HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-11-19 Architectural Review Board Agenda Packet_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the
time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided
that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to two minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Architectural Review Board
Regular Meeting Agenda: November 19, 2020
Virtual Meeting
8:30 AM
****BY VIRTUAL TELECONFERENCE ONLY***
https://zoom.us/join Meeting ID: 925 4447 0390 Phone number: 1 669 900 6833
Pursuant to the provisions of California Governor’s Executive Order N-29-20,
issued on March 17, 2020, to prevent the spread of Covid-19, this meeting will be
held by virtual teleconference only, with no physical location. The meeting will be
broadcast live on Cable TV and through Channel 26 of the Midpen Media Center
at bit.ly/MidPenwatchnow.
Members of the public may comment by sending an email to
arb@cityofpaloalto.org or by attending the Zoom virtual meeting to give live
comments. Instructions for the Zoom meeting can be found on the last page of
this agenda. Visit bit.ly/PApendingprojects to view project plans and details.
Call to Order / Roll Call
Oral Communications
The public may speak to any item not on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,2
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) Recent Project Decisions
Action Items
Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Ten (10) minutes, plus ten (10) minutes rebuttal. All
others: Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the
time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided
that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to two minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
2. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 744-748 San Antonio Road [20PLN-00164]:
Recommendation on a Master Sign Program to Allow Two Freestanding Signs, Eight
Wall Signs and Ancillary Window Signs and a Sign Exception to Exceed the Number of
Freestanding Signs, and the Size of Freestanding Signs and Certain Wall Signs on a
Building Face. Environmental Assessment: Exempt per CEQA Section 15311
(Accessory Structures). Zoning District CS. For More Information Contact the Project
Planner Sheldon S. Ah Sing at sahsing@m-group.us.
Study Session
Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3
3. Study Session for ARB Review of Draft Objective Standards (Continued from
10/15/20)
4. Study Session on Ex-parte Communications Between Architectural Review Board
Members and Applicants, Developers and Other Persons
5. Discussion Regarding the Annual ARB Report to Council
Approval of Minutes
Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3
6. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for October 15, 2020
Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcements
North of Ventura Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP) Working Group Updates –
Boardmember Lew
Adjournment
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the
time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided
that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to two minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Palo Alto Architectural Review Board
Boardmember Biographies, Present and Archived Agendas and Reports are available online:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/architectural/default.asp. The ARB Boardmembers
are:
Chair Peter Baltay
Vice Chair Osma Thompson
Boardmember David Hirsch
Boardmember Grace Lee
Boardmember Alex Lew
Get Informed and Be Engaged!
View online: http://midpenmedia.org/category/government/city-of-palo-alto/ or on Channel
26.
Public comment is encouraged. Email the ARB at: arb@CityofPaloAlto.org.
Material related to an item on this agenda submitted to the ARB after distribution of the
agenda packet is available for public inspection at bit.ly/paloaltoARB.
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.
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the
time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided
that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to two minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
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 for the
appropriate meeting to access a Zoom-based meeting. Please read the following
instructions carefully.
A. 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.
B. You will 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.
C. When you wish to speak on an agenda item, click on “raise hand”. The
moderator will activate and unmute attendees in turn. Speakers will be notified
shortly before they are called to speak. The Zoom application will prompt you to
unmute your microphone when it is your turn to speak.
D. When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted.
E. 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 Council, download the Zoom application onto
your phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter the Meeting ID
below. Please follow instructions B-E 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.
https://zoom.us/join
Meeting ID: 925 4447 0390
Phone number: 1 669 900 6833
(you may need to exclude the initial “1” depending on your phone service)
Architectural Review Board
Staff Report (ID # 11779)
Report Type: City Official Reports Meeting Date: 11/19/2020
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650) 329-2442
Summary Title: City Official Report
Title: Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance
Record, 2) Tentative Future Agenda items and 3) Recent
Project Decisions
From: Jonathan Lait
Recommendation
Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) review and comment as appropriate.
Background
The attached documents are provided for informational purposes. The Board may review and
comment as it deems appropriate. If individual Boardmembers anticipate being absent from a
future meeting, it is requested that be brought to staff’s attention when considering this item.
The first attachment provides a meeting and attendance schedule for the current calendar year.
Also included are the subcommittee assignments, which are assigned by the ARB Chair.
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.
Board level Architectural Review approvals can be found on the City’s webpage at
http://bit.ly/PAapprovedprojects.
Administrative staff-level Architectural Review approvals can be found on the City’s webpage at
http://bit.ly/PAstaffapprovals. Any party, including the applicant, may request a hearing by the
ARB on the proposed director's decision(s) by filing a written request with the planning division.
There shall be no fee required for requesting such a hearing.
However, pursuant to 18.77.070(b)(5) any project relating to the installation of cabinets
containing communications service equipment or facilities, pursuant to any service subject to
Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 2.11, Chapter 12.04, Chapter 12.08, Chapter 12.09, Chapter
1
Packet Pg. 5
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 2
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:
x Attachment A: ARB Meeting Schedule Assignments (DOCX)
x Attachment B: Tentative Future Agendas (DOCX)
1
Packet Pg. 6
Architectural Review Board
Meeting Schedule & Assignments
2020 Schedule
Meeting Dates Time Location Status Planned Absences
1/2/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Cancelled
1/16/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular
1/30/2020 9:00 AM Palo Alto Art Center Retreat
2/6/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular
2/20/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Cancelled
3/5/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular
3/19/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Cancelled
4/2/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Cancelled
4/16/2020 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Regular Lee excused
5/7/2020 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Regular
5/21/2020 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Regular
6/4/2020 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Subcommittee
6/18/2020 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Cancelled
7/2/2020 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Regular
7/16/2020 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Regular
8/6/2020 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Cancelled
8/20/2020 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Regular
9/3/2020 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Cancelled
9/17/2020 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Cancelled
10/1/2020 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Regular
10/15/2020 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Regular Lee excused
11/5/2020 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Regular
11/19/2020 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Regular
12/3/2020 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Regular *
12/17/2020 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Regular
*Two Board member terms end on December 15, 2020. Appointments will be made by City Council prior to this date.
2020 Subcommittee Assignments
Assignments will be made by the ARB Chair on the day of the hearing
January February March April May June
1/16 –
Hirsch/Lew
2/6 –
Baltay/Lew
3/5 –
Baltay/Lew
4/16 –
Hirsch/Lew
5/21 –
Thompson/Lew
6/4 –
Thompson/Hirsch
July August September October November December
7/2 –
Thompson/Hirsch
/Lew
1.a
Packet Pg. 7
Architectural Review Board
2020 Tentative Future Agenda
The Following Items are Tentative and Subject to Change:
Meeting Dates Topics
December 3, 2020
x 3585 El Camino Real: Mixed Use (3rd Formal)
x 3241 Park Boulevard: New Commercial Building (1st Formal)
x ARB Chair/Vice-Chair Elections and By-Laws Update
1.b
Packet Pg. 8
Architectural Review Board
Staff Report (ID # 11705)
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 11/19/2020
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650) 329-2442
Summary Title: 744 - 750 San Antonio Road: Master Sign Program (1st Formal)
Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 744-748 San Antonio Road
[20PLN-00164]: Recommendation on a Master Sign Program to
Allow Two Freestanding Signs, Eight Wall Signs and Ancillary
Window Signs and a Sign Exception to Exceed the Number of
Freestanding Signs, and the Size of Freestanding Signs and
Certain Wall Signs on a Building Face. Environmental
Assessment: Exempt per CEQA Section 15311 (Accessory
Structures). Zoning District CS. For More Information Contact
the Project Planner Sheldon S. Ah Sing at sahsing@m-group.us.
From: Jonathan Lait
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s):
1. Recommend approval of the proposed project to the Director of Planning and
Development Services based on findings and subject to conditions of approval.
Report Summary
The proposed project is a request for a master sign program and exceptions to exceed the sign
regulations contained in the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) for two recently constructed
hotels on the same property. Specifically, the applicant requests to exceed the allowed number
of freestanding signs and to exceed the allowed sign area for freestanding signs as prescribed
by the PAMC Section 16.20.120. In addition, the applicant requests an exception to exceed the
allowed sign area for wall signs allowed by PAMC Section 16.20.130. A Sign Exception allows for
certain development standards pertaining to signs to be exceeded. The Director of Planning and
Development Services may grant sign exception approvals following a recommendation from
the Architectural Review Board (ARB) pursuant to PAMC Section 18.76.020.
Background
Owner: M10 DEV LLC/T2 Hospitality LLC (Rupesh Madhav, representative)
2
Packet Pg. 9
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 2
Architect: Coast Sign, Inc.
Representative: Randy Popp
Legal Counsel: Not Applicable
Property Information
Address: 744 - 748 San Antonio Road
Neighborhood: Charleston Gardens
Lot Dimensions & Area: 284’-4” along San Antonio, Rear: 345’-5” and north side is 250’-2”
and south side is 287’-1”
Housing Inventory Site: Yes
Located w/in a Plume: Yes
Protected/Heritage Trees: None
Historic Resource(s): No
Existing Improvement(s): 165,450 sf; five-stories; 50 ft; 2020
Existing Land Use(s): Two, Five-Story hotels
Adjacent Land Uses &
Zoning:
North: CS (Educational supply store—BACH Company)
West: PC-2711 & CN (Multi-family residential and nursery)
East: Industrial (City of Mountain View)
South: CS (Commercial—Crossroads Foods)
Aerial View of Property:
2
Packet Pg. 10
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 3
Source: CNES, Airbus, Maxer Technologies, Planet.com, US Geological Survey, USDA Farm Survey & Google 2020
Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans
Zoning Designation: CS (Service Commercial)
Comp. Plan Designation: CS (Service Commercial)
Context-Based
Design Criteria: Yes
Downtown Urban
Design Guide: Not Applicable
South of Forest Avenue
Coordinated Area Plan: Not Applicable
Baylands Master Plan: Not Applicable
El Camino Real Design
Guidelines (1976 / 2002): Not Applicable
Proximity to Residential Yes
2
Packet Pg. 11
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 4
Uses or Districts (150'):
Located w/in the Airport
Influence Area: Not Applicable
Prior City Reviews & Action
City Council: June 12, 2017: Staff Report for new hotel buildings
https://tinyurl.com/744SanAntonio6-12-17Report
PTC: None
HRB: None
ARB: June 1, 2017: Staff Report for new hotel buildings
https://tinyurl.com/744SanAntonioARB6-1-17
Project Description
The applicant proposes a master sign program with sign exceptions for the two recently
constructed hotels on the same property located at 744 – 748 San Antonio Road. The hotels are
scheduled to open by the end of the year. The sign program consists of two freestanding signs
under five feet in height; four wall signs for the AC Hotels brand; four wall signs for Hotel
Citrine; and ancillary window signs for each building. The purpose of the master sign program is
to provide a cohesive and consistent design concept for the site and to allow for the flexibility
to include a combination of sign types that work for the proposed uses.
The following signs are requested with the Master Sign Program including Sign Exceptions
(summarized in Attachment F – Zoning Comparison in table form):
AC Hotel
x One (1) freestanding monument sign (Sign E) in front of the AC Hotel parallel between the
building and the sidewalk. This sign will have two rows of stacked copy with the “AC Hotel”
being halo-lit channel letters and “Palo Alto” being non-illuminated dimensional letters. The
sign will include aluminum letters painted white. In accordance with PAMC 16.20.010
(15)(A), sign area for sign includes the structure that it is placed upon. In this case, the
entire 42-inch tall wall from the driveway to the sidewalk opening is counted. The total sign
area is 175 square feet.
x Four (4) wall signs (Signs A, B, C and K).
o Sign A is located on the west elevation building wall and will be framed, stacked
halo-lit channel letters with “AC Hotels / Marriott” copy. The 40.81 sf sign
includes aluminum with brushed aluminum finish.
o Sign B is located on the northwest elevation building wall and will be framed
stacked halo-lit channel letters with “AC Hotels / Marriott” copy. The 40.81 sf
sign includes aluminum with brushed aluminum finish.
o One (1) wall sign (Sign C) located on the north elevation building wall. This sign is
a non-illuminated placard with “AC Hotels / Marriott” copy and is 3.87 square
feet.
2
Packet Pg. 12
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 5
o One (1) wall sign (Sign K) is located on the west wing elevation located on the
entry canopy to the hotel. This sign will be face-lit channel letters with “AC
Hotel” copy with a sign area of 6.225 square feet.
x Four (4) window signs (Sign D) located on north elevation entry doors of the building. This
sign type is a film decal with “AC Hotels” copy. All four window signs would have a sign area
of 15 square feet. This represents two percent of the window area on the elevation wall at
the ground floor.
Hotel Citrine
x One (1) freestanding monument sign (Sign H) in front of the Citrine Hotel parallel between
the building and the sidewalk. This sign will have two rows of stacked copy with the “Hotel
Citrine” being halo-lit channel letters and “A Tribute Collection Hotel” being non-illuminated
dimensional letters. In accordance with PAMC 16.20.010 (15)(A), sign area for sign includes
the structure that it is placed upon. In this case, the entire 42-inch tall wall from the
driveway to the sidewalk opening is counted. The total sign area is 280 square feet.
x Four (4) wall signs (Signs F, G, I, L) located on the west elevation building wall and southwest
elevation building wall.
o Sign F includes two elements: an internally illuminated cabinet logo and halo-lit
channel letters with “Hotel Citrine” copy. The total area of the logo and channel
letters is 136.49 square feet.
o Sign G includes two elements: an internally illuminated cabinet logo and halo-lit
channel letters with “Hotel Citrine” copy. The total area of the logo and channel
letters is 136.49 square feet.
o One (1) wall sign (Sign I) located on the southwest wing elevation building wall.
This sign is a non-illuminated placard with “Hotel Citrine / A Tribute Collection
Hotel” copy. The sign area is 3.83 square feet.
o One (1) wall sign (Sign L) on the southwest wing elevation located on the entry
canopy to the hotel. This sign will be face-lit channel letters with “Hotel Citrine”
copy. The sign area is 10.65 square feet.
o
x Four (4) window signs (Sign J) located on south elevation entry doors of the building. This
sign type is a film decal with “Hotel Citrine Logo” copy. All four window signs would have a
sign area of 15 square feet. This represents four percent of the window area of the
elevation on the ground floor.
Based on the proposed sign program:
Freestanding Signs
x The project exceeds the number of freestanding signs for the property (two signs
proposed versus one sign allowed, Signs E & H).
x The total area of both signs exceeds the maximum square footage allowed for
freestanding signs on the property (455 square feet proposed versus 27 square feet
allowed).
2
Packet Pg. 13
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 6
Wall Signs
x Exceeds the maximum square footage allowed for wall sign west elevation building wall
(Sign F, 136.49 square feet proposed versus 115 square feet allowed).
x Exceeds the maximum square footage allowed for wall signs on the southwest wing
elevation (Signs G, I & L, 150.97 square feet proposed versus 109 square feet allowed).
Requested Entitlements, Findings and Purview:
The following discretionary applications are being requested:
x Architectural Review – Master Sign Program: In accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code
(PAMC) Section 16.20.030 "Master sign program" means a program allowing the occupants
of a building or project including a number of buildings to combine the total lawful sign
coverage into one or more lawful signs in an integrated design concept. The master sign
program shall designate the sign locations and areas of all signs in the program, as well as
typical sign designs, colors and faces. Pursuant to the approval of the master sign program,
subsequent individual signs may be erected without further design review.
The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC 18.77.070.
Applications are reviewed by the ARB and recommendations are forwarded to the Director
of Planning & Development Services for action within five business days of the ARB’s
recommendation. Action by the Director is appealable to the City Council if filed within 14
days of the decision. Projects are evaluated against specific findings. All findings must be
made in the affirmative to approve the project. Failure to make any single finding requires
project redesign or denial. The findings to approve this application are provided in
Attachment B.
x Architectural Review – Sign Exception: In accordance with PAMC section 16.20.040 “Sign
Exception” means an application made in conjunction with an architectural review which
requests a deviation from what is allowed in the Sign Code. The process for evaluating this
type of application is set forth in PAMC 18.77.070. Applications are reviewed by the ARB
and recommendations are forwarded to the Director of Planning & Development Services
for action within five business days of the ARB’s recommendation. Action by the Director is
appealable to the City Council if filed within 14 days of the decision. Projects are evaluated
against specific findings. All findings must be made in the affirmative to approve the project.
Failure to make any single finding requires project redesign or denial. The findings to
approve this application are provided in Attachment B.
Analysis1
1 The information provided in this section is based on analysis prepared by the report author prior to the public
hearing. The Architectural Review Board in its review of the administrative record and based on public testimony
may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to make alternative findings. A
change to the findings may result in a final action that is different from the staff recommended action in this
report
2
Packet Pg. 14
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 7
Neighborhood Setting and Character
Adjacent Areas
The project vicinity is characterized by primarily low-intensity, single-story buildings and
associated surface parking lots (See Attachment A – Location Map). These structures have
primarily stucco facades with varying setbacks from San Antonio Road, a major travelled road
that also serves as an official truck route. These low-rise structures and parking lots dominate
the view corridor. The most similar development in mass and height as the proposed project is
at the intersection of San Antonio Road and East Charleston Road (Taube Koret Campus), about
a quarter of a mile away. Existing signage within the vicinity includes freestanding signs
(monument and pole styles) and wall signs. Some are illuminated, and others are not.
Residential uses in the vicinity are located approximately 150 feet west of the project site
(across San Antonio Road). The three-story multi-family residential complex is separated from
the site by four traffic lanes and a landscaped median planted with trees, perennial plants and
groundcover. The buildings within the complex are setback from the road by approximately 75
feet. Mature landscaping and trees, a six-foot wall, and a private internal roadway separate the
units from San Antonio Road. The exteriors of the residential structures are composed of tan
stucco with dark brown trim elements.
Project Site
The 1.91-acre site includes two hotels with shared amenity spaces and parking on a podium
structure as well as underground. Both hotels are served by a single driveway down the center
of the property with access from San Antonio Road. An oval driveway provides circulation to
the hotel lobbies for valet parking. This site plan makes the two hotels seem as if they are
located on separate parcels.
The site includes a 143-room Hotel Citrine (Formerly Courtyard) on the north portion of the site
and a 151-room AC by Marriott hotel (AC Hotel) on the south portion of the site, for a total of
294 new hotel rooms. Both buildings are five-stories and 50 feet in height. The hotels are larger
in mass than other buildings within the vicinity because within the CS zoning district hotels are
allowed a maximum of 2.0:1 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) instead of 0.4:1 FAR for other types of
buildings. The site includes approximately 284 feet of frontage. In front of both hotels, two 42-
inch tall walls that are parallel with San Antonio Road have been constructed with the hotels.
The AC Hotel brand originated in Europe and caters to both business and leisure travelers and
offers an upscale aesthetic experience. Hotel Citrine is a part of the Tribute Portfolio. The
Tribute Portfolio is a collection of independent upscale hotels within the Marriott brand. The AC
Hotel includes gray hues, while the Hotel Citrine uses earth tone colors. The proposed sign
program brings both hotels together with a consistent number of signs and in similar locations
on each hotel’s portion of the property in a way that mirrors each other.
The project site is unique from the surrounding properties in that it includes two hotels on the
same site. Other multi-tenant sites would include a single freestanding identification sign
identifying multiple tenants. That concept would not work well for visitors trying to identify the
2
Packet Pg. 15
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 8
hotels and the hotels need different signs because they represent different brands. San Antonio
Road is a divided roadway and the second freestanding sign would help in identifying the
property, especially since the patrons to the hotels are likely to be unfamiliar with the area but
should have familiarity with the hotel branding. In this case it would be difficult to apply the
strict allowances of the Sign Code, as the regulations do not translate well onto larger
properties with multiple tenants. Doing so would limit this property’s ability to identify the
hotels.
Zoning Compliance2
A detailed review of the proposed project’s consistency with applicable zoning standards has
been performed (See Attachment F – Zoning Comparison). The proposed project complies with
all applicable codes or is seeking through the requested permits permission to deviate from
certain code standards, in a manner that is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance.
The standards for freestanding signs, as specified in PAMC Section 16.20.120, are listed below:
x Area and Height. Freestanding signs less than five feet in height shall be permitted in all
districts. The maximum area and height of such signs is set forth in Table 1. Would not
comply outside of an approved Sign Exception. The combined total area of Signs E & H
exceeds the allowable sign area of 27 square feet.
x Location. Every such sign shall be wholly on the owner's property. Complies; all signs are
located on the subject property.
x Number. Subject to the provisions of PAMC Section 16.20.170, there may be one such sign
for each frontage. In the case of shopping centers and other multiple occupancies having a
common frontage, the frontage shall be deemed to be that of the shopping center or
commonly used parcel and not the frontages of the individual businesses or occupancies.
Does not comply since the project proposes two freestanding signs on the same property.
Provisions of PAMC Section 16.20.170 are not applicable to a Master Sign Program.
x Construction. In addition to the requirements of PAMC Section 16.20.190, every such sign
shall be constructed wholly of metal, incombustible plastic or other approved fire-resistant
material. Complies; all exposed sign components are made from aluminum.
x Lighting of Freestanding signs. No freestanding sign shall be constructed in such a way that
any light bulb or filament is visible from the front of the sign or from beyond the property
line. Nothing herein shall be construed to prohibit signs of neon tubing or similar self-
illuminating material of equivalent or less intensity. Complies; the signs are halo lit.
The standards for wall signs, as specified in PAMC Section 16.20.130, are listed below:
x Area and Height. Wall signs shall for each building face shall not exceed an area of indicated
on Table 3. No part of any wall sign shall extend above the top level of the wall upon or in
front of which it is situated. Would not comply outside of an approved Sign Exception. Sign
2 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/paloalto/latest/overview
2
Packet Pg. 16
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 9
F exceeds the maximum square footage allowed for wall sign on the west elevation
(136.49 square feet proposed versus 115 square feet allowed) and Signs G, I & L on the
south elevation of Hotel Citrine exceed the maximum square footage allowed for wall
signs (150.97 square feet versus 109 square feet allowed). The signs comply with the
height regulation. When applying the Master Sign Program and transferring unused
allocated sign area, the overall sign area for the site is not exceeded.
x Thickness or Projection. No such sign, including any light box or other structural part, shall
exceed a thickness of ten inches. In any sign consisting of cutout or raised characters, said
characters shall project no more than six inches from the mounting surface, except that
when the average area of the individual characters exceeds six square feet, the projection
may be increased by one-half inch for each additional square foot of average area over six
feet, in no case to exceed fifteen inches. Complies; no sign projects greater than three
inches.
x Number. Subject to the provisions of PAMC Section 16.20.170, there may be any number of
such signs for each building face, but in no case shall the total wall sign area for each face
exceed that shown in Table 3. No building shall be deemed to have more than four building
faces. Consistency of the design and number of signs in conjunction with all the other
proposed signs would be more appropriately processed under a Master Sign program.
Provisions of PAMC Section 16.20.170 are not applicable to a Master Sign Program.
Signs F & G of Hotel Citrine include an internally illuminated cabinet with an acrylic face and
push through logo allowing for the logo to be a silhouette. There is concern that there may be
excessive light emitting from the cabinet. Homewood Suites by Hilton (4329 El Camino Real)
includes a similar type of wall sign with a cabinet logo for comparison. Staff seeks comment on
this type of sign and recommends that a diffuser film such as one produced by 3M be applied to
the cabinet to reduce light emission.
The required findings for both a master sign program and sign exceptions are included in
Attachment B (ARB Findings). In summary, the findings for approval can be made because the
sign designs are consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance
requirements (except where exceptions are requested); the signs are a coherent and unified
design; and the design of the signs are of high aesthetic quality. The sign exception findings can
be made because the site includes hotel uses which cater to visitors that are unfamiliar with the
area, however, are familiar with the brand. Furthermore, the hotels are larger buildings than
compared to others in the surrounding area and as proposed the sign program provides
adequate site visibility and proportionately sized signage in relation to the buildings. There are
walls on each building that do not have any signs, such as the north and east elevations of the
Hotel Citrine and the south and east elevations of the AC Hotel. While proposed signs exceed
the allowed sign area for individual wall elevations for Hotel Citrine, the overall sign area
allowed is not exceeded taking into account sign area that is transferred from unused wall sign
area allocations. The total amount allowed on four sides is 716 square feet compared to 287.46 square
feet proposed.
2
Packet Pg. 17
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 10
Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans and Guidelines3
Policy L-6.10 of the Comprehensive Plan encourages “… high quality signage that is attractive,
energy-efficient, and appropriate for the location, and balances visibility needs with aesthetic
needs.
All signs are designed to be consistent with the building it is identifying. The proposed signs use
aluminum or bronze for the exposed materials. Internal illumination is proposed using halo lit
techniques that will limit off-site glare. While some of the signage exceeds the allowable
regulations, staff believes that much of the new signage will be appropriate in scale in relation
to the existing buildings and size of the site. Additionally, staff believes that it will facilitate
easier identification of the site as well as pedestrian and vehicle traffic through the site.
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. Specifically, the project is exempt from CEQA per Section
15311 (Accessory Structures), item (a) “On-Premise Signs”.
Public Notification, Outreach & Comments
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 November 6, 2020, which is 12 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred
on November 6, 2020, which is 12 days in advance of the meeting.
Public Comments
As of the writing of this report, no project-related, public comments were received.
Alternative Actions
In addition to the recommended action, the Architectural Review Board may:
1. Approve the project with modified findings or conditions;
2. Continue the project to a date (un)certain; or
3. Recommend project denial based on revised findings.
Report Author & Contact Information ARB4 Liaison & Contact Information
Sheldon S. Ah Sing, AICP, Consultant Jodie Gerhardt, Planning Manager
(408) 340-5462 x 109 (650) 329-2575
sahsing@m-group.us jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org
3 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/landuse/compplan.asp
4 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org
2
Packet Pg. 18
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 11
Attachments:
x Attachment A: Location Map (PDF)
x Attachment B: ARB Findings (DOCX)
x Attachment C: Conditions of Approval (DOCX)
x Attachment D: Sign Comparison Table (DOCX)
x Attachment E: Applicant's Request Letter (PDF)
x Attachment F: Project Plans (DOCX)
2
Packet Pg. 19
2.a
Packet Pg. 20
ATTACHMENT B
ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL
744 -748 San Antonio Road
20PLN-00164
Master Sign Program
The following findings have been made to support the application for a Master Sign Program, as modified by the
Architectural Review Board (ARB) approval conditions. The specific Master Sign Program that has been requested
is for the following standard:
AC Hotel:
x One (1) freestanding monument sign (Sign E) located on a freestanding wall in front of the AC Hotel
parallel between the building and the sidewalk.
x Two (2) wall signs (Signs A & B) located on the west elevation building wall and northwest elevation
building wall.
x One (1) wall sign (Sign K) on the west wing elevation located on the entry canopy to the hotel.
x One (1) wall sign (Sign C) located on the north elevation building wall.
x Four (4) window signs (Sign D) located on north elevation entry doors of the building.
Hotel Citrine:
x One (1) freestanding monument sign (Sign H) located on a freestanding wall in front of the Citrine Hotel
parallel between the building and the sidewalk.
x Two (2) wall signs (Signs F & G) located on the west elevation building wall and southwest elevation
building wall.
x One (1) wall sign (Sign L) on the southwest wing elevation located on the entry canopy to the hotel.
x One (1) wall sign (Sign I) located on the southwest wing elevation building wall.
x Four (4) window signs (Sign J) located on south elevation entry doors of the building.
Finding 1: The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning
Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant design guides.
The project is consistent with Finding #1 because:
The design is consistent and compatible with the applicable elements of the city's Comprehensive Plan in that the
proposed project is consistent with policy L-6.10: Encourage high quality signage that is attractive, energy-
efficient, and appropriate for the location, and balances visibility needs with aesthetic needs. The design of the
signs, materials, and colors are attractive and appropriate for the buildings and the surrounding area. The
proposed signage was designed to be compatible with the large scale structures on the site.
Finding 2: The project has a unified and coherent design, that:
a) Creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general
community,
b) Preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site and the
historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant,
c) Is consistent with the context-based design criteria of the applicable zone district,
2.b
Packet Pg. 21
d) Provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and land use
designations,
e) Enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent residential areas.
The project is consistent with Finding #2 because:
The master sign program presents a framework for purposes of wayfinding and site visibility. The proposed
signage uses consistent materials and colors that is unified with the brand they represent, is coherent and will
assist in creating a sense of order on the site. The design is compatible with the immediate environment of the
site and is appropriately scaled to compliment large scale buildings.
Finding 3: The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and appropriate
construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and
enhance the surrounding area.
The project is consistent with Finding #3 because:
The master sign program makes use of aluminum, bronze, acrylic, and vinyl materials that are durable while also
being simple, clean, and aesthetically pleasing. The primary color palette of brushed aluminum, white, and bronze
proposed for the sign materials that create a modern appearance.
Finding 4: The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and providing
for elements that support the building's necessary operations (e.g. convenient vehicle access to property and
utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.).
The project is consistent with Finding #4 because:
The signage has been placed to assist in wayfinding for patrons of the hotels and providing adequate site
identification. While the hotels have different branding, the sign locations are identical on both buildings
providing a cohesive sign program. The lighting for the signs are a combination of internal illumination and halo lit
illumination, which are sufficient to provide adequate identification at night, while not causing excessive glare.
Finding 5: The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is
appropriate to the site's functions, and utilizes to the extent practical, regional indigenous drought resistant
plant material capable of providing desirable habitat that can be appropriately maintained.
The project is consistent with Finding #5 because:
Finding #5 is not applicable for this project. The existing landscaping will not be impacted by the proposed
signage.
Finding 6: The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy
efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning.
The project is consistent with Finding #6 because:
The proposed signs will meet Cal-Green requirements, are made of durable long-lasting materials and use light
emitting diodes for illumination, which are energy efficient.
2.b
Packet Pg. 22
Sign Exception
The following findings have been made to support the sign exception request to exceed the maximum
signage, as modified by the ARB approval conditions. The specific exception that has been requested is
for the following standard:
Freestanding Signs
x The project exceeds the number of freestanding signs for the property (two signs proposed versus one
sign allowed)(Signs E & H).
x Exceeds the maximum square footage allowed for freestanding signs on the property (750 square feet
proposed versus 27 square feet allowed).
Wall Signs
x Exceeds the maximum square footage allowed for wall sign (Sign F) (136.49 square feet proposed versus
115 square feet allowed).
x Exceeds the maximum square footage allowed for wall signs (Signs G, I & L) (150.97 square feet versus
109 square feet allowed).
1. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property
involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district;
The subject property includes two hotels, which under the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) are allowed to
develop up to a maximum of 2.0:1 Floor Area Ratio (FAR). That floor area allowance is greater than the base
FAR for other properties in the same district, which is 0.4:1. The property includes larger buildings that are
allowed pursuant to the PAMC, which makes the properties unique from those within the vicinity. Hotels are
hospitality and visitor-oriented businesses that need adequate signage for visibility, especially for patrons that
are not familiar with the area but are familiar with the brand. Since there are two hotels on site, allowing two
freestanding signs would be appropriate. Signs for the site are appropriate in size to the building it serves, is
uniform in location use similar types of quality materials and illumination.
2. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial
property right of the applicant and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardships;
In that the visibility of signage is important for any site to be easily identifiable and promote a sense of place
in the community. The proposed signs, while larger than allowed, have been carefully designed to advertise
the use and still be in scale with the five story hotel buildings. The signs were also reviewed and found
consistent with the Architectural Review findings as required by the PAMC.
3. The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity
and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience.
The signs were designed to be aesthetically pleasing and would not detract from the visual environment. The
placement and appearance of the signs do not pose safety hazards, nor do they detract from the subject
building or surrounding properties.
2.b
Packet Pg. 23
ATTACHMENT C
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
744 San Antonio Road
20PLN-00164
________________________________________________________________________
PLANNING DIVISION
1. CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS: Construction and development shall conform to the approved plans
entitled, "AC by Marriott with Citrine, 744-748 San Antonio Road,” stamped as received by the City
on October 12, 2020 on file with the Planning Department, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto,
California except as modified by these conditions of approval.
2. BUILDING PERMIT: Apply for a building permit and meet any and all conditions of the Planning,
Fire, Public Works, and Building Departments.
3. BUILDING PERMIT PLAN SET: A copy of this cover letter and conditions of approval shall be printed
on the second page of the plans submitted for building permit.
4. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: All modifications to the approved project shall be submitted for
review and approval prior to construction. If during the Building Permit review and construction
phase, the project is modified by the applicant, it is the responsibility of the applicant to contact
the Planning Division/project planner directly to obtain approval of the project modification. It is
the applicant’s responsibility to highlight any proposed changes to the project and to bring it to
the project planner’s attention.
5. ENTITLEMENT EXPIRATION: The project approval shall be valid for a period of two years from the
date of issuance of the entitlement. If within such two year period, the proposed use of the site or
the construction of buildings has not commenced, the Planning entitlement shall expire.
Application for a one year extension of this entitlement may be made prior to expiration.
6. FINAL INSPECTION: A Planning Division Final inspection will be required to determine substantial
compliance with the approved plans prior to the scheduling of a Building Division final. Any
revisions during the building process must be approved by Planning, including but not limited to;
materials, landscaping and hard surface locations. Contact your Project Planner, Sheldon Ah Sing at
sahsing@m-group.us to schedule this inspection.
7. INDEMNITY: 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, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the
Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City for 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 own choice.
2.c
Packet Pg. 24
BUILDING
8. At time of building permit submittal provide the following information:
a. Weight of each sign to be shown as part of plans.
b. Sign attachment to building must include the building elements (i.e., concrete wall, metal studs,
wood studs, etc.) with the correct mechanical anchorage type (i.e., Hilti TZ bolt for concrete,
sheet metal screw #12 for sheet metal stud, lag screw for woods, etc.) with length and
embedment length and listing (i.e, ICC ESR report), & quantities for each sign as minimum. If
the sign is heavy enough (typically over 100 lbs or more), structural calculation may be
required.
c. If the sign is illuminated, include complete T24 sign form and electrical disconnect and panel
information/schedule.
d. Accessibility - please make sure the sign does not protrude into the required walkway and
sidewalk (width and head height) meeting the current accessible code.
9. At time of building permit submittal provide the following information:
a. Site plan and location of the monument sign.
b. Size of sign.
c. Sign framing and connections to the existing concrete foundation with the correct mechanical
anchorage type (i.e., Hilti TZ bolt for concrete, etc.) with total length and embedment length
and listing (i.e, ICC ESR report), & quantities for each sign as minimum.
d. If the sign is illuminated, include complete T24 sign form and electrical disconnect and panel
information/schedule. Show location of the electrical panel supply power to the sign.
2.c
Packet Pg. 25
ATTACHMENT D
ZONING COMPARISON TABLE
744-748 San Antonio Road, 20PLN-00164
Table 3: PROPOSED MASTER SIGN PROGRAM
Sign Type Number Maximum Size
Proposed*
Illumination Location
AC Hotel – Sign E Freestanding
under 5’
1 1st Line of Copy: 10”
high x 5’-9” width
2nd Line of Copy: 4”
high x 2’-5 ¾” width
175 SQ FT
1st line: Halo-lit
2nd line: None
On 42” wall in
front
AC Hotel – Sign A Wall 1 6’-6 ¾ “ high
6’-2 ¾ “ wide
40.81 SQ FT
Halo-lit West Elevation
AC Hotel – Sign B Wall 1 6’-6 ¾ “ high
6’-2 ¾ “ wide
40.81 SQ FT
Halo-lit Northwest
Elevation
AC Hotel – Sign K Roof/Canopy/Wall 1 10” high
7’-6” wide
6.225 SQ FT
Face-lit West Wing
Elevation on
entry Canopy
AC Hotel – Sign C Wall 1 1’-11 ½ “ high
1’-11 ½” wide
3.87 SQ FT
None North Elevation
AC Hotel – Sign D Window 4 8” high
3’-9” wide
15 SQ FT total
None North Elevation
Doorways
Citrine – Sign H Freestanding
under 5’
1 1st Line of Copy: 10”
high x 13’ width
2nd Line of Copy: 4” x
9’ in width
280 SQ FT
1st line: Halo-lit
2nd line: None
On 42” wall in
front
Citrine – Sign F Wall 1 Cabinet: 46” high
27” wide
Line of Copy: 1’ high
15’-9 1/8” wide
136.49 SQ FT
Cabinet:
Internal
Copy: Halo-lit
West Elevation
Citrine – Sign G Wall 1 Cabinet: 46” high
27” wide
Line of Copy: 1’ high
15’-9 1/8” wide
136.49 SQ FT
Cabinet:
Internal
Copy: Halo-lit
Southwest
Elevation
Citrine – Sign L Roof/Canopy/Wall 1 10” high
12’-10” wide
10.65 SQ FT
Face-lit Southwest wing
elevation on
entry canopy
Citrine – Sign I Wall 1 1’-11 ½ “ high
1’-11 ½” wide None Southwest wing
elevation
2.d
Packet Pg. 26
Table 3: PROPOSED MASTER SIGN PROGRAM
Sign Type Number Maximum Size
Proposed*
Illumination Location
3.83 SQ FT
Citrine – Sign J Window 4 8” high
3’-9” wide
15 SQ FT total
None South Elevation
doorways
Maximum Allowable Sign Area for Wall Signs. Wall signs and sign area are defined in PAMC 16.20.010.
