HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-12-17 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: December 17, 2020
Virtual Meeting
8:30 AM
****BY VIRTUAL TELECONFERENCE ONLY***
https://zoom.us/join Meeting ID: 990 0735 9509 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. Upstream Of Highway 101 Project; Pope-Chaucer
Bridge [20PLN-00202]: Major Architectural Review for replacement of the Pope-
Chaucer Bridge. The project also includes downstream channel modifications in four
locations and a retaining wall in one location for improved flood protection.
Environmental Assessment: Lead Agency SFCJPA certified an EIR on September 26,
2019. Zoning District: PF, R-1, and Public right-of-way. For More Information Contact
the Project Planner Claire Raybould at Claire.Raybould@cityofpaloalto.org
3. Architectural Review Board Annual Report to Council: Review of Letter
4. Election of Chair and Vice-Chair for the Architectural Review Board, and Direction on
Minor Updates to the Architectural Review Board By-Laws
Study Session
Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3
5. Study Session on Ex-parte Communications Between Architectural Review Board
Members and Applicants, Developers and Other Persons (Continued from November
19th)
Approval of Minutes
Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3
6. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for November 19, 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: 990 0735 9509
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 # 11859)
Report Type: City Official Reports Meeting Date: 12/17/2020
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
2020 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
2021 Meeting Schedule & Assignments
2021 Schedule
Meeting Dates Time Location Status Planned Absences
1/7/2021 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Regular
1/21/2021 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Regular
2/4/2021 8:30 AM TBD Regular
2/18/2021 8:30 AM TBD Regular
3/4/2021 8:30 AM TBD Regular
3/18/2021 8:30 AM TBD Regular
4/1/2021 8:30 AM TBD Regular
4/15/2021 8:30 AM TBD Regular
5/6/2021 8:30 AM TBD Regular
5/20/2021 8:30 AM TBD Regular
6/3/2021 8:30 AM TBD Regular
6/17/2021 8:30 AM TBD Regular
7/1/2021 8:30 AM TBD Regular
7/15/2021 8:30 AM TBD Regular
8/5/2021 8:30 AM TBD Regular
8/19/2021 8:30 AM TBD Regular
9/2/2021 8:30 AM TBD Regular
9/16/2021 8:30 AM TBD Regular
10/7/2021 8:30 AM TBD Regular
10/21/2021 8:30 AM TBD Regular
11/4/2021 8:30 AM TBD Regular
11/18/2021 8:30 AM TBD Regular
12/2/2021 8:30 AM TBD Regular
12/16/2021 8:30 AM TBD Regular
2021 Subcommittee Assignments
Assignments will be made by the ARB Chair on the day of the hearing
January February March April May June
July August September October November December
1.a
Packet Pg. 8
Architectural Review Board
2021 Tentative Future Agenda
The Following Items are Tentative and Subject to Change:
Meeting Dates Topics
January 7, 2021 x 486 Hamilton: Mixed Use with Four Units (2nd Formal)
x ARB Review of Objective Standards
1.b
Packet Pg. 9
Architectural Review Board
Staff Report (ID # 11587)
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 12/17/2020
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650) 329-2442
Summary Title: Pope-Chaucer Bridge (1st Formal)
Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. Upstream Of Highway 101
Project; Pope-Chaucer Bridge [20PLN-00202]: Major
Architectural Review for replacement of the Pope-Chaucer
Bridge. The project also includes downstream channel
modifications in four locations and a retaining wall in one
location for improved flood protection. Environmental
Assessment: Lead Agency SFCJPA certified an EIR on
September 26, 2019. Zoning District: PF, R-1, and Public right-
of-way. For More Information Contact the Project Planner
Claire Raybould at Claire.Raybould@cityofpaloalto.org
From: Jonathan Lait
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s):
1. Consider the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the San Francisquito Creek Flood
Protection, Ecosystem Restoration, and Recreation Project Upstream of Highway 101,
which was certified by the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority (SFCJPA),
acting as the lead agency, on September 26, 2019; and
2. Consider and provide comments on the proposed project.
Report Summary
The San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority (SFCJPA) is a regional governmental agency
comprised of and funded by the Cities of Palo Alto, East Palo Alto, and Menlo Park; the Santa
Clara Valley Water District (Valley Water); and the San Mateo County Flood and Sea Level Rise
Resiliency District. The SFCJPA, in coordination with Valley Water, request approval of this
Architectural Review application. The project includes the removal and replacement of Pope
Chaucer Bridge with a bridge that allows for a greater flow capacity (7,500 cubic feet per
second [cfs]) to pass beneath the bridge, reducing flood risk. The project also includes channel
modifications downstream of Pope Chaucer Bridge in four locations within Palo Alto. These
2
Packet Pg. 10
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 2
modifications together with the bridge replacement will improve conveyance, stream function,
and habitat.
The proposed modifications are associated with the SFCJPA’s San Francisquito Creek Flood
Protection, Ecosystem Restoration, and Recreation Project Upstream of Highway 101
(Upstream of Highway 101 Project) which includes work within the Cities of Palo Alto, Menlo
Park, and East Palo Alto within both Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties. The SFCJPA Board,
serving as the lead agency for the Upstream of Highway 101 Project, certified the project EIR on
September 26, 2019, adopting overriding considerations. The City of Palo Alto is serving as a
responsible agency; therefore, the scope of this Architectural Review application is limited to
the project work occurring within the City of Palo Alto’s jurisdiction.
The Upstream of Highway 101 Project is designed in collaboration with other ongoing and
recently completed projects within San Francisquito Creek. These include, but are not limited
to, the San Francisquito Creek Flood Protection, Ecosystem Restoration, and Recreation Project,
the San Francisco Bay to Highway 101 Project completed in 2019, and the Newell Road Bridge
Project, (which Council approved on June 1, 2020).
Background
Project Information
Owner: Project is located within the public Right-of-Way, primarily within
areas under Santa Clara Valley Water District (Valley Water)
easements
Engineer: NV5
Representative: Margaret Bruce, Executive Director, San Francisquito Creek Joint
Powers Authority (SFCJPA); Valley Water will manage construction of
the project on behalf of the SFCJPA
Legal Counsel: Not Applicable
Property Information
Address: Chaucer Street/ Palo Alto Avenue (Public Right-of-Way)
Neighborhood: Crescent Park
Lot Dimensions & Area: Not Applicable
Housing Inventory Site: Not Applicable
Located w/in a Plume: Not Applicable
Protected/Heritage Trees: Yes, see discussion below
Historic Resource(s): Not Applicable
Existing Improvement(s): Concrete culvert (constructed 1940s)
Existing Land Use(s): Public Street Right-of-Way and San Francisquito Creek
Adjacent Land Uses &
Zoning:
North: R-1 Zoning (single-family residential land uses within Menlo
Park)
2
Packet Pg. 11
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 3
West: R-1 and PF Zoning (single-family residential land uses outside
the creek; Timothy Hopkins Park)
East: R-1 and PF Zoning (single-family residential land uses outside
the creek; Timothy Hopkins Park)
South: R-1 Zoning (single-family residential land uses)
Aerial View of Property: See Attachment A
Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans
Zoning Designation: Not Applicable. Public Right-of-Way
Comp. Plan Designation: Public Park and Streamside Open Space for the bridge; Streamside
Open Space for work within the creek; some channel work will affect
properties located within the single-family residential land use
designation
Context-Based
Design Criteria: Not Applicable
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
Uses or Districts (150'): Applicable
Located w/in the Airport
Influence Area: Not Applicable
Prior City Reviews & Action
City Council: None
PTC: None
HRB: None
ARB: None
Project Description
Attachment A includes a location map showing the locations where work will occur; this
includes six locations within the City of Palo Alto. The applicant’s project description and
proposed plans are included in Attachments C and D, respectively.
The proposed Upstream of Highway 101 Project includes modifications along San Francisquito
Creek between Highway 101 to just upstream of the Pope Chaucer Bridge. Components within
the City of Palo Alto include the replacement of Pope Chaucer Bridge, which is jointly owned
and maintained by the Cities of Menlo Park and Palo Alto; modifications to the channel in four
2
Packet Pg. 12
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 4
locations; and modifications to the sacked concrete/retaining wall in one location at the top of
the creek bank.
Pope Chaucer Bridge
The existing Pope Chaucer Bridge is a large concrete culvert built in the 1940s. The bridge is a
40-foot wide, two-lane, bi-directional bridge that connects Palo Alto Avenue in Palo Alto to
Woodland Avenue in Menlo Park. The maximum flow capacity beneath the bridge is restricted
to 5,800 cubic feet per second (cfs). The Upstream of Highway 101 Project would replace the
existing concrete culvert with a new bridge that allows for flows of up to 7,500 cfs to pass
beneath. This is consistent with the capacity of the creek downstream of the Pope Chaucer
Bridge (when accompanied by the proposed channel widening) and accommodates a 70-year
flood event. A 70-year flood event (7,500 cfs) is equivalent to the 1998 flood, which is the
largest flood on record within San Francisquito Creek. The project, as well as previously
improved downstream improvements, would not preclude future improvements that could
accommodate a 100-year flood event.
The proposed concrete bridge would be 32’ 4” from curb to curb with a 6’ 3” sidewalk on each
side. The total width of the bridge would be 44’ 6”. The bridge would remain a two-lane bi-
directional bridge. Along the bridge sidewalk, four viewing decks (two on each side) are
proposed. Four proposed lampposts would provide lighting for pedestrians and vehicles across
the proposed deck. Because the existing bridge is a culvert (i.e. the area beneath the bridge is a
cemented tunnel), the bottom of the creek bank is currently concrete hardscape. The project
would replace the bridge/culvert with a bridge that spans the creek bed. The concrete on the
bed of the bank would be removed and the area would be restored, improving fish habitat.
Creek Channel Widening
As shown in Attachment A, the proposed Upstream of Highway 101 Project includes six
locations within Palo Alto. At four of these locations (sites 1, 3, 4 and 5) the project includes
channel widening to improve conveyance. In these locations the bank is either concretized or
covered by sacked concrete installed in the 1960s. Widening the creek in these locations would
require the removal of some vegetation, including trees, within the creek bank. After widening,
the new creek banks will be stabilized using sheet pile or soil nail walls and armored at the base
with rock slope protection and vegetation to prevent erosion at the base of the channel.
Retaining Wall
In the back of two Palo Alto private properties located at 87 Crescent Drive and 79 Crescent
Drive, the project would add between 1 and 4 feet of creek bank elevation to 225 linear feet of
creek bank (see site 2 in Attachment A). Along 125 feet of the bank, this would be accomplished
by increasing the height of the existing sacked concrete wall. Along 100 feet of the bank this
would be accomplished with a concrete retaining wall, which would replace an existing wooden
retaining wall. This work will require temporary and permanent easements.
Requested Entitlements, Findings and Purview:
The following discretionary applications are being requested:
2
Packet Pg. 13
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 5
x Architectural Review – Major (AR): The process for evaluating this type of application is
set forth in PAMC 18.77.070. AR applications are reviewed by the ARB and
recommendations are typically forwarded to the Planning & Community Environment
Director for action within five business days of the Board’s recommendation. Action by
the Director is appealable to the City Council if filed within 14 days of the decision.
Because the proposed actions within the City of Palo Alto rely on an EIR for which
overriding considerations were adopted, the proposed application will be forwarded to
Council for a decision. If the Council approves the application, it must also adopt
overriding considerations for the project. AR projects are evaluated against specific
findings. All findings must be made in the affirmative to approve the project. Failure to
make any one finding requires project redesign or denial. The findings to approve an AR
application are provided in Attachment B.
Analysis1
The proposed project is located in an area characterized by low density residential both within
the City of Palo Alto, south of San Francisquito Creek, and Menlo Park, north of San Francisquito
Creek. Within Palo Alto’s jurisdiction, the bridge approach is located within Timothy Hopkins
Creekside Park.
Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans and Guidelines2
The Comprehensive Plan includes Goals, Policies, and Programs that guide the physical form of
the City. There are six identified work locations within the City of Palo Alto. These include the
Pope-Chaucer bridge replacement, four channel widening sites, and one location where
modifications are proposed at the top of the creek bank.
The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the Pope Chaucer Bridge approach is Parks
(P), within Timothy Hopkins Creekside Park. The Parks land use designation applies to open
lands whose primary purpose is public access for active recreation and whose character is
essentially urban. The replacement bridge at Pope-Chaucer would not affect the continued use
of Timothy Hopkins Creekside Park, which runs along the creek from Emerson to Marlowe
streets. The existing park improvement ordinance provides exceptions and reservations for
bridge abutments and associated modifications, as discussed further below.
Within the five proposed locations for creek widening and retaining wall/sacked concrete wall
work, the land use designation within the creek is Streamside Open Space and the areas above
the top of bank are designated as single family residential. The Streamside Open Space land use
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 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/landuse/compplan.asp
2
Packet Pg. 14
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 6
designation is “intended to preserve and enhance corridors of riparian vegetation along
streams. Hiking, biking, and riding trails may be developed in the streamside open space. The
corridor will generally vary in width up to 200 feet on either side of the center line of the
creek.” The single-family residential land use designation applies to residential neighborhoods
primarily characterized by detached single-family homes, typically with one dwelling unit on
each lot.
The project also includes minor modifications within the public street right-of-way adjacent the
bridge within the Cities of Palo Alto (south side) and Menlo Park (north side). These include
sidewalk resurfacing and replanting within the street planter strips and the addition of a stop
sign at the intersection of Chaucer and Palo Alto Avenue in Palo Alto. The modifications would
not permanently impact street parking. To the extent that these are within the public street
right-of-way they are not subject to zoning and land use restrictions for any specific zone
district or land use designation. However, the proposed modifications meet the intent and
objectives of the code and are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the Bicycle and
Pedestrian Transportation Plan, and other City policies.
A detailed review of the project’s consistency with goals and policies outlined in the
Comprehensive will be provided as part of the formal review. The project is generally consistent
with, and implements, goals and policies outlined in the land use element, natural element and
the hazards element.
Zoning Compliance3
The Pope Chaucer Bridge and its approach are located within land zoned Public Facilities (PF).
The PF zone district is designed to accommodate governmental, public utility, educational, and
community service or recreational facilities. Permitted uses within the zone district include
public facilities owned or leased by the City or other governmental agencies. The replacement
of a publicly owned and maintained bridge is consistent with this zoning. Though the
development standards outlined in this zone district are geared toward building development
rather than construction of a bridge within public right-of-way, the Pope Chaucer Bridge would
be consistent with the intent of the zoning standards.
The proposed creek channel widening does not include the construction of new above grade
structures that would have the potential to conflict with zoning regulations. The project would
require removal of some vegetation within the creek bank to widen the channel; however all
creek widening work within the City of Palo Alto would occur within locations where the creek
bank is already hardscaped. The creek bank would be reinforced with soil nail walls or sheet
piles. At the base, boulders would be placed to provide rock slope protection and vegetation
would be installed to anchor the rock slope protection. This would prevent scouring at the base
of the creek channel.
3 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: http://www.amlegal.com/codes/client/palo-alto_ca
2
Packet Pg. 15
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 7
As noted above, infrastructure work located within the public right-of-way would not be subject
to the restrictions of a specific zoning designation. Adjacent residences within the City of Palo
Alto are zoned single family residential (R-1[10,000]) and adjacent residences within the City of
Menlo Park are also single family residential. All work associated with the bridge would be
within public ROW and is consistent with the intent and regulations of work within the public
facilities zone district and single-family residential zone district. Where vegetation is planned
for removal along the public ROW, the vegetation would be replaced as shown in the proposed
landscaping plan in the project plans Attachment D.
Trees
Some trees are located within public right-of-way and are therefore considered protected
street trees. No heritage trees would be removed, and no protected oaks or redwoods would
be removed within the City of Palo Alto. The SFCJPA and Valley Water are responding to
comments from Planning and Urban Forestry staff. The task is to calculate the total canopy loss
for all trees (including street trees and trees within the creek bank) to be removed for channel
widening or bridge construction. The final plans will identify the locations for replacement
planting to ensure that sufficient canopy is proposed to prevent a net loss of canopy. This may
require the inclusion of additional planting locations, beyond what is identified in the current
plan sets.
Lighting
The proposed lighting is designed to accommodate sufficient lighting for all modes of
transportation across the bridge. The lighting will be shielded on the Creekside to ensure that
light does not spill over to the creek below, which could impact fish within the creek. The lights
on the north side (Menlo Park) would be serviced by PG&E. The lights on the south side (Palo
Alto) would be serviced by the City of Palo Alto.
Public Park
Council established Timothy Hopkins Creekside Park on June 7, 1971, adopting Ordinance
26034. As noted in the ordinance, the ordinance excepts and reserves “the right to use and
occupy as much of the land demised as may be necessary for abutments, roadways and
approaches for bridges across said creek from any and all portions of said street or avenue
known as Palo Alto Avenue.” Therefore, the project does not conflict with the existing Park
Improvement Ordinance (PIO) and does not require approval of an amendment to the existing
PIO.
Multi-Modal Access & Parking
The project would continue to provide safe access over the creek for vehicles, pedestrians, and
cyclists. The new bridge would include a sidewalk on each side and four viewing decks for
people walking along the bridge. Because there are no bicycle lanes on the streets on either
4 Ordinance 2603 establishing Timothy Hopkins Creekside Park can be found at the following webpage:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=65475.32&BlobID=70260
2
Packet Pg. 16
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 8
side of the bridge, separate bicycle lanes are not currently proposed. However, the curb to curb
paved width could accommodate Class II bicycle lanes on either side of the bridge in the future.
These would be striped and signed if bicycle lanes or sharrows are added, either within Palo
Alto or Menlo Park, on adjacent roadways in the future.
The City’s Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan (BPTP) includes policies such as Policy T-5,
which indicates that when modifying roadways, the City should plan for usage of the roadway
space by all users, including motor vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians. It is also consistent with
general goals to encourage alternate modes of transportation and Objective 4 of the BPTP to
“plan, construct, and maintain complete streets that are safe and accessible to all modes and
people of all ages and disabilities.” The project is not located on a Safe Routes to School path.
The project also proposes installation of a new stop sign at the southeast corner of the
intersection at Palo Alto Avenue and Chaucer Street. The proposed bridge is raised in
comparison to the surrounding streets to provide sufficient creek flow beneath the bridge. The
proposed stop sign is a safety feature intended to slow traffic approaching the bridge to
accommodate the proposed grade difference.
The plans do not clearly show whether the project will impact street parking. Staff has
requested clarification from the SFCJPA as to whether any street parking would be temporarily
or permanently impacted.
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 SFCJPA Board, acting as the lead agency,
circulated a Draft EIR in accordance with CEQA for the Upstream of Highway 101 Project from
April 22, 2019 through June 19, 2019 (SCH #2013062019). In September 2019, the SFCJPA
Board published a Final EIR for the proposed project, which it certified on September 26, 2019.
A responsible agency is a public agency, other than the lead agency, which has a responsibility
for carrying out or approving a project. The City of Palo Alto is a responsible agency for the
proposed project because it must issue permits and approvals for the project work proposed
within its jurisdiction.
As a recommending body, the City of Palo Alto’s Architectural Review Board must consider the
environmental analysis that the SFCJPA Board previously certified for the Upstream of Highway
101 Project, and determine whether the analysis is adequate to support its recommendation on
the proposed work within the City of Palo Alto.
The conclusions for each resource area are provided in each resource section within Chapter 3
of the EIR. The EIR concluded that most impacts would either be less than significant or less
than significant with the implementation of mitigation measures. In particular, the Final EIR
analyzed traffic impacts associated with project construction and operation. The analysis
2
Packet Pg. 17
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 9
concludes that project construction would result in traffic impacts during construction.
However, with incorporation of mitigation, traffic impacts would be less than significant. The
project would not result in permanent impacts on traffic. The mitigation measures include:
(1) a temporary traffic signal at Middlefield Road/Woodland Avenue-Palo Alto Avenue for
the duration of the Pope-Chaucer Bridge closure, and
(2) preparation of a site-specific traffic control plan, which would require the City of Palo
Alto’s review and approval.
Impacts and identified mitigation measures for other resource areas are summarized in Table 1
of the EIR within the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations on page v of
the Final EIR—September 2019 Volume 1.
However, the EIR concluded that impacts associated with temporary increase in noise levels
during construction as well as elevated air pollution concentrations were found to be significant
and unavoidable. Therefore, in order to approve the proposed project work within the City of
Palo Alto, City Council will be requested to make findings of overriding considerations for these
significant impacts.
Staff notes that a resident in Menlo Park has initiated a suit against the SFCJPA Board
challenging the environmental analysis for the project. The SFCJPA is pursuing settlement
discussions with the petitioner. This legal challenge does not preclude the ARB or Council from
making a determination with respect to a recommendation or a decision on the project.
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 creek bank from
Highway 101 to Pope-Chaucer Bridge at least ten days in advance of this hearing. Notice of a
public hearing for this project was published in the Daily Post on December 4, 2020, which is 13
days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on December 3, 2020, which is 14
days in advance of the meeting.
Public Comments
As of the writing of this report, staff had been contacted by one Palo Alto resident and one
Menlo Park resident with questions regarding the proposed project. One resident wanted to
understand the location of the project work in relation to her property, but otherwise did not
have comments regarding the proposed project. One resident lives within the City of Menlo
Park at the corner of the bridge and Woodland Avenue. The resident called staff to discuss the
possibility of eliminating the left turn from Palo Alto Avenue onto Pope Chaucer Bridge. The
change would presumably reduce traffic on Woodland Avenue in Menlo Park, which some
drivers use as an alternate access route to the University Avenue/101 interchange. This
proposal and its possible effects on other crossings have not been evaluated in the traffic
analysis because they have not been proposed by the applicant. The proposed project, as
currently designed, is not anticipated to impact traffic patterns on the bridge or adjacent
2
Packet Pg. 18
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 10
roadways during operation. This proposal would change an existing condition at the site. If staff
is directed to pursue this request, further analysis of the traffic impacts on other intersections
and roadways within the City of Palo Alto would likely be necessary to determine the impacts of
the change on intersections and road segments within Palo Alto.
SFCJPA in coordination with partnering agencies have held numerous public meetings and
hearings on the Upstream of Highway 101 Project. These include four public scooping meetings
in early 2017, three public workshops later in 2017 to obtain further public input, and three
public meetings during the DEIR circulation period. In addition, as required in accordance with
CEQA, Appendix F of the final EIR (included in the link in Attachment D) includes all comment
letters received on the draft EIR and provides the SFCJPA’s detailed responses to each of those
comments.
Attachments:
x Attachment A: Location Map (PDF)
x Attachment B: Architectural Review Findings (DOTX)
x Attachment C: Applicant's Project Description (PDF)
x Attachment D: Project Plans and Environmental Analysis (DOCX)
2
Packet Pg. 19
San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority Program Description
^ŽƵƌĐĞ͗^an Francisquito Creek Flood
Protection, Ecosystem Restoration, and
Recreation Project Upstream of Highway 101
Final Environmental Impact Report
September 2019
ICF 00712.12
Figure ϭ. >ŽĐĂƚŝŽŶŽĨhƉƐƚƌĞĂŵWƌŽũĞĐƚ ůĞŵĞŶƚƐ
2.a
Packet Pg. 20
ATTACHMENT B
ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL
1700 & 1730 Embarcadero Road
18PLN-00186
In order for the ARB to make a future recommendation of approval, the project must comply
with the following Findings for Architectural Review as required in Chapter 18.76.020 of the
PAMC.
Finding #1: The 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.
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,
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.
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.
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.).
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.
Finding #6: The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas
related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site
planning.
2.b
Packet Pg. 21
CONTEXT-BASED DESIGN CRITERIA
1700 & 1730 Embarcadero Road
18PLN-00186
Pursuant to PAMC 18.16.090(b), the following context-based design considerations and
findings are applicable to this project. These context-based design criteria are intended to
provide additional standards to be used in the design and evaluation of development in a
commercial district. The purpose is to encourage development in a commercial district to be
responsible to its context and compatibility with adjacent development as well as to promote
the establishment of pedestrian oriented design.
1. Pedestrian and Bicycle Environment
The design of new projects shall promote pedestrian walkability, a bicycle friendly
environment, and connectivity through design elements
2. Street Building Facades
Street facades shall be designed to provide a strong relationship with the sidewalk and the
street (s), to create an environment that supports and encourages pedestrian activity through
design elements
3. Massing and Setbacks
Buildings shall be designed to minimize massing and conform to proper setbacks
4. Low Density Residential Transitions
Where new projects are built abutting existing lower scale residential development, care shall
be taken to respect the scale and privacy of neighboring properties
5. Project Open Space
Private and public open space shall be provided so that it is usable for the residents and
visitors of the site
6. Parking Design
Parking shall be accommodated but shall not be allowed to overwhelm the character of the
project or detract from the pedestrian environment
7. Large Multi-Acre Sites
Large sites (over one acre) shall be designed so that street, block, and building patterns are
consistent with those of the surrounding neighborhood
8. Sustainability and Green Building Design
Project design and materials to achieve sustainability and green building design should be
incorporated into the project
2.b
Packet Pg. 22
DEE FINDINGS
1700 & 1730 Embarcadero Road
18PLN-00186
In order for the ARB to make a future recommendation of approval for a design enhancement
exception, the project must comply with the following Findings for a Design Enhancement
Exception as required in Chapter 18.76.050 of the PAMC.
Finding #1: There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to
the property or site improvements involved that do not apply generally to property in the same
zone district;
Finding #2: The granting of the application will enhance the appearance of the site or structure,
or improve the neighborhood character of the project and preserve an existing or proposed
architectural style, in a manner which would not otherwise be accomplished through strict
application of the minimum requirements of this title (Zoning) and the architectural review
findings set forth in Section 18.76.020(d); and
Finding #3: The exception is related to a minor architectural feature or site improvement that
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.
2.b
Packet Pg. 23
1 | Page Aug 28, 2020
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
San Francisquito Creek Flood Reduction, Ecosystem Restoration and Recreation Project
Upstream of Highway 101
Prepared for:
City of Palo Alto
City of Menlo Park
City of East Palo Alto
BACKGROUND
The San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority (SFCJPA) is a regional governmental agency created
in 1999 after the 1998 flood-of-record that resulted in the inundation of approximately 1,700 properties
and more than $28 million in estimated damages. The SFCJPA is comprised of and funded by the Cities
of Palo Alto, East Palo Alto and Menlo Park, Santa Clara Valley Water District and the San Mateo County
Flood and Sea Level Rise Resiliency District.
San Francisquito Creek has been divided into three reaches: Reach 1 - from San Francisco Bay to
Highway 101, Reach 2 - from Highway 101 to the Pope Chaucer Bridge, and Reach 3 - the upper San
Francisquito Creek watershed.
The SFCJPA completed construction of a multi-benefit project in the creek in Reach 1 in 2019 and is now
focused on this project in Reach 2.
The objectives of the San Francisquito Creek Flood Reduction, Ecosystem Restoration and Recreation
Project, Upstream of Highway 101 Project (Upstream Project) within Reach 2 are:
x Protect life, property, and infrastructure from floodwaters exiting the creek during flows up to
7,500 cubic feet per second (cfs), while minimizing impacts of the project on adjacent
communities and the environment,
x Enhance habitat within the project area, particularly interconnected habitat for threatened and
endangered species,
x Create new recreational opportunities and connect to existing bike and pedestrian corridors,
x Minimize operational and maintenance requirements; and
x Not preclude future actions to bring cumulative flood protection up to a 100-year flow event.
