code or state law. (ii) Lighting of an appropriate intensity, allowed in conjunction with uses that are permitted to operate past 10:00 p.m., with a conditional use permit; and Item 3 Attachment A Draft Ordinance Lighting Packet Pg. 144 (iii) Outdoor solar powered pathway lights that are 25 lumens or less. (iv) Lighting that illuminates a pedestrian pathway (examples include bollard, in-place step, or building mounted), provided that such lighting is a maximum height of four (4) feet above the pathway, fully shielded, and downward directed. (v) Outdoor recreational facilities operated for general public use shall extinguish the outdoor lighting at 10:30 p.m. (f)Special Purpose Lighting. (1) Outdoor Security Lighting. Security lighting may be provided when necessary to protect persons and property. When security lighting is utilized only the following standards shall apply: (i) Security lighting shall be controlled by a programmable motion-sensor device, except where continuous lighting is required by the California Building Code. All lighting activated by motion sensors shall extinguish no more than 10 minutes after activation. Automated controls shall be fully programmable and supported by battery or similar backup. (ii) Security lighting shall be downward directed, fully shielded, and not be mounted at a height exceeding the limits established in Section 18.40.250, measured from the adjacent grade to the bottom of the fixture. (iii) Security lights intended to illuminate a perimeter, such as a fence line, are permitted only if such lights do not result in light trespass above 0.5 foot-candle onto an adjacent or nearby property, with the illumination level measured at the property line between the lot on which the light is located and the adjacent lot, at the point nearest to the light source. (iv) Motion-activated security lights shall not use luminaires that exceed 100-watt incandescent bulb or LED equivalent, or a maximum of 1,600 lumens. (2) Outdoor Recreational Facilities Lighting. For Outdoor Recreational Facilities and/or athletic fields shall conform to the following standards: (i) Illuminating Engineering Society (IES) lighting guidelines according to the appropriate class of play or activity. (ii) Field lighting is provided exclusively for illumination of the surface of play and viewing stands, and not for any other applications like lighting a parking lot. (iii) Illuminance levels must be adjustable based on the task (e.g., active play vs. field maintenance). (iv) Off-site impacts of the lighting will be limited to the greatest practical extent possible. (v) Lights must be extinguished by 10:00 p.m. except when the facilities are being used for active play and the lights are equipped with a timer. (vi) Timers that automatically extinguish lights must be installed to prevent lights being left on accidentally overnight. Item 3 Attachment A Draft Ordinance Lighting Packet Pg. 145 (3) Gasoline Service Station Lighting (i) Lighting fixtures in the ceiling of canopies shall be fully recessed or mounted directly to the underside of the canopy. All lighting fixtures shall be located so as to shield direct rays from adjoining properties or public rights-of-way. (ii) Light fixtures shall not be mounted on top of the fascia of such canopies. (iii) The maximum light intensity under the canopy shall not exceed an average maintained foot-candle (horizontal) of 12.5, when measured at finished grade. (iv) No free-standing lighting shall be higher than 15 feet above finished grade. (v) The fascia of such canopies shall not be illuminated. (4) String Lighting. (i) String lighting is not considered holiday or seasonal lighting. (ii) String lighting must not exceed 3,000 Kelvin or 42 lumens and shall not be blinking or chasing. (iii) For nonresidential areas, string lighting shall be extinguished at 10:00 pm or 2 hours after close of business, whichever is later. (iv) For commercial and mixed-use areas, string lighting shall be limited to designated outside dining or display areas or common open space (i.e. courtyard or patio), and subject to Director approval (5) Lighting near Streams. In addition to lighting standards established in Section 18.40.250(e), lighting near streams shall conform to the following requirements: (i) Nighttime lighting shall be directed away from the riparian corridor of a stream. (ii) The distance between nighttime lighting and the riparian corridor of a stream should be maximized. (6) Parklets. Lighting for any parklets should comply with the lighting standards established in the Permanent Parklet Program. (g)Prohibited Lighting. The following types of lighting are prohibited except emergencies by police, fire, or medical personnel or at their direction: (1) Outdoor lighting that blinks, flashes, or rotates. (2) Lighting that unnecessarily illuminates any other lot or substantially interferes with use or enjoyment of that lot. (3) High intensity lighting for recreation courts on private property. (4) Searchlights, aerial lasers, or spotlights. (h)Exemptions. The following types of lighting are exempt from the lighting requirements of the section: Item 3 Attachment A Draft Ordinance Lighting Packet Pg. 146 (1) Lighting for signs. See Chapter 16.20 for lighting requirements for signs. (2) Temporary construction or emergency lighting (3) Short-term lighting authorized by a special events or special use permits (4) Seasonal lighting during the period of October 15 through January 15 of each year (5) Required lighting to comply with Building Code, Fire Code, or state law. To the extent permitted by Building Code, Fire Code, or state or federal law such lighting shall additionally comply with the requirements of this section. (6) Lighting for Airport Operations. Nothing in this section shall be interpreted to restrict, limit, or otherwise regulate lighting that, in the reasonable judgment of the Airport Manager, is prudent or necessary for airport operations, airport safety, or air navigation in connection with operations at the Palo Alto Municipal Airport. (i)California Building Code. If any conflict exists with the provisions of this section, the standards in the California Building Code shall prevail. (j)Public Facilities. At the discretion of the Director, deviations from the lighting requirements may be granted for public facilities if the deviation is necessary for the operational efficiency, maintenance, or safety of the facility, and remains consistent with the overall intent and purpose of the lighting standards. (k)Public Rights-of-Way. Lighting in public rights-of-way shall comply with the standards established in Title 16. Item 3 Attachment A Draft Ordinance Lighting Packet Pg. 147 18.40.280 Bird Safe Design Standards (new section) (a)Purpose. The intent of this chapter/section is to establish bird-safe design standards to minimize hazards for birds and to reduce the potential for collisions. (b)Definitions. (1) “Bird Sensitive Area” means areas that are within 300 feet of waterways; within 300 feet of any open water larger than one acre; or within 300 feet of public and private parks and open space larger than one acre and dominated by vegetation, including vegetated landscaping, forest, meadows, grassland, or wetlands. (2) “Bird-Safe Treatment” means permanent treatment to glass that provides visual cues to birds and reduces the likelihood of bird collisions. (3) “Bird-friendly Material” means a material or assembly that has, or has been treated to have, a maximum threat factor of 25 in accordance with the American Bird Conservancy Bird Collision Deterrence Material Threat Factor Reference Standard, or with the American Bird Conservancy Bird-friendly Materials Evaluation Program at Carnegie Museum’s Avian Research Center test protocol, or with a relevant American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standard. (4) “Bird Hazard Installations” mean monolithic glazing installations that provide a clear line of sight on the exterior of buildings, including, but not limited to, glass awnings, glass handrails and guards, glass wind break panels, or glass acoustic barriers. (A) “Fly-through Hazard” means one or more panels of glass that provide a clear line of sight through such elements creating the illusion of a void leading to the other side for a fly-through condition. (B) “Fly-through Conditions” means open pathway for flight through and between site structures. Fly- through conditions exist in the following two circumstances: ▪When the distance between parallel glass is 17 feet or less. ▪Within 12 feet from a corner where there is convergence of two glass sides creating a perpendicular, acute, or obtuse corner. (2) “Threat Factor” refers to the Material Threat Factor system developed by the American Bird Conservancy and a team of architects in 2010. Materials are assigned a score between 1 and 100 representing the level of risk the material poses in causing bird collisions, the lower the score, the lower the collision risk. (c)Applicability. All newly constructed buildings or properties being altered or renovated that require a separate planning approval shall comply with the bird-friendly building design elements and features set forth in this section. (d)Bird-Safe Treatments. At least one of the following Bird-Safe Treatments shall be incorporated into a building elevation according to Section 18.40.280(d): (1) Fenestration and Glazing. Patterns that are etched, fritted, stenciled, silk-screened, or otherwise permanently incorporated into the transparent material shall be on an exterior glass surface. (A) For patterns using dots or other isolated solid shapes, each dot or shape must be at least a 1/4 inch in diameter and be no more than 2 inches apart in any direction. (B) For patterns using If the pattern utilizes lines, they must be at least 1/8 inch in width and spaced no more than 2 inches apart. (C) Frit, ceramic ink, or other marker types must be opaque and permanent. (2) Exterior Features. Panes with exterior screens, shutters or shading devices installed permanently over windows, structures, or building features such that there is no gap larger than 9 inches in one dimension. Exterior features Item 3 Attachment B Draft Ordinance Bird Safe Design Packet Pg. 148 include, but are not limited to, metal screens, shutters, window grilles, fixed solar shading such as louvres, and exterior insert, brise soleil, or solar screens. (3) Threat Factor. A weighted average of all the Threat Factors of materials on a building elevation, including non- glass materials, must meet 15 or less. (e)Bird-Safe Treatment Location. All applicable buildings shall incorporate one of the Bird-Safe Treatments listed in Section 18.40.280(c) to conform to the following standards: (1) No less than 90 percent of a building elevation between the existing grade and 40 feet above the existing grade shall incorporate one of bird-safe treatments listed in Section 18.40.280(c). (2) No less than 60 percent of a building elevation between 40 feet above the existing grade and top of the building height shall incorporate one of bird-safe treatments listed in Section 18.40.280(c). (f)Alternative Compliance. Property owners or applicants may request an alternative compliance to requirements established in Sections 18.40.280(d) and 18.40.280(e), recommended in a report by a qualified biologist or ornithologist to meet the requirements and intent of this section. The qualified biologist or ornithologist shall have a degree in wildlife biology or specialization in ornithology and have experience in bird-safe building design. The alternative compliance shall be subject to Director approval. (g)Bird-Safe Design Standards. All projects shall: (1) Use building materials with a reflectance level of 20 percent or below for all building façade and exterior when using reflective materials. (2) Bird Hazard Installations, including Fly-through Hazards and Conditions, shall be constructed of Bird-friendly Materials regardless of their height above the existing grade. (3) Lighting. All projects shall comply with the outdoor lighting requirements pursuant to Section 18.40.250 of the Municipal Code. (h)Exemptions. The following types of projects shall be exempt from Section 18.40.280(d): (1) Any historic structure located within the City’s Historic Districts or listed on the City’s Historic Inventory or the State or National Historical Registers including new additions (2) First floor retail storefronts up to 14 feet in height (3) 100% affordable housing projects as defined in Section 18.32.030 (4) Single-family homes outside of the Bird Sensitive Area (i)California Building Code. All windows, doors, or other features must comply with the requirements of the California Building Code including the fire hazard severity zone regulations in California Green Buildings Standards Code (CALGreen). Should a conflict exist with the provisions of this section, the standards in the California Building Code shall prevail. Item 3 Attachment B Draft Ordinance Bird Safe Design Packet Pg. 149 Attachment C: Model Ordinance from DarkSky International: https://darksky.org/app/uploads/bsk-pdf- manager/16_MLO_FINAL_JUNE2011.PDF Model Ordinance from Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society and Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter (in the following pages) Item 3 Attachment C Model Ordinances Packet Pg. 150 Model Lighting Ordinance (Created by the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society and Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter) Definitions Notwithstanding the definitions in Chapter xxxx of this Code, for purposes of this chapter only, the following words and phrases are defined as follows: “Correlated Color Temperature” or Color Temperature is a specification of the color appearance of the light emitted by a light source, measured in Kelvin (K). Warmer color temperatures are a lower number, and cooler color temperatures are a higher number. “Curfew” means the time of day when lighting restrictions, Citywide or based on zoning district, are in effect. “Directional lighting” means methods of directing light downward, rather than upward or outward, with the intention of directing light where it is needed. “Fully shielded” means a light fixture constructed and installed in such a manner that all light emitted, either directly from the lamp or a diffusing element, or indirectly by reflection or refraction from any part of the fixture, is projected below the horizontal plane (from the bottom of the lamp). “Glare” means light entering the eye directly from a light fixture or indirectly from reflective surfaces that causes visual discomfort or reduced visibility to a reasonable person. “Lamp” means, in generic terms, a source of optical radiation (i.e., “light”), often called a “bulb” or “tube.” Examples include incandescent, fluorescent, high-intensity discharge (HID) lamps, and low-pressure sodium (LPS) lamps, as well as light-emitting diode (LED) modules and arrays. “Light pollution” means the material adverse effect of artificial light, including, but not limited to, glare, light trespass, sky glow, energy waste, compromised safety and security, and impacts on the nocturnal environment, including light sources that are left on when they no longer serve a useful function. “Light trespass” light that falls beyond the boundary of the property on which it is installed. “Lumen” means the common unit of measure used to quantify the amount of visible light produced by a lamp or emitted from a light fixture (as distinct from “Watt,” a measure of power consumption). “Luminaires” means outdoor light fixtures as defined in this Section. Item 3 Attachment C Model Ordinances Packet Pg. 151 “Outdoor light fixtures” means outdoor illuminating devices, lamps and similar devices, including solar powered lights, and all parts used to distribute the light and/or protect the lamp, permanently installed or portable; synonymous with “luminaires.” “Outdoor recreational facility” means outdoor athletic and sports areas, such as ball fields, courts, swimming pools, skate parks and similar, but does not mean or include trails or playgrounds “Seasonal lighting” means lighting installed and operated in connection with holidays or traditions; “Security lighting” means lighting intended to detect intrusions or other criminal activity occurring on a property or site. “Skyglow” means the brightening of the nighttime sky that results from scattering and reflection of artificial light by air molecules, moisture, and dust particles in the atmosphere, caused by light directed or reflected upwards or sideways and reduces one’s ability to view the night sky. “String lights” means light sources connected by free-strung wires or inside of tubing resulting in several or many points of light 1. Purpose 1. The purpose of this Chapter is to regulate design, placement, color temperature, and light intensity of lighting elements in all zoning districts to reduce light pollution; to protect the dark sky, the natural environment, and public health; and to promote lighting systems and practices that conserve energy and prevent overlighting. As described in the International Dark Sky Association’s 5 Principles for Outdoor Lighting, light should be 1) useful, 2) targeted, 3) low level, 4) controlled, and 5) warm-colored. 2. Applicability 1. General Applicability 1. Requirements (Section 3) apply to all new and/or replacement outdoor lighting fixtures installed in residential or nonresidential properties from the effective date of the ordinance, whether attached to structures, poles, the earth, or any other location, unless exempted in Section 2.3 or in Section 3. 2. Nonresidential properties are encouraged to minimize outdoor light pollution from their interior lights. If interior light is visible beyond the boundaries of the lot or parcel, nonresidential properties shall comply with Section 3.6.1. 3. The following types of lighting are not allowed except in emergencies by police, fire, or medical personnel or at their direction: floodlights; outdoor lighting that blinks, flashes, or rotates; search lights; spotlights; high- intensity discharge lighting for recreation courts on private property; aerial lasers. Item 3 Attachment C Model Ordinances Packet Pg. 152 4. Lighting within the public right-of-way for the principal purpose of illuminating public streets or traffic control are not regulated by this ordinance. 2. Existing Lighting 1. Existing lighting must comply with the new lighting standards 5 years after the effective date of the ordinance. Any non-compliant lighting still in place after the compliance deadline shall remain extinguished at all times. 2. The following requirements shall be complied with within 30 days of the effective date of the ordinance: 1. Outdoor light fixtures that have the ability to be redirected, shall be directed downward so as to minimize sky glow, glare, and eliminate light trespass onto adjacent properties. 2. Outdoor light fixtures that have adjustable dimmers with color temperature that exceeds twenty-seven hundred (2,700) Kelvin shall be dimmed to comply with Section 3 to minimize glare and light trespass onto adjacent properties. 3. Light fixtures that are replaced within the first 5 years of the effective date of the ordinance shall meet the standards (i.e., color temperature and illumination limit) in Section 3. 4. Extensions: A property owner may apply for a 6-month extension of this deadline by submitting a request to the Planning Director or equivalent thirty (30) days before the compliance deadline detailing why an extension is needed. Any noncompliant lighting shall remain extinguished while the request is pending. Upon demonstration of good cause for providing a property owner additional time to comply with the requirements of this section, the Planning Director or equivalent may extend the property owner’s time to comply and/or may require a plan for compliance that requires partial compliance in advance of full compliance. For purposes of this section, the term “good cause” shall mean a significant financial or other hardship which warrants an extension or conditional extension of the time limit for compliance established herein. In no instance shall the Planning Director issue an extension of the compliance period in excess of one year’s time. 3. California Building Code 1. All lighting must comply with the requirements of the California Building Code including Title 24 of the Building Code. 2. All outdoor lighting shall comply with California Building Code Title 24 Lighting Zone One (LZ1). 3. Should a conflict exist with the provisions of this ordinance, the standards in the California Building Code shall prevail. 3. Outdoor Lighting Standards 1. Exemptions 1. Seasonal lighting 1. Temporary Seasonal lighting is allowed from October 15 to January 15 only. 2. Such lighting is exempt from Section 3.3-3.6 and must be extinguished by 11pm. Item 3 Attachment C Model Ordinances Packet Pg. 153 2. Aircraft navigation lights such as those attached to radio/television towers and other lighting required by the State of California or the U.S. federal government. 3. High intensity and/or special purpose lighting is governed by Section 4. 2. Correlated Color Temperature 1. The correlated color temperature of outdoor luminaires shall not exceed 2700 K. Luminaries rated at or below 2200 K are encouraged for better nighttime visibility, protection of wildlife, and reduction of glare and light pollution. 3. Shielding 1. All outdoor light fixtures shall be fully shielded and directed downward except as otherwise specified. 2. Exceptions 1. Low-voltage Landscape Lighting: Low-voltage landscape lighting, such as that used to illuminate fountains, shrubbery, trees, and walkways, do not have to be shielded fixtures, provided that they use no more than 150 lumens. 2. Outdoor Art: Low-voltage lighting used to illuminate outdoor art do not have to be shielded fixtures. 3. Greenhouse Lighting: At or under 200 lumens, a fixture can be unshielded as long as no light shines outside the structure or is visible from another property or the sky. 4. Lighting Control Requirements 1. All outdoor lighting shall be controlled by motion-sensors or be fully extinguished by 11:00 p.m. or when people are no longer actually present in exterior areas, whichever is earlier, except 1. Lighting of outdoor art shall be fully extinguished by 11:00 pm 2. Where required by the California Building Code or state law, any lighting at building entrances, parking areas, walkways, and driveway areas that are required to remain illuminated after 11:00 p.m. 3. Lighting of a minimal appropriate intensity, allowed in conjunction with uses that are permitted to operate past 11:00 p.m., with a conditional use permit 4. Outdoor solar-powered pathway lights without controls that are 25 lumens or less 2. All lighting activated by motion-sensors shall extinguish no more than 5 minutes after activation. Owners of such equipment shall (1) maintain it in good working order; and (2) adjust the trigger threshold appropriately such that it only triggers on large objects like people. 3. Controls shall be provided that automatically extinguish all outdoor lighting when sufficient daylight is available using a control device or system such as a photoelectric switch, astronomic time switch, or equivalent functions from a programmable lighting controller, building automation system, or lighting energy management system, all with battery or similar backup power or device, except 1. Lighting under canopies or lighting for tunnels, parking garages, garage entrances. Item 3 Attachment C Model Ordinances Packet Pg. 154 5. Illumination Levels 1. Lighting in which any single luminaire exceeds 20,000 lumens or the total lighting load exceeds 160,000 lumens shall not be installed or used without a conditional use permit. 6. Limits to Offsite Impacts 1. No exterior light or combination shall cast light exceeding zero point one (0.1) foot-candle onto an adjacent or nearby property, with the illumination level measured at the property line between the lot on which the light is located and the adjacent lot, at the point nearest to the light source, except if two adjacent properties are non-residential, or function as a shopping center, and agree to coordinate lighting. 2. No direct off-site glare from a light source shall be visible above three feet at a public right-of-way. 3. Indoor Lighting of Nonresidential Properties 1. Businesses that involve the direct retailing of goods to the general public may have downward directed, low voltage, and fully shielded lighting for window displays. 2. Any lighting device located on the inside of a window which is visible beyond the boundaries of the lot or parcel with intermittent fading, flashing, blinking, rotating, or strobe light illumination is prohibited. 3. Properties are encouraged to draw blinds and/or turn off non- essential indoor lighting at night. 4. Interior lights shall be extinguished or motion-sensor operated by 11:00 p.m. or within two hours after the business is closed, whichever is earlier. 7. Outdoor Security Lighting 1. Security lighting may be provided when necessary to protect persons and property. When security lighting is utilized, the following standards shall apply: 2. Security lighting shall be controlled by a programmable motion-sensor device, except where continuous lighting is required by the California Building Code. All lighting activated by motion sensors shall extinguish no more than 5 minutes after activation. Automated controls shall be fully programmable and supported by battery or similar backup. 3. Security lighting shall be downward directed, fully shielded, and not be mounted at a height that exceeds 12 feet, measured from the adjacent grade to the bottom of the fixture. 4. Floodlights shall not be permitted. 5. Security lights intended to illuminate a perimeter, such as a fence line, are permitted only if such lights do not result in light trespass. 6. Motion-activated security lights shall not use luminaires that exceed a maximum of 1,600 lumens. 8. Service Station Canopies 1. The following standards shall apply to service station canopy lighting, in addition to all other applicable standards. 2. Service station canopies shall not be transparent or translucent. Item 3 Attachment C Model Ordinances Packet Pg. 155 3. Lighting fixtures in the ceiling of canopies shall be fully recessed into the underside of the canopy. All lighting fixtures shall be located so as to shield direct rays from adjoining properties or public rights-of-way. 4. Light fixtures shall not be mounted on top of the fascia of such canopies. 5. The maximum light intensity under the canopy shall not exceed an average maintained foot-candle (horizontal) of 12.5, when measured at finished grade. Luminaires shall be of a low level, indirect diffused type. 6. No luminaire shall be higher than 15 feet above the finished grade. 7. The fascia of such canopies shall not be illuminated, except for approved signage in compliance with Section 5. 4. High Intensity and/or Special Purpose Lighting 1. Conditional use permits 1. Lighting installations that do not comply with lighting standards may be allowed if a conditional use permit is obtained. 2. To obtain a conditional use permit, applicants shall demonstrate that the proposed lighting installation meets the following requirements: 1. Demonstrates through third-party review that the intended function cannot be achieved through the requirements of this ordinance. 2. Is at the lowest illumination levels that meet the requirement of the task. 3. Has sustained every reasonable effort to mitigate the effects of light on the environment and surrounding properties, supported by a signed statement describing the mitigation measures. 4. Employs lighting controls to reduce lighting at a project-specific curfew time to be established in the Permit. 5. Complies with the lighting standards in the ordinance after the project-specific curfew. 6. The permit must demonstrate that the applicant is making every reasonable effort to adhere to the code requirements. 2. String Lighting 1. String lighting shall not be 1. Blinking and/or chasing lights. 2. Secured with materials or in a manner that will puncture the skin or restrict the growth of any living landscape feature. 3. Attached to a fence in a manner that permits light trespass to adjacent property. 4. Allowed to emit no more than 42 lumens. 5. A correlated color temperature of more than 2,700 K 2. Residential Areas: In addition to Section 4.2.1, string lighting is permitted subject to the following requirements: 1. It shall not illuminate more than fifty (50) percent of the rear yard or 500 sq. ft., whichever is more restrictive. 2. It shall not be visible from a public right-of-way. 3. It shall be used primarily to illuminate patio areas. 4. It shall be extinguished by 11:00 p.m. Item 3 Attachment C Model Ordinances Packet Pg. 156 3. Nonresidential and Mixed-Use Areas: String lighting may be permitted subject to the following requirements, with approval of the Planning Director or equivalent: 1. Any development or property is permitted to submit one application for string lighting, which shall include all uses of string lighting on the development or property. 2. It shall not illuminate an area greater than five (5) percent of the building(s) footprint of a shopping center and fifteen (15) percent for a freestanding commercial building not part of a shopping center. 3. It is limited to designated outside dining or display areas. 4. It is extinguished two (2) hours after the close of business. 