Roof signs erected parallel to a building face are also considered wall signs. The maximum total allowable sign
area of a single wall sign or the combined total maximum allowable area of multiple wall signs per building
face shall be consistent with the sign area limits outlined in PAMC 16.20 Table 3.
Table 4: COMPLIANCE WITH CHAPTER 16.20 (SIGNS)
Sign Type Size Compliance with PAMC
AC Hotel – Sign E Freestanding under 5’ 1st Line of Copy: 10” high x 5’-9”
width
2nd Line of Copy: 4” high x 2’-5 ¾”
width
Wall is 3’-6” high by 50’ in length
175 SQ FT
No. Sign Exception
Required. Since the
project includes two (2)
freestanding signs and the
total combined square
feet exceed the maximum
allowed.
AC Hotel – Sign A Wall 6’-6 ¾ “ high
6’-2 ¾ “ wide
40.81 SQ FT
Complies
AC Hotel – Sign B Wall 6’-6 ¾ “ high
6’-2 ¾ “ wide
40.81 SQ FT
Complies
AC Hotel – Sign K Roof/Canopy/Wall 10” high
7’-6” wide
6.225 SQ FT
Complies
AC Hotel – Sign C Wall 1’-11 ½ “ high
1’-11 ½” wide
3.87 SQ FT
Complies
AC Hotel – Sign D Window 8” high
3’-9” wide
15 SQ FT total
Complies
Citrine – Sign H Freestanding under 5’ 1st Line of Copy: 10” high x 13’
width
2nd Line of Copy: 4” x 9’ in width
Wall is 3’-6” high by 80’ in length
280 SQ FT
No. Sign Exception
Required. Since the
project includes two (2)
freestanding signs and the
total combined square
feet exceed the maximum
allowed.
Citrine – Sign F Wall Cabinet: 46” high
27” wide No. Sign Exception
2.d
Packet Pg. 27
Table 4: COMPLIANCE WITH CHAPTER 16.20 (SIGNS)
Sign Type Size Compliance with PAMC
Line of Copy: 1’ high
15’-9 1/8” wide
136.49 SQ FT
Required. Exceeds the
maximum size on building
face.
Citrine – Sign G Wall Cabinet: 46” high
27” wide
Line of Copy: 1’ high
15’-9 1/8” wide
136.49 SQ FT
No. Sign Exception
Required. Exceeds the
maximum size on building
face.
Citrine – Sign L Roof/Canopy/Wall 10” high
12’-10” wide
10.65 SQ FT
No. Sign Exception
Required. Exceeds the
maximum size on building
face.
Citrine – Sign I Wall 1’-11 ½ “ high
1’-11 ½” wide
3.83 SQ FT
Complies
Citrine – Sign J Window 8” high
3’-9” wide
15 SQ FT total
Complies
*PAMC 16.20.170 Combination of signs. The project does not comply with the prescriptive combination of
signs and therefore requires a Master Sign Program with exceptions.
2.d
Packet Pg. 28
Page | 1 of 1
12 June 2020
Mr. Sheldon Ah Sing
Planning Division
City of Palo Alto
285 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Re: Marriott AC/Courtyard - 744-748 San Antonio Road, Palo Alto, CA
Master Sign Program Application
Mr. Ah Sing:
With our project nearing construction completion, we have turned our focus to the branding
and associated signage. Based on our correspondence and discussions we understand the
signage we have proposed for the ‘dual-brand’ multi-structure property must be submitted in
the format of a Master Sign Application, as we are otherwise incapable of conforming to the
standard City of Palo Alto Signage Regulations. Please refer to the attached application form
and documents for our proposal. We believe this is a reasonable request which is consistent
with the general standards for signage included in the City of Palo Alto Municipal Code Section
16.20.
We would very much appreciate your efficient consideration of this request.
Best regards,
Randy Popp
2.e
Packet Pg. 29
Attachment F
Project Plans and Environmental Impact Report
These documents are only available on-line.
Directions to review Project plans online:
1. Go to: bit.ly/PApendingprojects
2. Scroll to find “744 San Antonio Road Signs” and click the address link
3. On this project specific webpage you will find a link to the Project Plans, Initial
Study and other important information
Direct Link to Project Webpage:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=5024&TargetID=319
2.f
Packet Pg. 30
Architectural Review Board
Staff Report (ID # 11703)
Report Type: Study Session Meeting Date: 11/19/2020
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650) 329-2442
Summary Title: ARB Review of Objective Standards
Title: Study Session for ARB Review of Draft Objective Standards
(Continued from 10/15/20)
From: Jonathan Lait
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Board (ARB):
1. Review the draft objective standards that would modify Title 18 (Zoning Ordinance) of
the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC); and
2. Provide feedback to staff and consultants.
Report Summary
The State legislature has made several changes to State housing laws in recent years to
streamline housing approvals. Specifically, the legislature has taken steps to reduce the amount
of subjective discretion jurisdictions have to deny or reduce the density of residential and
residential mixed-use projects. Instead, in certain contexts, jurisdictions must rely on objective
design and development standards.
This project aims to respond to State law by making changes to the Zoning Ordinance (Title 18).
The project will revise subjective standards, namely the Context-Based Design Criteria,
transforming them into objective standards. This represents a new way that projects will be
reviewed by Planning staff and the Architectural Review Board (ARB).
Background
SB2 Funding and Project Purpose
This project, development of objective standards, is funded by Senate Bill 2 (SB2). SB2 provides
local governments with grants and technical assistance to prepare plans and process
improvements that:
x streamline housing approvals;
x facilitate housing affordability; and/or
x accelerate housing production.
3
Packet Pg. 31
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 2
The City of Palo Alto developed a grant proposal to streamline housing approvals through
process improvements, namely the development of objective standards. The project will amend
the Zoning Ordinance to simplify and clarify standards and guidelines for staff, decision-makers,
and applicants.
Applicability
This project primarily addresses multifamily housing and residential mixed-use projects and
districts. Ground-floor retail guidelines and standards are addressed insofar as retail is required
as part of a mixed-use residential project. Commercial-only projects would also be subject to
applicable standards; standards, such as residential open space and residential entry standards
would not apply.
Objective standards in Title 18 currently do and will continue to apply to all projects, including
multi-family (three or more units) and single-family residential (when located in mixed use or
multifamily districts), accessory dwelling units (ADUs), and commercial projects. Similarly, any
objective standards in the Comprehensive Plan, coordinated area plans, and other adopted
policy documents likewise apply to all projects, as appropriate for their use and zoning district.
Relationship to State Housing Laws
Several State housing laws rely upon objective standards and emphasize the need for this SB2
project. The following paragraphs summarize the laws, which, when layered together, create
the policy context within which Palo Alto must develop its objective standards. Chart 1
illustrates how the City, including the ARB, reviews these different types of multifamily and
mixed-use projects. Regardless of the level of review, all these project types will be evaluated
for their compliance with objective standards.
Chart 1: Project Review Process for Multifamily and Residential Mixed-Use Projects
3
Packet Pg. 32
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 3
City Staff
Housing Accountability Act
Originally passed in 1982, the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) (Government Code Section
65589.5) acknowledges the lack of housing as a critical problem in California. The HAA applies
to all "housing development projects" which the State defines as: “residential units; mixed-use
developments (with at least two-thirds of the square footage designated for residential use),
and transitional or supportive housing.” The City’s interpretation is that the HAA applies to
projects with two or more residential units.
The HAA states that a city cannot disapprove a project, reduce its density, or otherwise make a
project infeasible, when the project complies with objective standards. However, if an applicant
seeks an exception to an objective standard, the project—or at least the non-conforming
element of the project—is no longer covered by the HAA. Decision-makers may then rely on the
findings required or criteria for approval of that specific modification. In such a case, subjective
standards and design guidelines can be used to evaluate projects.
SB35 Project Streamlining
Under SB35 (Government Code Section 65913.4), the following project types are eligible for
streamlined review process:
x projects with at least 2/3 residential floor area,
x projects which meet certain affordability requirements, and
x projects that are consistent with the City’s zoning and other “objective standards.”
In Palo Alto, SB35 applies to a limited number of projects. The project must include at least 50%
of the units as affordable to low-income households. Under SB35, the review process is 90 to
180 days depending on the project size. The project is not subject to review under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The project is not subject to discretionary review (e.g.,
3
Packet Pg. 33
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 4
Architectural Review, Site and Design Review, requiring review by the ARB, PTC, or Council).
Changes to objective standards would affect these projects.
SB330 Permit Review
Effective January 1, 2020, SB330 made several changes to existing State housing law, including
the HAA and Permit Streamlining Act. For the purposes of the work described herein, the
important elements are as follows:
x Prohibits jurisdictions from imposing (on housing projects) subjective design standards
established after January 1, 2020.
x Requires that jurisdictions only subject a housing development project to review
pursuant to the ordinances, policies, and standards adopted and in effect when a
preliminary application is submitted (vs. when it is deemed complete).
x Limits jurisdictions to five public hearings.
x Prohibits jurisdictions from enacting development policies, standards or conditions that
would change current zoning and land use designations where housing is an allowable
use. In such cases, the City cannot lessen the intensity of housing—such as reducing
height, density, or floor area ratio, requiring new or increased open space, lot size,
setbacks, or frontage, or limiting maximum lot coverage. (Effectively, this clause
prohibits downzoning, though the City may rebalance density between various districts.)
Summary
State law relies more and more on projects’ compliance with objective standards. Therefore,
this project aims to strengthen objective standards to identify the City’s design and
development priorities. In this way, the project seeks to ensure applicants’ compliance with
these priorities to facilitate the development of housing. Furthermore, this project allows the
City to comply with recently passed legislation requiring objective standards and streamlined
approval processes.
Summary of Public Meetings
ARB Study Sessions – December 5, 2019 and February 6, 2020
Staff and consultants met with the ARB in December 20191 and in February 2020.2 The
presentations provided an overview of the project and a description of key issues and discussed
options and recommendations for how to implement the project goals. On February 6, staff
and consultants presented issues, options, and recommendations for how the City can
implement the requirements of State law with respect to objective standards. The ARB
1 December 5, 2019 ARB Staff Report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/74248,
Minutes: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/74670, Video:
https://midpenmedia.org/architectural-review-board-74-1252019/
2 February 6, 2020 ARB Staff Report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/75075, Minutes:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/75703, Video:
https://midpenmedia.org/architectural-review-board-74-262020/
3
Packet Pg. 34
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 5
expressed a range of opinions on how to address State requirements and a range of responses
to staff and consultant ideas:
1. Overly Prescriptive: Most board members were concerned that design standards will be
overly prescriptive and restrict the influence of time, character, and context on enabling
high quality and appropriate design.
2. Conservative vs. Flexible Approach: Some board members supported the concept of
creating strict standards (e.g., zero shadows cast; only materials allowing certain
materials such as brick and glass) but allowing exceptions if an applicant agrees to go
through architectural review. Other board members were concerned that this would
restrict housing production altogether. Still other board members supported flexible
options, such as a menu of choices or a minimum/maximum range.
3. Flexibility for Affordable Housing: Generally, board members supported flexibility for
100% affordable housing projects, especially regarding building materials.
4. Basic Good Design Principles: Generally, board members supported objective standards
for general design principles, such as regulating massing, façade length, articulation,
connectivity within large sites, and entrance locations.
5. Addressing Transitions: Generally, board members wanted regulations to address issues
of transition between heights and uses (i.e., make context and compatibility guidelines
into standards). However, they recognized that this is challenging as a one-size-fits-all
standard and would like standards to consider land use and/or location.
PTC Study Session – May 13, 2020
Staff and consultants met with the PTC in May 2020 to provide an overview of the project, key
issues, policy options, and the ARB’s recommendations.3 The PTC provided the following
feedback to staff and consultants:
1. Commissioners supported transforming context-based design criteria into objective
standards, as a way to express the City's design values.
2. Commissioners supported reorganizing the code to reduce redundancies and make it
easier to find regulations that apply to a parcel and making other subjective regulations
objective.
3. Commissioners expressed mixed opinions about using graphics in the code: some really
like graphics, others worried that they may lead applicants down a certain path.
4. Commissioners were generally interested in making changes to the overlay districts (AH,
WH, PTOD) to be more streamlined (e.g., by right, if criteria are met), but were
concerned about losing the opportunity for public input and Council review.
3 May 13, 2020 PTC Staff Report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/76583, Minutes:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/77132, Video: https://midpenmedia.org/planning-
transportation-commission-63-5132020/
3
Packet Pg. 35
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 6
5. Commissioners shared a concern that new design standards could lead to projects
looking the same throughout the city and across neighborhoods; also, that developers
may always choose the same (least expensive option) in the menu of options.
6. Commissioners agreed that if an ARB/PTC joint subcommittee is too challenging, they
would like to have a joint meeting with the ARB.
7. At least one commissioner had the following ideas/suggestions:
o desire to know what other cities are doing
o desire for more form-based code
o more info about what the ARB thinks about this
o desire to ask former ARB members and/or local architects to review these draft
standards (another PTC member specifically disagreed)
o desire to standardize conditions of approval
ARB Subcommittee – Summer 2020
The ARB formed a subcommittee, composed of Board members Thompson and Hirsch, to
workshop the draft standards. The Subcommittee reviewed and provided written comments on
preliminary versions of the standards. The Subcommittee also met with staff and consultants
over a series of three video calls to discuss and debate the format, organization, intent
statements, and specific language of the draft standards.
Discussion & Analysis
Attachment #1 contains the draft standards and related graphics. Staff and consultants have
revised the current Context-Based Design Criteria into a stand-alone set of standards which
would be codified as Chapter 18.24. The Context-Based Design Criteria would be eliminated
from the code with approval of these standards. The ARB findings would remain in Title 18.76.
The ARB would continue to use these findings to evaluate projects that do not require
compliance with objective standards (e.g., 100% commercial projects, projects that do not
comply with the Housing Accountability Act).
Table 1 identifies the topical sections for the new Chapter 18.24. These topics can generally be
categorized into three areas.
1. Administration: Describes the purpose and applicability of the design standards,
including the relevant zoning districts, and defines terms that are specific to this
chapter.
2. Site Design: Identifies standards related to the interface between the building and public
realm, including sidewalks, driveways, access, entries, and building orientation.
3. Building Design: Identifies standards related to the building itself, including
bulk/massing, facades, secondary entries, on-site open space, and potentially materials.
Table 1: Design Standards Organization, by Topic
Category Topic
Administration 18.24.010: Purpose and Applicability
3
Packet Pg. 36
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 7
Site Design
18.24.020: Public Realm/Sidewalk Character
18.24.030: Site Access
18.24.040: Building Orientation and Setbacks
Building Design
18.24.050: Building Massing
18.24.060: Façade Design
18.24.070: Residential Entries
18.24.080: Open Space
18.24.090: Materials (TBD)
Each of the topics above is broken into two sections: (1) an intent statement and (2) a set of
objective standards.
1. The intent statements represent overarching guidelines for each topic, are subjective,
and often include verbatim language from the Context-Based Design Criteria and/or ARB
findings.
2. The objective standards are ratios, measurements, percentages, or otherwise clear
criteria. Some standards are written as a menu of options, providing choices for how
they may be met. Standards have been devised based on staff and consultant
experience with designing and reviewing multifamily and residential mixed-use projects.
Based on feedback from the ARB and ARB Subcommittee, the proposed design standards aim to
strike a balance between prescriptiveness and flexibility. The objective design standards are
intended to lead to buildings with good design principles and an acceptable level of articulation
and detail. However, because these standards are objective, they cannot anticipate all different
types of buildings and unique architectural designs. Instead, the draft design standards propose
an alternate path for compliance.
If architects/applicants do not want to meet or cannot meet the objective standard—for
whatever reason—they may instead choose to meet the “intent statement.” In choosing this
path, the applicant is choosing to undergo ARB discretionary review. The ARB then makes the
determination about whether or not the proposed project meets the intent of the code section.
If a project does meet the objective standards for a particular topic, it automatically meets the
intent statement for that section. These two paths toward compliance are identified in Chart 2.
Chart 2: Two Paths of Compliance: Objective and Discretionary
3
Packet Pg. 37
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 8
Discussion Questions
The Subcommittee suggested several topics for further discussion. The following topics/
questions are intended to guide this discussion:
1. Base/Middle/Top (18.24.060(C)(i)): The existing Context-Based Design Criteria call for
buildings to be designed with a base, body, and roof or parapet edge. The draft code
transforms this traditional architectural guideline into a standard. Notably, projects that
do not comply with this standard, such as a Modernist minimalist design, would need to
go through architectural review with the ARB to meet the intent for façade design.
Is this an acceptable transformation?
2. Façade Length (18.24.050(C)): The existing Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Design
(PTOD) overlay Context-Based Design Criteria includes a standard limiting façade length
to 70% of the façade and 100 continuous feet. This draft code expands the applicability
of this standard to the rest of the city.
Is this acceptable? Should buildings be permitted to have a continuous façade of more
than 100 feet/70% of the total façade before a notch or setback is required?
3. Height Transitions (18.24.050(B)): Many of the Context-Based Design Criteria relate to
contextual and compatible height and massing guidelines, which are subjective criteria.
District regulations already include objective daylight plane requirements to facilitate
height transitions between higher and lower density districts. The draft code proposes
additional standards and options for regulating transitions.
Is the daylight plane sufficient to regulate transitions or should the code provide for
other compliance options?
3
Packet Pg. 38
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 9
4. Articulation & Massing Strategy (18.24.060(C)(iii)): The Compatible Rhythm and Pattern
section illustrates acceptable horizontal articulation and vertical massing strategies
through a series of diagrams.
Do these standards and diagrams represent acceptable baseline standards for quality
buildings?
5. Materials (18.24.090): During its February 2020 meeting, ARB members expressed
concern about regulating materials, especially for below-market rate projects. The draft
code includes an example section of how materials could be regulated.
Does the ARB want to pursue a similar strategy?
6. Commercial-Only Uses: The intent statements are broadly written to apply to all project
types, including residential and commercial projects. Commercial-only projects would
only be subject to applicable standards; for example, standards related to residential
lobby entries and residential open space would not apply.
Do the intent statements and standards, as proposed, generally make sense for
commercial-only projects?
7. Format of Code: Is the overall format and structure of the draft code understandable
and acceptable?
Next Steps
Based on feedback from the ARB, staff and consultants will prepare a revised draft ordinance to
share with the ARB and PTC at a subsequent joint meeting this fall. This joint meeting has yet to
be scheduled.
Environmental Review
The ordinance revisions represent implementation of adopted plans and policy. Therefore, the
revisions are exempt under CEQA and/or covered by the CEQA documents prepared for the
Comprehensive Plan. The project aims to facilitate implementation of State law. The project
does not propose to increase development beyond what was analyzed in the Comprehensive
Plan.
Public Notification, Outreach & Comments
The Palo Alto Municipal Code does not require noticing of study sessions; however, this item
was published in a local paper, Daily Post, on October 2, 2020, which is 13 days in advance of
the meeting.
Public Comments
As of the writing of this report, no project-related, public comments were received.
3
Packet Pg. 39
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 10
Report Author & Contact Information ARB4 Liaison & Contact Information
Jean Eisberg, Consultant Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager
(415) 841-3539 (650) 329-2575
jean@lexingtonplanning.com jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org
Attachments:
x Attachment A: 18.24 DRAFT Objective Design Standards (PDF)
4 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org
3
Packet Pg. 40
pg. 1
PALO ALTO OBJECTIVE STANDARDS
Context-Based Design Criteria
WORKING DRAFT FOR ARB REVIEW
Last updated October 8, 2020
This document outlines the topics and potential design standards and guidelines for a new
Chapter (18.24) of the Palo Alto Zoning Ordinance. This draft chapter represents a rewrite of
the Palo Alto Context-Based Design Criteria and other parts of Title 18 as objective standards.
The draft standards are based on the specific language of the existing design criteria, but the
chapter reorganizes the content into Site Design and Building Design standards and further
subtopics described on the following page.
This is a working document that is to be read alongside the List of Guidelines to Transform,
which documents the existing Context-Based Design Criteria. The draft standards below will
be revised by the ARB, PTC, and Council over the course of the project to transform
subjective design criteria into reasonable design standards that support the City’s priorities
for design and development.
Contents
18.24.010 Purpose and Applicability ................................................................... 2
18.24.020 Public Realm/Sidewalk Character ......................................................... 3
18.24.030 Site Access .................................................................................... 5
18.24.040 Building Orientation and Setbacks ......................................................... 6
18.24.050 Building Massing .............................................................................. 9
18.24.060 Façade Design ................................................................................ 13
18.24.070 Residential Entries .......................................................................... 23
18.24.080 Open Space ................................................................................... 25
18.24.090 Materials ...................................................................................... 27
There are several design-related topics located elsewhere in Title 18, which may be relocated
to this new chapter. This includes 18.23.050: Visual, Screening and Landscaping and
18.23.030: Lighting.
There are several topics that the ARB Subcommittee, City staff, and consultants have raised
that are not currently described in depth in the current context-based design criteria. These
topics could be considered through a separate project and include:
1. Fenestration
2. Sustainability (note: elements of sustainability are embedded in various topics below)
3. Materials (example section provided below)
4. Allowable encroachments in the setback area
3.a
Packet Pg. 41
pg. 2
Chapter 18.24 Context-Based Design Standards
18.24.010 Purpose and Applicability
(A) Purpose
(i) The purpose of the Context-Based Design Standards is to provide design guidance and
objective design standards development projects.
(B) Applicability of regulations
(i) Within the following zones, the intent statements apply to all project types, new
construction, and renovation; design standards apply to new construction:
(a) RM-20, RM-30, RM-40
(b) CN, CS, CD, CC
(c) PTOD
(d) MOR, ROLM, RP
(e) PC
Public art in residential and residential mixed-use projects is subject to Chapter 16.61 and
exempt from these requirements.
(C) Alternative compliance
Each section of this chapter includes an intent statement that gives guidance for all
applicable projects, regardless of use.
Residential and mixed-use residential projects may choose to forgo one or more objective
standards and instead meet the spirit of the relevant intent statements, as determined by the
Director or the Architectural Review Board, depending on the level of review required by
Chapter 18.75.
Commercial-only projects or other non-residential projects should meet relevant standards;
they are not required to adhere irrelevant standards related to residential uses. Depending on
the level of review required by Chapter 18.75, the Director or the Architectural Review Board
will determine compliance with the relevant intent statements.
(D) Definitions
In addition to definitions identified in Chapter 18.04, the following definitions are specific to
this chapter.
(i) Primary Building Frontage: The front lot line or frontage along the public right-of-
way. In the case of a through-lot, the primary building frontage could be on either
public right-of-way.
(ii) Primary Building Entry: The entrance leading to a lobby and/or accessed from the
primary building frontage.
(iii) Pedestrian Walkway: A sidewalk or path that is publicly-accessible and connects from
a public right-of-way to another public right-of-way or publicly accessible open space.
(iv) Façade Modulation: A change in building plane, either a recess or a projection, that
changes shape of the interior space.
3.a
Packet Pg. 42
pg. 3
18.24.020 Public Realm/Sidewalk Character
(A) Intent
To create an attractive and safe public realm and sidewalk space for pedestrians and cyclists
through the implementation of design, landscaping, and infrastructure. Publicly accessible
spaces and sidewalks should:
x Design the transition between the public and private realm through the coordination
of amenities and materials, such as accent paving, tree wells, lighting and street
furniture (e.g., benches, bicycle racks, trash receptacles, and news racks).
x Complement or match accent paving to existing designs in downtown and Cal Ave
areas.
x Provide sidewalk widths that accommodate landscaping, street trees, furniture, and
pedestrian amenities; create a pleasant, desirable place to walk; provides shade; and
enable comfortable pedestrian passage.
x Provide amenities, such as parking and repair equipment, for micromobility, such as
bicycles and scooters.
(B) Streetscape
(i) Sidewalk Widths
(a) Public sidewalks abutting a development parcel shall have a minimum sidewalk
width (curb to back of walk) of XXX feet [TBD in consultation with Public Works]. If
the existing public sidewalk does not meet the minimum standard, a publicly
accessible extension of the sidewalk, with corresponding public access easement,
shall be provided.
1. Notwithstanding subsection (a), the following streets/locations shall have a
minimum sidewalk width of:
a. Park Boulevard (South of Caltrain to Ventura): TBD, per NVCAP
b. El Camino Real and San Antonio Avenue: 12 ft
c. Other Corridors in Commercial Zones (CN, CS, CC, CC(2)) : 8ft
d. CD Districts and SOFA: 10 ft
(b) Publicly accessible sidewalks or walkways connecting through a development
parcel (e.g., on a through lot) shall have a minimum six-foot width. Pedestrian
walkways that are designed to provide access to bicycles shall have a minimum
width of eight feet.
(ii) Street Trees
(a) Sidewalks shall include at least one street tree, within six feet of the sidewalk, for
every 30 feet of linear feet of sidewalk length.
3.a
Packet Pg. 43
pg. 4
Frontage Sidewalk Street
Building
Setback Frontage Area Pedestrian
Clear Zone Landscape/Furniture Zone
Property Line Varies Landscape/
Furniture Area
Edge Zone 18”
typ. Curb +
Step Out Area
Mixed-Use
x Sidewalk Dining
x Outdoor Displays
x Public Art
x Seating
x Planting
Residential
x Stoops
x Porches
x Front Yards
x Utilities
x Planting
x Street Trees/Planting
x Street Lighting
x Seating
x Mobility Infrastructure
x Bike Parking
x Public Art
x Outdoor Dining
x Street
Parking
x Bike Lanes
x Drop-off
Zones
x Parklets
(iii) Accent Paving
(a) Sidewalks and publicly accessible areas fronting University Avenue and California
Avenue shall match existing accent paving design and materials, such a mosaic tile
and bricks.
(iv) Mobility Infrastructure
(a) Micromobility infrastructure, such as locations to lock bicycles and scooters, shall
be located within 20 feet of the primary building entry and/or a path leading to
the primary building entry. This standard may be satisfied by existing
3.a
Packet Pg. 44
pg. 5
infrastructure already located within 50 feet of the project site and located in the
public right-of-way.
(b) Primary building entries shall provide at least one seating area or bench within 20
feet of building entry and/or path leading to building entry. This standard may be
satisfied by existing seating area or benches located in public right-of-way within
50 feet of the building entry.
18.24.030 Site Access
(A) Intent
To provide facilities and accommodations for pedestrians, vehicles, cyclists, and transit users
to safely and efficiently access and circulate both within individual sites and in the site’s
surrounding context. Site access should include the following elements:
x Site circulation and access that presents a clear hierarchy and connectivity pattern for
all travel modes both within a project and to adjacent sidewalks and transit stops.
This hierarchy may provide separate access for vehicles and other modes, or
demonstrate how all modes are accommodated in shared access points.
x Connections to side streets, open spaces, mews, alleys, and paseos
x Vehicle, loading and service access that is integrated into building and landscape
design and located to prevent conflicts with pedestrians and cyclists, while also
provided convenient access to building entries.
(B) Circulation Hierarchy
(i) Sites shall clearly identify a hierarchy of connectivity in a circulation plan that
identifies a priority for pedestrian, bike, private vehicles, and utility/loading access in
the order listed. [see comment in text box below]
(ii) Through lots located more than 300 feet from an intersecting street or pedestrian
walkway shall provide a publicly accessible sidewalk or pedestrian walkway connecting
the two streets.
(C) Building Entries
(i) Entries to Primary Building Entries shall be located from a public right-of-way or if not
possible a publicly accessible Pedestrian Walkway.
Circulation Plan: Some topics are inherently difficult to create clear and objective
standards to meet the intent of the guidelines while providing flexibility that is needed for
each project. One way to create an objective standard for these performance criteria is to
have a requirement that a developer submit a plan to meet these criteria. The review of
the plan material, description of how the project will meet the intent of the guidelines,
and the implementation will not be objective and thus not applicable to deny a project for
not meeting the City’s expectations of the guidelines, but the act of having to write the
report/plan may provide enough guidance and design thinking to get most of the way there
in most cases.
3.a
Packet Pg. 45
pg. 6
(D) Vehicle Access
(i) Vehicle access shall be located on alleys or side streets where available.
(ii) Vehicle access, vehicle loading, and off-street parking shall follow the following
standards:
(a) Except for driveway access, off-Street parking, off-street vehicle loading, and
vehicular circulation areas are prohibited between the building and the primary
building frontage.
(iii) Special Conditions
(b) California Avenue: Vehicular access to CC(2) zoned sites on California Avenue
which requires vehicular movement across the sidewalk on California Avenue shall
be prohibited, except where required by law and as applied to parcels owned,
leased or controlled by the City.
(c) University Avenue: Vehicular access to CD-C zoned sites on University Avenue
which requires vehicular movement across the sidewalk on University Avenue shall
be prohibited, except where required by law and as applied to parcels owned,
leased or controlled by the City.
(E) Loading Docks and Service Areas
(iii) Loading and service areas shall be integrated into building and landscape design and
located to minimize impact on the pedestrian experience as follows:
(a) Loading docks and service areas shall be located on facades other than the primary
building frontage, on alleys, from parking areas, and/or at the rear or side of
building if building includes these frontages. When only primary building frontage
is available, loading docks and service areas shall be recessed a minimum five feet
from the primary façade and shall be screened in accordance with Chapter
18.23.050.
(b) Loading dock and service areas located within setback areas shall be screened in
accordance with Chapter 18.23.050 and separated from pedestrian access to the
primary building entry to avoid impeding pedestrian movement and safety.
18.24.040 Building Orientation and Setbacks
(A) Intent
To create a coherent and active interface between private development and the public realm
that contributes to the sense of place and structure of the neighborhood and enhances the
public’s experience. Site design that responds to the orientation of adjacent uses and creates
opportunities for landscaping and usable open space. Buildings and site design should meet
the following criteria:
x Buildings that create a contiguous street wall that are compatible with nearby buildings
and land uses.
x Placement and orientation of doorways, windows, stoops, and landscape elements to
create a direct relationship with the street
3.a
Packet Pg. 46
pg. 7
x Ground floor residential units that have direct entry and presence on the street
x Transitional spaces and buffer areas between buildings, parcels, and sites through building
setbacks that distinguish private and public spaces.
x Buildings that provide side and rear setbacks and/or upper story stepbacks to create
separation between adjacent lower density residential development.
x Landscaped or usable areas that contain open space or hardscaped areas.
x Optimized building orientation for heat gain, shading, daylighting, and natural ventilation
and other forms of passive design.
(B) Building Orientation
(i) Treatment of Corner Buildings
(a) Corner buildings shall include one of the following special features:
1. Street wall shall be located at the minimum front yard setback or build-to line
for a minimum aggregated length of 60 feet in length on both facades meeting
at the corner and shall include one or more of the following building features:
a. A corner entry to ground floor retail or primary building entrance
b. A different material application and fenestration pattern from the rest of
the façade
c. A change in height of at least 8 feet greater or less than the height of the
abutting façade.
>
3.a
Packet Pg. 47
pg. 8
2. A publicly accessible open space with a minimum dimension of 20 feet and
minimum area of 1,000 square feet.
3. A common open space that is no more than six feet above the back of walk
grade at the corner, is located adjacent to indoor common spaces, with direct
access, has areas for seating, has a minimum dimension of 20 feet and
minimum area of 1,000 square feet, and has a fence or railing that is no less
than 50 percent open or transparent.
(ii) Primary Building Entry
(a) The primary building entry shall meet one of the following standards:
1. Face a public right-of-way Be visible from a public right-of-way through a
forecourt or front porch that meets the following standards:
a. For residential buildings with fewer than seven units, building entry
forecourts or front porches shall be a minimum area of 36 square feet and
minimum dimension of five feet.
b. For commercial buildings or residential buildings with more than six units,
building entry forecourts or front porches shall be a minimum of 100 square
feet and a minimum width of 8 feet.
3.a
Packet Pg. 48
pg. 9
(iii) Ground Floor Residential Units
(a) A minimum of 80% of ground floor residential units facing a public right-of-way or
publicly accessible path or open space shall have a unit entry with direct access to
the sidewalk, path, or open space. (Senior units or other deed-restricted units for
special populations are exempt)
(b) Entries to ground floor residential units shall face a public right-of-way or publicly
accessible path/open space or be visible from a public right-of-way through a
forecourt or front porch that is a minimum of 30 square feet.
(c) Ground floor residential units shall be setback a minimum 15 feet from the back of
sidewalk.
(C) Front Yard Setback Character
(i) Required setbacks shall provide an extension of the sidewalk as a hardscape and/or
landscaped area to create a transition between public and private space. The
following standards apply, based on intended use and exclusive of areas devoted to
outdoor seating, front porches, door swing of building entries, and publicly accessible
open space:
(a) Ground-floor retail or retail-like uses = Minimum of 20% of the required setback
(b) Other ground-floor non-residential uses. A minimum of 40% of the required setback
area Ground-floor residential uses. A minimum of 60% of the required setback area
18.24.050 Building Massing
(A) Intent
To create buildings that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area through the
consideration of building scale, massing, and bulk. Massing should create a human-scale
environment that is of high aesthetic quality and accommodates a variety of uses and design
features. Building massing should include elements that:
x Break down large building facades and massing to create a human-scaled building that
enhances the context of the site
x Are consistent in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and land use
designations
x Reinforce the definition and importance of the street
x Provide rooflines and massing that emphasize and accentuate significant elements of
the building such as entries, bays, and balconies, and shading elements where
appropriate.
x Provide harmonious transitions between adjacent properties
(B) Contextual Massing
(i) Upper Floor Step Backs
(c) When the average height of the building is greater than 20 feet above the average
height of an adjacent building, an upper floor step back shall start within 2 vertical
feet, plus or minus, of the height of the adjacent building, be a minimum depth of
six feet along the primary building frontage, and the step should shall occur for a
minimum of 70% of the façade length.
3.a
Packet Pg. 49
pg. 10
(ii) Transition to Lower Density Building Types
(d) When a building abuts a side and/or rear property line with a RE, RMD, R-1, or R-2
zoned parcel or a village residential or existing single-family residential use, the
building shall break down the abutting façade by meeting the following standards:
1. A reduction in mass through one of the following:
a. A minimum 15-foot building setback and an upper floor step back above 35
feet in height for a minimum depth of 25 feet.
b. Jodie – to add IR privacy type Guidelines that are objective
(i) Frosted windows
(ii) Staggered window placement
3.a
Packet Pg. 50
pg. 11
c. A minimum 20-foot building side yard setback, a minimum 10-foot step back
above 30 feet in height, and a landscape screen that includes a double row
of trees with a minimum 1 tree per 30 linear feet plus continuous shrubbery
planting 72 inches (6 feet) in height [NOTE: Alternative is to maintain
existing daylight plane]
2. A minimum façade break of six feet in width and six feet in depth for every 36
to 40 feet of façade length.
3. A maximum 15% window coverage of facades within 30 feet of abutting
property line.
3.a
Packet Pg. 51
pg. 12
(C) Maximum Façade Length
(i) Significant Breaks
(a) For portions of a building facade facing a public street, right-of-way, or publicly
accessible path, any building greater than 25 feet in height shall not have a
continuous facade greater than 70% of the façade length. Upper floor façade
modulation shall be a minimum 2 feet in depth.
(b) Buildings greater than 100 feet in length, which face a public street, right-of-way,
or publicly accessible path, shall have at least one vertical façade break with a
minimum area greater than 600 square feet and a width less than or equal to two
times the depth.
3.a
Packet Pg. 52
pg. 13
(D) Special Conditions
(i) Railroad Frontages
(a) All parcels with lot lines abutting railroad rights-of-way shall meet the following
standards on the railroad-abutting facade:
1. A minimum facade break of at least 10 feet in width and six feet in depth for
every 60 feet of façade length.