This project description summarizes the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority’s
Reach 2 Upstream Project proposal, and follows the format required for Palo Alto
Architectural Review Board (ARB) outlined below:
___ Scope of work
___ Existing and proposed uses
___ Explanation of the design concept
___ Relationship to existing conditions on site
___ Materials, colors, and construction methods to be used
Discussions with Menlo Park and East Palo Alto staff confirmed that this format is
acceptable for their review.
2.c
Packet Pg. 24
2 | Page Aug 28, 2020
SCOPE OF WORK
The Reach 2 Upstream Project is located along the creek from Highway 101 to just upstream of the Pope
Chaucer Bridge. Components will be constructed in Palo Alto, Menlo Park and East Palo Alto, since the
San Francisquito Creek is the boundary between these cities, as well as the boundary of Santa Clara and
San Mateo Counties.
The Reach 2 Upstream Project scope and locations are summarized below, and shown in Figure 1:
1. Replace the Pope-Chaucer bridge, which is jointly owned and maintained by the Cities of Menlo
Park and Palo Alto.
2. Widen the creek channel at four locations on the Palo Alto side of San Francisquito Creek where
the bank is covered by sacked concrete that was installed in the 1960’s. After widening, the new
creek banks will be stabilized using sheet pile or soil nail walls and armored at the base with rock
to prevent scour.
3. In the back of two Palo Alto properties, add between 1 and 4 feet of creek bank elevation to 225
linear feet of creek bank through sacked concrete atop the existing sacked concrete wall (125
feet) and through a concrete retaining wall that largely replaces an existing wooden retaining wall
(100 feet);
4. Remove a concrete structure on the East Palo Alto side of the creek and replace it with a more
natural creek bank with native habitat area and a small creek-side park.
5. Replace a temporary wooden parapet extension of the University Avenue bridge that runs along
Woodland Avenue in East Palo Alto with a permanent structure composed of reinforced concrete.
Items 1-3 above are located fully or partially in the Palo Alto city limits. Item 1 is partially located in Menlo
Park. Items 4 and 5 are in East Palo Alto.
The Upstream Project will provide protection from a flood event similar to the 1998 event, which is
considered a 70-year flood. This is the largest recorded flood since the US Geological Survey began
measurements in the 1930’s.
The Upstream Project will not protect the area around the San Francisquito Creek from a 100-year flood
event (which has a 1% chance of happening in any given year). A project protecting people and
infrastructure to this level was proposed in 2013 and rejected by residents. The SFCJPA included
alternatives that could supplement this project to increase protection to the 100-year level, including
upstream detention, on a programmatic level it its Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Future 100-
year flood protection is envisioned as an additive project in the future. Just as this project cannot provide
100-year protection by itself, the topography of the upper watershed does not allow for upstream
detention at the scale needed to provide 100-year protection on its own. Only a combination of the
current project’s channel conveyance improvements,coupled with upstream detention or other similar
flow reduction features can achieve 100-year protection for San Francisquito Creek.
The Upstream Project benefited from an independently facilitated stakeholder and community
engagement process in 2018- 2019 that included six public meetings, two workshops, and a site tour.
We also partnered with the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) for the Upstream Project and held joint
public meetings for their parallel feasibility study and environmental impact statement. The ACOE’s
2.c
Packet Pg. 25
San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority Program Description
^ŽƵƌĐĞ͗^an Francisquito Creek Flood
Protection, Ecosystem Restoration, and
Recreation Project Upstream of Highway 101
Final Environmental Impact Report
September 2019
ICF 00712.12
Figure ϭ. >ŽĐĂƚŝŽŶŽĨhƉƐƚƌĞĂŵWƌŽũĞĐƚ ůĞŵĞŶƚƐ
2.c
Packet Pg. 26
3 | Page Aug 28, 2020
Tentatively Selected Plan in October 2018 was the same alternative selected by the CEQA process in the
Upstream Project’s EIR. This independent evaluation by the ACOE corroborated the selection of the
Upstream Project alternative, which is supported by most of the community. The SFCJPA Board
unanimously certified the EIR on September 26, 2019.
A resident adjacent to the Pope Chaucer Bridge has initiated a suit against the project under the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); the SFCJPA is pursuing settlement discussions with the
petitioner. The suit did not affect the June 2020 award of $2,964,479 for project construction from the
California Department of Water Resources.
Preliminary design has been completed for each of the project elements.
EXISTING AND PROPOSED USES
The project will not change existing zoning or land use. Existing zoning in Palo Alto consists of residential
in the areas of creek widening, and public facility for the Pope-Chaucer Bridge. Existing zoning in Menlo
Park is residential. Existing zoning in East Palo Alto is residential and adjoining commercial.
DESIGN CONCEPT EXPLANATION
The design concept for each of the five project elements is described below:
1. Pope-Chaucer Bridge Replacement
The existing Pope-Chaucer bridge is a large concrete culvert built in the 1940’s, with a maximum flow
capacity of approximately 5,800 cubic feet per second (cfs). Sediment is accumulating on the concrete
culvert bottom, and the culvert is a target for graffiti, as well as homeless living inside.
The new bridge will have a flow capacity of approximately 7,500 cfs. The design concept for the new
Pope-Chaucer bridge is an environmentally friendly design with a natural creek bed that will be as open
as possible given the existing homes in the area that formed significant constraints on the bridge design.
The SFCJPA listened to residents for a bridge design that passes the required flow, while minimizing the
impacts to local roads / intersections / and resident’s front yards. Therefore, while there will be short term
effects during construction, creek flooding has been addressed without requiring changes at local
residences or the adjoining intersections at Pope and Chaucer Streets.
The regulatory community would have preferred a single span bridge; however, this would have resulted
in a much larger construction footprint and would be more invasive for the nearby residences. A single
span bridge would have required a thicker structure depth, meaning it would have also needed to be
raised higher to not impede any creek flows; additionally, this higher profile bridge would have required
raising nearby roadways and intersections to match the single span bridge elevation. Therefore, the
designer selected a three-span bridge, supported by two piers alongside features that support fish
migration (fishpools, rootwad structures, etc.). The three span bridge results in a much thinner structure,
allowing a lower roadway profile, that reduces changes to the adjacent intersections.
The new Pope Chaucer Bridge does not require raising existing streets or adding retaining walls. The
intersections on both the Palo Alto and Menlo Park sides will be matched to the existing elevation. In
addition, roadway width on the bridge will match the Pope and Chaucer Street widths, to not create a
choke point and increase risks to motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians. Both sides of the bridge will have
2.c
Packet Pg. 27
4 | Page Aug 28, 2020
sidewalks with two outlooks and two streetlamps. Traffic calming measures are integrated into the bridge
design, including 4-way stop and no dedicated right turn lane.
In 1991, the right turn lane on the Pope-Chaucer bridge onto Woodland Avenue was removed by
covering the concrete culvert in this area with soil and planting trees. This triangle park-like feature with
the planted trees will be lost when the new bridge is constructed. The City of Menlo Park is evaluating
how to move and replant some of these trees, since their roots may be confined above the concrete
culvert.
A goal of this project is to minimize tree removals, and we have worked with arborists to assess trees
within the project footprint to help the SFCJPA determine how the actual footprint may be modified to be
made smaller to preserve the maximum number of healthiest and largest trees. For example, there is a
large Eucalyptus tree near the construction access ramp for bridge replacement, and we are committed to
adjusting the access ramp within the project footprint to better protect that tree.
The bridge design incorporated the residents’ desire not to have a right turn lane, because having one
encourages speeding and cut-through traffic to bypass University Avenue. Additionally, to reduce speeds
in the neighborhood and deter cut-through traffic, a stop sign will be added to Chaucer Street at Palo Alto
Avenue, to make both intersections on either end of the new bridge a four-way stop.
The replacement of the existing Pope-Chaucer bridge will require roadway closure for approximately nine
months; traffic on Woodland Avenue and Palo Alto Avenue will be temporarily restricted as one-way at
times during the day, and traffic will not be able to cross over the creek in this area during construction.
Construction within the creek will need to follow a limited work window to protect fish, typically June 15-
October 15. Approximately 1,000 cubic yards (CY) of material will be removed below the ordinary high-
water mark, and approximately 5,000 CY will be removed between the ordinary high-water mark and the
top of the bank. Streambed vegetation from about 200 feet downstream of the bridge to 700 feet
upstream will be removed as needed to accommodate construction equipment. The creek streambed,
banks, and slopes will be restored and revegetated upon completion of the bridge construction.
2. Creek Channel Widening
San Francisquito Creek must be widened at specific locations where additional hydraulic capacity is
needed. As shown on Figure 1, the widening sites in Palo Alto are Sites 1, 3, 4 and 5. Site 2 will be
widened in East Palo Alto.
We chose to widen mainly on the Palo Alto side of the creek because at the locations that need widening,
the Palo Alto side of San Francisquito Creek is already armored with concrete. Therefore, excavation and
engineering work on these banks will not change the already armored character of that portion of the
creek. The East Palo Alto side of the creek is largely natural. The exception is Site 2, in East Palo Alto,
where there is a large concrete terrace structure that we will remove and restore to a more natural creek
bank and create a small creek-side park. We have been in discussions with the Palo Alto homeowners,
and to date, no one has objected to the planned changes. We had an arborist evaluate the trees in the
Palo Alto back yards and how best to protect them (This report is provided in Appendix B of the EIR).
However, if the SFCJPA is not able obtain the needed easements to widen on the Palo Alto side of the
creek, we will widen the creek on the East Palo Alto side, since the necessary easements are available
from the City. If this alternative becomes necessary it will require additional mitigation, as it will result in
the removal of riparian habitat.
2.c
Packet Pg. 28
5 | Page Aug 28, 2020
Of the four widening sites on the Palo Alto side of the creek, we plan to widen at Site 5 first, but the
contractor will establish the actual schedule. The rationale for widening this site first is twofold: it links the
Downstream and Caltrans widening to the Reach 2 Upstream project, and it has the most difficult access
considerations compared to the other sites. This area is just upstream of the West Bayshore Road
(frontage road) bridge and forms a “C” shaped creek constriction that was man-made in the early 1900’s.
Caltrans constructed the new larger capacity multi-span bridge at this location in 2017, but one of the four
spans is currently blocked off until the creek can be widened. A new floodwall will be constructed at this
location to widen the creek to the full width of the new bridge, approximately 30 feet wider than existing
conditions. The existing floodwall, footing, and sacked concrete slope protection will be removed, and the
underlying bank soils excavated to the designed channel width and geometry. The new floodwall will be
constructed along the top of bank from the frontage road extending approximately 350 feet upstream to
meet the existing floodwall and sacked concrete bank. The current capacity in this area is greater than
8,000 cfs, and the post-project capacity in this location will be 9,400 cfs.
Upstream of this site, on the Palo Alto bank at Sites 1, 3 and 4 (see Figure 1), the concrete banks will be
cut back and braced with a reinforced concrete soil nail wall or sheet pile wall to widen the constriction
points in the creek. The replacement of sacked concrete with concrete soil nail walls or sheet pile walls
will occur in three locations: two between the Newell Road bridge and the University Avenue bridge (Site
3 and 4), and one upstream of the University Avenue bridge (Site 1). The creek reach with the lowest
capacity and in need of widening is Site 1. This section of creek overtopped in 1955, 1983, 1998, 2004
and 2012, causing road closures and property damage in East Palo Alto.
The widened channel bottom at all sites will consist of native soils and will be seeded with a mix of
appropriate native low marsh riparian plants species, resulting in improved habitat for special status
species. The widened creek channel and new habitat features will be regularly inspected and maintained.
3. Top of Bank Improvements
Behind two Palo Alto properties, just upstream of University Avenue, the existing concrete top of bank will
be elevated between 1 to 4 feet utilizing additional concrete, for a combined length of 225 feet along the
top of bank.
4. Concrete Terrace Removal and Riparian Restoration
At Site 2 (Figure 1) in East Palo Alto, a 273-foot-long concrete terrace forms an in-channel structure and
wall that will be removed. In its place, the bank will be regraded to a stable slope and planted to restore
riparian habitat, with a small creek-side park established between the top of bank and Woodland Avenue.
With the removal of the large concrete terrace structure, regrading of the slope at its location, and
installation of native vegetation to prevent erosion of slope, the stream function, habitat and channel
capacity would be improved. The City of East Palo Alto and the landowner support the project and have
contributed funding or other resources towards project planning.
5. Replacement of Temporary Wooden Parapet
In 2015, the City of East Palo Alto constructed a temporary a one- to three-foot tall wooden wall directly
upstream of University Avenue along Woodland Avenue due to overtopping of the East Palo Alto banks at
this location. This was constructed as temporary solution in anticipation of an El Nino flooding, and in
2017 successfully kept floodwaters inside the creek. However, the temporary wooden structure cannot be
certified by FEMA, and requires replacement.
2.c
Packet Pg. 29
6 | Page Aug 28, 2020
The Upstream project will replace this temporary wooden wall with a reinforced concrete wall, and it will
tie into the existing University Avenue bridge parapet. This new parapet extension will be of similar length
and height as the top of the existing wood wall. A visual of the current conditions is provided in Figure 2.
Figure 2. Temporary Wooden Wall, University and Woodland Avenues, East Palo Alto
RELATIONSHIP TO EXISTING CONDITIONS ON SITE
The new Pope-Chaucer bridge was designed to have minimal impacts to the surrounding area. The
existing adjacent road grades will not be significantly altered, with the new bridge in the same
approximate footprint, but arched higher than the current bridge. This arched design removes the need
for floodwalls to pass target flows. The creek widening areas already have concrete armoring, which will
be replaced with either a concrete soil nail wall or a sheet pile wall as such the changes will not
significantly alter the character of the creek. The creek widening areas will include habitat features along
the toe of bank, to improve stream function and fish passage. It should be noted that the creek widening
areas are not readily visible to the general public- one would need to be in the creek bed in order to see
them.
The project has been carefully designed to retain the natural features of San Francisquito Creek and
enhance the riparian corridor. Creek habitat in the area will be improved though the removal of creation of
low-velocity refuge habitat for migrating steelhead, pools and habitat structures to be added to the
channel at some of the creek widening sites as well as the Pope-Chaucer bridge site. Riparian habitat will
be improved via appropriate bank planting and invasive species removal.
Property rights have been acquired for the construction of the floodwall at Site 5 at Bayshore road, as well
as a five-foot wide maintenance trail. The new maintenance trail will follow the wall and align with the
existing five-foot trail approximately 100-feet upstream from West Bayshore Road. For the other sites,
underground easements and Temporary Construction Easements are being discussed with property
owners.
This project is not yet fully funded, and we are actively looking for additional funding so construction can
commence as planned in 2021 or 2022.
2.c
Packet Pg. 30
7 | Page Aug 28, 2020
MATERIALS, COLORS, AND CONSTRUCTION METHODS TO BE USED
The Pope-Chaucer bridge, including the foundations, piers, abutments, and wingwalls will be formed with
reinforced concrete. The bridge piles will consist of steel pipe piles that would be spun into the ground
instead of hammer-driven to minimize noise and vibrations that will disturb nearby residents during
construction. Concrete for the various bridge components will be poured directly into watertight forms to
minimize the potential for concrete entering the channel. Once the concrete is cured, the falsework and
forms will be removed. The intersections on both ends of the bridge will be resurfaced to conform with the
new bridge elevation. All construction materials and equipment will be removed from the creek at the end
of the project, and the creek will be restored to its final condition as noted in the contract documents and
in compliance with permit requirements.
The current bridge design has four curved outlooks for pedestrians to view the creek, two on the
upstream side and two on the downstream side. Adjacent to each outlook, there will be a total of four
lamp lights installed, with low lumens bulbs to provide nighttime visibility and ambiance without impacting
nearby residents. Lamps will be installed to illuminate the bridge deck and minimize light pollution to
nearby residences or the stream surface.
Bridge renderings 1 to 2 years after construction are provided in Figures 3 and 4.
Figure 3 Pope Chaucer Bridge Rendering Aerial View one to two years after construction.
2.c
Packet Pg. 31
8 | Page Aug 28, 2020
Figure 4 Pope Chaucer Bridge Rendering one to two years after construction
At creek widening locations with sheet pile walls, the sheet piles will be installed in the same manner as
our project from San Francisco Bay to Highway 101 that was completed in June 2019. Installation of the
sheet piles will be achieved with as little impact to neighboring residents as possible. Where feasible,
silent piling techniques will be used to press in the sheets in lieu of vibratory or hammer driven sheets,
which create significantly more noise and vibrations. The steel sheet piles will be sized appropriately to
account for a sacrificial corrosion layer beyond the required thickness to ensure structural stability; they
are not currently planned to be painted.
Figure 5 Example of sheet pile installed downstream
2.c
Packet Pg. 32
9 | Page Aug 28, 2020
Sheet piles must be used for the replacement floodwall upstream of the West Bayshore Road bridge (Site
5 on Figure 1) due to the limited access at West Bayshore Road and to minimize soil disturbance.
For the widening areas # 1, 3 and 4 shown on Figure 1, sheet piles or reinforced concrete soil nail walls
could be used depending on design, constructability, and various site-specific issues such as impacts to
existing trees. If reinforced concrete soil nail walls are installed, architectural treatment could be
considered to enhance the appearance of the concrete face. The design team is in the process of
finalizing the wall type. A minimal amount of scour protection consisting of appropriately sized rock that
mimics natural streambed material will be placed at the toe of the walls.
The University Avenue bridge parapet extension along Woodland Avenue as well as the retaining wall
across the creek on the Palo Alto bank will be made of reinforced concrete.
Landscaping after the project is complete will consist of appropriate native plantings as well as invasive
species removal. Bioretention basins will be planted in the area by Pope Chaucer Bridge. These will
retain and treat stormwater flows per the two-year design criteria. An example bioretention basin installed
by the City of Palo Alto is provided below in Figure 6.
Figure 6. Bioretention Basin Example,
Southgate Neighborhood, Palo Alto
2.c
Packet Pg. 33
10 | Page Aug 28, 2020
REFERENCES
SFCJPA 2019.Final Environmental Impact Report, San Francisquito Creek Flood Protection, Ecosystem
Restoration and Recreation Project Upstream of Highway 101, SCH: 2013062019; prepared by ICF
International September 2019.
SFCJPA 2000. Bank Stabilization Master Plan https://menlopark.org/207/Master-Plan-Report
SFCJPA 2009. San Francisquito Creek Flood Reduction Alternatives Analysis prepared by PWA and HT
Harvey & Associates, July 17.
SFCJPA 2003. San Francisquito Creek Watershed Sediment Analysis Final Report, prepared by
Northwest Hydraulic Consultants and Jones & Stokes, November.
San Francisco Estuary Institute-Aquatic Science Center (SFEI-ASC). 2016. San Francisquito Creek
Baylands Landscape Change Metrics Analysis.A Report of SFEI-ASC’s Resilient Landscapes Program,
Publication #784, San Francisco Estuary Institute-Aquatic Science Center, Richmond, CA.
Riley, A.L. 2016. Restoring Neighborhood Streams Planning, Design and Construction,Island Press
SFC Watershed Council 2005.A Vision for San Francisquito Creek Watershed; A View From 2005.
Published by San Francisquito Creek Watershed Council 2005.
Santa Clara Valley Water District, 2016. San Francisquito Creek Hydrology Study, Hydraulics, Hydrology
and Geomorphology Unit FINAL (Addendum #1). December.
US Army Corps of Engineers, 2018. San Francisco District, Tentatively Selected Plan Briefing, October
11.
US Army Corps of Engineers, 2009. Final Report, San Francisquito Creek Development and Calibration
of Hydraulic Model.Prepared by Noble Consultants, May 26.
2.c
Packet Pg. 34
Attachment D
Project Plans and CEQA Document
During Shelter-in-Place, project plans and CEQA documents are only available online.
Directions to review Project plans and Environmental Impact Report online:
1. Go to: bit.ly/PApendingprojects
2. Scroll down to find “San Francisquito Creek Project” and click the address link
3. On this project specific webpage you will find a link to the project plans,
Environmental Impact Report and other important information
Direct Link to Project Webpage:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=4997&TargetID=319
2.d
Packet Pg. 35
Architectural Review Board
Staff Report (ID # 11861)
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 12/17/2020
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: Architectural Review Board Annual Report to Council: Review
of Letter
From: Jonathan Lait
Recommendation
Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) review and approve the draft 2020
Annual Report and direct staff to forward the 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 attached report has been revised to address comments made by Board members at the
December 3, 2020 hearing.
Staff and Board members may provide additional photographs at the hearing.
Attachments:
x Attachment A: DRAFT 2020 ARB Annual Report to Council (DOCX)
3
Packet Pg. 36
1
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: December 17, 2020
Honorable members of the Palo Alto City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission:
The 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. Our comments this year are centered on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and the
increasing importance of housing projects to the city.
A. Remote Design Review. Since March 2020 we have been conducting Architecture Review Board
meetings by Zoom teleconference. Baring our initial technical stumbles, we feel that we have been
able to successfully review projects and conduct business in this manner. A few concerns have
arisen:
x Digital drawing sets are more difficult for some board members to review. On larger and more
complex projects printed drawings have allowed us to more easily and fully comprehend the
proposed work.
x Material samples are presented in an enclosed cabinet in front of city hall, preventing board
members from having tactile access to samples as we deliberate. While a reasonable
compromise, this limits our ability to fully review the proposed materials for a project.
x Public and board member participation in our project reviews has not declined. In fact, while
some people have difficulty with the communication format (internet connectivity, microphone
operability), others have commented that tele-conference enabled meetings have enabled their
participation.
While remote meetings are a necessary temporary alternative, they are not an equivalent substitution
to in person hearings. However, a hybrid model, with some meetings held remotely, could increase
public participation.
B. San Antonio Corridor Design Standards. San Antonio Avenue is experiencing increasing
development but our zoning regulations for the area are outdated.
x The existing one-story light industrial and commercial buildings will be substantially replaced in
the coming decade. What are the best uses for this area? What size buildings are appropriate?
x How will the transportation infrastructure be upgraded?
x Other commercial areas in Palo Alto have benefited from specific design guidelines (El Camino,
California, SoFA). What is our vision for this neighborhood?
The Architectural Review Board is familiar with development issues in this neighborhood and should
be involved in the creation of new design guidelines.
C. City Council/Planning Commission communication. The Architecture Review Board has very
little formal interaction with the City Council, the Planning Commission and the Historic Resources
Board. Board members are forced to act on individual initiative to gain input from council members
and other commissioners. Joint meetings with full boards are rarely productive; yet uncoordinated
serial meetings leave commissioners unaware of feedback from colleagues on other boards.
Applicants often feel that they are ‘running a gauntlet’ of approvals rather than facing a coordinated
review.
x Request staff to provide summary reports from PTC, ARB and HRB meetings promptly following
each meeting.
3.a
Packet Pg. 37
2
x Take direct feedback from the ARB on reviewed projects up for council approval. The ARB can
appoint a member to represent the board directly to the council.
x Request staff to schedule joint preliminary discussions between the ARB, PTC and HRB
chairs/vice-chairs on projects of common interest. These ‘preliminary meetings’ would not be to
review specifics of a project; rather they would serve to coordinate the review process between
boards and planning staff.
D. Architectural Awards Program. We have postponed the Architectural Awards program until 2021
due to ongoing pandemic.
E. Objective Design Standards. In response to recently enacted state legislation, Palo Alto is being
forced to adopt objective design review standards for housing projects, effectively eliminating
architectural review on residential and mixed-use projects. The Architectural Review Board is working
closely with the planning department to develop and refine prescriptive standards for these projects in
an effort to ensure high quality design without subjective review.
Due to time constraints we have been unable to make a comprehensive outreach effort to local
stakeholders, the professional community, and the public at large. We have thus received no
community input on the proposed objective standards.
While some of our new standards will be effective, many others attempt to address issues that are
inherently subjective and simply cannot be reduced to a series of specific requirements. Ultimately,
these prescriptive standards will prove a poor replacement for our review process and design quality
will decrease.
When reflecting back on the entitlement process for Palo Alto projects many applicants agree that
architectural review improved their buildings. The typical complaints are often related to the length of
time required to garner approvals from the various permitting departments (planning, building, utilities,
public works, etc.) rather than a dissatisfaction with the changes required to meet our standards.
Our challenge is to maintain high design standards while streamlining our review process. The
recently enacted Housing Incentive Program (HIP) is a step in this direction. Improved coordination
between reviewing departments, including increased staff support, will allow faster and more efficient
project reviews. Early ARB involvement in a project review, perhaps by a rotating sub-committee,
could also prove beneficial.
F. Architectural review is important. Our review and oversight of the following projects has made a
real and significant difference.
x 788 San Antonio Road (new mixed-use building) 102 housing units
x 565 Hamilton (new mixed-use building) 19 housing units
x 3705 El Camino Real-Wilton Court (new residential bldg) 59 housing units
x 2755 El Camino Real (new residential building) 57 housing units
x 744 San Antonio Road-Marriot Hotel 297 rooms
x California Avenue Commercial District parking garage 636 parking spaces
Show image of initial design and approved design/constructed project
3.a
Packet Pg. 38
3
788 San Antonio - Initial Proposal 788 San Antonio - Final Design
565 Hamilton - Initial Proposal 565 Hamilton - Final Design
3705 El Camino Real - Initial Proposal 3705 El Camino - Final Design
3.a
Packet Pg. 39
4
2755 El Camino Real - Initial Proposal 2755 El Camino Real - Initial Proposal
Provide image from initial design. Provide image of completed structure.
744 San Antonio Road - Initial Proposal 744 San Antonio Road - Initial Proposal
Provide image of completed structure.
California Ave. Garage - Initial Proposal California Ave. Garage - Initial Proposal
3.a
Packet Pg. 40
5
ALTERNATE LIST OF HOUSING PROJECTS (if we want to show only housing projects)
2020 ARB review
x 3585 El Camino Real (new mixed-use building) 3 housing units
x 788 San Antonio Avenue (new mixed-use building) 102 housing units
2019 ARB review
x 702 Clara Drive (new residential building) 3 housing units
x 2342 Yale Street (new residential building) 3 housing units
x 565 Hamilton (new mixed-use building) 19 housing units
x 567 Homer Avenue (new residential building) 3 housing units
x 190 Channing Avenue (new mixed-use building) 4 housing units
2018 ARB review
x 2321 Wellesley Street (new residential building) 2 housing units
x 4115 El Camino Real (new mixed-use building) 7 housing units
x 3705 El Camino Real-Wilton Court (new residential bldg) 59 housing units
x 2609 Alma Street (new residential building) 4 housing units
x 356 Hawthorne Avenue (new residential building) 3 housing units
x 2755 El Camino Real (new residential building) 57 housing units
x 3265 El Camino Real (new mixed-use building) 3 housing units
3.a
Packet Pg. 41
Architectural Review Board
Staff Report (ID # 11767)
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 12/17/2020
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650) 329-2442
Summary Title: ARB Chair/Vice-Chair Elections and Minor By-Law Updates
Title: Election of Chair and Vice-Chair for the Architectural Review
Board, and Direction on Minor Updates to the Architectural
Review Board By-Laws
From: Jonathan Lait
Recommendation
Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB):
1. Elect a new Chair and Vice-Chair to serve from December 18, 2020 to December 15,
2021
Discussion
Chair and Vice-Chair elections
Section 3.1 of the Architectural Review Board (ARB) By-Laws (Attachment A) states that officer
elections should take place “at the first meeting in October of each subsequent year”. In early
2015, when this bylaw was put into place, the terms for ARB members ended on October 30th.