3. Outdoor Recreational Facilities 1. Lighting at public and private outdoor recreational facilities, including but not limited to playing fields, arenas, tracks, and swimming pools, will be fully shielded to the greatest practical extent to reduce glare, safety hazards, light trespass, and light pollution. 2. Such lighting shall meet all of the following requirements. 1. Provide levels of illuminance that are adjustable according to task, allowing for illuminating levels not to exceed nationally recognized Illuminating Engineering Society (IES). standards according to the appropriate class of play, as well as for lower output during other times, such as when field maintenance is being actively performed 2. Be provided exclusively for illumination of the surface of play and adjacent viewing stands, and not for any other application, such as lighting a parking lot. 3. Must be extinguished by 11:00 pm or within one (1) hour of the end of the active play, whichever is earlier. 4. Shall be fitted with motion sensors and/or mechanical or electronic timers to prevent lights from being left on accidentally overnight. 3. Illumination levels shall be designed to be no higher than recommended for Class IV play, as defined by the Illuminating Engineering Society publication ANSI/IES RP-6-20, as amended. 1. design and installation adheres to the IDSA’s Criteria for Community Friendly Outdoor Sports Lighting 2. Height? 5. Sign Lighting 1. All externally or internally illuminated signs, advertising displays, and building identification shall be extinguished at 11:00 p.m. or within one (1) hour of the end of normal business hours, whichever occurs first. 2. Externally Illuminated Signs 1. Externally illuminated signs shall be lit only from the top of the sign, with fully shielded luminaires designed and installed to prevent light from spilling beyond the physical edges of the sign. 2. All external sign illumination must comply with the Correlated Color Temperature (CCT) requirements of this ordinance. 3. Internally Illuminated Signs: 1. Outdoor internally illuminated signs (whether free standing or building mounted) shall be subject to all the following requirements: Item 3 Attachment C Model Ordinances Packet Pg. 157 1. The internally illuminated portion of the sign cannot be white, cream, off-white, light tan, yellow or any light color unless it is part of a registered logo that does not have an alternate version with dark tones. Light tone colors such as white, cream, off-white, light tan, yellow or any light color are permitted in the logo only, provided that such colors in the logo shall represent not more than 33% of the total sign area permitted. 2. The internal illumination, between sunset and sunrise, is to be the lowest intensity needed to allow the sign to be visible and shall not exceed 50 nits (=170 lumens). 3. Size limit: The luminous surface area of an individual sign shall not exceed 50 square feet. 4. Electronic message displays are discouraged and shall comply with outdoor lighting curfews stipulated in this ordinance. 5. Moving and/or flashing text or images are prohibited.ApplicabilityNew [3] and existing [4] streetlights 6. Streetlight RequirementsStreet lighting must consist of fully shielded fixtures, directed downward to meet particular need and away from adjacent properties and rights-of-ways to avoid light trespass. [1] 7. Street lighting shall have a correlated color temperature of 2,700 Kelvin or less (Cupertino and Los Gatos). [1] 8. The lumen output of each streetlight shall be the lowest reasonable lumen output to meet safety standards but in no case greater than 10,000 lumens. [4] References [1] Communication with Public Works Directors in Cupertino, Los Gatos [2] Flagstaff Ordinance: https://www.codepublishing.com/AZ/Flagstaff/html/Flagstaff13/Flagstaff1312003.html#13.12.003 https://flagstaffdarkskies.org/dark-sky-solutions/dark-sky-solutions-2/outdoor-lighting-codes/ [3] County of LA Rural ordinance https://library.municode.com/ca/los_angeles_county/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT22 PLZO_DIV4COZOSUDI_CH22.80RUOULIDI#:~:text=The%20Rural%20Outdoor%20Lighting%2 0District,and%20preserving%20the%20nighttime%20environment Malibu’s Dark Sky Ordinance: https://www.malibucity.org/DocumentCenter/View/29389/Attachment-2_Malibu-Municipal-Code- Ch-1741?bidId= Brisbane’s Staff Report + Dark Sky Ordinance: https://mccmeetingspublic.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/brisbaneca-meet- af1c62b805bd463ea43072d7018a7c98/ITEM-Attachment-001- 5913cc8fb5de4f06a173268ed08d5a49.pdf Cupertino’s Dark Sky and Bird Safe Design Ordinance: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/cupertino/latest/cupertino_ca/0-0-0-96605 Item 3 Attachment C Model Ordinances Packet Pg. 158 Other Jurisdic�ons on Outdoor Ligh�ng/Dark Sky Standards: • City of Cuper�no (Chapter 19.102: Glass and Ligh�ng Standards): htps://codehub.gridics.com/us/ca/cuper�no#/d3ef8742-594e-4e92-bb0d- 0�b09d855bd/68dadeb1-0691-4c82-a9e1-11e6e40f268f • Portola Valley (Ligh�ng Ordinance): htps://www.portolavalley.net/home/showpublisheddocument/11163/636699440999530000 • Woodside (Sec�on 153.213 Outdoor Ligh�ng): htps://library.municode.com/ca/woodside/codes/municipal_code?nodeId=CD_ORD_TITXVLAUS _CH153ZO_153.213OULI • Sunnyvale (Moffet Park Specific Plan – Sec�on 6.6.9 Exterior Ligh�ng, Document Pages 179- 180): htps://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/gz3cr91d1xyd073x6ligg/SMPSP_FinalPlan_MidRes.pdf?rlkey=5 vg3c42cc0o6935btgxzwatgp&e=1&dl=0 • Brisbane (Dark Sky Ordinance): htps://www.brisbaneca.org/cd/page/dark-sky- ordinance#:~:text=On%20January%2018%2C%202024%2C%20the,reasonable%20restric�ons%2 0on%20outdoor%20ligh�ng. Other Jurisdic�ons on Bird Safe Design Standards: • City of Cuper�no (Chapter 19.102: Glass and Ligh�ng Standards): htps://codehub.gridics.com/us/ca/cuper�no#/d3ef8742-594e-4e92-bb0d- 0�b09d855bd/68dadeb1-0691-4c82-a9e1-11e6e40f268f • City of San Francisco (Standards for Bird-Safe Buildings): htps://sfplanning.org/standards-bird- safe-buildings • City of Sunnyvale (Bird-Safe Building Design Guidelines): htps://www.sunnyvale.ca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/1542/638273438333130000 • City of Sunnyvale (Moffet Park Specific Plan – Sec�on 5.4.2 Bird Safe Design, Document Pages 124-125): htps://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/gz3cr91d1xyd073x6ligg/SMPSP_FinalPlan_MidRes.pdf?rlkey=5 vg3c42cc0o6935btgxzwatgp&e=1&dl=0 Item 3 Attachment D_Dark Sky and Bird Safe Design Regulations from Other Jurisdictions Packet Pg. 159 Middlefield Road Cowper Street Waverley Street Alma StreetEl Camino Real Louis Road Hy 101 South Page Mill Road Ross Road Hy 101 North Webster Street Bryant Street Channing Avenue East Bayshore Road Monte Bello Road Sand Hill Road Skyline Boulevard Hamilton Avenue Oregon Expressway Lincoln Avenue San Antonio Road University Avenue Newell Road Seale Avenue South Court High Street Charleston Road Park Boulevard East Meadow Drive Stanford Avenue Colorado Avenue West Bayshore Road Hanover Street none Miranda Avenue Foothill Expressway Fabian Way Homer Avenue Greer Road Ramona Street Edgewood Drive Arastradero Road Loma Verde Avenue Everett Avenue Churchill Avenue Matadero Avenue Lowell Avenue Center Drive Tennyson Avenue Los Robles Avenue California Avenue Barron Avenue Hillview Avenue Welch Road Maybell Avenue Wilkie Way Hansen Way Coleridge Avenue Byron Street Ely Place Oregon Avenue Manuela Avenue Amarillo Avenue Marion Avenue Emerson Street North California Avenue Grove Avenue Laguna Avenue Ferne Avenue Porter Drive Hale Street Chimalus Drive College Avenue Amherst Street Seneca Street Lane 66Bowdoin Street Stockton Place Harker Avenue Deer Creek Road Embarcadero Road El Dorado Avenue La Para Avenue Clark Way Grant Avenue Birch Street Hawthorne Avenue Clara Drive Coyote Hill Road Columbia Street Georgia Avenue Rhodes Drive San Antonio Avenue Cambridge Avenue Olive Avenue La Donna Street El Camino Way Parkinson Avenue Kipling Street Pasteur Drive Heather Lane Kellogg Avenue Alger Drive Florales Drive Forest Avenue Monroe Drive Greenwood Avenue Boyce Avenue Sherman Avenue Nathan Way Donald Drive Urban Lane Harvard Street Iris Way Dana Avenue Hopkins Avenue Fulton Street Sutherland Drive Lambert Avenue Vineyard Lane Marshall Drive Geng Road Orme Street El Carmelo Avenue Parkside Drive Walnut Drive Maddux Drive Sheridan Avenue Wildwood Lane Elsinore Drive Fernando Avenue Moreno Avenue Sutter Avenue Edlee Avenue Ventura Avenue Arbutus Avenue Chaucer Street Shopping Center Way Walter Hays Drive Jackson Drive Kenneth Drive Cereza Drive Towle Way Guinda Street Transport Street Lane 21 Encina Grande Drive Faber Place Los Palos Avenue Ruthven Avenue Miramonte Avenue Laguna Way Whitsell Street Janice Way Pomona Avenue Mayview Avenue Rorke Way Evergreen Drive Ashton Avenue McKellar Lane Robb Road Santa Rita Avenue Addison Avenue Rinconada Avenue Second Street Encina Avenue Silva Avenue Quarry Road Canyon Road Bryson Avenue Oak Hill Avenue Fabian Street Vista Hill Road Nevada Avenue Sequoia Avenue Southwood Drive Lupine Avenue Suzanne Drive Sycamore Drive Washington Avenue Manzana Lane Ash Street Portage Avenue Elwell Court Cork Oak Way Stern Avenue Pepper Avenue Tasso Street Lytton Avenue Maple Street Whitman Court Laura Lane Palm Street Sandra Place Diablo Court Skyline Boulevard San Antonio Road Bryant Street Page Mill Road Foothill Expressway College Avenue South Court Dana Avenue Oregon Avenue Arastradero Road Byron Street Fulton StreetEmerson Street Ramona Street Byron Street none This map is a product of City of Palo Alto GIS [ 0 0.45 0.90.225 Miles Bird Safe Design OrdinanceBird Sensitive Areas Bird Sensitive Area City Limit Item 3 Attachment E Map of Bird Sensitive Area Packet Pg. 160 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: July 18, 2024 Report #: 2407-3206 TITLE Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for February 29, 2024 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) adopt the attached meeting minutes. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Minutes of February 29, 2024 AUTHOR/TITLE: ARB Liaison1 & Contact Information Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Manager of Current Planning (650) 329-2575 Jodie.Gerhardt@CityofPaloAlto.org Item 4 Staff Report Packet Pg. 161 Page 1 of 35 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 02/29/24 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD Special Meeting-Retreat DRAFT MINUTES: February 29, 2024 Community Meeting Room & Hybrid 9:00 AM Call to Order / Roll Call The Architectural Review Board (ARB) of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in Palo Alto Community Meeting Room and virtual teleconference at 9:05 a.m. Present: Chair Peter Baltay, Vice Chair Kendra Rosenberg, Boardmember Yingxi Chen, Boardmember David Hirsch, Boardmember Adcock Absent: None Oral Communications Administrative Associate III Veronica Dao stated there were public comments on Zoom. Winter Dellenbach stated that she was disappointed in the discussion with Dark Skys and Bird Safety and would send ARB an article on windows before their next meeting. She hoped the Board would take the time to read over the information and needed consideration for what they learned before they made a final decision. She thanked them for their time and effort to the City and residents. Sue Chow thanked the Board for their work regarding the city. As a Palo Alto resident, a Sierra Club activist, and sociologist she wanted to see an ordinance put in place that regarded the light pollution and Bird Safe environments that included commercial buildings, as well as residential; and if limited to the Foothills and Bay lands, the ordinance’s purpose would be defeated due to the low development. She was dismayed at the suggestion the ARB had given on limiting the areas, and was not focused on areas such as Mountain View, Cupertino, and Sunny Vale. If the ordinance were implemented in all areas of Palo Alto, it would mitigate the amount of bird deaths. Shani Kleinhaus introduced herself as a Palo Alto resident, a member of the POC and an Environmental Advocate at the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society, but was speaking on her own behalf. She stated that the ARB had dismissed the Bird Safety issues related to residential areas where most bird collisions had occurred. Many residents had migrated birds that lived in their area and were concerned about the ARB’s limited ordinances. Bird safety had a construction and architectural component in areas with parks and natural environments, but with the architectural components, there were ques for bird safety hazards on whether the project should be considered or altered; she referred to a new building complex on Corrina Way and East Meadow that was conservative on how windows and lighting had been used within the design. She had researched and worked with projects on Dark Skys and had known of better options when ARB considered a project plan. Ms. Kleinhaus thanked the Board and asked for reconsideration at their next meeting. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of February 29, 2024 Packet Pg. 162 Page 2 of 35 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 02/29/24 Laura Macias introduced herself and showed her interest in the architectural buildings in Palo Alto but wanted to comment on the Bird Safety issue. She was concerned about the migratory birds in the area and the hazards they faced and encouraged the Board to listen to what the public wanted regarding natural environmental preservation. Mike Ferrera commented regarding an article he read that indicated the ARB was on an open rebellion against City Council about ordinance updates and he hoped that was not true and suggested if it were, it may be appropriate to pass the work to another committee to resolve the conflict. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Senior Planner and Architectural Review Board (ARB) Liaison Claire Raybould indicated that the Utilities Electric was not able to join the retreat, the first item will only be a presentation by Palo Alto Zero Waste. Retreat Agenda **YouTube video began with the meeting in progress. 1. Presentations from Palo Alto Zero Waste and City of Palo Alto Electric Utilities Senior Planner Raybould introduced the City representatives for ZeroWaste, Chuck Muir and Paula Borgas and representatives for GreenWaste, General Manager Eric Cissna and Operational Manager Mosey Hill. Paula Borgas commented that ZeroWaste worked for the city and was a Public Works environmental service division who oversaw the collection of recyclables, combustibles, and garbage materials; their main contractor being GreenWaste. ZeroWaste worked with GreenWaste as a team on operational issues. Palo Alto ZeroWaste representative Chuck Muir thanked the Planning Department and ARB for being invited to the retreat, and what would be discussed were the refuse enclosure requirements, guidelines, and laws of the State. SB 1383 was known to be a stringent law regarding recycling in the nation, and Palo Alto had met the requirements since 2018; municipal codes 5.20 and 18.40 were what required a refuse enclosure to be installed when a site plan was made. They provided guidelines and design guides to architects and developers when they made plan reviews as attachments when uploaded to the site. They looked at the health and sanitation collection, safety, recycling, rules, and regulations; when a project was proposed they considered how often collection was needed, the type and size of bins to be placed, and spacing on site for truck pick-ups. He talked about refuse enclosure guidelines provided on the website for architects to refer to when a site plan was drawn. A section of the California resource code stated local agencies shall not issue a building permit unless a development project provided adequate areas for loading and collecting waste materials, so it was added to the guidelines, and was expected when a project had been proposed. There had to be an enclosure area or room built into a project, and it was ideal to have them accessible for collection services and constructed at street level, and a third container would be required, and all customers to subscribe to recycling compost and landfill and to sort their waste correctly. Chair Baltay asked if being at street level was part of the code. Mr. Muir responded that was in ZeroWaste guidelines and explained the twenty-five-foot guideline for enclosures and described the ramifications if the code was not met. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of February 29, 2024 Packet Pg. 163 Page 3 of 35 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 02/29/24 Boardmember Adcock inquired if the pull-out zone referred to the collector pulling out the bins and if it included the twenty-five-foot distance requirement as well. Mr. Muir answered yes if the safety turnaround requirement was met and provided examples of projects that had competing issues. Boardmember Hirsch inquired if a one-way entrance and exit would be excepted instead of a twenty-five- foot turnaround. Mr. Muir answered that older projects had been designed with a one way, and it was a preferred method. He mentioned that an issue with safety had to do with early collections done in the morning that interfered with traffic, bicyclists, and pedestrians; they took into consideration the public’s comments and concerns on safety. The hotels on Santonio Road had waste enclosures on the back of the building that allowed trucks to drive onto the site for collection and preform a three-point-turnaround instead of issues like El Camino Road where trucks needed to back out blindly to the street or blocked driveways during pick up. He shared pictures of the front and side loader trucks and gave a brief explanation on how they maneuvered, and clearance needed. Vice Chair Rosenberg asked if Mr. Muir knew the clearance needed with the bin attached. Mr. Muir responded that the clearance was twenty feet. Planner Raybould inquired if that was with the fork lifts as well. Mr. Muir replied that yes it was. He talked about how they collaborated with City Departments on how to educate and coordinate projects with architects and developers. He said that the customer relations they implemented were to set up meetings to talk with planners regarding accommodations, how projects were approved, and he attended the development review committee (DRC) meetings weekly, as well as the monthly Development Center manager meeting to stay connected on concerns and give proper input. Boardmember Chen inquired if the meetings happened in person. Mr. Muir responded that the DRC meeting was set up by the planner over Zoom. Planner Raybould added the DRC met at either 10 A.M. or 11 A.M. every Wednesday with all Department Reviewers across the city; if a project were to come in, they would hold a development review committee around the third week of the review cycle as they gave comments around the fourth week. The Departments discussed key comments to address conflicted requirements within the project and have them resolved before the formal comments were made; it is not always possible to happen, but that was the goal of having the meetings. Vice Chair Rosenberg asked if contractors used the side loader trucks in the residential areas, and if the dimensions and clearances were different. Mr. Muir answered that was correct. Vice Chair Rosenberg inquired if the residential buildings used the side loader trucks and commercial large apartment complexes used the front loader. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of February 29, 2024 Packet Pg. 164 Page 4 of 35 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 02/29/24 Mr. Muir replied that the commercial projects used front loaders as they had one, two, and three cubic yard metal bins that made it more efficient; for residential projects it was better to use side loaders, as it allowed them to go along the block when needed. Planner Raybould questioned if they had to use side loaders if bins were used. Mr. Muir stated that it was designed to do that, as you would not want to pick up a cart with a front loader and vice versa. Vice Chair Rosenberg commented that they needed to discuss how the substantial number of bins along the street affected areas in a multi-family or townhome condensed neighborhood, and how they would know the difference and requirements between the two; as well as how the Board could help reach what was required. Mr. Muir responded that the planning code 18.40.240 had been updated and requires that multi-family units of three or more be considered as centralized collection areas, which addressed the copious amounts of carts along the street issue. Boardmember Hirsch asked if a smaller project would have a street side collection required. Mr. Muir answered that if unable to drive onto the property, they would create a staged area within the twenty-five-foot distance, which could include up to three metal bins that allowed front loaders to have access to. Boardmember Chen clarified that the apartments, condominiums, multi-family, and town homes with more than three units were considered under the centralized collection requirement. Mr. Muir answered that was correct. Planner Raybould noted that there were a couple projects based on when they filed and did not have the centralized collections applied. Manager of Current Planning Jodie Gerhardt commented that it was the same as the Objective Standards implemented in 2022. Boardmember Chen inquired how many units were needed to have an enclosure location, such as a unit with forty units compared to ten, and if it needed to have two centralized locations and what was required. Mr. Muir responded yes, three or more. [Crosstalk] Planner Gerhardt asked if it was a section in the code. Mr. Muir responded that it was more of a guideline than in the code, but they had asked for Greenway’s input on complexes and multi-family projects due to them having serviced sites around the city. Vice Chair Rosenberg asked if there were different collection times, and if an alternative were to have bin pick-ups more frequently. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of February 29, 2024 Packet Pg. 165 Page 5 of 35 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 02/29/24 Mr. Muir replied that it could be, but they needed to consider noise levels and they anticipated complaints in mixed commercial and more dense residential areas. Paula Borges commented that it tied to the safety and noise components as GreenWaste collected from major corridors in residential areas first, such as schools and churches; the municipal code allowed them to start collections in the residential areas as early as 6:00 A.M. so noise issues were avoided. Planner Raybould mentioned they had worked towards requirements that focused on these issues, however, if every business were to implement it, Staff would be discouraged because it would cause constrained time for collections. Mr. Muir stated that as mentioned, they had considered future uses of space by tenants and property managers, noise pollution and multiday pickups. Planner Gerhardt clarified that pick-up was allowed to start at 6 A.M. She asked what it was in commercial areas. Mr. Muir answered 4 A.M., but it depended if there were residential buildings in the area as well; if so, they tried not to start as early. Mr. Muir presented an example of a pass through the Castilleja School project with an egress and ingress that allowed efficient and easy service access for truck pull-up onto the property. Chair Baltay inquired if the drivers were permitted on the property and needed to stop, get out, wheel the bin, service it, and then return it, and if it were within the twenty-five-foot distance requirement measured from Kellogg Street. Mr. Muir responded that it was relative to where the truck stopped by the enclosure; within ten-foot of the enclosure. Chair Baltay clarified that the twenty-five foot was not distance from the property to enclosure, but from the truck to the enclosure. [Crosstalk] Chair Baltay added that it would be conceivable that the driver would wheel the bin maximum one- hundred and twenty-five feet at additional cost. Mr. Muir stated that was potentially correct. General Manager Eric Cissna noted that there were separate smaller vehicles with pull-outs that assisted in physically impossible to pull, long distance driveways or underground garages at additional costs. Mr. Muir showed a back example of San Antonio Road’s Marriot Hotel with a three-point turn around easy access for service vehicles due to lack of traffic and pedestrians. They had found challenges in some new projects on enclosures that were accessed, and they had worked with architects to add extra space for staged areas on sites that allowed Green Waste drivers access without the additional costs; collectors would bring the bins to a permanent refuse enclosure, and some residential areas bins were picked up daily, which had complaints, so staged bins should be a consideration. The code stated there could not Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of February 29, 2024 Packet Pg. 166 Page 6 of 35 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 02/29/24 be a refuse enclosure in the public right-away, but staged containers were allowed; things taken into consideration were traffic, bicycle lanes and pedestrian interactions. Boardmember Hirsch asked what would happen if there were a parking space and it was in use. Mr. Muir answered it would be added to the code either no parking during certain collection hours or have a red curb installation requested. Planner Raybould commented that signage was used for restricting hours and required the applicant to pay for a building permit. Boardmember Adcock inquired if it were the owners and staff who printed out the staging area, and if the restrictions defined a specific time the bins were allowed to be out. Mr. Muir responded that per municipal code the bins were allowed to be out twenty-four hours before and twenty-four hours after service collection took place; a consideration included was sidewalk and public right-away reductions, which created storage space for bins along the sidewalk during service hours. The multi-family project on San Antonio Road in a no parking, high traffic area, created a space along the street that allowed trucks to pull-off, bring bins to the street, service them, and then return to their space. Planner Raybould commented that with the San Antonio project, they foresaw many parking spaces being removed and being replaced with bike lanes, as well as an issue with a twenty-four-foot setback from property line requirement; drivers would hit the twenty-five-foot limit before they reached the buildings, so there needed to be some accommodation to that site if applied. Mr. Muir presented the 3265 Real project that was a narrow plot, which Planner Gerhardt clarified as an example because it was a pending project. Planner Raybould noted new bicycle lanes had been proposed and would make opportunities in the public right-away more difficult to maneuver. Boardmember Hirsch commented that the narrow areas looked difficult to manage in a truck, and asked how drivers would maneuver in narrow spaces. Mr. Muir answered it depended on what the project was proposing, ideally, they would drive onto the site to service the enclosures, but if unable to, it was asked to install staged areas within the twenty-five- foot requirement; if found inappropriate or inapplicable, they suggested an access staged area along the street. Boardmember Hirsch inquired if the responsibility was left to the owners to find the appropriate space, or if it needed to be removed. Mr. Muir replied yes, as well as other departments that helped collaborate on the competing issues that needed consideration. Senior Planner Raybould commented that on residential townhome style projects it could be complicated when it referred to as enclosures and lobbies for there had been concern about them being set on the street frontage. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of February 29, 2024 Packet Pg. 167 Page 7 of 35 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 02/29/24 Operational Manager Mosey Hill noted that certain residential properties had collection pick-ups in the alleyways off certain streets. Vice Chair Rosenberg asked if the City had a mandate that regarded alleyways being implemented on project backside streets, such as specific passageways for service drivers that allowed access to enclosures, and if there was a way to pre-plan it being integrated. Planner Gerhardt stated that a concept plan needed to be developed; currently the CAL POLY students were working on the San Antonio area, and once finished, Staff would provide a formal concept plan based on the findings; if the concept plan were implemented into the original plans, it would become part of a new project. Planner Raybould commented that they could not plan to have an enclosure area put into the concept plan until a developer built next door or the street would have a dead end. Vice Chair Rosenberg responded that Palo Alto could build back-alley streets in the area, and each individual could buy into the portion of the structure, and develop the property in accordance with the concept plan; in particular, this suggestion could be invaluable to the San Antonio project due to the high level of cars, parking and pedestrian interactions on the frontage of the streets. Mr. Muir showed a green block on San Antonio Street with the allowed twenty-five-foot space for service trucks to pull off with a sidewalk reduction. Boardmember Hirsch inquired if the twenty-five-feet was the regulation for the area. Mr. Muir answered there were no additional fees if greater than twenty-five feet, if it were to go over, a fee would be applied. Chair Baltay asked if the red box was just a concrete slab, or if it depicted the enclosure. Planner Raybould stated she believed it was a slab. Chair Baltay questioned how long the bins were allowed to be set on the property. Mr. Muir stated that if the bins were on their property, they could be kept as long as they wanted. Planner Raybould mentioned there were no requirements, but a condition of approval could be added to the project. [Crosstalk] Chair Baltay inquired how long it took drivers to collect the bins, if the pullout area was the drive area, and if the trucks blocked the drive lanes; he gave an example of a San Antonio hotel project that had a similar issue. Mr. Muir responded that with this design it would not if there were a hotel pull-in or circle driveway it could. [Crosstalk] Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of February 29, 2024 Packet Pg. 168 Page 8 of 35 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 02/29/24 Mr. Muir noted that there were considerations for three trucks that would service the same area, such as recycling, garbage, and compost. Chair Baltay asked if a building like the current project had recycling and compost daily. Mr. Muir answered it depended on the service needs of the property development. [Crosstalk] Mr. Muir stated that what the capacity size of the bins, it could be possible for pick-ups to occur three to five times a week. Chair Baltay inquired how long it would take to pull the truck up, bring the bin to service and then continue. Mr. Muir replied that it would range from five to ten minutes if within the twenty-five-foot distance; if there were multiple bins it would take a little longer. Boardmember Hirsch questioned if the trucks were scheduled to pass each other without interference. Mr. Muir responded that the trucks had different routes and schedules they followed. General Manager Eric Cissna commented that an overlap could happen, but they had ways to communicate between the trucks. Vice Chair Rosenberg stated that she was concerned about the trucks, and if they got stuck on the egress and ingress blocking traffic and being a hazard. General Manager Eric Cissna responded that it was a concern, but the Fleet was at an adequate age to manage most situations. Chair Baltay asked when the last time a truck had broken down and could not be moved. General Manager Eric Cissna replied one had within the last week. [Crosstalk] Boardmember Adcock stated that it would not do well to block driveways longer than two minutes due to residents that had emergencies and needed to leave. Mr. Muir commented that this project was considered mixed used, so there was commercial as well as residential on the property; they were required to have separate cart and bin waste receptacles. Vice Chair Rosenberg questioned if a requirement were to have them separated, and why. Mr. Muir answered that they have separate waste streams due to commercial properties having a different waste stream and rate on service; multi-family residences were considered commercial rates. Boardmember Hirsch inquired if the trucks entered from a street level to a basement. Mr. Muir responded that they did not. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of February 29, 2024 Packet Pg. 169 Page 9 of 35 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 02/29/24 Boardmember Hirsch asked if the residents were required to bring the bins to the street. Mr. Muir replied yes. [Crosstalk] General Manager Eric Cissna stated that some customers avoided extra fees by bringing the bins to the street; others will opt to pay a higher fee for a smaller stinger truck that would pick up bins from garages and bring to the street for the larger trucks to collect. [Crosstalk] Mr. Muir noted that it still required some staged areas for the vents to be set up for service. [Crosstalk] Ms. Paula Borges with ZeroWaste stated that the height needed for the truck to pick up the bins was too high to collect from the underground or basement areas. Boardmember Hirsch wondered if the trucks that entered the garages were smaller, and if they considered regular vehicles. General Manager Eric Cissna answered it was a pick-up truck with forks attached to the back that allowed access to the bins. [Crosstalk] Mr. Muir mentioned that a few projects purchased ATV’s or electric dollies instead of pick-up trucks. Planner Raybould noted that depending on the use of the project some developers would see the cost as too high, and what is available to them needed to be considered when decisions were made. Chair Baltay asked what the cost would be if a bin were farther than the distance of twenty-five feet. General Manager Eric Cissna responded there was a table on the rate sheet with pricing, but it depended on frequency of pick-up; for once a week it would be two hundred dollars per month and would double if twice a week. Chair Baltay clarified that a bin referred to a large container, not a singular small bin. Mr. Muir answered that was correct, it would be a large metal dumpster; the smaller bins only cost fifty dollars a month. Chair Baltay inquired how much it would cost for a seventy-five-unit building. Mr. Muir replied they would be serviced four to eight times to accommodate all three waste strings. Chair Baltay stated that it would equal 1,000 dollars per month. Planner Gerhardt clarified that it was charged per bin. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of February 29, 2024 Packet Pg. 170 Page 10 of 35 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 02/29/24 General Manager Eric Cissna noted that is why some residents opted out of the extra service fee, was due to some apartment complexes having on-site maintenance employees that oversaw the job. Chair Baltay mentioned that the pricing seemed reasonable for the services provided, and if pushed on to affordable housing it would be effective. General Manager Eric Cissna added the volume of waste generated and the frequency and container size would determine pricing, but the rate schedule was a place to start and utilize for an applicable equation on costs. Board member Hirsch asked when a schematic or early drawing of the proposal was presented before ARB, was a study done on how the project would be constructed included. Mr. Muir answered that when constructing notes on the plan reviews the refuse service included showing the number of containers, the size of the bins and the frequency of pick-up; with all the information collected, they can determine the rates. Chair Baltay clarified they were wanting to know at what point the processes started discussions. Planner Raybould stated that if they had not carefully planned and were not meeting the requirements within the first step, they would provide all the information; if there were a preliminary review, they would provide the information before the formal application was submitted. Chair Baltay commented that if it were a formal application to the ARB, then they would have had everything considered. Planner Raybould responded they should have had it done already, but it was not always the case. [Crosstalk] Mr. Muir replied that the first step was to coordinate with Green Waste to determine services needed and then would provide the information, which was how they designed the collection management system. Mr. Mosley stated that some complexes that were larger capacity units have started to look at compaction units; this would be a heavier collection load and a higher cost factor for disposal. Vice Chair Rosenberg mentioned when the cost was divided between each unit in a 300-unit complex, the total would be five dollars and thirty-three cents per unit, and when comments made on how expensive service rates would be, they needed to keep in mind the individual costs. [Crosstalk] Planner Gerhardt inquired if the cost calculations would be something they added to their comments. Mr. Muir answered the recommended long-term Waste Management plan would require projects to have filled out information that included the refuge service and cost analysis of the services provided that helped the overall project. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of February 29, 2024 Packet Pg. 171 Page 11 of 35 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 02/29/24 Chair Baltay stated that ARB was concerned about the look from the street and how it all functioned, and asked what could be done to not have refuse bins stored along the frontage of the street. Mr. Muir responded that he had worked with Jodi and found many refuse containers are stored in the underground parking structures and has considered creating a way to bring the bins up to the surface. [Crosstalk] Chair Baltay questioned whether it would be feasible to have security cameras or safety features added to the trucks that assisted entering and exiting the properties when servicing bins. Mr. Muir replied that the trucks now had reversal cameras installed, but like newer vehicles, they still had to be cautious. Chair Baltay asked how long it took for drivers to be comfortable with blind reversing into a site. General Manager Eric Cissna answered they avoided backing into sites at all costs; it was one of the most dangerous things to do for both the truck drivers, pedestrians, and fellow drivers. They had alternative options for drivers such as driving into the property with a three-way drive forward out of, or a turnaround or key turn used on site. Chair Baltay stated that the ARB was concerned about the bins stored on the street frontage of buildings. He gave a solution example of crash elevators that pulled out along the street and then the bin would be wheeled to the twenty-five-foot distance, and then inquired how to get the truck on site without a turnover requirement. General Manager Eric Cissna responded they had talked about shared centralized enclosure area but found similar issues as if there were to put it in the back alley. Mr. Muir added that it would be an issue with who owned and controlled the land space. Ms. Borges commented that some easement in the requirements should be exercised. Planner Gerhardt mentioned that a shared driveway on a property line could have a three-point-turn at the end, but to ensure it could happen, both property owners needed to be coordinated. Chair Baltay responded that they were there to find a solution that would correlate between ARB and the public that regarded their concerns and standards; as fire trucks made it possible to navigate onto the sites. General Manager Eric Cissna stated that fire trucks had the bright red hazard lights that flashed that made them easier to see. [Crosstalk] Vice Chair Rosenberg inquired if they were not available due to the bright lights that flashed causing light nuisance to the area. General Manager Eric Cissna said that the reversing sound was a noise concern as well; when reversing to service a mixed-use complex they had issues with awakening the residents. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of February 29, 2024 Packet Pg. 172 Page 12 of 35 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 02/29/24 Planner Gerhardt asked what other cities such as San Fransico did to meet requirements and navigate the issues. Mr. Muir answered that he had spoked with five cities in the area and found that in the smaller cities, requirements were easier to be met due to the extra lot spaces, in larger more built out areas, it was harder to achieve due to limited space and larger complex structures that produced more waste. Chair Baltay questioned if they had learned any added information from the cities Mr. Muir had inquired about. Mr. Muir replied he had acquired guidelines and standards used, but they were similar in what was included. He said plans were based on individual projects due to differential properties of the sites. General Manager Eric Cissna noted that although companies and municipalities use different guidelines, as collection companies, they were all placed in the same category. Boardmember Adcock recommended the city had a way that showed future potential zoned areas for housing and roads, and inquired how it could be possible. Planner Gerhardt responded that the answered questions should already be included in the Concept Plan to an extent, which would allow time for thought on added service roads. She inquired when it was required to install compactors. General Manager Eric Cissna answered that it was up to the customer, but if it were a multi-story complex, they would need to accommodate the residents and contemplate getting one installed; he was currently working on a project that had proposed installing one. Planner Gerhardt asked how the compactor was cleaned and unloaded. General Manager Eric Cissna replied that on-site staff or customers needed to have the front-low compactor in position that allowed the front-loader truck to access it. Ms. Borges added that the access and safety issues were the same, except that pick-up was serviced once a week compared to five. Chair Baltay closed the discussion. [Crosstalk] The ARB took a five-minute break and returned with all Board members present. 2. Training from City Attorney’s Office: Disclosures, Financial Conflict Reporting, and Recusal Requirements Chair Baltay introduced the item and requested Mr. Yang’s presentation. City Attorney Albert Yang started his presentation with financial conflicts of interest, which are governed by the Political Reform Act that is a state law stating a public official cannot attempt to use their official position to influence a governmental decision that they had financial interest; the Fair Political Practices Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of February 29, 2024 Packet Pg. 173 Page 13 of 35 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 02/29/24 Commission (FPPC) had detailed regulations that defined what a financial interest was and what was considered a influence. Key questions looked at were the impact of a governmental decision on official interests, was the material impact substantial enough to matter, and exceptions that were considered. Types of interests that were looked at are ownership or an investment of 2,000 dollars or more in real estate, the rules for leases that were permissive of participation, business entities such as employers or owners that had invested in the business, if the source of income from the business was paid to the individual, and a catch all provision on personal finances that do not fall within these categories; there are separate rules for gifts. Staff can check on the real estate proximity easier when new projects come before the Board when addresses were supplied; state regulations were set up where impacts were presumed to be material if within 500 foot of a project and not considered as such if more than 1,000 foot, and if within the 500 to 1,000 foot it was considered as a case by case multi-factor test. A business was considered material if explicitly involved with an applicant or on behalf of the applicant. Small shareholders in a business were not required to have a recuse but could be impacted by an area being rezoned or a tenant of the property that came before the Board; that would be when the monetary impact was looked at. Thresholds that were considered are whether the business had a gross revenue of five percent, if the business owned real estate that would be subject to the decision if qualified. The source of income looked at covered many incomes the governmental official may receive; the source of income could be a reason for recusal if a party to the applicant were an individual, nonprofit, or business. An individual was looked at for the impact of finances of 1,000 dollars or more and if they had more property or business interests. If the source were a non-profit, it looked to find if there were financial benefits or losses that exceeded a million dollars in gross revenue and whether they owned real property that impacted the decision. If it were a business, they referred to the rules that applied to business interests. The rules on gifts were if the applicant or someone impacted by the governmental decision were given gifts, it would be like the source of income rules. The catch all the personal finances do not have a threshold, but asked if there was a measurable financial benefit or loss. Outside of the Political Reform Act and the FPPC regulations, there was also a government code 1090 which prohibits self-dealing when contracts were made with strict and severe penalties. A common law doctrine stated that a governmental official can not participate in a decision if divided loyalty; it could result in interpersonal relationships with the applicant or someone in opposition of the project and could be based on memberships of other Boards with conflicted responsibilities. Mr. Yang paused to inquire if any members of Staff had questions. Chair Baltay asked if he were to take a small job from Stanford University would he need to recuse himself from any projects that involved the University. Mr. Yang replied it depended on the involvement with Stanford; if property were owned by them or where an applicant than yes Chair Baltay would need to recuse himself due to the source of income was a party to the decision. Chair Baltay requested clarity if the value of the property or the amount of work done had to be over a million dollars. Mr. Yang responded if the source was a nonprofit and received financial benefits or losses, such as Stanford with a large budgetary impact, then he needed to recuse himself. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of February 29, 2024 Packet Pg. 174 Page 14 of 35 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 02/29/24 Chair Baltay commented that if it were classrooms with a budget of 100,000 dollars the benefit would be less than the million. Mr. Yang stated that the monetary threshold was one rule, but a separate rule if real property were owned that would be impacted; if it did, I would not matter what the monetary threshold was, it would also be a reason to recuse. Chair Baltay inquired if it had any impact whatsoever. Mr. Yang answered the multifactor test that was involved with the real estate interests and would be any meaningful impact. Boardmember Adcock noted that Stanford owned many properties around Palo Alto that were leased to other entities, and asked if a developer that a lease on Stanford property had would she need to recuse herself. Mr. Yang responded that the developer was not a client so they would not be a source of personal income; the tenant was the client and the source of income, then asked if that were correct. Boardmember Adcock stated yes. Mr. Yang commented in that case, there would be no financial interest in the developer, so no recuse needed on the project. Chair Baltay asked if the developer benefitted from the tenant. Mr. Yang replied that if they used Stanford as the client, which would be considered the source of income so that would be an interest and qualified as a source of income; the example Chair Adcock had given there were no incomes or fiscal interests received from the developer. Boardmember Adcock stated that if she were to receive income from the tenant who made improvements to the property, it would be considered financial interests as the developer was considered her client, which would be similar to the Stanford example; as such she needed to recuse herself from any property involved with that developer. Mr. Yang responded that was correct. Boardmember Adcock mentioned that would make many projects and architects ineligible to be brought in front of the Board, due to many large entities who owned property around Palo Alto. Mr. Yang commented that if it were an architect who worked or received in come from a developer, then their decisions should not be made on that property; the rules placed were to insure it had no influence on the decisions made. Chair Baltay inquired if the Objective Standards the Board was working on with Planning and Development and City Council on zoning would affect landowners. Mr. Yang answered there was an exception in the various conflicts rule called the public exception; it applied when a decision with twenty to twenty-five percent of the definable subset of the population. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of February 29, 2024 Packet Pg. 175 Page 15 of 35 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 02/29/24 Planner Gerhardt mentioned that it was usually citywide rules and policies; if it were a project that involved the entire neighborhood, then the financial aspect did not come into play. Boardmember Adcock asked if considered the same financial interest if a design build with a certain contractor and different architect submitted a project to the City. Mr. Yang replied it depended whether they had received income from the design team and if a source of personal income. Boardmember Adcock gave an example that if she were a consultant with a design team contractor who had financial interest in many projects around the City would that qualify her to recuse herself from any projects that involved the contractor. Mr. Yang responded that it would be a financial income, but they did not own the real property impacted, so when the threshold that referred to businesses was applied, it would be the million dollars or five percent of gross revenue of the contractor. Chair Baltay inquired if it were the million-dollar gross revenue or million-dollar financial benefit. Mr. Yang clarified that it was governmental decisions on the million-dollar impact of gross revenue. Boardmember Adcock started to say that if it were a decision on placements of trash enclosures [interrupted] Planner Gerhardt interjected that the decision would be whether the seventy-five units were built. Chair Baltay noted that a seventy-five-unit project would be a thirty-million-dollar job with the contractor gaining half a million dollars in profit, and asked if that applied to the projects due to gross revenue or if the benefits were higher. Boardmember Adcock inquired if he was referring to the thirty-million-dollar project or the profit made. Chair Baltay commented that if the profit were less than a million dollars that would be a financial benefit. Mr. Yang replied that the rule stated gross revenue, so that would be considered. Chair Baltay asked how that amount outcome would be determined. Mr. Yang indicated that if expected to come close to the outcome amount with the information previously provided in planning. Chair Baltay stated that developers do not usually share the financial models beforehand, even architects, and it was reasonable to know the defense used against the Board’s decisions. Mr. Yang responded that if the projected cost were the thirty-million-dollars, and they knew who the contractor was, with their expertise it would be possible for the profit to be determined. Boardmember Adcock inquired how they would find the total value of the project if a contractor or subcontractor team had not relayed the information, and what portion of the schedule of values applied. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of February 29, 2024 Packet Pg. 176 Page 16 of 35 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 02/29/24 Mr. Yang answered that could be used as a defense if they were not able to attain the information, but if the orders of magnitude were greater than the thresholds, it would not have influence. If there were issues or conflicts, they had concerns over, they could call the office or FPPC for advice. Boardmember Adcock referred to a previous project that was on property that Stanford had owned, and asked if the million dollars were per year they made income, or if a time limit had been placed. Mr. Yang commented that the million-dollar threshold was just one measure, and a separate included land property ownership. The rules applied to not just development projects, but to all governmental decisions. Chair Baltay recollected during a training session that may have stated they were not allowed to do business or earn an income within the district they served, except for architects, and inquired if this would be applied to this issue. Mr. Yang replied that the exception for architects was that they had no influence over decisions that were considered monetary interests. If they were an architect on the project, the exception allowed them to go to the City Council Dias and speak on behalf of the applicant. Chair Baltay stated that when he had to recuse himself from projects previously, he had Staff represent the project in his place. [Crosstalk] Planner Gerhardt commented that was what they had done, but it had seemed different than what Mr. Yang had described. Chair Baltay clarified it had sounded like they allowed the applicant to present the defense of a project before the Board, even while serving. Mr. Yang apologized and said it only applied to proprietors, so if they were a last option they would be applicable. Planner Gerhardt mentioned a previous Board member had stepped down due to being a sole proprietor who felt like he could not speak on behalf of the projects in question, and added unsure if it were from a legal or perceptional standpoint. Planner Raybould said it were a question as to whether he had to use Staff as representation or if he could had represented himself, and as Mr. Yang had described it, as sole proprietor, he would have been allowed to represent himself if no other options available. Mr. Yang noted the rule was placed so personal relationships with fellow Board members would not impact or influence decisions on a project. Chair Baltay stated that when confronted with this issue, he would assign Staff as representatives for meetings, as well as discussions on the project when he had the availability. Boardmember Adcock inquired if it were for any conversation that concerned the project or if just during ARB presentations. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of February 29, 2024 Packet Pg. 177 Page 17 of 35 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 02/29/24 Chair Baltay referred to projects that had gone in front of the ARB Board. Boardmember Adcock mentioned that she felt a conversation with Planner Gerhardt or Planner Raybould was allowed. Chair Baltay asked Mr. Yang for a comment on the statement. Mr. Yang responded he disagreed with Chair Baltay, as the meetings were potential attempts to influence the governmental decision of the project. Planner Gerhardt noted that when a single-family home was discussed on a project, it was considered an influence on the decision of the person in question. [Crosstalk] Planner Raybould commented that they were currently involved with similar scenario on a project and would be good for Staff to understand the difference in perspectives. Boardmember Adcock stated that the following Monday she had planned to meet to discuss a project with a friend, and it was good to better understand and clarify if she needed to send a Staff member in her place. Mr. Yang replied that it would come down to whether they were trying to influence a decision, but if only questions or gathering information he did not see that as an attempted influence; but if rhetorical questions h brought up, it would change the perspective. Chair Baltay commented they gave objective decisions, and they were not trying to influence decisions. Planner Gerhardt responded that Staff need to understand as well when to continue a conversation or change the subject matter. Planner Raybould stated that it depended on the stage of development as well, as some information was pertinent to be included when decisions were made. Chair Baltay asked if a colleague or someone with a personal relationship were to appear before ARB with a presentation, was a recuse needed. Mr. Yang answered in the common law doctrine, there were no set rule, but more of a personal decision to be made. [Crosstalk] Vice Chair Rosenberg stated that as professionals they knew the limits and responsibility expected, and what reasonable decisions were made; if unsure of an issue they knew who to contact. [Crosstalk] Planner Raybould mentioned the rules were placed as a guidance principle based on the regulations, and she felt they were not too concerned about the Board trying to persuade projects; the only issue she could see being a risk would be an outside source having a complaint. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of February 29, 2024 Packet Pg. 178 Page 18 of 35 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 02/29/24 Vice Chair Rosenberg noted that if she were to have had a conversation with a reoccurring architect and someone happened to overhear that would borderline going against regulations. [Crosstalk] Boardmember Adcock added that it felt the stipulations made them feel too overly cautious as they deal with many architects in Palo Alto who they have closer personal connections with, and when they had a conversation about a project, was that considered a conflict of interest. Planner Gerhardt answered that it would be determined as a discloser item as they had a conversation about the project. Planner Raybould responded they needed to refer to the guidance areas on whether the discussion was unbiased on the topic or not and they as an individual needed to make the choice if an appropriate conversation. Boardmember Hirsch stated that the disclosures should be less complex, and it should be described on what a relationship with the project in question. Planner Gerhardt noted that any conversations outside of what the fellow Board members already had known about, needed disclosed on what extra information was given. Boardmember Adcock commented that it should be both project specific and architect or owner specific as well and gave an example of a project she had known about due to her relationship with the architects involved. Mr. Yang added that they presumed that public officials were making decisions with the public’s best interest as a guide, and it was rare for interpersonal relationships to interfere with interests in the project. Chair Baltay said that with Mr. Yang being a city representative, he would give ARB advice and protect the publics opinion; they needed to keep in mind what Mr. Yang had told them about making decisions on when to recuse themselves from a project. Planner Gerhardt stated that if Mr. Yang had suggested to recuse and you did not, the public would see it had been disclosed and would call into question the project itself and had a possibility of the process being restarted. Mr. Yang mentioned that his office provided the advice to prevent the individuals from conflict of interests and any consequences faced; primarily ensured that the city protected decision making and did not come under suspicion. The second process they had mentioned was due processes were the reason for disclosures and they could be related to conflicts; primary reason for this due process was to ensure the applicant had a fair hearing, and with the disclosures done at the beginning, it helped the applicant and public get the same information that was accessible. Disclosures included meetings that had taken place and site visits that could have had an influence on their interests. Planner Raybould noted that when they were told of site visits and additional information had been learned from the site that had not been in the Staff report, it should be disclosed to the proper officials. Chair Baltay inquired if they visited a site, would they need to disclose anything not in public records. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of February 29, 2024 Packet Pg. 179 Page 19 of 35 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 02/29/24 Planner Raybould answered yes, they did. Chair Baltay asked Mr. Yang how important it was to disclose whether they had learned anything from the site. Mr. Yang answered if all that had been disclosed was the site visit, the presumption would be nothing had been learned, but had later found that information had been shared it would be said that was pertinent to report. It could be difficult to differentiate the relevance of what you had seen at the site, but if there was something that had stood out to them, it was expected to be disclosed. Chair Baltay questioned if the goal was to release the information at the beginning of the discussion, so the public had equal access to the information. Mr. Yang said that was correct. Planner Gerhardt added that it included fellow Board members as well. Mr. Yang ended his presentation. Chair Baltay stated that since he had been on the Board, the started disclosures did not have to do with legal disclosure requirements, but one Chair wanted all members to go to the sites and one had wanted to hold each individual accountable for what they chose to do. [Crosstalk] 3. Discussion of Ad Hoc Committee Process Chair Baltay introduced the item and stated that as the process for ad hoc committees had evolved, he wanted to discuss where they were currently with the regulations and get Board feedback on whether they were going the right direction. He mentioned that Boardmember Hirsch had brought to the attention the lack of input or involvement in the early process of projects; by the time an application was submitted, the planning decisions were already hardened in. With the resistance from applicants there needed to be a way to help earlier in the process, which was a challenge due to the Board being unable to review something that had not been applied for yet; the Brown Act requirements also had limits on the structuring of buildings. The ad hoc committees were assigned at the discretion of the Chair. The first specific minor issue brought to attention was issues related to approvals. Two things he stressed of importance were the job of the committee that enforced the will of the Board, and if needed they would refer back to the Board members if unsure on a conflict; the second issue was the meeting minutes needed to publicly notice what the ad hoc committee did as part of the approval process and should be added. He stated that when reviewing minutes, they needed to be vigilant in the details of the regular meetings. Planner Raybould responded that they had written up a summary of what was printed into the building permits on the project but had not added what the ad hoc committee contributed to in the meeting minutes. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of February 29, 2024 Packet Pg. 180 Page 20 of 35 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 02/29/24 Planner Gerhardt mentioned that in the years past ARB made the recommendation, Staff would have a tentative approval letter with a condition included, and when an ad hoc meeting was held staff would attach a memo including a record of minutes that were tied to the ARB minutes of the hearing. With the recent limited number of hearings, a housing project was allowed to have, Staff no longer made the tentative approval letter and waited until after the ad hoc committee happened. Chair Baltay inquired if the committee’s decision was part of the final approval letter. Planner Gerhardt responded that was correct. Chair Baltay questioned if the public needed to know how to access the information. Planner Raybould replied that it was not stated in the letter. [Crosstalk] Planner Gerhardt added when the plans were considered in the final project, but they would consider having the memo added. Boardmember Hirsch stated it had not been mentioned what happened at preliminary hearings, and if a project was to come in early. Planner Raybould clarified they would be having a more detailed conversation later regarding preliminary hearings. [Crosstalk] Chair Baltay commented that there were specific projects that ARB tacked onto unrelated individual projects, such as the townhome committee, and were asked to assign an ad hoc committee that proposed additional objective design standards; with two members assigned, it aided in not being subjected to Brown Act requirements. That part is very straightforward. Boardmember Chen [Vice-Chair Chen] added that the ad hoc committee could not decide on certain items until brought back before the Board. Chair Baltay responded that the main objective of an ad hoc was to bring detailed information in front of the Board before any decisions were made. Vice Chair Rosenberg gave an example of the Restoration Hardware project where a post ad hoc committee had been assigned for review afterwards for minor adjustments; with the project having major adjustments, the two members of the ad hoc ended up bringing back the decision to the Board. Planner Raybould replied that was appropriate, but ad hoc committees were assigned to specific projects and approvals; it was not intended to approve recent changes, but if minor changes were added while being reviewed, they would highlight the context how it was relevant. Vice Chair Rosenberg gave an example such as if they had proposed changes to choose different windows to match railings. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of February 29, 2024 Packet Pg. 181 Page 21 of 35 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 02/29/24 Planner Raybould said that was correct, but if other changes were outside the scope of what assigned, the ad hoc was not to approve them. Boardmember Chen inquired if the ad hoc contacted Staff, or would they officially announce the decisions. [Crosstalk] Planner Raybould stated that it would be published in the Staff report, as it was not usually added as part of the agenda. If they looked at recent town home or parklet assignments, it needed to be taken into consideration how they wanted the projects ran and to what degree ARB was involved; as current planning Staff were not the ones who worked on the projects, the ad hoc committees assisted in moving project forward and gave guidance. It was up to ARB on how it progressed, but it was important to know discussions had and feedback obtained was disclosed as part of formal recommendations. She asked Chair Baltay if ARB felt the current planning Staff needed to be at all the meetings. Planner Gerhardt commented that if were a project such as the townhouse ad hoc, that they would not have the time. Planner Raybould added that the townhouses differed from the parklets, and other city Staff were involved, so it was unnecessary to attend the meetings. Boardmember Adcock inquired if projects that had come before the Board for more than one hearing, was the idea that the ad hoc committee was formed after the first hearing. Planner Gerhardt referred to Chair Baltay having four types of ad hoc committees and asked him to continue his explanation. Chair Baltay stated that the second type was the specific planning projects talked about, and the third type was the committee assigned early in the project stages, before formal applications, when the Staff had an idea when it was presented. Within the past three years he had been forming ad hoc committees for certain projects by the Chair’s discretion, and had asked the ad hoc to review what was available for the project and have reported back to the Board any information of interest, due to not being allowed to have opinion statements about the project; the goal was to give feedback to applicants that allowed them to look at site planning for the project, and as ARB was considered individuals, they provided feedback to Staff that interacted with the applicants. Vice Chair Rosenberg commented that the goal was when they received a planning project, they could easily look to see what was missed within the plans, and when reviewed it would be a complete set that alleviated the waste of Board and hearing times. If the project was not reviewed due to lack of information, they needed to be careful about being judgmental when they made decisions. Boardmember Adcock inquired about the timeline in which they had to submit the application to the city before added to the agenda. Planner Gerhardt responded that there were two versions, the first list was items that were formally on file that were brought before the ARB, second were the SP 330 and pre-screenings that Staff had seen but had not formed a formal plan yet. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of February 29, 2024 Packet Pg. 182 Page 22 of 35 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 02/29/24 Planner Raybould added that the Senate Bill 330 pre-applications required applicants to provide only the elevations and site plans, which limited the information given beforehand. If a large project were to arise, they needed to look at the highlighted items Staff recommended. She gave an example of a new curb cut proposed on El Camino that CALTRANS had not approved and stated that they needed to redesign at that moment. Boardmember Adcock inquired when a project like the SB 330 came before Staff as a formal pre- application, did they give a response to the applicant, or did Staff take it as a warning of what was to come. Planner Raybould responded that it would be reviewed against the seventeen-point checklist and state code, and if requirements were not met within the thirty-day time period, and if they gave no response, it would be presumed complete and would have six months to provide a formal application. Planner Gerhardt commented that it was a given hold period within the letter to find issues and let them know ahead of time what needed to be added or changed. Boardmember Adcock mentioned that the first thirty days were when ARB looked at the feedback included in the complete or incomplete letters. Planner Gerhardt stated that if issues had been found earlier it was easier to address and fix within the time. Boardmember Hirsch asked if the SB 330s applications were allowed to be advanced, and if Council saw [interrupted] Planner Raybould responded that Council did not see the SB 330 projects. Planner Gerhardt explained that the SB 330 projects had slim plan set that had a form required to fill out that gave the six-month frozen period; it did not include sections and details that were pertinent, but larger issues could be seen when reviewed. Boardmember Adcock clarified that there was not much to assess and get information to pull from. Planner Raybould agreed. Vice Chair Rosenberg noted she heard that it gave the opportunity to allocate the bigger issues within the plans. Boardmember Hirsch indicated that they would not be able to see issues such as garbage with the minute information. Vice Chair Rosenberg commented that they should due to having the site plan included. Planner Raybould added that the floor plans were not always provided for information on the certain room areas. Chair Baltay stated that the objective when started was that within the six month period they were not having site plans formed it allowed the ARB a chance to give input on the field designs as they progressed Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of February 29, 2024 Packet Pg. 183 Page 23 of 35 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 02/29/24 with their site plans; the ad hoc committee was what gave insight to ARB’s preferences when going before City officials, and allowed early projects to be applicant friendly. Planner Gerhardt noted that they should not prejudge a project before it was completed and formed. Chair Baltay responded that there had been frustrations and statements within projects well formed, but site plans would be an improvement. Boardmember Hirsch stated that if reviewed at an early stage, the ad hoc committee would be precise when opinions and comments were made instead of just disagreeing or being concerned about an issue. Planner Gerhardt commented that ARB would inquire when unsure of code sections or details, and that would lead discussions geared towards the issues. Planner Raybould mentioned that it should be less about what was discussed, and instead informing the developers of the objective standards related to privacy and issues within the design, and then having them present how the project would meet the standards. Boardmember Adcock asked if in terms of the processes if it were deemed complete and within the six- month period, would the ad hoc committee still give advice when the applicant inquired, or would the ARB be responsible for contacting the applicant. Planner Raybould replied it was difficult to determine the interaction between the two parties; the ARB looked over the plans and made a public report in a hearing setting without discussions relayed between the two. Vice Chair Rosenberg commented that ARB tried to stay non-judgmental and only was ensuring that the information needed included for the project to move forward. Boardmember Adcock stated that the elevations that came with the seventeen-point checklist only gave little information. Planner Gerhardt clarified that there were two early lists, the formal projects and the pre-screening SB 330 projects that had limited information but were early enough in the stage to have issues addressed. The formal projects had a full plan set that allowed additions when in the review process. Planner Raybould said the difficulty as they moved forward was the projects under Builders Remedy, which have not had formal applications filed yet but had potential to. Planner Gerhardt noted there were seven Builders Remedy projects with pre-applications on file currently. Planner Raybould added that the concept of Builders Remedy was to have the option not to comply with the requirements. Planner Gerhardt mentioned that the Council, attorneys, and management were doing their best to address issues that helped progress projects, such as building new zone areas for Builder Remedy projects. Chair Baltay stated that an ad hoc committee on a project was publicly noticed and if the applicant wanted to interact with the ARB on questions, it would fall upon the ad hoc committee to give advice. He said that Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of February 29, 2024 Packet Pg. 184 Page 24 of 35 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 02/29/24 frequently applicants would contact him for advice, which led him to believe it would be better to have a formal process that allowed two Board appointed members to speak with the applicant on what should be formatted before going back to the Board that allowed a forum to reach the public domain. Boardmember Adcock questioned if a project were to come before the Board that had been deemed completed within the six-month period with information that included the plans and elevations, and if at the following ARB meeting it would be brought forward as a non-agenda item to be discussed. Planner Raybould commented that if that were to happen, they had to report it. Chair Baltay mentioned that the Chair would then ask the committee to report what was disclosed during the meeting. Boardmember Adcock inquired if that was published in the previous week’s meeting. Planner Raybould answered no, that was considered items under Board member information if an issue needed reported [interrupted] Chair Baltay said that what he wanted for the ad hoc committee was if the applicant had a meeting with Staff, the ad hoc would be present when the project was discussed; what he would like to have happen was committee members found time and Staff would coordinate with that. Planner Raybould commented that it had potential to being helpful but could also be hindered depending on the number of ad hoc committees they participated in, and the Staff’s interaction with the meetings. Planner Gerhardt responded that was why the city had an ARB preliminary process that was not utilized. Planner Raybould clarified that it was the applicants who were not utilizing the preliminary processes. Vice Chair Rosenberg noted that they needed to practice caution in the legal sense as they did not want to give the applicant or public the impression that with the ad hoc committee, they approved to some extent. Planner Gerhardt added or gave the impression that they had an extra step to give time for decisions. Vice Chair Rosenberg agreed and stated that the applicant needed clarified that it was not extra time added, but a resource utilized. Boardmember Adcock mentioned that with the SB 330 projects, they advised on certain compliance items or wavers that needed approval and made it easier at it only came before the Board once. She gave an example if six SB projects came before them, only about half would want to set up a meeting. Chair Baltay stressed that the ad hoc committee should not proactively involve themselves with the projects; if an applicant did not want the feedback, it would go unwanted. Boardmember Chen asked if any of the formal projects that had already been through the review process come before the Board. Planner Raybould asked if Boardmember Chen was referring to the preliminary review process, and if so that it would come in front of the Board. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of February 29, 2024 Packet Pg. 185 Page 25 of 35 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 02/29/24 Boardmember Chen inquired if any new projects with recent ad hoc committees assigned had been before a full Board meeting. Boardmember Hirsch added it depended on what was considered a preliminary submission. Vice Chair Rosenberg referred to a project her and Boardmember Hirsch had gone over that did not include enough information, and had since come before the Board [interrupted] Planner Raybould commented that the 420 Acactia had an ad hoc that included Boardmember Hirch and Rosenberg. [Crosstalk] Boardmember Chen asked if any positive changes had been noticed since the introduction of the ad hoc committees. Vice Chair Rosenberg responded she had seen productive changes that allowed clarity before brought before the Board; they had instances were advice and feedback had not been received by the applicant, but the ad hoc ensured that the choice was open for them to utilize. Chair Baltay mentioned that the feedback he had received from architects was the need for more interaction with the ARB earlier than the formal application; the preliminary process costed the applicant substantial amounts with application fees and having the set plans prepared. Clients are less inclined to want to take the time and spend the money to go through the process of getting a preliminary review done and would prefer a less formal setting. Planner Raybould stated that it was expected of Staff to ensure the opinions of the Board pertained to the project, and more experienced Staff are knowledgeable to the issues unlike newer Planner’s who had not gone before the ARB and did not know what to expect from their feedback. Planner Gerhardt noted that Staff had been complemented on how prepared they had been for the Board and provided pertinent information within a reasonable time. Chair Baltay commented that the purpose of the discussion was to question how they were to continue forward and if there were substantial changes that needed to be made. Boardmember Adcock inquired if the idea were for projects that had come before the Board for a preliminary review more than once to have an ad hoc committee assigned, and if not, would feedback need to be given in between the reviews. Chair Baltay replied that as Chair, he did not differentiate between the types of projects, but rather if it were a significant project that would be benefitted to the city or had an impact on the area; giving the example of a large development that included over 500 partners being a project an ad hoc should be involved in. Planner Raybould said that Staff had not done a respectable job of presenting the option throughout the process, and if that were the intent, they would start to notify applicants to utilize the resources available should they want to. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of February 29, 2024 Packet Pg. 186 Page 26 of 35 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 02/29/24 Chair Baltay noted that it was still a new process, and they were still adjusting and discussing the issues that needed to be addressed. He referred to an instance that Staff had contacted him to discuss issues on a project, and felt a better way to handle that situation would to be assign an ad hoc committee to a follow up project after it had been approved that provided the Board what was the final build, what had been changed, and if the goals had been met. Planner Raybould stated she was hesitant to agree to that due to the considerable number of projects that were before her. [Crosstalk] Planner Raybould wanted to have a discussion when a project was completed. [Crosstalk] Vice Chair Rosenberg mentioned that there was an easier way to address a post approval that needed to be brought before the default ad hoc that included the Chair and Vice Chair [interrupted] Chair Baltay said anything that Staff had been questioned on, was brought before the Chair, but he suggested having the ad hoc committee that worked on the project answer the questions. Planner Gerhardt responded that she had hoped the approval and proposal plans were sent as a single unit. [Crosstalk] Boardmember Hirsch added that his opinion was the first meeting should not be the client bringing their proposal before the Board, but have a preliminary meeting with a pre-approval stage that the committee deciphered whether the project had major issues to be addressed, and how it should be discussed; he inquired how after the project had been looked at would they share the information. Chair Baltay clarified Boardmember Hirsch was referring to specific projects that would be included in the early-stage ad hoc meeting. Planner Gerhardt replied that the early-staged ad hoc committees were adding projects to the list seen at the next hearing, and the Chair would review and assign a committee. The projects included webpages with plan sets they were allowed access to. Planner Raybould stated that she was behind in sending emails, but she would do her best to give the web page information to the ad hoc committees. Chair Baltay commented that Staff was great at keeping the ARB informed on projects. Everyone supported the basic assigning of a project and the support of an idea that was dismissed, but the question was do they want to keep the process of an early assigned ad hoc committee. Boardmember Chen inquired about [low microphone] Chair Baltay replied that all the members were working on two to three projects, and he did not think [interrupted] Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of February 29, 2024 Packet Pg. 187 Page 27 of 35 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 02/29/24 Planner Raybould mentioned that if advertised to the applicant the ARB would have more available access, they would have had more projects come in and have that kept in mind; if a situation were to arise before the Board, and they used Staff as a resource for changes or feedback that needed to be made, they would give the necessary advice but would not be present for every meeting it involved. Vice Chair Rosenberg noted that the intent was not to be a free design guide for the applicants but a resource, and the ARB should be careful on how they approached their access to the public. [Crosstalk] Boardmember Hirsch stated that it would stretch the ARB further than they intended and should focus on the significant issues that needed to be discussed by the Board; it was important to focus on how they worded what item was allowed to be discussed. Planner Raybould cautioned that on these certain projects the feedback needed to be objective in a sense of a reminder to the applicant there were codes related to this issue, as well as influencing a site due to personal preferences. The role of the ad hoc needed to limit the design of what was proposed to the ARB. Boardmember Hirsch agreed with her statement. Boardmember Chen referred to an apartment complex project on El Camino that the Board all agreed had problems with circulation issues they had fixed by reducing the 400-foot distance to two hundred, but it was not in the code language. Planner Raybould wondered if that had been feedback the ARB could have provided as an ad hoc committee. Chair Baltay stated that the role of the committee would be to bring the project before the Board as a whole and officially announce the circulation of the building should be considered carefully, and have appropriate comments provided. Without an application in front of the Board, a judgement could not be made on the item, but they would know it was an issue; the applicant was owed the feedback because having latest information added later was difficult. Vice Chair Rosenberg commented that the Board had the capacity to say what to be aware of in a design plan to the applicant to have an opportunity to decide. Planner Raybould said that would be where Staff had more leeway when they provided formal comments or discussions with the applicant on the feedback given. Boardmember Adcock referred to the 200-foot change in distance the ARB had provided that was enforced by Staff or Board, but a suggested change. Unless they had a reason to not approve an application, which resulted in being a judgmental decision [interrupted] Planner Gerhardt said if the ARB had specific findings, they would disapprove of the application. Chair Baltay mentioned that opinions should be based on the issues found, and in the case, they had discussed, the end of the review helped to suggest the functionality needed to progress the project. It was difficult for Staff to notice because it was related to the building codes and fire safety that they had not Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of February 29, 2024 Packet Pg. 188 Page 28 of 35 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 02/29/24 been well versed in. If there were the two ad hoc committee members sitting in on Staff discussions with the applicant, the public would be more inclined to listen to Staff feedback. Boardmember Hirsch felt it benefited the planning of the project having the procedure in place having the elaborate details earlier on in the process. Chair Baltay stated that they had consistent support for the process they had been practicing, and asked the Board if that was a fair statement. The board acknowledged their agreement. Chair Baltay inquired if the Chair was the best way to have ad hoc committees assigned. Boardmember Hirsch replied it was fine how they had done it. Vice Chair Rosenberg commented that Chair Baltay had been fair in distributing members between the projects and [interrupted] Chair Baltay said he would not be Chair much longer, and asked if it would be good practice for the Board to address the issue, or would Staff be the better party to appoint the ad hoc members. Vice Chair Rosenberg answered that the Chair had worked well on assigning the members of the committee. Boardmember Adcock noted that most times the Board volunteered a proposed project. [Crosstalk] Boardmember Adcock inquired if there would be an ad hoc committee assigned to each project, other than minor issues, and if so, then the Chair assignment of volunteers was a minor part of the discussion. Chair Baltay responded that as of now, the Chair decided which projects needed an ad hoc subcommittee and then appointed them, and asked if that was how it should be run. Boardmember Adcock thought it was the Chair’s decision on which projects benefitted from an ad hoc committee, and ideally those with interest in the project would volunteer. Planner Gerhardt added that the way Chair Baltay had been announcing the assigned ad hoc committees at public hearings were open to the public. Chair Baltay stated that the question to Staff was are they complying with how to assign the committee. Planner Gerhardt responded that she had thought so. Chair Baltay closed the discussion. ARB took a thirty-five-minute lunch break and returned with all Board and Staff members present. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of February 29, 2024 Packet Pg. 189 Page 29 of 35 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 02/29/24 4. Discussion of Meeting and Review Process Chair Baltay introduced the item. He inquired everyone about their feedback on how meetings were run, whether they had taken too long and if they were discussing items thoroughly. At the start of a project, they would have individual disclosures from the Board members that had been previously discussed, and Staff would have a presentation on what was being conversed over; he stated there would typically be questions after the presentation. The applicant would have a presentation as well, and there was going to be a required public comment that followed; if a member of the public spoke, the applicant would be allowed a rebuttal. Once all comments and rebuttals were finished, there would be discussions followed by a motion and action and would end with the minority of people getting the chance to have their votes addressed. When Chair Baltay had first been elected the Chair, he stated the meetings ranged about an hour in length, and felt they had wasted time on issues, but now felt the opposite as the applicant should be allowed to have enough time to review the projects; he wanted the Boards consensus on the matter. Boardmember Adcock inquired if they could hold questions until after the Staff and applicant presentations so both parties would be allowed to respond. Chair Baltay responded they were going to ask Staff questions after their presentation, so they related to the Staff’s issues; examples such as questions that regarded zoning and policy issues not related to the design. He liked to use questions to lead to ideas on what he wanted to discuss and helped his fellow colleagues understand what he had thought and asked for some input from the Board. Vice Chair Rosenberg asked if they wanted to let the applicant give the presentation, then hold public comment, and then Board questions, which was different from the usual meeting agenda. Chair Baltay wanted clarification whether it was questions to or from the applicant. Vice Chair Rosenberg replied to the applicant, and if there were typically questions directly after the applicant presented. Chair Baltay answered they did, but they gave the public a chance to speak so the applicant had to read what the public wanted, so he combined both areas together. Vice Chair Rosenberg inquired if at the end they were having questions for the applicant and then they would have a formal discussion on ARB where the discussion was closed. Chair Baltay suggested they allowed the public to speak after the Board had asked all their questions to help separate the discussion. Boardmember Chen stated that it would be better if the public had provided comments before the Board, so they had a better understanding of what the neighborhood thought of the proposal and what their concerns were. Chair Baltay questioned whether they allowed the public to speak earlier in the process, right after Staff presented, and before the applicant presented their proposal. [Crosstalk] Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of February 29, 2024 Packet Pg. 190 Page 30 of 35 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 02/29/24 Planner Raybould said she would prefer the public speak as soon as possible so they did not have to wait if they were short on time; she referred to Planning Commission meeting from the previous night, and they had stopped public comment as it had started a round of questions that would be answered by the Public Works Division discussion. Chair Baltay expressed his observation that the more questions asked, the more thoroughly the projects were analyzed; why he was indulgent on having more questions asked. Vice Chair Rosenberg commented that she had seen meetings that Staff gave a presentation and the Board had no questions that needed approval, it had been a good experience but Palo Alto did not have the level of review for residential; as they worked with larger scaled projects with more directed impact on the City if brought back before the Board for a second hearing, they could be more efficient with time for questions. Chair Baltay stated that the real question was if they were spending too much time on discussions during meetings. Boardmember Chen mentioned that the discussions were what the Board spent their time on, and if they limited the explanation of code languages it would allow more time for public comment. Planner Raybould responded that the time discussed on objective standards was difficult, as Staff had been trying to better understand the Objective Standards that regarded the consensus, how the standards were viewed, what changes needed made on projects, and have clarified what was expected. Staff tried to limit the number of projects added to the agenda due to time constraints; they still had difficulty with agenda management but tried to have projects spread evenly. Chair Baltay commented that there needed to be better schedule management due to colleagues in the professional community that had complained about slowed processes and meeting scheduling, and the Board could have more than one project at a time. Planner Raybould asked if it had been recently the complaints were made, as she did not feel Staff had an issue with scheduling. Planner Gerhardt indicated that the projects had not been scheduled due to not being completed. [Crosstalk] Chair Baltay replied that he would rather have the projects compressed as that gave applicants an opportunity to be heard as the time invested was costly. Planner Raybould noted that in a worst-case scenario they were unable to get to a project, it would be continued to a later date. Vice Chair Rosenberg felt it would be appropriate if there were a scheduled meeting that had limited speak time focused on the project so it would be efficient to keep a structured agenda; the trade-off would be the quickness of the meeting for depth and quality of feedback. Chair Baltay questioned whether a hearing could be limited to an hour for each topic, and if it were timed properly. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of February 29, 2024 Packet Pg. 191 Page 31 of 35 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 02/29/24 Vice Chair Rosenberg answered that it depended on the number of public feedback comments; if it were a smaller meeting it would be doable, but larger projects needed the time and attention to review. Boardmember Hirsch added that on major projects, there should be a double back opportunity towards the end of the meeting that covered any issues between the Board members before they voted. Vice Chair Rosenberg suggested a two minute per person summary session, to which Boardmember Hirsch agreed. Chair Baltay stated that he observed other Boards in City Council that made motions early in the process, so they gained control of the review process, and asked if that was something the ARB needed to consider. Vice Chair Rosenberg voiced that she had liked the way they run the meetings and appreciated the way Chair Baltay had brought up the discussion, as well as his attempted build for consensus; the invaluable aspect of the ARB Board was how they took every one’s opinion into account. Chair Baltay asked Planner Gerhardt for her opinion on the issue. Planner Gerhardt responded that there had been many changes in the law over the last few years and tried to remind her planners of that as well; and as her being a veteran planner she still had relearned parts of her profession. [Crosstalk] Planner Raybould noted that if they had one round of questions it would help to consolidate the time. Chair Baltay inquired when the best time to hold questions on a project during the meeting would be. Planner Raybould commented that it should be after the Staff, applicant, and public had given their comments to better understand the discussion. Boardmember Adcock mentioned that the questions ARB had from reading reports from Staff were changed due to applicants who had added information to their presentations that helped answer questions asked. Vice Chair Rosenberg said that if presentations overlapped it would be beneficial for time and helped compile questions that gave an open discussion towards the end. Boardmember Adcock added that the scale and complexity of a project helped determine the length of discussions; larger projects would be difficult to minimize discussions to an hour as they had more involved planning. Chair Baltay mentioned Planner Raybould wrote down better integration of Boards, commissions, and council. He said the City Council had decided not to appoint a council to the Architectural Review Board, and that he always had private interactions with Council members and found reaching out to them valuable; they would be contacted about the Bird Safety issue that was brought up. Planner Raybould stated that the Chair was the key in leadership, and how Chair Baltay managed his position was what she had expected. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of February 29, 2024 Packet Pg. 192 Page 32 of 35 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 02/29/24 Chair Baltay indicated that there were no comments made on how interactions with PTC had been informal, and the City Council had wanted to find a separate way of working with Planning and Commission. Boardmember Hirsch commented that it had been talked about with other Council members but had yet to make plans to work together. Chair Baltay encouraged the Board to be initiative-taking and to reach out to Council members as it could be rewarding and would have influence in making decisions. He formulated a leadership selection could be held every year and when Chair and Vice-Chair were elected, he felt they should be allowed to be selected only if reappointed by Council; he felt for the betterment of the Board, they needed a leadership that had been reinforced and had the confidence of the Council. He viewed it important to have Council’s support and with two members up for reappointment, he made it a point to ensure they appointed the right members for the job. He said he was not reviewing the social events topic and moved to the annual report. The annual report needed the Chair to take the lead role in drafting and reporting what is brought before the Board for review. Planner Gerhardt stated that the by-laws state the Chair draft’s the report. Chair Baltay responded that ARB by-laws call for the leadership election to be held every June, even though the Council handbook states otherwise. Planner Raybould answered that elections were held in April. Planner Gerhardt mentioned that the annual report had to be completed before the Chair’s term, which would be March 31st. Chair Baltay inquired if that was this month. Planner Raybould confirmed that was correct. [Crosstalk] Planner Raybould commented that the annual report looked back on the work that had been done, and the work plan was what would happen throughout the next year. Vice Chair Rosenberg questioned who would produce a work plan if they did not know what would come through the docket. Planner Raybould answered that the work plan was broader so in terms of the individual projects, their role was to review the projects; Staff helped provide feedback to be prepared for what was brought before the Board, and what was accomplished throughout the year. Planner Gerhardt mentioned that the Council’s work plan that Staff had done for ARB had been uploaded to the webpage, as well as the by-laws. Planner Raybould said that they tried to draft together with Council, and then had it brought to the Board for feedback between April and early May. The work plan was returned to the Council by the end of May to be looked over and organized with the Planning Commission. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of February 29, 2024 Packet Pg. 193 Page 33 of 35 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 02/29/24 Vice Chair Rosenberg asked if the work plan was drafted by the Chair, and if it was due by March 31st. Planner Raybould responded she believed so but was currently trying to get a definitive date. They had a Council session on Monday that decided how they would work out the processes. Chair Baltay stated that he thought no one should be elected Chair until they had Council appointments. Planner Raybould responded that she personally agreed with that statement. Vice Chair Rosenberg noted that it should be decided before the current Chair and Vice-Chair terms ended in March; if they had not done so, they would not be able to participate in meetings or hearings throughout April. Planner Raybould replied that the way the by-law had been written, they would be allowed to continue to serve until the next appointment. Chair Baltay said the last question for discussion was how they were to get feedback from applicants as he took public and applicant feedback seriously. Vice Chair Rosenberg inquired if there was a survey that the presenters could have filled out at the meeting. Planner Gerhardt stated that one could be made. Planner Raybould replied that a basic survey with five questions would not be difficult. Chair Baltay agreed that would be a good decision. [Crosstalk] Planner Raybould expressed a concern would be the time for it to be reviewed, reflected, and decided on to find the changes that needed to be made. Planner Gerhardt noted that it could be added to the annual report. Chair Baltay referred to the Board and said that when they spoke individually with applicants, they should ask for feedback, as well as their opinion on how the ARB managed the meeting. Boardmember Adcock inquired if they were asking for feedback on ARB’s reviews and approach, not the comments on the project. Chair Baltay said he wanted to give the applicant the opportunity to let the ARB know their thoughts about the process; he frequently had compliments on how the ARB managed the reviews and processes, but the time had been a complaint. Boardmember Adcock added it should be accessible and useful, multiple-choice questions or a space for written comments. Chair Baltay stated that the feedback he had received over the years helped him become a better Boad member and helped to shape design development on projects easier. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of February 29, 2024 Packet Pg. 194 Page 34 of 35 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 02/29/24 Planner Raybould inquired if the Board would be interested in having an onsite visit after a project had finished to see the effect of changes made, and what they could have done differently. Chair Baltay responded that was what the ad hoc committee did once a project was finished. [Crosstalk] Planner Raybould said the idea behind the onsite visit when a project had finished was to have new and old Board members see what a difference something added or changed to a project could have on the site. She was concerned that the ad hoc committees were harder to track year to year, and work was added to Staff by having to research who the members on the ad hoc were for projects. Vice Chair Rosenberg commented that if Staff had items listed with information on completed dates and what stage the project was in, it gave opportunity to provide needed feedback on the project and applicant. Boardmember Hirsch stated that if applied, it needed to be prioritized which projects were significant enough to see what site should be visited. Planner Raybould agreed that some projects had a preference on what was looked at. Vice Chair Rosenberg said there should be an arranged ARB visit to sites specified within the list; she enjoyed seeing finished projects and liked the idea of having a final visit. Boardmember Adcock mentioned that it could be added to the end of the reports when a project was completed with it stating the date, time, and year the ARB had reviewed the project. Chair Baltay asked if they kept the list they had through the course of the project and would it not be removed until completion. Planner Raybould replied that was a lengthy list and it took a long time to review. [Crosstalk] Chair Baltay questioned if the list could be tracked after they had signed it off, the building permit had been issued, and construction completed. Planner Gerhardt responded that the project planner on the item was the one who applied for the building permit. Chair Baltay inquired if the planner assigned to the project could be the responsible party to have the list made. Planner Raybould answered that as the liaison with a list of entitlements updated the list, but the filing of building permits was to access for her. Planner Gerhardt noted that they had to build up the report. Boardmember Hirsch asked what happened when they had a final building inspector review the project. Planner Gerhardt replied that it was planning who made the final building inspections. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of February 29, 2024 Packet Pg. 195 Page 35 of 35 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 02/29/24 Planner Raybould noted that the final planning would not be done until the Planning Department had signed off on the project. Chair Baltay said the ARB was concerned about the final sign off, as the project was considered active until the list had been signed off. Boardmember Adcock mentioned that it would be an idea for Staff when they had signed a project off at the end of construction, have listed all the projects that were completed and signed that month. Vice Chair Rosenberg stated that she liked having dates when the ARB had reviewed the project listed, but if it were a monthly list, it helped shorten the lists. Planner Raybould said that would be reasonable, but she had to have a report created or rely on planners to acknowledge when they had signed off a project. Boardmember Questions, Comments or Announcements None. Adjournment Chair Baltay adjourned the meeting at 1:25 p.m. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of February 29, 2024 Packet Pg. 196 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: July 18, 2024 Report #: 2407-3207 TITLE Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for March 7, 2024 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) adopt the attached meeting minutes. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Minutes of March 7, 2024 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. 197 Page 1 of 34 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 03/07/24 5 0 3 2 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD DRAFT MINUTES: March 07, 2024 Council Chamber & Zoom 8:30 AM Call to Order / Roll Call The Architectural Review Board (ARB) of the City of Palo Alto met on March 7, 2024 in Council Chambers and virtual teleconference at 8:33 a.m. Present: Chair Peter Baltay, Vice Chair Kendra Rosenberg, Boardmember Yingxi Chen, Boardmember David Hirsch, Boardmember Adcock Absent: None Oral Communications Administrative Associate III Veronica Dao stated there were two cards submitted for public comment. Kaitlyn Parkins on Zoom stated she was a coordinator of the glass collisions program from the American Bird Conservancy and showed support for a bird safe design ordinance. They educated architects on buildings were made safer, created resources for policy makers and advocates, and had developed a testing and rating system for bird friendly materials. Manufactured environments were a hazard that contributed to the decline of birds, such as collisions with building windows. Bird friendly designs did not require a tradeoff views and sunlight the glass provided, as there were different options in the designs to alter windows that provided safety. She commented that the elements of bird friendly designs needed to be considered at the beginning of the project and conducted until the building was completed. Ms. Parkins thanked the Board. Lynda Heidman on Zoom was a resident of Palo Alto and wanted to discuss the bird safe designs and light pollution. She said that birds did not see glass as an obstacle, either from transparency or it reflected an image of a potential habitat. The Smithsonian stated that forty-four percent of fatal bird collisions happened in mixed-commercial areas with buildings that were three to four stories high. Bird safe glass designs needed to be required for all new construction, as well as existing buildings being retrofitted with the options available to architects. The artificial lights and sky glow around the buildings disoriented and harmed birds and gave two examples of how. Palo Alot sat on the Pacific Flyway that was critical to the birds that migrated between the Arctic and South America in the Spring and Fall. Ms. Heidman thanked the Board. Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of March 7, 2024 Packet Pg. 198 Page 2 of 34 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 03/07/24 5 0 3 2 Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Senior Planner and Architectural Review Board (ARB) Liaison Claire Raybould indicated there were no Agenda changes, additions, or deletions. City Official Reports 1. Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2) Tentative Future Agenda items and 3) Recently Submitted Projects Senior Planner Raybould reported there was a change in the agenda, and the March 21st hearing was cancelled. On April 4th they planned on continuing the advanced water purification system project, informational report on the stream setback ordinance, and added the work plan discussion for ARB’s next agenda. April 18th the 660 University and North Venture coordinated area plan was being held; they intended to release the draft EIR for the coordinated area plan on March 8th, and after the Study Session the ARB and public would be allowed to make comments on the draft. A new project for the Buena Vista Mobile Home Park had come in with a formal application, and it had been taken in front of Council on Monday and was in the initial review point. They had two SB 330 projects on 7381 El Camino Real for 169 residential rental units, and another on 3606 El Camino Real for 315 units; they included merging multiple lots together that created the resulted parcel on the proposed Builders Remedy projects. She asked if an ad hoc committee would be assigned to either project. Chair Baltay responded yes and had looked at the list of what had not been assigned and asked if there were projects missing such as the Buena Vista project. Planner Raybould stated she had to look in her notes if he wanted to put a hold on the discussion. Chair Baltay commented there were many projects that lacked ad hoc committees and was going to confer with the Vice-Chair on an appropriate distribution of members. Planner Raybould agreed and thanked Chair Baltay. Chair Baltay made a comment to the Board that the April 4th hearing they were going to review the annual work plan and have it reported back to Council and the Planning Commission; he was creating a draft and it would be ready for distribution and review in advance to be prepared for feedback and comments. Action Items 2. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. Eight hundred San Antonio Road [23PLN-00010]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Rezoning from Service Commercial to Planned Community/Planned Home Zoning and to allow construction of Seventy-five residential ownership units, sixteen of which would be below-market rate units (21% of the units). The proposed building is 5-stories with two levels of subterranean parking. The project also includes Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of March 7, 2024 Packet Pg. 199 Page 3 of 34 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 03/07/24 5 0 3 2 a subdivision map to merge two adjacent lots to create a resulting 0.88-acre parcel. Environmental Assessment: Addendum to the Housing Incentive Program Expansion and 788 San Antonio Mixed Use Project EIR (SCH # 2019090070). Zoning District: CS (Commercial Service). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Emily Kallas at Emily.Kallas@CityofPaloAlto.org. Chair Baltay introduced the item and called for staff’s presentation and asked for Board disclosures. Boardmember Hirsch stated he visited the site. Vice Chair Rosenberg said she visited the site. Chair Baltay disclosed he visited the site the previous day. Boardmember Chen commented that she visited the site. Boardmember Adcock stated she drove by but had not been onto the site. Project Planner Emily Kallas introduced the PC zoning PHZ project, which had a pre-screening in August of 2022 and followed with a formal application in January of 2023. Staff had been on going, but the initial PTC hearing was in June 2023, the Architectural Review Board hearing was held in August, and they returned in March. If ARB made the recommendation on this project, it would move forward to Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) for approval, then to City Council. It was located on San Antonio Road in the housing incentive program area, however, because it was a Planned Home Zone (PHZ) project the development standards were proposed as a discretionary project and exceeded what was allowed by Host Information Profile (HIP), which had a higher development standard for the underlying Service Commercial Zoning district. The building was a seventy-five-unit condominium that had five-stories, twenty-one percent was affordable to low- and moderate-income residents, and included two levels of below grade parking with one hundred and forty-eight spaces; there was no parking reduction asked for this site. The requested exceptions to the development standards that were located in Attachment D, on the zoning comparison table asked for a 2.99 floor area ratio instead of the 0.4 to 1.0 that was currently allowed, a sixty percent lot coverage where only fifty percent was allowed, a sixty foot height where fifty foot was allowed, an approximate 1,000 square foot of retail used where 1,5000 square foot was the minimum required, a reduced on-site open space requirement for certain units, and that balconies and patio areas were projected by six inches around the corners of the front setbacks that ran along San Antonio, which sat at twenty-five feet. As a PHZ project, it had to display a public benefit to balance development standards; when brought before City Council and was approved, they presented options on how the affordable housing would be a benefit and gave an example of providing weight with five low- income units and seven poverty income units. The project included fifty-two two- bedroom units, seven one-bedroom units, and the rest were three bedrooms. Ms. Kallas presented slides showing the changes made since the August hearing, with the revised design on the right. They added a retail space that made it no longer a residential site, opened the Gym and Clubhouse amenity areas to the Courtyard as per recommendation of the ARB, Bicycle racks had been added to the front of the building, additional detail to the floor plan layouts were provided, and changed the distribution of open space, notably the private Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of March 7, 2024 Packet Pg. 200 Page 4 of 34 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 03/07/24 5 0 3 2 open space in the Courtyard with two units shown on the upper half of the site were relocated to the corners of the design at ARB’s recommendation. She showed a section view of the second floor, with the upper floors being stepped back to provide additional light to the Courtyard. An important note she had made was initially the balconies were only five feet in depth, when the usable open space described in the development standards was six feet, so that had been adjusted to meet the requirements. Since the ARB they had added a roof deck to increase the usability of open space and provided the potential for increased sun lighting in the Courtyard, which was surrounded by four side walls. The proposed materials for the project included fiber, cement panels, metal panels, metal trim, and glass windows. They had changed the refining of the front entry to demonstrate that it was a two-story building, with a warm brown tone color to the ground floor elements, a more solid roof overhang was added to the fifth floor, and the newly added roof deck amenity space. The ARB had made a comment on cutting off the second-floor entry element, so now it was an open, two-story clear element with an addition of a retail space with added additional façade areas that gave a human scale element to the first floor; they had modified the color to warm tones on the ground floor. She showed