2. For portion of a building greater that is 20 feet or greater in height, a
maximum continuous façade length shall not exceed 60 feet.
3. A daylight setback plane starting 10 feet in height from grade at the property
line and extending at a 1:1 ratio.
18.24.060 Façade Design
(A) Intent Statement:
To create cohesive and well-crafted building facades with human-scaled details that
incorporate textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the
surrounding area. Facades should include the following elements:
x Human-scaled detail, articulation, and craftsmanship
x Quality of construction, craftsmanship, and design to create long lasting buildings
x Articulation of the building base or ground floor, body or middle, and top, cornice or
parapet edge
x Expression of a human-scaled façade rhythm and pattern that reflects the building’s
use
x Fenestration that enhances the architectural character of the building
x Defined building entry that is proportional to the building and number of people
served
(B) Application
(i) All facades shall meet all the required design standards and guidelines to ensure the
same level of care and integrity throughout the building design.
(ii) Façade sidewalls located along a zero-lot line where, at time of approval are not
visible from a right-of-way, are exempt.
(iii) Façade sidewalls located along a zero-lot line, where at time of approval are visible
from a right-of-way, shall continue color, material, and pattern of the main façade.
(C) Human Scaled Architecture
(i) Base/Middle/Top
(a) Buildings three stories or taller shall be designed to differentiate a defined base or
ground floor, a middle or body, and a top, cornice, or parapet cap. Buildings two
stories or less shall include a defined base and top. Each of these elements shall be
distinguished from one another through use of two or more of the following four
techniques:
3.a
Packet Pg. 53
pg. 14
1. Variation in building modulation (select a minimum of one)
a. Horizontal shifts. Changes in floor plates that protrude and/or recess with a
minimum dimension of two feet from the primary facade.
b. Upper floor step backs. A horizontal step back of upper-floor façades with a
minimum five-foot step back from the primary façade for a minimum of 80%
of the length of the façade.
c. Ground floor step back. A horizontal shift of the ground floor facade with a
minimum depth of two feet for a minimum 80% of the length of the façade.
Ground floor step backs shall not exceed the maximum setback
requirements, where stated.
3.a
Packet Pg. 54
pg. 15
2. Variation in facade articulation (select a minimum of one)
a. Horizontal and/or vertical recesses such as a pattern of recessed grouping
of windows, recessed panels, or similar strategies as approved by the
Director. The recess shall be a minimum four inches in depth.
b. Horizontal and/or vertical projections such as shading and weather
protection devices, decorative architectural details, or similar strategies as
approved by the Director. Projections shall be a minimum four inches in
depth.
c. Datum lines that continue the length of the building, such as parapets or
cornices, with a minimum four inches in height or a minimum two inches in
depth and include a change in material;
3.a
Packet Pg. 55
pg. 16
3. Variation in fenestration size, proportions, pattern, and depth or projection.
4. Variation in two of the following: façade material, material size, texture and
pattern, or color.
(ii) Façade Articulation
(a) Building facades shall use a variety of strategies including building modulation,
fenestration, and façade articulation to create visual interest and express a variety
of scales through a variety of strategies. All facades shall include a minimum of
one of the following façade articulation strategies to create visual interest:
1. Vertical and horizontal recesses such as a pattern of recessed grouping of
windows, recessed panels, or similar strategies as approved by the Director.
The recess shall be a minimum four inches in depth.
2. Vertical and horizontal projections such as shading and weather protection
devices, decorative architectural details, or similar strategies as approved by
the Director. Projections shall be a minimum four inches in depth.
3.a
Packet Pg. 56
pg. 17
3. Datum lines that continue the length of the building, such as cornices, with a
minimum four inches in depth, or a minimum two inches in depth and include a
change in material;
4. Balconies, habitable projections, or Juliet balconies (every 20 to 40 feet) with
a minimum four inches in depth;
5. Screening devices such as lattices, louvers, shading devices, perforated metal
screens, or similar strategies as approved by the Director; or
6. Use of fine-grained building materials, such as brick or wood shingles, not to
exceed eight inches in either height or width.
(iii) Compatible Rhythm and Pattern
(a) Residential or residential mixed-use buildings shall express a vertical rhythm and
pattern that reflects the size and scale of a housing unit and/or individual rooms
and spaces. This may be achieved with building modulation to create vertically
oriented facades (height greater than the width of the façade), façade articulation
and fenestration repetitive vertically oriented patterns. The following standards
apply:
1. For facades less than 100 feet in length, the façade shall have vertically
oriented patterns of vertical recesses or projects, façade articulation, and/or
fenestration.
3.a
Packet Pg. 57
pg. 18
2. For continuous facades greater than 100 feet in length, the façade shall include
a vertical recess or projection with a minimum four feet wide and two feet
deep vertical shift modulation to establish a rhythm between 20 to 50 feet in
width for housing units or 12 to 16 feet in width for individual rooms and
spaces.
3.a
Packet Pg. 58
pg. 19
(b) Residential mixed-use and non-residential buildings shall express a vertical rhythm
and pattern by using one of the following options:
1. Facades shall use vertical patterns of building modulation, façade articulation,
and fenestration;
2. Facades that use horizontal articulation and fenestration patterns shall use a
vertical massing strategy with a minimum four feet wide and two feet deep
vertical shift in modulation at least once every 50 feet of façade length.
(c) Storefront uses shall express a vertical rhythm not to exceed 30 to 50 feet in
width.
3.a
Packet Pg. 59
pg. 20
(iv) Emphasize Building Elements and Massing
(a) Building Entries Within Façade Design
1. Primary building entries shall be scaled proportionally to the number of people
served (amount of floor-area or number of units accessed). Building entries
inclusive of doorway and facade plane shall meet the following minimum
dimensions:
a. Individual residential entries: five feet in width
b. Shared residential entry, such as mixed-use buildings: 10 feet in width
c. Commercial building entry: 20 feet in width
d. Storefront entry: six feet in width
2. Primary building entries (not inclusive of individual residential entries) shall
include a façade modulation that includes at least one of the following:
a. A recess or projection from the primary façade plane with a minimum
depth of two feet.
3.a
Packet Pg. 60
pg. 21
(D) Ground Floor Character
(i) Storefront/Retail Ground Floors
(a) Ground floor height shall be a minimum 14 feet floor-to-floor or shall maintain a
2nd floor datum line of an abutting building.
(b) Transparency shall include a minimum 60 percent transparent glazing between 2
and 10 feet in height from sidewalk, providing unobstructed views into the
commercial space.
(c) Bulkheads and solid base walls: If provided, shall measure between 12 and 30
inches from finished grade
(d) Primary entries shall include weather protection that is a minimum 6 feet wide and
4 feet deep by recessing the entry, providing an awning or using a combination of
these methods.
(e) Awnings, canopies and weather protection:
1. When transom windows are above display windows, awnings, canopies and
similar weather protection elements shall be installed between transom and
display windows. These elements should allow for light to enter the storefront
through the transom windows and allow the weather protection feature to
shade the display window.
2. Awnings may be fixed or retractable.
3. Awnings, canopies and other weather protection elements shall not extend
across the entire facade. Instead, individual segments shall be installed over
each storefront entry or set of storefront windows and shall not extend across
wall sections, across multiple windows or over columns.
(ii) Other Non-residential Ground Floors
(a) Ground floor height shall be a minimum 14 feet floor-to-floor or shall match the 2nd
floor datum line of an abutting building.
(b) Transparency shall include a minimum 50 percent transparent glazing between 4
and 10 feet in height from sidewalk or terrace grade.
3.a
Packet Pg. 61
pg. 22
(c) Primary entries shall include weather protection that is a minimum 10 feet wide
and 8 feet deep by recessing the entry, providing an awning or using a combination
of these methods.
(iii) Residential Ground Floors
(a) Finished Floor Height: Units on ground floors shall have a finished floor height at a
minimum two feet above average back of sidewalk height for the associated
façade.
(b) Primary entries shall include weather protection that is a minimum 4 feet wide and
4 feet deep by recessing the entry, providing an awning or using a combination of
these methods.
(E) Parking/Loading/Utilities
(i) Entry Size: No more than 25% of the site frontage facing a street should be devoted to
garage openings, carports, surface parking, loading entries, or utilities access (on sites
with less than 100 feet of frontage, no more than 25 feet)
(ii) Above grade structured parking levels facing a public right-of-way or publicly
accessible open space/path shall be lined with commercial or habitable uses with a
minimum depth of 20 feet.
(iii) Partially sub-grade parking not exceeding six feet in height above abutting grade at
back of sidewalk shall be screened with features meeting the standards of section
18.24.110 Visual, Screening, and Landscaping.
3.a
Packet Pg. 62
pg. 23
18.24.070 Residential Entries
(A) Intent
Private entries into ground floor residential units shall be designed to provide:
x human-scaled detailing
x enhanced pedestrian experience
x transition between public and private space
x spaces for residents to gather and spend time outdoors
x resident privacy
(B) Ground floor unit entries
(i) Where ground floor residential unit entries are required, one or more of the following
entry types shall be provided:
(a) Stoop:
1. Stoops shall provide entry access for a maximum of two units.; and
2. Stoop entry landings shall be a minimum 4 feet in depth; and
3. The maximum stoop height from the back of sidewalk grade shall be 5 feet.
(b) Porch:
1. Porches shall provide entry access for a maximum of one unit; and
2. Porches shall be large enough so a 6-foot by 6-foot square can fit inside of a
porch for each unit; and
3. The maximum porch floor height from the back of sidewalk grade shall be 5
feet.
3.a
Packet Pg. 63
pg. 24
(c) Terrace:
1. A Terrace may serve multiple unit entries; and
2. The maximum Terrace height shall be 30 inches above the grade of the back of
the adjacent sidewalk or accessway; and
3. Walls, fences and hedges on Terraces shall be a maximum of 42 inches tall and
have a minimum transparency of 40 percent.
(d) Frontage Court:
1. A Frontage Court may serve multiple unit entries; and
2. The minimum Frontage Court width along a primary frontage shall be 25 feet;
and
3. The maximum Frontage Court width along a primary frontage shall be 50
percent of the facade length or 80 feet, whichever is less; and
4. The minimum Frontage Court depth shall be 25 feet; and
5. The maximum Frontage Court depth shall be 50 feet or a ratio not to exceed
2:1 depth to width.
3.a
Packet Pg. 64
pg. 25
18.24.080 Open Space
(A) Intent
To ensure that residents and visitors have access to usable open space and common facilities
that provide recreational opportunities, promote a healthy environment, and enhance the
experience of living in Palo Alto. Common and private open spaces should include the
following characteristics:
x Be integrated into the site access and building circulation strategy
x Be generous in dimension to provide usable space
x Provide landscape elements that will support the health of the plants and enhance the
character of place
x Promote public health
x Be located to provide easy access to private and common building areas
x Promote sustainable practices and opportunities for green infrastructure
x Promote community safety through eyes on the street
(B) Private Open Space
Private Open Spaces shall be immediately accessible from each residential unit,
provide direct visible access to the sky, protect from weather, and take advantage of
possible views. Private Open Spaces shall meet the following standards:
(a) Minimum dimension of six feet by six feet.
(b) Minimum clear height dimension of 8’-6” feet
(c) Be accessed directly from a residential unit
(d) Balconies shall not be located within the daylight plane
(e) Notwithstanding subsection (a), ground floor patios shall meet the following
minimum requirements:
1. RM-20 and RM-30 districts, Minimum dimension of eight feet by eight feet and
100 square feet of area for at least 75% of the area
2. RM-40 districts, Minimum dimension of six feet by six feet and 80 square feet of
area for at least 75% of the area
3. [TO COME: Regulating height above the ground-floor/setback from the street to
ensure privacy/usability]
(C) Common Open Space
Common Open Space shall meet the following standards:
1. Minimum dimension of 12 feet.
2. Minimum of 60% of area open to the sky free of permanent weather protection
or encroachments
3. Notwithstanding subsection (1), courtyards enclosed on four sides shall have a
minimum dimension of 40 feet and have a minimum courtyard width to building
height ratio of 1:1.25
4. Include places to sit
5. A minimum 20% of landscaping
3.a
Packet Pg. 65
pg. 26
6. Soil Depth: Planting in above grade courtyards shall have a minimum soil depth
of 12 inches for ground cover, 20 inches for shrubs, and 36 inches for trees.
7. Rooftop Open Space:
a. In order to qualify as usable open space, a rooftop garden shall meet the
requirements set forth in Section 18.40.230.
b. Rooftop open spaces may fulfill usable open space requirements in the
following districts:
(i) CD-C sites that do not abut a single- or two-family residential use or
zoning district, rooftop gardens may qualify as usable open space and
may count as up to 75% of the required usable open space for the
residential component of a project.
(ii) For CN and CS sites on El Camino Real and CC(2) sites that do not abut a
single- or two-family residential use or zoning district, rooftop gardens
may qualify as usable open space and may count as up to 60% of the
required usable open space for the residential component of a project.
Suggested Diagrams
Usable Open Space:
3.a
Packet Pg. 66
pg. 27
18.24.090 Materials
Example section of how materials could be regulated, by district (e.g., primary, secondary,
accent, prohibited).
18.24.100 Visual Screening, and Landscaping
Relocate existing lighting standards from 18.23.050.
18.24.110 Lighting
Relocate existing lighting standards from 18.23.030.
3.a
Packet Pg. 67
Architectural Review Board
Staff Report (ID # 11766)
Report Type: Study Session Meeting Date: 11/19/2020
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650) 329-2442
Summary Title: Ex-parte Communications: Study Session
Title: Study Session on Ex-parte Communications Between
Architectural Review Board Members and Applicants,
Developers and Other Persons
From: Jonathan Lait
Recommendation
Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB):
1. Discuss Board policies regarding ex-parte communications
Background and Discussion
The ARB Chair recently requested a study session to discuss ex parte communications and their
effect on communicating ARB’s feedback to applicants, developers and architects. Staff has
provided legal boundaries governing ex-parte communications. However, the ARB may adopt
more stringent local rules in its procedural rules or bylaws.
Ex parte is a Latin phrase that literally means “from one party”. Generally, an ex-parte
communication is:
x any material or substantive oral or written communication with a decision maker that is
relevant to the merits of adjudicatory or quasi-judicial decision-making matters, and
x communication which takes place outside of a noticed proceeding that is open to all
parties to the matter.
The ARB’s current practice is that individual board members are open to meeting with
applicants and neighbors before the first public hearing. In this way, ARB members can better
understand the proposed project before deliberations begin. The legal requirements of due
process simply require that any member who has obtained information about the project in an
ex-parte manner disclose that information at the start of the public hearing. That way, the
information is available to all parties and board members. Some of the City’s board and
commission members have adopted personal rules against ex-parte communications to simplify
4
Packet Pg. 68
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 2
the issue; however, this is not legally required, nor is it included in the ARB’s Procedural Rules
or Bylaws.
After the first public hearing has begun, the ARB’s Procedural Rules are more restrictive. The
Procedural Rules state that Board members “will refrain from any contacts pertaining to the
item, other than clarifying questions directed to City staff” following closure of the hearing and
prior to a final decision. Due process concerns are especially present when a hearing is
continued, and the applicant, appellant, or public will not be afforded a subsequent
opportunity to speak. In such circumstances, mere disclosure of information acquired ex-parte
may not be sufficient, as such information will be introduced into the record without an
opportunity for the parties to respond.
A different set of issues is implicated when a Board member provides ex-parte feedback to a
party but does not receive any information in return. In that situation, the excluded party may
argue that unequal access to a Board member is unfair or that the Board member’s ex-parte
communication indicates some form of bias. Even if these sorts of objections are unfounded,
the Board may wish to discourage such ex-parte communications because they have the
potential to confuse the opinions of an individual Board member and those of the Board as a
body.
The ARB’s By-laws and Procedural Rules can be found on the City’s webpage at
http://bit.ly/paloaltoARB and in Attachment A and B. Minutes from the ARB’s previous
discussion on ex-parte communications are provided as Attachment C.
The procedural rules also require ARB members to track their ex-parte contacts and disclose
their occurrence and the substance of the information conveyed. Disclosures should be made
in writing or orally as early in the proceeding as possible.
ARB1 Liaison & Report Author City Attorney’s Office
Jodie Gerhardt, Planning Manager Albert Yang, Assistant City Attorney
(650) 329-2575
jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org
(650) 329-2171
Albert.Yang@cityofpaloalto.org
Attachments:
x Attachment A: ARB By-laws (PDF)
x Attachment B: ARB Procedural Rules (PDF)
x Attachment C: November 1, 2018 ARB Excerpt Minutes (DOCX)
1 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org
4
Packet Pg. 69
011415cs01313011Rev.February5,2015
RULES AND REGULATIONS AND BY-LAWS OF THE
PALO ALTO ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
ARTICLE I
NAME
Section 1.0 The name of this board shall be the PALO ALTO ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
BOARD (ARB)
ARTICLE II
Section 2.0 This board shall perform any duties imposed upon it by Ordinances of the City of
Palo Alto and by applicable State and Federal law, or as requested by the City
Council of the City of Palo Alto.
ARTICLE III
Officers
Section 3.0 The officers of the Board Shall consist of a Chairperson, a Vice Chairperson, and a
Secretary who shall be a non-voting member.
Section 3.1 The offices of Chairperson and Vice Chairperson shall be elected from among the
appointed members of the Board, and the person so elected shall serve for a term of
one year or until a successor is elected. Elections shall be held at the first
organizational meeting of the Board in 1973, and at the first meeting in October of
each subsequent year.
Section 3.2 The Director of Planning and Community Environment of the City of Palo Alto or
his/her designated representative shall be the Secretary of the Board.
Section 3.3 The duties of the offices of the ARB shall be as follows:
Section 3.31 It shall be the duty of the Chairperson to preside over all meeting of the Board, to
appoint committees and to serve as an ex-officio member of the committees so
appointed, to call special meetings of the Board and to designate the time and place
of such meeting, to set the date and time for the public hearing held by the Board, to
sign documents and correspondence in the name of the Board, and to represent the
Board before the City Council, its commissions and committees, and such other
groups and organizations as may be appropriate. The Chairperson may designate the
Vice Chair, or in the Vice Chairperson’s absence, another member of the Board to
act in his/her stead.
Section 3.32 It shall be the duty of the Vice Chairperson to assist the Chairperson and to act in
his/her stead during his/her absence.
4.a
Packet Pg. 70
011415cs01313012Rev.February5,2015
Section 3.33 It shall be the duty of the Secretary to keep a record of all meeting of the Board, to
accept in the name of the Board documents and correspondence addressed to it, to
present such correspondence to the Board, and perform other staff functions as
deemed necessary by the Board. The Secretary will determine the agenda for all
public meeting of the Board, based upon an assessment of the applications made to
the City requiring architectural review, and based also upon the desirability of
hearing such other matters as may be deemed, by the Chairperson or by the
Secretary, to be of concern to the Board.
ARTICLE IV
Committees
Section 4.0 The Chairperson shall appoint special committees as they be desired or required.
ARCTICLE V
Quorums and Voting
Section 5.0 Three members of the Board shall constitute a quorum for the purposes of
conducting business.
Section 5.1 All actions taken must be by affirmative vote of majority of those Board members
present, except to adjourn or continue for lack of a quorum.
A tie vote constitutes a denial of an item, except that a member of the Board may
then move that the item be reconsidered or continued to another meeting. A
majority of the Board may then vote to reconsider or continue the item to another
meeting
ARTICLE VI
Meetings
Section 6.0 Regular meetings of the ARB shall be held not less than twice a month. The
Chairperson shall establish the dates of the meetings. Meetings shall be held on
Thursday at 8:30 A.M. in the Palo Alto City Hall. Regular meetings may be
adjourned and reconvened upon a majority vote of the members present.
Section 6.1 Special meetings may be called at any time by the Chairperson, or at the request of
three members, by a written or oral notice given to each member at least 48 hours
before the time specified for the proposed meeting.
4.a
Packet Pg. 71
011415cs01313013Rev.February5,2015
ARTICLE VII
Rules
Section 7.0 All meetings of the Board shall be conducted in accordance with a modified
Robert’s Rules of Order.
ARTICLE VIII
Design Awards
Section 8.0 Design Awards for outstanding built projects may be awarded every five years
beginning in 2005. Award-winning projects shall be selected from those reviewed
by the ARB, and completed since the last awards were made.
Section 8.1 Criteria and number of awards shall be determined by the awarding board.
Section 8.2 Winning projects may be displayed in the City Hall lobby for one month following
the presentation of awards. The ARB shall request that the Mayor of the City of
Palo Alto issue an appropriate proclamation.
THE FOREGOING BY-LAWS WERE ADOPTED BY A MAJORITY VOTE OF THE PALO
ALTO ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE, 1973.
Amended: July 3, 1974
May 19, 1977
August 4, 2005
February 5, 2015
4.a
Packet Pg. 72
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
PROCEDURAL RULES
Introduction & Contents
These Procedural Rules supplement the Bylaws of the Architectural Review Board
(“Board”) and are to be construed consistent with those Bylaws. In the event of any
conflict between these Rules and the Bylaws, the Bylaws shall prevail.
These rules are organized in three sections:
I. Public Participation in Board Meetings
This section explains the basic rules for speaking to the Board. The Board follows
a modified Roberts’ Rules of Order.
II. Motions, Debate & Voting
This section explains the simplified rules of parliamentary procedure the Board
follows (like Roberts’ Rules of Order, but simpler!).
III. Quasi-Judicial Proceedings
This section explains the special way the Board handles hearings that raise
constitutional due process concerns. These are usually hearings that seriously
impact someone’s life, liberty or property.
011215 cs 0131300 1 February 5, 2015
4.b
Packet Pg. 73
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
PROCEDURAL RULES
I.Public Participation in Board Meetings
A. Policy. It is the policy of the Board to assure that members of the public have
the opportunity to speak to any regular or special meeting agenda item before final
action. In addition, an opportunity will be provided for members of the public to
address the Board on items within its purview but not on the agenda at each regular
or special meeting. These rules establish the rights and obligations of persons who
wish to speak during Board meetings.
B. General Requirements.
1. Accessibility. Palo Alto makes every reasonable effort to accommodate
the needs of the disabled. Persons with disabilities who require auxiliary
aids or services in using City facilities, services or programs or who would
like information on the City’s compliance with the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, may contact (650) 329-2364.
2. Presiding Officer's Permission Required. The presiding officer at Board
meetings (usually the Chair or Vice-Chair) is responsible for preserving
strict order and decorum. This is important in order to assure a fair
opportunity for everyone to participate in an open and civil setting.
a) Any person desiring to address the Board must first get the
permission of the presiding officer by completing a speaker card and
handing the card to the Secretary.
b) The presiding officer shall recognize any person who has timely
given a completed card to the Secretary.
c) Except as provided by these rules, no person shall be permitted to
enter into any discussion without the permission of the presiding
officer.
3. Recording and Identification. Persons wishing to address the Board shall
comply with the following:
a) Use the microphone provided for the public and speak in a
recordable tone, either personally or with assistance, if necessary.
011215 cs 0131300 2 January 1, 2015
4.b
Packet Pg. 74
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
PROCEDURAL RULES
b) State their name and address if presenting evidence in a hearing
required by law.
c) Other speakers should state their name and address, but cannot be
compelled to register their name or other information as a condition
to attendance at the meeting.
4. Specific Requirements and Time Limits.
a) Oral Communications. Oral communications may be limited to
three minutes per speaker and will be limited to a total of thirty
minutes for all speakers combined.
1) Oral communications may be used only to address items
that are within the Board’s subject matter jurisdiction, but not
listed on the agenda.
2) Oral communications may not be used to address matters
where the receipt of new information would threaten the due
process rights of any person.
3) All remarks shall be addressed to the Board as a body and
not to any individual member.
4) Board Members shall not enter into debate or discussion
with speakers during oral communications.
5) The presiding officer may request that City staff respond
to the person speaking and/or the Board at a later date.
b) Other Agenda Items. Public comments or testimony on agenda
items other than Oral Communications shall be limited to a
maximum of three minutes per speaker unless additional time is
granted by the presiding officer. The presiding officer may reduce
the allowed time to speak to two minutes if necessary to
accommodate a larger number of speakers.
1) Spokesperson for a Group. When any group of people
wishes to address the Board on the same subject matter, the
presiding officer will inform the group that a spokesperson
011215 cs 0131300 3 January 1, 2015
4.b
Packet Pg. 75
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
PROCEDURAL RULES
may be chosen by the group to address the Board.
Spokespersons who are representing a group of five or more
people who are identified as present at the Board meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed
up to fifteen minutes at the discretion of the presiding officer,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak
individually.
2) Quasi-Judicial Hearings. In the case of a quasi-judicial
hearing, applicants and/or appellants, as applicable, shall be
given ten minutes each for their opening presentation and ten
minutes for rebuttal before the hearing is closed. When the
appeal is brought by a party other than the applicant, the
appellant’s opening statement should precede the applicant’s
opening statement and the appellant’s rebuttal should follow
the applicant’s rebuttal. In the event a request is made and
the need for additional time is clearly established, the
presiding officer shall independently, or may upon advice of
the Board’s attorney, grant sufficient additional time to allow
an adequate presentation by the applicant or appellant in a
hearing required by law. A person who participates during
the ten minute period allotted for appellants and/or applicants
may not speak during the time allotted for public comment
without first securing the permission of the presiding officer.
3) Addressing the Board after a Motion. Following the time
for public input and once the matter is returned to the Board
no person shall address the Board without first securing the
permission of the Board, subject to approval of the Board’s
Attorney with respect to any hearing required by law.
011215 cs 0131300 4 January 1, 2015
4.b
Packet Pg. 76
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
PROCEDURAL RULES
II.Motions, Debate & Voting
A. Policy. It is the policy of the Board to follow simplified rules of parliamentary
procedure for motions, debate and voting. These rules focus on the types of motions
the Board can debate and when those motions are properly used.
1. Purpose. The purpose of these rules is to facilitate orderly and thorough
discussion and debate of Board business. These rules shall not be applied or
used to create strategic advantage or unjust results.
2. Summary of Rules. Palo Alto does not follow Roberts Rules of Order.
See the Summary Table below.
B. Motions. A motion is a formal proposal by a Board Member asking that the
Board take a specified action. A motion must receive a second before the Board can
consider a matter.
1. Types of Motions. There are two kinds of motions. These are the
“main” motion and any secondary motions. Only one main motion can be
considered at a time.
2. Procedure.
a) Get the Floor. A Board Member must receive the permission of
the presiding officer before making a motion.
b) State the Motion. A motion is made by a Board Member (the
“maker”) stating his or her proposal.
c) Second Required. Any other Board Member (including the
presiding officer) who supports the proposal (or who simply wishes
it to be considered) may “second” the motion without first being
recognized. A motion to raise a question of personal privilege does
not require a second.
d) Motion Restated. The presiding officer should restate the motion
for the record, particularly if it is long or complex.
e) Lack of a Second. If there is no second stated immediately, the
presiding officers should ask whether there is a second. If no Board
Member seconds the motion the matter will not be considered.
011215 cs 0131300 5 January 1, 2015
4.b
Packet Pg. 77
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
PROCEDURAL RULES
f) Discussion. The maker shall be the first Board Member
recognized to speak on the motion if it receives a second. Generally
Board Members will speak only once with respect to a motion. If the
presiding officer or Board permits any Board Member to speak more
than once on a motion, all Board Members shall receive the same
privilege.
g) Secondary Motions. Secondary motions may be made by a
Board Member upon getting the floor.
h) Action. After discussion is complete the Board will vote on the
motion under consideration.
3. Precedence of Motions. When a motion is before the Board, no new
main motion shall be entertained. The Board recognizes the following
secondary motions, which may be considered while a main motion is
pending. These motions shall have precedence in the order listed below.
This means that a secondary motion that is higher on the list will be
considered ahead of a pending secondary motion that is lower on the list:
a) Fix the time to which to adjourn;
b) Adjourn;
c) Take a recess;
d) Raise a question of privilege;
e) Lay on the table;
f) Previous question (close debate);
g) Limit or extend limits of debate;
h) Motion to continue to a certain time;
i) Refer to committee;
j) Amend or substitute;
4. Secondary Motions Defined. The purpose of the allowed secondary
motions is summarized in the following text and table.
a) Fix the time to which to adjourn. This motion sets a time for
continuation of the meeting. It requires a second, is amendable and
is debatable only as to the time to which the meeting is adjourned.
b) Adjourn. This motion ends the meeting or adjourns it to another
time. It requires a second and is not debatable except to set the time
to which the meeting is adjourned, if applicable. A motion to
adjourn shall be in order at any time, except as follows: (a) when
repeated without intervening business or discussion; (b) when made
011215 cs 0131300 6 January 1, 2015
4.b
Packet Pg. 78
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
PROCEDURAL RULES
as an interruption of a member while speaking; (c) when the previous
question has been ordered; and (d) while a vote is being taken.
c) Take a recess. This motion interrupts the meeting temporarily. It
is amendable, but is not debatable.
d) Raise a question of personal privilege. This motion allows a
Board Member to address the Board on a question of personal
privilege and shall be limited to cases in which the Board Member’s
integrity, character or motives are questioned, or when the welfare of
the Board is concerned. The maker of the motion may interrupt
another speaker if the presiding officer recognizes the "privilege."
The motion does not require a second, is not amendable and is not
debatable.
e) Lay on the table. This motion is used to interrupt business for
more urgent business. A motion to lay on the table requires a
second, is not amendable and is not debatable. It shall preclude all
amendments or debate of the subject under consideration. If the
motion prevails, and the subject is tabled, the matter must be
reagendized in the future if further consideration is to be given to the
matter.
f) Previous question. This motion “calls the question” by closing
debate on the pending motion. A motion for previous question
requires a second, is not debatable and is not amendable. It applies
to all previous motions on the subject unless otherwise specified by
the maker of the motion. If motion for previous question fails,
debate is reopened; if motion for previous question passes, then vote
on the pending motion. A motion for previous question requires a
two-thirds vote of those Board Members present and voting.
g) Limit or extend debate. This motion limits or extends the time
for the Board or any Board Member to debate a motion. It requires a
second, is amendable and is not debatable. The motion requires a
two-thirds vote of those Board Members present and voting.
h) Continue to a certain time. This motion continues a matter to
another, specified time. It requires a second, is amendable and is
debatable as to propriety of postponement and time set.
i) Refer to a city agency, body, committee, board, commissioner or
officer. This motion sends a subject to another city agency, body,
011215 cs 0131300 7 January 1, 2015
4.b
Packet Pg. 79
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
PROCEDURAL RULES
committee, board, commissioner or officer for further study and
report back to the Board, at which time subject is fully debated. It
requires a second, is amendable, and is debatable only as to the
propriety of referring. The substance of the subject being referred
shall not be discussed at the time the motion to refer is made.
j) Amend or substitute. This motion changes or reverses the main
motion. It requires a second, is amendable, and is debatable only
when the motion to which it applies is debatable. A motion to amend
an amendment is in order, but one to amend an amendment to an
amendment is not. An amendment modifying a motion is in order
but an amendment raising an independent question or one that is not
germane to the main motion shall not be in order. Amendments take
precedence over the main motion and the motion to postpone
indefinitely.
011215 cs 0131300 8 January 1, 2015
4.b
Packet Pg. 80
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
PROCEDURAL RULES
Motion Description 2
nd
Req’d
Debatable Amendable 2/3
Vote
Fix the time to which
to adjourn
Sets a next date and time for continuation of the meeting X Only as to time to
which the meeting is
adjourned
X
Adjourn Sets time to adjourn. Not in order if (a) repeated without
intervening business (b) made as an interruption of a member
while speaking; (c) the previous question has been ordered; and
(d) while a vote is being taken
X Only to set the time to
which the meeting is
adjourned
Take a recess Purpose is to interrupt the meeting X X
Raise a question of
privilege
Lay on the table Interrupts business for more urgent business X
Previous question
(close debate or “call
the question”)
Closes debate on pending motion X X
Limit or extend limits
of debate
Purpose is to limit or extend debate X X X
Motion to continue to
a certain time
Continues the matter to another, specified time X X X
Refer to committee Sends subject to another city agency, body, committee, board,
Board or officer for further study and report back to the Board, at
which time subject is fully debated
X Only as to propriety of
referring, not
substance of referral
X
Amend or substitute Modifies (or reverses course of) proposed action. Cannot raise
independent question. Can amend an amendment, but no
further.
X Only if underlying
motion is debatable
X
011215 cs 0131300 9 January 1, 2015
4.b
Packet Pg. 81
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
PROCEDURAL RULES
Summary of Key Motions
Type of Motion
2nd Req’d Debate Order of Debate
Main Motion Yes Yes Mover & 2nder speak first
“Friendly” Amendment No, but must be
accepted by mover and
2nder of main motion
No
Amendment
(If friendly amendment not
accepted)
Yes Occurs with main
motion BUT
Chair has
discretion to
bifurcate
issues/questions
Substitute Motion Yes Yes, Debate &
vote occurs
before main
motion
Mover & 2nder of
substitute motion speak
first
011215 cs 0131300 10 January 1, 2015
4.b
Packet Pg. 82
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
PROCEDURAL RULES
C. Debate and Voting.
1. Presiding officer to state motion. The presiding officer shall assure that
all motions are clearly stated before allowing debate to begin. The presiding
officer may restate the motion or may direct City staff to restate the motion
before allowing debate to begin. The presiding officer shall restate the
motion or direct City staff to restate the motion prior to voting.
2. Presiding officer may debate and vote. The presiding officer may move,
second and debate from the chair, subject only to such limitations of debate
as are by these rules imposed on all Board Members. The presiding officer
shall not be deprived of any of the rights and privileges of a Board Member.
3. Division of question. If the question contains two or more divisible
propositions, each of which is capable of standing as a complete proposition
if the others are removed, the presiding officer may, and upon request of a
Board Member shall, divide the same. The presiding officer's determination
shall be appealable by any Board Member.
4. Withdrawal of motion. A motion may not be withdrawn by the maker
without the consent of the Board Member seconding it.
5. Change of vote. Board Members may change their votes before the next
item on the agenda is called.
6. Voting. On the passage of every motion, the vote shall be taken by voice
and entered in full upon the record.
7. Silence constitutes affirmative vote. Board Members who are silent
during a voice vote shall have their vote recorded as an affirmative vote,
except when individual Board Members have stated in advance that they will
not be voting.
8. Failure to vote. It is the responsibility of every Board Member to vote
unless disqualified for cause accepted by the Board or by opinion of the
Board’s Attorney. No Board Member can be compelled to vote.
9. Abstaining from vote. The abstainer chooses not to vote and, in effect,
"consents" that a majority of the quorum of the Board Members present may
act for him or her.
0011215 cs 0131300 11 February 5, 2015
4.b
Packet Pg. 83
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
PROCEDURAL RULES
10. Not participating. A Board Member who disqualifies him or herself
pursuant to the Political Reform Act of 1974 because of any financial
interest shall disclose the nature of the conflict and may not participate in the
discussion or the vote. A Board Member may otherwise disqualify him or
herself due to personal bias or the appearance of impropriety.
11. Tie votes. Tie votes may be reconsidered during the time permitted by
these rules on motion by any member of the Board voting aye or nay during
the original vote. Before a motion is made on the next item on the agenda,
any member of the Board may make a motion to continue the matter to
another date. Any continuance hereunder shall suspend the running of any
time in which action of the Board is required by law. Nothing herein shall
be construed to prevent any Board Member from agendizing a matter that
resulted in a tie vote for a subsequent meeting.
12. Motion to reconsider. A motion to reconsider any action taken by the
Board may be made only during the meeting or adjourned meeting thereof
when the action was taken. A motion to reconsider requires a second, is
debatable and is not amendable. The motion must be made by one of the
prevailing side, but may be seconded by any Board Member. A motion to
reconsider may be made at any time and shall have precedence over all other
motions, or while a Board Member has the floor, providing that no vested
rights are impaired. The purpose of reconsideration is to bring back the
matter for review. If a motion to reconsider fails, it may not itself be
reconsidered. Reconsideration may not be moved more than once on the
same motion. Nothing herein shall be construed to prevent any Board
Member from making a motion to rescind such action at a subsequent
meeting of the Board.
13. Appeal from the decision of presiding officer. When the rules are silent,
the presiding officer shall decide all questions of order, subject to appeal by a
Board Member. At the presiding officer’s discretion, the presiding officer
may submit the question to the Board, in which case a majority vote shall
prevail. Any decision or ruling of the presiding officer may be appealed by
request of any member. A majority vote is required to reverse the decision
of the presiding officer.