This meant the Chair and Vice Chair would be selected, and both new officers and any new
board members would start at the same time on November 1st of each year.
On March 9, 2015, the City Council extended the terms of office for several Boards to
December 15th of each year. In keeping with the intent of the By-Laws, elections could be held
at the first meeting of December. However, this is a unique year in which we are sheltering-in-
place and the Council will not vote of ARB appointments until their December 14, 2020 hearing.
Therefore, the ARB Chair has asked that we hold off Chair and Vice-chair elections until we
know who Council has appointed to the next term of the ARB.
For this year, it means new Board members will start at the December 17th ARB Hearing.
Whereas, the new Chair and Vice Chair would start at the first January hearing. The new
officers would hold their position until December 15, 2021, unless otherwise changed in the By-
laws.
4
Packet Pg. 42
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 2
City Boards, Commissions, and Committees Handbook
At their November 30, 2020 hearing, City Council adopted a new City Boards, Commissions, and
Committees Handbook (Handbook). The staff report and draft Handbook can be found in
Attachment A.
In the coming months, staff will schedule a time for the ARB to discuss this important
document. Going forward, this Handbook will help guide the ARB in terms of interactions with
the media; term limits and timing; annual work plan timing; and public participation efforts.
Attachments:
x Attachment A: City Council November 30, 2020 Staff Report and Handbook (PDF)
4
Packet Pg. 43
City of Palo Alto (ID # 11811)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 11/30/2020
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Follow-up Considerations Related to Boards, Commissions
and Committees
Title: Consideration of Follow-up Recommendations by the City Council Ad
Hoc on Boards, Commissions and Committees (BCCs) Including Adopting a
Handbook and BCC Applications
From: City Manager
Lead Department: City Manager
This report transmits the following attachments on behalf of the Boards, Commissions and
Committees Council Ad Hoc:
Attachment A: City of Palo Alto Boards, Commissions and Committees Handbook
Attachment B: Architectural Review Board Application as template for all Boards and
Commission Applications
These attachments are a follow-up to the City Council discussion on October 19, 2020. For
background and reference, go to the October 19, 2020 Minutes and CMR #11682.
The revisions to the Handbook reflect Council discussion related to the Boards, Commissions
and Committees removal process; interactions with the media; term limits and timing; annual
work plan timing; and public participation efforts. In addition to the revisions reflected in the
attached draft handbook, the Ad Hoc would like the City Council to discuss timing of documents
received for Boards, Commissions, and Committees agenda items to ensure active public
participation.
Revisions to the Boards, Commissions and Committees applications reflect Ad Hoc
recommendations for City Council consideration.
Attachments:
x Attachment A: Palo Alto Boards Commissions and Committees
Handbook_REVISED_NOVEMBER 19 2020
x Attachment B: ARB Fillable Application
4.a
Packet Pg. 44
CITY BOARDS,
COMMISSIONS, AND
COMMITTEES HANDBOOK
| A Reference Guide
4.a
Packet Pg. 45
4.a
Packet Pg. 46
Boards, Commissions, and Committees Handbook| City of Palo Alto 3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.Introduction
Mandatory Review Requirement 5
About the City 6
City Council 7
II. Appointed Boards, Commissions, and Committees
Information on Appointed Boards, Commissions, and Committees 8
Limit of Terms 8
III. Your Role as a Board, Commission, or Committee Member (BCC)
Role of All Members 17
Role and Responsibilities of the Chair 18
Required Training 19
Role of the Staff Liaison(s) 19
Role of Council Liaison 19
Use of Sub-Committees and Ad Hoc Committees 20
Annual Work Plan and Performance Measures 20
Procedures for Conduct of BCC Meetings 20
Agenda and Order of Business 21
Parliamentary Procedure and Motion to Reconsider 21
Code of Conduct 22
Meeting Management 25
Attendance 26
Late Arrival to Meetings 26
Absences 27
Minutes 27
Addressing the Media and the Public 27
IV.City Policies and Procedures
Swearing In and Oath of Office 28
Form 700 Obligation and Conflict of Interest 28
Ethics Trainings 28
Removal 29
4.a
Packet Pg. 47
Boards, Commissions, and Committees Handbook| City of Palo Alto
4
V. Ralph M. Brown Act
General Overview 30
Meeting Agendas 30
Avoid Unlawful Meetings 30
Public Participation 31
VI.Conclusion ` 32
VII. Exhibit A: Workplan Template 33
4.a
Packet Pg. 48
Boards, Commissions, and Committees Handbook| City of Palo Alto 5
MANDATORY REVIEW REQUIREMENT
The Boards, Commissions, and Committees (BCC) Handbook is a reference guide that applies to
advisory and regulatory bodies. It is intended to provide an overview of basic laws and procedures
during a member's term and to clarify the role and responsibilities of the Board, Commission, and
Committee members in relation to the City Council, City staff and the public.
I , confirm that:
x I was provided with a copy of the BCC Handbook upon my appointment to a Palo Alto Board, Commission,
and Committee.
x I have read the entire Handbook, including any updates as of the signing of this document, reviewing each
section including:
x Requirements to be a member of a Board, Commission, and Committee
x Ethics Training (AB1234)
x Legal (Brown Act, Conflict of Interest, Political Reform Act)
x Role and Responsibilities
x Code of Conduct
x I agree to follow the guidelines and regulations provided in this Handbook, as required by the California
Government Codes (including the Brown Act), Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) regulations, and the
Municipal Code, as well as any other required policies/statutes. In the event there is a conflict between state
or federal law and this Handbook, state or federal law shall govern. In the event there is a conflict between
this Handbook and any procedure adopted by a BCC, this Handbook shall govern.
x I understand that the BCC Handbook is intended as a tool to provide guidance on process and procedures as
well as to draw my attention to the primary rules of serving on a BCC under the guidance of the City Council.
x No legal advice is intended through this Handbook.
x It is my responsibility to re-visit this Handbook through my term to review protocol and regulations, and for
guidance.
x I aminvitedtoconsultwiththeStaffLiaison,CityClerk,andCityAttorneyanytime I havequestionsor
concerns relating to these guidelines and my service.
Signature Date
I serve on the following BCC .
This page is due to the City Clerk's Department within 60-days of appointment. Ethics training completed on
(date)
Thank you for your attention to this important information and your responsibility as a BCC Member.
I. INTRODUCTION
4.a
Packet Pg. 49
Boards, Commissions, and Committees Handbook| City of Palo Alto 6
ABOUT THE CITY
Palo Alto, known as the “Birthplace of Silicon Valley,” is home to 69,700 residents and nearly doubles during the
day with an influx of employees from major employers. Unique among city organizations, the City of Palo Alto
operates a full array of services including its own gas, electric, water, sewer, refuse and storm drainage provided
at very competitive rates for its customers. The City of Palo Alto offers robust community amenities including 36
parks, 39 playgrounds, five community and youth centers, 41 miles of walking/biking trails and five libraries. The
City also manages a regional airport and provides fire, police and emergency services. Palo Alto is an award-
winning City recognized nationally as innovative and well-managed, one of a small number of California cities
with a AAA bond rating. City services and performance also receive high marks from community members in the
annual community survey conducted by the Polco (formerly National Research Center).
As the global center of technology and innovation, Palo Alto is the corporate headquarters for many world-class
companies and research facilities. Home to Stanford University and a top-ranked public school system, Palo Alto
also features beautiful and historic residential neighborhoods, vibrant shopping and retail districts. Palo Alto has
a highly educated and culturally sophisticated citizenry that is actively engaged in making a difference both
locally and globally.
For the City’s website, go here: www.cityofpaloalto.org
To connect with the City on social media, go here: www.cityofpaloalto.org/connect
To sign up for the City’s digital newsletter, go here: www.cityofpaloalto.org/newslettersignup
4.a
Packet Pg. 50
Boards, Commissions, and Committees Handbook| City of Palo Alto 7
CITY COUNCIL
The City of Palo Alto operates under a Council-Manager type of government. The City Council consists of seven
members and it is the governing body elected directly by the electorate of Palo Alto. Every year, the City Council
Members vote and select a Mayor. As the legislative branch of our local government, the City Council makes final
decisions on all City matters, sets City-wide priorities and policies, and directs the City Manager to implement
these priorities and policies. The City Council adopts ordinances and resolutions as necessary for efficient
governmental operations, approves the budget, and acts as a board of appeals. It appoints the City Manager,
City Attorney, City Auditor and City Clerk, as well as the members of the City's advisory Boards, Commissions,
and Committees (BCCs).
BCCs are primarily responsible for advising and making recommendations to the City Council on City policies and
programs. The City Council then uses the advice and recommendations offered by BCCs to make decisions. In
addition to making policy recommendations, the Architectural Review Board and Planning and Transportation
Commission, and Historic Resources Board also provide recommendations to the Planning Director or Council on
project applications.
To learn more about the City Council, go here: www.cityofpaloalto.org/council
For the City Council meeting agendas, go here: www.cityofpaloalto.org/councilagendas
4.a
Packet Pg. 51
Boards, Commissions, and Committees Handbook| City of Palo Alto 8
The City of Palo Alto has eight standing Boards, Commissions,
and Committees. The City Council also establishes other Ad
Hoc committees to assist them in their decision-making
process from time to time.
The standing Boards, Commissions and Committees are:
x Architectural Review Board
x Historic Resources Board
x Human Relations Commission
x Parks and Recreation Commission
x Planning and Transportation Commission
x Public Art Commission
x Storm Water Management Oversight Committee
x Utilities Advisory Commission
Other examples of Council appointed groups have included the former Library Advisory Commission, the Citizen
Corps Council, the Youth Commission, the Expanded Community Advisory Panel (XCAP) on rail crossings, and the
North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan Working Group.
During recruitment periods for BCCs, applicants are encouraged to visit the City website and apply for openings on
various BCCs. The requirements for each BCC can be found in the Municipal Code or Council action creating the
advisory body and will be reflected in the recruitment material – for example, some have a residency
requirement. A physical address must be included on the application and proof of the address provided must be
issued if requested. Once applications are received, the City Council determines which applicants to interview.
The City Council will then vote to appoint members to serve on a BCC during a public City Council meeting. New
appointments for complete terms are made in the Spring. Any needed replacement appointments for partial
terms are made as necessary.
If you need to leave your seat on a BCC before your term is expired, submit your resignation in writing to your
Staff Liaison, with a copy to the City Clerk. Each letter of resignation must be addressed to the City Council.
Each BCC meets according to its established schedule.
LIMITATION ON TERMS
Any person appointed to a board or commission shall be immediately eligible, upon the expiration of
their term or resignation prior to completion of their term if appointed to a different board or
commission, to serve on a different board or commission. All board and commission members are eligible
to serve two successive terms on the same board or commission. No person who has served
two such successive terms shall be eligible for appointment to that same board or
commission for two years following the expiration of the second full term for which the member was
appointed and served. Serving an unexpired term of up to 2 years in length shall not count toward years served
in terms of eligibility.
II. APPOINTED BOARDS, COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES
4.a
Packet Pg. 52
Boards, Commissions, and Committees Handbook| City of Palo Alto 9
APPOINTED BOARDS, COMMISSIONS, AND COMMITTEES
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
The Architectural Review Board reviews and makes recommendations to the Planning Director on design and
related issues for certain new construction, and changes and additions to commercial, industrial and multiple-
family projects, as described in the Municipal Code. The Board's goals and purposes are to:
x Promote orderly and harmonious development of the City
x Enhance the desirability of residence or investment in the City
x Encourage the attainment of the most desirable use of land and improvements
x Enhance the desirability of living conditions upon the immediate site or in adjacent areas
x Promote visual environments which are of high aesthetic quality and variety and which, at the same
time, are considerate of each other
x To implement and enforce the city’s ordinances pertaining to architecture and design
The Board is composed of five members, at least three of whom are architects, landscape architects, building
designers or other design professionals. Terms are for three years and commence on November 1. See Palo Alto
Municipal Code (PAMC) Sections 2.16 and 2.21. Residency is not required.
For the ARB webpage, go to https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/architectural/
4.a
Packet Pg. 53
Boards, Commissions, and Committees Handbook| City of Palo Alto 10
HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD
The Historic Resources Board advises the Planning Director and City Council on matters relating to Palo Alto‘s
historic buildings. The responsibilities of the Board include:
x Reviewing and making recommendations to the Architectural Review Board on proposed exterior
changes of commercial and multiple-family buildings on the Historic Building Inventory;
x Reviewing and making recommendations on exterior changes of significant (Categories 1 and 2) single-
family residences on the Historic Building Inventory;
x Researching and making recommendations to the City Council on proposed additions and on
reclassifications of existing buildings on the Inventory; and
x Performing other functions as may be delegated from time to time to the Historic Resources Board by
the City Council.
Terms are for three years and commence on November 1. The Historic Resources Board includes seven
members and the members must have demonstrated interest in and knowledge of history, architecture or
historic preservation. One (1) member is an owner/occupant of a category one or two historic structure, or of a
structure in an historic district; three (3) members are architects, landscape architects, building designers or
other design professionals and at least one (1) member possesses academic education or practical experience in
history or a related field. See PAMC Chapters 2.16, 2.27 and 16.49.
The Historic Resources Board webpage can be found here: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/historic/
4.a
Packet Pg. 54
Boards, Commissions, and Committees Handbook| City of Palo Alto 11
HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION
The Human Relations Commission is charged with studying, fostering community awareness and understanding,
encouraging dispute resolution, and recommending legislation regarding persons or groups who do not benefit
fully from public or private opportunities or resources in the community, or are unfairly or differently treated
due to factors of concern to the Commission. The Commission's responsibilities include:
x Public or private opportunities or resources in the community include, but are not limited to, those
associated with ownership and rental of housing, employment, education and governmental services
and benefits;
x Factors of concern to the Commission including but not limited to, socioeconomic class or status,
physical condition or handicap, married or unmarried state, emotional condition, intellectual ability, age,
sex, sexual preference, race, cultural characteristics, ethnic background, ancestry, citizenship, and
religious, conscientious or philosophical belief;
x The Commission will conduct such studies and undertake such responsibilities as the Council may direct;
and
x The Commission recommends allocation of Federal CDBG funds
The Commission is composed of five members who are not Council Members, officers, or employees of the City,
and who are residents of the City of Palo Alto. Terms are for three years and commence on May 1. See PAMC
Sections 2.16 and 2.22.
The Human Relations Commission webpage can be found here: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/hrc
4.a
Packet Pg. 55
Boards, Commissions, and Committees Handbook| City of Palo Alto 12
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
The Parks and Recreation Commission advises the Community Services Director and City Council on matters
pertaining to the activities of the Open Space, Parks and Golf Division and the Recreation Division of the
Community Services Department. The Commission's responsibilities include:
x Advising on planning and policy matters relating to the goals of and the services provided by the Open
Space, Parks and Golf Division, and the Recreation Division;
x Advising on planning and policy matters relating to the construction and renovation of capital facilities;
x Reviewing state legislative proposals that may affect the operation of the two Divisions;
x Receiving community input concerning parks, open space and recreation activities; and
x Updating and advancing the Parks Master plan and related policies and programs.
The Parks and Recreation Commission is composed of seven members who are not Council Members, officers,
or employees of the City, and who are residents of the City of Palo Alto. Terms of Commissioners will be for
three years. See Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Sections 2.16 and 2.25.
The Parks and Recreation Commission webpage can be found here:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/parks_and_recreation_commission/
4.a
Packet Pg. 56
Boards, Commissions, and Committees Handbook| City of Palo Alto 13
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
The Planning & Transportation Commission advises the City Council, Planning Director and Transportation
Director on land use and transportation matters, including the Comprehensive Plan, zoning, transportation
programs, and related matters. The Commission's primary responsibilities include:
x Preparing and making recommendations to the City Council on the City's Comprehensive Plan regarding
development, public facilities and transportation in Palo Alto
x Considering and making recommendations to the City Council on zoning map and zoning ordinance
changes
x Reviewing and making recommendations to the City Council on subdivisions, on appeals on variances
and use permits
x Considering other policies and programs affecting development and land use in Palo Alto for final City
Council action
x Reviewing and making recommendations on individual projects as described in the Municipal Code, and
Open Space development
x Reviewing and making recommendations to the City Council on transportation, parking and other
related mobility issues.
The Commission is composed of seven members who are current residents of the City of Palo Alto and are not
Council Members, officers, or employees of the City. Terms are for four years and commence on November 1.
See Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Sections 2.16 and 2.20 for more information.
The Planning and Transportation Commission webpage can be found here:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/ptc/
4.a
Packet Pg. 57
Boards, Commissions, and Committees Handbook| City of Palo Alto 14
PUBLIC ART COMMISSION
The Public Art Commission oversees Palo Alto’s temporary and permanent public art programs. The primary
duties of the Commission are:
x To advise the city in matters pertaining to the quality, quantity, scope, and style of art in public places
x To periodically review the capital improvement program with the staff for inclusion of works of art in
various projects
x To devise methods of selecting and commissioning artists with respect to the design, execution, and
placement of art in public places and to advise staff on the selection and commissioning of artists, and
the amounts to be expended on art in public places
x To advise and assist staff in obtaining financial assistance for art in public places from private, corporate,
and governmental sources
x To review plans for the installation of art in public places and review the inventory of art in public paces
x To act as a liaison between local artists and private property owners desiring to install works of art on
their private property in public view
The Commission, a five-member body appointed by the City Council, meets once a month. Terms are for three
years and commence on May 1. See PAMC Sections 2.16, 2.18, and 2.26. Members are not required to be
residents of Palo Alto and should have some demonstrated connection to art.
The Public Art Commission webpage can be found here: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/arts/.
4.a
Packet Pg. 58
Boards, Commissions, and Committees Handbook| City of Palo Alto 15
STORM WATER MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE
The purpose of the Storm Water Management Oversight Committee is to review proposed storm water
management capital improvements and operating programs to be funded from the Storm Water Management
Fees and to monitor expenditures of the fund. The Storm Water Management Oversight Committee is charged
with reviewing the annual budget and expenditures of the Storm Water Management Fund in order to ensure
that revenue from the Storm Water Management Fee is being budgeted and spent in accordance with the terms
of the storm water management ballot measure approved by a majority of property owners in 2017. The
Committee is responsible for:
x Performing an annual review of the proposed Storm Water Management Fund budget
x Performing an annual review of actual expenditures from the Storm Water Management Fund
x Adopting findings on an annual basis that the proposed budget and actual expenditures of the Storm
Water Management Fund are consistent with the spending plan outlined in the 2017 storm water
management ballot measure
x Reporting findings on an annual basis to the City Council
The Committee is composed of seven members who are selected and appointed by the City Council for a term of
four years. Each Committee member shall be a resident of Palo Alto, an employee of a business located in Palo
Alto or an owner of real property within the City.
The Storm Water Management Oversight Committee webpage can be found here:
https://cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/storm_water_management_oversight_committee/
4.a
Packet Pg. 59
Boards, Commissions, and Committees Handbook| City of Palo Alto 16
UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMISSION
The Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) is charged with advising the City Council on: long-range planning and
policy and major program and project matters relating to the electric utility, gas utility, water utility, wastewater
collection utility, fiber optics utility and recycled water matters; acquisition and development of electric, gas and
water resources; joint action projects with other public or private entities which involve electric, gas or water
resources; and environmental implications of electric, gas or water utility projects, and conservation and
demand management. Specifically, the Utilities Advisory Commission advises the Council on:
x Development of the City utilities and the recycled water resources
x Joint action projects with other public or private entities
x The consistency with adopted and approved plans, policies, and programs of any major utility
x Legislative proposals regarding City utilities and the recycled water resources, to which the city is a
party, in which the city has an interest, or by which the city may be affected
x Utility capital improvement programs, operating budgets and related reserves, and rates, and the
recycled water program, budget, and rate
x Environmental aspects and attributes of City utilities and recycled water resources
x Water and energy conservation, energy efficiency, and demand side management
The Utilities Advisory Commission is composed of seven members who shall be appointed by and serve at the
pleasure of the City Council. The term of office of each member shall be three years or until his or her successor
is appointed. Six members of the Commission shall at all times be residents of the City. See Palo Alto Municipal
Code (PAMC) Sections 2.16 and 2.23 for more information on the Utilities Advisory Commission.
The Utilities Advisory Commission webpage can be found here: https://cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/uac/
4.a
Packet Pg. 60
Boards, Commissions, and Committees Handbook| City of Palo Alto 17
ROLE OF ALL MEMBERS
All Board and commission members are responsible for certain duties
and commitments to the City, City Council, and the BCC on which they
serve. Each member must know, understand, accept, and accomplish his
or her delegated responsibilities in order to be effective. General
expectations include:
x Come prepared
x Work collaboratively
x Respect one another, City staff and the public
x Serve the public
x Avoid conflict of interest issues
x Disagree through respectful dialogue
Getting Started
x Take the Oath of Office.
x Complete and sign a Form 700 and turn it in to the City Clerk’s Office.
x Understand the role and responsibilities of the appointed BCC.
x Be informed of its functions and relationship with other BCCs.
x Timely complete Ethics training (AB 1234).
x Attend the orientation scheduled by your Staff Liaison and/or the City Clerk.
x Become familiar with the BCC’s governing rules and regulations.
x Decide with your Staff Liaison on how and when you will receive agenda packets.
x Attend all regular and special meetings. In the event that you cannot attend a meeting, provide timely
notification to the Chair and the Staff Liaison.
During Meetings
x Arrive at meetings on time.
x Be prepared for meetings.
x Review all staff reports, maps, studies, proposals, correspondence, minutes, etc. prior to the meeting.
x Have all reference materials on hand for the meeting.
x Familiarize yourself with conflict of interest regulations and discuss potential conflicts of interest with
the City Attorney’s office prior to the meeting where any matter of potential conflict will arise. Recuse
yourself from any participation in a matter where you have a conflict.
x Consult the City Attorney if you have any questions of a legal nature related to your service as a BCC
member.
x Avoid leaving before the meeting adjourns without prior notice.
x Establish a good working relationship with fellow members, City Council, and staff liaison. Exhibit mutual
respect to fellow members to ensure a positive working environment.
x Become familiar with parliamentary procedures to ensure that meetings proceed in a timely fashion.
x Consider the overall public good when making a decision.
x Talk to the Chair and Staff Liaison about placing items on future agendas.
x If you receive correspondence addressed to the BCC, including email, forward the correspondence to
the Staff Liaison so copies can be distributed to all members and the correspondence can become an
official City record.
IV. YOUR ROLE AS A BOARD, COMMISSION, OR COMMITTEEMEMBER
4.a
Packet Pg. 61
Boards, Commissions, and Committees Handbook| City of Palo Alto 18
x Discourage visible and audible signs of agreement or disagreement from the audience such as applause
or statements from the floor. Such demonstrations can intimidate those with an opposing view and
unintentionally discourage open public discussion of all the issues and points of view.
x Limit your own comments to the issues before the BCC. Avoid the appearance of straying from the
subject or "grandstanding."
x Individual commissioners should avoid giving Staff Liaisons direction or making specific requests outside
of the public meetings.
ROLE AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE CHAIR
At the beginning of the year, each BCC will select a member to
serve as Chair. The Chair exists to structure productive meetings,
encourage the input of ideas, promote inclusiveness, and
facilitate the overall decision-making process. They do not have
greater power than any other member. The following is a list of
duties and responsibilities of the Chair:
x Ensure that the BCC completes the annual work plan and
reports the results annually to the City Council. The work
plan shall include metrics of community involvement and
participation in meetings and activities.
x Set a positive tone and manage public input to promote civility and decorum.
x Preside at all meetings, submit all motions to vote and in general, do all things ordinarily required of a
Chair such as call or cancel a meeting, coordinate the setting of the agenda with the Staff Liaison,
receive public testimony, ensure compliance with the Brown Act, etc. Move forward committee
priorities and refrain from promoting or setting a personal agenda. Ensures that items not listed on the
agenda are prohibited from being discussed or acted upon pursuant to the Brown Act, unless specific
circumstances apply.
x Act as the spokesperson for the BCC, including as the media’s point of contact for information regarding
BCC activities. Seek advice and involvement of the City’s Public Communications Manager as needed,
through the Staff Liaison.
x Ensure that all members are heard in a fair and safe manner. The Chair is responsible for ensuring the
effectiveness of the group process. Identifies points of agreement among the BCC members in order to
build a consensus.
x Ensures that consideration of items on the agenda moves along without delay and makes sure that
public testimony is received, but not allowed to disrupt the meeting. This includes setting an acceptable
time limit; if necessary.
x Clarifies all ideas as they are discussed, and repeats motions made in a way so all members understand
the motion they will be asked to vote on and ensures that actions are properly moved, seconded, and
voted upon. Always indicate clearly how the vote is taken such as call for the negative vote, saying,
“Those opposed, say No.”
In the absence of the Chair, the Vice Chair shall act as presiding officer and shall have the same
responsibilities.
4.a
Packet Pg. 62
Boards, Commissions, and Committees Handbook| City of Palo Alto 19
REQUIRED TRAINING
Mandatory training shall be provided to all board, commission and committee members by the City through a
collaboration between the Offices of the City Attorney, City Clerk, and City Manager, and will include an
orientation session for new members. Training shall be delivered as deemed necessary by the Council and/or
the City Attorney, City Clerk and City Manager and may include topics germane to a specific board or
commission and/or training generic to all boards and commissions (e.g. ethics training or “how to run a
meeting” for board and commission chairs).
ROLE OF THE STAFF LIAISON(S)
The staff liaison serves as the link between City staff, City Council, and BCC members. The City Manager assigns a
staff liaison to each BCC to provide support, coordination, and guidance. The Staff Liaison makes sure that
required BCC meetings occur and, in conjunction with the Chair, prepares the monthly meeting agendas. The
staff liaison is also responsible for the coordination, distribution, and posting of all committee agendas pursuant
to the Ralph M. Brown Act. Committee members should feel free to contact the staff liaison with questions or
requests for support such as sharing City policy or program information and providing historical context to issue
under review by the BCC. Staff liaisons will provide direction, guidance, and clerical, organizational, and
administrative support to commissions on an as needed basis. The staff liaison also facilitates the transmission
of BCC interests, concerns, and recommendations to the City Manager and City Council.
The staff liaison must be aware and advise the Commission of any potential Brown Act violations; the liaison must
be present and attentive for the duration of the meeting. At the request of the Chair, and with the support of a
majority of the BCC members, the Staff Liaison researches and investigates issues, prepares alternatives and
recommendations for BCC and City Council review, and implements City Council policy decisions.
Other duties include facilitating the transmission of BCC interests, concerns, and recommendations to the City
Manager and/or City Council; maintaining communication with the Chair regarding City Manager and/or City
Council direction or requests; coordinating the annual selection of a Chair and Vice Chair in accordance with the
City Council adopted policies and procedures, supporting annual workplan development, and keeping the City
Clerk apprised of any resignations or other issues affecting the BCC.
During the BCC meeting Staff Liaisons will ensure there is a quorum prior to the Chair calling a Commission
meeting to order and adjourn a Commission meeting in the event there is lack of a quorum 15 minutes after the
start time of a meeting. In addition, the Staff Liaison will not allow the public to address the Commission during
the 15 minutes while waiting for additional members to arrive to form a quorum. Staff may make
announcements during this time; no agenda items shall be discussed among the members present. The Staff
Liaison will advise the Commission to recess or adjourn the meeting if a quorum is not present at any point
during the meeting.