an image of a clarified and demarcated private space on the ground level on the rear façade, as well as site elevations that had the warm brown color that wrapped around the side of the building. As this site was near 824 San Antonio and 788 San Antonio, the design had a streetscape that helped show the scale of adjacent structures due to the proposed sixty- foot instead of the allowed fifty-foot. The sixty foot eight inches was measured from the top of the parapet, it included additional equipment on the roof, as well as trellis elements in the roof deck that was a maximum height of sixty-four foot, however the mechanical elements in the underlying code were allowed to have up to fifteen feet with no daylight plane requirements to accommodate the items. All units included private open spaces, with balconies and patios that ranged from sixty square feet to over two hundred square feet: the median being at ninety. When added and averaged out, the units with smaller balconies fell short of the one hundred and fifty feet per unit open space calculation, but there were units that had exceeded the limit. The minimum dimension required for the Courtyard was forty feet in both directions, but they had proposed a fifty-two-foot wide with a length of sixty-two foot; the step backs to the upper floor were set at seventy-two feet wide and helped allow sunlight to shine on the Courtyard. A combination of hardscaped and landscaped areas was available to the common open space, with a green wall vertical garden feature and outdoor furniture both on the Courtyard and on the roof. There were ten trees proposed for removal, with seven to be planted and the equivalent of twenty-four trees would be paid as in lieu fees. In the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQU) review, the certified 788 San Antonio Road and housing incentive program extension Environmental Impact Report (EIR) covered the area for this type of development, but it had exceeded the development standards that were anticipated on an addendum that declared no new or significant impacts were to occur because of this project, so the adapted mitigation measures applied under the EIR on this project. The proposed motion was that Staff recommended the Architectural Review Board’s approval of this project to City Council. She ended her presentation and introduced the applicant Mark Donahue and his presentation. Design Director at LY Architecture Mark Donahue thanked the Board for allowing him to come back for another presentation and had met the recommendations ARB had given in the previous hearing. He gave a view of the building from San Antonio and showed a warm toned image of the special setback. On the ground floor there had been an addition to the commercial space and the quiet and active fitness use Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of March 7, 2024 Packet Pg. 201 Page 5 of 34 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 03/07/24 5 0 3 2 community spaces were placed to the bottom elevation of the Courtyard. The unit plans were included in the bound set and had a detailed slide showing each unit. The landscaping had been softened along the front of the building as had been requested by ARB, and the existent open space on the ground floor had been moved away from the main activity areas; with images of the landscaping refinement and addressed the tree issue as they had moved them to the main Courtyard that would allow sun lighting. The roof deck had been designed as a casual play and recreation space, with the play area at the bottom and the social on top; they would be reached by a main elevator core. Per ARB recommendation, they increased all balconies to six feet on each side and were directed to not go over the special setback line, so all balconies and patios would be behind the twenty-five-foot zone in front of the building. The back balconies encroached further onto the rear setback, which was allowed under the zoning code. They were unable to meet the onsite trash pick-up request due to the maneuvering of the trucks within Green Waste’s requirements, and showed a slide on why it was unable to be done; they proposed having a service use bulb out on site as other buildings in the area had done. They increased the clearance on a ramp leading into the basement so panel trucks would be allowed to access the lower level, and other service elements that did not clear the fourteen-foot clearance height would be used as well. They had opened the front portal of the building as requested and gave the design more articulation and texture to the materials used; referred to the striated version on the panel board. The balconies were designed to be a figure on the ground of elevation, which allowed added depth due to the increase in size. Chair Baltay called for Public Comment prior to the Boards questions. PUBLIC COMMENT Administrative Associate Veronica Dao stated there were no speaker cards submitted. Chair Baltay closed the meeting to Public Comment and opened the floor to Board member questions. Boardmember Adcock commented that the planters and renders were well designed, but questioned how the soil for the ground level trees would be maintained; referred to the courtyard level slide to show the planter area proposed. Planner Raybould asked Boardmember Adcock if she had reviewed the previous meeting and video. Boardmember Adcock answered she had. Mr. Donahue responded that the parking garage level had three square feet more than was required for clearance of vehicle traffic, so the trees would be placed inside the garage in raised planters which allowed sufficient space for the root ball of the trees. Boardmember Adcock inquired if the bottom South stairs between the unit and commercial space’s exit passageway were code compliant at the three by seven feet. Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of March 7, 2024 Packet Pg. 202 Page 6 of 34 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 03/07/24 5 0 3 2 Mr. Donahue stated that it was a code complaint of forty-four inches. Boardmember Adcock questioned if it met code with the push able clearances on the door. Mr. Donahue responded it was not required on emergency exits, the door only needed a panic bar installed; it was assumed that the door would be used as an exit only, so the pull requirement was not applicable. Boardmember Adcock asked if the perforated metal on the panel board was shown to scale. Mr. Donahue replied that if it were made to scale it would not fit on the board. Boardmember Adcock asked if there was a size limit on the board. Mr. Donahue stated that it was eighteen by fourteen; what the panel showed was an eighth of the scale of the original patterns. Boardmember Adcock inquired how big the openings were. Mr. Donahue answered they were made to be decorative not performative but allowed some privacy. Vice Chair Rosenberg questioned if a four-inch sphere would fit through the opening; was regarding bird clearance safety. Mr. Donahue responded they were not used for guardrails; after he had heard the public comments they would take into consideration a bird safe design. Boardmember Adcock commented that from the scale of the drawings on the design patterns they needed to adjust the sample board to clarify the intended size of the materials. Vice Chair Rosenberg inquired what the depth of the green vertical wall was. Mr. Donahue answered that they had not designed a section for it yet, they were typically twelve to sixteen inches. Vice Chair Rosenberg questioned what the timeline for the project was to be maintained. Mr. Donahue replied it was the responsibility of the Homeowners Association (HOA). Vice Chair Rosenberg asked Staff if there was a way to ensure the green wall would be maintained, if an open trellis with no accents would change the aesthetic of the courtyard. Planner Kallas stated that it was standard for approval that maintenance of landscaping was included and would have it added to the plans. Vice Chair Rosenberg inquired if the below market rate units had a percentage on a single type of unit or if it were mixed. Mr. Donahue answered it was required by law to mix the proportions. Boardmember Chen asked if there were any windows in the bicycle rooms. Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of March 7, 2024 Packet Pg. 203 Page 7 of 34 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 03/07/24 5 0 3 2 Mr. Donahue responded that the public had said they did not want visibility into the rooms, so they had not added them. Boardmember Chen inquired about the route in which the retail tenants used to access the trash receptacles. Mr. Donahue commented that the Staff would bring the carts to the front door and cross the sidewalk to the staged trash area. Chair Baltay questioned how far the water table needed to be dug for the basement. Mr. Donahue answered that the Geotechnical report set the water table level at eight to twelve feet below grade, and they were going twenty feet below the water table. Chair Baltay asked if they had decided to construct a see-cannot wall or a drawdown. Mr. Donahue replied that the civil engineer said there was not sufficient information to produce a qualified response; they were going to implement the best practices that worked for the site. Chair Baltay inquired to Staff if there was a policy or practice within the Town that described how to move forward on this issue as they had faced the problems on other projects. Planner Kalas responded that it was typically required see-cannot walls that assisted in the dewatering that was required. Chair Baltay asked if it would be resolved at the building permit application stage. Planner Kallas answered at both the building permit application stage and the Public Works grading permit that was required for excavation. Chair Baltay questioned if Staff had received any feedback from the public on the dewatering or depth below the water table on this project. Planner Kallas replied they had not received any public comments that asked specifically about the water table depth. Boardmember Hirsch inquired how the rainwater retention-detention would be managed in the Courtyard. Mr. Donahue stated that they were relying on the perimeter of the Courtyard to control the storm water management; it would be storm water that was drained into the storm sewer system. Boardmember Hirsch asked if the perimeter had been calculated to ensure it worked for the site. Mr. Donahue replied that it had. Boardmember Hirsch inquired if there was detention to the rooftop of the site. Mr. Donahue responded that the water source was to be higher than the detention area, and if placed on the rooftop the water needed to be pumped up to the roof. Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of March 7, 2024 Packet Pg. 204 Page 8 of 34 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 03/07/24 5 0 3 2 Boardmember Hirsch suggested that the water source could be ancillary to the water collection site if rainwater were detained to the roof. Mr. Donahue replied that the civil engineering team had done the ground-based approach due to the current knowledge of best cost practices; if the planters were placed on the roof, it needed long-term maintenance which was costly, with them being on the ground level it allowed it to be more maintenance free. Boardmember Hirsch clarified that they had explored that as an option and had found it to be unfeasible. Mr. Donahue answered that was correct. Chair Baltay addressed Staff on the Environmental Impact Report for 788 San Antonio, and asked if they had considered the traffic impact from this project and how it was calculated. Planner Kallas stated that they did not mention they had CEQUA consultants Nichole Yee and Karly Kaufman from Zoom. Senior Planner Jodi Gerhardt commented that the Environmental Impact Report done for 788 San Antonio was combined with the EIR that placed the HIP on the entire corridor of San Antonio, so it was anticipated a similar project would be constructed along the street. Chair Baltay inquired if additional parking requirements were included with the seventy-five new units within the study for the EIR. Karly Kaufman with Rincon Consultants said the EIR that the project was prepared for the entire housing implementation program expansion along the corridor; the original EIR examined transportation impacts associated with the housing developments along the corridor. Under CEQUA traffic congestion was no longer an impact, so they looked at vehicle miles driven instead. This project was originally aimed at developing up to ninety-four units instead of seventy-five. Chair Baltay said that the calculations shown for the open space were slightly below the one hundred and fifty square foot per unit average, but the applicant mentioned that they had not considered the courtyard and was over what was required. Planner Kallas answered that the applicant’s calculations included the front setback space that was not considered to be usable. Chair Baltay asked for clarification whether it was or was not meeting the open space requirement per current codes. Planner Kallas responded that due to the balconies being varied in size throughout the units it had not been calculated for every unit. Vice Chair Rosenberg questioned if they were meeting the overall requirements. Planner Kallas replied that was correct. Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of March 7, 2024 Packet Pg. 205 Page 9 of 34 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 03/07/24 5 0 3 2 Planner Raybould mentioned that in Staff’s analysis they felt it was under the requirements when calculated from the front setback area when a part of the programmed open space, but with released modifications before the Staff report had been done, they needed to recalculate. Chair Baltay addressed Mr. Donahue and asked if his intention on the project was to meet the open space requirement, as well as if they would meet the requirements placed on a detailed calculation analysis over the considerations and requirements recommended by the Board. Mr. Donahue responded that it was their intention to meet the open space requirements, and they were willing to follow that; he pointed out that there were differences in the calculated Below Market Rates (BMR) units, and when the retail area had been added, they took out a BMR which made it fifteen BMR units and qualified as twenty percent. Boardmember Chen noticed the upper level only had one trash enclosure located towards the rear of the units, and if they knew the distance from the units to the trash receptacle that tenants traveled and if a second enclosure had been considered. Mr. Donahue answered they had not due to the proposed congestion of the project, and HOA’s had managed the internal trash maintenance on some projects. Boardmember Adcock regarded the setbacks in the plan as if they were not at the six-foot depth, and asked if that was correct. Mr. Donahue stated the only balconies not six feet were the second balconies for the units, all main balconies were set at a six-foot depth. Boardmember Adcock inquired Staff if the underground garage space was allowed in the setback, noting that in the design on section A4.4, the garage area portion protruded beyond the balcony and overlapped onto the setback. Planner Kallas replied that as a PHZ project it was considered a discretionary allowance of the project. Boardmember Adcock clarified that it was not being asked within this project but could be allowed if proposed. Planner Kallas responded that was correct. Boardmember Adcock said it was difficult to decipher whether the parking extended into the planting and bio-retention areas, and needed to ensure if that was a discretion the applicant was asking for and if approved. Planner Gerhardt clarified that as a PHZ project it had customized zoning, and it was being built as it progressed. The project normally kept the basement under the building, but it was not required under the PHZ, and asked ARB to give feedback and comments regarding the issue. Staff wanted to ensure there was room for perimeter landscaping and needed to know if adequate space for the landscaping was to be done. Chair Baltay inquired if there was a bio-treatment swale installed over the garage as well. Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of March 7, 2024 Packet Pg. 206 Page 10 of 34 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 03/07/24 5 0 3 2 Mr. Donahue answered at the current stage of the project, some details had been left out, but it was acknowledged there was an issue and was solvable; in the case of where the bio swale was placed, it had potential to encroach on the footprint of the parking garage ramps, and they had checked there was adequate clearance that allowed the slab to be brought down past a point so the bio swale was not affected. Chair Baltay asked if the section showed the garage extended into the rear setback as a normality, or if that was the intent of the setback in the drawing. Mr. Donahue replied it reflected the plan dimensions and it was accurate. Chair Baltay mentioned it was an angled property line which had some stepping placed. Mr. Donahue stated during the design development and construction document phases they illustrated the unique conditions, but during design phases the characteristics were picked; at the current stage it was primarily the vertical relationships of the floor to floor that was the focus. Chair Baltay said the ARB had been focused on the balcony setbacks for the project and was surprised to find a setback variation requested that had not been written in the public documentation and was not sure where to move forward on that discussion; and brought the discussion back to the Board. Boardmember Hirsch commented that it had been a well-done presentation but found that the design issues had him concerned. The front area of the building held the pressure of all the waste pickups and activities that conflicted and needed reconsidered, and inquired if most of the public used the double elevator at the front. Mr. Donahue responded yes. Boardmember Hirsch suggested either consider implementing an additional location, or to enlarge the front waste receptacle to accommodate the number of people; an example was to move to the Northwest corner of the building, or having a lift outside that took the containers up to street level that allowed for more waste storage. It had been stated a three-point turnaround was not applicable on site, but if a layby were accepted, it would not conflict with the entry of the concentrated use of the site. Chair Baltay asked Boardmember Hirsch for clarification on the reconsideration of the waste location services. Boardmember Hirsch replied that the waste collection site was in the basement and had suggested they moved it below the corner unit on the Northwest side of the building. Vice Chair Rosenberg indicated to floor plan one and asked if Boardmember Hirsch wanted to move the area next to the bicycle room. (Crosstalk) Vice Chair Rosenberg clarified in the basement where the battery back-up area was. Boardmember Hirsch mentioned if that were where the battery back-up had been placed, as it could have been next to the electrical room; it allowed an area where the landscape was not used. Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of March 7, 2024 Packet Pg. 207 Page 11 of 34 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 03/07/24 5 0 3 2 Chair Baltay commented that if implemented, it was a bulb-out pick-up area that was adjacent to the parking, which made it no longer next to the front entrance, and questioned if that would affect the multi- used pick-up area. Boardmember Hirsch questioned what the possibility of multi-used pick-ups and waste collection storage would be. Planner Raybould noted that the waste collection still needed to be brought to the street level even with the change implemented, and it would no longer be a centralized location but instead at the far end of the building; the staging area would not be eliminated. Vice Chair Rosenberg questioned how the garbage would be collected from the basement to ground level. Boardmember Hirsch indicated there was a lift proposed. (Crosstalk) Vice Chair Rosenberg stated that the basement was not extended past the setback in the front. (Crosstalk) Planner Gerhardt clarified that the waste had shoots that ran down the upper level, then stored in the basement, and Staff would manually have the bin brought up to the ramp to the staging area; the staging area was used due to the twenty-five foot from curb requirement, so a lift out of the garage was a good idea, but the need for a staging area would not be eliminated. Boardmember Hirsch commented that the issue would be discussed further in the meeting, but it needed to be analyzed, and gave an example of waste issues that had been dealt with in New York. He suggested changing the retail area for easier access from the outside of the main entrance. Chair Baltay mentioned there was merit in what Boardmember Hirsch had brought to attention and asked him to further explore his suggestions. Boardmember Hirsch said what was scaled on the front of the building was a nice entry with casual seating area usage, but it conflicted aesthetically between the immense scale with double height of the front door and the scale of the interior of the building, and it would have been better to modulate the front with horizontal elements instead of a vertical to bring down the scale; the aesthetic had not been discussed as heavily due to many issues that had been resolved. He was also concerned about the access to the units in the rear, as the public wanted to take the shortest route through an open space; it was mentioned that the back lobby was not used, and if the waste collection site was moved, it allowed space in the back of the building for easier elevator accessibility. A proper through passageway needed from the front door to all units that allowed generous space for public access; some furniture should be considered for relocation as well. The tree placement in the lobby was a nice idea, as it allowed direct sunlight and responded well to ARB’s recommendation on added light in the Courtyard. He felt the division between the white areas, recesses, and balconies had been well done, but the detail of the vertical glass strip was not representative of the character of the building; even though it gave limited privacy, he was uncomfortable with the detail of the vertical element aspect and had rather seen a glass installment like the balcony glazing facades. Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of March 7, 2024 Packet Pg. 208 Page 12 of 34 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 03/07/24 5 0 3 2 Boardmember Adcock questioned if Boardmember Hirsch was referring to the metal panel on the side of the entry. Boardmember Hirsch responded that was correct, and reiterated that if the rear elevation, storage, and distance was looked at the majority of the public would use the elevator in the front of the building; he commented that the retail store was also in the front with waste collection needed, so if more study had been applied and they redid the locations of waste storage, it improved the operations of the building significantly. Boardmember Chen commented that there had been great improvement since the previous meeting and noticed the applicants had listened to the ARB’s recommendations. The waste issue needed to be addressed along the busy street frontage, and although in agreeance with Boardmember Hirsch, she felt an open glassed enclosure was best; after the retreat with Zero Waste and Green Waste she thought they had come up with the best solution for the site plan and suggested to add another trash area located on the front of the building next to the elevator lobby. The sunlight issue and public facilities were improved in the Courtyard, but she suggested adding high windows to the bicycle room for natural lighting. Boardmember Adcock stated concerns on the waste issue, as well as the hallway that led to the waste room being too narrow; the bent corners of the hallways were an issue for tenants if they moved large furniture to a unit. If the waste room was moved to the front of the building it loosened the constraint and helped the convenience of the tenants getting from one location to another. She referred to plan 4.4 on the special setback, it showed the basement parking boundary inboard on base, but on plan 4.1 it was not shown the same; 4.0 was front and back shown with the special setback being in line with the basement and was concerned about the bio-retention for the rear area due to plan 2.0 had shown the back area setting on the property line. The first floor of the basement showed the retention area along the backside of the building and was concerned on how the functionality worked being on top of the garage. Chair Baltay asked Boardmember Adcock if her experience was what led her to the concerns on the engineering and design challenges. Boardmember Adcock responded that it was more of a structural challenge as they needed to step down the first-floor slab by three or four feet to maintain the retention area, which was not aligned with the first-floor wall line. Chair Baltay questioned whether they proceeded further under those conditions or if they wanted the applicant to return with the issues being resolved; agreed that it was a complicated issue and they had not put enough effort into aligning the basement design. Boardmember Adcock commented that they needed to step up the structure to make it work. Vice Chair Rosenberg said her appreciation on the design upgrades that had been made, but as leeway was allowed on the designs for applicants, she was concerned about the lattice pattern that had been proposed. As a minor issue she suggested adding windows to the bicycle room, and commended the applicant for the consideration of a move in and out room but the condensed corners as previously mentioned could cause issues. She did not mind the location of the trash room towards the back, if moved Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of March 7, 2024 Packet Pg. 209 Page 13 of 34 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 03/07/24 5 0 3 2 to the front it would cause residents’ complaints on smell in the main lobby; if trash was brought up the ramp from the basement, it would be problematic due to weight and it impeded traffic in and out of the building, and agreed with Boardmember Hirsch on it being moved, but to the Northeast corner with a platform lift by the fire pump area. The consideration the applicant had when looking at the neighbors on their waste collection was much appreciated and allowed pick-ups in the area to be run smoothly. She directed a question towards Staff and Board regarding the basement and asked if they were setting an unintended precedent that allowed this project to moved forward being outside the scope of the building; wanted more clarity on how it worked, as the secant wall could be up to twenty-four inches thick to the exterior perimeter to the fourteen- to sixteen-inch-thick walls. The basement level plan A2.0B, the bottom right portion, would be beyond the property length with the added secant wall, and encouraged them have the basement design reworked. She was concerned that the basement needed reworked to a notable extent, and questioned whether it was a condition of approval, or they wanted it to be brought back before the ARB. Chair Baltay asked Staff and Board to refer to sheet A0.2 on a design issue with the façade. He showed concern for the building as it looked like a large box; the façade being 150 foot long with a continuous line that ran along the top and wanted to see modulation done to the building. The 788 San Antonio building next door had made changes at ARB request, and it was suggested to consider the same for this project. His opinion was to have the project approved at this hearing, and they needed to make change considerations for that to be possible; it was going to be a subcommittee that ended up changing the circulation design downstairs and would send for approval if conditions were met. The decks upstairs could not project into setbacks, if acknowledged it was the intention, ARB should ensure that it was met. Planner Kallas clarified that it was the front special setback and not the side and rear, which projections were allowed by the underlying zoning. Chair Baltay stated the consistency of interpretation of the codes were looked at, same for the open space areas. They needed to have a complete design for the courtyard planters, bio retention swells, and structure of the secant walls to go before a subcommittee; wanted stronger conditions for approval regarding the green wall in the courtyard, if a specific line item for how it would be maintained was not made, it would be a failure. The rear waste collection area had too many bends and was not functional if emergency crews needed to access the units; can be resolved during the building permit stage. Planner Raybould inquired if Chair Baltay was referring to the rear area next to the elevator. Chair Baltay said on sheet A2.1, on the right-hand side of the drawing, the back area had four ninety- degree bends that should be straightened. The basement projected into the setbacks was allowed under the PHZ zone approval but had not been notified to the public or community, and asked if anyone had questioned whether it was a code exception. Directed to Ms. Kallas, he asked if the list of zoning codes she had mentioned in the presentation were the exceptions allowed. Planner Kallas replied that was correct, and this code had not been included in the list; gave an example as in single-family zoning districts basements cannot be projected beyond the footprint of the building, but commercial and multi-family zones do not have that as a requirement; they were focused on the special setback and needed to look closer at what was implied. Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of March 7, 2024 Packet Pg. 210 Page 14 of 34 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 03/07/24 5 0 3 2 Boardmember Adcock questioned if basements were included within the setback or if it was allowed to go to the property line. Planner Gerhardt responded there was no clear distinction in the code related to that specifically, so they used ARB findings that ensured sufficient perimeter landscaping. Vice Chair Rosenberg asked if the twenty-four-inch-thick secant wall had to stay within the property line as it could not go beyond that. Planner Raybould answered that was correct. Boardmember Adcock inquired about the comparison table on special setback, and if clarification could be made on future projects that it only applied to above grade. Boardmember Hirsch commented that he did not understand why the special setback was focused on the front side only and not the side and rears. Planner Gerhardt responded it was a code implemented in the 1960’s when the city had considered widening the streets; it was used now for bicycles and pedestrian walk paths. Boardmember Adcock questioned if it applied to Public Utilities as well. Planner Gerhardt stated that the special setback did not change how a property would be developed with utilities. Boardmember Adcock asked if the intent was for future utility development not to be allowed with the basement having a special setback; they were constraining the setback on above grade but not the below grade. Chair Baltay stated that if the first step to expanding the width of the public right-away they would not want construction there, and it prohibited from building a road. Planner Gerhardt noted that this was a PHZ zone which allowed setbacks to be placed anywhere on the site plan within a certain degree; the commercial setbacks should not be focused on, but Staff was looking forward to ARB recommendations. Vice Chair Rosenberg mentioned that the experience had with previous issues on setbacks, it had seemed to be an aesthetic issue more than a utility issue. Chair Baltay stated in the 1960s that this road had been anticipated to be the San Antonio Expressway and needed an extra twenty-four foot on either side to allow that to happen and was not planned to be built soon. Boardmember Hirsch commented on moving forward with this project and agreed with the Board on the explorations that had been discussed so far. Motion Chair Baltay agreed and called for motion to approve, with the following conditions. Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of March 7, 2024 Packet Pg. 211 Page 15 of 34 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 03/07/24 5 0 3 2 Motion to Approve Conditions 1. No projections into the special setbacks above grade are allowed. 2. The private and common open space areas were to meet current zoning codes. 3. Added conditions that specifically addressed the maintenance on the green wall feature in the Courtyard. 4. The hallway adjacent to elevator two be revised to provide fewer bends in the hallway and functional space adjacent to the elevator and waste bin collection area. 5. A recommendation that the elevator use an alternative location for the waste bin collection area, how it was brought to the street staging area, and location of the street waste staging area. 6. The subcommittee was to return with a schematic foundation design that included considerations for planters, bioswales, and secant walls. 7. Have a comprehensive plan provided for the Courtyard that includes planters, furnishings, and pathways through the Courtyard. 8. The bicycle storage area needed clear story windows that provided additional light. MOTION: Chair Baltay moved, seconded by Boardmember Chen, to approve the conditions. VOTE: 5-0-0 Chair Baltay assigned Boardmember Adcock and Boardmember Hirsch as the ad hoc committee members. The ARB took a 10-minute break and resumed with all members present. Study Session 3. Ad Hoc Committee Report: Objective Standards Phase 2 for Townhomes Chair Baltay introduced the item and called for staff’s presentation. Boardmember Chen stated that based on the ad hoc committee’s research from the site visit, there were numbers shown on the slide that needed ARB’s feedback on solutions on questions they had, and whether it was reasonable in the findings. Boardmember Hirsch presented the standards wished to be implemented by the ad hoc committee. The corner units were a main concern more so than the individual units in between and would have a unique Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of March 7, 2024 Packet Pg. 212 Page 16 of 34 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 03/07/24 5 0 3 2 aspect at the end of the project. The minimum of a wraparound patio that was a lower element that penetrated the height limitations of the RM30, but did not exceed fifty foot in height, would be in a higher respect than the units in between. They projected that there be bay windows on the front and side, or both. Setback areas needed varied materials and colors from the major portions of the façade materials, with the balcony being extended a minimum of four feet from the face of the building and was six feet wide. Vice Chair Rosenberg clarified if this were to have two or more of the following elevation treatments. Boardmember Hirsch responded that was correct. Boardmember Chen added that there would be photo examples shown. Planner Raybould showed the slides with the projected photos. Boardmember Chen commented that on slide number two, they had found the circulation was difficult to manage around as it was more of a community circulation, so it was required that the design of the townhome project needed to integrate the internal pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicle system in the surrounding area for connectivity; referring to the top view of the site plan, she said specific items such as the tandem parking, they had considered the best percentage that allowed the parking, and concluded it would be a maximum of forty percent of the unit would be required. The current code required a maximum of twenty percent, but the projects that came before the Board were close to fifty percent. A slide with an Arbor Real with a cul-de-sac arrangement for the parking entrance between the clusters were permitted and showed on the next slide a top view of the community area with the pedestrian walkways in between the units. Boardmember Hirsch mentioned there was a continuous pedestrian walkway in between the cul-de-sacs for all units with a two-type tandem that met in the Courtyard. Boardmember Chen said that the guest parking was also an important issue, and understood it was not required by code to provide guest parking, but functionally they thought it important on-site parking was provided, and suggested the guest parking either on or off-site would be provided to twenty percent of the units, and included at least one space for the medium sized delivery trucks or individual vehicles; if there were convenient street parking on the immediate perimeter streets, all guest parking shall be within the project site boundary, a minimum of fifty percent of the spaces must be located within the lei-by or parking stalls on the major street of the project, the remainder of the parking unless allowed to park on the adjacent street, and would be accommodated in the spaces no longer than 150 feet than the most remote unit. She addressed the next slide and pointed out the lie-by areas along the lower Fallen Leave Street, as well as being aligned equally with the side of the street. Boardmember Hirsch referred to the slide with guest parking spaces and it was a cul-de-sac scheme in which there were many guest parking spaces against the major street on the outside, and with the perpendicular parking it solved the issue with parking access on the project. On the next slide it showed a perimeter of the one-way scheme around the project, and then a slide with three building typologies, he stated the ad hoc felt that a site of a certain size, and particularly Arbor Real, had the exact multiple prototypes, and on this project it would have units in one perimeter area be Type A, with A and B being Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of March 7, 2024 Packet Pg. 213 Page 17 of 34 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 03/07/24 5 0 3 2 two different types of housing prototypes, and had a center Courtyard on a raised slab in the middle. This project was big enough to request three different housing typologies. Boardmember Chen stated that in the recent projects reviewed, they found several of the projects were smaller in size than what is currently being discussed; and felt a minimum of two should be added. Boardmember Hirsch commented that this project required the A units had parking below grade under the center Courtyard that made a difference in the construction of the project but followed the same scheme of entry and exit of the roadway, similar to the Mountain View circular rotation around the perimeter, only this project had it run through the site, with the exception of the A units. Boardmember Chen mentioned they wanted the open space to provide a functional and useful space in the landscape area, so they recommended all town home projects provided a centrally located common space, or a linear public pedestrian pathway, equivalent to the minimum of five percent of grass property perimeter around the town homes; such areas must be exclusively used for pedestrians, and the private unit entrances or required front yards did not count towards the requirement. The common open space shall be a functional and useful community gathering place for rest and play, a minimum distance shall be twenty-five-feet by twenty-five-feet; previous projects had counted the open space as pedestrian walkways with chairs along the side, but with project they wanted to put a minimum dimension that allowed a functional space for the residents. The major private street included at least one street tree for every twenty-five-feet of linear feet. Boardmember Hirsch noted that currently that was the objective standard in the code for street façade treatment of trees. The next slide showed the two symmetrical treatments of the trees with the entrance and exits, and with this being a larger project it was shown with three different prototypes of housing, street parking, and the open spaces; had exceeded the minimum proposed. The next photo image showed the Center Courtyard in the proposed plan, and commented on how balanced the open space had been, as the distance between the units was forty feet from one face of building to the other. Boardmember Chen showed a wider pedestrian walkway with a carefully planned landscape between the building, but understood the risk related to the height of the buildings. Boardmember Hirsch commented that it was unsure how that project had been arranged, whether private gardens or a mixed garden with both private and public, but it was a pleasant option that allowed light in and light out and nice colors had been used. Boardmember Chen had an image of examples of the play, grilling, and activity areas in the open space. Boardmember Hirsch referred to the Alma Court image that showed the landscaping hiding the mechanical and electrical street service boxes. Boardmember Chen mentioned that the accent pavers shown in the pedestrian walkway for safety were also an option to be considered. Boardmember Hirsch had a description of the privacy areas adjacent to the front doors of every project, it needed to be a certain size, and was landscaped in a specific way; images were shown of different projects currently being worked on and the different options for the outer doorways and landscaping. He Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of March 7, 2024 Packet Pg. 214 Page 18 of 34 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 03/07/24 5 0 3 2 showed one of the projects he enjoyed that had a sizable number of units, the way it had been laid out, the number of units to parking capability, the central open space used, the street façade versus interior Courtyard façade. Boardmember Chen stated on this project they wanted to specify what the recommended distance between the two end units, and based on the site measurements and functions they came to fifteen feet minimum was the appropriate number. Boardmember Hirsch commented that was the access between the clusters of units. Boardmember Chen referred to unit numbers twelve and thirteen to help clarify to Vice Chair Rosenberg. Boardmember Hirsch gave reference to what had potential to be in the open spaces, but they were to be landscaped with a five-foot by five-foot by five-foot, a five-foot passage with five-foot of flex space. The end units were used for the electrical or utility closets related to the cluster of units themselves. The rhythm and pattern were to be the minimum length of any linear grouping of town house, and they figured one hundred and fifty feet as the average, entry elements and bay windows were not included and allowed the end units to be extended. Boardmember Chen assumed there would be seven units that qualified under the one hundred and fifty feet required. All units had two car garages with a twenty-foot clearance, wall thickness, and an added electric room that was on each side, as to the one-hundred-and-fifty-foot number. Boardmember Hirsch noted that the plan should not have exceeded the one hundred and fifty foot either as it would start to be too long and made getting from one side to the other more difficult. There were no more than three attached town houses allowed within a cluster of five, or four in a cluster of six. The units could repeat the same elevations, so there needed a variation within the elevations; the details of the end unit had a method of individualizing each of the grouped units. Boardmember Chen stated that the base building color treatment must include at least two colors and two basic materials, if the face of the window trim elements and other façade defining trimming were four inches or larger and was used on more than seventy percent of the windows, than the trim was considered the second color, otherwise the second color choice was used as the significant element of the façade, such as a bay window or large formally defined area, and had a minimum of eight-feet by eight-feet. The exception to the regulation allowed a single color of each unit, if adjacent units were assorted colors; a maximum of six assorted color options were allowed. (Images of assorted color schemes on town home projects used were shown) Boardmember Adcock inquired if the stucco shown in the images were part of the two color and two material standards. Boardmember Hirsch responded that it was. (Continued to show images of color schemes of previous projects - Crosstalk) Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of March 7, 2024 Packet Pg. 215 Page 19 of 34 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 03/07/24 5 0 3 2 Boardmember Hirsch had an image that showed the fifteen-foot space between the buildings that allowed mailboxes and trash enclosures to be evenly distributed between the clusters and should be located no greater than one-hundred- and fifty feet. Boardmember Chen noted that the mailboxes were close to the unit buildings. Boardmember Hirsch commented that the electrical service areas for vehicles were a part of the project as well. Boardmember Chen stated that the next slide showed the eight categories with needed refinement on standards that was proposed, and questioned what the definition of a town home was. The Oak Court project and the community next to the JCC had a podium type construction with parking spaces underground and as such would it be considered a town home. Boardmember Hirsch mentioned it was a different prototype in the respect and had a higher cost to be built, as to why town homes were constructed on grade most times. Boardmember Adcock’s thought was the older town homes, such as seen in Washington, D.C. or New York City, they did not have garages or underground parking, so if a unit did not have one, it would still be defined as such; it could be a podium construct or street parking only, but a garage did not define whether it was considered a townhome. Boardmember Hirsch inquired how a common open space would be added as a requirement; either a properly fitted paseo or a central courtyard and felt it would be an innovative idea if the units were limited within the clusters but gave extra units if a common space were allowed. Boardmember Chen said they would like the feedback from Staff whether if that standard implemented would be feasible as the State had allowances for these types of projects, and the intent was to limit the number of concessions requested. Boardmember Hirsch noted that they were looking to the Board for feedback on what was presented. Chair Baltay was impressed with the presentation and felt they had done a great job answering the questions, then proposed to move forward and bring questions and comments back to the Board and wanted the ad hoc committee to take notes, and had the objective to have a final document produced similar to what was proposed but with the added feedback included; he wanted to turn over to Staff unanimous support from the ARB that recommended the director processed the information in a form that could be brought before Council as an ordinance. He directed the question of what was considered a townhouse to Boardmember Adcock. Boardmember Adcock stated that the typology of a townhouse was connected houses, and the parking and location aspect was related to the parking requirements for the site, which defined amount and where allowed; any stacked housing with a shared wall was considered a townhome. Vice Chair Rosenberg commented that any stacked housing of two to three stories with continuous partie walls, and individual entrances; if the units had their own ingress and egress, and functioned as a singular unit, which was a key component in categorizing a townhome. Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of March 7, 2024 Packet Pg. 216 Page 20 of 34 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 03/07/24 5 0 3 2 Boardmember Adcock asked if the units had their own private outdoor space or balcony was that required to be added in the definition of a townhome as well, or would it be the amount of the private space required. Vice Chair Rosenberg referred to the examples shown of the townhomes without private spaces but had garages; it had been different form what was seen in New York, Washington D.C. as they used patios or backyards, and felt it should be added to the requirements to help separate whether there was a private backyard element or just allowed to be a common space. Boardmember Chen responded that they had questioned what a town home was, as the JCC project had a backyard due to the parking being below the units. Boardmember Hirsch mentioned the project had a less than twenty-foot backyard area which limited what the code allowed on the site and would not be considered a regular Rzone. Boardmember Adcock clarified that yard was not the correct term, but a private open space, whether above grade such as a balcony or on grade as a patio. Most projects she had seen it was important to have a distinction between townhome and condominium or apartment by the addition of a singular enclosed private space. Chair Baltay commented that an outdoor space requirement was not a requisite definition of a townhome, but felt it was good to have added; he made a list of four criteria that defined a building type typology of a townhome: The units were exclusively residential, they had to be vertically single stacked building type units with a minimum of two stories, needed at least two exterior walls that faced openly and were not adjacent to other buildings, and the unit needed to have a private entrance. (Crosstalk-Planner Raybould pulled up the slide Chair Baltay had asked for) Chair Baltay referred to Item C on the fifty-foot height limit was fine with the ARB, but the Planning Department may disagree as they did not want to write a code over the thirty-five-foot residential zone allowance. On Item F, it was questioned whether they had an objective standard defining balconies. Planner Raybould responded there was a six-foot circle defined within the standards, but needed to ensure that was correct. Chair Baltay stated they wanted to augment existing standards, so if there was one on balconies, they needed to ensure what was required, and asked if anyone had any changes or comments to Section 1. Boardmember Chen inquired if Chair Baltay wanted to eliminate the standard or just the dimension of the standard. Chair Baltay replied that the current standard on balconies needed verified, and then reference to it, unless there was no current standard implemented. Planner Raybould mentioned there could be a balcony that did not meet a private open space, but still provided a façade modification as there may not have a six-foot area at the end of unit. Chair Baltay questioned Boardmember Hirsch and Boardmember Chen if the intent were the balcony would be a modulation element on the design rather than the open space. Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of March 7, 2024 Packet Pg. 217 Page 21 of 34 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 03/07/24 5 0 3 2 Boardmember Chen said that was correct and wanted to have the features added to corner units. Boardmember Adcock asked if Item A showing the four-foot minimum on covered entry patios was supposed to be five feet. Boardmember Hirsch commented that the open space requirements were not defined from a usage point, it was more of a requirement on setbacks and distance between buildings. Chair Baltay inquired Planner Raybould on the current objective standard requirement for private and common open spaces. Planner Raybould answered it needed to have a six-foot circle. Planner Gerhardt stated that six feet was the objective standard, to which the size was contained within the regular zoning code, whether RM30 or otherwise, and differed from each zoning district. Chair Baltay questioned what objective standard would be applied to balconies in townhouse projects that were awaiting objective approval. Planner Raybould noted that in reference to the Multi-family Residential (RM30), the Construction Site (CS) and other zone districts such as Research, Office, and Limited Manufacturing (ROLM), where town home style designs were allowed, there was no standard on private versus common, it was just limited to 150 square feet per unit; some designs such as the Summerhill project had designed the open space as a common area with less private space, which was allowed in the code with ARB approval. Planner Gerhardt replied that 150 feet was the standard for most districts, and in multi-family districts there was minimum of fifty square feet for private, and 150 for common. Chair Baltay clarified that the requirement currently being looked at regarded the end units as a decorative piece; he suggested they note Item A with a comment saying it was in addition to already placed open space requirements that applied. Boardmember Adcock asked if there was a minimum entry patio depth on town homes. Planner Gerhardt responded that in the standards there were a few different versions of entry ways that could be used. Planner Raybould commented that it depended on the type of entrance was used, they had different requirements for each option. Chair Baltay asked Staff if they had reviewed the current objective standard on entry ways for townhomes; and if this applied to only the corner units, or the patios as well. Boardmember Hirsch stated they had not, and the thought had been to apply the standard to each unit. Chair Baltay indicated that it may not be applicable to corner units. Boardmember Hirsch referred to a Menlo Park project that had shingled white trimmed entry patios. Chair Baltay mentioned that if all entry patios had to be five feet, then Point A would have been reached regardless of being a corner unit. Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of March 7, 2024 Packet Pg. 218 Page 22 of 34 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 03/07/24 5 0 3 2 Planner Gerhardt referred to the objective standards that defined stoops as being used for a maximum of two units, and the entry landing was a minimum of five foot in depth. Chair Baltay said they needed to add a standard regarding townhome entries separate from the stoop. (Crosstalk) Chair Baltay stated that the standard on stoops was for the intent of row style town homes. Boardmember Hirsch noted that in some projects with entry stoops, there were air conditioning units with the area that allowed only four feet in dimensions. Vice Chair Rosenberg inclined that the five foot was consistent with the objective standard and should stay as such, but on corner units, it could be set to four feet as there was a different condition for it had the capacity to wrap around the corner of the building that allowed extra leeway. (Crosstalk) Chair Baltay asked Boardmember Chen if it were feasible to add definition to the wrapping around a building. Boardmember Adcock clarified that it was a four-foot-deep minimum on wrap around entry ways, patios, or balconies that needed to be defined within the standard. Chair Baltay moved to the second Item in question. Boardmember Adcock stated that the question asked was too vague and needed to be clarified. Boardmember Hirsch referred to the discussion on Bayshore the committee had had and had connected the importance of bicycle paths and changes in the area and wished to have it brought to attention. Vice Chair Rosenberg suggested rewording the standard as every pedestrian, vehicular, and circulation needed to connect to each single unit. Chair Baltay commented that the paths needed to connect to the outside the townhouse development as well, that gave access to the roads. (Crosstalk) Boardmember Adcock inquired if they were wanting a private or public bicycle path, as the development was not able to enforce a public pathway through the townhouse project site, but if a private path were created it would be equitable. Vice Chair Rosenberg agreed, and asked if they were requiring a townhouse development had to have a bicycle path through the site, or if it was considered separate from the pedestrian path and felt there needed to be more clarity on what was being asked. (Crosstalk) Chair Baltay said the Bayshore project ARB had requested was integrated into the park, and they had succeeded in conjoining a connection. Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of March 7, 2024 Packet Pg. 219 Page 23 of 34 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 03/07/24 5 0 3 2 Planner Raybould commented that on the Bayshore project, there had been many discussions around the connection issues regarding how many pathways to be connected and how much privacy was allowed before being brought to the ARB for review, and the community services division could not determine how much connectivity should be allowed or the potential for issues in the project further into construction. She noted that what was envisioned during the presentation were bicycle paths that would be connected to smaller townhome garages, which made the cul-de-sac a low vehicular activity area, and having an added bicycle path to the project was not ideal. Boardmember Hirsch mentioned they focused on the aspect if the project was near an outer access area i.e. a park, it would be connected to the public area for easier access. Chair Baltay responded that it was hard to enforce as an objective standard but could be considered a comment made to the designers; the next issue was tandem parking, and asked if the forty percent was too low. Vice Chair Rosenberg commented that she approved forty percent. Boardmember Adcock questioned if twenty percent was allowed, and if applicants were able to ask for waivers to reach the needed measurement, and what the difference was from being raised from twenty percent to forty percent. Chair Baltay asked if the waivers were on low-income housing as well. Planner Raybould replied no that it was only if applying for a state density bonus project; if a state density bonus was not being applied for, a waiver was not needed as the code had been met or it was a PHZ project. Boardmember Adcock said the forty percent limitation helped projects that were not applying for the state density bonus, but any more than forty percent was unnecessary. Vice Chair Rosenberg and Chair Baltay agreed on forty percent. Chair Baltay moved to the third Item in question. Vice Chair Rosenberg inquired Staff if everyone agreed on the cul-de-sac arrangement proposed, and if it was not currently allowed, but they were wanting to make it allowable. Boardmember Chen stated that there was no code language on whether the cul-de-sac was allowed or not. Planner Raybould commented there were no standards prohibiting a cul-de-sac design, and questioned if the end units were what the concern was. Boardmember Adcock asked how the end units compared to the maximum seven units in a row, as it was a continual loop. Vice Chair Rosenberg said it was a difference between where the structure and paving had been broken up into. Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of March 7, 2024 Packet Pg. 220 Page 24 of 34 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 03/07/24 5 0 3 2 Boardmember Adcock mentioned that the plan view of the project looked to be more than seven units when it was wrapped around. Chair Baltay stated that depending on the massing of the unit, whether it was seven in a line or a U-shape, but felt a cul-de-sac was necessary in this project. Planner Raybould noted there were no standards on cul-de-sacs being prohibited. Chair Baltay made the decision to have the issue removed and moved on to the fourth Item. (Crosstalk off microphone) Boardmember Adcock referred to the image on the slide of the townhomes with garages on the end units, and inquired if the cul-de-sac for the garage or unit was in question, and she had not seen this design choice previously as it blocked the area in terms of daylight and openness to the unit. Chair Baltay moved to the guest parking issue that needed resolved. Vice Chair Rosenberg questioned whether there needed to be a guest parking space, as she felt twenty percent was too high, and that residents would use it as a daily parking spot. Chair Baltay inquired if twenty percent of the total number of parking spaces required was being requested. Boardmember Adcock clarified that it was twenty percent of total number of units. Planner Raybould noted that the previous code requirement was ten percent and Council had removed it to reduce requirements on housing to provide more affordable housing opportunities; many State laws had pushed to reduce restrictive parking requirements on housing developments, and Staff was uninclined to add more requirements related to the quest parking as it would go back on what had been removed by Council. Planner Gerhardt added that they would not want to implement more requirements on parking but could add details to be the parking was permitted, as some were in garages, others could be added to the open surface lots. Chair Baltay expressed his disagreement with Council’s decision on parking allowances, and wanted to have the chance to give a recommendation on the twenty percent restriction as many projects were not given enough parking spaces for accommodation of guests. Vice Chair Rosenberg countered that many State laws required new housing developments, and if a developer were required to use twenty percent of the site for surface parking, it took up a significant amount of the footprint of the land parcel available to utilize, and that could hinder building the units needed for the project. She questioned whether it was feasible to set the limit at twenty percent, as she felt that was high, or if they stayed at the ten percent per code, but agreed with Chair Baltay on going back to Council to ask why and what they needed to push for parking requirements. Boardmember Adcock asked if they were to ask in lieu of the required per unit parking. Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of March 7, 2024 Packet Pg. 221 Page 25 of 34 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 03/07/24 5 0 3 2 Chair Baltay stated that with previous projects, he experienced there was too limited parking and wanted to bring the issues to Council for recommendation on not reducing designated parking, and strongly agreed to have the twenty percent left as a recommendation for the project. Planner Raybould asked if twenty percent was extra designated or undesignated parking spaces. Chair Baltay responded undesignated or common parking spaces. Vice Chair Rosenberg mentioned it may encourage developers to have a podium style design used that allowed more parking without the townhome footprint being impacted. Boardmember Chen noted that there potentially were height restrictions applied to the building as it had been stacked upward. Chair Baltay referred to the second paragraph regarding street parking and asked if it was available on this site, and was it accepted in the zoning codes that public parking counted towards the parking requirements. Planner Raybould answered it was not counted towards any parking for the site if it happened to be public parking. Chair Baltay inquired how many townhomes benefitted from adjacent street parking. Boardmember Hirsch replied that a considerable number benefited, such as Alma Court and Arbor Real, and the issue had been brought to the attention of the ad hoc committee by reviewing the examples shown in the presentation. Planner Raybould said it was difficult to manage as conditions changed as bicycle or pedestrian pathways get added or removed which affected the parking spaces allowed. Vice Chair Rosenberg agreed and thought the second paragraph should be removed. Chair Baltay asked if the second sentence regarding fifty percent of the parking spaces needed to be on the major streets and the last sentence that stated every guest space was to be within 150 feet of the unit. All members agreed to keep the two sentences. Chair Baltay moved to discuss the building typology. Vice Chair Rosenberg questioned what was done on a zero to half acre and two to three acre site regarding the requirement on one half acre and two acres, but above three acres that was required; she noted the 800 San Antonio was a 0.088 acre lot and if it were to have townhomes constructed, where would it be classified in the typology, and if it was a zero to one and a half acre would only two units be required to be constructed on the site and wanted clarity on the issue. Boardmember Adcock added that there should be clarity on the definition of prototype, and asked if it was not about the plan layout, but more so the façade treatment. Chair Baltay stated that it was written as a significant variation of internal planning. Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of March 7, 2024 Packet Pg. 222 Page 26 of 34 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 03/07/24 5 0 3 2 Boardmember Adcock said there could be two to three different plan unit types, and the façade treatment and building massing would be included in the section regarding the two dissimilar materials used. Chair Baltay mentioned the internal planning could not be regulated and it had to be on the form and appearance of the building from the outside due to the factors that were included in design. Boardmember Adcock agreed and said on small townhome projects it would not be an issue if they found buyers interested in the idea. Vice Chair Rosenberg commented that the goal for the regulation was more for larger townhome developments to have a variety of options as to not have repetitive colors, materials, and parking used. Boardmember Adcock felt that it was not an ARB decision on whether the developers wanted to have similar schemes on the townhome units. Boardmember Hirsch referred to the Arbor Real project and wanted Staff to look at the three prototypes in the larger developments, in smaller projects it did not make sense to have vast options. Chair Baltay inquired how many acres the Arbor Real project was, and if they were to consider the number of acres or units they looked at. Planner Raybould brought up the 2755 El Camino project on the corner of Page Mill and El Camino was a half-acre site and tried to think of two types of typologies on the small scale of a parcel. Vice Chair Rosenberg thought of the ten-townhome project in Town and Country Villages parking lot, and questioned if two different units would be required, were the two end units counted as separate typologies because they looked different from each other, and felt the goal of the comment was important, as on smaller townhome unit projects having the freedom of options worked fine, but on larger scaled projects having all the same designs, it became an issue. Chair Baltay questioned if it should start at an acre. (Crosstalk) Boardmember Adcock stated it should start at one and a half or two as the layout between the sites created different typologies with out it being forced; asked if by requesting variety was it to be on the bedroom sizes, or what was included within the prototype. Chair Baltay brought up two recent town home project sites on Bayshore and the Fry’s site, and both had a single prototype design that ARB had suggested being changed that was not moved forward as it was too far into the approval process, but if a regulation had been enforced it would have made a difference. He suggested it being defined by building form, exterior elevation treatment, and material variation; should be set above one acre, two above two acres, with three prototypes. Planner Raybould commented that it was placed in the code. Planner Gerhardt noted that she had it placed within the objective standards as it was a long-standing question with the ARB; the code 1824.50 talked about the types of housing diversity, and if under one Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of March 7, 2024 Packet Pg. 223 Page 27 of 34 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 03/07/24 5 0 3 2 acre it was allowed one housing type, if one to two acres it had to be two housing types, and if over two acres it had to have three housing types. Chair Baltay asked if there was a definition of housing types. Planner Gerhardt said the definition of housing types were detached units versus attached townhouses or rowhouses, condominiums, apartments, and mixed-use units. Chair Baltay stated that the ARB was concerned about townhomes variance and design as they had all looked more or less the same and asked if the code section3 1840.50 could be amended and add that typologies must include a significant variation of building massing, unit sizes, height massing, and the number of units per structure. {Crosstalk) Boardmember Adcock mentioned the next Item with regards to all townhomes must provide centrally located twenty-five by twenty-five-foot common green space or a linear public pedestrian path and questioned if they wanted to add a minimum width if a linear path. Boardmember Hirsch replied that was correct. Chair Baltay suggested a twenty-five-foot width as the requirement. Boardmember Hirsch added that private areas were not to be included as they were open spaces. Vice Chair Rosenberg agreed and said it was important as with the porch or patio areas being in the open space, the public could easily access the private area. (Crosstalk) Planner Gerhardt noted that in the objective standards on common open spaces needed to have a ten- foot circle diameter. Chair Baltay responded that for the townhomes they requested up to a twenty-five-foot circle diameter. Planner Raybould asked for clarification if the first paragraph said areas that were considered pedestrian pathways could not be used as a common open space as the examples that had been provided showed as such. Boardmember Hirsch stated the ad hoc committee had chosen the dimensions from the first illustration that had been shown, as the common path was part of the central open space utilized by the public. (Crosstalk: discussed the example image on what was considered common open space and what was questionable) Planner Raybould stated she was still unsure of what was being asked. Chair Baltay responded they were asking for five percent of the site area be used for common open space and private area spaces for the townhomes were not included with a twenty-five-foot circle minimum within the space; the private common open space was to be functional and usable as a community Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of March 7, 2024 Packet Pg. 224 Page 28 of 34 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 03/07/24 5 0 3 2 gathering area for rest and play. He asked if the street tree requirements within the third paragraph were included in the objective standards. Planner Gerhardt answered there were street trees every thirty feet. (Crosstalk) Planner Raybould mentioned that most townhome project sites had a tree placed between each unit. (Crosstalk) Boardmember Adcock inquired if the main street led into the development cul-de-sac driveways, would it be considered a private street that made the tree requirement be applied. Planner Raybould commented that they had considered the number of units with private driveways serving under the code as what was defined as a private street, she believed it was four or more units. Boardmember Adcock said that Lake Avenue had trees, but Tahoe Lane only had trees on one side of the street, and asked if that situation met the requirement. Planner Raybould replied that the requirement had not been met unless trees were added between the finger type areas shown on the image. Chair Baltay asked what the current objective standard was on private streets in housing developments regarding trees. Planner Raybould answered they had not defined between private and public streets, and when looking at the townhomes they considered a requirement for all streets, but most projects she had seen provided trees in between the garages for the homes. Chair Baltay asked for clarification if all streets were applied to the thirty-foot requirement. Planner Raybould responded that all public and private streets were included in the objective standard. (Crosstalk regarding the image that showed the location of trees along the street and whether it was to be twenty-five-feet or thirty-feet) Planner Gerhardt read the objective standard saying sidewalks shall include at least one street tree withing six feet of the sidewalk for every thirty feet of linear feet of sidewalk length. Boardmember Hirsch brought to attention the issue they had found on projects with parking on both sides of the street, which was usually considered to be private, had no shade or canopies provided by only having one tree along the street. (Crosstalk) Boardmember Adcock commented to get enough space for a three-foot planting area, which added six feet to the drive aisle requirement, and would cause a substantial impact on the project. Boardmember Hirsch said it worked best with larger projects where a central street was affordable and was constructed like main street with a median placed. Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of March 7, 2024 Packet Pg. 225 Page 29 of 34 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 03/07/24 5 0 3 2 Chair Baltay questioned whether the objective standard could be adjusted to clarify that townhome private roads were considered the same as the length of the sidewalks, and that street trees needed to be on one side of the private drive that allowed reduced dimensions of thirty to twenty-five feet. (Crosstalk) Chair Baltay changed the phrasing of the current code saying sidewalks to also include private streets without sidewalks within townhome developments. Planner Gerhardt indicated the code needed to be amended to address the issue. Chair Baltay asked if Staff and Board were okay with not adding a new standard, but have the current code clarified. Boardmember Hirsch showed concern about it not being feasible. Chair Baltay inquired about the current objective standard regarding accent paving. Planner Gerhardt answered there were current access accent paving used in the crosswalks in the downtown area and along California Avenue, which is where they could be used on the project site and questioned whether ARB wanted special pavements for all the sidewalks on the site as well. Vice Chair Rosenberg stated it was well placed at intersections of pedestrian and vehicular traffic areas. Chair Baltay requested to move to the next Item as it did not pertain to strictly townhomes, but it could be suggested to Staff to implement tighter regulations on accent paving within the objective standard. Boardmember Hirsch expressed concern on the tighter community areas being negatively affected by the lack of proper accent paving markings. Boardmember Adcock questioned if they worded the requirement as pedestrian walkways were to be made with a different paving material versus vehicular. (Crosstalk) Boardmember Adcock asked Staff if there was an objective standard placed regarding the paving for crosswalks. Planner Gerhardt responded there was not for crosswalks or walkways, the only one Staff had was for downtown and California Avenue. (Crosstalk) Chair Baltay suggested leaving it as pedestrian pathways shall be paved with a different material than the vehicular pathways and moved on to the Item about privacy. All Board members agreed with what was proposed within the Item on privacy. Boardmember Chen inquired if the previous slide shown needed to be addressed regarding the fifteen- foot distance between end units. Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of March 7, 2024 Packet Pg. 226 Page 30 of 34 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 03/07/24 5 0 3 2 (Crosstalk) Chair Baltay inquired when a U-shaped or L-shaped unit was constructed, how was the length measured and if there was a recommendation on how it was calculated. Vice Chair Rosenberg stated that the maximum number of attached units of a common wall should not exceed seven units, no matter what the unit was shaped as. Chair Baltay referred to a prototype of a long U-shaped building with five units on each side and one on the end not being allowed, and if Staff and Board were okay with it not being allowed. Vice Chair Rosenberg gave an example of two or three units on either side with a large unit along the back, with a fifteen-foot break that led to another long linear building of units that allowed a cul-de-sac to run down the middle of the street, and felt it was effective on a townhome site. All Board members agreed. Chair Baltay moved to materiality, and questioned how materials, textures, and colors were to be defined. Boardmember Adcock referred to the standard on which the base building color treatment had to include at least two-color schemes and two basic materials to be used, and felt it should be left as it was, as stucco had assorted colors and textures when applied. Vice Chair Rosenberg commented on shingle siding and her concerns on whether it applied to the variety standard. (Crosstalk) Chair Baltay inquired if the last line of the paragraph referred to there being six colors or materials to choose from or would it all be one singular plain color. (Crosstalk) Planner Gerhardt asked if it was for six colors per building or per project; if it was per project, it limited the difference in between the buildings. Chair Baltay responded it was per building. (Crosstalk) Chair Baltay moved to the Item on waste operations and asked the ad hoc committee if the 150-foot dimension was reasonable to request. Boardmember Adcock inquired if the example showed the waste area being within 150 feet of the furthest unit. (Crosstalk) Boardmember Adcock commented that 150 feet limited the waste area but worked if applied to the mailboxes. Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of March 7, 2024 Packet Pg. 227 Page 31 of 34 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 03/07/24 5 0 3 2 Chair Baltay questioned what an appropriate distance for the waste site was. (Crosstalk) All Board members agreed to a 250-foot distance from the unit to waste enclosure be applied. Boardmember Chen mentioned the service vehicle parking and if they wanted to separate it into another category as the size was different compared to the regular guest parking. Vice Chair Rosenberg stated that there should be at least one regulated parking spot for service vehicles. Planner Gerhardt said there were standards placed on loading spaces for larger service vehicles; a taxi loading area had been added for projects over fifty units, and asked if there was more the ARB wanted to add. Chair Baltay referred to the paragraph that allowed guest parking to include one space for a medium sized vehicle, and it was suggested that an additional space needed to be added on to the parking. (Crosstalk) Vice Chair Rosenberg agreed with the issue regarding the service vehicle parking was an operational issue and not a guest parking issue. Chair Baltay asked for the current objective standard on roof decks on all building types. Planner Gerhardt replied that roof decks down one level from the top had to be within the height limit of the Floor Area Ratio (FAR), as it was required to have a stairway and elevator to reach the top, and once implemented it led to an increase in height, if under the FAR and height limit there was no restriction. Planner Raybould noted that under the new code changes were made so the stairway was allowed to exceed the height limit, even with the height limit being counted as well. Vice Chair Rosenberg questioned if there was a fifty-foot height limit and if it were opted to have a one-, two-, or three-story house plus a roof deck and stairwell, within the FAR, would it be legal. Planner Gerhardt answered if it met the height limit it would be legal. Chair Baltay inquired if there was a privacy requirement in the objective standard for outdoor spaces above grade. Planner Gerhardt said if it was counted as an open space then yes it had standards placed in the code; if an open space under the height limit it was allowed. Vice Chair Rosenberg asked fellow Boardmembers if they wanted to encourage this type of design, and if so, how would they have it implemented; she felt it benefited the units and was a successful design as each rooftop terrace gave privacy to the individual unit but did not want to have the rooftop terraces near one another. Chair Baltay commented that the public had expressed issues with the lack of privacy of roof decks between neighbors not living in the buildings, but felt it was a bigger issue than ARB had say on. The last Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of March 7, 2024 Packet Pg. 228 Page 32 of 34 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 03/07/24 5 0 3 2 thought was on a point-based system to demonstrate compliance instead of a series of standards that needed to be met and was concerned it would be more work added to Staff. Boardmember Adcock agreed that it would be an administrative hassle to have a point system figured out and established. (Crosstalk) Boardmember Hirsch stated that the intention was to have a more public common space included, and asked how it was to be enforced, such as a mandate. Chair Baltay replied it had to be a tradeoff such as more tandem parking if more open space was allowed but did not see how it was going to be implemented in a practical way. Boardmember Adcock noted that only a small percentage of projects would have the accounting applied as developers were able to utilize waivers. Boardmember Hirsch said that it should be mandated by size of the project as developers took advantage of waivers. Chair Baltay said the ARB recommended to the Planning Department they consider adopting a point-based approval system for objective standards. (Crosstalk) Boardmember Adcock asked for an example of how the point-based approval system would be implemented. Chair Baltay answered that every time a standard was complied with, they received a point, and they needed to reach ten points all together to have met the standards. Planner Gerhardt mentioned Staff had a unique way of what was to be complied with, and in some cases, there was a menu of options that allowed variation, and if a point system were created, it forced Staff to start over in the expected compliances. (Crosstalk) Vice Chair Rosenberg expressed her concern on creating a point system and agreed it was difficult to define a starting point and how it moved forward. (Crosstalk) Chair Baltay requested that the ad hoc committee members on this project made a final document draft from the notes and feedback, and returned it to Planner Raybould, and then have a final Board recommendation on what was to be done on town home standards and asked if all Boardmembers agreed to proceed as such. Boardmember Chen asked if the final document was to be text only or have photos and images included as well. Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of March 7, 2024 Packet Pg. 229 Page 33 of 34 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 03/07/24 5 0 3 2 Chair Baltay said Staff would be able to suggest what was to be included within the document as the ARB wanted to ensure there was a format on what was asked and recommended, which then gave Staff the ability to further prosecute the standards. Vice Chair Rosenberg inquired if the final document could be agendized within the packet for the following meeting that allowed time for the Board to review and approve the items as written. Planner Raybould answered it had to be if there was to be a vote on approval. (Crosstalk) Chair Baltay wanted the subcommittee to collaborate with Staff to determine the proper formal format of the final report, and have it placed on the agenda to be voted on approval or denial of the document, and recommended to the Planning Staff on how they were to move forward. Planner Raybould noted that there would be video and minutes that would help to prepare the final document. Chair Baltay thanked Boardmember Hirsch and Boardmember Chen for their work on this project and closed the Study Session. Boardmember Questions, Comments or Announcements Chair Baltay asked for Boardmember Hirsch’s comments on a non-agendized item within a ten-minute time limit. Boardmember Hirsch showed an illustration of photographs of what was to be discussed. He stated that the existing houses in the community and the drawings of the projects provided gave a lesson on to carefully reviewing the standards. The 12306 technical manual was a prime example of a detailed description of what the standards implemented. Too many specific rules appeared as personal preferences rather than recognized general principles, and therefore were not completely objective. The third comment was on the residential functional planning massing design and site planning was to be understood in the relation to all multiple residences on each specific site when lots were split, and the SB9 had not dealt with the issues such as privacy, vehicle access, and private open spaces, which made it difficult on lot splits. His final comment was that the changes to longstanding regulations should be avoided as they had been established and assessed, after research on multiple housing types and a drawn description had been done from the technical manual. On the handout Staff was given, page 4.4A was known as actually A.3 in the new description, it says that except for the Eichler’s Palo Alto neighborhoods had diversity of styles, and frequently had porches that was not a standard for all projects, and if a majority of unique features on a single block, as consistent elements by themselves, it should not dictate the entire street; it was atypical of the Palo Alto community and was an excessive restriction placed on an owner or developer. He felt the driveway materials were too restrictive, used a photo of his home as an example, which had concrete that was disallowed; the example in the middle of the page depicted a brick bordered and concrete, which he wanted to see allowed. Garage locations had standards that the garage had to be Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of March 7, 2024 Packet Pg. 230 Page 34 of 34 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 03/07/24 5 0 3 2 setback from the from the house and showed an example of a garage setting flush with the home that he felt looked appropriate and disagreed with the current standard. The roof heights and pitches standards were an important issue, as he thought they should maintain a normal daylight plane, and nothing else should be applied; to have angled roofs different at the angles, was not seen as reasonable, and when garage doors were to be represented the same as front doors of homes, showed a middle picture as an example that had a wood garage door, as it was a part of the form of the building and not the front door. He stated that the façade focal point was an unnecessary description, and with the examples given in illustration, the composition of the front of a building was what described the building. The window to wall detailing was more complicated than the description as it was limited and restricted to many dimensions of the windows; it had insufficient descriptions. The single-story building forms were the closest the government could require, 2.5A or B2, to build according to a pre-ordained housing plan, and eliminated the basic freedom inherent in Palo Alto’s varied building styles. On B6, 5.4A, he suggested increasing the dimensions from the side yards of a balcony to twenty foot, to eliminate the need of solid balcony railings; the daylight plane clearances should be kept as they were as it helped the over all composition to the houses. The walkway separations on narrow sites or planning purposes only had an entry located on a driveway site that was separated by stones between concretes bads and led linear to the front door but had no room for planting areas to be added and felt it should be applied to all situations or eliminated as a standard. He wanted to keep the daylight plane and old studies done because it represented the unique styles and appropriation to Palo Alto and mentioned the limited number of roofing styles available. Chair Baltay thanked Boardmember Hirsch for his comments and was impressed to see the strong concerns about the issues. Adjournment Chair Baltay adjourned the meeting at 1:12 p.m. Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of March 7, 2024 Packet Pg. 231