14. Getting the floor; improper references to be avoided. Every Board
Member desiring to speak shall address the chair and, upon recognition by
the presiding officer, every Board Member shall be confined to the question
under debate, avoiding all indecorous language and personal attacks.
0011215 cs 0131300 12 February 5, 2015
4.b
Packet Pg. 84
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
PROCEDURAL RULES
15. Interruptions. Except for being called to order, a Board Member once
recognized, shall not be interrupted when speaking, except as otherwise provided for
in these rules. A Board Member called to order while speaking shall cease speaking
until the question or order is determined, and, if in order, said Board Member shall
be permitted to proceed.
III. Additional Requirements for Quasi-Judicial Hearings and
Planned Community Zoning Applications
A. Policy. It is the policy of the Board to assure that the due process rights of all
persons are protected during City hearings. A “quasi-judicial” hearing is a hearing
that requires a higher level of procedural due process because of the potential impact
on life, liberty or property. Usually, quasi-judicial hearings involve a single parcel
of land and apply facts and evidence in the context of existing law. Findings must
be stated to explain the evidentiary basis for the Board’s decision.
1. Purpose. These rules are intended to assure that Board decision-making
on quasi-judicial matters is based upon facts and evidence known to all
parties and to support the role of the Board in making independent
recommendations to Council.
B. General Requirements.
1. Quasi-Judicial/ Planned Community Proceedings Defined. Quasi-
judicial/planned community proceedings subject to these procedural rules
include hearings involving the following matters:
a) Design Enhancement Exceptions
b) Subdivisions, other than final map approvals
c) Architectural Review
d) Planned Community Zoning
e) Other matters as determined by the Board’s Attorney
f) Appeals related to any of the above
g) Environmental Review relating to any of the above
2. Restrictions on Board Communications Outside of Quasi-Judicial and
Planned Community Zone Hearings. The Board deliberates and makes all
decisions in public, however the Board recognizes there may be
circumstances where one on one conversations with applicants or
community members may be useful and informative. The following
procedural guidelines are intended to implement the Board’s policy on such
0011215 cs 0131300 13 February 5, 2015
4.b
Packet Pg. 85
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
PROCEDURAL RULES
ex parte contacts, but shall not be construed to create any remedy or right of
action.
3. Identification of Quasi-Judicial/Planned Community Matters. The City
Attorney, in conjunction with the Planning Director, will identify agenda
items involving quasi-judicial/planned community decisions on both the
tentative and regular Board agendas. This identification is intended to
inform the Board, interested parties, and the public that this policy will apply
to the item.
4. Board Members to Track Contacts. Board Members will use their best
efforts to track contacts with owners, developers, applicant representatives
and members of the public pertaining to such identified quasi-
judicial/planned community decision items. Contacts include conversations,
meetings, site visits, mailings, or presentations during which substantial
factual information about the item is gathered by or submitted to a Board
Member.
5. Disclosure. When the item is presented to the Board for hearing, Board
Members will disclose any contacts which have significantly influenced their
preliminary views or opinions about the item. The disclosure may be oral or
written, and should explain the substance of the contact so that other Board
Members, interested parties, and the public will have an opportunity to
become apprised of the factors influencing the Board's decision and to
attempt to controvert or rebut any such factor during the hearing. Disclosure
alone will not be deemed sufficient basis for a request to continue the item.
A contact or the disclosure of a contact shall not be deemed grounds for
disqualification of a Board Member from participation in a quasi-
judicial/planned community decision unless the Board Member determines
that the nature of the contact is such that it is not possible for the Board
Member to reach an impartial decision on the item.
a) If a Board Member receives any written materials in connection
with these types of discussions, a copy of those materials shall be
made a part of the public record.
b) At the beginning of any such meeting or discussion, Board
Members are strongly encouraged to review these Guidelines with
the party they are meeting.
c) Board Members shall endeavor to always keep an open mind, and
not rush to pre-judge any matter, until after all concerned parties
0011215 cs 0131300 14 February 5, 2015
4.b
Packet Pg. 86
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
PROCEDURAL RULES
(including but not limited to applicants, members of the public and
Staff) are heard during the public hearing.
d) Board Members shall refrain from coming to a conclusion on the
item until the public hearing is closed.
6. No Contacts after Hearings. Following closure of the hearing, and prior
to a final decision, Board Members will refrain from any contacts pertaining
to the item, other than clarifying questions directed to City staff.
7. Written Findings Required. On any matter for which State law or City
ordinance requires the preparation of written findings, the staff report and
other materials submitted on the matter will contain findings proposed for
adoption by the Board. Any motion directly or impliedly rejecting the
proposed findings must include a statement of alternative or modified
findings or a direction that the matter under consideration be continued for a
reasonable period of time in order for staff to prepare a new set of proposed
findings consistent with the evidence which has been presented and the
decision which is anticipated.
8. Rules of Evidence. Board hearings need not be conducted according to
formal rules of evidence. Any relevant evidence may be considered if it is
the sort of evidence upon which responsible persons rely in the conduct of
serious affairs. The presiding officer may exclude irrelevant or redundant
testimony and may make such other rulings as may be necessary for the
orderly conduct of the proceedings while ensuring basic fairness and full
consideration of the issues involved. Evidentiary objections shall be deemed
waived unless made in a timely fashion before the Board.
9. Burden of Proof. The applicant and appellant shall bear the burden of
proof on all aspects of the action or relief they seek. The person with the
burden of proof must offer evidence to the Board to support his or her
position.
10. Board Members Who are Absent During Part of a Hearing. A Board
Member who is absent from any portion of a hearing conducted by the Board
may vote on the matter provided that he or she has watched or listened to a
video or radio broadcast, or video or audio recording, of the entire portion of
the hearing from which he or she was absent and if she or he has examined
all of the exhibits presented during the portion of the hearing from which he
or she was absent and states for the record before voting that the Board
Member deems himself or herself to be as familiar with the record and with
0011215 cs 0131300 15 February 5, 2015
4.b
Packet Pg. 87
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
PROCEDURAL RULES
the evidence presented at the hearing as he or she would have been had he or
she personally attended the entire hearing.
10. Appeals. Appeals to the Board and requests for hearings of minor staff
architectural review shall be conducted de novo, meaning that new evidence
and arguments may be presented and considered.
C. Record Before the Board. The Records before the Board on any matter shall be
deemed to include the Comprehensive Plan, the Municipal Code and any relevant
plans or studies which have been formally accepted or approved by the Board or by
the City Council.
0011215 cs 0131300 16 February 5, 2015
4.b
Packet Pg. 88
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Present: Chair Wynne Furth, Vice Chair Peter Baltay, Board Members Alexander Lew and Robert
Gooyer.
Absent: Osma Thompson.
4. Study Session on Ex-parte Communications Between Architectural Review Board
Members and Applicants/Developers and Other Persons
Chair Furth: The first one is on Ex-parte communications between the Architectural Review Board
members and applicants and developers and other persons. And we have a representative of the City
Attorney's Office here, and a member of the public who has asked to speak, both of which we're grateful
for. Just to set the scene, a lot of people, both neighbors, and historic preservationists, and applicants,
make requests of us, that we speak to them about their project or the work of the Board. We have a
Board policy, and a City policy, that give us some direction, but not total direction. We thought it would
be helpful to discuss this with our counsel, our City's counsel, and with each other. If you would
introduce yourself and proceed.
Ms. Lee: Thank you, Madam Chair. Sandra Lee, Assistant City Attorney. Thank you for inviting me here
this morning to talk about what I hope is an interesting topic. You requested a study session on ex-parte
communications and quasi-judicial hearings. This is a quick overview of what I'm going to touch upon.
First is a little bit of refresher for all of you about quasi-judicial hearings, fair hearing requirements that
attach to such matter, and within that context, the regulation of ex-parte communication. This will be a
general discussion about these areas. You may have interest in talking about specific matters, specific
situations. However, that may be more suitable for off-line discussions as these situations arise, and we
can talk about it after this meeting -- or you and I, not all together -- individually, or as situations arise in
the future with respect to specific projects and requests. Quasi-judicial hearings as opposed to legislative
matters: When the ARB takes discretionary action on a proposed project. You are applying existing
policies, roles and standards to a specific person, project or circumstance. These hearings involve the
taking of evidence and will result in a written decision, based on required findings. And, in contrast,
legislative actions are the promulgation of these more general policies, rules and standards, and the ARB
does from time to time weigh in on such matters with respect to design guidelines and the like. Things
that will apply to projects more generally. With respect to quasi-judicial hearings, certain rules apply to
ensure due process for the project applicant and a fair administrative hearing for all interested parties.
These are the fundamental requirements of a fair hearing that are rooted, not only in the federal
constitution, but the state constitution, as well as state law. A fair hearing requires notice to the applicant
and to the public, an opportunity to be heard, and to hear the evidence that the Board will consider. A
hearing must occur before an impartial decision-maker, one that is not biased or has not prejudged the
matter. And, within the context of all of this, a fair hearing does require the disclosure of ex-parte
contacts. I would just say that, I just want to touch on, with respect to the impartial decision-maker item.
Public officials are presumed to be impartial, but this could be overcome with evidence of bias, and in
general, members should avoid taking a position on a specific project or class of projects prior to hearing
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
EXCERPT MINUTES: November 1, 2018
City Hall/City Council Chambers
250 Hamilton Avenue
8:30 AM
4.c
Packet Pg. 89
City of Palo Alto Page 2
evidence. First, I wanted to talk about what are ex-parte communications, so we are all talking about the
same thing. Evidence-gathering that takes place outside the hearing. It includes oral and written
information, but it can include other sensory communication, something that you perceive visually, or
that you hear, and that you may ascertain from a site visit, for example. These communications are those
that are substantive and relevant to the project and the decision that the ARB is making. If you have a
contact with a project applicant and it's about a barbecue that someone is having, then obviously that's
not considered an ex-parte communication in this context. The law generally requires that such contacts
be disclosed, and any new information learned as a result of those contacts be disclosed. Why is full and
complete and timely disclosure of contacts important? It's for a couple of reasons. First, such disclosure
affords applicants the right to rebut evidence that may have been learned outside of the hearing context.
It gives not only the applicant, but other interested parties the ability to refute, test and explain such
information. And, the other reason why this disclosure of ex-parte is important is that the hearing
requirement necessarily contemplates that a decision will be made in light of the evidence introduced at
the hearing. So, if you have an outside contact, if you don't disclose it at the hearing, it's not part of the
record before the body. The decision needs to be made on the evidence presented at the hearing. That
could be evidence presented by the applicant, presented by members of the public, other interested
stakeholders, but it also could be evidence that you yourself obtained outside of the hearing context that
is disclosed to all of the other members of the Board, and to the public and the applicant. I did want to
mention that in the land use context...So, different rules apply, different due process rules apply in
different context. But in the land use context, ex-parte evidence that is disclosed before the public
hearing does not violate due process, which is why we put so much emphasis on disclosure. In a 1957
case involving the city of San Mateo, that's still good law, and this is just a paraphrase of the court's
decision. Plaintiff complained that the defendant, the City of San Mateo and City Council members, relied
upon information acquired by the council members outside of the hearing, but there, the mayor stated at
the outset that the council members had a look at the property -- they conducted a site visit -- and the
statements in question made at the hearing fully revealed the investigation. There was no concealment,
so those who are protesting this decision -- it was a variance, in that case -- were free to challenge any
views expressed, and they frequently did so at the hearing. In that context, it was deemed to not be a
due process violation, that the council members had obtained information outside of the hearing. I want
to just talk a little bit about what our rules are -- the City Council and the ARB -- they are a little different.
Ex-parte contact are discouraged for the City Council. The Council, as well as the PTC, have procedural
rules that do discourage such contact if they will affect the impartiality of the member. The ARB does not
have this rule specifically in their procedural rules. And, in fact, the procedural rules say...Well, they
acknowledge that in some circumstances, it may be useful and informative for ARB members to have
these contacts. I would say that even though that is the rule that the Board adopted about three years
ago...It may have been before, but the last time they were updated. Individual members could, of
course, choose to be more restrictive in their conduct, should they desire. You're not compelled to have
ex-parte communication, and you can make your own decision with respect to that, as long as you meet
this minimum of disclosure. The ARB procedural rules require that members make best efforts to track
any contacts, and the substance of those contacts. That includes conversations, meetings, site visits,
mailings, or presentations where substantial factual information was conveyed with respect to the
project. And, it is recommended -- this is not reflected specifically in the rules, but I would recommend
that members who do engage in ex-parte contact take contemporaneous notes -- who, what, when,
where -- and as detailed as possible, because that information, you're going to convey on the record prior
to the beginning of the ARB hearing. Disclosure may be oral or in writing. You can submit it to staff prior
to the hearing, or, the latest the disclosure should be made is at the beginning of the hearing, before any
testimony is taken. The ARB rules state that ex-parte contacts are prohibited after the close of the public
hearing, and prior to a decision. I would just mention that even though the rules don't expressly
discourage ex-parte contacts for the ARB, that sometimes they may be useful. Whatever you learn that is
useful, that you've considered and have influenced your decision, should be disclosed, because the
purpose of the hearing is not to come together with all or separately-gathered evidence and just share it.
I mean, the primary purpose of the hearing is to have the evidence presented by the parties and the
staff, and should the ARB members obtain other evidence, then disclose it. But, it is really principally the
forum for which the evidence should be presented by the parties. I wanted to make mention of a
potential Brown Act violation, also in the context of ex-parte contact. To the extent that the
4.c
Packet Pg. 90
City of Palo Alto Page 3
applicant...What I've been talking about up to now is the Board getting information about a project,
learning information. But an applicant potentially will want to know, what does the Board think about
their project? Elicit information the other way. There are a couple things with respect to that. The
potential Brown Act violation is what's called the hub-and-spoke model, where that individual is
ascertaining the position of various board members, and they may go to the next board member. There
are five members, so they may go to three members, and to the third member, they tell them, "I've
spoken to members A and B, they are on board with this project, I just need your vote." Now, there is a
potential violation right there because there is this collective concurrence being formed through an
intermediary. So, it's really incumbent on the board members to prevent that type of communication from
a member of the public or the applicant, because if a Brown Act violation occurs, it will be your violation.
It will not be their violation. And you are in the best position to know the requirements of the Brown Act,
and to make sure the views of other Board members are not shared with you on a pending project. Also,
with respect to providing feedback to applicants, I would be somewhat circumspect in what information
you provide, only because of the requirements to be an impartial decision-maker. You do have to keep an
open mind, to not prejudge the matter before the hearing, to not commit to a specific position, because
the position must be based on evidence that you obtain at the hearing, or that is presented at the
hearing. And then, my last slide really is just about, this is the last part of what's required for a fair
hearing in quasi-judicial, is that, you know, you need to make a fair decision that is supported by
substantial evidence in the record. That includes things that you might disclose that you've learned from
ex-parte communications. Any questions?
Chair Furth: Thank you very much, Counselor Lee. I'm going to suggest that we hear from the members
of the public before we start asking questions and having a general discussion. The first card that I have
is from Jyanhwa Myau. Good morning.
Mr. Myau: Yeah. First, I would like to thank you for Counselor Lee's presentation. It's very informative for
me, personally. I was asking, after the previous hearing, I was wondering if members of the council
would like to talk to the community, to answer some of the questions, you know, if we have a chance.
This is not directly related to this presentation. It's just so very happens about communication. And I
truly understand and am very grateful that you present us as a public, you know, for the...This is a very
complicated application process. Most of us, we don't have the professional knowledge, and specifically, I
would like to (inaudible) about, last time you asked about the setback of the building, and today, we can
(inaudible) to see all your efforts. The whole process, we need to communicate with the public, if
possible, you know, to educate them about...To ease their anxiety about the future change. And there's a
trend about, to adding more mass buildings around the boundary of the cities. That's just the trend. We'll
have to live with it. But, how can we include the (inaudible) parties and work together as a community?
That's where I'm coming from, and hopefully you can share most of your view of experience with us.
That's it. Thanks.
Chair Furth: Thank you so much. I have another card from Randy Popp.
Mr. Popp: Thank you. Randy Popp, I'm a resident of Palo Alto, and an architect practicing in town here. I
will tell you that I just happened across the agenda for today's meeting and noticed that this item was
present. I'm very glad that you're taking up this discussion because, having sat in your seat as chair for
some time, and board member for longer, I can tell you that it's important to me that applicants be able
to speak to the Board throughout the process. We spend thousands of hours developing projects. They
are immensely complex, and the number of decisions that goes into the organization of a site, the design
of a building, the use of building, is something that you cannot possible absorb by reviewing the material
that comes in your packet. It's just too complex. And while the PTC receives a packet that has written
documentation that they can read and digest and understand, there's so much more involved in the
process of developing a building, that it's critical -- I believe -- that the Board be open to meeting with
applicants. And I think it can be done easily within the constraints of what was described. Having done
this, again, myself, it's easy to say to an applicant, "I'm here today to hear what you have to say. I'm
here today to listen to any explanation that you want to provide. I'm expecting that whatever you're
showing me today will be in your presentation so that we can discuss it publicly. Share with me whatever
4.c
Packet Pg. 91
City of Palo Alto Page 4
is important for you to really explain to me in a clear way, but I will not be giving you any additional
information. I'm not going to be providing feedback for you. I'm not going to make any judgments about
your project. I'm just here to absorb information, and be more educated when I come to the point of
having to make a decision about your project." I believe that that's really critical for the Board to be open
to, and to be accepting of, and to maintain as a policy. Thank you.
Chair Furth: Thank you. Any comments from staff?
Ms. Lee: I would say that whatever information is provided to the Board, I mean, to the extent that it's
maybe too much to absorb in 10 minutes, that is not necessarily a reason to allow for ex-parte meetings
that might take a substantially longer amount of time with each Board member. I would say that more
time is required in a public setting, so, if the information that's going to be conveyed in these ex-parte
meetings is so critical to understanding the project, then that information should probably be conveyed in
a public setting so that all interested parties could hear that information.
Chair Furth: Staff? That was legal staff. Anything from planning staff?
Ms. Gerhardt: I think, related to the concept of a project being complex, I mean, if it's complex for the
ARB, then it's that much more complex for the neighbors. Obviously, I very much agree with our counsel.
I might kick myself later, but, I mean, I think we really should have more community meetings. If a
project is that complex, we should be having community meetings ahead of hearings so that it can be
explained to the neighborhood. And potentially, the Board could come. We'd have to figure out if that
needs to be noticed, or not. That sort of thing. But the community meetings are noticed anyway, so, we
would just have to notice that the Board would be in attendance if, you know...We will talk with counsel
about the details of that.
Chair Furth: Thank you. Alex.
Board Member Lew: A comment on the community meetings. I do know that a lot of times, the planners,
the project planners, will meet with members of the community, and it's not always documented to the
Board. Sometimes they'll mention it during the staff presentation. So, it may be good to just have, for us
to try to be more methodical about including that in staff reports and what-not. Like, how many
meetings, and when did they happen, and what-not. I think my other comment is, for staff, is, can we
make a document for the applicants about what they, if they ask for an ex-parte meeting, that there are
guidelines that they need to follow. Because it seems to me that we've done it, we've had meetings
before in the past, and usually the applicants are knowledgeable about what they should and should not
do. But, I think there are other applicants out there that don't know that. I mean, we just have a
guideline for them about what they can expect...
Chair Furth: (inaudible)
Board Member Lew: Yeah. But I would just say, for example, there was a recent project, and the
applicant asked for a meeting with two Board members, and that would have violated the Brown Act.
Just having the meeting right there. And they didn't seem to understand, so they were putting the Board
members in a tight spot and not even know it, not even knowing that there was a potential issue. Yeah,
so, I think we just have to be careful about that.
Ms. Gerhardt: Just related to the, when staff is meeting with neighbors, there is a portion of the staff
report where that information should be because we have the public outreach section. But I will make
sure we are more diligent about communicating that, if that hasn't been true.
Board Member Gooyer: I have a question. One of the things I thought was a bit unusual, under the
"discouraged" items, you have a site visit. I mean, I thought that's pretty basic. In fact...
4.c
Packet Pg. 92
City of Palo Alto Page 5
Ms. Lee: Yeah, I wasn't saying that that's discouraged. I was actually saying that that is okay, and the
court has upheld the ability to do that, so long as that information was disclosed prior to the hearing.
Board Member Gooyer: Okay. I ask, basically talking to a lawyer, usually, a very specific, exactly... You
know, if it's written there, it's gospel.
Chair Furth: You know what? I think one of the important things is that, that's why the chairs do ask us
to disclose, have you done a site visit, because that is something that the applicant should know.
Sometimes it needs to be more specific, like I saw it last Wednesday when there was an explosion on
site, or something. If you just keep imaging this imaginary person participating in the hearing, and...
Board Member Gooyer: (inaudible) (off microphone)
Chair Furth: Yeah. They need to know what we think we've learned that's relevant to this project. And, of
course, I was having a bit of a discussion with counsel about, we bring our whole experience to these
hearings, and you particularly bring your professional experience. And one of the things I notice is that
you have a lot of expertise on the use of materials in this area, so you frequently tell an applicant that,
"That's not going to work here." And that is based on your professional experience, and you don't need --
in my opinion, Sandy can disagree -- to disclose that, you know, you did this on such-and-such a setting.
Though I notice that Alex often does say, "This material has been used on three projects in the last 10
years. If you look at the one on Park Avenue, it really is a good example of why this is a bad idea." He
has quite the memory, and history. And that lets the applicant say, "Oh, but that's not, you know, that
was ipe from this part of the world, and I'm using a different..." But just so that people can respond to
what we think we know and correct our understanding, or argue against it. I particularly wanted to talk
about neighborhood concerns. You know, based on my professional history as a lawyer, and a municipal
lawyer...And I've been doing this so long. I remember when the law came in requiring us to, for the first
time, make written findings of fact and conclusions of law, so that courts could review our decisions, and
people would have due process. Yeah, on stone tablets. Absolutely. It was the 70's. I sort of thought,
well, it's much simpler if I just don't talk to anybody because then I don't have to take all these notes or
remember everything, and tell them that no, they can't pay for my cup of coffee. And I found my views
evolving, particularly with regard to neighbors, particularly when it's an existing community of neighbors,
whether it's the Palo Alto redwoods next to the proposed hotel, to replace the restaurant on El Camino,
or the Greenhouse neighborhood with respect to this hotel. And I do believe that, ideally, we have infinite
staff, with infinite time, and they are able to have a community meeting, or one or more community
meetings, with these groups. But we don't have infinite staff, and we don't have infinite time, and
thinking about how to do that has been on my mind. I do believe that meeting with neighbors so that
you can see what the view is from their property, so that you can look at the project literally from
another angle, is useful. It does require a lot of note-taking. Because I think we not only have to be fair,
we have to be seen to be fair, and we have to be seen to be listening, which is why I tend to run these
hearings in what some of you may view as a rather sloppy way. Which, if we've got time, I essentially re-
open the hearing and let people continue to comment, because I think the value of their speaking and us
hearing outweighs the other. I'm more reserved about meeting with applicants because I think they have
more professional ability to present their plans to us. I do agree that I sometimes want more than a week
or less to look at a project, and its site, and its history. But, I decided to engage in some fact-finding on
this approach, a little empirical research, so, I did meet with Roxy Rapp and his colleague and son, and
his professional consultant, Steve Emslie, because they are proposing to do something concerning a retail
use on the site of the former Cheesecake Factory. And I learned about the Rapp family history with that
building, and the tenants who had been there before, and we discussed the fact that we think that the
Masonic Temple and Design Within Reach did a bang-up job of redoing their site. And, I refuse to
comment on proposed designs because I think that undercuts what we should be doing here at the
Board. I find myself trying to figure out, under what circumstances, under what conditions, is it helpful to
the process, to the community and to the applicant, to meet with them, and under what circumstances is
it not? And I’m interested in Alex's question, suggestion of sort of, these are the ground rules here.
Because I think it could be helpful, because it's not at all good when somebody blurts out, "Well, I've
talked to two of your colleagues and..." And I will say, I never agree to meeting with anybody and with
4.c
Packet Pg. 93
City of Palo Alto Page 6
another Board member because it's just a problem. First of all, we never know what our quorum is going
to be for the actual hearing, and it could be that two people already violated the Brown Act because
there's only going to be three or four decision-makers. Comments from folks?
Vice Chair Baltay: I have a specific three things, but one of them is regarding site visits. I wonder if we
could just be clear. A site visit, when I go out to physically look at a property that's coming before us,
that's considered an ex-parte communication? Just the act of visiting the site?
Ms. Lee: Any gathering of information outside of the hearing is an ex-parte contact.
Vice Chair Baltay: So then, it needs to be disclosed very clearly at the meeting. To the best of my
memory, this is the first time we've been doing that since Wynne became Chair. Is that right?
Board Member Lew: That's correct.
Vice Chair Baltay: Okay, so, your advice is that we continue to do that very clearly. At each meeting,
before each item, we should all disclose that we visited the site?
Ms. Lee: Yes. And if you have visited the site, I would disclose that you visited it, when you visited the
site, and any information that you may have learned on that site visit that is not in the record. So, there
could be something that happens that day that is unusual, and that might influence your decision. And
we don't know if it's unusual or not, and the applicants and others will not be able to kind of test that
information you've ascertained without knowing about it. And you are the only person who can disclose
that information.
Chair Furth: One of the things about site visit disclosure is that I actually do hear you all
disclosing...Frequently, I say, "I visited the site, and I notice that the trees overhang, or that the
neighbors oak tree is very close, and I'm going to be concerned about how you're protecting that tree."
We actually don't get too many on-site explosions. But, it's helpful to the applicants to know what struck
us. Alex.
Board Member Lew: We've been disclose...I think the issue, though, is that...I think Sandy is saying that
it needs to be done first.
Chair Furth: Yes.
Board Member Lew: And we haven't been doing that. That sometimes happens later in our disclosure...
Chair Furth: Well, we have to disclose the fact that we've been there.
Board Member Lew: Been to the site, but not the actual...
Chair Furth: And I would argue that, I would suggest that people have a pretty good understanding of
what you're going to see on the site, and that we don't have to detail every single...It's impossible to
detail everything we saw. You saw the site. But, if there's something that concerns us, we could take
advantage of that time to mention it.
Ms. Lee: Yes. I would agree. You're not going to go through a minute-by-minute recount of...But, things
that struck you. Things that could influence your decision. I do think that that type of information should
be disclosed before the hearing. However, perhaps it doesn't occur to you until you're in the middle of
the hearing. You know, something's happened. The applicant...So long as you give an opportunity to the
applicant to respond to this other information, then that should be okay. But, I still would urge you to try
to disclose as much as possible, as early as possible, so that every speaker has an opportunity to kind of
question that information, or provide some kind of rebuttal to it.
4.c
Packet Pg. 94
City of Palo Alto Page 7
Chair Furth: Peter.
Vice Chair Baltay: My second thought, then, was, when is the appropriate time to disclose? Again, on our
hypothetical site visit, what if I just disclosed by email to the Planning staff that I visited the site? I'm
visiting the site, I could just send an email, "I'm at the site right now, I visited it." Is that a proper
disclosure? Or, more specifically -- I'm sorry to interrupt you -- but, at what point in the hearings do we
have to do the disclosures? Could we do them all at the very beginning? Or does it have to be project by
project?
Ms. Lee: It should be project by project, at the beginning of the hearing on that project. You could send
an email to staff. It probably wouldn't be, "I just visited the site on this day." Again, you know, there
might be some additional information that you want to provide about what struck you, what you saw,
and all that. That information will be public, however, so, they could include it as part of the staff report,
if you provide that email, or it would be read out loud at the hearing, along with anyone else who wants
to make an oral disclosure.
Chair Furth: And I think that the applicant is entitled to due process; the public is entitled to a fair
hearing. I always think of this imaginary person out there, and that imaginary person has read the public
notices, they've read the staff report, they're familiar with the city's laws and rules -- this person doesn't
exist -- and what else do we need to do so that they understand, in general, the basis for our decisions?
Myself, I believe that the most effective way to do that is to, as we hear the...And they are only here for
their item. They're not here for the meeting in general. They come in for their item. So, at the beginning
of addressing that item, we disclose what needs to be disclosed. One of the things is, we're not terribly
formal about what is in the public record, and what isn't. Sometimes, we say, "Now, I'll open the public
hearing." What we're really saying is, "Now I'm opening the hearing to the public." Because from the
court's point of view, and the due process point of view, the minute we call the item, that's when the
hearing starts. So, somewhere in that period, we need to do this. And if there is a whole lot to disclose,
you can refer to a document, but there generally is not anything to disclose, except that I went and
looked at it. I will say that I found...I wanted to disclose my meeting with the Rapps because that was
the first I knew that there was a project over there. And so, I want you all to know what I know. I sort of
want you to know it, when I know it, so that...That's part of, sort of mutual respect for each other, so
that if there is information that I have, you know it. That's a block which we spend a lot of time on.
That's an alley we've put a lot of energy into. I want you to know that, so if you want to think about it,
you have more time to do that. I would also say as a general practice, I'd be really uncomfortable being
one of five people. The more of us talk to an applicant ahead of time, the more of us meet with the
community ahead of time, the less comfortable I am about that. I don't know how the rest of you feel
about that.
Vice Chair Baltay: I'm trying to come back, Wynne, to the concept of speaking to somebody that's not
based on a certain project. Is it ex-parte communication for her to speak to...? I don't want to be
specific. If it's not related to something that's coming before the Board. In other words, there's no project
on application. Is that still an ex-parte communication to speak to somebody about...
Chair Furth: Sure.
Vice Chair Baltay: ...something?
Chair Furth: I don't have to disclose it until the project gets here, but, yeah. It doesn’t matter that they
haven’t filed an application yet.
Ms. Lee: Yeah, so, typically, it attaches once an application is filed, so to the extent that there is
information...You know? "In five years, I'm going to work on this project." I would not necessarily say
that you need to record that and potentially disclose it five years down the road, when it comes to the
ARB. This obligation to track your contacts and all of that, that would attach after the application is filed.
4.c
Packet Pg. 95
City of Palo Alto Page 8
Chair Furth: Wynne's sense of disclosing things that are not based on a project is more out of a sense of
doing it right than it is any legal requirement?
Ms. Lee: Yes.
Chair Furth: And I would say that I wouldn't do this if I didn't know they intend to file an application in
the near future. I mean, some big discussion about open space policies in Palo Alto is not the kind of
thing I'm going to regale you with during Board member comments.
Vice Chair Baltay: Another question I had was regarding, I've heard comments about not having ex-parte
communications between hearings. We frequently have multiple hearings on a project, so, after the first
hearing, is it then not allowed to, say, go visit a site to see what's going on?
Ms. Lee: The ARB rules do not expressly prohibit that. There's no clear demarcation, other than after the
hearing is closed, you may not have...and prior to a decision, you may not have ex-parte
communications. An example of that would be -- and I don't know if this happens with this Board -- but,
you may make a preliminary decision, but you're waiting for findings to be prepared by staff, and it will
come back to you for a final decision. Before that final decision is made, no further communications with
the applicant or others.
Vice Chair Baltay: When we move and second and vote to continue a project, is that a decision, or is that
just a continuation of...?
Ms. Lee: No, because that's just a continuation of the public hearing. It hasn't been closed.
Vice Chair Baltay: I see. So, until we have a decision issued, ex-parte communications are okay, then.
Chair Furth: I would say, as a member of this Board, first of all, I view site visits as very different from
having a chat with the architect. Because I'm not going to convey any information out during a site visit.
I'm going to be absorbing information, the same way I would be doing if I was researching some building
material on the internet. But I'm not at risk of either pre-judging and conveying a prejudgment, or giving
somebody my opinion so that they can start shaping the project in response to what I saw. Or what I
said. I've used site visits as very difficult to get in trouble with a site visit. And by "get in trouble," I mean
distort the hearing process, or find myself disqualified for bias. I can't think any circumstances under
which I would want to talk to the applicant between hearings. Because we have, as a Board, looked at,
we have commented, we've begun to discuss, and I don't want to tell them, "Well, of these two
alternatives, I prefer X," because I think that's usurping the function of the Board as a whole. That's
where I come down on that. But, other people might have different opinions.
Board Member Lew: Are you recommending then that the Board adopt the Council and PTC's bylaws
regarding that?
Chair Furth: Refresh my recollection.
Board Member Lew: Well, I think...
Board Member Gooyer: Well, it's already discouraged, so I think...
Board Member Lew: But I think Sandra was saying that it's not in the, it's not written in our ARB...
Ms. Lee: Yes, sorry, this was confusing. Because it was kind of interesting to me, actually, that the ARB
rules are different from Council and PTC's, which are the same. And those have changed over time, as
well. But today, both Council and PTC have procedural rules that discourage ex-parte communications if
it will affect the impartiality of the decision-maker. But, the ARB does not include that "discourage"
language. It just, you know...It's really silent as to that.
4.c
Packet Pg. 96
City of Palo Alto Page 9
Board Member Lew: I think my...I think there's a specific example that happened this year, where the
applicant who really...He'd been pushing for meetings between hearings, and really was pushing the City
Attorney's Office to show them where it was written in the ARB's rules. Right? If we think that the PTC
and the Council's rules are better, then I think we should put them in the ARB's language. Because they
are challenge...I mean, there are applicants who are challenging that.
Chair Furth: Does the PTC or the City Council have a rule forbidding ex-parte with the applicants or
members of the public while a matter is being, a quasi-judicial matter is being continued?
Ms. Lee: No...
Board Member Lew: I think you're saying it's discouraged.
Chair Furth: Discouraged.
Ms. Lee: It's discouraged, in general. But I also think...You know, the ARB's process is interesting
because you do contemplate having these three hearings, whereas that's not necessarily true before
these other bodies. That's why there's no specific provision about between hearings. The only provision,
which is the same as the ARB's, is about the prohibition between the close of the public hearing, and the
decision.
Chair Furth: And I think we all understand that that's because the public hearing is closed. We are not
supposed to be gathering more information. Except maybe reading the code, which would be okay.
Vice Chair Baltay: But I find I, I feel I have to visit the site, often several times on a complex project. It's
only by going back there and looking at it again, often with the words of my colleagues ringing in my
ears, that I can do this job properly. And yet, if that's ex-parte, is it or is it not?
Chair Furth: I really think we should, analytically, we should separate site visits from talking to the
applicant...
[crosstalk]
Board Member Gooyer: I agree. I think one is a...
Chair Furth: ...very different concept, and nobody is going...
Board Member Gooyer: ...definite requirement, and the other one probably is not necessary.
Chair Furth: I think they are very different. Counsel?
Ms. Lee: Even though we might generally say they're ex-parte contacts, they are very different in degree,
as other Board members have commented. I do think that a site visit is in its own class of outside
information than communications with individuals.
Board Member Gooyer: What do you think of...Wynne? I mean, as far as...I've been on other boards
where it was basically left for the chair to make that determination while his or her term...
Chair Furth: Make which determination, Robert?
Board Member Gooyer: Because, I mean, you know, every chair has a different way of looking at things.
I don’t like the idea of making something too black and white where, in case you need an out,
occasionally.
4.c
Packet Pg. 97
City of Palo Alto Page 10
Chair Furth: Yeah, I'm less convinced that...Thank you for attending. I don’t know what the chair's role
might be. Just thinking tentatively, not conclusively. I would be in favor of having a policy of discouraging
communications between hearings. I really do not want an applicant to shop alternative proposals or
responses to the Board after they've heard from us. I think that's very much the Board's function, or
staff's function, and I think we have worked hard to be clear on our direction, and to try to get, you
know, straw votes, or consensus, so that people understand what our opinions are before...So they don't
need to go say, "Well, what do you think of this shade of blue?" I'm not going to tell you, and I don't
even want to hear the question. So, I would be in favor of modifying our rules in that regard. I'd like to
hear more from staff about the use of community meetings and whether it's useful to have an ARB
representative with you at such meetings. I think that Board members can say things that staff can't. I
really like Alex's idea of some proposed, you know, explanation to the public and the applicant about how
we can and cannot - or do and do not -- wish to gather information. I think it would be helpful. The thing
that I'm clearest about is that I have felt that I was advancing the City's efforts when I've met with
neighbors or community activists, or whatever, to hear their concerns before an application is filed. Those
are lay people. They don’t have professional advocates working for them. Though they're often highly
sophisticated and very organized. It's pretty easy for me to keep track of what they've said, and when,
and they are almost always telling me what they think, and never asking me what I think. All that makes
it easier. I have -- twice -- met with applicants. No, three times. And once, the argument was, they really
wanted to show me their drawings and plans. I am the slowest study on the Board in terms of looking at
drawings and plans because that's not my profession. I can beat you anytime on an ordinance. And on
balance, I don't think it's worth it. Staff is willing to go over questions with me, and I think that would be
the better approach. I did meet with the Palo Alto Housing Corporation. It was helpful to hear their
project description. I suggested that they give us that information when we were here. I disclosed that
information in summary form before the hearing. Interestingly, they didn't make that part of their case
when they came, and so I asked them to expand on it when they were here. The drive not to be
discourteous is significant and refusing to meet with somebody is awkward. I would be happier if we had
a policy that said that we strongly discourage meeting with applicants and the neighbors between
hearings, and we directed those inquiries and communications to staff. I don't know how the rest of you
feel.