ROLE OF COUNCIL LIAISONS
The City Council relies upon the expertise and recommendations of the BCCs in advising the Council as it sets
City policy. The Council liaison function serves to facilitate and enhance this work. Their principal function is to
provide a wide range of information to the advisory body, such as information about Council discussions,
policies and actions. This helps provide an historical perspective and thereby place the BCC work in
context. However, the BCCs should act independently in formulating recommendations for the City Council to
consider. Therefore, it is inconsistent for liaisons to direct, guide or unduly influence the policy making work of
the City's advisory bodies. Council liaisons have flexibility in discharging their duties. They may serve with or
without attending the meetings of their advisory bodies. Historically, Boards and Commission members have
valued consistent participation by Council liaisons. However, at minimum, they should be available for contacts
with members of advisory bodies, and particularly with the chairs.
4.a
Packet Pg. 63
Boards, Commissions, and Committees Handbook| City of Palo Alto 20
USE OF SUBCOMMITTEES AND AD HOC COMMITTEES
BCCs may consider dividing into subcommittees and/or use ad hoc committees to address certain issues when
appropriate. The City Council prefers the use of Ad Hoc committees which are short term and established for the
BCC to discuss a specific topic or priority. Sub-committees should be used judiciously as it is the wish of the
Council that the entire BCC participate in most agenda topics. Sub-committees work independently and bring a
report and recommendations back to the BCC. The subcommittee and/or the ad hoc committee would be
composed of less than a quorum of the body and set their own schedule. Subcommittee meetings must be
noticed under the Brown Act. Ad hoc committees convene for a single topic and disband when the work on a
single item is finished. Ad hoc committee meetings need not be noticed or open to the public. The Chair usually
makes assignments to subcommittees and ad hoc committees and directs the workflow. BCCs may have both
standing subcommittees and ad hoc committees, though it is recommended that BCCs focus their work through
Ad Hoc committees.
Ad hoc or "temporary" committees are treated differently under the Brown Act. Ad hoc committees are not
subject to the notice and posting requirements of the Brown Act so long as the committee:
x Consists of less than the number of members which would constitute a quorum;
x Has a defined purpose and a time frame to accomplish that purpose; and
x Is advisory such as the committee has not been delegated any decision-making power and will be
returning to the full board on its recommendation.
Establishing Ad Hoc Committees
Members of ad hoc committees designed to be advisory to the board/commission may be appointed by the
chair, on behalf of the entire board, commission, or committee or by an action of the entire BCC, depending
upon the procedures and practices of the BCC. Although, as noted, the ad hoc committee itself is not subject to
the Brown Act if the BCC desires to create an ad hoc committee, the action to create the ad hoc committee
should be done at a publicly noticed meeting under the Brown Act and the item should be placed on an agenda
for that purpose.
ANNUAL WORKPLAN AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES
Each BCC should prepare an annual work plan for proposal to the Council by second quarter of the calendar
year. The Council will review
the work plans and provide feedback annually at a dedicated City Council meeting. The annual report should
include the results of the prior year’s plan. When applicable, the City Council would like to see metrics of
community involvement and participation in meetings and activities included in the work plan.
Council expects BCCs to work on items in the approved workplan. In addition, Council may refer additional items
to the BCC in response to new developments. BCCs should refrain from expending their time and that of the
staff liaison on items that have not been approved by the City Council. If the BCC would like to add an issue for
review after an annual workplan has been approved the City Council, a prompt request by the BCC
Chair to the City Council is required and the item will then be addressed by the City Council as a whole.
A workplan template can be found later in the handbook, see Exhibit A.
GENERAL PROCEDURES FOR CONDUCT OF BCC MEETINGS
The Chair should recognize other BCC members in the order in which they raise their hands to speak. The Chair
should provide an opportunity for each member to speak on an item. BCC members should speak when
recognized by the Chair.
4.a
Packet Pg. 64
Boards, Commissions, and Committees Handbook| City of Palo Alto 21
When a member of the public desires to address the BCC, they should fill out a speaker’s card, proceed to the
podium when called, and wait to be recognized before speaking. The Chair should let the public know how long
they are allocated to speak. Speakers should limit their remarks to the issue under discussion. Remarks should
be addressed to the BCC as a body, and not to any individual BCC member, staff member, or other person.
AGENDA AND ORDER OF BUSINESS
The agenda should contain a brief general description of each item
to be considered. Except where provided by law, no discussion or
action will be taken on an item not appearing on the
agenda. The sequence of items in an agenda is generally as
follows:
x Call to Order
x Roll Call
x Approval of Minutes
x Public Comment on items not on the agenda
x Action Items
x Reports of BCC Members, Sub-Committees, and Ad Hoc
Committees
x Brief announcements or Matters of BCC Interest
x Adjournment
All agendas should include language stating that agenda materials may be provided in alternate formats
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE
Parliamentary procedures establish a framework for
orderly meetings. They encourage participation,
structure discussion and facilitate decision making.
They permit expression of minority views while
ultimately allowing a majority to fashion an outcome.
The following principles are the foundation of effective parliamentary procedures:
x Fairness, respect and courtesy should be afforded to everyone.
x Do only one thing at a time: one subject at a time and one speaker at a time.
x Business must be conducted. The BCC exists to facilitate action, not obstruct it.
x All BCC members are equal and have equal voting rights.
x The majority decides, but the rights and interest of a minority must be protected.
x Silence gives consent, so if you oppose please speak up.
x Once settled, a question generally may not be reintroduced.
The City Council does not use Robert’s Rules of Parliamentary Procedure, which were created to structure the
meetings of very large formal legislative bodies. The Council has adopted a more streamlined set of procedural
requirements here starting on page 27. BCC members may also find it helpful to review Rosenberg’s Rules of
Order, a simplified set of procedural rules designed for use at the local government level. A tenet of
parliamentary procedure is finality. After vigorous discussion, debate, and a vote, there must
be some closure to the issue. And so, after a vote is taken, the matter generally is deemed resolved. Exceptions
to this general rule include when a proper motion to reconsider is made, or where new developments occur that
warrant further work on an issue.
4.a
Packet Pg. 65
Boards, Commissions, and Committees Handbook| City of Palo Alto 22
CODE OF CONDUCT
This section is intended to describe a code of conduct for Boards, Commission and Committee members and
designed to define the manner in which Council Members and BCC members should treat one another, City
staff, constituents, and others they come into contact with in representing the City of Palo Alto. The City Council
encourages positive and respectful dialogue. Therefore, members shall refrain from abusive conduct, personal
charges, hostile body language, disrespectful language or verbal attacks upon the character of others. It is both
encouraged and expected that the chair of each BCC intercedes when the conduct of another member is rude or
violates code of conduct.
BCC members are important to the City’s decision-making process, act on behalf of the City Council in their
volunteer roles and help shape and further community discussions on complex issues and topics. As such,
disagreement may arise during public meetings as different perspectives are shared and providing different
perspectives to Council is encouraged. A high level of professionalism and civility is expected of all BCC members
throughout their tenure. Disagreement and criticism of policy is fine but personal attacks must be avoided.
It is important that BCC members treat each other and the public with respect, even through disagreement.
Elected and appointed officials are composed of individuals with a wide variety of backgrounds, personalities,
values, opinions, and goals. Despite this diversity, all have chosen to serve in public office in order to preserve
and protect the present and the future of the community. In all cases, this common goal should be
acknowledged even though individuals may "agree to disagree" on contentious issues.
Residents, property owners and businesses of City of Palo Alto are entitled to have fair, ethical and accountable
local government. Such a government requires that public officials: be independent, impartial and fair in their
judgment and actions; use their public office for the public good, not for personal gain, and conduct public
deliberations and processes openly, unless legally confidential, in an atmosphere of respect and civility.
Elected and Appointed officials shall honor this personal code of conduct from the time of their election or
appointment to office.
Act in the Public Interest: Recognizing that stewardship of the public interest must be their principal concern,
everyone shall work for the common good of the City of Palo Alto and not for any private or personal interest,
and they will endeavor to treat all persons, claims and transactions in fair and equitable manner.
Comply with the Law: Everyone shall comply with the laws of the nation, the State of California and the City in
the performance of their public duties. These laws include but are not limited to: the United States and
California constitutions; the City of Palo Alto Charter, Municipal Code, City policies and other governing
documents related to conflict of interest, election campaigns, financial disclosures, and employer responsibilities
and open processes of government.
Conduct of Members: Everyone shall refrain from abusive conduct and verbal attacks upon the character or
motives of other members of the City Council, boards, commissions, committees, staff or the public.
4.a
Packet Pg. 66
Boards, Commissions, and Committees Handbook| City of Palo Alto 23
No Tolerance for harassment or Microaggressions: The City of Palo Alto is committed to providing an
environment for employees, elected or appointed officials, members of the public, and contractors that
promotes dignity and respect and is free from discrimination and harassment. The City prohibits all forms of
harassment and discrimination based upon protected classifications as defined below. “Protected Classification”
includes race, religion (including religious dress or grooming practice), religious creed, color, sex (includes
gender, gender identity, gender expression, transgender, pregnancy, childbirth, medical conditions related to
pregnancy or childbirth, breastfeeding or medical conditions related to breastfeeding), sexual orientation
(including heterosexuality, homosexuality and bisexuality), ethnicity, national origin, ancestry, citizenship status,
military and veteran status, marital status, family relationship, age, medical condition, genetic characteristics
and/or genetic information, and physical or mental disability.
In addition to prohibiting explicit harassment, the City of Palo Alto strives to provide an inclusive environment.
One method to create an inclusive public space is to help people develop awareness of microaggressions and
remove them from conversation. Microaggressions are comments or actions that subtly and often unconsciously
or unintentionally expresses a prejudiced attitude toward a member of a marginalized group (such as a racial
minority). The City will provide training to help members develop awareness of and then eliminate
microaggressions.
Any employee, applicant, elected/appointed official, contract worker, intern or volunteer, who believes
he or she has been harassed or retaliated against are encouraged to promptly report the incident and the
individuals involved. BCC members may consult with the Chair, Vice-Chair or staff liaison regarding making a
report.
Respect for Process: Duties shall be performed in accordance with the processes and rules of order established
by the City Council.
Conduct of Public Meetings: BCC members shall inform themselves of public issues, listen attentively to public
discussions before the body, and focus on the business at hand.
Communication: It is the responsibility of BCC members to publicly share substantive information that is relevant
to a matter under consideration that they received from sources outside of the public decision-making
processes.
Disclosure of Corruption: BCC members shall take an oath upon assuming office, pledging to uphold the
constitution and laws of the City, the State and the Federal government. As part of this oath, officials commit to
disclosing to the appropriate authorities and/or to the City Council any behavior or action that may qualify as
corruption, abuse, fraud, bribery or other violations of the law.
Conflict of Interest: To ensure public confidence in City decision making, BCC members shall familiarize
themselves with and comply with state conflict of interest laws.
Gifts and Favors: BCC members shall not take advantage of services or opportunities offered due to their public
office and that are not available to the public in general. They shall refrain from accepting gifts, favors or
promises of future benefits that might compromise their independence, judgment, or action or give the
appearance of being compromised.
Confidential Information: BCC members shall respect and preserve the confidentiality of information provided to
them concerning the confidential matters of the City. They shall neither disclose confidential information
without proper legal authorization nor use such information to advance their financial or private interests.
4.a
Packet Pg. 67
Boards, Commissions, and Committees Handbook| City of Palo Alto 24
Representation of Private Interests: In keeping with their role as stewards of the public trust, BCC members shall
not appear on behalf of the private interests of a third-party before the City Council or any board, commission or
committee or proceeding the City.
Advocacy: It is the role of Commissioners to advise the Council on policies and positions within the domain of
their Commission. To the best of their ability, within the domain of their Commission, BCC members shall
represent the official policies and positions of the City Council. When presenting their personal opinions or
positions, members shall explicitly state that they do not represent the Council or the City.
Improper Influence: BCC members shall refrain from using their position to improperly influence the
deliberations or decisions of City staff, boards, commission or committees.
Policy Role of Members: BCC members shall respect and support the Council-Manager structure of the City of
Palo Alto as provided in the City Charter.
Positive Work Environment: BCC members shall support the maintenance of a positive and constructive
environment for residents, businesses, and City employees.
Compliance and Enforcement: BCC members have the primary responsibility to ensure that ethical standards are
understood and met and that the public can continue to have full confidence in the integrity of City government.
This personal code of conduct shall be considered to be a summary of ethical conduct by Palo Alto Boards,
Commissions and Committees. A member can be removed from their BCC position by the City Council if their
conduct fails to meet any of these ethical standards.
For Quasi-Judicial Hearings: Communications with an applicant or any member of the public is strongly
discouraged beginning from the time an application has been submitted and until final decision is reached. If any
communication does occur, it must be fully disclosed.
Conduct in Public Meetings
The following guidelines provide specific examples of conduct that reinforce the principles identified above:
x Use formal titles: Elected and appointed officials should refer to one another formally during public
meetings, such as Mayor, Vice Mayor, Chair, Commissioner, Board member or Councilmember followed
by the individual’s last name.
x Practice civility and decorum in discussions and debate: Difficult questions, tough challenges to a
particular point of view, and criticism of ideas and information are legitimate elements of a free
democracy in action. This does not allow, however, public officials to make belligerent, personal,
impertinent, slanderous, threatening, abusive, or disparaging comments. This includes non-verbal
communications including body language or eye rolling. No shouting or physical actions that could be
construed as threatening will be tolerated. Lack of civility is grounds for dismissal.
x Honor the role of the chair in maintaining order, while respecting each member’s prerogative to
intercede on inappropriate conduct: It is the responsibility of the chair to keep the comments of
members on track during public meetings. Members should honor efforts by the chair to focus
discussion on current agenda items. If there is disagreement about the agenda or the chair’s actions,
those objections should be voiced respectfully and with reason, following procedures outlined in
parliamentary procedure and the suggestion below.
x Avoid personal comments that could offend other members: If a member is personally offended by the
remarks of another member, or feels the remarks may be offensive to others, the offended member
4.a
Packet Pg. 68
Boards, Commissions, and Committees Handbook| City of Palo Alto 25
should communicate their position and seek resolution to the situation raised. The chair will maintain
control of this discussion.
x Demonstrate effective problem-solving approaches: Members have a public stage to show how
individuals with disparate points of view can find common ground and seek a compromise that benefits
the community as a whole.
Outside of official board or commission meetings, individual board and commission members are not
authorized to represent the City or their board or commission unless specifically designated by the Council or
the board or commission to do so for a particular purpose.
Although a board or commission may disagree with the final decision the Council makes, the board or
commission shall not act in any manner contrary to the established policy adopted by the Council.
The Institute for Local Government offers tools and publications to help further a consistent code
of conduct for all Boards, Commissions and Committees. This publication offers tips for civility during public
meetings. Some key recommendations include:
x Ensure everyone gets a chance to share their viewpoint
x Embrace different perspectives
x Avoid debates and interruptions
x Listen
x Be compassionate
Conduct with City Staff
Governance of a city relies on the cooperative efforts of elected officials who set policy, appointed officials who
advise the elected, and City staff who advise, implement and administer the Council’s policies. Therefore, every
effort should be made to be cooperative and show mutual respect for the contributions made by each individual
for the good of the community.
Treat all staff as professionals: Clear, honest communication that respects the abilities, experience, and dignity
of each individual is expected. Unprofessional and/or antagonistic behavior towards staff is not acceptable.
MEETING MANAGEMENT
The City of Palo Alto is committed to conducting efficient, effective, and accessible government operations. The
following material outlines techniques that can be used to ensure that BCC meetings are efficiently run and give
all residents an equal opportunity to address the issues.
4.a
Packet Pg. 69
Boards, Commissions, and Committees Handbook| City of Palo Alto 26
PROCEEDINGS
x It is generally a good idea to turn off cell phones, PDAs or iPads and refrain from texting during meetings
unless there is an emergency.
x Please be aware that any messages sent or received relating to City business, including those posted on
social media, may become a public record and releasable if requested.
x Documents used or shared at Board, Commission and Committee meetings are subject to the Public
Records Act.
x Start the meetings on time. Keep the agenda in mind in order to give each item the appropriate time.
x Announce at the start of a meeting if the order of agenda items is to be rearranged for convenience, for
response to those attending for only certain items, or for better pacing of the agenda.
x Let the Chair run the meeting.
x Be fair, impartial, and respectful of the public, staff, and each other.
x Give your full attention when others speak.
x Encourage public participation in the meeting process.
x Come to each meeting with an open mind.
x Base decisions on public engagement, committee discussion, and meeting dialogue.
x Abstain if you have a conflict of interest or if you believe you may have one and have not yet conferred
with the City Attorney. You may also abstain if you feel you cannot be fair or cannot consider the item
with the public’s interest foremost in mind.
x Value and respect the professional expertise of staff and consultants, while providing independent
critical thinking, expertise, and input. Remember that people may be attending a meeting for the first
time and may be unfamiliar with your procedures. In your discussion, either avoid or explain technical
terms or verbal shorthand.
x Listen to the public’s concerns. Do not engage inside conversations or otherwise be distracted during
public testimony. The opportunity for public testimony is central to the strength of democracy and is
therefore encouraged. Active listening, however, does not mean engaging the public in debate. Your
response is appropriately saved for after the public testimony is closed.
x Sometimes questions can most effectively focus discussion and direct decision-making. For Example:
What is the history behind this item? What are the benefits and drawbacks? What other alternatives
should we consider?
ATTENDANCE
x The City Council expects that members of BCCs will make every effort to attend all scheduled meetings.
x A compilation of attendance will be submitted to the City Council at least annually listing absences for all
commissions/committee members.
x If you miss more than one-third of the BCC meetings during the calendar year, this will be reported to
Council and may result in your removal from the BCC.
x Any member who feels that unique circumstances have led to numerous absences can appeal directly to
the City Council for a waiver of this policy or to obtain a leave of absence.
x While it is expected that members be present at all meetings, the chair and staff liaison should be
notified if a member knows in advance that he/she will be absent.
x When reviewing commissioners for reappointment, attendance at commission meetings will be given
significant consideration.
4.a
Packet Pg. 70
Boards, Commissions, and Committees Handbook| City of Palo Alto 27
LATE ARRIVAL TO MEETINGS
If a member anticipates being late to a meeting, please notify the staff liaison regarding the approximate time of
arrival. Staff will alert the Chair.
ABSENCES
Please refer to the BBC attendance requirements in the section above. It is an expectation as part of your BCC
service to attend all meetings. If you plan to be absent from a meeting, inform your staff liaison prior to the
posting of your committee’s agenda.
MINUTES
The staff liaison will prepare action minutes (except for the Historic Resources Committee, where the secretary
shall do so). Action minutes or summary (sense) minutes are preferred. Verbatim minutes are discouraged. The
minutes serve as the permanent official record of the advisory body. The minutes should reflect the members in
attendance, members who were absent, a description of each agenda item and the action taken by the advisory
body. Titles of motions and resolutions are recorded verbatim. In order to become an official record of activities,
minutes must be approved by the BCC. Minutes are normally approved as soon as reasonably possible.
Amendments or corrections may be made to the minutes in public meetings, with the approval of the BCC.
INTERACTING WITH THE MEDIA AND THE PUBLIC
It is important to recognize that as a BCC member your actions and comments are often interpreted to be that of
the entire BCC, the staff, or the City.. The Communications Office is available to assist BCC members in
interactions with the media.
When speaking with the media, observe the following guidelines:
x You must clarify who you represent as the speaker. Are you speaking in your capacity as a BCC Chair or
as a private resident? Keep in mind that a member’s comments to the press or other public comments
are sometimes misinterpreted even though the BCC Chair states that they are speaking for themselves.
x Do not make promises to the public that are binding on the BCC, staff, or the City Council.
x Comments to the media or the public should be factual and accurate. Avoid speculation.
4.a
Packet Pg. 71
Boards, Commissions, and Committees Handbook| City of Palo Alto 28
SWEARING IN AND OATH OF OFFICE
Before taking office, each BCC member must be sworn in by the City Clerk,
by taking the Oath of Office to swear, or affirm, that he or she will support
and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of
the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that he or
she will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United
States and the Constitution of the State of California; that he or she takes
this obligation freely, without mental reservation or purpose of evasion;
and that he or she will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which
he or she is about to enter.
FORM 700 OBLIGATION AND CONFLICT OF INTEREST (GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 87103 FINANCIAL INTEREST)
BCC members must file an annual Form 700 by April 1 of each year. In addition, most filers also must file within 30
days of assuming and leaving office. If you have any questions about your Form 700 duty to file, please contact
the City Clerk. Failure to timely file a Form 700 is grounds for dismissal.
ETHICS, CONFLICTS OF INTEREST, TRAINING
State and local laws have been adopted to ensure that local decision making is free from certain conflicts of
interest or the possibility of conflicts of interest. The Council has determined that appointed BCC members
should comply with these rules. Beyond the rules, BCC members should conduct themselves to a high ethical
standard, ensuring that all their duties are performed in the public interest.
BCC members must complete two hours of approved ethics training within one year of appointment, and every
two years thereafter. BCC members are responsible for compliance and submitting their certificates of
completion to the City Clerk. The training covers both conflicts of interest law and ethics principles.
There are a number of options for complying with the training requirement:
Self-study materials are available at http://www.ca-ilg.org/ab1234compliance. The materials require that you
read two articles on public service ethics laws and principles, take a self-assessment test, and then submit it to
the Institute for Local Government with a processing fee for each test. The Institute will review your test(s),
provide you the correct answers to the questions and a proof of participation certificate.
The Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) offers free online training at
http://localethics.fppc.ca.gov/login.aspx. This option requires you to log onto the FPPC’s website, review various
screens of materials, take periodic tests to assure retention of the information and then print out a certificate.
Failure to recuse can be grounds for dismissal.
V. CITY POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
4.a
Packet Pg. 72
Boards, Commissions, and Committees Handbook| City of Palo Alto 29
REMOVAL
BCC members serve at the pleasure of the Council. Council reserves the right to remove one or more members
of a BCC at any time, for any reason. BCC members understand that they are not entitled to any process in the
event Council removes them from service. Incumbents seeking a reappointment are required to complete and
file an application with the City Clerk by the application deadline.
Board and commission members provide domain knowledge and reflect a diverse range of perspectives in the
community. Removal of appointees shall not be on the basis of political perspectives of the Council or
commissioner. Removal should be based on performance related concerns such as legal or ethical violations, a
pattern of absences, misconduct toward staff, colleagues, or the public, or actions that undermine the public
trust in the commission or the Council.
The City Council may remove a member by a majority vote of the City Council. Three council members can
agendize a removal action item. The removal vote will occur in an open Council session where any member of
the public can speak.
4.a
Packet Pg. 73
Boards, Commissions, and Committees Handbook| City of Palo Alto 30
GENERAL OVERVIEW
The Ralph M. Brown Act, Government Code section 54950 et seq., sets
forth certain legal requirements regarding BCCs based on the public’s
right to know how decisions are made. Public agencies, boards,
commissions, and committees exist to aid in the conduct of the
people’s business. With the exception of ad hoc subcommittees, all
City BCC meetings shall be publicly noticed and agendized as required
by the Brown Act. The public shall be permitted to attend and
participate, according to the rules. These transparency procedures
improve promote trust in the public body and foster mutual respect by
serving the public’s right to be heard and considered in the decision-
making process.
The League of California Cities prepared a publication titled Open & Public V: A Guide to the Ralph M. Brown Act
which is an informative guide to the Brown Act, including tips, examples and illustrations. View it for free at:
http://www.cacities.org/openandpublic.
For additional information or to answer questions, BCC members should consult with their staff liaison, and
through the staff liaison the City Attorney, as necessary.
MEETINGS AND AGENDAS
A "meeting" takes place whenever a quorum is present and official business is considered. An agenda for each
regularly scheduled meeting must be posted at least 72-hours in advance. Agendas for special meetings require
24 hours’ notice. The agenda should include a brief description of every item to be considered. Except for very
brief announcements, if an item is not on the agenda, discussion should be deferred to a future meeting when it
can be properly agendized.
AVOIDING UNLAWFUL MEETINGS AND “SERIAL” MEETINGS
BCC members are permitted to socialize in a non-meeting setting but must refrain from discussing any BCC
business. Care should be taken to make sure that if a quorum of a BCC is gathered at a public or private meeting
place, no public business is discussed and that the gathering will not be interpreted as a meeting. Any
conversation that occurs among a majority of the members of a BCC on business that will come before it or is
likely to come before it is improper under the Brown Act no matter the means by which the conversation takes
place - in person communications, phone calls, writings, and electronic correspondence. When using email, be
cognizant that the Brown Act may be violated if a majority of a BCC engages in communication about City
business that is or is likely to come before that BCC. Email correspondence is covered by the Brown Act and BCC
members should be careful not to “reply all” to a communication directed to a BCC. In addition, emails and
phone call records relating to City business may be searchable and releasable pursuant to Public Records Act
requests.
VI RALPH M. BROWN ACT
4.a
Packet Pg. 74
Boards, Commissions, and Committees Handbook| City of Palo Alto 31
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The public has the right to be notified of items on the agenda, to attend meetings of a legislative body, to record
the meeting, to speak before or during consideration of an agenda item, and to see the materials of the
legislative body.
Every agenda must include time for public comment on matters within the jurisdiction of the BCC and not on the
agenda. BCC members generally should not engage in discussion of items raised by the public that are not on
the agenda.
If a Board or Commission member receives materials or information directly from an applicant, he or she shall
notify the Staff Liaison immediately.
Agenda materials released less than 72 hours prior to the meeting must be made available to the public at a
specified location as well as at the BCC meeting. The public must be allowed to speak on every agendized item,
before an action or vote is taken by the BCC.
Accommodations are available so that persons with disabilities can participate in all aspects of a BCC meeting.
Members of the public may make a written request to the staff liaison, including the requestor's name, address,
phone number and brief description of the requested materials, preferred alternative format, auxiliary aid or
service, or other needed accommodation. Advance notice is kindly requested so that arrangements can be
made.
4.a
Packet Pg. 75
Boards, Commissions, and Committees Handbook| City of Palo Alto 32
The City Council thanks you for applying for and accepting a position on one
of the City’s Boards, Commissions, or Committees, and for devoting your
time to help build a great community in Palo Alto through your civic
involvement. Please use this Handbook as a guide as you carry out your
duties as a member of a BCC, and please contact the City Clerk or your staff
liaison if you need any further information, advice, or assistance.
NCLCONCLUSI
VI. CONCLUSION
4.a
Packet Pg. 76
Boards, Commissions, and Committees Handbook| City of Palo Alto 33
BCC WORK PLAN GUIDELINES AND PROCESS
The City Council will vote on BCC work plans annually. Workplans are due in June and should consist of up to
three priorities. The City Council will ask the BCC Chair to present the workplan to the City Council. Workplans
should include if there is an intent to use Ad Hoc committees to assist in the BCC work for the year ahead. After
the workplan is approved, if there is an additional priority the BCC would like added, the BCC chair would make a
prompt request to the Council.
To guide the work of developing the BCC annual workplans, a short checklist is provided below:
x Review purpose of the BCC
x Discuss any City Council priorities for the BCC
x Discuss existing and possible projects, priorities and goals
x Order from high priority to low priority
x Finalize draft work plan for City Council review
x Use approved workplan as a guide to focus BCC work throughout the term of the workplan (one or two
years)
x Present report to the City Council annually and include:
x List of priorities, projects and goals
x Status updates
x If items are not complete, include why and any other additional details to share with the Council
EXHIBIT A
4.a
Packet Pg. 77
BCC WORKPLAN TEMPLATE
BCC NAME
BCC Purpose:
Approved
Projects,
Priorities, and
Goals
Name of
Project, Priority
or Goal
Benefit, if
Completed
Mandate by
State or Local
law and
approved by
City Council?
Y/N
Policy Update
as Directed by
the City
Council
Y/N
Timeline for
Completion
Resources
needed, i.e.
staff support,
sub committee
established,
etc.
Measure of
Success
Prioritize
projects,
priorities and
goals
Name of
Project, Priority
or Goal
Priority 1:
Urgent
(within six
months)
Priority 2: High
(within the
year)
Priority 3:
Medium
(within 2
years)
Priority 4: Low
(beyond 2
years)
4.a
Packet Pg. 78
Architectural Review Board
$SSOLFDWLRQ
$XWKRULW\RI%RDUG
7KH$UFKLWHFWXUDO5HYLHZ%RDUGRYHUVHHVWKHGHVLJQUHYLHZRIQHZFRQVWUXFWLRQ7KH
%RDUGSURYLGHVJXLGDQFHWRDQ\FKDQJHVLQFRPPHUFLDOLQGXVWULDODQGPXOWLSOHIDPLO\
SURMHFWV
7KH%RDUGLVUHVSRQVLEOHIRU
x 3URPRWLQJRUGHUO\DQGKDUPRQLRXVGHYHORSPHQWRIWKH&LW\
x (QKDQFLQJWKHGHVLUDELOLW\RIUHVLGHQFHRULQYHVWPHQWLQWKH&LW\
x (QFRXUDJLQJWKHDWWDLQPHQWRIWKHPRVWGHVLUDEOHXVHRIODQGDQGLPSURYHPHQWV
x (QKDQFLQJWKHOLYLQJFRQGLWLRQVXSRQWKHLPPHGLDWHVLWHRULQDGMDFHQWDUHDV
x 3URPRWLQJHQYLURQPHQWVWKDWPDLQWDLQEDODQFHEHWZHHQDHVWKHWLFTXDOLW\DQGYDULHW\
3OHDVHVHH3DOR$OWR0XQLFLSDO&RGH6HFWLRQVDQGDVZHOODV7LWOHV
DQGIRUPRUHGHWDLOHGLQIRUPDWLRQ
7KH $UFKLWHFWXUDO 5HYLHZ %RDUG FRQVLVWV RI ILYH PHPEHUV 0HPEHUV PXVW QRW EH
&RXQFLO0HPEHUVRIILFHUVRUHPSOR\HHVRIWKH&LW\$WOHDVWWKUHHPHPEHUVDUHWREH
DUFKLWHFWVODQGVFDSHDUFKLWHFWVEXLOGLQJGHVLJQHUVRURWKHUGHVLJQSURIHVVLRQDOV3DOR
$OWRUHVLGHQF\LVQRWUHTXLUHG7HUPVRI0HPEHUVZLOOEHIRUWKUHH\HDUV
7KH$UFKLWHFWXUDO5HYLHZ%RDUGW\SLFDOO\PHHWVRQWKHILUVWDQGWKLUG7KXUVGD\VRIHDFK
PRQWKDW $0,QDGGLWLRQ0HPEHUVPD\EHDVNHGWRSDUWLFLSDWHRQDWOHDVWRQH
VXEFRPPLWWHH6XEFRPPLWWHHVPD\KROGDGGLWLRQDOPHHWLQJV
5HYLHZ WKH %RDUG DQG &RPPLVVLRQ +DQGERRN IRU LQIRUPDWLRQ DQG H[SHFWDWLRQV RQ
VHUYLQJ
3DOR$OWRZHOFRPHVYROXQWHHUVDQGZHDSSUHFLDWHWKDW\RXDUHWDNLQJWKHWLPHWR
DSSO\ &RPSOHWLRQ RI WKLV DSSOLFDWLRQ SURYLGHV YDOXDEOH LQIRUPDWLRQ WR WKH &LW\
&RXQFLO3OHDVHFRPSOHWHWKHDSSOLFDWLRQWRWKHEHVWRI\RXUDELOLWLHV,I\RXKDYH
DQ\TXHVWLRQVRUFRQFHUQVSOHDVHFRQWDFWWKH&LW\&OHUN¶V2IILFHDW
RU HPDLO-HVVLFD%UHWWOH#FLW\RISDORDOWRRUJ 7R UHFHLYH HPDLO QRWLILFDWLRQV RI
YDFDQFLHV&/,&.+(5(
4.a
Packet Pg. 79
$UFKLWHFWXUDO5HYLHZ%RDUG
3HUVRQDO,QIRUPDWLRQ±1RWH 7KH$5%UHJXODUO\PHHWVWKHILUVWDQGWKLUG7KXUVGD\VRIWKHPRQWKDW DP
1DPH
$GGUHVV
&HOO3KRQH
BB+RPHBB2IILFH3KRQH
(PDLO
$UH\RXD3DOR$OWR5HVLGHQW"BB<HVBB1R
'R\RXKDYHDQ\UHODWLYHVRUPHPEHUVRI\RXUKRXVHKROGZKRDUHHPSOR\HGE\WKH&LW\RI3DOR$OWRZKR
DUHFXUUHQWO\VHUYLQJRQWKH&LW\&RXQFLORUZKRDUH&RPPLVVLRQHUVRU%RDUG0HPEHUV"BB<HVBB1R
$UH\RXDYDLODEOHDQGFRPPLWWHGWRFRPSOHWHWKHWHUPDSSOLHGIRU"BB<HVBB1R
&DOLIRUQLDVWDWHODZUHTXLUHVDSSRLQWHGERDUGDQGFRPPLVVLRQPHPEHUVWRILOHDGHWDLOHGGLVFORVXUH
RIWKHLUILQDQFLDOLQWHUHVWV)DLU3ROLWLFDO3UDFWLFHV&RPPLVVLRQ&RQIOLFWRI,QWHUHVW)RUP
'R\RXRU\RXUVSRXVHKDYHDQLQYHVWPHQWLQRUGR\RXRU\RXUVSRXVHVHUYHDVDQRIILFHURUGLUHFWRU
RIDFRPSDQ\GRLQJEXVLQHVVLQ3DOR$OWRZKLFK\RXEHOLHYHLVOLNHO\WR
HQJDJHLQEXVLQHVVZLWKWKH&LW\
SURYLGHSURGXFWVRUVHUYLFHVIRU&LW\SURMHFWVRU
EHDIIHFWHGE\GHFLVLRQVRIWKHERDUGRUFRPPLVVLRQ\RXDUHDSSO\LQJIRU"BB<HVBB1R
([FOXGLQJ\RXUSULQFLSDOUHVLGHQFHGR\RXRU\RXUVSRXVHRZQUHDOSURSHUW\LQ3DOR$OWR"BB<HVBB1R
3DJH
$UFKLWHFWXUDO5HYLHZ%RDUG
33OHDVHHPDLODOOFRPSOHWHGDSSOLFDWLRQVWR-HVVLFD%UHWWOH#&LW\RI3DOR$OWRRUJRU&LW\&OHUN#&LW\RI3DOR$OWRRUJ
&LW\&OHUN
V2IILFH
&DOLIRUQLD*RYHUQPHQW&RGH6HFWLRQVWDWHVLQSDUW³1RVWDWHRUORFDODJHQF\VKDOOSRVWWKHKRPH
DGGUHVVRUWHOHSKRQHQXPEHURIDQ\HOHFWHGRUDSSRLQWHGRIILFLDORQWKH,QWHUQHWZLWKRXWILUVWREWDLQLQJWKH
ZULWWHQSHUPLVVLRQRIWKDWLQGLYLGXDO´This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached to the
Application and posted to the City’s website.
7KHIXOOFRGHFDQEHUHDG+(5(
5HDGWKHFRGHDQGFKHFNRQO\21(RSWLRQEHORZ
,JLYHSHUPLVVLRQIRUWKH&LW\RI3DOR$OWRWRSRVWWRWKH&LW\¶VZHEVLWHWKHDWWDFKHG%RDUGDQG
&RPPLVVLRQ$SSOLFDWLRQLQWDFW,KDYHUHDGDQGXQGHUVWDQGP\ULJKWVXQGHU*RYHUQPHQW&RGH
6HFWLRQ,PD\UHYRNHWKLVSHUPLVVLRQDWDQ\WLPHE\SURYLGLQJZULWWHQQRWLFHWRWKH3DOR
$OWR&LW\&OHUN
25
,UHTXHVWWKDWWKH&LW\RI3DOR$OWRUHGDFWP\KRPHDGGUHVVSKRQHQXPEHUVDQGHPDLODGGUHVV
IURPWKHDWWDFKHG%RDUGDQG&RPPLVVLRQ$SSOLFDWLRQSULRUWRSRVWLQJWRWKH&LW\¶VZHEVLWH
,DPSURYLGLQJWKHIROORZLQJDOWHUQDWHLQIRUPDWLRQDQGUHTXHVWWKDWWKH\XVHWKHIROORZLQJ
FRQWDFWLQIRUPDWLRQLQVWHDG
$GGUHVV
&HOO3KRQH
BB+RPHBB2IILFH3KRQH
(PDLO
&RQVHQWWR3XEOLVK3HUVRQDO,QIRUPDWLRQRQWKH&LW\RI3DOR$OWR:HEVLWH
4.a
Packet Pg. 80
'HVFULEH\RXULQYROYHPHQWLQFRPPXQLW\DFWLYLWLHVYROXQWHHUDQGFLYLFRUJDQL]DWLRQV FKDUDFWHUV
3DJH
$UFKLWHFWXUDO5HYLHZ%RDUG
+RZGLG\RXOHDUQDERXWWKHYDFDQF\RQWKH$UFKLWHFWXUDO5HYLHZ%RDUG"
BB&RPPXQLW\*URXS
BB(PDLOIURPWKH&LW\
BB3DOR$OWR:HHNO\
BB'DLO\3RVW
BB&LW\:HEVLWH
BB)O\HU
2WKHU BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
/LVW UHOHYDQW HGXFDWLRQ WUDLQLQJ H[SHULHQFH FHUWLILFDWHV RIWUDLQLQJ OLFHQVHV RU
SURIHVVLRQDOUHJLVWUDWLRQ FKDUDFWHUV
(PSOR\PHQW
(PSOR\HU
2FFXSDWLRQ
&XUUHQW(PSOR\HU/DVW(PSOR\HU
4.a
Packet Pg. 81
3DJH
$UFKLWHFWXUDO5HYLHZ%RDUG
3OHDVHGHVFULEHDQLVVXHWKDWUHFHQWO\FDPHEHIRUHWKH%RDUGWKDWLVRISDUWLFXODULQWHUHVWWR\RX
DQGGHVFULEHZK\\RXDUHLQWHUHVWHGLQLW,I\RXKDYHQHYHUEHHQWRD%RDUGPHHWLQJ\RXFDQ
YLHZDQDUFKLYHGYLGHRIURPWKH0LGSHQ0HGLD&HQWHU+(5( FKDUDFWHUV
:KDWLVLWDERXWWKH$UFKLWHFWXUDO5HYLHZ%RDUGWKDWLVFRPSDWLEOHZLWK\RXUH[SHULHQFHDQGRI
VSHFLILFLQWHUHVWWR\RXDQGZK\" FKDUDFWHUV
4.a
Packet Pg. 82
3DJH
$UFKLWHFWXUDO5HYLHZ%RDUG
3OHDVHLGHQWLI\DSURMHFWRUSURMHFWVWKDW\RXILQGWREHH[DPSOHVRIJRRGDUFKLWHFWXUHDQG
H[SODLQZK\<RXPD\DWWDFKVDPSOHVLGHQWLI\SURMHFWDGGUHVVHVRUSURYLGHOLQNV,I\RXDWWDFK
VDPSOHV6WDIIPD\UHTXHVWWKDW\RXEULQJKDUGFRS\SULQWRXWVWRWKHLQWHUYLHZV FKDUDFWHUV
,IDSSRLQWHGZKDWVSHFLILFJRDOVZRXOG\RXOLNHWRVHHWKH$UFKLWHFWXUDO5HYLHZ%RDUGDFKLHYH
DQGZK\"+RZZRXOG\RXVXJJHVWDFFRPSOLVKLQJWKLV" FKDUDFWHUV
4.a
Packet Pg. 83
6LJQDWXUH 3OHDVHW\SHRUVLJQ BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB'DWH BBBBBBBBBBBBB
3DJH
$UFKLWHFWXUDO5HYLHZ%RDUG
$UFKLWHFWXUDO5HYLHZ%RDUG0HPEHUVZRUNZLWKWKHGRFXPHQWVOLVWHGEHORZ,I\RXKDYH
H[SHULHQFHZLWKDQ\RIWKHVHGRFXPHQWVSOHDVHGHVFULEHWKDWH[SHULHQFH([SHULHQFHZLWKWKHVH
GRFXPHQWVLVQRWUHTXLUHGIRUVHOHFWLRQ FKDUDFWHUV
3DOR$OWR&RPSUHKHQVLYH3ODQ
=RQLQJ&RGH
(O&DPLQR5HDO'HVLJQ*XLGHOLQHV
(O&DPLQR5HDO0DVWHU3ODQ6WXG\
$UHD3ODQVVXFKDVWKH6RXWKRI)RUHVW$YHQXH 62)$ ,DQG,,3ODQV
&DOLIRUQLD(QYLURQPHQWDO4XDOLW\$FW
3HUPLW6WUHDPOLQH$FW
'HQVLW\%RQXV/DZ
6HFUHWDU\RIWKH,QWHULRU¶V6WDQGDUGV
3OHDVHFRQILUPWKDW\RXKDYHUHDGWKH%RDUGVDQG&RPPLVVLRQV+DQGERRN BBB<HVBBB1R
4.a
Packet Pg. 84
Architectural Review Board
Staff Report (ID # 11851)
Report Type: Study Session Meeting Date: 12/17/2020
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 (Continued from November
19th)
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
5
Packet Pg. 85
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
5
Packet Pg. 86
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.
5.a
Packet Pg. 87
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.
5.a
Packet Pg. 88
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
5.a
Packet Pg. 89
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
5.b
Packet Pg. 90
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
5.b
Packet Pg. 91
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
5.b
Packet Pg. 92
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
5.b
Packet Pg. 93
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
5.b
Packet Pg. 94
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
5.b
Packet Pg. 95
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
5.b
Packet Pg. 96
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
5.b
Packet Pg. 97
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
5.b
Packet Pg. 98
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
5.b
Packet Pg. 99
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
5.b
Packet Pg. 100
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
5.b
Packet Pg. 101
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
5.b
Packet Pg. 102
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
5.b
Packet Pg. 103
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
5.b
Packet Pg. 104
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
5.b
Packet Pg. 105
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
5.c
Packet Pg. 106
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
5.c
Packet Pg. 107
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
5.c
Packet Pg. 108
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...
5.c
Packet Pg. 109
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
5.c
Packet Pg. 110
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.
5.c
Packet Pg. 111
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.
5.c
Packet Pg. 112
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.
5.c
Packet Pg. 113
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.
5.c
Packet Pg. 114
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
5.c
Packet Pg. 115
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.
5.c
Packet Pg. 116
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.
5.c
Packet Pg. 117
Architectural Review Board
Staff Report (ID # 11862)
Report Type: Approval of Minutes Meeting Date: 12/17/2020
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650) 329-2442
Summary Title: Minutes of November 19, 2020
Title: Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for
November 19, 2020
From: Jonathan Lait
Recommendation
Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) adopt the attached meeting minutes.
Background
Draft minutes from the November 19, 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: November 19, 2020 Draft Minutes (DOCX)
6
Packet Pg. 118
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Call to Order/Roll Call
Present: Chair Peter Baltay, Vice Chair Osma Thompson, Board Members Alexander Lew,
Grace Lee, and David Hirsch.
Absent: None.
[Roll Call]
Oral Communications
Chair Baltay: Oral Communications, are there any members of the public who wish to speak to any item
not on our agenda today? Vinh, do we have any speakers?
Veronica Dao, Administrative Associate: At this time there are no raised hands.
Chair Baltay: Thank you very much. Next item is city official reports. The ARB schedule and attendance
record
Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions
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
Chair Baltay: Thank you very much. Next item is city official reports. The ARB schedule and attendance
record, tentative future agenda items, and recent project decisions. Jodie, can we have a report, please?
Jodie Gerhardt, Manager of Current Planning: Yes, I think Veronica is helping us this morning. Did I get
that right? We have the yearly agenda here just showing that we are going to continue to be virtual at
least until February for sure. We do have items for all of these hearings. The next page should show our
future items. We do have 3585 El Camino, which will be the third hearing for that small mixed-use
project. We also have 3241 Park Boulevard. This is going to be its first hearing and that is an office
project along the creek in the north Ventura area. Lastly, we were thinking we might have elections on
December 3rd, but after discussions with the Chair, we agree that we are not going to know who is
reappointed at that time so we will delay that until at least the December 17th hearing.
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
DRAFT MINUTES: November 19, 2020
City Hall/City Council Chambers
250 Hamilton Avenue
Virtual Meeting
8:30 AM
6.a
Packet Pg. 119
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Chair Baltay: Before we leave this topic, I would like to request, at least for myself, to have paper copies
of these two projects coming rather than the ones online. Are there any other members of the Board
who would like to make the same request?
Board Member Hirsch: Yes, I would, David Hirsch.
Board Member Lee: I appreciate paper, as well, though I feel bad about the printing.
Chair Baltay: It’s too bad about the printing but it made such a difference the other day when we had
paper copies. At least three members, Jodie, are requesting paper copies of plans for those projects,
okay?
Ms. Gerhardt: Board Members Thompson and Lew, are you specifically not wanting paper?
Board Member Lew: it doesn’t matter to me. If it is easier just to have all of the Board Members get
paper I am fine with that.
Vice Chair Thompson: I am in the same position as Board Member Lew.
Ms. Gerhardt: Okay. I will talk to support staff and see what works best. Thank you.
Action Items
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.
Chair Baltay: Thank you, Jodie. Then we move on to our action items. The first item is action item
number 2, a public hearing / quasi-judicial. 744-748 San Antonio Road: 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. Before we get started, do we have any disclosures to make? David,
disclosures?
Board Member Hirsch: No disclosures.
Chair Baltay: Osma, disclosures?
Vice Chair Thompson: No disclosures.
Chair Baltay: Grace, disclosures?
Board Member Lee: No, disclosures.
Chair Baltay: Alex, disclosures?
Board Member Lew: Yes, I have a disclosure to make. I did take a call from Randy Popp on Tuesday
who asked me if the drawings and the materials were clear. I told him that I thought the drawings were
fine but that I had not reviewed the material sample. I did get to those samples yesterday. I also visited
the site yesterday as well.
6.a
Packet Pg. 120
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Chair Baltay: Thank you, Alex. I’d like to disclose that I also visited the site yesterday and I also looked
at the material sample board at City Hall earlier this week. With that, staff, can we have a staff report,
please?
Sheldon Ah Sing: Yes, hello. I am Sheldon Ah Sing.
[Setting up presentation.]
Mr. Ah Sing: 744 San Antonio Road. Thank you for the introduction and the applicant is here with their
presentation as well. Just a little bit of context, here is the formal review of a master sign program
located on 1.91 acres. It contains the construction site right now to two five-story hotels. It is zoned CS.
That’s a little bit of context about the area. It is directly across the street from some multi-family
residential. San Antonio Road is a truck route. It is a busy road. It does also include, right now, some
lower-intensity types of commercial uses including a nursery, gas station, a little grocery mart, and just
approved this last Monday was the new mixed-use project that’s a block away. The Council did also
approve the expansion of the housing incentive programs. This will be an area that will potentially
transition over the next several years. The request for this project is a master sign program as well as a
sign exception. We are recommending approval of the project. The master sign program does include
two hotels. There is the AC hotel on the Southern portion of the property. Then there is -- what you
guys may remember was the Courtyard Grand Marriott -- now the Hotel Citrine. It is kind of a one-off
type of grand within the tribute portfolio. I think the applicant would be able to explain that a little bit
more. It is slightly different. Both are on the luxury end I would say. Each sign program includes a
mirroring of each other. Each hotel site includes one free-standing sign in front of it along San Antonio
Road, four wall signs that are in very similar areas, as well as four window signs. The first thing we will
look at is AC Hotel. On the west elevation is the front elevation where we were able to get some
construction photos to provide a better color context of the signs. This is sign A and it is halo-lit channel
letters on the wall. The letters in frame are brushed aluminum material and it is about 41 square feet.
This sign does comply with the sign code. You can see that the location of the sign there the material
has been placed as the building backdrop of it. Along the north interior is the same sign but this is facing
the other building. This is potentially the courtyard of the site. This is sign B. These are, again, halo-lit
channel letters. The light gets emitted from behind with the lettering being a silhouette. This 41 square
feet again and this sign also complies with the sign code. Along the same elevations here but on a
different plane, you have two types of signs here. You have another wall sign. It’s illuminated brushed
aluminum frame and copy and flat aluminum background. It’s just under four square feet. It is just
where the entry of the building is. This sign also complies with the sign code. That’s the sign that you
see on the left. Then on the right, the window decals that go on the doors. This is a 3M film. In total,
all of these film decals are 15 square feet and the sign also complies with the sign code. On the north
interior there is one more sign. This is on top of the canopy. It’s a sign K and it is actually mounted on
top of the canopy. It has a face-lit illumination. It’s a little bit different. Light comes through the front
of the sign. It has an acrylic face with vinyl applied to have that color. This is just over six square feet
and this sign also complies with the sign code. Lastly for the C Hotel, you have the freestanding sign and
this is sign E. It is mounted to a wall that is going to 42 inches tall. It is not constructed yet. It is a
stacked copy. The first stacked copy the AC hotel will be halo-illuminated. The secondary letters below
are dimension letters that are painted white that are non-illuminated. This is 175 square feet. It does sit
bigger because where we count the sign area for freestanding signs the entire background. Since it is
placed on a wall we do count that but the sign itself isn’t extraordinarily large at all. I think if you drew a
box around it is about nine square feet. We do count the entire wall in this case. Moving on to the Hotel
Citrine, this is at the San Antonio frontage. They had a lot of construction activity so it is a little difficult
to get closer there. This is sign H and it is a freestanding sign on a pretty much identical wall 42 inches
high. It is, again, stacked copied. This first copy is halo-illuminated. Then the dimensional letters are
below and those are painted white. This is 280 square feet. This sign, along with the other sign that I
mentioned, did not apply with the sign code and that is where the sign exceptions come to play. I will
give a summary of compliance in a little bit. When you get to the front of the building -- this is again San
Antonio -- this is sign F. It’s a stacked copy. Here we have a different type of sign. It’s a cabinet
internally illuminated for the logo; it's 46 inches high by 27 inches high. Then we have the brushed
6.a
Packet Pg. 121
City of Palo Alto Page 4
bronze letters. It is 136 square feet and this sign does not comply with the sign code. It does exceed
the area. We do have a little bit of concerns with the cabinet illumination because it is basically like a
light box. We want to seek some direction from the Board on this type of sign, and whether this is
appropriate and how to address that. We suggest in the staff report of having some kind of film to
reduce light emissions. The applicant is also going to propose something in their presentation as well.
On the south interior this is facing the courtyard facing the AC building. This is a very similar sign. It’s
an identical sign. You can see a little bit of the back material there being applied in this photo. That
gives you a little bit of context of what that would look like. Again, the cabinet logo is 46 inches by 27
inches. The second copy is halo-illuminated with brushed bronze letters. This is, again, 136 square feet
and does not comply. Then also here we have sign I. This is very similar to the plaque that was on the
AC Hotel. It’s non-illuminated. It has a mirror-polished stainless steel border and letters, and a flat
aluminum background. This is just under four square feet. This does comply with the sign code. Moving
on here, we have the window vinyl, again very similar to the AC Hotel. It is 15 square feet total when all
of those are applied to the doors. This itself does apply with the city code. Then the last sign is the sign
that is on top of the canopy. This one is applied a little bit differently. It’s not on top of the canopy
necessarily. It is stacked in line with that canopy. It is halo-lit, brushed bronze, trimless base letters.
It's different than the other sign that was face lit, halo lit, and the brushed bronze returns. It also is just
over 10 square feet. With materials, they are kind of similar and they do share some of those brushed
aluminum features and there is also the bronze that is used. The applicant can explain a little bit more
about those and how they are applied. Here we get to the sign code compliance. It is under Municipal
Code 16.20. For freestanding signs, only one is allowed per site frontage. In this case for free standing
signs under five feet and the maximum size for signs under five feet in this situation is 27 square feet.
There are two signs that are proposed because they are advertised to different brands and two different
buildings. The combined square footage is 455 square feet. That exceeds the amount and that is where
we have to get into the sign exception. Wall signs here are not to exceed are indicated in Table 3 of the
ordinance for each building face. Sign D exceeds the area allowed. Signs G, I, and L combined exceed
the area allowed along that building face plane for Hotel Citrine. Windows signs are not to exceed 20
percent of the window and that does not exceed the threshold. We are good there. Then we have a
combination of signs of the code where there is a freestanding sign, any one of the following: a flat wall
sign, a projecting wall sign, or an awning sign. In this case, the applicant is proposing a master sign
program that will allow different sets of combination of signs. That’s where that request comes from.
The master sign program does allow for occupants of the building or project to include a number of
buildings and combine their lawful sign area coverage into one or more lawful signs to an integrated
design concept. Here that is what the project is going to do. We can make those findings that are on
attachment B, packet page 21. There are five different findings for those. The sign exception is an
application made in conjunction with the architectural review which requests a deviation from what is
allowed in the sign code. Here we are looking at exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions applicable to the property and we are saying here that the sign exemption findings can be
made because the site includes hotel uses that cater to visitors that are unfamiliar with the area but they
may be familiar with the brand. That’s why it is important o have signs situated where they are and also
of size that is consistent with the size of the buildings. The buildings are also larger. In conclusion, for
CEQA, California Environmental Quality Act, these are exempt pursuant to accessory structures, the
project meets the findings for a master sign program and sign exemption, the staff seeks direction on the
cabinet signs proposed, and we request that the ARB conduct a public hearing. Staff does recommend
that the ARB recommend approval of the proposed project to the Director of Planning based on the
findings and subject to approval. That concludes my presentation. I would be happy to answer any
questions for you.
Chair Baltay: Thank you, Sheldon. Any questions from the Board for staff? Sheldon, I have a question.
Could you please pull up your slide number six? I’d like to understand how you measure the area of this
wall sign, please. Oh, I am sorry; not that one. Go down father on your presentation. It is the Citrine
wall sign similar to that. A few more slides down. This one right here, yes. How do you measure the
area of that sign, please?
6.a
Packet Pg. 122
City of Palo Alto Page 5
Mr. Ah Sing: Yeah, we would take a rectangle around the area of the sign and what is behind it. I think
we took the area of the cabinet and then we also took the area of the Hotel Citrine.
Chair Baltay: Combined together they come up to 136 square feet you say?
Mr. Ah Sing: Yes.
Chair Baltay: Okay. I don’t measure it to be that. Maybe we can ask the applicant in more detail, or
you.
Sheldon Ah Sing Yeah, I can do… certainly the applicant does his presentation and I’ll go through and
double-check these.
Chair Baltay: Why don’t you double-check that for me if you could? Any other questions for staff?