Ms. Gerhardt: Just from a staff perspective, I think you'd asked some questions of staff. I think we have
heard communications from various applicants, that they walked away from a first or second hearing and
didn't quite know what needed to be done. And I think we've tried to be thoughtful about that in the
recent past, about -- as Chair Furth said -- you know, taking some straw polls, doing a better summary at
the end of our hearings. I think that can help a lot of this type of issue. If we want to do a handout
related to ex-parte communications, I think that's a great idea, and we can certainly work on that. The
other thing, too, I know from board members, there seems to be some struggles with the plan sets and
things like that. Staff has tried to work on that as best as possible, but some early communication from
the board members to staff might be helpful in that regard. If you're looking through the plans and
you're not seeing something you want, then maybe an early email to us could help us. We'd have to
scramble, but we could try and get something together related to that. Or, we could just be ready for
that question with a possible answer. Related to community meetings, I think it's a much bigger topic
than all of us, just about how this city would like to move forward with that potential idea. I think right
now, we have applicants that do their own community meetings. Most of the time, they will invite staff,
and if we hear something incorrect being said, we will certainly voice that and try and correct that issue
immediately. But it really is a developer's community meeting at this moment. So, you know, the whole
city should think about how they may want to move forward with that or change that. And then,
regarding updating the ARB's rules, we're certainly available to do that, and if we want to put some line
items in there that, you know, just says that meetings are discouraged after the first hearing, and that
somehow, you know, doesn't exactly pertain to site visits, we could certainly do that.
Chair Furth: Thank you. Comments? Don't all speak at once.
Board Member Lew: Well, I would say that I think I agree with your position on discouraging ex-parte
meetings between hearings, and I think we definitely acknowledge that a past board member, when
4.c
Packet Pg. 98
City of Palo Alto Page 11
Chair Popp was here. I mean, he...He was arguing for the opposite (inaudible), and I think there are
other board members in the past who would also agree with him. About board members being available
for meetings between hearings. But I think to your point, I think it's better not to do it.
Vice Chair Baltay: I find that...I think the status quo is actually working pretty well. I think the feedback
you've given us and the general understanding amongst the Board is pretty close to, it sounds like what
the rules are. I don't see that we really need to change our rules or anything. Unless we want to put
more time into it. But I think there are more pressing things we could work on changing our rules on. I'm
satisfied with what we have. I'm happy to see it change, but I'm satisfied with what we have right now,
too.
Chair Furth: It looks like two of us would be in favor of modifying our rules to discourage ex-parte
meetings between hearings, meaning contacts with the applicant and the public. In my case, particularly
the applicant. "Discourage" doesn't mean prohibited. And two of you are happy with it as it stands, so we
will wait for Board Member Thompson. Anything else we want to say about this topic while we're here
and have the chance? Oh, how do people...? I would be in favor of having a...cheat sheet is the wrong
word. Tip sheet. A document that applicants and members of the public could read about what we can
and cannot do in meetings with them, so they don't start off by telling me what two of my fellow board
members believe before I can stop them.
Commissioner Gooyer: What we can and cannot do, or what we, what our purview is?
Chair Furth: Well, I think it would be helpful if there was a document that said, you know, when you have
a matter before the Board, you know, if a Board member agrees to meet with you, you need to be sure
you do not inadvertently violate the Brown Act. Tell them...I don't know if it's possible, but if it has been
done...I'd be willing to put some energy into thinking about this. I mean, one of the problems is it may
encourage more people to ask for more meetings, which I think would be undesirable. Comments?
Vice Chair Baltay: I think it's great as long as somebody else does it.
Chair Furth: Got it. Maybe we just need to make those standard speeches. Why don't we think about
that? Yes, go ahead, staff.
Ms. Lee: I was just going to say that, as well. We can certainly put some thought into that, and what the
appropriate forum would be.
Chair Furth: What might be useful.
Ms. Lee: Mm-hmm.
Chair Furth: Yeah.
Ms. Lee: Let us think about that a bit.
Chair Furth: I will say that having had this meeting, I find myself thinking, you know, if somebody asks
me for a meeting, I am probably going to say, "Are you planning to talk to other members of the Board
as well?" And if they say, "Yes, I'm going to talk to everybody," I'm going to say, "You're not talking to
me."
Vice Chair Baltay: You know, when I started these meetings with this Board and others, I used to feel
strongly that when somebody asked me, I would refer them back to the Chair, and the Chair would then
direct how or if the Board would have ex parte communications. I've since come to think that maybe
that's just overkill, and just sort of too much maneuvering and bureaucracy.
4.c
Packet Pg. 99
City of Palo Alto Page 12
Chair Furth: I don't even think I can do it without breaking rules. I can't instruct the Board members
whether or not to meet with a member of the public without violating other procedural (inaudible). How's
that for vague?
Vice Chair Baltay: I guess I’m just a legal layperson. I don't understand why that would be a bad thing.
But, I mean, clearly, it's not something that counsel or staff wants us to do, and...
Chair Furth: Because basically...
Vice Chair Baltay: ...I don't really care.
Chair Furth: Basically, the only authority I have I exercise at the meeting. When I'm not here, I have no
importance. I have no authority except to chair the meetings. I'm entitled to put something on the
agenda I forget. Anything else anybody wants to say about this today? Okay. Well, thank you very much
for coming to talk to us. Staff, if you put this on as a follow-up meeting next time we have all five of us,
follow-up item, that would be helpful. Thanks very much.
Ms. Lee: Okay. Thank you.
Chair Furth: I learned a lot.
4.c
Packet Pg. 100
Architectural Review Board
Staff Report (ID # 11786)
Report Type: Study Session Meeting Date: 11/19/2020
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650) 329-2442
Summary Title: ARB Annual Report to Council
Title: Discussion Regarding the Annual ARB Report to Council
From: Jonathan Lait
Recommendation
Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) reflect on the hearings they have
conducted over the past year and discuss the information that will be included in a report to
City Council.
Background
As noted in Municipal Code Section 2.21.030, the ARB shall send a report, not less than once a
year, to the Planning Commission and City Council for the purpose of communicating the
concerns of the Board with respect to the City’s plans, policies, ordinances and procedures as
these affect the projects which the Board reviews.
The report could outline activities of the ARB for 2020, summarize development trends
demonstrated by projects reviewed by the ARB during this period and recommend key policy
issues to address in the future. To facilitate discussion, staff has included a list of projects
reviewed this year and a copy of the ARB’s 2019 report.
The Board may review and comment as it deems appropriate.
Attachments:
x Attachment A: List of ARB Hearing Items from August 2019 to December 2020 (PDF)
x Attachment B: 2019 ARB Annual Report to Council (PDF)
5
Packet Pg. 101
Meeting : 08/01/19
Meeting Group Doc ID Short Title Placement Preparer
Architectural Review Board 10360 486 Hamilton Ave: Mixed-use Building (Prelim) Action Items Sheldon AhSing
Architectural Review Board 10393 702 Clara Drive: Three Detached Units (2nd Formal) Action Items Sheldon AhSing
Architectural Review Board 10523 3265 El Camino Real: Subcommittee Review of Louvre Window and Stai Subcommittee Adam Petersen
Meeting : 08/15/19
Architectural Review Board 10435 788 -796 San Antonio Road Mixed-Use (1st Formal) Action Items Sheldon AhSing
Architectural Review Board 10525 180 El Camino Real: L'Occitane Facade Remodel (1st Formal) Action Items Samuel Gutierrez
Meeting : 09/05/19
Architectural Review Board 10562 180 El Camino Real: Market Plaza and Tenant Facade Update (1st FormAction Items Samuel Gutierrez
Meeting : 10/03/19
Architectural Review Board 10676 180 El Camino Real: Macy's Mens Redevelopment (2nd Formal) Action Items Samuel Gutierrez
Architectural Review Board 10680 Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project - Paralleling Station Perimeter LAction Items Amy French
Meeting : 10/17/19
Architectural Review Board 10654 2342 Yale Street: Duplex Project (2nd Formal) Action Items Emily Foley
Architectural Review Board 10678 3585 El Camino Real: Mixed-Use (1st Formal) Action Items Sheldon AhSing
Architectural Review Board 10691 3265 El Camino Real: Subcommittee Review of Louvre Window and Stai Subcommittee Adam Petersen
Architectural Review Board 10759 180 El Camino Real: Subcommittee Review of L'Occitane Facade Subcommittee Samuel Gutierrez
Meeting : 11/07/19
Architectural Review Board 10755 Discuss Topics for Study Session with Council Action Items Jodie Gerhardt
Architectural Review Board 10775 565 Hamilton Avenue: Subcommittee Review Subcommittee Sheldon AhSing
Architectural Review Board 10823 180 El Camino Real: Continuation of Macy's Mens Redevelopment Action Items Samuel Gutierrez
Meeting : 12/05/19
Architectural Review Board 10760 180 El Camino Real: Macy's Mens Redevelopment (3rd Formal) Action Items Samuel Gutierrez
Architectural Review Board 10787 Introduction of Objective Standards Project Study Session Hang Huynh
Architectural Review Board 10835 2342 Yale: Subcommittee Review of Materials and Details Subcommittee Emily Foley
Architectural Review Board 10838 250 Sherman: Subcommittee Review of Public Safety Building Tower DeSubcommittee Amy French
Meeting : 12/19/19
Architectural Review Board 10859 702 Clara Drive: Three Detached Units (3rd Formal) Action Items Sheldon AhSing
Architectural Review Board 10860 1700 & 1730 Embarcadero Road: Mercedes and Audi Dealerships Action Items Sheldon AhSing
Architectural Review Board 10867 250 Hamilton Avenue: Bus Shelters in the Stanford Research Park Action Items Garrett Sauls
Meeting : 01/16/20
Architectural Review Board 10503 4256 El Camino Real: 97 Room Hotel (3rd formal) Action Items Samuel Gutierrez
Architectural Review Board 10947 788 San Antonio Road (2nd Formal) Action Items Sheldon AhSing
Architectural Review Board 10948 3215 Porter Drive: New Office/R&D Building Action Items Garrett Sauls
Architectural Review Board 10963 180 El Camino Real: Market Plaza Subcommittee Subcommittee Samuel Gutierrez
Meeting : 01/30/20
Architectural Review Board 11040 Discuss 2020 ARB Awards Vinhloc Nguyen
Meeting : 02/06/20
Architectural Review Board 10833 Issues and Options for Objective Standards Study Session Hang Huynh
Architectural Review Board 11044 744 San Antonio Road: Subcommittee Review of Wall Color Subcommittee Sheldon AhSing
Architectural Review Board 11065 Election of Chair and Vice Chair Action Items Jodie Gerhardt
Meeting : 03/05/20
Architectural Review Board 11076 1700 & 1730 Embarcadero Road: Mercedes and Audi Dealerships (2nd FAction Items Sheldon AhSing
Architectural Review Board 11091 180 El Camino Real: Wilkes Bashford (1st Formal) Action Items Samuel Gutierrez
Architectural Review Board 11140 400 Channing Ave and 909 Waverley Street: Subcommittee Review of FaSubcommittee Danielle Condit
Architectural Review Board 11141 180 El Camino Real: Subcommittee Review of Bicycle & Tree Locations Subcommittee Samuel Gutierrez
5.a
Packet Pg. 102
Meeting : 04/16/20
Meeting Group Doc ID Short Title Placement Preparer
Architectural Review Board 10988 620 Emerson Street: Nobu Restaurant (Revision - 1st Formal) Action Items Samuel Gutierrez
Architectural Review Board 11103 3705 El Camino Real: Subcommittee Review of Landscaping and Minor FSubcommittee Claire Raybould
Meeting : 05/07/20
Architectural Review Board 11115 3215 Porter Drive: New Office/R&D Building (2nd Hearing) Action Items Garrett Sauls
Architectural Review Board 11132 411 Lytton Avenue: Addition of two units (Prelim) Study Session Sheldon AhSing
Architectural Review Board 11159 Newell Road Bridge Replacement (2nd Formal) Action Items Claire Raybould
Architectural Review Board 11289 Discuss Procedures for Virtual Hearings Study Session Vinhloc Nguyen
Architectural Review Board 11290 Appoint Subcommittee for Objective Standards Action Items Vinhloc Nguyen
Meeting : 05/21/20
Architectural Review Board 11214 250 Hamilton Avenue: Bus Shelters in the Stanford Research Park Action Items Garrett Sauls
Architectural Review Board 11270 486 Hamilton: Mixed Use with Four Units (1st Formal) Action Items Sheldon AhSing
Architectural Review Board 11271 3585 El Camino Real: Mixed Use (2nd Formal) Action Items Sheldon AhSing
Architectural Review Board 11308 4256 El Camino Real: Subcommittee for Hotel Colors & Details Subcommittee Samuel Gutierrez
Meeting : 06/04/20
Architectural Review Board 11350 380 Cambridge: Subcommittee Review Subcommittee Sheldon AhSing
Meeting : 07/02/20
Architectural Review Board 11215 4260 El Camino Real: Facade Change to Existing Office Building Action Items Emily Foley
Architectural Review Board 11427 3215 Porter Drive: Subcommittee Review of Rear Balcony and Materials Subcommittee Garrett Sauls
Architectural Review Board 11432 620 Emerson Street: Subcommittee Review of Details for Metal Gates/GrSubcommittee Samuel Gutierrez
Meeting : 07/16/20
Architectural Review Board 11438 656 Lytton Avenue: Facade Modifications and Site Revisions (1st FormalAction Items Emily Foley
Meeting : 08/20/20
Architectural Review Board 11193 1310 Bryant, 1235 and 1263 Emerson: Castilleja First ARB Action Items Amy French
Architectural Review Board 11484 788 - 796 San Antonio Road Mixed-Use Project (3rd Formal) Action Items Sheldon AhSing
Meeting : 10/01/20
Architectural Review Board 10113 1310 Bryant (Castilleja School) 2nd Formal ARB Hearing Action Items Amy French
Meeting : 10/15/20
Architectural Review Board 11448 ARB Review of Objective Standards Study Session Jodie Gerhardt
Meeting : 11/05/20
Architectural Review Board 11181 3rd ARB meeting Castilleja School Project Action Items Amy French
Meeting : 11/19/20
Architectural Review Board 11703 ARB Review of Objective Standards Study Session Jean Eisberg
Architectural Review Board 11705 744 - 750 San Antonio Road: Master Sign Program (1st Formal) Action Items Sheldon AhSing
Architectural Review Board 11766 Ex-parte Communications: Study Session Study Session Jodie Gerhardt
Architectural Review Board 11786 ARB Annual Report to Council Study Session Jodie Gerhardt
Meeting : 12/03/20 FUTURE MEETING
Architectural Review Board 11704 3585 El Camino Real: Mixed-Use (3rd Formal) Sheldon AhSing
Architectural Review Board 11707 3241 Park Boulevard: New Commercial Building (1st Formal) Action Items Garrett Sauls
Architectural Review Board 11767 ARB Chair/Vice-Chair Elections and By-Laws Update Action Items Jodie Gerhardt
5.a
Packet Pg. 103
To: City Council of the City of Palo Alto
Planning and Transportation Commission of the City of Palo Alto
From: Architectural Review Board of the City of Palo Alto
Re: Annual Report from the ARB
Date: July 29, 2019
PAMC Section 2.21.030 directs the Architectural Review Board to report annually our
“concerns… with respect to the city’s plans, policies, ordinances and procedures as these affect the
projects which the board reviews.” Our reviews are site specific – we look at individual development
proposals, not broad policies. At the same time, we are directed to look at each project in both its
physical and regulatory context – how it will enhance its neighborhood (or not) and how it will implement
the City’s polices, from the Comprehensive Plan to the various design guidelines the City uses. Because
we look at many projects each year, and because many board members have years of experience in Palo
Alto, patterns emerge and specific areas of concern have been identified.
A.Trees. City policy calls for and the Board whole-heartedly supports the inclusion of
appropriate, robust, and ample landscaping in all development projects. However, recent
development trends towards underground parking and the replacement of single-story
structures with multiple story buildings, which the board also generally supports, can cause
conflict. We have observed the following:
x Small commercial buildings surrounded by parking lots are being replaced with larger
commercial/mixed use buildings with underground parking garages that extend
beyond the building footprint. While the reduction of surface parking is generally a
positive change, less space is available on-site for larger trees to grow and mature.
x Replacement of single-story buildings with multiple story buildings can reduce the
size of street trees as canopies are constrained by the upper stories. (A look down
Lytton Avenue from Alma Street provides examples.) We understand that multiple
story buildings are a positive response to urban growth, but strive to also maintain a
vibrant and robust urban street canopy.
x Higher density zoning for hotels discourages extensive landscaping. The setback of
upper floors and use of roof gardens can help mitigate the impact of larger buildings.
These issues can be addressed in part through design review but more explicit
landscaping standards would be beneficial.
B.Curb Management. Curbside traffic management is increasingly important, especially
commercial areas.
x Underground parking has many advantages over surface parking. However, the
elimination of easily accessible surface parking shifts the demand for space for
commercial deliveries and ride sharing services to the curb. New buildings need to
be designed to accommodate these uses. This is especially true for buildings
fronting on streets with no parking permitted and no possibility of temporary double
parking for commercial and passenger loading and unloading.
x A number of “smart curb” programs have been put in place in other Bay Area cities.
Fehr and Peers prepared a Curb Study for Uber for San Francisco in 2018. Mountain
View has provided ride service loading zones off Castro Street.
Updated standards for commercial delivery areas and more explicit standards for ride
sharing pick-up and drop-off zones would be beneficial.
C. Displacement of Small Businesses. The redevelopment of commercial sites often
eliminates small business spaces in favor of larger sites that appeal to tech companies. (The
replacement of many small office spaces at 2600 El Camino Real is an example. This is also
occurring in the Downtown and California Avenue business districts.) The displaced
businesses typically provide personal and professional services to individuals – barber shops,
therapists’ offices, accountancy firms, etc. The City’s current ordinances do not protect these
uses. San Francisco’s Neighborhood Commercial zone requires new, large commercial
5.b
Packet Pg. 104
ground floors to carve out street facing spaces (approximately 500 square feet minimum) for
smaller tenants. The City of Palo Alto ought to consider the same—small businesses are an
important part of the urban landscape and Palo Alto culture.
D. Parking. Parking at the Stanford Shopping Center is increasingly congested. Transportation
Demand Management programs allow parking requirements to be more carefully tailored to
specific needs, but require careful monitoring.
x The Stanford Shopping Center’s parking requirements allow the required parking to
be provided anywhere on the site. The standard does not distinguish among uses.
As a variety of uses (exercise studios, restaurants, etc.) replaces more conventional
retail spaces, more users are drawn to the site. This may require new approaches to
planning for and managing parking, whether through increased parking requirements,
more proximate underground parking or employee parking management programs.
x Transportation Demand Management (TDM) agreements are increasingly used by
applicants who wish to meet their projects parking needs with fewer spaces than the
code would otherwise require. The Board supports providing only the number of
parking spaces actually needed. However, TDMs required regular and complaint-
based monitoring to be effective. While aerial photos can be used to monitor parking
lots, the City needs future access to underground garages to monitor their use.
Board members have received comments that internal parking intended for customer
or employee use is in fact not available at some sites.
The Stanford Shopping Center parking requirements should be reviewed in light of the
changing nature of shopping center uses. TDM program enforcement should be
monitored and more strongly supported.
E. Pedestrian Mobility. For people to move freely in our commercial districts and along El
Camino Real, we need more seating available to pedestrians. The City should set and
implement street furniture standards that combine public and private seating to make walking
possible for those who need to rest. Specific standards, such as the VTA 2003 Pedestrian
Technical Guidelines, which call for 13’-18’ wide sidewalks in order to have a furnishing zone,
or the 2012 Rail Corridor Study, which recommends 15’ min sidewalks in Main Street areas
for cafe seating and retail merchandising, may be helpful references.
F. El Camino Real. There is a continuing loss of places to go along El Camino Real.
x Zoning encouraging new hotels includes parking standards that discourage the
addition of potential neighborhood social spaces such as coffee shops, restaurants,
and bars.
x Parking standard for El Camino Real development that make it difficult to add
restaurant uses on small parcels.
Revised parking standards for development along El Camino Real would promote the
development of neighborhood retail and restaurant businesses.
G. Architectural Review Board-required findings. The City Council modified the required
findings for the Architectural Review process in 2017, resulting in six findings which must be
made to recommend Architectural Review approval. The revised findings have resulted in an
improved review process, as board members, staff and the public are more easily able to
reference which finding is applicable and appropriate for any given project or situation. The
result has been an increased focus on ensuring compliance with the findings.
5.b
Packet Pg. 105
Architectural Review Board
Staff Report (ID # 11780)
Report Type: Approval of Minutes Meeting Date: 11/19/2020
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650) 329-2442
Summary Title: Minutes of October 15, 2020
Title: Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for October
15, 2020
From: Jonathan Lait
Recommendation
Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) adopt the attached meeting minutes.
Background
Draft minutes from the October 15, 2020 Architectural Review Board (ARB) are available in
Attachment A.
Draft and Approved Minutes are made available on the ARB webpage at bit.ly/paloaltoARB
Attachments:
x Attachment A: October 15, 2020 Draft Minutes (DOCX)
6
Packet Pg. 106
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Call to Order/Roll Call
Present: Chair Peter Baltay, Vice Chair Osma Thompson, Board Members Alexander Lew, and
David Hirsch.
Absent: Board Member Grace Lee.
Vice Chair Thompson: Good morning, everybody. Pursuant to the provisions of California Governor’s
Executive Order N-29-20, this meeting will be held by virtual teleconference only, with no physical
location. Spoken comments via a computer will be accepted through the Zoom teleconference meeting.
To address the Commission, go to zoom.us/join. Meeting ID is 942 5837 0735. When you wish to speak
on an agenda item, click on “Raise Hand.” The moderator will activate and unmute speakers in turn.
When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. Spoken public comments using a
Smartphone will also be accepted through the Zoom mobile application. To offer comments using a
regular phone, call 1-669-900-6833, and enter Meeting ID 942 5837 0735. When you wish to speak on
an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to speak. I don’t see any public
comments right now but maybe some will come. I think also by an ARB Bylaw 3.3.1, I’m the Vice Chair
and I have been asked by Chair Baltay to Chair this meeting today.
Oral Communications
Vice Chair Thompson: The next item is Oral Communications. I don’t see any member of the public but
I will ask. We do have Jodie.
Jodie Gerhardt, Manager of Current Planning: Yes, staff actually has some announcements. Usually,
around this time the Clerk’s Office would come to our ARB hearings and let us know that there are open
recruitments going on right now. I just wanted to make that announcement for them. The Architectural
Review Board does have two positions that are ending in December. The HRB has four positions that are
ending in November. The Parks and Rec Commission has one unexpired position, don’t ask me what that
is. Planning Commission has two positions whose terms will end in December. Those positions are open
for people to apply, and the Clerk’s Office does have information on its website. The deadline for
applications is October 20th, at 4:30 p.m. Thank you very much for that. We also have a second
announcement, the great shake-out is happening this morning around 10:15. We’re supposed to have a
simulated earthquake. I believe the simulation this morning is 4.5 on the Richter scale. We will see what
happens. At 10:15 I think my phone is going to go off and we can duck and cover. Thank you. That’s
all the announcements from staff.
Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
DRAFT MINUTES: October 15, 2020
City Hall/City Council Chambers
250 Hamilton Avenue
Virtual Meeting
8:30 AM
6.a
Packet Pg. 107
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Vice Chair Thompson: Thank you. We are going to try and keep today’s meeting to two hours as best
we can, which means that that will be a kind of a little cherry at the end of the meeting. The next items
I agenda changes, additions, and deletions.
Ms. Gerhardt: No changes.
City Official Reports
1. Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, and 2) Tentative Future
Agenda items and 3) Recent Project Decisions
Vice Chair Thompson: Thank you. City Official Reports.
Ms. Gerhardt: Yes, hopefully, someone will bring this up for me but we were aware that Board Member
Lee was not going to be able to attend today. She has sent in some written comments about the
objective standards. We appreciate that. Then you see that the rest of the year will be virtual meetings.
So far we are anticipating having all of these hearings, and I think they are far enough away from
holidays and things. We are virtual, too, so I am hoping that everyone can attend but please let me
know if you are going to be absent for a certain hearing. When you go down further on the page, you
will see that November 5th hearing, which is our next hearing, we are looking to have the Castilleja
School come back and that would be its third and formal hearing. The applicant and staff have certainly
heard that in order for the ARB to make a recommendation there would need to be a complete set of
plans. They are working on that so that there will be no confusion when we do that third review. Thank
you.
Study Session
2. Study Session for ARB Review of Draft Objective Standards
Vice Chair Thompson: All right. Thank you. That takes us to the main item on our agenda here, which
is the study session. This is study session for the ARB review of the draft objective standards. I think we
have a presentation by Ms. Eisberg. I think it might be best to go into that and then conduct our
discussion after that.
Ms. Gerhardt: Yes, I do want to introduce Jean Eisberg with Lexington. She has been helping us a great
deal, along with the rest of her team, Chris and others; she can introduce. They have been a great help
in moving this project along, and Jean does have a presentation for everyone. We are trying to get
through a lot of stuff in a short amount of time. We are hoping there are a few areas that we might be
able to do quickly, where there might be more consensus. That will leave us time to focus on other areas
that may need more discussion. Those areas of more discussion were called out in the staff report and
those are the areas we are hoping to focus on today. Thank you and I will let Jean take it away.
Jean Eisberg: Thank you. Good morning, everybody. I am joined by Chris Sensenig from Raime and
Associates, and I see his colleagues Jeremy is also on the line as an attendee. I am going to go ahead
and share my screen. We haven’t talked to you as a whole group about this project since February given
the pandemic and, frankly, the challenges of this project. It has taken a little bit longer to come back to
you and I just want to say thank you to David and Osma for helping us as the ARB subcommittee to work
through these real substantive issues. We meet three times since we have seen you last as a whole
group. I am going to spend a few minutes going through an overview of the project, reiterating the
purpose that we talked about in February, and which districts and uses this objective standards project
applies to, talk a little bit about the process of getting here and going forward. Then we will run through
the organization of the new code section 18.24 that was presented in your packet and the structure of
that. I am calling it here alternative compliance, but basically, there are paths to move this objective
standards process. Either you meet the objective standards, and that’s the streamlined way to get
through this, or you chose to meet the intent statements which are the more general guidelines and the
compliance with the -- excuse me. The compliance with the intent statements is at the discretion of the
6.a
Packet Pg. 108
City of Palo Alto Page 3
ARB’s approval. Then we are going to go through a discussion of each of those substantive topics and,
as the Vice Chair said, we are going to spend about ten minutes per topic. Excuse me, she articulated
that we are going to try to do this in two hours, so we will spend about ten minutes per topic. We may
not get through all of them so we will have to schedule another meeting if we don’t. I will go through
each topic one at a time, take a pause, we can have a discussion for ten minutes, and then we will move
on to the next topic. In terms of the organization, and this is the graphic on the right side of the screen,
the topics are organized in a rational way. Let’s begin with site access and site design, so bigger site
planning issues, to the massing, modulation, and finally the architectural details, entries, and open space.
Hopefully, as we are going through our discussion we will be able to talk about some of the bigger
picture issues and then move into more of the details. As you may recall, this project is really a reaction
to changes in state law. The way it is now the City has a number of subjective design criteria as well as
subjective development regulations that are used to review projects. Going forward, the City is not going
to be able to enforce the subjective criteria on certain types of multi-family and mixed-use projects given
these changes in state law. I do want to be clear, this is a real change in the way that City’s are
reviewing and acting on these eligible housing and mixed-use projects. I know it can be a little
uncomfortable but this is our new normal as we are seeing in many ways this year. In terms of which
projects this will apply to, this will apply to projects that are eligible for streamlining which include multi-
family projects. The way that the City defines multi-family is three or more units. They will apply to
mixed-use projects with at least two-thirds of the residential floor area. They will apply to commercial
projects and we are doing that because the way it is now where the context space design criteria apply,
for example in the S-district and the CN and CS district, those apply to commercial projects. So, we are
bringing those along with us even though the grant for this project and the focus of this project is on
housing and residential mixed-use, we are bringing those commercial projects along. They would be
required to comply with relevant standards. They would not need to comply with residential entries, for
example, but would need to comply with relevant standards or with the intent if they choose to go
through the discretionary path. In terms of the zoning districts, this will apply in all of the districts where
currently the context space design criteria apply. That includes the RM districts, the CD, CM, CS districts,
the PTOD overlay, as well as the planned community and the additional districts listed here. Just to
recap the project review process since this did change last year with changes in the ordinance. The way
it is now, City staff reviews all projects that come in the door but city staff will be the only group that
reviews SB35 streamlining applications. Again, this is the new law that was passed by the legislature in
2017 which allows streamlined review for certain types of housing projects. City staff would review those
ministerially, but otherwise pretty much everything is still going to come to the ARB regardless of
whether a project is proposed under the Housing Incentive Program, whether its complaint with the
Housing Accountability Act, or it’s not compliant with the Housing Accountability Act. The only projects
that the PTC and the Council will be reviewing with changes to the ordinance last year are housing
projects that require legislative action, as they are looking for rezoning or a waiver from parking
requirements or other regulations. The way it is now, the ARB has been using a mix of objective
standards and subjective standards to complete the review. The objective standards include use
regulations, is residential multi-family allowed, it includes development standards, like FAR, height, and
other regulations such as parking, and the retail protection ordinance. Then, right now, the ARB can
apply conditions of approval; can apply the ARB findings in making a determination about the project.
Going forward it depends on the project type, as I explained. The context space design criteria are going
to be rescinded from the code and replaced with the design standards that are proposed in your packet
as we amend them going forward over the next few months. Those context space design criteria which
were subjective are now being transformed into these objective design standards and that’s what the
ARB would be applying going forward. For the purposes of Housing Accountability Act projects, projects
would be required to meet objective standards. Those are the only standards that can be used to make
a decision about a project. For those Housing Accountability Act projects, the ARB would not be able to
use the ARB findings to reduce the density or otherwise make it infeasible or to deny the project. Again,
these are the objective standards of review for SB35 projects. For other types of projects, including
commercial projects or projects that don’t meet the Housing Accountability Act, the subjective criteria
could still be used in decision making, including the ARB findings. We last saw you earlier this winter.
We have been working all along the way and working with our ARB subcommittee -- thanks to them --
over a series of meetings this summer. Now we are back meeting with you today. If we don’t get
through everything today we will come back for another meeting, and then we will move on to the PTC
6.a
Packet Pg. 109
City of Palo Alto Page 4
probably this winter and ultimately to the Council to finalize the ordinance. In terms of our topics, these
are the substantive topics in the way that the draft ordinance is organized. We have, again, this sort of
rational thinking about the organization beginning with the bigger picture site design and then moving
into building design and detail. You will see that we are proposing to move some performance
standards. These are existing code sections in this part of the ordinance, which are sections that relate
to residential and mixed-use that would be appropriate for this design standard section. I mentioned at
the outset there are really two ways of compliance. We have a general intent statement at the beginning
of each topic. This is a subjective statement. It is drawn directly from the context space design criteria
and from the ARB findings. It is, again, subjective. You have to paths from there as an applicant. You
either meet the objective standards that emanate from that intent statement, and those are the
dimension standards and then you have options, or you can choose to go through a discretionary review
process with the ARB and the ARB makes the determination if the project meets the intent statement.
Again, for SB35 streamlining projects, for the Housing Accountability Act projects, they must meet the
objective standard. That is their choice and they are either choosing to get those protections under state
law. Otherwise, if the architect for reasons of creativity or if the project cannot meet those standards,
they may choose to go through discretionary review. One of the ways that may help to think about
whether you think these standards are working or not is to think about some projects that you think are
successful or unsuccessful and to test the proposed standards against those projects. When we were
crafting these with the ARB subcommittee, we used Jam Board, a whiteboard, to share images and
discuss and debate the relevance of certain standards. I would just encourage us to think about actual
projects as you're making some decisions. I know you are all working in your professional lives on these
issues so it may not be that hard for you to think about projects that you like or do not like. I am going
to pause there and we can take any questions. Otherwise, I wanted to move on to the substantive and
discussion topics. We would start with the purpose and applicability section of the code. I’ll ask the Vice
Chair if we want to pause there and take any questions.
Vice Chair Thompson: Yeah, I think it would be good to go around and see if there are any questions of
staff. Are there any?
Board Member Hirsch: I do. Does the state law actually say that all the other agencies are not allowed
to participate in any of this early discussion in any way, and in other ways is there a possibility that the
agencies can be (inaudible) reviews and Council reviews?
Vice Chair Thompson: It’s a little hard to hear you, David.
Board Member Hirsch: Okay, sorry. Did you get that, Jean?
Jean Eisberg: I think you were asking if the state law was really saying that the decision-making body
can or cannot participate in the review. Is that right?
Board Member Hirsch: Yes, I mean, instead of saying there will be no review by the agencies for these
particular projects is there a possibility that they might agree to an abbreviated review, or has that ever
been proposed?
Jean Eisberg: What the law state law says in, one, for the purpose of the SB35 projects those projects
can be reviewed by decision-making bodies; however the review, in that case, is only about the eligibility
of the project under SB35 including its compliance with objective standards. On the Housing
Accountability Act projects, that project is still coming in front of you, you're welcome to set anything you
want about the projects but in terms of the decision making the Board may only use objective standards
to take action on the project, and cannot deny or reduce the density or make infeasible the project based
on any subjective criteria.
Board Member Hirsch: For SB35 the answer is no there won’t be any review by the city agencies, period.
Jean Eisberg: The review is required to be administerial. That is why it is conducted by City staff. I
don’t believe Palo Alto has yet seen an SB35 project. Other communities that have typically I have not
6.a
Packet Pg. 110
City of Palo Alto Page 5
seen them go to decision-making bodies; however, like in Berkley they did take a project to the
Landmarks’ Preservation Board for advisory comments but that’s it. There are no binding comments.
Vice Chair Thompson: Any other questions.
Board Member Hirsch: There’s just a couple more that I might have. It appears that whatever we will
be discussing in terms of zoning massing would the SB35 projects for Palo Alto not include any height
restrictions?
Jean Eisberg: An SB35 project in Palo Alto would be required the height limitations for its particular
zoning district.
Board Member Hirsch: it would.
Ms. Gerhardt: Yes, so, David, on an SB35 project my staff would still be applying the code with the
height limits and the setback. We would also be applying these new objective standards that get into the
finer grain details that we do not have in our current development standards.
Board Member Hirsch: Okay. I guess I wouldn’t have any more questions at the moment.
Vice Chair Thompson: I barely heard that but it sounds like…
Ms. Gerhardt: David, if you're able to mute for a second while we go on.
Vice Chair Thompson: Does Board Member Lew or Chair Baltay have any questions for staff.
Chair Baltay: I have no questions at this time.
Vice Chair Thompson: Okay. I had one really quick, just, kind of, like housekeeping. I know that we
were all given a word file in terms of giving our feedback. It is my assumption that we are all going to
send you either a word file with tracked changes or scans of any notes as part of our feedback today for
this meeting.
Ms. Gerhardt: Yes, that would be very much appreciated because there may be some small, minor
changes that you are wanting to make to the document. If that is true, please send those through track
changes. If there are some larger discussion items then that is what today is for, but all of those
changes will be brought back at a future hearing. They will be made public at that time.
Vice Chair Thompson: Great.
Board Member Hirsch: Can you clarify somehow the schedule for this to be completed just because some
of us may have considerations that require more time to work them out. What if that happens? Can the
schedule be changed?
Ms. Gerhardt: We are in a little bit of a gray area here. If an SB35 project comes in tomorrow, staff
does not have a whole lot of regulations to apply to it. They would currently, you know, have to abide by
setbacks and height limits and that’s about it. We just want to be careful how far we push this out
because it just leaves more opportunity for those sorts of projects to come in and for us to have really no
design standards to apply to them. We had originally tried to get this project by the end of the year. We
know that that may not be fully possible. I mean, it can be pushed out but as much as possible we are
still trying to target the end of the year to have this project completed. We do absolutely need to have a
hearing with the Planning Commission and with the Council. Those will all take some time and we would
have to come back to this Board as well, whether we do that with just the ARB or if we’re able to do that
as a join ARB/PTC meeting.
Board Member Lew: Jodie, I have a question.
6.a
Packet Pg. 111
City of Palo Alto Page 6
Ms. Gerhardt: Yes.
Board Member Lew: On the slide under section B, I was wondering about the of zone, public facilities
because we do have the housing overlays. We have the Workforce Housing and the Affordable Housing
overlays and would those also be affected by this?
Ms. Gerhardt: That’s a very good point and I think we will have to look at that a little bit. That is a very
good point.
Board Member Lew: Thanks.
Chair Baltay: So same, then, apply to R1 zones?
Ms. Gerhardt: No, in the R1 I think we have sufficient standards. We have the individual review
guidelines for the two-story homes. We’ll go back and look at of, but really we weren’t trying to change
the code necessarily. We are trying to take the existing context space design criteria where those are
currently. I am assuming -- given it is not in Jean’s list -- it doesn’t currently apply to it, but -- I just
don’t have the whole book memorized -- where the design guidelines currently apply we’ve just
transferring those to be objective and they would apply in the same areas. It is true that we are allowing
some additional uses, and there might be a need to add the objective standards there but not the same
for R1.
Chair Baltay: thank you.
Vice Chair Thompson: For the record, I think we lost David. I don’t see him on the attendee's list
anymore. Hopefully, he is able to join us shortly. I think we should keep going, though, in the interest
of time. I did want to just ask if there are any public comments. I don’t see any but I’ll ask. Veronica,
do we have any public comments before we continue on with our discussion?
Veronica: No, there are no attendees with raised hands.
Vice Chair Thompson: Okay, great. Let’s dive in. Like Jean mentioned, we’ll just go in order of the table
of contents and go through each of these sections starting with purpose and applicability. We’ll just go
around and see if there are any comments or any items to discuss and we will try to move on from there
and cover as much ground as we can. Okay. Let’s start. Does anybody want to start us off on purpose
and applicability?
Chair Baltay: I am happy to go ahead on the purpose and applicability thing. I believe that these
standards should only apply to the Housing Accountability Act projects. I don’t think they will work well
for commercial projects in general. I am echoing Grace Lee’s comments, I believe, in her letter. I just
don’t think we can make it work across the board. Thank you.
Vice Chair Thompson: Thank you. Board Member Lew?
Board Member Lew: I guess there is a lot of confusion on my part about how the commercial would be
affected by this. It seems to me though that [distortion] some of the mixed-use buildings, right? If the
project is 90 percent residential and there’s just a small bit of ground-floor retail then I think we should
try to get those projects to work within the objective standards.
Chair Baltay: I think, Alex, it’s two-thirds residential defines it as mixed-use by the state law.
Board Member Lew: Right.
Chair Baltay: That’s, sort of, what triggers these standards or, I believe, should.
Board Member Lew: Yeah. I am okay with that.
6.a
Packet Pg. 112
City of Palo Alto Page 7
Vice Chair Thompson: Your comment, Chair Baltay, was just that it shouldn’t apply to 100 percent
commercial projects.
Chair Baltay: Yes. As I am reading what’s being proposed to us is that we try to just make this apply to
our entire code, basically, and I just see too many issues where it just isn’t going to work very smoothly
and I think we shouldn’t throw away what's been working well enough. We should just focus on applying
this to the places where the State’s requiring us to have something else in place.
Ms. Gerhardt: I do want to be clear that the context space design criteria does apply to all projects right
at this minute. We are trying to pick those up and massage them to be objective and to put them in a
logical place in the code. If we don’t bring the commercial along with us then the code just gets larger
and gets that much more complicated to implement. We are not really doing anything different than is
currently being done. We are just taking subjective items and making them objective.
Chair Baltay: And I want to be clear, Jodie, that I don’t believe this is an equivalent substitution of the
standard. I believe the subjective standards we have now are superior to these objective standards and I
don’t think we should get rid of ones we don’t have to.
Vice Chair Thompson: I think there is actually a middle ground that has been struck where we have the
intent statements, which are subjective. I believe those intent statements are meant to supplement what
is currently existing in the context space design criteria. I would assume, Jodie and Jean, correct me if
I'm wrong, but for a 100 percent commercial building, we would only look at the intent statements as
what would be applicable since those are supposedly identical to what is currently existing in our context
space criteria.
Ms. Gerhardt: That would certainly be a reasonable way to implement this, yes.
Chair Baltay: Then right out of the gate you say which applies, the ARB findings or these intent
statements if it does come back to the ARB? It’s immediately a confusion and I guess the ARB findings
are superior to these intent statements (crosstalk).
Ms. Gerhardt: The intent statements are nestled under the ARB findings.
Vice Chair Thompson: Correct. The ARB findings do not go away.
Chair Baltay: I don’t want to go around on it. That’s how I feel.
Vice Chair Thompson: Okay, we just want to make sure that that’s clear.
Chair Baltay: Yes, it is clear. I understand.
Board Member Lew: There may be a middle ground. I've done projects in Seattle and they have a range
of streamlining, right? There’s more design review based on a larger, more complex project. If you have
a very simple, straightforward townhouse project, then that gets streamlined to the greatest extent
possible. Maybe there’s a way of getting some of Peter’s concerns (crosstalk).
Chair Baltay: That’s effectively what’s happening, Alex, with this criteria of straight residential, or two-
thirds residential mixed-use.
Vice Chair Thompson: Alex, do you mean like to have a finer grain of definitions in terms of how it
applies to housing projects versus just the two-thirds?
Board Member Lew: Yeah, and, again, in Seattle, it’s in a different state so they aren’t following
California’s law. They have similar concerns with the housing crisis, and housing affordability, and permit
streamlining. I am just saying that maybe there’s a middle ground between these two-thirds residential
projects and, say, there’s a re-zoning project that goes through our old process, and maybe the
6.a
Packet Pg. 113
City of Palo Alto Page 8
commercial projects are somewhere in the middle. Maybe they follow the objective standards and maybe
they do need some additional review. I don’t know what Peter’s concerns are specifically if it is about
quality and character, or something, and maybe there’s a way that they get one ARB Hearing for some of
those additional issues. Anyway, I'm just throwing that out there.
Vice Chair Thompson: All right. I am going to give my feedback really quickly. I am not sure who is
keeping time. I should probably be keeping time but we should keep going. I hear your concerns. I
hear the concerns of the Board. I do think that are ways to mitigate these concerns. I understand that
the current findings that we have do not change and it is really just that the intent statements
supplement what is the context space design criteria. That sort of feels okay to me since they are pretty
closely worded next to each other. I do see David has come back, which is great.
Chair Baltay: Oh, great.
Board Member Hirsch: Sorry.
Vice Chair Thompson: We understand things happen. The other element is I had a comment on the
definition of façade modulation. It said the definition for façade modulation was a change in building
plane that changes the interior space but I’d like to consider an alternative to that definition, which is a
shift in plane, either a recess or projection, which alters the shape of the perceived extents and texture of
the exterior face of the building. I think it might be more applicable. I don’t know if that read well. I
can also send this as a track change but I feel like those actually say two different things. I think it is
really more about the exterior face as part of the façade modulation. That was my only comment on
purpose and applicability. There was another note that I had that was more of a general note about
these standards that I think is important. I don’t know if the Board feels it is important to put in writing
but in terms of the intent of these standards, I think it should be that we want to promote good design.
I don’t know if there is a sort of declaration at the beginning that makes sense for that. I think it is
something that we should keep in mind as we’re reading this but when we are looking at a standard or
when we are looking at something that is changing does this promote creative, good design for our
environment. Other than that I’ll leave it there. David, just to catch you up, we’re talking about the
purpose and applicability section, which is the first section, to see if anybody has any comments.
Board Member Hirsch: Yeah.
Vice Chair Thompson: I don’t know that we actually had a chance to get your comments on this.
Board Member Hirsch: I like your abbreviated list that you put together and I agree with your present
comment about modulation. Whether I want to add to this right now I’m not sure if I'm caught enough
to be able to add to it. I would wait on some of the more in-depth discussion.
Vice Chair Thompson: Okay.
Chair Baltay: David, can I quickly chime in, Osma, for something?
Vice Chair Thompson: Yeah.
Chair Baltay: David, I started out by saying I don’t believe these standards should be applicable to
commercial projects only. In other words, they should just apply where the state law forces us to make
them apply.
Board Member Hirsch: Absolutely agree with that.
Chair Baltay: I think that’s the position Grace has taken. Osma and Alex have not chimed in as strongly
as I had. I think it would be useful for you to put your opinion out on this.
6.a
Packet Pg. 114
City of Palo Alto Page 9
Board Member Hirsch: Yes, my opinion is the same. I don’t understand why they are included in the
project at all. I do agree with you 100 percent.
Vice Chair Thompson: My understanding is that they don’t apply to 100 percent commercial but just the
intent statements apply.
Chair Baltay: No, Osma, I think this is saying that if a commercial project meets these objective
standards, the façade modulation, up and down, all this stuff, they don’t go to ARB. The intent stuff
doesn’t apply. They get approved.
Vice Chair Thompson: That’s not my understanding.
Ms. Gerhardt: From a staff…
Jean Eisberg: May I respond?
Ms. Gerhardt: Go ahead, Jean.
Jean Eisberg: Commercial projects are not protected under state law the way that the housing projects
are. This is not changing the process for commercial projects. All commercial projects that currently go
to the ARB would continue to go to the ARB. What Jodie was explaining in terms of bringing them along,
one example is right now there’s a standard that sidewalks on El Camino should be 12 feet. We want to
make sure that commercial projects do that as well as housing and mixed-use projects. What I am
hearing is it may not make sense for the objective standards to apply to commercial projects. We want
to make sure that that 12-foot dimension still exists somewhere in the code and maybe it goes
elsewhere. Maybe it is repeated in a couple of sections of the commercial zoning districts. Maybe only
the intent statements apply to commercial projects as the Vice Chair indicated. I think we can explore
that going forward but what I'm hearing is that really these standards should only apply to housing and
mixed-use.
Board Member Hirsch: Yes, agreed. There’s the situation where discussion about entries into a building
which will come up a little later on where it enters into a commercial area of a building. Our present
code, I guess, allows for a certain amount of commercial with -- or requires a certain amount of
commercial within certain housing districts in certain districts. Is that correct, Jodie?
Ms. Gerhardt: Most of our zoning codes when we are doing mixed-use projects are usually 50/50 with
half commercial and half residential.
Chair Baltay: I would be open to suggesting that we shift the standard not two-thirds residential but
more like 50 percent residential. Josie, what you're saying is that most mixed-use projects in Palo Alto
tend to be 50/50. Then it would seem to me to be fair to try to get housing projects within these
objective standards. That’s the goal to streamline housing. I would be open to shifting that line but just
making it (inaudible) commercial projects.
Board Member Hirsch: Shifting that line in what way, Peter?
Chair Baltay: So that a project that was 50 percent residential would still be allowed to comply by
following the objective standards. Right now the state law says it is two-thirds residential, and a lot of
projects we see -- it’s true -- have a ground floor of commercial activity, maybe two floors of that, and
then a layer of residential. If you were able to offer them half residential then you can comply in a more
streamlined fashion by meeting objective standards. I would think that’s a good compromise to promote
the housing development.
Board Member Hirsch: I would prefer not to have commercial at all.
6.a
Packet Pg. 115
City of Palo Alto Page 10
Chair Baltay: David, on a mixed-use building with one-third commercial we don’t have a choice. That’s
the whole purpose of this thing that we are forced to do this.
Ms. Gerhardt: That is correct. It’s a state law. If they have two-thirds housing then we can only apply
objective standards but many of our projects have 50 percent commercial and 50 percent housing. If we
are saying that those projects could go through the streamlined process as well by just adhering to the
objective standards that would be additional streamlining of housing projects.
Chair Baltay: Jodie, isn’t that the staff’s objective to have mixed-use projects also follow these standards
for consistent approvals?
Ms. Gerhardt: I think that’s the State’s objective and certainly everyone’s objective to make sure that we
have sufficient housing, yes.
Chair Baltay: I would support that kind of a shift as a reasonable compromise.
Vice Chair Thompson: Chair Baltay, you're saying instead of two-thirds it should be 50 percent?
Chair Baltay: Yeah, I don’t know the exact percentage. I would leave that to some determination of
what is applicable for Palo Alto. That state number was written to apply across the board but I think it’s
reasonable to have Palo Alto set its own as long as it meets the State standard. From what I just heard
briefly, 50 percent seems like a good number but I am open to having staff evaluate where that line
might be.
Ms. Gerhardt: Yeah, and Vice Chair Thompson, if I may, I think some straw polls on these topics might
be helpful because I am hearing some conversations about commercial only projects and how we should
we apply these new standards. Then we are hearing about two-thirds housing versus 50 percent housing
and when should we apply the objective standards. I think those are two good points that it would be
helpful to get clarity on.
Vice Chair Thompson: Okay. Let’s do a straw poll. For the 100 percent commercial projects how does
the Board like the idea of using only the intent statements, not the prescriptive part where there are
numbers involved below the intent statements, but just the subjective criteria that is in the intent
statement? Does the board feel like that is okay to be applicable to commercial?
Chair Baltay: Osma, could you frame that question in the opposite and say for commercial projects the
objective standards do not apply.
Vice Chair Thompson: I don’t want to frame it that way because it’s too confusing. We’re calling the
whole document the objective standards but within the document, there are two parts. There is a
subjective part, which is the intent, and then there is the objective part, which is the criteria. Does that
make sense?
Chair Baltay: No, it doesn’t. I don’t think you should separate them that way.
Vice Chair Thompson: What do you think, Jodie?
Ms. Gerhardt: I would agree with the Vice Chair. I think there are two different parts to what we call the
objective standards.
Vice Chair Thompson: There is an intent statement which is completely, 100 percent, subjective, which
matches what our current code is.
Chair Baltay: Okay, fair enough. Fair enough.
Vice Chair Thompson: Okay.
6.a
Packet Pg. 116
City of Palo Alto Page 11
Ms. Gerhardt: We can take a straw poll on that and if it goes down we can take a different straw poll.
Chair Baltay: Whatever the acting Chair wants to do is fine. Thank you. Sorry for interrupting.
Vice Chair Thompson: If you'd like to suggest a different straw poll we can do that afterward.
Chair Baltay: No, that’s fine. I am in favor of commercial projects be required to follow only the design
intent statements.
Vice Chair Thompson: Okay. Let’s do it. The design intent statements would be applicable to
commercial projects, not the objective part, but the subjective intent part. Is everybody clear on the
straw poll? Board Member Lew?
Board Member Lew: Yeah, I don’t have an opinion on this yet. I really didn’t review the project. I didn’t
think about commercial projects with regard to this. I may have looked at like a dozen multi-family
projects. I haven’t really thought about it.
Vice Chair Thompson: Okay. Chair Baltay?
Chair Baltay: As I said, I have no problem with t just the design intent statements applying to all projects
in Palo Alto, commercial, and residential. Yes, I am in favor of that.
Vice Chair Thompson: Board Member Hirsch?
Board Member Hirsch: I’m in out of this in terms of my electrical connection here. I am sorry. Could
you just review this again a little bit further with me? Commercial projects that are up to 50 percent are
going to be through this abbreviated system? Is that the way this is going right now?
Vice Chair Thompson: No, currently it is at two-thirds housing, one-third being non-housing.
Board Member Hirsch: Two-thirds hosing, one-third commercial?
Vice Chair Thompson: That’s how it’s written right now.
Ms. Gerhardt: The straw poll right now…
Vice Chair Thompson: That’s right. The straw poll right now is not about that. The straw poll is just to
address your concern about this not applying to 100 percent commercial projects. The subjective
element, item A, which is the intent that is on top of all of these, that would not be applicable to 100
percent commercial (crosstalk).
Board Member Hirsch: SB35 is applied and planning reviews it would they be saying to a commercial
developer this applies only to projects which are one-third, two-thirds?
Ms. Gerhardt: We’re just asking about 100 percent commercial right now.
Board Member Hirsch: Only about that, okay.
Ms. Gerhardt: We’re just having a straw poll about 100 percent commercial.
Board Member Hirsch: Okay, I mean, I would have thought that if it came to you in any case 100
percent commercial project you’d say this one has to go in front of the ARB, but not true?
Ms. Gerhardt: Yes.
6.a
Packet Pg. 117
City of Palo Alto Page 12
Vice Chair Thompson: Correct, yeah, but we would be using the intent statements as part of our design
criteria.
Board Member Hirsch: Okay. I should say the intent should be the most minimum amount of
commercial. I would say one-third commercial and if that is the requirement then I would agree with
that.
Vice Chair Thompson: Okay. I think that solves that straw poll.
Ms. Gerhardt: Vice Chair, for yourself?
Vice Chair Thompson: I'm in support of the intent statements applying to non-residential projects. I think
the intent statements are basically a carbon copy of what our current objective standards are anyway. I
don’t think that changes anything. That’s good. I’m glad we clarified that for everybody.
Ms. Gerhardt: I think the second straw poll, if we could, currently -- Jean might be able to better explain
-- the objective standards by State law would apply to projects that have two-thirds housing. There is
some conversation amongst the Board if we would want the objective standards to apply to projects that
have at least 50 percent housing. That would mean more projects could just use the objective
standards.
Vice Chair Thompson: Thank you for articulating that. I’ll start with Board Member Lew.
Board Member Lew: Yeah, I think we should look at the number of projects that it would affect. I think
it would be a huge change given the number of percent of affordable projects that we have seen, which
is maybe two or three possible in ten years. That would be a very dramatic change. I think we should
consider it but consider it carefully.
Vice Chair Thompson: Chair Baltay?
Chair Baltay: Yes, I am in favor of staff coming up with a number that’s different than the state
standards, whether its 50 percent is hard to say right now. I think it should be something that is studied.
I support the concept of making a determination of what fits for Palo Alto, possibly 50 percent.
Vice Chair Thompson: Board Member Hirsch?
Board Member Hirsch: No, I really do not want to have it up to 50 percent. If it could be one-third, two-
third I think that’s a reasonable number. The reason I say that is because when you get into a
commercial project that’s more commercial I think in a mixed project like that even one-third could cause
it to be a major project and have more impact on Palo Alto and, therefore, require more review. I am
more in favor of trying to see projects that come through the ARB in general and less in favor of any
project that is excluded from that procedure.
Vice Chair Thompson: Thank you. I guess in terms of my position on that, it’s funny I hadn’t really
thought about it until it got brought up just now. I do favor trying to get more housing through. I have
to imagine if 50 percent is commercial then we would have to review some part of it but it sounds like
this is a straw poll that would require us not to do that. I think the number two-thirds does make sense
to me but if the City does come up then I would be open to that as well.
Ms. Gerhardt: Okay, thank you so much for the clarity. We probably should move on to the next topic.
Vice Chair Thompson: Let’s do it.
Jean Eisberg: Okay, great. Our next topic is the public realm and sidewalk character. This intent
statement is emanating from the context space design criteria and it is encouraging a safe and attractive
public realm, which includes the sidewalk space, the amenity area for street furniture, and for bicycle and
6.a
Packet Pg. 118
City of Palo Alto Page 13
scooter parking. This is seeking to create a transition between the private realm, the private building,
and the public realm. Our subtopics are on the right side of the page. That’s creating objective criteria
for the sidewalk widths, for street trees, the accent paving that currently exists on University in
downtown and on Cal Avenue, and, again, that parking area for bikes and scooters.
Vice Chair Thompson: Great. I will start us off really quickly. I don’t have very many comments on this
particular section.
Board Member Hirsch: Me neither. From reviewing it, it seems to be fairly complete. I just want to
comment on the detail item of mosaic tile. There really is no such thing as mosaic tile that I know of.
On street improvements, in any case, there have to be more solid elements, pavers, or brick or concrete
or stamped concrete or other materials for paving but mosaic tile I don’t think is included. It’s just one
item on under accent paving unless you have some knowledge of something I'm not aware of. But
basically I thought that section was pretty well put together.
Vice Chair Thompson: Board Member Lew?
Board Member Lew: Just some comments on the sidewalks. I think the first one is there are places, like
on Page Mill Road, where we’re not allowed to have trees within seven feet of the curb per the County
because of some expressway. I think, also, in the perspectives that are shown I think you are showing in
the traffic lane that there is a car parked along the curb, which provides the buffer to the traffic, but in
places on El Camino and also Alma Expressway and maybe other locations, that’s actually a traffic lane
with cars going 40 to 45 miles an hour. It’s not comfortable to have furniture along the curb in those
situations, and I would tend to treat the landscape differently in those location than I would if there was
parking along the street. I think a really good example is the mixed-use project at 441 Page Mill Road.
Another really good example would be Alma Village grocery outlet project where we don’t have trees and
there is traffic. I think sometimes the standards may not really work that well. That’s all that I have on
this one.
Vice Chair Thompson: Thanks. Chair Baltay?
Chair Baltay: Just two quick comments. I think on the accent paving, I’d suggest instead just having one
or two standards that you could use, and aside from that it has to come to the subjective level. I think a
lot of these are not going to be on University Avenue or Cal Avenue, and you’re just opening up
Pandora’s box letting somebody put whatever accent paving meets this big requirement along El Camino
or San Antonio Road. I think just have the City define on or two alternative paving standards and leave it
at that. I think that the distance to the primary building entry should be closer to 30 feet, not 20. I think
20 is just too restrictive for a bench or for bicycle parking. I am in favor of increasing that number.
That’s all.
Vice Chair Thompson: Chair Baltay, can I get clarification. Was that for the street tree location?
Chair Baltay: No, street tree locations are fine. It’s section four, mobility infrastructure: bicycle racks,
and scooters, et cetera, should be located within 20 feet of the primary building entry. Then regarding a
seating bench of some kind within 20 feet of the building entry. I think that in reality that is going to be
a little bit too restrictive, and I’d rather see the designers have a little more flexibility where those
amenities are located. It’s not related to street trees. Those are fine.
Vice Chair Thompson: Would you be in favor of providing a range?
Chair Baltay: I just said within 30 feet. That’s a range, I suppose.
Vice Chair Thompson: We will do two straw polls. Let’s do one on the accent paving and we will do one
on location of mobility infrastructure. Let’s start with the mobility infrastructure. Are folks in favor of
changing it to 30 feet, Board Member Lew?
6.a
Packet Pg. 119
City of Palo Alto Page 14
[Adjusting Audio.]
Board Member Hirsch: I am in favor of a range as you suggested, Osma.
Chair Baltay: What would be the maximum range, David?
Board Member Hirsch: I’d say 20 to 30 feet.
Vice Chair Thompson: I would say it could be closer if it needed to.
Board Member Hirsch: It could be closer, yes.
Vice Chair Thompson: I think right now it is zero to twenty.
Board Member Hirsch: Zero to twenty, I see.
Vice Chair Thompson: Peter is suggesting zero to thirty.
Board Member Hirsch: That’s okay, zero to thirty.
Vice Chair Thompson: You're okay with that, Board Member Hirsch?
Board Member Hirsch: Yeah, I am okay with that.
Vice Chair Thompson: Okay. I think Alex is trying to call in.
Ms. Gerhardt: Veronica can maybe send him the link again just in case or maybe calling Vinh.
Vice Chair Thompson: I think his audio is off. I am in favor of keeping it within 20 feet.
Chair Baltay: Okay.
Vice Chair Thompson: I think Alex’s vote is actually going to be important here.
Board Member Hirsch: I could go with yours too, Osma, with your suggestion.
[Adjusting Audio.]
Vice Chair Thompson: Should we try to do the accent paving straw poll within us, first, and then take
both to Alex when he gets online?
Jean Eisberg: Vice Chair Thompson, may I make one clarification about the mosaic tile?
Vice Chair Thompson: Yeah.
Jean Eisberg: The intention for that standard is that it would only apply where those special pavers
currently exist. The idea is if a project is ripping up the curb on University where there are existing
bricks, they would have to replace them in kind; likewise on Cal Ave. The intention was not that it apply
in any other locations.
Vice Chair Thompson: Would it specifically say match existing?
Board Member Hirsch: That’s good.
Jean Eisberg: Yes, we need to clarify that.
6.a
Packet Pg. 120
City of Palo Alto Page 15
Board Member Hirsch: Clarify that, yeah.
Chair Baltay: I am in favor of that. That’s just fine then.
Vice Chair Thompson: We won’t take a straw poll on that one.
[Adjusting Audio.]
Vice Chair Thompson: Let me write that down for the mobility one. We can circle back when Alex gets
back on.
[Adjusting Audio.]
Vice Chair Thompson: Was there anything else on this section otherwise? I think we got to everybody’s
comments and we can probably move on. Let’s go to the next one.
Jean Eisberg: Next up is site access and this relates to the hierarchy of circulation uses. Prioritizing
pedestrian access and requiring a submittal of a circulation plan. We have tried to make that as objective
as possible but basically separating uses to make sure that pedestrians have safe access to buildings
separated from vehicles, including separation for bicycles. For example, we want to avoid having bicycle
enter a driveway and parking in a shared parking area as vehicles. It is separating those modes and
creating connections again between the private and the public realm. On the right-hand side of the
screen, we are showing the sub-topics that include the objective standards. Again, that circulation
hierarchy, which is through submittal of a plan, building entries, vehicle access, and then the locations of
loading docks and service areas to minimize them and keep them away from the primary façade.
Vice Chair Thompson: Let’s start with Board Member Hirsch. Do you have any comments on this
section?
Board Member Hirsch: I thought it was well written and is satisfactory to me.
Vice Chair Thompson: Great. Thank you. Chair Baltay?
Chair Baltay: Yes, I guess I felt that subsection B, circulation hierarchy, want sharp enough written to be
a standard. It just struck me as when you look at that comment there it is more of an encouragement. I
question whether it should be here at all. Secondly, I do not think we should exempt City parcels or
projects from his standard as in special conditions on vehicle access subsection 3B and 3C. Those are my
two suggestions.
Vice Chair Thompson: You are suggesting to remove the special conditions note?
Chair Baltay: Special conditions, yes. At least where it is required by law I have no problem with. If you
are required to have handicapped access or something like that I get it but I don’t see why it should
apply to parcels leased or controlled by the City.
Vice Chair Thompson: Maybe just that last…
Chair Baltay: Maybe I am just misreading this because it seems to say actually “where required by law
and as applied to parcels leased or controlled by the City.” I don’t think the City should have a special
exemption to these standards and a housing development project that is by the Housing Corporation
could be considered to be controlled by the City. I wouldn’t be in favor of that.
Vice Chair Thompson: Do you have a comment, Jean, on that?
Jean Eisberg: Yes. I do want to clarify that this is an existing standard that is in the CD district of the
code and the CC2 district of the code that was adopted a couple of years ago. The intention behind it --
6.a
Packet Pg. 121
City of Palo Alto Page 16
not to say we can’t change it but I do want to be clear it is already on the books -- is that there are some
existing public-owned parcels including parking areas that the City wanted to have driveway access to.
Maybe Jodie has a different or more extensive knowledge about this but I think that is why that was
applied.
Ms. Gerhardt: I don’t have any more extensive knowledge about why the City would be exempted but
certainly we do not want to have driveways on to University. We would rather have it on side streets or
alleys or things where we can do that. The City would do that as well, as much as they could.
Vice Chair Thompson: I just want to check if Board Member Lew is on.
Ms. Gerhardt: I believe he was going to try to call in.
Vice Chair Thompson: I see his name.
Board Member Lew: I'm back. I am using computer audio now.
Vice Chair Thompson: Okay, great. Glad to have you back. I do not know how much you have heard. I
do want to circle back. We were taking a straw poll on how far micro-mobility infrastructure should be
from the primary building entry. Currently, the objective standard says within 20 feet. Board Member
Baltay wants to change that number to within 30 feet. We took a straw poll on how people feel about
that and we wanted to get your opinion on that.
Board Member Lew: I am generally supportive but I have seen projects… there’s the Weatherly on Litton
and Bryant as part of the Palo Alto Medical Clinic redevelopment and they have really beautiful benches
with trellis on the sidewalk and they are farther away than 20 feet. I would just cite that as an example
of something that is nice and desirable but it is farther than 20 feet from the entrance. Then, on the
sidewalks, I think it is more problematic. It is actually not that consistent on University or Cal Avenue. I
think that is a little trickier.
Chair Baltay: I think, Alex, they clarified that that is only intended to apply in the case where you replace
an existing decorative pattern. It doesn’t really allow new decorative patterns anywhere, which changes
the situation.
Board Member Lew: Okay, thanks.
Vice Chair Thompson: Alex, did you have any other comments on public realm? I think maybe your
audio cut out right when we were going to get your comments on that.
Board Member Lew: Okay, I do not think I have anything but I will make sure that I add it in the notes
that I send to Jodie if I find anything.
Vice Chair Thompson: Okay, great. It sounds like the verdict of the straw poll was to increase that
number to 30. Back on to site access, Board Member Lew, we got Board Member Hirsch’s comments and
Board Member Baltay’s comments. I did have one more question for Board Member Baltay on one of his
notes about the circulation plan note.
Chair Baltay: Yes.
Vice Chair Thompson: Your comment was just that it leaves things a bit open-ended.
Chair Baltay: Yes, I think subsection B is just too vague to really even be an objective standard. It
requires some subjectivity to enforce whether a site clearly identifies a hierarchy of connectivity. I think
that is made clear by the statement underneath which confirms that it is a subject thing, and, in reality,
this is just a -- how does it say it here -- the act of having to write the report and provide enough
6.a
Packet Pg. 122
City of Palo Alto Page 17
guidance and design thinking to get most of the way there in most cases. I think you are just opening
yourself up to being claimed to being subjective on that one.
Ms. Gerhardt: Are there any suggestions on how we could make that more objective?
Chair Baltay: I guess I feel that in other places where it seems to me that it says clearly you have to
prioritize first pedestrian, and then bicycles, and then vehicular, and then service access to buildings. I
think that sort of covers it, or it is as close as you can get subjectively -- I mean objectively.
Vice Chair Thompson: Thanks for clarifying that. I had some confusion on your note on that.
Board Member Hirsch: I have a comment to make about this. It is that the intent, as I understand it, is
actually supposed to be more subjective than objective as a way of description. Isn’t that correct? What
we see in the intents are a little more subjective and that it becomes objective when we move on
through the chapter.
Ms. Gerhardt: That is correct. The intent statements are purposely subjective. Everything else should
be objective.
Chair Baltay: Why not just come out and state, instead, the hierarchy we expect them to follow: first
pedestrian, then bicycles, then private vehicles, then utility? You say that shall be the hierarchy of access
connectivity and leave it at that so you can judge what that is. We’re beating this to death. It’s not that
big of a deal.
Vice Chair Thompson: Was there a comment from you, Chris?
Chris Sensenig: I think the difficulty is that hierarchy is inherently subjective and I think that is one of
the struggles of this in creating a subjective design standard is without providing direct dimensions,
separating hierarchies; it is difficult to create a straight objective standard. Anyway, that is where we are
at here and we can take a second crack at it or you are right I think we can move on. I understand all of
your comments with this.
Vice Chair Thompson: I do think -- sorry, just to add on -- the note where it says the act of having to
write this report and plan. The report of having to intent to establish the hierarchy does… I think that is
a useful exercise to ask applicants to go through. Without it, we would get nothing, basically, if we were
to get rid of this note then applicants wouldn’t be asked to go through that study. I don’t think we have
heard from Board Member Lew on site access and his comments.
Board Member Lew: I had an example that I was thinking about when I was reading this. It was in
Mountain View and their specific plans the developers are asking for flexible private streets and it is so
they can build garages below the private streets. Also, sometimes they will put sidewalks only on one
side of the street so they can have more space for things like utility meters and loading docks. There has
been a lot of criticism about those flexible standards. They have been trying to be stricter about that and
have more complete streets. Again, that may be more for subdivisions and specific plans and not an
individual building project but I think we should just pay attention to the flexible standards that some
developers are trying to use.
Vice Chair Thompson: Okay.
Board Member Hirsch: My comment on that is what are we dealing with here in Palo Alto? Do we have a
situation that would be like that, Alex, where you can imagine happening here in Palo Alto? I do agree
with you that the issue of flexibility for all potential situations has to be addressed in codes like this so
that it raises the question of changing codes and making assumptions about the way in which we develop
the new code. In this case, I think we are more or less talking about specific parcels here that will not be
like that in Mountain View here. There just isn’t that much -- as I understand it from just bicycle riding
around town -- land for development of that nature here.
6.a
Packet Pg. 123
City of Palo Alto Page 18
Board Member Lew: Possible, but I think, David, the big example is when light industrial land changes to
residential use.
Board Member Hirsch: Okay.
Board Member Lew: That is when you get the larger projects, but, again, those tend to not be single
projects. They are typically more like a PC kind of projects. We do have examples, like on Loma Verde
of light industrial projects going to multi-family. Again, I am in general agreement with Osma in that the
intent statement really forces the issues, right? Then, I think the issue is then later is if the City doesn’t
like what is being proposed then what happens? What do we have to fall back on?
Vice Chair Thompson: That’s a good point. We haven’t really written something here where if the
circulation is deemed infeasible or something like that. I am not sure where we would add that or where
we would write it.
Board Member Lew: A lot of times what has happened on past projects is that the neighbors will object
to a pedestrian or bicycle path going through the site because they don’t want more traffic. Even
pedestrian traffic they will object to because they argue that the new development is under-parked and
that people are going to park in their neighborhood and use that path to walk to their new house. That
has come up on several projects, and usually the City ends up losing the battle because we don’t really
have a way to force the issue.
Vice Chair Thompson: I am concerned here about timing and getting deeper into the information that’s
presented here. We get hung up on this sort of issue and we’ll be talking about it for a half an hour and
we won’t have the time to go into this in any greater depth. My feeling is we should accept this
particular site access description and move on. Those projects that would be beyond any one of the
elements described here will come to the ARB for further discussion in the future.
Vice Chair Thompson: I think you're right, David, we should probably keep going. I think we recognize
that that was a tricky one to write and hopefully the discussion today has helped a little bit. I don’t know
if Jean and Chris have any other things to add or if we should just keep going?
Jean Eisberg: I have one other thought which is as part of this whole project where we have developed
a submittal requirements checklist for SB35 projects, which we can catify by adopting it by resolution.
One option is that in that submittal requirements checklist we include a circulation plan where you
demonstrate that hierarchy. We still run into the subjective/subjective issue but it is a different avenue
to request that information. Then we need to figure out how to then evaluate it to the Board Member’s
point, if we don’t have legs to stand on in terms of what that hierarchy should look like it gets a little bit
more challenging, but it may be a different way for us to request that information.
Vice Chair Thompson: That’s a good thought. That’s a good idea. I guess we will have a chance to
revisit this when we have our second meeting and hopefully there have been more edits on that. Should
we keep going to building orientation?
Jean Eisberg: Okay, so we are getting closer to the building. Here, this intent statement talks about,
again, the relationship between the private and public realm, and development a sense of place through
the contiguous street, identifying the location and orientation of doorways and other openings, creating
these transitional spaces between the buildings, between parcels, between adjacent sites to distinguish
the private and the public space. It talks about the treatment of corner buildings, about the ground floor
residential units, and has a section on the front yard setback character.
Vice Chair Thompson: Who wants to go first.
Chair Baltay: I will if you're up for it.
Vice Chair Thompson: Yeah, go for it.
6.a
Packet Pg. 124
City of Palo Alto Page 19
Chair Baltay: I have a number of small suggestions but they might be more controversial. On building
orientation treatment of corner buildings, I think 40 feet instead of 60. How did I write this here? Street
wall should be located at the minimum front yard setback or build-to line for a minimum aggregate length
of -- instead of saying 60 I think it should say 40 feet with a minimum side of 12 feet. It is basically
defining the corner of a building. Then, I think that instead of saying change in height of at least…
actually, I’ll send that. That’s just a typographic thing. Then common space that is no more than six feet
above the back of the walk grade, I think should be only two feet. I think those common spaces should
be closer to grade in all cases but two feet. Then, primary building entry, this is section 2A paragraph A,
it says a minimum area of -- instead of 36 feet I think it should be 60 square feet with a minimum
dimension of six feet. There should be larger spaces for common entries. Commercial was okay at 100.