Board Member Lew: Peter, I have a question.
Chair Baltay: Go ahead.
Board Member Lew: Thank you, Sheldon, I think, if I recall correctly, Palo Alto limits the signs to only
allow the trademark logo. I have a question about the freestanding sign. One, like the AC Hotel,
includes Palo Alto and the Citrine includes a Tribute Collection below the logo and I was wondering if
those are allowed.
Mr. Ah Sing: Let me check that, Jodie.
Ms. Gerhardt: Yeah, I had looked into that a little bit. I will find the wording for you. It is supposed to
be the business name. I believe I looked into that and it was part of the full name but we can ask the
applicant to go over that as well and I will find that definition.
Board Member Lew: Okay, thank you.
Chair Baltay: Thanks, Alex. Any other questions? Then do we have the applicant with us this morning?
Is that Randy Popp? Good morning, Randy. Let’s give Randy a chance to tell us about his project.
[Adjusting Audio.]
Chair Baltay: Randy, you'll have ten minutes to make your statement, please.
Randy Popp, Applicant: Before I start, I would like to ask that you also allow Rashik Patel, who I believe
is part of the audience, to come into the presentation group. He is going to speak briefly on behalf of the
hotel.
Chair Baltay: Who is he, first, please?
Randy Popp: Rashik Patel, is the Vice President of Development for T2 Hospitality and they are the
ownership group for the hotel.
Chair Baltay: Okay. Vinh, if you could unmute him, please. Combined you will have ten minutes
whenever you are ready to start.
Mr. Popp: Let’s just make sure we got the right person.
[Setting up presentation.]
6.a
Packet Pg. 123
City of Palo Alto Page 6
Rashik Patel: My name is Rashik Patel, [spells name]. I am the Vice President of Development for T2
Hospitality.
Chair Baltay: Welcome to our meeting. Whenever you are ready, gentleman.
Mr. Popp: I am ready to get started. I will just briefly thank Sheldon for an excellent presentation. I am
not sure you really need to see my slides. He has done a great job of explaining what I was going to run
through. I will be more rapid in what I am doing and won’t waste your time this morning. If we can go
to the next slide. I’ll just mention that today we are seeking a recommendation of approval from the
ARB. We are close to finishing this project and we are hoping to be open sometime in December if that
is possible. This hearing is really only required because the project has two buildings similar to other
campuses in town, like VMware and other places, when you got that our sign requirements are not
consistent with that type of development. They are more appropriate for a small shop on University
Avenue or something like that. Whenever you have a multi-building site you have to contemplate this
other version which is the master sign program. I believe as Sheldon has stated pretty clearly the
signage is consistent with the requirements for that. While we are very sensitive to your review and
want to participant in this process I need to state clearly that virtually all of what we are proposing is
reflective of very specific brand standards, things like that the word Palo Alto is included in the name,
that the Citrine logo includes Tribute Portfolio [distortion]. With that, let me just let Rashik take a
moment on how signage works for a brand like this and what their methodology has been to get these
approved so far.
Mr. Patel: Good morning, Boardman. Thank you for hearing us on the signage package here. The
number thing that Marriot drives its business with is consistency in all of its brands. That is no different
for the AC Hotel and The Tribute. There are almost 200 AC Hotels worldwide and almost 90 in North
America. The signage is how Marriott ensures that their guests will receive a level of service that is the
same no matter where you go anywhere in the world. Therefore, their process for the signage is simple;
they all have to look the same with only two potential options: either a box sign or individual letters. If
you want to deviate from that, then don’t build a Marriott; choose another hotel franchise. This is how
they ensure no matter what that if you go to one of their hotels -- whether it be a Marriott or a Tribute --
that the level of service is guaranteed and that it is the same. You get the same level of service, you get
the same type of furniture and the amenities are all alike. This way Marriott can guarantee that you get
the service that you have bought in on with their name behind it. Marriott prides itself on the fact that its
consistency is their number guarantee for its guests. Thank you. Randy.
Mr. Popp: Thank you, Rashik. Sheldon, if you want to go to full screen that might make it a little bit
easier to see the detail. Just make it a little bit larger then we can go to the next slide. I will just relay
that placeholders have been shown throughout the entitlement process for the signage what was -- as
we all heard previously -- the Courtyard by Marriott has now been rebranded as the Hotel Citrine, which
is part of The Tribute Portfolio. This is actually a pretty exclusive brand. It is frankly lucky that we’re
able to get one in Palo Alto. It allows for a certain level of flexibility for the interior design and it is based
on an image or concept that represents the character of the hotel itself. The citrine stone and the colors
of that are used throughout the interior and the Lemon Verbena, which is the branch that you see on the
logo, represents an eco-centric aesthetic and approach to the operations. Next slide, please. You can
see how the building is shaping up here a little bit. Next slide. Same is true for the AC Hotel. Similarly,
we have shown the placement of signage and you can see the front-facing AC sign. It's hidden a little bit
by the foliage and we anticipated that. The side facing sign that was on the Courtyard, now the Citrine.
Next slide, please. And the buildings are coming along nicely. I am glad you were all able to get out
there and walk around. We would be happy to invite you out to come see the interior soon, as well.
Next slide, please. As Sheldon mentioned, we do have six types of signs, which are really mirrored for
each of the buildings. I will be frank in saying that the specifics for the AC standard have driven a bit of
the design for the Citrine as well because they are mirrored next to each other we want to have
compatibility between those two. Next slide, please. As Rashik was mentioning, the brand standard is
quite specific. If you look on the web briefly, you will see all over the world this is what the signs look
like. They are typically an internally lit cabinet-type sign for the AC that has a fairly high rating for the
6.a
Packet Pg. 124
City of Palo Alto Page 7
color, typically about a 5,000 Kelvin and they are quite bright. We recognized in Palo Alto early on that
that was going to be challenging to do everywhere so we have requested from Marriott some exception
to that. Next slide, please. Sheldon did a great job explaining what the character of those will be.
Sheldon, if you could flip to the next slide for me that would be great.
[Setting up presentation.]
Mr. Popp: The next slide is just our building again. You have seen these pictures In Sheldon's so we can
just go forward. I will explain very briefly I put in a couple of images of one other AC that we were able
to find that did halo-lit letters similar to what we are proposing so that you can see how that would be
constructed and what that will look like. This type of halo-lit signage is consistent for both the AC and
the Citrine; so as we go through this and you see halo-lit signage this is what we’re talking about. Next
slide, please. Sheldon mentioned very quickly also the type C and D signage. The C signage is really so
that people don’t walk through glass. It’s just a band on some of our larger glass windows so that there
is a level of safety and people don’t run into those. It protects from bird strikes and other things we’ve
found in the past that can be an issue. Then the plaque that is on the building which is sign type C, is
really a critical element of the brand appearance. Next slide, please. I will take a moment to just very
quickly explain that, again, the Citrine is this different style of hotel for Marriott. Each one has a unique
character to it. I have given a couple of examples for others that are in other areas. For us, we have
chosen this Lemon Verbena as the motif. That leaf blossom that comes off of that is important for a
number of reasons in terms of the design, and when you see the interior you'll see how that’s reflected
throughout. The detail in that and the delicacy of that is important for us. Next slide, please. I am
going to pass by some of the other things that we talked about here in terms of the halo-lit signage. I
think you all understand that clearly now and just focus on this cabinet sign for a moment, which is
something that exists in many locations in Palo Alto. A number of sign programs that have been
approved at staff level have cabinet-lit signage like this. The Homewood Suites is a good example. It is
just right up around the corner on El Camino. For us, I want to make sure that everyone understands
that the balance between contrast and legibility of this is pretty critical. We have dimmable LED’s inside
this cabinet and our intention is to turn this down so low that the logo really glows and is present and is
not washed out in any way by the brightness of the sign. If there is some concern about this we would
welcome a condition where some of the board members or staff would come with us at the site as we
got this turned on and we can dial that up or down to make sure that it is not too bright. I will say that
film is not a good option for us on this because it would damage the intricacy of the design. Go ahead to
the next for me as well, Sheldon. Mirroring, again, as we said what is going on on the AC. We’ve got
these internal signs. The type G and then going to the next is more detail that you’ve already seen. I
am just skipping through this because Sheldon explained it so clearly. Then, again, for the Citrine the
similar plaque and the glass mounted vinyl to create some privacy protection help on that. Let’s look on
the next and talk briefly about these signs that are mounted on the canopy. As I showed early on, this
type of sign is a very specific brand standard. It appears on every single AC Hotel and this is a location
because it is on the interior of the property and really not visible from the exterior in any way we did stay
with essentially an internally lit sign that will glow in the way that the AC has asked us to make it happen.
These letters will be mounted to the top of the canopy and we will have a brightness to them that is very
consistent with the brand standard. If you go the next for me, Sheldon (crosstalk). I’m sorry?
Mr. Nguyen: Quick time check. It has been ten minutes.
Mr. Popp: Okay. I am sorry. I will go very quickly. I have two more slides. The Citrine is different than
the ACV in this way. We‘re going to just use the same halo-lit signage. Next slide. The last thing that I
will mention very briefly is the way this sign was calculated I respect what Sheldon has done here. I do
have a pocket slide if anyone wants to see it. This panel is actually made up of a series of individual
pieces of metal and so the sign itself is quite a bit smaller than that large wall and the large wall is made
up of a bunch of smaller pieces. If that helps to change how any of you might review that I would be
happy to discuss that. Thank you very much. That concludes my presentation. Happy to answer any
questions you have.
6.a
Packet Pg. 125
City of Palo Alto Page 8
Chair Baltay: Thank you very much Randy and Rashik. At this point, I would like to open the meeting to
public comment. Vinh, do we have any speaker cards?
Ms. Dao: There are no raised hands.
Chair Baltay: Okay. To any members of the public, now is the chance to speak. Okay, we will close the
meeting to public comment. Do we have any questions of the applicant, please, from the Board?
Vice Chair Thompson: I have a quick question.
Chair Baltay: Go ahead, Osma.
Vice Chair Thompson: Mr. Popp, you said that that wall sign is made up of smaller elements. What did
you mean when you said that?
Mr. Popp: Sheldon, if you could open my presentation back up and flip to the first pocket slide. I think
it’ll help explain what I'm talking about.
Ms. Gerhardt: Staff also has a few definitions ready to go when you need them.
Mr. Popp: Yeah. I am not trying to bend the intent of this in any way but I do want you to understand.
[Setting up presentation.]
Mr. Popp: This is a Corten wall and, of course, we are not Richard Serra here. We’re not going to bend
a giant piece of steel the way he might. What we are doing is we will be faceting the sign and there will
be very slight one-inch gaps between the individual panels so you can see highlighted in red.
[Setting up presentation.]
Mr. Popp: You can see the dashed lines there around some of the pieces is where the actual signage
exists. I will share that we have heard from the fire department that they may prefer the 744/748
building numerals to actually be on the building itself. We are not certain about where those will exist
ultimately. We are going to do whatever the fire department tells us we have to do. We prefer them to
be out on the front as we have shown them and as staff has asked us to place them. Osma, just to very
quickly answer your question -- I am sorry for being too long about this -- it’s segmented and we are only
applying the sign to a portion to this segmented wall.
Vice Chair Thompson: Thank you.
Chair Baltay: Thank you. Any other questions? Sheldon, do you have any response for me regarding
the measurement of the Citrine wall sign?
Ms. Gerhardt: I think Sheldon might still be working on that measurement. If I can share my screen
here.
Chair Baltay: Randy, you might also want to chime in. I just don’t measure it to be nearly as large as
the report says it is and I want to understand what I am missing.
Mr. Popp: I think I will ask Jodie to relay what staff interpretation of this is. My guess is -- and I used to
struggle with this when I was in the position you are all in today -- very often the sign requirements state
that you have to include the entire wall surface or some large portion of the mall surface in the
measurement of the sign rather than just drawing a boundary bubble around the sign itself. I think that
may be what’s according here. I will leave it to Jodie as to what her interpretation is.
6.a
Packet Pg. 126
City of Palo Alto Page 9
Ms. Gerhardt: Yeah, that is especially true for the monument sign that is the entire sign structure is
considered the sign area. That is why that monument sign is looking so large. As far as the wall sign, I
think those could be calculated as two individual pieces and I don’t know if it was done as one rectangle
or two. I think that is what Sheldon is working on to verify those numbers. The other question that I
think the Board had… sorry. The sign area comes out of the definitions of the sign code and then as far
as the business name that comes out of prohibited signs. It does say that the sign shall be the place of
business enterprise solely for naming the business. It is not to advertise products or anything like that.
It does give some leeway for what we consider the name. It is incidental to the naming. If there is
some add on such as the Palo Alto that goes along with the hotel name.
Chair Baltay: Jodie, you're saying that in staff’s opinion the addition of the word Palo Alto is appropriate.
Ms. Gerhardt: Correct.
Chair Baltay: Thank you. Okay, any other questions? Then let’s just bring this back to the Board. Who
wants to get started here? Maybe Alex?
Board Member Lew: Sure. Thank you, Randy. I am generally in favor of the proposed project. I think I
would add in the sign exception finding number one… I think my recommendation would be to add that
the two hotel entrances are internally facing because when you actually factor that in it really explains
why there are more signs. I think the other factor I am thinking is that the signs that are being proposed
some of them are oriented to automobile drivers but a lot of the other ones -- the plaques and the door
signs -- are oriented to pedestrians and the entrances to the building are hidden internally around the
corner. I think that sort of explains much of the additional signage. I do like the halo-lit. I do like the
logo of the Citrine Hotel. If we can work around with dimmers then I think that is probably preferable to
film, which I would imagine won’t last or won’t age nearly as well. Yeah, that is where I am on this one
but I think the hotel is coming along well and I look forward to hearing what the other Board Members
think of this project.
Chair Baltay: Thank you, Alex. Grace, would you like to take us further, please?
Board Member Lee: Sure. I want to thank Sheldon for a very clear report. Randy, it's nice to see you;
thank you for your presentation. I have similar comments as Alex and I will be brief. Just stepping a
little bit back, I want to say it is wonderful to see this project moving forward on San Antonio. Signage is
one of those wonderful pieces and can be quite difficult but what I find the signage -- and I am happy to
see here -- is that it begins to breakdown the scale of the walls and it really begins to define the overall
new building and environment. Signage is so important for wayfinding. Alex, thank you for alluding to
the pedestrians and that we need this for the pedestrians. Also, on the vehicular scale, I feel like the
proposed application here is rather well balanced and actually works quite well with the architecture. The
other piece that I wanted to mention is that I appreciated the comments about brand recognition and
marketing; however, I think signage does sometimes -- especially with the brand -- become something
that we don’t want to be; something that we see the same everywhere. I understand the importance of
a logo and how that actually works with Marriott and all of that, but I think it is actually more important
that it works with the architecture. If there is a way to balance that equation in terms of being true to
your marketing and brand recognition but also working well with the architecture, I think that is the goal
for us to discuss today. Like Alex, I would be definitely in favor of some kind of dimmable LED as
proposed by the applicant. My concern when I first saw the package… what a wonderful package, I can
see everything and I can read everything but when I saw that logo, particularly as a cabinet box lit up… I
appreciate this wonderful motif and the Lemon Verbena. It is rather delicate and my worry that is with
the background being this white acrylic face we want to make sure [distortion]. That is really the only
comment that I have. Perhaps that is something that we, as a Board, can discuss in terms of adding that
as a condition.
Chair Baltay: Thank you, Grace. David, your turn, please.
6.a
Packet Pg. 127
City of Palo Alto Page 10
Board Member Hirsch: This is the first sign project that I have seen. It’s been fascinating to be
[distortion].
[Adjusting Audio.]
Board Member Hirsch: This is the first sign project that I've seen here in Palo Alto and I am unfamiliar
with other areas of the country here where we don’t talk so much about signs. It is interesting to see
how much detail is carried through to this very element on these buildings. I agree with the other Board
Member’s comments here, Alex to begin with and Grace to follow up on pretty much everything they
have said. I would like to add that I think the idea of having a sign down low in front and then on the
building is appropriate to the traffic street here and those two locations are good for identity for the hotel
and for the visitor to find their way to it. It is very interesting this idea of two hotels sharing a courtyard.
Yes, Alex’s comment about the different signage you need on the inside because that becomes private
space there. I think that you need that identity and it is really well done. I really like the differentiation
of the two hotel sign types and the Citrine is particularly attractive as a graphic design with a flower as
well. It is interesting to see that and I am curious to know if some of that decoration is actually carried
into the hotel but you don’t have to answer that now. I can wait until I see the hotel completed. The
color change in all of that I think it is important to note that it relates nicely to the color of the building,
and, of course, it relates some way to the type of service that is going to be provided by the two
buildings, which is, again, reflected in the graphics there. I can certainly say that I am proud to be part
of approval here on what all has been done. I think Randy did a good job on this one; good signage. I
don’t have as much knowledge of the detail as Grace was talking about or how it was constructed. I do
absolutely agree that being able to (inaudible) signs down is a good idea and something we can work
with you on as it proceeds so that it isn’t overwhelming at night time but can be seen because certainly
clients will come late to this building. Great job. Thank you.
Chair Baltay: Thank you for your comments, David. Osma.
Vice Chair Thompson: Thanks. Yeah, thank you so much, Sheldon, that was a really excellent
presentation; very clear. I have seen a couple of sign projects and I do have a bit of critique on the
drawings. I did feel like a lot of the images were really low resolution. I had a little bit of a hard time
envisioning what that sign would look like because of that resolution but I feel like Sheldon’s presentation
really cleared a lot of my concerns. I really appreciate that. I do think the halo-lit is probably the best
choice. The indirect light is a lot nicer to look at. For the cabinet on the Hotel Citrine, I do have a
concern, and, again, it might be the resolution of the drawings, but I can see the panels that make the
wall behind it and they have spacing that is a design. The seams between the panels is a design and
currently the way the cabinet is placed in the drawing that I am looking at, which is drawing 10 of 16,
that cabinet does not seem to be aligned with the panels in any way that makes sense. Am I allowed to
share my screen so that we know what we are looking at or I can ask Sheldon to pull up this image?
Chair Baltay: Absolutely. Go ahead.
Vice Chair Thompson: Okay. I am looking at this image and you can see -- again, it’s not great
resolution -- that the patterning of the wall that’s behind the sign doesn’t have a very strong relationship
to where the location of the cabinet is placed. I appreciate that the verbiage of the letters is just above
this horizontal, which makes sense, but I wonder if there might be an option to either have this centered
in a bigger panel or at least shifted a little bit so that it makes sense with the panel spacing. That’s my
only concern with how the sign is placed in terms of it being harmonious with the rest of the façade.
Otherwise, in terms of it being a dimmable cabinet, I don’t have too much issue with that. I do think it is
important that we monitor the brightness of that just because everything else will be halo-lit and indirect.
This definitely has the danger of being overpowering. I also hope it -- I'm sure, I mean it’s a hotel -- is
cleaned regularly so bugs aren’t showing through there. That was my main comment. If we could have
a subcommittee or something under consideration for that item I think that is important. Other than
that, I can recommend approval.
6.a
Packet Pg. 128
City of Palo Alto Page 11
Chair Baltay: Thank you, Osma. I will say I am in concurrence with my colleagues. I thought Alex’s
comments were appropriate regarding the fact that the hotel buildings are inward-facing, and that’s a
good distinctive justification for the exception. Osma, I am afraid I don’t agree with you regarding the
horizontal shifting of the Citrine. I think -- when I was out there yesterday, at least -- the patterning of
the tiling and the material behind that is fairly indistinct. It is really tough to notice too much how it is
related and when you are seeing this from far away I think that’s a detail that is just not that relevant on
this project. I think also it's probably a real hassle for these guys to shift that. I am sure they have set
that stuff, technically, within the building already. Yes, Randy, would you like to add clarification to that?
Go ahead, if you'd like.
Mr. Popp: Yeah, thank you. I’ll just respond quickly that the comment that Chair Baltay just made is, I
believe, very accurate. The patterning of the panels themselves is very subtle relative to the surface
finish of that material. It’s not nearly what the drawing describes and there is almost no way to get that
to represent in the drawing. I apologize for that. The intent here, really, is to have this sort of random
patterning of material and have a sign that is centered.
Chair Baltay: Thank you, Randy. Randy, that’s enough. Thank you.
Mr. Popp: Thank you.
Chair Baltay: Okay. I have a minor concern, I guess, regarding the wall signs and their size and whether
we grant an exception for that or not. Sheldon, I was asking about the size because by my
measurements, even if you take a rectangle encompassing both the CAN sign and the text you're only at
about 95 square feet. That would put it below the need to have an exception. I am curious as to how
we came up with those measurements. I think the size of the sign is fine, I am just not sure what the
best precedence is to be setting is. I went through this last night pretty carefully reading the various
definitions of area in the sign code and I think you could argue whether you can’t these as separate
pieces, the text and the CAN. That makes it down to about 25 square feet. Even if you're more
conservative and call it one rectangle, it’s about six feet high by fifteen feet and nine inches wide. I just
don’t see where 136 square feet comes from.
Mr. Ah Sing: I did check, under your measurements we still need to count the other signs that are along
that plane. In the interior, they are still exceeding the amount that they're allowed but along San
Antonio Road that would put it under. If the 96 square feet would then put that sign under the threshold
for that wall but the other sign in the interior is still over when you consider the other signage.
Chair Baltay: Okay, yeah I did t run the math on all of these. The question, then, for staff, I guess, is
that when you're doing a master sign program does that then let us justify that they’re using the overage
of square footage on other facades on the facade in question? The sign program is what's allowing the
exception or do we have to find specific findings as you’ve put in your list here, the fact that it’s a hotel
and things like that? Jodie, can you help me out with that, or Sheldon?
Mr. Ah Sing: There is a section in the code about combination of signs. It is very specific if you have a
free-standing sign and your other signs you can have are very specific and that’s where the master
signing program comes into play but it also does allow you to move the sign area around a bit. The sign
exceptions are still in play. You would still need to consider the individual aspects of a sign. In
particular, here we have a freestanding sign that is a clear exception there for those. You can only have
one freestanding sign and then besides the signs are also too big.
Chair Baltay: Okay. To my colleagues, my concern is that I don’t want us to be granting sign exceptions
all the time and I think the findings, the justification, has to be logical. I don’t think saying that it’s a 2.0
FAR building logically allows bigger wall signs. The wall signs are regulated by the area of the wall. The
building size doesn’t really relate to that so the FAR shouldn’t matter. I just don’t think that’s a good
justification to put in here. According to this justification, every hotel with a 2.0 sign is going to be bigger
and I don’t think that’s appropriate. I think that only applies to the wall signs on the Citrine project if one
6.a
Packet Pg. 129
City of Palo Alto Page 12
of them is actually measured okay. I guess I think if the other ones are bigger than what’s allowed by
the code they should be made smaller. It’s not that big of a deal and there’s no justification for that. I
think the justification Alex mentioned about the buildings being inward-facing and the fact that there are
two hotels, not one, is plenty for the monument signs in the front. It’s fine to have two of them and the
fact that they have this curving wall thing as the structure, that all makes sense. That seems to be a
unique exception to justify a sign exception. I am having a hard time making the exception just on the
wall signs on the area based on the language in the findings here. What I would like to do at least is
change the language under finding number one to strike the stuff about FAR and rather stick to the
justification Alex offered that it is two hotels and they're inward-facing. I think we are just opening up
Pandora’s Box if we allow the larger FAR to be the purpose for a sign exception.
Ms. Gerhardt: Thank you, Peter, for that conversation because we do want to limit these exceptions as
much as possible. Sorry for the interruption. This is pandemic, kids are at home and the school is calling
kind of thing.
Chair Baltay: No, I have got the phone going off the hook here, too.
Ms. Gerhardt: The particular wall that you're asking about is what?
Chair Baltay: I am saying that the wall signs on the Citrine building, there is one facing San Antonio,
which perhaps the area is less than we think and it okay. Then it seems the combination of wall signs
facing into the courtyard is collectively larger than the amount allotted. It must be close and if you
recalculate the areas it may be okay but Sheldon says it’s over by a little bit. What I am saying, I guess,
is that I can’t find a justification to make a sign exception to have larger wall signs because the building
is inward-facing or because it is a larger building; the FAR is bigger. Those are not reasons for me to
justify that. That’s what I am concerned about is that we are… they are great looking signs and they
seem to fit the buildings just fine but I don’t think that’s the proper justification for this thing.
Ms. Gerhardt: Okay. Sheldon, we have recalculated the San Antonio elevations and what numbers did
you ultimately come up with?
Mr. Ah Sing: I would concur with Chair Baltay at 96 square feet.
Ms. Gerhardt: Okay, meaning that it is within the limits then?
Mr. Ah Sing: for the San Antonio frontage and then we would take into account the other signs on the
interior it still exceeds, not by much as Chair Baltay…
Chair Baltay: I mean, I guess I would like it if we could just see that the numbers make it not exceed at
all. If you were to take that CAN sign and letter sign and treat them as separate pieces then easily the
problem goes away. The definition requires they be separated by one and a half times the dimension of
one of the pieces. It’s a little bit tricky but it’s very close. I don’t want to get into the parsing on that.
What I would like to do is have us modify the rationale for finding number one to remove the FAR
justification and instead stick to the fact that this is two hotels on one parcel and that the hotels are
inwardly facing as the rationale why this sign exception is granted. My other thing is that I would like to
see us have a strong condition regarding the brightness of the Citrine sign. I think it would be fine if
staff were to check that but I would like it to be a condition where somebody goes out there in the
evening and really does see it be adjusted to satisfy that it is not a big spotlight on to the greenhouse
community across the street. Otherwise, it’s a four-foot by two-foot spotlight if you turn up those LED’s
it could be quite bright and that is potentially a real nuisance to the neighborhood who was pretty upset
and took some persuasion for this project to begin with. It seems an easy thing. Unfortunately, I agree
with Alex who thought the film probably won’t weather well if you try to force that kind of a fix on a sign
like this. If the LED’s are dimmable that’s an easy solution and the applicant is willing to do it. I would
like to see a strong condition on that, though. Again, I would like to modify finding one and make sure
we have a good condition of approval on the CAN sign and I support this project. Any other comments
6.a
Packet Pg. 130
City of Palo Alto Page 13
following up on what everyone else said? Does anyone else support Osma’s concept about the aligning
of the Citrine CAN sign, for example? Would anybody like to make a motion for us? Okay.
Board Member Lew: [Distortion] make it formal and second it.
Chair Baltay: If you could, Alex, please. I would rather it not always come from the chair all the time.
MOTION
Board Member Lew: I will move that we recommend approval of the project subject to modifying finding
number one to remove references to floor area and larger buildings, and to add to that finding that there
are two buildings on one site and they are internally facing. Then to add a condition of approval that
staff review the Citrine cabinet box signs at night and to review the illumination levels of those signs at
night. That’s it.
Chair Baltay: I can second that. Grace, would you like to second?
Board Member Lee: Either way. I am fine with you seconding.
Chair Baltay: Go ahead, Grace, you second then, please.
Board Member Lee: Okay, I’ll second.
Chair Baltay: Okay, so the motion has been made and seconded. Would anybody like to address that
motion? Jodie, can you clarify that that condition is feasible that we can actually check the CAM lights?
Ms. Gerhardt: Yes, that’s absolutely feasible.
Chair Baltay: Okay. Vinh, can we have a roll call vote, please?
Aye: Baltay, Hirsch, Lee, Lew, Thompson (5)
No: (0)
MOTION TO APPROVE PASSES 5-0.
Study Session
3. Study Session for ARB Review of Draft Objective Standards (Continued from 10/15/20)
Chair Baltay: Thank you very much. Thank you for the great application everybody. Why don’t we
move right along? Does anybody need a break? This next one is going to be quite a bit to go through.
Let’s move on to the study session now. Is that, right, Jodie? I am trying to find it in the agenda here.
Vice Chair Thompson: That’s right, it’s a study session.
Ms. Gerhardt: Yes, sorry, my mute was not working. You are correct.
Chair Baltay: Okay. Let me figure out which one. I can’t find the introduction for this one on my screen
right this instant. Bear with me one second here.
[Setting up presentation.]
6.a
Packet Pg. 131
City of Palo Alto Page 14
Chair Baltay: We are doing a study session for ARB review of draft objective standards, which is
continued from October 15, 2020. I guess we start out with a staff presentation. There are no
disclosures on the study session. Jodie and staff, take it away.
Ms. Gerhardt: Yes, thank you very much. I am actually going to have Jean Eisberg with Lexington. She
has been helping us a great deal on these objective standards and she has some other members, Chris,
as well as possibly Jeremy, that will be helping as well. Thank you. Go ahead, Jean.
Jean Eisberg: Okay great. Thank you. Good morning, everyone. We are going pick up where we left
off a month ago on objective standards. You’ll recall that we made a lot of progress. I am just going to
do a very quick recap and then we are going to move forward and if time allows we will try to go
backwards again and provide some feedback and revisions based on the feedback that you gave us at
the last meeting. We have four more topics that we’re going to go through. We will try to keep to about
ten minutes per topic and then again, if time permits we will go back and take a look at some of those
previous topics. We made it through some of the big picture items in terms of the relationship between
the building and the street, the public realm, access, and building orientation, and building massing. We
are going to pick up back on façade design, go through residential entries, open space, and the example
of materials. We have been working with you as a full Board and with the subcommittee of Board
Members Thompson and Hirsch over the past year. We are meeting again today for our fifth meeting
and based on what happens today we will figure out where we are going to go next. We may come back
to the Board as a whole; it’s also been discussed bringing the Board and the PTC together. The PTC is
very interested in hearing your feedback on the architectural side in terms of the objective standards. I
will revisit this once we get through today. I am not going to go through my whole presentation. I will
pause after each section to have questions and discussions among the Board. You’ll recall that we
started façade design last time. Again, the way that this objective standard draft is organized we have a
series of intent statements that are the subjective guidelines and those are drawn directly from the
context space design criteria. Then on the right hand side of the slide you can see the sections that
include all of the draft standards, which are requirements and are written to be objective. Last time we
talked about the intent statement and we talked about base, middle, and top, and you'll recall that the
Board’s recommendation was that we actually we remove the base, middle, and top guideline from the
intent statement but keep it as a standard. Essentially, a project that is looking to meet objective
standards, for whatever reason, would need to show that that base, middle, and top. If they did not
want to do that they could instead meet the intent behind this intent statement excluding the need for a
base, middle, and top. They could come to you in a very modernist box form and at the discretion of the
ARB that project could be considered and approved. Just briefly running through what that looks like, we
had, again, our base, middle, and top set of standards. We did get some feedback last time on the
graphics. Chris and has team have made some revisions to those graphics, specifically to focus in on the
specific element that relates to that standard. Instead of showing windows everywhere, if the standard
doesn’t relate to the windows we are just talking about on the upper left corner here that step back or
recessing of the façade that’s what is shown in the diagram. Those are some changes to the diagrams
that you'll see next time around. This is where we left off on façade articulation. We had some changes
in the packet numbering but you'll notice that the packet you received was the exact same set of
standards as last time. If you’re looking at your old packet from October it is packet page 34. If you're
looking at the packet from today’s meeting its packet page 56. I do have the standard up on the screen.
I know it is very small font but this is just to provide a visual queue for the discussion. Chair, I was going
to pause there if you want to go through façade articulation.
Chair Baltay: Okay. Does anybody have anything to comment on regarding façade articulation?
Vice Chair Thompson: I have a question and this is just an inquiry for when it is a good time to discuss
this. I think there has been comments on the graphics and exhibits and, I guess, I am wondering -- we
just saw an update -- do we want to talk about that as a separate item from the text?
Chair Baltay: Yes, Osma, I think we should discuss the format and graphics as a separate thing maybe
as we finish all of this. I think it might be a bit of a discussion. I don’t want us to get bogged down on
6.a
Packet Pg. 132
City of Palo Alto Page 15
that quite yet. Does anybody else share that thought that we might want to just discuss that as a whole
amongst the Board.
Board Member Lee: I just wanted to thank you. I watched the video from the last meeting.
Unfortunately, I was unable to attend and I am wondering if it is at all possible to talk about the slide
previous? The base, middle, and top and the requirement of two or more. Is that now closed? Are we
moving forward now just to the faced articulation or I just wanted to check in.
Ms. Gerhardt: I think we are fine going back to just the base, middle, and top but then we wanted to
going from there and we can come back around a second time as needed.
Board Member Lee: Is that okay, then, as a group? I just wanted to clarify the two or more of the
following four techniques. I don’t recall if you discussed that on the video from last meeting. Is that
something that’s agreed?
Chair Baltay: The base, middle, and top thing?
Board Member Lee: Yeah, just the two or more of the four techniques. Is something that we are all
comfortable with?
Board Member Hirsch: I would like to see us -- I agree with Grace -- talk about this in detail. I have
some further thoughts regarding the way in which we seemingly decided that the way they would use
base, middle, and top might really not work very well. My feeling was it should reverse; it should go into
the earlier… it should not become a standard by itself.
Board Member Lee: I guess that was my question, too, like David. I wasn’t sure if there was an
agreement in the last meeting that it would come out of an intent statement and become a standard?
Board Member Hirsch: Yeah…
Chair Baltay: Let me address, I guess, because I think I pushed for this. My argument is that building a
building with a base, middle, and top is not in and of itself a design. It’s a technique when you design
the building to give it a scale or a proportion that we somehow relate as more human. It seemed to me
more appropriate to put that down as an objective technique if somebody wants to use it but there are
other ways architects build buildings that meet these other design intents without a base, middle, and
top. By forcing a base, middle, and top on every building, which is what would happen if you put it in the
design intent, you sort of tie the hands of architects who want to do something different. I feel that it is
possible to design a building that meets these other design intents without having a defined base,
middle, and top and I didn’t want to see us get locked into that. I think it is harder to define in an
objective fashion but there are many buildings that have been done well that way.
Board Member Hirsch: One comment to make here is if you'll notice that the illustrations of a base,
middle, and top is a discreet, smaller scale building with minimal dimension rather than a larger building.
Therefore, it might not apply very well to other types of buildings, or it might. A building that’s in a
conceptual situation with other buildings that also have a base, middle, and top. I think that originally it
was put in the more subjective portion of this presentation as just one possibility rather than in the
design portion here where it is being a specific requirement.
Chair Baltay: But isn’t that what we are doing, David? By putting it in the specific thing we are saying
that the specifics are one way to demonstrate compliance. If you put it in the intent that every building
has to meet the intent regardless of the path you take to get there.
Board Member Hirsch: I think there were alternatives in the intent section. Isn’t that true?
6.a
Packet Pg. 133
City of Palo Alto Page 16
Board Member Lee: Jean, do you mind just scrolling and going back to the previous slide so we see the
intent statements?
Vice Chair Thompson: I guess, are we not (crosstalk). Sorry, go ahead.
Board Member Lee: Osma, go ahead. I do have a thought here but go ahead.
Vice Chair Thompson: No, go ahead. I cut you off. I’ll go after.
Board Member Lee: No, I appreciate this intent statement and when I see these bullet points my feeling
is, Jean, if you go to the next slide a lot of the language shows itself under the objective standard. Do
you see how under base, middle, and top we begin to use a similar language of one, two, three, and
four. My feeling is that the intent is already… I guess my issue is really this two or more of the following
four techniques. I love these four as options and strategies. The graphics I don’t love but at the same
time I think it is wonderful to have these four statements. I see this language in the intent. I AM JUST
wondering if we need this base, middle, and top as an objective standards. There definitely is more -- to
be fair when I see one, two, three, and four we point to architectural features in a way that is much
more detailed; however, the intent statements… does anybody agree? I feel like this language shows
itself in the intent statement. I am just not sure (crosstalk). I agree with you, Peter. I think that the
base, middle, and top in the objective standard you have the option in the intent to go to the ARB where
there might be a discussion, right? Even moving it to the objective standards, however, I wonder if given
what we are trying to do it might be more effective to think about options of techniques as a illustrative
examples in the standards without us a specific number of two or more -- that’s one piece. Then the
second is how we define base, middle, and top is really in the one, two, three, four, right, in terms of
these options? That’s my reading of this.
Chair Baltay: Okay, Grace. I am not sure, Grace, I see that one, two, three, and four ate part of what
define base, middle, and top.
Board Member Lee: These are techniques, right, in terms of (crosstalk).
Chair Baltay: Yeah, they are techniques. They are trying to put objective wording to a technique of our
façade design. I think you could argue that any one of those may be sufficient.
Board Member Lee: Right (crosstalk).
Chair Baltay: That’s the feedback staff is looking for from us.
Board Member Lee: Yes, I do not think you need two or more of the following techniques.
Vice Chair Thompson: Do you think it’s one or more?
Board Member Lee: Well, is it? Are we too prescriptive in the numbers in terms of choosing one, two,
three, or four?
Ms. Gerhardt: We need to be very prescriptive in this area because if a project meets this test then it
may not come before the ARB and it will be reviewed by staff. Staff needs clear direction.
Board Member Lee: I am hearing that from Jodie and I understand. I almost feel like the intent of this
standard… it is an intent, really, that all of these techniques, the variation, variation, variation again, and
these different easy is part of our intent. That’s why I feel like maybe it should move back to the intent
and maybe…
Chair Baltay: Grace, I am not sure if… the intent is a broader envelope that covers these objective
standards but it allows for additional ways of doing it. What we are looking at right now on the screen is
6.a
Packet Pg. 134
City of Palo Alto Page 17
designed to be bullet points they can check off. If you put this back into the intent then how does an
applicant know what they specifically have to do?
Vice Chair Thompson: That actually is related to the thought I had earlier where if we are getting rid of
that line in the intent statement if we don’t want to say articulation of the building base, or ground floor,
body, or middle, and top four corners we should replace that with an intent statement that says these
things. That articulation of buildings should break down scale via building modulation, facade
articulation, and fenestration.
Board Member Lee: To me, that would be very appropriate.
Chair Baltay: I think that’s a good point, Osma. Can we go back to it? Can you say that again, Osma?
Articulation of the building should break down scale via building modulation, façade articulation, and
fenestration.
Chair Baltay: Yeah, I think that makes perfect sense. Does everybody else? What do you think David
and Alex?
Board Member Hirsch: Can you say it again?
Vice Chair Thompson: Hold on, let me write this down. Articulation of buildings should break down scale
via façade…
Chris Sensenig: I have it written down. Articulation of the building shall break down the scale via
building modulation, facade articulation, and fenestration. Scale of the building.
Vice Chair Thompson: Which are three of those points on the base, middle, and top because I think the
fourth one is a combination.
Chair Baltay: Add fenestration variation or some adjective on fenestration. Every building has
fenestration.
Vice Chair Thompson: Fenestration pattern.
Board Member Hirsch: (Inaudible) fenestration.
Chair Baltay: Pattern, Osma, something.
Vice Chair Thompson: Number four is…
Board Member Hirsch: (Inaudible).
Mr. Sensenig: How about variation of fenestration and material patterns?
Chair Baltay: Sounds good.
Vice Chair Thompson: Sounds good.
Board Member Hirsch: Yes, as one.
Chair Baltay: What we are proposing is that we change this third bullet point on the intent statement for
façade design to be what we just drafted. Does everybody agree with that?
Board Member Hirsch: Yeah, I can agree with it but I object to the use of the next part of it which is the
specific requirement.
6.a
Packet Pg. 135
City of Palo Alto Page 18
Chair Baltay: Let’s not come to the next section which is if you want to do a objective standards what
are the standards that you have to meet? We are all on board with this s far? Grace, this is addressing
your concern?
Board Member Lee: I think that is much better than the previously we axed out.
Chair Baltay: Okay. That’s great. I agree. Let’s go to the objective standard. This screen here. I am
afraid, Grace, if you didn’t have at least two of these someone could very easily comply just by having a
variation in fenestration, and that’s such a loose definition that most every building can be made to fit
that standard. I am concerned. I think we should keep the objective standards tight. David, you're
saying you have some issues with this. How would you like to see it changed?
Board Member Hirsch: You are right. It would be a problem bringing it in to be reviewed and then it
isn’t so specific. Frankly, that’s what I like about it. I am having a personal problem with the idea of
creating objective standards period.
Chair Baltay: Okay, but right now we are not debating the philosophy of objective standards. We are
just trying to provide guidance on the standards.
Board Member Hirsch: They will be, Peter. I think it’s a mistake to think that they won’t become…
Chair Baltay: I can’t hear you, David. You're too far from your…
Board Member Hirsch: I think that it’s a mistake, really, to think that these will not become put into
stone in the future and people will use to go this direction will be avoiding a review by an agency like
ours. Then we will get cookie-cutter buildings.
Chair Baltay: That ship has sailed, David. We need to decide how we can write objective standards that
reach as close as we can to our intent. Is there anything in these written standards… for example, do
you think we should have only one of them apply not two or more? Or the opposite, should we do all
four of them?
Board Member Hirsch: I am for all of these standards being applied. I think that the original…
Chair Baltay: Grace, why wouldn’t it be okay to just require all four of these to be applied? They are all
something that almost any good building would meet these four design intents, I think?
Board Member Lee: I think so, too. I think all four are excellent; however, I think my issue is with base,
middle, and top to be honest. I think it is base, middle, and top and the graphics that I am objecting to.
At the same time I am not strongly objecting to but I want to step back. I saw the timeline, Jean and
team, thank you… will this draft be public for stakeholders? For example, professional development and
designs to actually review and give comment? I saw in the video -- and I really appreciate it -- there was
the question can we as a group receive some summaries or some understanding on what other cities are
doing in the Bay area? I know that there have been some stakeholder processes, right, in terms of input
from folks who might have some direct knowledge and experience building in the area. This is a really
important document and I just want to make sure there is a form for that. I think it is important. Also, I
understand your timeline and you would love to have something in place in case projects come through;
however, can you just comment on that for us?
Chair Baltay: Let me first, Grace, in our preliminary meeting the other day I asked staff that we finish
this second hearing of preliminary review and then that we have full-blown Architectural Board review of
this entire thing before it gets passed on to the Planning and Transportation Committee. Then I
suggested that the Planning and Transportation Committee meeting might be better with representation
from the Architectural Review Board, perhaps the members of our committee there rather than the full
6.a
Packet Pg. 136
City of Palo Alto Page 19
Board. Just so you know that was my formal request as Chair to staff. Jodie, what's your take on how
the process is going to go forward?
Ms. Gerhardt: I think we did talk about finishing this first round, coming back with a second round, and
then going on to the PTC. I am getting a little more anxiety that we are going to have projects coming in
to the City that want to use the SB35 or the SB330 State regulations. That is starting to become more of
a reality. The timeline on this needs to continue and we need to finish this. Again, we can make the box
as small or as large as we want by saying two items here we have made a medium sized box that
projects can fit into and go forward quickly. It is fine, too. We are here. Staff is here talking to the ARB.
We want to use your professional expertise to understand what makes a high quality project because we
still want to get that high quality even if we are streamlining the process.
Chair Baltay: Jodie, I know this is directly what we are talking about but can we address the question of
whether we get stakeholder feedback, say from other design professions in town?
Ms. Gerhardt: Yes.
Chair Baltay: Is this information we are looking at as part of the public records that is available right now
to anyone who wants to see it, right?
Ms. Gerhardt: It is. Anything that the Planning Department does is public information. Anyone can
request it, however, we also for all of our projects we put them all on the webpage. Anything that comes
before the ARB or any other public hearing has a webpage and is available out to the public. I want to
say that I have also contacted at least a handful of architects and told them about these public hearings
and things and let them know they can participate. I think sometimes when it is not part of an actual
project they may be working on other things.
Chair Baltay: Grace, do you feel that we are actually doing public outreach of a sufficient nature for this
given what Jodie just said?
Board Member Lee: No, I just recall in the past -- Jodie, you are doing a terrific job and I really
appreciate this, and we are coming onto the holidays and we are in this (inaudible) -- when there were
green building guidelines and when there were some important things coming up there was actually kind
of a (inaudible) to really hold a meeting that might include not only designers but also development
consultants. I think that it is more than architects that we need to reach out o given the impact of
something like this. The other piece that I want to mention is if we go back to this and look at it further,
I want to offer… I am so sorry but my feeling is we don’t need the words base, middle, and top and the
graphics. My worry is that we are writing a recipe for cookie-cutter architecture to occur in our City. My
reaction to the graphics and t the words base, middle, and top is just that. I do think we want to include
language and maybe this is just something… I would love to hear from other Board Member what you
think about this. These are terrific Things to have. I think I am reacting to the graphics and those words
base, middle, and top as a tag ling.
Vice Chair Thompson: Yeah, I think…
Board Member Lee: I apologize for it. It is something that really does stick in my mind as an
impediment.
Vice Chair Thompson: I think that’s important and that is actually part of why I was wanting to suggest
that we talk about the graphics first just because I do think it is clouding a lot of how we are interpreting.
This is everything, right? It’s not just the words. It is also the graphics. Then as far as your issue with
the terms base, middle, and top, I would be open to considering other terminology that achieves similar
design intent which could be scale and façade or something. Like scale and façade modulation and
maybe there is ways… I think when David and I first had a chance to look at it there are other ways to
consider this perspective of how we perceive a building. There is the pedestrian speed, there is the
6.a
Packet Pg. 137
City of Palo Alto Page 20
vehicular speed, and there is also the close and the distant. I think base, middle, and top are talking
about distances of perspective, like when you are standing right at the building versus when you are
across the street verses when you are really far away. There could be other ways. I think as architects
we still care about those approaches to a building. We still want a building to function well at those
different distances or scales. Maybe there is a way to articulate that. If we agree that we feel that base,
middle, and top isn’t the right terminology maybe there is a way to approach the standard.
Chair Baltay: Let me make a plug for keeping that terminology in the objective standard. For the past
500 years or so in western architecture public buildings have had this basic base, middle, and top; I think
from Renaissance Florence on out. That was developed, in part or became in part, as a guide to
architects who weren’t so skilled as a way to keep the urban pattern working. I think it is a very
functional way to describe to architects who are more workman-like how to get there. The other
terminology we are using is all so varied in its understanding and interpretation that you really open the
door, then, to potentially very poor buildings that are just big boxes. Using the term base, middle, and
top is something that anybody can look at past history and see what it means. Additionally, we have
other guidelines in town that require a base, middle, and top, for example along El Camino in the El
Camino design guidelines which are still in place and in effect for all other types of buildings. All of this is
just for commercial buildings. Removing that specific language just for this particular housing leaves a
big inconsistency. You could say it even leaves us rewriting a design guide which is established. I think
it is incumbent upon us to keep those established guidelines, as well. There is a process to change them,
perhaps, but we have to do that. I think we should, in the objective standard, leave base, middle, and
top or some language that reflects that notion that the building has a cap, a cornice, a parapet, a roof.
That the building has a base, a heavier piece of stone that sets it in the ground. I don’t support
removing that language from the objective standard.
Board Member Hirsch: Can I comment on it, too, here?
Chair Baltay: Sure, please.
Board Member Hirsch: Maybe the first who raised the issue that we shouldn’t be using base, middle, and
top for objective standards… while you are right that are buildings that work well with base, middle, and
top really you don’t find that to be prevalent today. Most architects are certainly something… the
selection of the illustrations here is very intentional because the small scale of the building allows you to
really see it as a base, middle, and top but as soon as you get to the larger scale programming -- which
you are really studying the building from the inside put in many cases rather than the outside in
specifically -- choosing a design for a building has to do with the designing the building in both ways.
There’s planning it and creating a faced. I don’t see that base, middle, and top is a definition of the way
design is really performed today unless it is specifically for contextual reasons because building adjacent
to it have followed those particular standards. I can’t agree with you, Peter, on this one. The context
planning, frankly, I got through the first part of the review of this and then came up to this particular
section, and then I took a look at existing context planning and the context section is really fantastic.
Somebody has put tremendous thought into the context and I find that all of these one, two, three, and
four are very much a part of context planning in the present code. My feeling is that we should go back
and look at the context planning and say how can that be objectified? If it can’t be then maybe we as an
organization have to say, you know we can’t accept this state requirement. By the way I think the
Council feels the same way about the other aspect of the State program. There is certainly a tremendous
objection to the fact that the State is requiring this objective standard. That objective standard means
that our Board doesn’t participate in those. Even if you say okay you can come in with the objective
standards and then avoid coming to an ARB why is that a requirement? What is it about our work that
causes this to be in stone in some way the way it would if you just do this, this, and this you're going to
have an acceptable building. I think we are important in this process. Look at the whole process and
what delays projects, I don’t think that is really us. If you want to say, okay you're going to do this in
one session here you have to then abbreviate it and then actually the review by Planning has to be
abbreviated and the design has to come to us anyhow. I don’t think eliminating ARB by creating a
6.a
Packet Pg. 138
City of Palo Alto Page 21
separate category of objective standards is a good idea. I think that we should object to it and I think
we might find support in the City by just doing that.
Chair Baltay: David, that’s a larger topic that what we are trying to cover right now. I think you'll find
that all of us on the ARB would agree with you, fundamentally, that that is correct.
Board Member Hirsch: If that’s correct then that what we should say. We think that…
Chair Baltay: Can we compromise, David, instead and agree that as our public support of this thing we
also want to issue a statement, essentially condemning this objective process altogether. Then maybe
have our subcommittee, you and Osma, draft up what that is and we can discuss the language of that.
But honestly, David, we have been given one meeting by the staff now and they have worked very hard
to put these details together. I think we owe it to them to give them feedback on this whether or not we
think it’s the best way to go forward. What you are talking about is fighting what Sacramento has passed
on to us and that’s just not appropriate right now to be arguing about that. The result is we get
nowhere. If we take the task that has been put to us by staff through the City Council, they want
feedback on this stuff.
Board Member Lee: Peter, if I may, I agree and I am very happy to accept this draft as its crafted
knowing that we are going to have another discussion. Maybe we should move forward knowing that
this is an area where we want to revisit and really just thank the staff for all of this. We should just
move forward and start reviewing the rest of Jean’s presentation.
Board Member Lew: I actually have comments on this item.
Chair Baltay: Yes, Alex.
Board Member Lew: I generally agree with (inaudible). I look at this with regard to existing approved
projects to see how they would comply or not comply. I think we have got some problems here with
1(c), which is the ground floor setback. I looked at quite a number of projects and a lot of them would
not meet this requirement. I think there are projects that are on 50-foot wide lots with garages
entrances that would not meet this requirement. I also think there are some projects on corner lots that
would not meet this requirement. I can forward you the examples.
Chair Baltay: Which slide are you looking at? Which section are you talking about?
Board Member Lew: On this screen it is number 1(c) under base, middle, and top.
Chair Baltay: Yes.
Board Member Lew: I think on the screen diagram it is 1(b), the text is 1(c).
Chair Baltay: Okay, I am sorry. Okay. I didn’t follow that. Okay, upper floor setbacks. Continue,
please.
Chair Baltay: First the ground floor setback.
Vice Chair Thompson: Alex, are you noticing that most projects actually tend to step out the bottom part
of their building?
Board Member Lew: The issue is that the requirement two feet for 80 percent length of the façade. I
am just looking at projects and they are nowhere near 80 percent. They are more like 20 percent, 30
percent. I think that the formula is too strict given the different sizes of lots. I think we need to look at
that a little bit more carefully.
6.a
Packet Pg. 139
City of Palo Alto Page 22
Mr. Sensenig: To clarify a second, one with the base, middle, and top standard as a whole you only need
to choose two of the four green one, two, three, four. Then out of one, you only need to select one of A,
B, or C. The goal of the base, middle, and top as a whole is to provide flexibility in architecture to try to
get away from that cookie-cutter aspect but still provide objective standards. This was trying to go for a
more, I would say, modern approach where you are floating the ground floor and have a setback like
ground floor façade. You can meet number on through A or B.
Board Member Lew: I appreciate that. I will look at those particular projects and see how they comply
with A or B. I think they would. I think we still would be careful about the 80 percent of the ground
floor.
Chair Baltay: What percent would you recommend, Alex?
Board Member Lew: I am not sure but it sounds (inaudible) fairly restrictive on the many smaller lots
that we have in town.
Chair Baltay: What if we could propose the following: we are going to revisit this once more. Let’s all
come back to these specific numbers as Alex is pointing out. This is a fairly complex interaction of
concepts here. I would like to keep us moving along. Could we try to come to closure on the language
of the base, middle, and top up above? We have had a lot of opinions on that. I would like to get a
straw poll whether we leave it this way or we ask the staff or subcommittee to revise it. Let me just say
I am in favor of leaving it as it is. Who else agrees with that as compared to revising it?
Board Member Lew: I would agree.
Chair Baltay: Alex agrees. Okay. Osma, what’s your opinion?
Vice Chair Thompson: I am also okay with keeping it. I think I could go either way but I want the
intentions to be met one way or the other. I would be fine to keep it.
Chair Baltay: Grace?
Board Member Lee: Sorry, I am on the fence here.
Chair Baltay: It’s just a straw poll. David, you’ve made it clear you don’t support this language.
Board Member Hirsch: I can’t support base, middle, and top.
Chair Baltay: Okay. Right now what I have heard is a 3-2 straw poll to keep this way. What I would like
us to do is leave it for now. We are going to come back once more at our next discussion of this and
hopefully everybody will have thought about it a little bit more and we can try to crisply work through
this particular thing. Can we go on to the next slide then, staff, please? This is where we started façade
articulation, right? Does anybody have any comments about the contents here? Why don’t we keep
moving through all this, then?
Board Member Hirsch: I have some comments to make. I really think my objection to the way a lot of
this has been stated is that it is stated either too specifically or too general. It isn’t the way one designs
a building, for sure. You don’t design it with a four-inch cornice projections, or two-inch window
recesses. You don’t make buildings that way. I think I have a lot of experience with larger-scale
buildings. I can say this with some clarity that I think all of these very datums, four inches in depth, a
minimal of two inches in depth including a change in material… these are specifics that are way too
specific for designing a building.
6.a
Packet Pg. 140
City of Palo Alto Page 23
Chair Baltay: What would you recommend, David, for item number three? If you had to tell and
architect what to do for their datum and you just had one sentence to give them and they had to follow it
what would you say?
Board Member Hirsch: I am in favor of saying emphasize the depth of the window but I am not in favor
of saying four inches.
Chair Baltay: If you don’t have any number how do we let staff evaluate whether it’s sufficient?
Vice Chair Thompson: I just want to also remind everybody the way this is written that architects only
have to comply with one of these items, not all of them. It is a menu. If an architect doesn’t like
number three he doesn’t have to do number three is what I am saying. I just remind everybody that that
is the case.
Chair Baltay: Thank you, Osma. That’s a good point. Okay. David objects to item number three
being…
Board Member Hirsch: The review process prior to getting to an ARB because we want to do all of them,
or whatever; you want to do a series of things that make it more than just the minimal, what happens?