Then, I did not agree at all with the ground floor residential units having a minimum of 80 percent access
directed from the public right-of-way. I have taken on several projects we have done where developers
prefer to have access internally and I think it worked out okay. I think it is too restrictive to require that
in a blanket fashion. Then, I guess…
Chair Baltay: Peter, what you're doing is going beyond what we are looking at here, of course, on the
page. You're going into the detail under the area called building orientation treatment.
Chair Baltay: Oh, I am sorry. Did I go to the wrong one?
Vice Chair Thompson: No, I think that’s right. I think what we have on the page here is just the intent
but I think the intent is supposed to cover the whole chapter in this case.
Board Member Hirsch: So those…
Vice Chair Thompson: I think your comments, Chair Baltay, are fine.
Chair Baltay: We’re referring to section 040 building orientation and setbacks.
Vice Chair Thompson: That’s right.
Chair Baltay: Okay, so I was commenting on the treatment of corner buildings.
Board Member Hirsch: Buildings, yes.
Chair Baltay: I think a good definition of a corner element is 40 feet, not 60, with a minimum side of 12.
I think that common open space should be within two feet, not six (inaudible).
[Adjusting Audio.]
Chair Baltay: I’ll try to summarize this again really quickly. I think corner should be 40 feet with a
minimum dimension of 12, not 60. I think that common open space should be within two feet of grade,
not six feet of grade. I think that a primary building entry for residential should be 60 square feet, not
36, with a minimum six-foot dimension. These are my three suggestions.
Vice Chair Thompson: Then you had one on the 80 percent ground floor residential.
Chair Baltay: I think that that is not appropriate. I think it doesn’t apply in all situations and I guess it is
very debatable. It’s a good thing to have, I believe, but I have seen projects where it wasn’t required
and it worked.
Vice Chair Thompson: Okay. Maybe we will circle back and talk about each of them after everyone’s had
a chance to give their comments. Board Member Lew, do you have comments?
Board Member Lew: I have comments on B. I think A is okay. I don’t think I have issues with the intent
statement.
6.a
Packet Pg. 125
City of Palo Alto Page 20
Chair Baltay: Agreed.
Board Member Lew: If we want to go to B I can do that now or I can wait.
Vice Chair Thompson: I think Peter went through all of them.
Board Member Lew: Okay.
Vice Chair Thompson: We’ll just go through all of them and then we will circle back because I think
some of these might require straw polls.
Board Member Lew: Okay. I think that the corner is too… I think I agree generally with the corner but I
think more options should be provided. I think it is written for more of an urban or downtown
neighborhood but we have a lot of townhouse projects in more suburban areas. We have a lot of
housing projects on edge conditions, like West Bayshore and Alma where I am not sure that the corner
plaza is necessarily the best solution. I think a big question for me is the corner plaza. Does that have
to be open space open to the sky or can it be roofed, like 801 Alma? The corner plaza has a roof over it.
Chair Baltay: Which item is that, Alex, number two?
Board Member Lew: Yes, number two.
Chair Baltay: It just says here you have to have a minimum dimension of 20 feet if you have a square
feet of 1,000.
Board Member Lew: Right, but open spaces usually open to the sky. I guess the issue is can it be
roofed?
Ms. Gerhardt: Just to clarify from a staff perspective, staff does need some guidance on this as far as
open space. Normally it is open to the sky but we have some developers push back on that. The more
guidance you can give would be appreciated.
Board Member Lew: I think a really good example to consider is the 801 Alma, and if that is acceptable.
It seems to be a little bit too… there’s a big sheer wall there. It seems to be fairly enclosed. I would
rather have a little bit more open. Maybe If there is a way of saying that it is open on two sides, that’s
acceptable. I think my other comment would be for senior housing. Senior housing is typically a PC
project in Palo Alto, and they typically have portico shares that are fairly well enhanced with seating and
landscaping. Most of them seem to work really well from what I can tell. I would want that as another
option as a building entrance. That’s all that I've got here. One last thing, on ground floor residential
units I think I generally agree with the intent of it but I did note some exceptions. For example, under C
ground floor units shall be set back 15 feet from the sidewalk, and I think I generally agree with that. At
800 High Street, there are only one to seven feet in back of the sidewalk, and planters are done pretty
well there. It is a shallow lot so there is not that much flexibility with that. I think generally I am okay
with the 15 feet. That’s all that I've got.
Vice Chair Thompson: Okay, thanks. Board Member Hirsch?
Board Member Hirsch: Yes.
Vice Chair Thompson: If you could give your feedback.
Board Member Hirsch: Yes. On the treatment of corner buildings, in the first place, I am wondering why
this particular format and illustration is being used here. It is very attractive but what… is this a typical
building? What are we looking at here? We have a building that is on what appears to be a commercial
avenue because it has the possibility of commercial entry, and then we have wings to this building that
are in both directions. The way this is described, the treatment of a corner building, has corner buildings
6.a
Packet Pg. 126
City of Palo Alto Page 21
shall include one of the following special features. Does that mean that if you provide one feature you
don’t have to provide any of the other two? I find that to be a little strange. In the first place, it says if
there is a corner building that has an access to commercial area within it -- a store on the corner let’s say
-- then it doesn’t have to have any specific entry into the rest of the building. For the store alone, it
won’t be for residential use. It really is a confusing situation here to have this divided the way it is
between the different elements. For example, an entry to a building isn’t as important if you provide the
area behind it as an open space… the part that is open to a community use on the inside and that
community use as described, I think Peter point was well taken, is now half a level up somehow or could
be half a level up. That means that the ideas here are expressed without really knowing exactly what the
planning is for this entire building, a rather, potentially, complex building that has commercial use on one
side, a residential entry that has to have a certain dimension, and/or the back of it that is an open space,
which might require an open space anyhow. The building is described on a specific block front that has
all three sides of it facing a street. I am left pretty confused by the whole example here but I do agree
with Peter that the specific dimension that are described here don’t allow enough flexibility. I am
concerned in general about the way we described things here with a lot of very specific dimensions.
Unless those dimensions are going to be between X and Y, somehow, that seems more to me. It is
either one or the other, a minimum or a maximum, or whatever. A minimum in case is what I think Peter
might have been heading towards. I definitely agree, for example, number three where the back of the
building is on a potentially raised private area adjacent to a community room. That creates all kinds of
street issues there. Peter pointed out it shouldn’t be more than two feet and I agree with that 100
percent, but you really will create an environmental issue that isn’t going to be all that friendly once you
have a six-foot wall to the ground level and then railings above that. This whole example needs an awful
lot of work and I don’t agree that it should be one or the other the way it is described. The corner
building shall include one or more, one of -- it should include, perhaps, one or more of these following
possibilities. Even there a piece of it could be commercial and then the residential portion has no relief at
its entry. It doesn’t seem acceptable to me to do it that way. I would like to ask Jean to respond to that
and to this consideration.
Vice Chair Thompson: I think we will do that after we have all had a chance to give our comments.
Board Member Hirsch: Okay, that’s fine. Whenever.
Vice Chair Thompson: Anything else on this one? Okay. I am going to give my comments really quickly.
I actually had a note on the intent statement that we are looking at here. It’s the bullet point third from
the bottom: buildings that provide side and rear setbacks and/or upper story stepbacks to create
separation between adjacent lower density. I was thinking that instead of creating a separation with the
lower density around I was thinking it could change to say create a relationship, whatever that may be
because this is a subjective standard. I think it really depends. I don’t know if we want to be held to
specifically separating if there a way to create a different kind of relationship. For the treatment of the
corner, I can quickly respond. I would be fine with changing that to 40 feet with a minimum side of 12
feet. For the common open space being a maximum of six feet versus a maximum of two feet, I think
that needs a little bit more thought. I understand the concern with six feet because it will feel like a wall
on that side. I think the comment at the end of that note sort of talks about creating interest on that
wall in terms of it being open but I feel like with topography, I mean Palo Alto is pretty flat but there is
potential that that might be tricky. Then the primary entry façade, I am going to skip that one and we
can come back to that. Alex’s note on the ground floor residential unit shall be setback a minimum of 15
feet, I also kind of flag that one as well that may be arranged might be a better idea depending on the
content. Fifteen feet might be a lot if things start to get denser. Okay, why don’t we give Jean or Jodie
a chance to respond -- I see Jodie with her hand up -- then we can continue.
Ms. Gerhardt: I just wanted to clarify some of these regulations, like the 15 feet setback, that is the
objective standard. If a project could not meet the objective standard because maybe it’s a shallow lot
or something to that degree that would just be a project that would have to come before the ARB and
meet the intent statement. There is a way out of that, as a reminder. If we are wanting to minimize
that, that is fine as well to continue that discussion. Thank you.
6.a
Packet Pg. 127
City of Palo Alto Page 22
Vice Chair Thompson: I had a question about that actually. Are we assuming that this would be 15 feet
regardless of what the actual setback is in the zoning?
Chair Baltay: That’s how it reads.
Jean Eisberg: Right. That is only applying to an actual residential unit. If there were no residential units
-- I think this means with direct access from the sidewalk -- then this would not apply.
Vice Chair Thompson: I see.
Chris Sensenig: I think there's another way that we could do this. I think the High Street example was a
good one where the building entry might want to be 15 feet back but the actual unit could have a
different minimum. Another way that I have seen this done is have a relationship to its setback and the
height that the ground floor unit has to be above grade because the concern of any of these ground floor
residential unit standards is to not end up with one of the situations where you have ground floor units at
grade with no privacy in those units and the shades are just down all the time. There is no true activity
on that façade.
Chair Baltay: Could we consider a standard that was more flexible? Say ground floor units may be within
5 to 15 feet of the back of the sidewalk if they provide the following additional treatments, like a grate
separation, or a front porch, or enhanced landscaping.
Vice Chair Thompson: I could be open to that. What do the others think?
Board Member Hirsch: I could be okay with that as well.
Chair Baltay: Why don’t we just let the staff come up with some alternatives that let the units be closer?
Vice Chair Thompson: Sounds good. We are at 10:15 here. Which means we have about 15 minutes
left. I had a question for staff. I know that we all have markups and stuff. Does it violate any Brown
Act if we are able to see each other’s markups on this document? Is that something we could distribute
amongst all of ourselves?
Ms. Gerhardt: I will need to double-check with the attorneys. I think to the degree that maybe we put
that on the website so the public is able to see that information as well, that is probably the course we
would need to take but I will double-check.
Vice Chair Thompson: Okay.
Board Member Hirsch: I have a problem here with specific on the corner building description says a
change of height of at least eight feet height greater or less than the eighth of an abutting façade. Chris,
can you explain what you mean by that?
Chris Sensenig: Yeah, that the corner doesn’t necessarily need to be higher than the rest of the façade
to increase its significance and presence on the street but it could be lower than the rest of the façade.
Board Member Hirsch: Does everybody else understand what that means?
Chair Baltay: I had thought of a different way to phrase that but that’s just wordsmithing. As I look at
my notes more carefully, I thought we ought to instead just have items A and B both be required to
define a corner. It has to both to have the entrance and a different material, not one or the other. I
think you can leave the height thing off altogether because I have seen many successful corner designs
that really don’t change the height too much.
Board Member Hirsch: Then, is that material, Peter, only on that façade?
6.a
Packet Pg. 128
City of Palo Alto Page 23
Chair Baltay: Yeah, as I read this carefully I made a note but I didn’t mention it. It says that you have
to do one of the following. You could make a corner feature that meets the dimensional requirements
and has a primary building entrance and it could be identical architectural treatment otherwise. That
material, fenestration pattern, et cetera, or you could make it a little bit taller, or have a different material
without the entrance in it. It seems to me that it ought to have an entrance to something, retail, or the
building entrance, and it ought to be a different material treatment in every case.
Vice Chair Thompson: I feel like I have also seen successful corners that don’t change the material as
well. I think we are going into subjective-land a little bit. Maybe we have seen some options that
worked but we need to make sure that for the options that we don’t see that this works.
Chair Baltay: Fair enough.
Board Member Hirsch: Exactly correct.
Chair Baltay: An eight-foot increase in height, in some cases, will look ridiculous. It’s just too much.
Board Member Hirsch: Yes, that’s what concerned me too.
Chair Baltay: I'm not sure if the height standard is as useful.
Board Member Hirsch: The way this drawing is created here, it is showing (inaudible) vertical extra tall
ground floor with a significant notch there between it and the corner but an extra tall ground floor which
looks to be standard and a clear story window above it. Is this a prototypical corner building or should it
just be in verbal descriptions and not have an illustration with it? It leaves me confused.
Vice Chair Thompson: Can we take a straw poll on the graphics. If we feel like the graphics aid in
understanding the criteria versus if the graphics add more confusion?
Chair Baltay: I think the graphics are good.
Board Member Hirsch: You like the graphic here?
Chair Baltay: Yes, David, I think overall the graphics are well done. The basic logic with these A, B, and
C dimensions and the explanations and the colors. I think they are all good. Yes, I agree that the
buildings perhaps are not as representative of what we are going to see in Palo Alto but the basic
concept I think is excellent and well done.
Vice Chair Thompson: Board Member Lew?
Board Member Lew: I am okay with the graphics of the corner.
Vice Chair Thompson: Okay. I also think the graphics are fine. I actually wish there were more graphics
throughout the whole document because I think it makes it easier to digest. I also agree that the
building that we are looking at here doesn’t really strike me as a residential building at all in terms of the
patterning of the windows. It is very unlikely that a residential building would have that rhythm because
of the living room, bedroom pattern that you usually see. As well as I know that we haven’t really talked
about balconies or anything but I think there is something to David’s that maybe… I don’t know. Is it too
much to consider fenestration pattern for the example image that we’re looking at here?
Chris Sensenig: It’s easy to change the fenestration pattern on that diagram.
Chair Baltay: Is it possible to take actual projects that have been done in Palo Alto and use those as
prototypes?
Vice Chair Thompson: I don’t know if I would be in support of that.
6.a
Packet Pg. 129
City of Palo Alto Page 24
Board Member Hirsch: I am going to jump back in here because I look at the building and I see a
different kind of use at the corner. It looks like a commercial piece of this building all the way up. The
ground floor all the way along, from this vantage point, looks to be a commercial floor height. I find that
of the A, B, and C, I find C to be just confusing. The C portion of it is confusing. I think that a different
material application and fenestration pattern on the rest of the facade is a different material application.
There’s no justification for a different material application. That corner could, in fact, be a brick corner
and the rest of the building could be, let’s say, brick and it wouldn’t be a problem. To require a different
material is inappropriate. The drawing illustrates the inconstancies of the use of these materials.
Chair Baltay: I agree with you, David. I think you have convinced me otherwise, yes. I agree that it
should not be required completely. The way it is now (crosstalk).
Chris Sensenig: Yes, it’s an option. Right.
Chair Baltay: I think that…
Vice Chair Thompson: It’s an option. It’s not a requirement.
Chair Baltay: I am listening to what you're saying, David. I agree; you are correct. It should be an
option.
Board Member Hirsch: It’s an option, yeah.
Vice Chair Thompson: It is an option, though.
Chair Baltay: I had suggested it not be an option and I think…
Board Member Hirsch: There are a lot of options. There are many options.
Vice Chair Thompson: Yeah.
Board Member Hirsch: I was arguing for the drawings to be more abstract.
Chair Baltay: let’s move on, guys.
Vice Chair Thompson: Yeah, let’s keep going. We are at 10:22 here. I think maybe we can… let’s wrap
up this. I know that on the agenda we still have to know the NVCAP update from Board Member Lew.
Are there any closing thoughts from staff on this one in terms of anything that might help wrap this up?
Then we can pick up on the next chapter at our next meeting?
Board Member Hirsch: Importantly, I think to keep the flexibility which ought to be a part of the building
and one should say corner building shall include one or more of the following special features however it
is illustrated. It should say something to that effect.
Vice Chair Thompson: Yeah, that sort of gives people the option to do more than that. Is everybody
okay with that? One or more?
Chair Baltay: Sure, that’s fine.
Vice Chair Thompson: I want to give staff a chance to ask questions on our feedback. I am going to
have to hop off here soon.
Ms. Gerhardt: I don’t know if Chris or Jean have any questions at this time or discussion.
6.a
Packet Pg. 130
City of Palo Alto Page 25
Jean Eisberg: This has been really helpful. I appreciate how thoroughly everybody read this. I know it’s
a lot to go through but I don’t have any questions at this time Jodie, do we need to do anything formal
to continue the item?
Ms. Gerhardt: Osma, in hearing that you may need to drop off in a few minutes, we still would have
three board members so we could continue. If possible, I’d like to just to give us more discussion. The
more discussion we have about this the better.
Vice Chair Thompson: I’ll put it to Chair Baltay and the rest of the Board Members. If you guys would
like to keep going past 10:30 I definitely have to drop off but maybe I can hand the chair responsibilities
over to you.
Chair Baltay: I don’t have a strong opinion. I can go for a little bit longer if necessary. Alex, how do you
feel?
Board Member Lew: I can go longer if needed.
Chair Baltay: David?
Board Member Hirsch: Yes, I am fine.
Chair Baltay: Okay. Let’s try to get a few more of these covered then. Osma, do you want to sign out
now or should I just take over as Chair?
Vice Chair Thompson: Yeah, I can hang on for a couple of minutes but why don’t you go ahead and take
over as Chair…
Chair Baltay: If we quickly summarize on the one we just talked about with the corner buildings. There
was some talk about changing the dimension from 60 to 40, minimum 12. Is that agreed on by
everybody?
Vice Chair Thompson: I think so. I think you, me, and Board Member Hirsch agreed on it. I didn’t hear
Board Member Lew’s feedback on that.
Chair Baltay: Alex?
Vice Chair Thompson: He said more options provided.
Board Member Lew: I think overall that the treatment of corner buildings doesn’t really encompass all of
the different building types.
Chair Baltay: Great. Let’s direct to staff then to consider the comments about the dimensions and
maybe is there another way we can increase the scope on it so it’s more flexible.
Board Member Lew: Yeah.
Chair Baltay: Can we come to Alex’s comment about number two, public accessible open space. How
about if we say it’s a minimum dimension of 20 feet on two sides, which are both open to the public
right-of-way and that covered spaces are permitted. Do we agree with that?
Vice Chair Thompson: I don’t. I think it's fine as it is written.
Chair Baltay: David, what’s your take on that?
Board Member Hirsch: I don’t agree with covered. I don’t agree with that covered.
6.a
Packet Pg. 131
City of Palo Alto Page 26
Chair Baltay: Okay, how about comments though that it be open on two sides?
Vice Chair Thompson: I also don’t know that that’s necessary.
Chair Baltay: Okay. We are going to leave it like it is, then? Alex, are you okay that way?
Board Member Lew: Yeah, I just want to make sure that we all understand. I think we should just be
clear on our definitions, like open spaces open to the sky.
Chair Baltay: Okay.
Board Member Lew: That’s different from a porch…
Chair Baltay: Okay…
Board Member Lew: … for portico share, right?
Chair Baltay: Okay. Staff, if you could take that into account and try to be clear, if necessary, for these
things. The third one was whether a common space should be six-feet from the grade or two-feet from
the grade. I heard a variety of opinions on that.
Chris Sensenig: Can I add a clarification to that, please?
Chair Baltay: Sure, please.
Chris Sensenig: One of the reasons that it is allowed up to six feet is assuming that this is a residential
building and this common open space is a ground floor, and if the ground floor units are greater than the
height of the sidewalk for, say, a tuck-under parking or to provide stoops that the goal would be that it
would be at the same floor height as the ground floor residential building. I am not saying it has to go
up to six feet but I just want to link that intent of a raised ground floor for stoops, privacy of ground floor
units, and also the potential for half subgrade parking.
Chair Baltay: I think we might come to that when we discuss parking. At least I feel the building should
be no more than three feet above the ground, even with parking. At least from what I’ve heard from the
Board is that from the public’s perception, that six-foot common space makes for a real barrier to the
public on the building. I don’t hear a consensus from the board that we should change that dimension.
Is that true, Alex, David, Osma, if you're still with us?
Vice Chair Thompson: I have to jump off. I think this is a tricky one. I see the problem. I think if we
allow it go that high, which I am fine with, we just have to have some sort of caveat about the interface
of the street so that it’s not a blank wall.
Chair Baltay: Okay, we’ll just have…
Vice Chair Thompson: Thank you and thank you for taking over Chair duties.
Chair Baltay: Thanks. Staff, we just don’t have feedback for you on that item, then.
Ms. Gerhardt: Chair, if I may, it is possible that instead of having a six-foot maximum maybe it’s a three-
foot average or something like that because I know there was some conversation on sloped sites. That
might be where this comes into play.
Chair Baltay: Yeah, I would assume that it also comes in under definitions that you want to give
meaning to what these words mean. Like when you say height, how do you measure it? Let’s keep
moving on and not worry about that any further right now. The last one on this was regarding the
ground floor residential units and I think we proposed something about the 15-foot setback that you're
6.a
Packet Pg. 132
City of Palo Alto Page 27
going to explore. Are we ready to move to the next item, massing? Jean, do you want to take us on
that and give us an introduction, please?
Jean Eisberg: Yes. This is when things get really exciting. This, again, the intent statement here is
drawing from the context space design criteria that focuses on this human-scale massing. The intent
here is to break down the large massing, break down the building facades to create that pedestrian-
oriented human-scaled building, and to try to get at the context and character of what’s happening in
adjacent uses and adjacent structures. Also to create more transitions between properties of different
densities and heights. In terms of our sections on the right side of the screen, we see the contextual
massing about upper floor setbacks, the transitions to the lower density zones, and single-family homes.
Also regulating maximum façade lengths and requiring significant breaks in the façade. Then, we have a
section on special conditions specifically around projects that are adjacent the railroad.
Chair Baltay: Okay. Alex, what do you think?
Board Member Lew: I think on past projects sometimes we have struggled when we want to change a
particular area. Say on San Antonio Road, if we are changing it from light industrial to residential, you
don’t really want the residential to match the existing light industrial necessarily. I do support the
emphasis on human-scale. I think that is good in breaking down the large building facades. That is
something that I have been arguing for like ten years. I think that this proposed code is addressing my
overall concerns with regard to the massing.
Chair Baltay: Okay. Any detail comments about some of these numbers or descriptions here?
Board Member Lew: I didn’t make any detailed ones except on D. Maybe we should do that later,
which is the railroad frontage because that is very different.
Chair Baltay: Let’s come back to that one, yeah. We will skip the railroad for no. David, any thought
son this and details?
Board Member Hirsch: During our review and private meetings of it in the past we discussed the
neighboring properties in such a way that we thought that maybe sky exposure plane was the better way
to treat relationship to the neighboring properties where there is a lower scale, change in zone, et cetera.
I am more inclined to keep that as the way of dealing with neighboring buildings. On the first example
here I am confused because a relationship is relative to a lower structure, and what we are looking at in
the diagram here shows a setback under the gray area building of heights 20-feet above adjacent
buildings. Shouldn’t we be showing a relationship to the gray structure? In description A, setback along
a greater than 70 feet length of a building, why is that there? If it’s going to be… what is the purpose of
the setback? Chris, can you explain what that is?
Chris Sensenig: The setback, essentially, is at the datum line of the adjacent building.
Board Member Hirsch: Which adjacent building?
Chris Sensenig: The one that’s colored blue, and then the upper floors are set back in yellow.
Board Member Hirsch: Yellow.
Chris Sensenig: You're talking about the…
Board Member Hirsch: The yellow floors are…
Chris Sensenig: … standard when the average height of a building is greater than 20 feet above the
average height of the adjacent building?
6.a
Packet Pg. 133
City of Palo Alto Page 28
Board Member Hirsch: The yellow, you're calling it yellow. In my drawing, it comes out like tan color.
The same thing, I guess. The neighboring building is 20 feet meaning its two-stories higher than the
gray building, right?
Chris Sensenig: Yeah.
Board Member Hirsch: What is the setback of green? What does that show?
Chris Sensenig: a minimum depth of six feet along the datum line. We could add a dashed line that will
make the diagram clearer.
Board Member Hirsch: I guess I am confused on where it is located. I would’ve thought that the actual
setback would have been somehow between the gray building and the taller building. I don’t understand
the purpose of the one in the front.
Chris Sensenig: I think, yes, that is a good point. I think it is a good thing to debate on whether it is
important to have the datum line actually be adjacent to the building next to it or just reflect that
somewhere in the building façade.
Board Member Hirsch: On the front of the building it has no particular purpose except to reduce the
length of the building. That’s all. The length of the façade that comes all the way out. I just don’t
understand the reasoning for it. I think Peter’s point is at a question of the dimension there as well. The
setback along greater than or equal to 70 feet. If the front of this building is greater than what
dimension? What is the front dimension? What is the reason for the setback in the front and why would
you do it?
Ms. Gerhardt: Chris, the reason for the setback is to visually reduce the massing when you're adjacent to
a smaller building, correct?
Chris Sensenig: Correct. Yes, respecting the datum line and you're changing scales. I don’t know that it
needs to be directly adjacent. I think the standard is written that it just needs to be a setback along 70
percent of the façade length. Of course, that can be changed by this group.
Chair Baltay: David, do you have other comments on this section or should we all chime in.
Board Member Hirsch: We have, what, the parts to this section?
Chair Baltay: Let’s focus on this one part. I think if we changed it so that that setback was adjacent to
the adjacent building it would be more appropriate.
Board Member Hirsch: Yes, I agree.
Chair Baltay: We are trying to make objective standards. I can easily see where an architect could do
otherwise, but to make dummy-proof plans it has to be next to the thing.
Board Member Hirsch: Yes, if the purpose is a relationship issue, which it is in the drawing below, I think
is much clearer at that point. There’s a significant change in the massing of the building relative to the
neighbor, and that could -- If you chose to do so -- follow a sky exposure plane or daylight plane. That
would be appropriate relative to the neighbors' use.
Chair Baltay: To staff, also, this is one case where your diagram, in concept, is working, but the building
or the abstract of the building you’ve chosen doesn’t because this is like a six-story building and your
making adjacent to a four-story building. We don’t have that situation in Palo Alto. Almost always you’re
talking about going from a two-story building to three or four-stories.
Board Member Hirsch: That is true, yes.
6.a
Packet Pg. 134
City of Palo Alto Page 29
Chair Baltay: If you could make the diagram, the building representation, more suitable to Palo Alto
you'll find it much easier to understand.
Board Member Hirsch: Yes, and in terms of that the five-story maximum height of building in Palo Alto.
Chair Baltay: Yeah, we have a 50-foot height limit no matter what, but there are always going to be
smaller cases where the example will be crisper in the detail. Alex, do you agree with the idea that the
setback should be adjacent to the lower building?
Board Member Lew: Not necessarily. I think it would help. I think you guys are reading too much into
the diagram and if you look at the text it would give you more flexibility. I think that the two-foot
requirement may be too strict, in my mind. I guess the other way I have been thinking about it on past
projects is I have been thinking about having some sort of cornice line around 35-feet, give or take.
Chair Baltay: That’s usually where it occurs, yeah.
Board Member Hirsch: Yes.
Board Member Lew: It actually looks good. It’s a good pedestrian scale. The 35 feet works really well
with our 60-foot wide streets. It’s a good pedestrian scale. Then, if you have a one-story building next
door, like the blue-gray building is just one-story, I don’t necessarily want to do the setback starting at
15-feet. I think it might actually look better up at 35-feet. Again, I think maybe we show a couple of
examples, and show a little bit more flexibility, and show an example that’s more similar to what we see
in Palo Alto.
Chair Baltay: I think that’s a very good point, Alex. It’s a tricky situation. David do you agree with this
example of maybe we should…
Board Member Hirsch: I agree with what Alex said and I also agree with the comment that there should
be more examples for every situation here when there are really more issues that are being addressed
there should be more examples that show what it could be.
Chair Baltay: Okay, let’s keep moving on. Staff, we don’t have any changes then. Just some questions.
The next one is the second part of this, which is the transition paragraph. Do we have changes to that?
David, you didn’t finish. What do you think about that?
Board Member Hirsch: Item C?
Chair Baltay: Transition to lower density building types. It’s the second part under contextual massing.
Is that okay?
Board Member Hirsch: I agree with it when it’s based on a sky exposure plane or daylight plane. I think
those ought to be overriding limitations.
Chair Baltay: Alex, what’s your take?
Board Member Lew: I think I am generally in support of it. My notes I have here are that in some of our
zones we have zero setbacks. Then in our performance-based criteria section of the code, there is a 10-
foot landscape requirement when the new building is next to a single-family. I think the section is trying
to address both of those. I think I am supportive of it just in concept.
Chair Baltay: I am looking through this at the fine print of it, and I am wondering if it shouldn’t be all of
those things in section one. Not one of them, but it should have both the stepback and the privacy
measures, and the landscaping. I am just thinking of a project that e just saw preliminary review to City
Council last week that’s proposing to put this large building next to the residential stuff off on El Camino.
That’s a hard sell of the City Council, with all of this stuff they are still pretty uncertain about it, I
6.a
Packet Pg. 135
City of Palo Alto Page 30
thought. I think to allow just one of them of three may not be sufficient. Certainly, if this came before
us as an ARB project we would look to be getting some sort of modulation on the massing and additional
privacy changes, perhaps, on windows, and we would be looking at the landscaping.
Board Member Hirsch: Yes, that’s a good point, Peter.
Chair Baltay: Alex?
Board Member Lew: Peter, I think the City is considering going above the 50-foot height limit. I think
we should try to get these to work for taller buildings.
Chair Baltay: Yes, this is actually pretty significant for what’s going to happen.
Board Member Lew: I think this one is a really big deal. Also, the City is considering removing the height
reduction, say you’re in the CS zone typically it has a 50-foot height limit but if you’re near single-family
or duplexes then the height limit goes down to 35 feet.
Chair Baltay: Jodie, does that apply under these State requirements? That’s an objective standard in the
zoning code, right?
Ms. Gerhardt: Those are development standards so those still apply.
Chair Baltay: These buildings are limited to 35 feet within 300 feet or something of residential. Is that
it?
Board Member Lew: 150 feet.
Chair Baltay: 100 feet?
Ms. Gerhardt: One hundred and fifty.
Board Member Lew: I just wanted to throw out there that that’s under discussion. I think we should
think about this one really carefully.
Ms. Gerhardt: I don’t know that it’s under discussion. I mean, I think there are projects that are planned
community projects that are going through that might want to change those but it would be for a specific
site. It would not be a change to the entire code.
Chair Baltay: We’re talking here, basically -- 15 plus 25 is 40-feet -- within 40 feet of the property line
you can go above 35 feet and the current code is 150. Am I reading that right?
Ms. Gerhardt: Chris?
Chris Sensenig: Sorry, repeat that. I am getting confused with height transition and the standard. Can
you please repeat that?
Chair Baltay: The current City code says that when you're next to a residential property you can’t go
above 35 feet within 150 feet of the property line. This is essentially allowing you to go above 35 feet
within 40 feet of the property line. Is that right?
Chris Sensenig: Yes, the daylight plane is more restrictive. I don’t think we meant to change the
daylight plane.
Jean Eisberg: Item level C applies regardless of use or zone. What’s on the screen now is an example of
the existing height transition and daylight plane requirement when you're adjacent to a residential zone,
6.a
Packet Pg. 136
City of Palo Alto Page 31
other than the RM40, but level C on packet page 29 would apply regardless of use or zone if you’re
adjacent to another building.
Chair Baltay: Say that again. What is supposed to be on page 29?
Jean Eisberg: What I want to make sure we are talking about little C on packet page 29.
Chair Baltay: I am looking that up now. Let me find it. I don’t have packet page 29. Oh, I'm sorry.
Packet page. Okay.
Board Member Hirsch: Are we talking about page 10? Is that right?
Chris Sensenig: Can you bring that up on the screen?
Ms. Gerhardt: Page 11.
Board Member Hirsch: Eleven, okay. Page 11.
Ms. Gerhardt: Yeah, page 11 of you the objective standards.
Board Member Hirsch: If you had 35 feet, does that allow, let’s say, a residential project which is nine
feet floor-to-floor? That would be 36, right? Where does that number come from, 35 versus 36?
Ms. Gerhardt: Thirty-five is the zoning code number.
Jean Eisberg: Yeah, that’s the existing code. Maybe that’s a three-story building.
Board Member Hirsch: Three-story building, right, but not a four-story. You know some of these
dimensions that are part of the code are problematic when you consider a building, let’s say a residential
building, starting on the first floor unless that first floor (inaudible) and you want to get four floors into
the building.
Ms. Gerhardt: Yeah, but our intention is not to change the development standards that are currently in
the code. Our intention is only to make objective the design criteria. What Jean has on the screen right
now is the daylight plane. Those would remain in place, and we can make sure that the… as Jean said,
these daylight planes must be adhered to when a project is adjacent to lower density residential but for
projects that are higher than densities that are probably more where the objective standards would come
into play.
Chris Sensenig: Peter, to answer your question, I think you could… wait, go back to the table. When the
building has to… the diagram is showing the building 40 feet from the property line where it goes up
above 30 feet.
Chair Baltay: Okay.
Chris Sensenig: According to this table that should be 50 feet. If you go back to the other one.
Basically, in order to go above 35 feet, you have to be 50 feet from the property line.
Chair Baltay: But isn’t the current code 150 feet?
Chris Sensenig: No, it is... go back to the table, please. It says within 150 feet of a residential zone
district a butting…
Ms. Gerhardt: Interpreting this code section is fraught with problems. Actually, Jean, that might be
something that maybe we do want to look at changing the way that this is worded on the left-hand-side
there within 150 feet or located within 50 feet. That’s causing confusion right this second and we need
6.a
Packet Pg. 137
City of Palo Alto Page 32
to look at cleaning that up. I will take back everything I just said. I think we do want to change the
code. If the ARB can please help us clarify what might be a better way to say this.
Chair Baltay: let me throw out an idea. I think there are two things that I have encountered with
projects that are close to these residential zones. One is that 150 feet is too much. It should be closer
to 50 feet, I think. Maybe let’s consider proposing to Council. This is a change in code that a 50-foot
setback to go above 35 feet is more appropriate. Secondly, I think it really should state not the zone but
the use. We had this happen with the Redwood project just down in El Camino recently where it is
clearly a residential use but because of some quirk in the zoning, it didn’t apply. That just didn’t seem to
be the intent of the code.
Board Member Lew: Peter, that’s because it was a commercial.
Chair Baltay: That’s right.
Board Member Lew: To wads commercially zoned and it was determined to be equivalent to RM40.
Chair Baltay: Yes.
Board Member Lew: Which is high density.
Chair Baltay: I guess what I am really looking at is not… the City is not protecting residential properties
next to larger developments. Maybe we can chime in and say it is appropriate to go taller closer, but
protect all residential uses regardless of the zoning thing. That’s just two thoughts I had on this.
Board Member Lew: Peter, historically we have done it by zone and not use.
Chair Baltay: I know that, yeah.
Board Member Lew: The most recent comp plan I think has changed to residential use and not the exact
zoning.
Chair Baltay: Yeah, I think that makes more sense.
Board Member Lew: I have a question for staff on this one. Would underground basements be required
to follow the setbacks, and can the trees be in raised planters on top of the garage in setback A that is
show in the diagrams?
Ms. Gerhardt: Underground basements, when you’re in the R1 basements need to be under the footprint
of the building. When you're in commercial zones, like a research park, then the basement can expand
beyond the building footprint. There are pieces in the middle where it really depends on which zone
you're in. I don’t want to comment because I may get something wrong on that. We also have other
uses that happen in the R1 where the basement could go beyond the footprint for other uses that are in
the R1.
Board Member Lew: I just wanted to highlight -- I mentioned this at the City Council ARB meeting -- that
when we allow the basements to extend beyond the footprint, right, as sometimes they need to do, the
trees are getting a haircut with limited soil volume. You get limited soil volume and then you get limited
height of the trees. I think some developments that I have seen have done a good job with landscaping
above the garage and you just need to get enough soil volume in there. I think you can probably do that
with the setbacks that you're showing, but we should have some sort of standard for the height of the
raised planters. If you do them too shallow I think you might not have enough soil in there.
Chair Baltay: Alex, what if we just said that within a certain distance of the property line there must be a
certain amount of soil below grade? In other words, the garages have to go deeper. Can you throw out
some numbers that might be good to put as a blanket requirement?
6.a
Packet Pg. 138
City of Palo Alto Page 33
Board Member Lew: Yeah, I think we have some in our performance standards. I think there are
options. I have seen projects where the garage is fully excavated but there are, I guess we would call it
rooms, maybe, in the garage but it is actually just soil for the trees. You are taking out a couple of
parking spaces so that you can get enough soil in there. There are other projects in San Jose where they
have just done really tall planters, maybe like four feet high raised planters in order to get enough soil for
the tress. I have seen some in Mountain View where they have done about two feet of soil and the trees
are struggling and some of them are dying. Maybe we have something in the landscape section about
soil volume for trees.
Chair Baltay: Maybe we are getting off track on that but I think that is something we should pick up on
regarding…
Board Member Lew: Yeah, I think we should move on.
Chair Baltay: I'm pretty sure the Council would appreciate a little more clarity on what the standard
ought to be on that. We are coming back to this business of how far a setback from the property line
should these taller buildings be. Jodie, it something you guys want to think about more before we talk
about it more?
Ms. Gerhardt: Yes, I think that a good point was made that we can clarify the code. Once we clarify the
code we can make sure that the guidelines are appropriately lined up with that. Yeah, let us take the
information we have and provide you with something more.
Chair Baltay: Okay. Alex and David, how do we feel about having a requirement for privacy restrictions
on things like windows and window placement adjacent to residential uses?
Board Member Hirsch: I think there should be standards on that and on the side yard issues. I think it
would be preferred, for me, to see a daylight plane be the common denominator here. There, again,
Jodie, if you're going to be changing the code for other reasons to change those dimensions the way they
are written why not have a daylight plane that reflects all potential neighboring uses that works for this
particular change in the planning? I don’t understand exactly what the purpose of this, but maybe there
is some purpose to it when it is closer than it has to have a landscape area as privacy or the neighboring
and for your building here, but I definitely wouldn’t see two lines of trees being the answer. If it’s, for
example, that whole area that is belonging I would assume A belongs to whom? A belongs to the new
building.
Ms. Gerhardt: Yes.
Board Member Hirsch: It may, in fact, be an open area that’s used public open space. Would you put
two lines of trees in an area like that? Would you force that because of the privacy issue of the
neighboring property or would a line of trees closer to the property line be more appropriate than open
space within? I mean, I would prefer the simplicity of a daylight plane being a condition that determines
a massing of the neighboring building.
Chair Baltay: I’ll agree, David. I wrote a note to myself that daylight plane is a very useful concept in
this situation. Alex, do you agree that a daylight plane would be an easier way to accomplish this?
Board Member Lew: Not necessarily. I think on this particular item I would, maybe, try to give
additional options besides the two that are provided. I think a lot of homeowners do like the frosted
window requirement and the staggered window requirement. On some projects, I think we’ve done
punched windows instead of a continuous window wall, like floor to ceiling glass. Sometimes with an
office project the ARB has required automatic window shades to reduce the lighting at night towards the
neighbors.
Chair Baltay: I think a clear direction, Jodie, for the ARB is that some sort of privacy guidelines are
appropriate. I just don’t hear any censuses how you modulate the mass of a building; possibly a daylight
6.a
Packet Pg. 139
City of Palo Alto Page 34
plane, possibly just a couple more examples, possible looking at the mass and correlating it to the code
more carefully.
Board Member Hirsch: David, can I just go back? I have one thought on the 35-foot height limit within
150 feet of residential use. Jodie, for staff, my recollection is that we apply that 150 feet even across a
street. There’s a project on Park Boulevard and there is a little triangular wedge of residential across the
street and it brought the height limit down. I think we should look at that carefully and consider the
impacts on adjacent properties versus ones that are across the street.
Chair Baltay: Point well made.
Ms. Gerhardt: I think the interpretation of that code section has been difficult.
Board Member Hirsch: Yes, I do think so.
Ms. Gerhardt: I am glad that it came up and I will work with the team to suggest something else. The
question that I have is if we have that existing daylight plane when you're adjacent to the lower density
residential… if we were adjacent to a higher density or adjacent to another commercial would we need
the same daylight plane? Sometimes what we do, too, is copy the daylight plane of your neighbor.
Maybe that’s a way to think about it but we will go back and look at those various options. It’s a good
conversation and I appreciate it. I think we’ve got enough to work from.
Chair Baltay: Shall we move on to façade length or is there anything else about this other one? Let’s
discuss…
Board Member Hirsch: I want to make just one other comment about this. I think that this diagram here
on the bottom of (ii) is a good diagram because it is very simple and very understandable. It doesn’t
show floor-to-floor heights, particularly so that is open-ended. If you use that kind of a diagram for all of
this study here I think all of this presentation it would be much, much better than being too specific. Just
show an illustration of the new regulation, and then, of course, the daylight plane issue, if, in fact, that is
what is decided to be the overriding regulation. This kind of diagram will work much better.
Chair Baltay: Thank you, David. That’s good to have that feedback for them. Let’s look at section C,
maximum facade length. Alex, this is yours. What do you think?
Board Member Lew: Yes, I do appreciate this section a lot.
Chair Baltay: Does this look (inaudible)?
Board Member Lew: I am generally supportive of it. I think that the 100-foot limit makes sense. As an
example, many of the buildings on Hamilton Avenue are 100 feet and in some cases, there is a 25-foot
alley in between them, which provides some sort of visual break. I think it is a nice scale, and it allows
slightly larger buildings. I think I am generally in support of this. I think what’s not clear is that the
section says maximum façade length but it actually doesn’t specify the maximum length. We are talking
about breaks, and modulations, and stuff, but sometimes it will say maximum facade length is, like,
whatever, 400 feet with exceptions for certain types of projects like schools, or governmental buildings.
We might want to consider the exceptions. There are occasionally larger commercial buildings that do
need a continuous length. I think the requirement says that the modulation should be two feet deep
minimum. I think I understand the intent of the two feet. When I actually measure buildings, what I
think of as I am standing in front of a building, I say “oh, that looks two feet.” Then I actually go
measure it and it is often like four feet. What I think of in-person is usually much larger when you’re
outdoors on a large urban site.
Chair Baltay: I share that experience. As I am looking at this first section, this is saying that if a building
is less than 25 feet high there is no limitation on its façade length. I am not sure that’s what we intend.
It says that there is no minimum length and that you don’t have to have a break. If I look at this
6.a
Packet Pg. 140
City of Palo Alto Page 35
carefully, if it's above 25 feet you have to do something no matter how long the building is and I don’t
think either of those is the intent. Shouldn’t there be a minimum length in which this doesn’t apply? Say
50 feet. Alex or David?
Board Member Hirsch: We’re talking about maximum façade length significant breaks, right? that’s
where we are in the text here?
Chair Baltay: Yes, well both of these sections here.
Board Member Hirsch: Okay.
Chair Baltay: This is a big issue and I just raised the point that there probably should be some minimum
dimension where this doesn’t apply.
Board Member Hirsch: There are so many different ways to deal with the facades of long buildings. The
existing code says what? If it’s 100 feet then you have to have an A dimension break of 25 feet if the
overall length of the building is greater than or equal to 100 feet. I don’t know what the reason is for
this significant piece of a break but it doesn’t come from any particular plan description, right? It’s a
planning regulation. The one dimension is… I think that if you revise the text a little bit to agree with
some information that I had about outer courtyards from the New York text and that is that they’re half
the depth as the width to create an outer court. That’s one element to deal with here on a building that
you could create an outer court that’s a certain dimension when the building is a certain length. I find
that the New York zoning is painful but accurate in some way as long as you begin got know it. The
dimension of a courtyard is really good, and I found the description of courtyards had been a good one.
It’s not fair, of course, because our zoning is really quite different. It comes from different sources, I
guess, but I think there are so many different ways to change the massing of a building with balconies,
or with elements in the front, or with a whole series of bays, such as the building on Page Mill. The new
one that’s going up in the OF zone there with tall of the bays. Therefore, if it is 100 feet I would think
that the bays are a very good way to break up the façade. I am not in favor of an exclusive requirement
here for every 100 feet that it has an eccess like this.
Chair Baltay: How do you say it, David? We have to say something.
Board Member Hirsch: I know. I'm not good with the language.
Chair Baltay: I appreciate your sentiment but this says if a SB35 building comes in and it’s a 200-foot
long façade we have to tell them something or else they’re just going to do nothing.
Board Member Hirsch: Give them an option of a variety of things that could be done. That’s what I
would prefer.
Chair Baltay: It gets really challenging to start writing out a bunch of options. I think section B here is
pretty good in the sense that it gives you something you can sink your teeth into. It is not perfect,
nobody is saying that.
Board Member Hirsch: I don’t think it's particularly useful at all. I think you have a big courtyard all of
sudden in the middle of a building that’s 100 feet long.
Chair Baltay: You think it’s too big?
Board Member Hirsch: I think if you had four smaller courts it would be much better.
Chair Baltay: Okay. Jodie, and Chris, and staff, can we break this down, do you think, to give two or
three options to modulation?
6.a
Packet Pg. 141
City of Palo Alto Page 36
Board Member Hirsch: The problem with this is that the 100 feet and the depth of this is part of the
present code and we’re stuck with that, right?
Chair Baltay: No, I don’t think so.
Board Member Hirsch: Okay. If we’re not then I think we should change it.
Chair Baltay: Alex, what’s your take on it?
Board Member Lew: I am okay with this. I am fine with doing options. If somebody wanted a series of
very small notches I would think that should be an option.
Chair Baltay: Okay.
Board Member Lew: We don’t see it very often but I would say use the same -- San Francisco is an
example -- bay windows. Maybe that’s an option.
Chair Baltay: Jean, can your team come up with some options for section B?
Jean Eisberg: Yes.
Chair Baltay: Is that realistic?
Jean Eisberg: Yes.
Chair Baltay: Yes, okay. I’d like to go back to section A. I had proposed that we put a minimum façade
length where it doesn’t apply. Is there any traction on that? Let’s say less than 50 feet long you don’t
have to do this stuff.
Board Member Lew: Yeah, I could go with 50 or 75 feet.
Chair Baltay: David?
Board Member Hirsch: We’re going back here, right?
Chair Baltay: Yeah, I am just trying to pick up all the pieces here.
Board Member Hirsch: Yeah.
Chair Baltay: I think on a narrow building making somebody modulate 70 percent or 30 percent of their
façade may be really difficult. That’s not reasonable.
Board Member Hirsch: In all cases, I feel that -- I think Grace’s comments were this way -- options are a
great idea here and that’s what we should be considering. I agree with you, Peter, that the smaller
buildings shouldn’t force something on it but I don’t know…
Chair Baltay: What’s a good definition of a smaller building? What’s the length of the façade?
Board Member Hirsch: I think what we’re likely to see is like a double-loaded corridor building probably
50 feet deep.
Chair Baltay: Alex, is 50 feet too little for you? What do you think?
Board Member Lew: A double-loaded corridor apartment building is going to be more like 68…
Chair Baltay: How about we say 70 feet?
6.a
Packet Pg. 142
City of Palo Alto Page 37
Board Member Hirsch: You’re right, Alex. It’s going to likely be deeper than 60 feet.
Chair Baltay: Staff, come back with something between 50 and 70, okay?
Jean Eisberg: Okay.
Chair Baltay: Let’s go on to the question about the railroad frontages. David, what do you think about
that?
Board Member Hirsch: I have no opinion.
Chair Baltay: Alex what’s your take.
Board Member Hirsch: Actually, I have an opinion that there should be a blank wall on all railroad
facades.
Chair Baltay: Okay, so you don’t agree with the retractions then.
Board Member Hirsch: No, we just over something here, right? Haven’t we? The maximum façade
length issues, here. Is that the one you were talking about just now?
Chair Baltay: We’re finished with maximum façade length. I am trying to go on to the next thing.
Board Member Hirsch: I mean, the maximum façade length ought to include some discussion about
balconies with recesses so that there could be balconies with recesses that could be a bay window.
Chair Baltay: David, that will come into play when they put together the options for section B.
Board Member Hirsch: Okay.
Chair Baltay: As a member of the subcommittee, come up with those options with them.
Board Member Hirsch: Okay. I am reading through a note that I had before which actually conforms to
what we’ve already decided on.
Chair Baltay: Okay, go ahead.
Board Member Hirsch: That’s it.
Chair Baltay: On these railroad frontages, the question is do you agree with these proposed standards
for buildings fronting railroad lines?
Board Member Lew: I have a question for staff. What is the intent of this because this seems to be a
very big departure from the existing code? I think calling it a daylight plane doesn’t make sense because
we are not trying to provide sunlight to the train tracks. Maybe we should just call them setbacks. I
guess, the way that I have been thinking about it is adjacent to downtown Sunnyvale they have a lot of
multi-family projects going on East Evelyn, and there is a daylight plane but they do have modulations
similar to what we were just talking about in the previous section. I think that that is working really well
for housing near transit. I think I don’t necessarily agree with this section unless you could clarify what
the intent is.
Chair Baltay: I agree with you, Alex. Jodie, if we’re trying not to go beyond current code what is this
doing here?
Ms. Gerhardt: I don’t know that I have a good answer for you right this second. We’ll go back and look
at this section.
6.a
Packet Pg. 143
City of Palo Alto Page 38
Chair Baltay: Okay. Great.
Jean Eisberg: Part of the intent was to make sure that we don’t have one of those continuous facades on
the railroad, and to make sure that that wall does have some -- it’s not articulation because we’re still on
the massing section -- façade breaks on that railroad frontage. Now, if you think that the previous
section on significant breaks covers that then maybe it’s not needed.
Chair Baltay: Didn’t you have something in here about whether it’s visible from the public right-of-way?
That would probably be more appropriate. In cases where you see across the railroad frontage from
Alma Street, we have worried about in the past, but if it is totally not visible, I don’t see why we would
want to regulate it.
Board Member Lew: I would throw out there the best example, or worst example, is the 195 Page Mill
Road which has a 35-foot high blank wall right near the property line.
Chair Baltay: Yeah.
Board Member Lew: The landscape is on a Caltrain leased strip. There is some landscaping but it’s not
even on the property line…
Chair Baltay: That’s right. They were (crosstalk).
Board Member Lew: … that’s through the trees, like the gaps in the landscape, from Alma. There is
modulation but it is a blank wall because at the time there was a noise requirement for high-speed rail. I
think we should improve upon that project.
Jean Eisberg: Now I found it. The existing context space design criteria for the PTOD, which is the Cal
Ave area, includes criteria about providing visual interests from the train and the neighborhood east of
the track. This relates to that desire for articulation setbacks and materials that minimize the massing
and breakdown of the scale. This was trying to translate that criteria into something objective.
Ms. Gerhardt: That PTOD section has been rarely used but I think the concept is good. Now we have a
chance to think about that again and about how we want to implement that. Would we just want to do a
landscape setback along the railroad? Do we want to do some modulations? Maybe we don’t need the
daylight plane portion.
Chair Baltay: I think those are the better directions to go, Jodie, but any other feedback from the Board
on this particular subject of railroad frontages? Any other special conditions regarding building massing?
Do we have the bandwidth to go on to one more section? Alex, David, and Jodie, how do we feel?
Ms. Gerhardt: I’m here all day.
Jean Eisberg: We have lost Chris.
Chair Baltay: Alex?
Jean Eisberg: He had another meeting.
Board Member Lew: Peter, I can continue but I need a five-minute break.
Chair Baltay: David, are you up for one more?
Board Member Hirsch: I'm up for one more.
Chair Baltay: Okay. Let’s take a five-minute break. We’ll re-adjourn at 11:30 exact. Thank you,
everybody.
6.a
Packet Pg. 144
City of Palo Alto Page 39
Jean Eisberg: Thank you.
[Architectural Review Board took a five-minute break. Resumed at 11:30 A.M.]
Chair Baltay: Jean, you want to give us an update and rundown on the façade design section, please.
Jean Eisberg: Yeah. Before I get right into our new section, I just want to recap the existing context
space design criteria. This is a pretty big section on façade design. This is related to the human-scale
aspect of the façade design. We are trying to make this pedestrian-oriented, similar to the building
massing section, to break up those elements of the building with features like overhangs, and porches,
and bay windows, which has been discussed. We really want to push for craftsmanship and articulation.
This got somewhat controversial with the ARB subcommittee that we worked with around the existing
context space design criteria talking about a base, body, and top to the building. That is something we
have continued in the design standards that are presented here. You will see in the intent statement a
lot of those some verbiage and same intent around the human-scale and around craftsmanship. On the
right side of the screen, we are seeing the components that are described as regulations or standards.
This is one. In the application of façade design, the idea being this is a four-sided building unless it’s at
the zero lot line. We have the base, middle, and top, and we have standards on façade articulation, the
compatible rhythm, and pattern, and that we are emphasizing particular building elements and massing.
Then, we have sections on the ground floor character and on the location of parking, loading, and utilities
to keep those away from the primary frontage. As we are going through the sections, I do have sort of a
side-by-side view of some of these graphics. Hopefully, it can help the conversation a bit.
Chair Baltay: Why don’t we go piece by piece on this one, gang? Let’s start with the intent statement.
How do we feel about that? This is a lot to digest here. I think the third one is the one that is more
detailed, perhaps, and doesn’t belong here. The articulation of the building: base, middle, and top. I do
not think that is necessarily an intent. That’s a design device to achieve an intent. Well, it is. That’s
really a device we use to give building a different sense of scale. David, what’s your take?
Board Member Hirsch: The fact that is most buildings will have a base, middle, and top. I just say that
in the beginning because I am the one who actually had the most problem with this (inaudible) to the
building. In a way, what they have done so far is added to that and I get the feeling that we ought to
say use of the (i), (ii), (iii), and (iv) not…
Chair Baltay: David, can you speak clearly into your microphone. I am just really…
Board Member Hirsch: Yeah, I am sorry. Okay. I feel that it is likely that most buildings will have a
base, middle, top…
Chair Baltay: Okay.
Board Member Hirsch: …but that shouldn’t be an exclusive way in which somebody designs a building.
There are other options. I agree with you that it is one method of designing a building, not the exclusive
one. Actually, that is what I have been pushing them towards and I think that the intent statements
allow for a little bit more but I am wondering if they couldn’t be even more flexible in some way that they
would say human-scaled architecture including the following various -- what do you want to call them?
The following techniques of some sort, you know? Find a word that describes it but not any one
exclusively but all of them are possible.
Chair Baltay: I think we will come into that when we come up with that when we come into these more
objective standards we are going to get into the base, middle, and top. I am just questioning whether it
belongs in an intent statement.
Board Member Hirsch: My feeling is it belongs more in an intent statement than it does in every
particular example that we’ll show.
6.a
Packet Pg. 145
City of Palo Alto Page 40
Chair Baltay: I see.
Chair Baltay: Alex, what’s your opinion on this?
Board Member Lew: I think we have to be mindful that there are a variety of building housing types, and
that the base, middle, top may not really apply to all of them. Say if you have a two-story townhouse or
something, or a three-story townhouse not all of this would apply, right? Maybe we should just have the
base, middle, top down lower and not in the intent section. I think that makes more sense. It sort of
presumes that it’s a large urban building.
Chair Baltay: David, any way that we could persuade you that we discuss the base, middle, tops as one
option within the human-scaled architecture section down in section C and not have it in an intent
statement? Let me try this, David. I can’t tell you how many times I feel hamstrung reviewing all kinds
of projects and having this blanket statement about base, middle, and top riding what we’re doing. Many
types of designs (crosstalk).
Board Member Hirsch: but I don’t want the examples, then, to show it in every case.
Chair Baltay: That’s right, exactly. It shouldn’t show it in every case, no. I think Alex just made a very
valid point that not every housing building type needs to have this base, middle, and top delineation. It’s
a convenient design device that’s worked well historically but it doesn’t have to be exclusively that.
Board Member Hirsch: Okay. Leave it out, then.
Chair Baltay: Alex, what do you think? Should we just strike that from this intent statement?
Board Member Lew: Yeah, I am inclined to agree.
Chair Baltay: Okay. Jodie, is that clear enough?
Ms. Gerhardt: Yes, I think we can strike base, middle, and top from the intent. We still have it lower
down in the objective standards but there it says that base, middle, and top basically applies to buildings
three stories or taller.
Chair Baltay: Okay. We will get to that in a second. Let’s go to section B, the application of these
façade design standards. This is saying that all facades have to meet these standards. Jean, can you tell
us where do these apply?
Jean Eisberg: The idea is that this would apply to all four facades except on the zero lot line where that
zero lot line is not visible at the time of approval. That may be another abutting building, or it is not
visible from the right-of-way then these standards would not apply.
Chair Baltay: That doesn’t seem all that controversial. Are there any questions from David or Alex about
this?
Board Member Lew: I actually think it is kind of controversial for some smaller buildings. I guess the
ones I was thinking about were mixed-use buildings that are 50-feet wide that have driveways in the
front as well as stairs and elevators. I wrote down three projects. One was 1845 El Camino, one is 636
Waverly, and another one is 484 Hamilton. The last one is on a corner. I think my inclination is that the
requirement is fine for larger buildings. I am thinking that it shouldn’t apply to lots less than 50 feet
wide. Maybe we should have some provision for corner buildings. To me, requiring the horizontal shift
of two feet on both sides of a corner building may be too much. I would use the example of the
University Avenue project on Kipling. We sort of beat that to death on the side street issue. That’s all
that I've got.
6.a
Packet Pg. 146
City of Palo Alto Page 41
Chair Baltay: Okay. I think the blanket statement is that all facades have to meet this requirement, and
the question is are there exemptions when you can’t see it from the right-of-way and it is on the zero lot
line. Is that right? Am I reading this correctly?
Ms. Gerhardt: Yes. Alex is, maybe, bringing up on smaller lots some of these things may be harder to
do but maybe we can address that as go further into the document.
Chair Baltay: But on smaller lots generally the sidelines are going to be visible, right? I mean, you can
see these things. Alex, is your concern that the standard is too tight or too loose here?
Board Member Lew: I think it is too… the 80 percent requirement. I may be mixing B and C together
but, again, it is functional things like garage ramps, stairs, elevators, share walls, eat up a lot of space. I
don’t want to make a requirement that makes those impossible. I would just say I haven’t done a case
study on this particular one but I would… maybe after the meeting I will take a look at a couple of
projects and see what numbers I can come up with.
Chair Baltay: Okay. I think, Alex, that the section B purpose is just to carve out two places where
whatever standards we agreed to don’t apply. It is really where they aren’t visible. It’s hard to see
where that’s an issue. Shall we move on to section C directly? Item number one in section C, in section
(i) the way this done is regarding the base, middle, and top, right? Yes. Oh, boy. Okay. David, you're
arguing against this one, then. We’re talking Section C, letter (i), base, middle, and top.
Board Member Lew: I am there.
Chair Baltay: Just to be clear for everybody. There are four pages or so on this.
Jean Eisberg: I put it on one page on the slide.
Chair Baltay: Oh, fatalistic. Here we go. Yes. This is great. A good graphic.
Board Member Hirsch: Do we have a base, middle, and top shown on all of these here? There are
actually more other ones that will come along later, right? For example, where the material changes
happen between the base, middle, and top that aren’t really shown here. Why aren’t all buildings that
have a base, middle, and top shown in one place? Human-scale architecture base, middle, and top.
Does this mean that all human-scale architecture has to have a base, a middle, and top? Is that the
assumption that you make here?
Chair Baltay: That’s right, yeah. That is what this is saying.
Ms. Gerhardt: It means that you have to have a base, middle, and top to go through the objective
streamline process. You could go to the ARB if you wanted to do something different.
Chair Baltay: Good point, Jodie.
Board Member Hirsch: I understand. I find that to be rather restrictive and perhaps it doesn’t work with
the planning for certain housing that’s above three-stores or more. In other elements will actually create
as much human-scale as a base, middle, and top would. Here is where I find it to be more of a problem
than up front where it is described. Eliminating it completely wouldn’t be a bad idea. Buildings can have
a base, middle, and top or they can have a series of bays that go all the way from the bottom to the top,
or they can have bays and recesses and balconies. There are so many different ways in which buildings
can be of a human-scale. Why would we concentrate on only those, which are base, middle, and top?
Chair Baltay: Okay. That is your argument. I hear you. That sounds good.
Board Member Hirsch: Yes, that’s my argument.
6.a
Packet Pg. 147
City of Palo Alto Page 42
Chair Baltay: Alex, what do you say to this?
Board Member Lew: I did not make any notes on this section.
Chair Baltay: Okay. That means you have no opinion about it?
Board Member Lew: I think I understand what it is trying to do. I don’t disagree with it. I don’t know if
it works in all situations.
Chair Baltay: Let me throw out a few thoughts here. I think that this is the only way to create human-
scale architecture. There are many ways to do that. I think it is important for an architect to have the
option of not following this base, middle, and top hierarchy, which, I think, we have now allowed,
especially by removing that from the design intent, what we are saying is that there are other ways to
achieve this option. That said, David, I think -- I am addressing this to you because I think it is pertinent
-- historically, traditionally residential apartment buildings have a base, middle, and top design motif. It
is one that has just worked extremely well over hundreds of years in many urban and somewhat
suburban environments. If we are trying to create an objective standard, it makes it easy to comply and
I think this is a good way to do it. If you want to do it simple and quick follow the age-old standard of
what we’ve got, base, middle, and top and you get done quickly. I am thinking of the example of the
Joseph Bellomo building -- oh wait, that’s not been approved so I can’t say that.
Board Member Hirsch: It’s three-stories.
Chair Baltay: I can think of numerous design examples where a base, middle, and top is not necessary
and still can achieve our design intent, which is a human-scaled architecture for residential buildings. I
think to objectify that, to put it in some sort of design options and diagrams is just not possible. I think it
is too subjective, it is too subtle, and it is too dependent on the skill of the architect and the quality of the
client, that kind of thing. Whereas I think the idea of trying to objectify base, middle, and top is possible.
It is not a perfect solution what we have but it is possible and I think this is a good way to go about it. I
strongly think we should leave this in our objective standard. As long as there’s a way for an architect to
get around it with a subjective ARB review, I think this is great. That’s my argument for keeping this.
Board Member Hirsch: I guess I could come back on that?
Chair Baltay: Yes, I am trying to persuade you.
Board Member Hirsch: You haven’t.
Chair Baltay: I haven’t, okay.
Board Member Hirsch: No.
Ms. Gerhardt: I think -- sorry, If I can but in for a second -- what’s happening here is that maybe on this
particular subject we had talked about creating this medium-sized box where an average number of
projects could get through by just following the objective standards, whereas in this particular case with
base, middle, and top maybe we are making that box a little more restrictive so that more projects have
to come to the ARB. We just have to think through if that is okay or not. I hear Chair Baltay this is one
of the easier ways to get to this human-scale and having that being a little more restrictive is fine mostly
because trying to come up with other options is going to be difficult to describe in an objective manner.
Board Member Hirsch: Okay.
Chair Baltay: And, this is historically, traditionally what's been done. It’s not…
Board Member Hirsch: I guess it is historically until Le Corbusie and Gopieast [phonetic], et cetera all
changed everything.
6.a
Packet Pg. 148
City of Palo Alto Page 43
Chair Baltay: I think, David, most apartment buildings today even still follow this basic motif.
Board Member Hirsch: Yes, I agree.
Chair Baltay: It’s not just because they’re required to by code. It is a commonly used way to reach this
kind of scale. I don’t know why that is. It’s been since the Italian Renaissance, I suppose, but…
Board Member Hirsch: Yes. It is true, Peter, in particular in the United States. Not so much in Germany
or other places where alternate designs are…
Chair Baltay: Yeah, but how do you possibly, David, write up a standard for something like La Patesion
Yuvete [phonetic]. It’s a masterpiece. I just don’t see how you do it. That’s sort of where I am coming
from, really.
Board Member Hirsch: Maybe I won’t have a very argument against it but I do have a feeling about the
different illustrations that are here. You could say that every building should have some variety on the
face of it so that public floors are described in one way and private spaces are described in another.
Buildings should naturally have a top. Most buildings have a higher percentage of masonry wall or
exterior wall at the top, and some of them are very minimal with no particular cornice line or ending at
the top. I, myself, have worked on some buildings that have a very minimal cornice line and horizontal
windows versus vertical windows. We will get into that a little bit later but I don’t know. Is it necessary
to have something that describes base, middle, and top as human-scale? Because it could also be, as I
said before, a building with bays, or a building with recesses, or a building with a change in material
texture.
Ms. Gerhardt: I am wondering about these diagrams. These are one definition of base, middle, and top
but I have heard all of the members speak of other ways to define base, middle, and top. Maybe there
are more options that could be added here.
Board Member Hirsch: Yes, that would satisfy me if there were other options.
Ms. Gerhardt: Still saying base, middle, and top but other ways to get to that same answer.
Chair Baltay: I am all in favor of that, sure. I think (crosstalk). Alex?
Jean Eisberg: The text is…
Chair Baltay: Go ahead. I'm sorry, Jean.
Jean Eisberg: The text is a little more elaborative. It talks about different ways you may do that with
recesses or changes in the windows whereas the graphics are showing more of this real separation at the
datum lines or at the cornice lines. Maybe it is a little bit of where the graphics are going versus that
there are more expanded options in the text.
Board Member Hirsch: Yes, okay. That’s correct. Okay. It is more acceptable that way. I didn’t read
the text as carefully.
Chair Baltay: I agree with that. The buildings in these graphics just don’t quite do it for me.
Board Member Hirsch: Yeah, neither.
Chair Baltay: The fact that you have them is good, but, David, with the subcommittee you can come up
with more options that will fly on this subject?
Board Member Hirsch: Yeah, I think it is more just -- as Jean was saying -- as long as the verbiage is
there that allows for the variety and then we look to see the illustrations show some alternatives.
6.a
Packet Pg. 149
City of Palo Alto Page 44
Chair Baltay: That’s fine. Alex, are you on board with this?
Board Member Hirsch: Yeah, I think I said that previously.
Chair Baltay: Just checking. Okay, can we go to the next section on demonstration? Façade articulation
is what it’s called. This is separate from base, middle, and top, right? This is just talking about -- Jean,
tell us what this is, please.
Jean Eisberg: I don’t have a separate slide for it so let me move to our document. This is calling for a
minimum of one of the following strategies, which could be to create visual interest. The whole idea of
this is to create visual interest, which could be play of shadow and light. It talks about either vertical or
horizontal recesses, vertical and horizontal projections, which could be shading devices, architectural
details, or bay windows. Again, using the datum lines to show that length of the building, such as at a
cornice, balconies, and other projections, Juliet balconies, by screening devices like louvers or shading
devices, sunshades. Six, using a finer grain building material with texture such as wood, shingles, or
brick.
Chair Baltay: Okay. You're saying we have to choose one of these ideas, right?
Jean Eisberg: A minimum of one. At least one.
Chair Baltay: Okay. It seems to me like you should choose more than one. Any one of these alone may
not be enough. Other members, what do you think?
Board Member Hirsch: More than one option, it could be three. Definitely one or more should always be
the way in which these should be described.
Chair Baltay: When I am designing a building, you are constantly going back and forth with all of these
kind of things. It is neat to see you break it out like this in words, but the thought of only doing one of
these techniques would be kind of crazy. Alex?
Board Member Lew: Agreed. When I have worked on affordable housing projects normally we would
try to do as many as possible, budget permitting. Maybe we should require more than one.
Chair Baltay: Looking at these carefully now, I think you always do four of them probably. I would. Is
that too many?
Board Member Hirsch: I would limit it specifically. I think if you just said a variety of the following
elements should be…
Chair Baltay: But that’s not really making an objective standard then, David.
Board Member Hirsch: Picking from this list.
Chair Baltay: How many do they have to pick? Just one? None?
Board Member Hirsch: Oh, no.
Chair Baltay: Just a flat wall, with no detailing whatsoever, made out of brick is okay because it’s a fine
grain material?
Board Member Hirsch: I have done a good building that did use exclusively brick.
Chair Baltay: But that’s not enough to make something human-scale just using material.
Board Member Hirsch: It was.
6.a
Packet Pg. 150
City of Palo Alto Page 45
Chair Baltay: It was?
Chair Baltay: Well, you're an amazing architect then,.
Board Member Hirsch: I don’t espouse it as being the only appropriate way to do this.
Chair Baltay: I couldn’t do brink buildings without doing item number one and really thinking hard about
the openings in the wall.
Board Member Hirsch: Oh, yeah. Of course.
Chair Baltay: Immediately, if I am going to do a brick building, I have got two of these checked off.
Board Member Hirsch: Okay.
Ms. Gerhardt: We might be losing some steam as it's getting to the lunch hour.
Chair Baltay: Do you want to just put it all on hold, Jodie, and we’ll pick it up next time?
Ms. Gerhardt: It’s up to you. I think we do have a decent amount of information, even on this topic, to
give us some to go back and think about.
Chair Baltay: We are at your service here. This is something that we can go on and finish this subject or
we can leave it at this. Maybe it is better to stop. Are you okay with that, Jodie?
Ms. Gerhardt: Yeah, I am fine either way. I really do appreciate all of the conversation that we have
had. I know all of you are practicing architects and that is very helpful in this discussion. I think it would
be good to probably bring this back and continue this item to a date uncertain where Grace would be
present and Osma would be present for the discussion as well. I think it will give Staff some time to go
back and tweak some things and let you see what those are.
Chair Baltay: Alex, what do you think? Should we break it here?
Board Member Lew: Sure. I think that makes sense. I don’t know how productive this is going at the
moment.
Chair Baltay: Fair enough. Okay. Do we need a motion or anything, Jodie, or is this just informal
enough as feedback like this?
Ms. Gerhardt: My brain is mush right now. Let’s just do a motion just because.
MOTION
Chair Baltay: I move that we continue this subject to a date uncertain.
Board Member Lew: I will second.
Chair Baltay: Okay. Can we have a roll call vote, please? Board Member Lew, what’s your vote?
Board Member Lew: Aye.
Chair Baltay: Board Member Hirsch?
Board Member Hirsch: Nay.
Chair Baltay: You move that we do not continue this?
6.a
Packet Pg. 151
City of Palo Alto Page 46
Board Member Hirsch: I do believe we should continue it but I disagree with the motion. Okay, so I will
put it in a separate motion. Never mind. I’ll do that. Nay for the moment.
Chair Baltay: I am not following you, David. We are voting to continue this.
Board Member Hirsch: I think this should be brought back to not a date uncertain. It should be brought
to a date certain.
Chair Baltay: A date certain? Okay. You are going to register your vote no. I vote yes to the motion.
Aye: Baltay, Lew (2)
No: Hirsch (1)
Absent: Thompson, Lee (2)
MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSES 2-1-2.
Chair Baltay: Let’s continue to a date uncertain that has been voted and approved, and we will go
forward from there. Okay, everybody? Do we have anything else, Jodie, on this?
Subcommittee Items
Ms. Gerhardt: I believe we just have the report for NVCAP, if there is anything there from…
Chair Baltay: Fair enough. Alex, do you have anything to report on the NVCAP?
Board Member Lew: I do. We did have a meeting on October 8th, where staff prepared three
alternative schemes. One is for 500 units of housing. Another one is for 1,170 units of housing, and the
largest one is for 1,490 units. The next meeting is going to be November 5th, which will be a joint
meeting with the Parks and Rec Commission to review naturalizing the creek that goes through the site.
That’s all that I’ve got on NVCAP. I did also want to mention that the Council did a pre-screening on
October 5th for 2951 El Camino Real, which is 150 units of housing on within the NVCAP boundary. The
project would go above the height limit and would change some of the requirements, potentially, for
daylight planes and the 35-foot height reduction that we mentioned earlier today. Also, at that meeting,
the Council did mention that another pre-screening that happened across the street from NVCAP, which
is the 3300 El Camino project, that is office plus housing. After the pre-screening, the developers
decided to delete all of the housing and just proceed with an office because they didn’t get good enough
feedback from the Council. I just also want to mention that the Council is going to be meeting on
October 19th about the Boards and Commissions handbook and training. I just want to make sure
everybody is paying attention to that.
Chair Baltay: Alex, you're swaying into board member's questions and comments. I'll just put it under
that category. Say that again.
Board Members Questions, Comments or Announcements
Board Member Lew: Again, on October 19th there will be a City Council on the handbook and training for
Boards Members.
Chair Baltay: Yes, which is of interest to us, obviously.
Board Member Lew: Yeah, and the packet is out.
Chair Baltay: Yeah, I’ve looked at it. Any other Board Member questions, comments, or
announcements? With that, we are adjourned. That’s everybody for the patience to put through this.
6.a
Packet Pg. 152
City of Palo Alto Page 47
Ms. Gerhardt: Thank you all.
Adjournment
6.a
Packet Pg. 153