Who does the review of these? How is this reviewed? You say okay it takes care of one, three, and five,
and you don’t need four, and, therefore, and it’s not there but it makes an okay building, who ,makes
that decision?
Ms. Gerhardt: David, I do think we need to have more of that kind of discussion about the process. I
think it is possible that these types of projects could still come before the ARB but there are time
restrictions when we talk about SB35 projects. When we come back to you next we will have more ideas
about process because I don’t know if planners are best equipped to figure out what a four inch datum
line is. I can’t even say the word, so there you go. But maybe it is also a subcommittee of the ARB that
is helping us review these streamlined projects. Maybe the process, again like we say, that is something
we can chew on a little bit and talk about next time.
Chair Baltay: Okay. Can we flag item number three?
Board Member Hirsch: Jodie, I think that is a very good comment. How it is done; the process is very
important and that you are flexible with some thinking on that (inaudible).
Chair Baltay: Let’s go on to the next slide, compatible rhythm and pattern. Jean, did you want to discuss
this at all or should we jump right into it?
Ms. Eisberg: Feel free to jump right in or I am happy to talk you through it.
Chair Baltay: I don’t have any notes of my own to add to this. What does anybody else have to say?
Board Member Hirsch: I think arbitrary recesses in buildings that have no function are not design.
Chair Baltay: I agree. Should we add a statement that these have to be functionally rational too within
the building and let the planning staff figure that out? Do you think that is realistic?
Board Member Hirsch: I didn’t agree that the recesses are reasonable at all.
Chair Baltay: Okay. You're suggesting that we should remove the recesses as one mechanism of
complying, then?
Vice Chair Thompson: I don’t agree.
6.a
Packet Pg. 141
City of Palo Alto Page 24
Board Member Lew: I don’t agree with that, either.
Vice Chair Thompson: I don’t agree. I mean, it is true when you are not thoughtful about where those
recesses go then that is not good, but part of façade design is breaking down the scale of your building
and a recess is one of the very many techniques that architects use, amongst other things.
Board Member Lee: How do you feel if we remove number two under A, where one is calling for facades
less than 100 feet and that there is a need for recessing. I am wondering, David, are you reacting to the
specific (crosstalk) dimensions?
Board Member Hirsch: Yes.
Chair Baltay: I found, Grace, these all made sense to me. If you had to specify it is about the right
numbers.
Board Member Lee: I didn’t have any notes on this. I am just trying to fond how we might all agree.
Vice Chair Thompson: I thought I heard Board Member Lew say something but then I didn’t actually
hear what he said.
Board Member Lee: Go ahead, Alex.
Board Member Lew: I support this section and I don’t want to remove the recessed item.
Chair Baltay: Okay, let’s keep moving on. David, I hear more or less insufficient support for this one. If
you want to marshal some arguments at our next discussion you can, of course. Emphasize building
elements and massing. I thought this was good.
Board Member Hirsch: Once again, my concern is that the way it is written it is either overly specific or
overly done.
Chair Baltay: That’s been noted, David.
Board Member Hirsch: I am saying it again because I am saying it specifically, in this case, item one is
includes five feet in width could say approximately or a minimum of five feet in width, not a specific
connection.
Chair Baltay: I don’t keep arguing about it. Who else has an opinion about this piece?
Vice Chair Thompson: I’m fine with it.
Board Member Lee: The only thing…
Vice Chair Thompson: Oh, go ahead.
Board Member Lee: … I did note is that the shared residential entry has a minimum of ten and with just
knowing other projects that are less than that I wonder if anybody feels like a range might be better or
eight feet might be appropriate since we don’t know how many entries are shared. Ten feet seems
generous for three entries or two entries.
Chair Baltay: I support cutting it to eight feet if you think that’s better.
Vice Chair Thompson: We just have to define the minimum. We don’t need to define a range.
Board Member Lee: That’s right, just a simple minimum.
6.a
Packet Pg. 142
City of Palo Alto Page 25
Board Member Hirsch: Just a minimum. I agree with that.
Chair Baltay: What do we think? Is ten feet the right number?
Board Member Hirsch: Could be less.
Chair Baltay: Less than that, David?
Board Member Hirsch: It can be less, yes.
Chair Baltay: It can be less. Can we say eight feet then? Does that sound good?
Vice Chair Thompson: I am fine with eight feet.
Board Member Lee: Sounds good.
Chair Baltay: Okay, staff, can we change that to eight feet, please, in width for item B?
Ms. Gerhardt: Okay.
Chair Baltay: Any other comments on this section? Okay, can we go on, please? Okay, ground floor
character.
Vice Chair Thompson: Sorry, can we go back one? Sorry. I know we just left this one. For item 2(a),
do we feel like two feet… do we want to make that less for the primary building entry? Do we feel good
about two feet?
Chair Baltay: I think two feet is a minimum.
Vice Chair Thompson: Yeah, it’s a minimum.
Chair Baltay: I wouldn’t go less than that, no.
Vice Chair Thompson: Any other thoughts? If I'm alone, that’s fine. I was thinking it could be less, one
foot. I am okay with two feet if everybody else is fine. It doesn’t seem like anybody else (crosstalk).
Let’s keep going.
Chair Baltay: Let me jump in with what I had on this one. I think the minimum height should be 12, not
14.
Board Member Lee: I had also noted 12.
Chair Baltay: Is that right? I had the same thing on both storefront retail and non residential ground
floor. The other comment I have is on item E(3). I think it is okay to have an awning run the length of a
building constantly. The first sentence, I don’t think that’s an absolute requirement to have it be broken
up.
Vice Chair Thompson: I don’t know that I agree with that. I think depending on the canopy choice.
There are some examples I can think of especially if it is a metal-glass canopy that crosses a really long
length it can appear very fortress.
Chair Baltay: I am thinking of the Peninsula Creamery downtown has that red and silver thing that runs
the length of the block almost.
Vice Chair Thompson: I am looking it up.
6.a
Packet Pg. 143
City of Palo Alto Page 26
Chair Baltay: It is something I flagged, anyway, as a question mark. Anybody else have opinions about
that?
Board Member Lew: Peter, I had similar thoughts as you on this one.
Chair Baltay: Okay. Grace and David?
Board Member Hirsch: I want to go back to B. Are we saying that there will not be a ground floor
(inaudible) ground level up?
Chair Baltay: Let’s first finish my question about the awnings, David, then we will come to your question.
Board Member Hirsch: Okay.
Chair Baltay: The question is should awnings be allowed to be continuous across a façade? So far Osma
says no, Alex and I think yes.
Board Member Lee: I think yes.
Chair Baltay: Grace thinks yes. What do you think, David?
Board Member Hirsch: I think yes.
Chair Baltay: Okay. Staff can we change the language of that to remove that shall not extend, please?
Then, David…
Vice Chair Thompson: Wait. Are you saying that it needs to extend the whole façade or that it just can?
Chair Baltay: I just don’t want to prohibit it from extending the whole façade.
Vice Chair Thompson: Okay.
Mr. Sensenig: Then we should delete all of three, correct?
Board Member Lee: We want to delete it, right?
Chair Baltay: Osma, would you like to rephrase it so it covers your concern somehow? I just don’t want
to prohibit it from certain features on buildings. Would you like to say, maybe, it has to be integrated
with the windows?
Vice Chair Thompson: Hold on.
Board Member Hirsch: Then you would eliminate it from being continues from a whole building or a
section of a building.
Chair Baltay: That’s where the graphics are failing us because on this example they are showing it makes
sense to do it this way but there are other examples you can pick out.
Vice Chair Thompson: I am actually looking at the creamery and they do have one part of their façade
that is continuous but the rest of it is segmented.
Chair Baltay: Would that building meet this standard?
Vice Chair Thompson: Are we putting a limit on how long they can be at all here?
6.a
Packet Pg. 144
City of Palo Alto Page 27
Mr. Sensenig: No, there is no limit and maybe an in-between here is to stop after the phrase individual
segments shall be installed over each storefront entry or set of storefront windows, period. Then
eliminate the shall not extend across wall sections across multiple windows or over columns.
Chair Baltay: I am fine with that.
Vice Chair Thompson: I actually think the creamery would meet this standard because the parts… it
doesn’t have an awning where it extends over a wall section. The part that it does extend it is store front
the whole way. We are saying that if it is storefront the awning can extend the whole way. Is the idea
that we don’t have awnings over blank walls?
Board Member Hirsch: It doesn’t serve much of a purpose.
Mr. Sensenig: Generally, yes.
Vice Chair Thompson: Can I just share what I am looking at really quick so everyone can see?
Chair Baltay: Sure.
Vice Chair Thompson: If you look on this side the awnings are segmented and I don’t know that it would
make sense for it to continue all the way here. Then on this side it is mainly storefront and glass the
whole way.
Chair Baltay: Yeah, I guess, Osma, these awnings extend pass the frame of the windows and they are
effectively continuous. This is what I think should be allowed. Let’s craft the language to allow this. Do
we agree with that?
Vice Chair Thompson: Yeah.
Chair Baltay: Where do we stand with that language, then?
Mr. Sensenig: I think I just need to delete shall not extend across wall sections, across multiple
windows, or columns. The period would be…
Vice Chair Thompson: Okay. We are basically not saying…
Mr. Sensenig: Yeah, we would keep the top part and just cross out the bottom.
Chair Baltay: I am fine with this. Alex and Grace?
Board Member Lee: That’s sounds (crosstalk).
Chair Baltay: I want you to remove the part that says shall not extend across the entire façade.
Mr. Sensenig: At the very end, though, it does say that it could extend across a set of storefront
windows.
Chair Baltay: I just don’t like the limitation of saying the entire façade. It seems to me there are some
circumstances where that may come into play.
Ms. Gerhardt: Okay. Chris, do you feel like you have enough information?
Mr. Sensenig: Yes.
Chair Baltay: Can we, as a group, agree this is a statement we will support the way it is shown now?
6.a
Packet Pg. 145
City of Palo Alto Page 28
Board Member Hirsch: You're talking about (inaudible)?
Vice Chair Thompson: Yeah.
Chair Baltay: Grace and Alex?
Board Member Lew: Yes, I am fine with it.
Board Member Lee: Sounds good.
Chair Baltay: Okay. David, what was your comment about item B, please?
Board Member Hirsch: I asked what happens if you have (inaudible) that extends all the way to the end?
Chair Baltay: I am sorry, I cannot hear you.
Board Member Hirsch: What if you have a storefront that extends entirely to the ground?
Chair Baltay: Item B…
Mr. Sensenig: That is possible. What you are actually describing is the bulkhead. The standard says if
provided it shall be between and 12 and 30 inches from finished grade. You can have glass extend
directly to the ground, but if you are providing a bulkhead it should be of significant size.
Chair Baltay: Do you accept that, David?
Board Member Hirsch: Yeah.
Chair Baltay: Okay. Is everybody in agreement with the comment I made, and Grace supported, about
it being a 12-foot minim, not 14-foot minimum height?
Vice Chair Thompson: Yeah, I am fine with that.
Mr. Sensenig: I want to point out just to make sure that is read from floor-to-floor, not clear.
Chair Baltay: That’s right.
Vice Chair Thompson: Oh.
Board Member Hirsch: No, it should be floor-to-ceiling.
Chair Baltay: But why say a minimum? We’ve had situations, especially on residential stuff, where a
developer wanted very tall base levels and then they are not able to get enough apartments above it
without pushing the building over 50 feet. If you make this a minimum you guarantee that that is the
situation. It is certainly possible to do retail in a 12-foot floor-to-floor structure.
Vice Chair Thompson: I don’t know that retail is very successful if it doesn’t have that extra height
because a 12-foot floor-to-floor means that the floor-to-ceiling might be…
Board Member Hirsch: Eleven.
Vice Chair Thompson: Eleven, ten and a half.
Chair Baltay: Yeah.
6.a
Packet Pg. 146
City of Palo Alto Page 29
Mr. Sensenig: Or with duct being even less.
Vice Chair Thompson: Yeah.
Chair Baltay: Let the applicant decide that. If they want to balance out their residential up above being
taller why not let them choose. This is a…
Mr. Sensenig: I would like to give an example. Here in Berkley there are a number of projects that have
not had significant floor-to-ceiling heights in their retail spaces and they stay empty because they are not
quality spaces.
Chair Baltay: That’s a good point.
Vice Chair Thompson: Yeah, I feel like I remember reading somewhere unless retail is a certain height
on the ground floor it is usually not very successful. We don’t want to allow for unsuccessful retail.
There are ways (crosstalk). Go Ahead.
Mr. Sensenig: For comparison, San Francisco and other jurisdictions set this at 18 feet. Very common is
a 15-foot floor-to-floor.
Ms. Gerhardt: This is a smaller group of projects that will be streamlined. If someone wanted to go less
they could through an ARB process.
Chair Baltay: I agree. I am willing to change. I think you guys are correct. Grace, what's your opinion?
Board Member Lee: I agree.
Chair Baltay: Okay. Let’s leave it at 14 then. Anything else on this ground floor character section?
Mr. Sensenig: Hold on. I was trying to rewrite E(3) for a second and I am a little bit worried if we delete
the first sentence I don’t quite know what the standard is.
Chair Baltay: Chris, could you work on that offline and come back to us next time with something?
You’ve heard our opinions about it. We have to get through all of this today.
Vice Chair Thompson: I think he is saying he doesn’t have enough direction, though.
Board Member Lee: If I may just add one comment for Chris. I just saw a situation when there is an
architectural brow feature and I don’t know the word brow but it might actually offer weather protection.
In that case it might extend further on some building’s ground floor. I just wanted to offer that.
Mr. Sensenig: Okay. All right. I will come back with something.
Chair Baltay: You can feel that our subcommittee on this thing is also at your service if you want to go
back to David and Osma. They should be able to give you further guidance.
Mr. Sensenig: Got it.
Chair Baltay: Can we jump to item E, please, paring and loading.
Vice Chair Thompson: You mean D.
Chair Baltay: No, ground floor character we just did that didn’t we?
Vice Chair Thompson: There’s a second part to it.
6.a
Packet Pg. 147
City of Palo Alto Page 30
Chair Baltay: Oh, I'm sorry.
Ms. Eisberg: The previous page was the store front retail scenario and this is other non-residential,
which could be ground floor offices, where allowed, and residential ground floor.
Chair Baltay: I support all of this.
Vice Chair Thompson: I might have an issue with one. It is finished floor height iii(a). If we require that
the ground floors are two feet above are we creating an accessibility issue? That was the critique on
stoops; while a stoop is nice it is not very accessible and you have to do a lot of gymnastics to have a
stoop and make it accessible.
Mr. Sensenig: This individual iii(a) has been rewritten as a series of standard sin relationship to direction
from the last meeting. The finished floor height for residential ground floor should be discussed as part
of that larger discussion with the new standard.
Chair Baltay: We are going to still come to that, Chris?
Mr. Sensenig: Yes.
Chair Baltay: Okay. Osma, we will patch that later on, then.
Vice Chair Thompson: Okay.
Chair Baltay: Any other…
Ms. Eisberg: We will flag this on our end.
Chair Baltay: okay. Can we keep moving then, please?
Board Member Hirsch: Has anybody seen this situation where in the diagram you are actually going to
have a parking situation like that?
Chair Baltay: Yes, David, I have seen a number of apartment buildings in Redwood City have this sort of
semi-submerged sub grade parking. Is that what you're referring to?
Board Member Hirsch: Yeah (crosstalk).
Chair Baltay: It is just so expensive to go down into the ground that they try to keep it (crosstalk).
Board Member Hirsch: (Inaudible) on the perimeter of the building like that? Either you’re going to have
a parking level and its going to go down but I don’t think it is going to go up like that nor are you going
to have a pattern like that.
Chair Baltay: Speak into your microphone, David. Get closer.
Board Member Hirsch: I don’t see that you’re going to have a pattern as it is shown.
Chair Baltay: You mean the parking on the second floor in there?
Board Member Hirsch: Of course, yeah.
Chair Baltay: I agree. We have to come to the graphics.
6.a
Packet Pg. 148
City of Palo Alto Page 31
Vice Chair Thompson: Wait, sorry, what’s the concern? That the parking on the second floor isn’t a
thing?
Chair Baltay: The way it is drawn like this, Osma, is just not a realistic building.
Vice Chair Thompson: I don’t know if that’s true. There’s people that do this.
Mr. Sensenig: This is a very common building type these days.
Vice Chair Thompson: It is very common.
Mr. Sensenig: It’s a concrete podium with wood frame above. The podium is at the courtyard level so
the parking is within the concrete podium and then the wood frame above. I can point to multiple
projects that are built this way.
Chair Baltay: You put parking on top of the podium or within the podium?
Vice Chair Thompson: It’s part of the podium.
Mr. Sensenig: Within.
Chair Baltay: Within. This is showing, to my eye, that it is on top of. You're showing a two-story
podium here, basically.
Vice Chair Thompson: Yeah.
Chair Baltay: Okay. That’s fine. My comment on this, for what it’s worth, is that I would leave it three
feet above grade, not six. I think it should be closer to the ground.
Mr. Sensenig: I am going to pin in the height above ground again to be overall discussion on finished
floor heights. Then we should be consistent throughout the document.
Chair Baltay: Fair enough. Good point. We can push that off until later then.
Vice Chair Thompson: Sorry, just to make a comment about this. One of the virtues of having it stick up
is that you can get open space ventilation in that garage. I wouldn’t want prevent something like natural
ventilation, which would be cost effective and better for the environment. I think there should be an
allowance for this height, as well, as it makes sense.
Chair Baltay: Okay. Chris said we are going to come to that in a second. Should we just hold off on all
of that until we get to the discussion of residential height and ground floor heights?
Vice Chair Thompson: Sure.
Chair Baltay: If we can, then, we can move on to the next big chapter. Is that okay with everybody.
Staff, why don’t you tell us about this intent and stuff and we will go from here.
Ms. Eisberg: Okay. The residential entry section is intending to provide human-scale details, enhance
pedestrian experience, and, again, focus on that transition space between the public realm and the
private space. This gets into discussions about individual building entries as well as lobby entries to
residential buildings. We only have one set of standards here which is the ground floor unit entry. This
is showing four different ways where one or more of these techniques would be employed either stoops,
porches, terraces, or frontage courts. If you didn’t want to choose one of these options, again, of
course, you would have the option to go to the ARB and meet the intent statement.
6.a
Packet Pg. 149
City of Palo Alto Page 32
Chair Baltay: Okay. What do we think about the intent statement, everybody? It is kind of hard to
argue with that, I think. Any other questions or changes to it?
Vice Chair Thompson: No.
Chair Baltay: David, what's your take on that?
Board Member Hirsch: Can you go back to the diagram?
Chair Baltay: The intent. I just want to get us to sign off on the intent of residential entries.
Board Member Hirsch: I understand. The intent is good.
Chair Baltay: Alex and Grace?
Board Member Lee: Good.
Chair Baltay: Good.
Board Member Lew: It’s good.
Chair Baltay: Okay. If we go to the individual sections, the first one is ground floor unit entries. Again, I
had noted three feet for the height, not five, for the height. Is that something we are going to fit
someplace else or is this what you're talking about, Chris, where we are doing it in more detail?
Mr. Sensenig: This is what I am talking about in doing more detail.
Vice Chair Thompson: This is a maximum number. I am fine with five.
Chair Baltay: Is there a minimum…
Board Member Lew: I’m okay with five.
Chair Baltay: Sorry, Alex. You said five is okay?
Board Member Lew: I understand your point about two feet but I have worked on projects where there
is sloping site and in some cases they had to do five feet. It is okay. It’s not ideal but it can work.
Board Member Lee: I agree.
Chair Baltay: You're okay with five, Grace? David, what's your feeling?
Board Member Hirsch: I’m sorry, you asked me, David?
Chair Baltay: Yeah, we are doing a check on the height. What's the maximum height of a stoop? It
probably applied to porches as well. I had suggested three feet but Grace, and Alex, and Osma, too -- I
don’t know if I heard you say that -- think five feet is good.
Vice Chair Thompson: Yea, I think five feet is fine.
Chair Baltay: Okay. David, are you supporting that, too?
Board Member Hirsch: Yeah, I am okay with that.
Chair Baltay: Okay. Do we have a minimum height for a stoop?
6.a
Packet Pg. 150
City of Palo Alto Page 33
Vice Chair Thompson: We could say zero but then it’s not a stoop.
Chair Baltay: I always have an issue when you have residential stuff right at grade with the public right
of way. It is much less high-quality apartmenting.
Ms. Gerhardt: I think I had provided some analysis to Jean and Chris about… actually, someone did an
evaluation on where a stoop or a porch should be in relation to how close it is to a sidewalk. I don’t
know if they are ready with that information quite yet but I think we should think about that. The closer
the porch gets to the sidewalk the higher up it should be to feel comfortable on that front porch.
Chair Baltay: That makes sense to me, yes.
Ms. Gerhardt: Here is some of the graphics that we have started with. Maybe we aren’t fully ready to
explain yet but you can see the orange where as you get closer the floor needs to be higher up to give it
some privacy and some differentiation. If maybe that feels better to people we can keep working on
that.
Chair Baltay: I think this looks good to me. Other Board Members?
Board Member Lee: Good.
Mr. Sensenig: Great. This is what I was putting a pin in earlier about required finished floor heights.
Chair Baltay: Yeah, I like this.
Vice Chair Thompson: It’s a cool graphic.
Board Member Hirsch: It’s a cool graphic but does it make any sense? If this is a residential building is it
stepped on every floor above?
Vice Chair Thompson: No, no, it is showing the different options…
Board Member Hirsch: Oh, okay.
Vice Chair Thompson: … of how close it is to the sidewalk. It is showing a curve basically. As you get
further from the sidewalk the lower to the ground the privacy is allowed.
Chair Baltay: This is a great drawing right here in front of us. This really tells the story.
Board Member Hirsch: Yes, it’s very good.
Ms. Gerhardt: I want you to know the planner started this…
Mr. Sensenig: I’d like to give credit to Jeremy Pott.
Ms. Gerhardt: Yeah, Jeremy did the drawings but I started the conversation.
Vice Chair Thompson: Well done.
Chair Baltay: This is good. I think this is doing a good job of discussing this. Would this apply to
porches as well as stoops, then?
Mr. Sensenig: Yeah because private open space associated with the unit would have to be -- at least
when its facing a street -- at the finished floor of the unit. So, yes.
6.a
Packet Pg. 151
City of Palo Alto Page 34
Chair Baltay: Okay. Any other feedback from the Board regarding this ground floor entry regarding
stoops and porches? How about on terraces?
Board Member Hirsch: How do you define a terrace?
Chair Baltay: It serves multiple unit entries it says. That is a stoop, right?
Vice Chair Thompson: The stoop looks like it’s only two and it seems like a terrace could do more than
two.
Chair Baltay: You know it when you see it, David, but I don’t know how to put it in words. It is true. I
had written down to myself that the maximum height should be closer to 23¾ inches because you could
do three risers at 7¾ inches without requiring a handrail. When you go to 30 inches you’ll need hand
rails. I am not sure that’s a smart way to go about it but that was just my thought at the time.
Mr. Sensenig: That’s a good idea on a flat site.
Chair Baltay: I think you’ve got to leave that to the architect’s discretion.
Mr. Sensenig: Yeah.
Vice Chair Thompson: I don’t have any further comments on this one.
Chair Baltay: Okay. Anybody else?
Board Member Hirsch: I would like to say that can’t we say a minimum of instead of just saying 30
inches above?
Chair Baltay: You want to make it always at least 30 inches, David?
Board Member Hirsch: No.
Vice Chair Thompson: Are you talking about the terrace?
Board Member Hirsch: Yeah.
Vice Chair Thompson: It’s a maximum right now. You want to change it to a minimum?
Board Member Hirsch: Oh, let me see. Okay.
Chair Baltay:
It needs to be something you can get a wheelchair up to so you don’t want to get huge ramps or
anything on it, right?
Vice Chair Thompson: I think that’s why it’s a maximum.
Chair Baltay: Yeah. I was just suggesting it be less than 30 inches but I can see circumstances where
30 inches makes sense. David, are you okay with that?
Board Member Hirsch: I guess so.
Chair Baltay: Grace and Alex, any… okay. Frontage court, any questions or thoughts about that? Where
does the number 25 feet come from? How was that determined?
6.a
Packet Pg. 152
City of Palo Alto Page 35
Mr. Sensenig: I believe it is the distance a window needs to be from another window in a residential unit
without having special size limits.
Board Member Lew: I have a general comment about the frontage court.
Chair Baltay: Okay.
Board Member Lew: I think we have had a couple projects -- we have one on Hamilton and we also
have one at the Stanford University Terrace project on California Avenue -- where they have [distortion]
buildings and they have tried to do some transparency into the courtyard but it is not really a frontage
court. On the Stanford project, the public can see into the courtyard but it is gated. It’s not exactly a
frontage court. It’s an internal courtyard that is open. Then it seems to me like that type of project isn’t
included as one of these options. That may be better. Not my [distortion] but I just wanted to throw
that out there that there are courtyard building types.
Chair Baltay: Isn't that what they call a terrace, Alex, where they have here a 42 inch hedge and 40
percent transparency? Could we try to define the difference between the frontage court being open and
a terrace potentially closed off more? Chris, do you have a sense about this?
Mr. Sensenig: What's the name of the apartment complex again? I am trying to understand exactly
what you're talking about.
Board Member Lew: Sure. At Stanford University there is a project called University Terrace on
California Avenue. It is in the research park. There are two condominium buildings that are built around
courtyards that are partially open. We also have a courtyard building that was recently approved by the
ARB on Hamilton. I think it is maybe Hamilton and Webster.
Ms. Gerhardt: 565 Hamilton, the most recent one?
Chair Baltay: That’s quite closed off from the street. I think there is some visual screening in there, isn’t
there?
Board Member Lew: The original idea was to have it more open. Anyway, I just threw that out there for
consideration. How would that fit? I think that project doesn’t have individual entrances to the ground
floor units.
Chair Baltay: That’s true, it didn’t.
Board Member Lew: It had handicap ramp issues that the Board talked about. Let’s just throw that out
there and think about it. I don’t know how it would fit in with this particular standard.
Board Member Hirsch: Can I ask Chris how did you come up with the maximum frontage court depth
shall be 50 feet or a ratio not to exceed two feet in depth to one-foot in width? Did you hear that?
Mr. Sensenig: Yes.
Board Member Hirsch: Okay, thank you.
Vice Chair Thompson: It is basically saying that it can’t be a tiny opening on the street and the super
deep inside.
Mr. Sensenig: Right, yes. (crosstalk).
Board Member Hirsch: Maximum frontage court depth shall be 50 feet. Depth shall be 50 feet not to
exceed 2:1 depth. The width; that means it’s deeper than it is wide.
6.a
Packet Pg. 153
City of Palo Alto Page 36
Vice Chair Thompson: Is that assuming a certain lot size?
Mr. Sensenig: I am not exactly sure on this. I need to think about it for a second. Maybe we don’t need
to have a maximum depth.
Board Member Hirsch: I am sorry. I'm not reading from local buildings but in New York it was just the
opposite. It had to be twice as wide as it is deep. It’s called an outer court (inaudible) dimension.
Ms. Gerhardt: Maybe we can have Chris go back and look at this, but is the consensus that we want the
opening wider? You want it wider than deeper?
Board Member Hirsch: Yes, for me, anyhow.
Vice Chair Thompson: I don’t know. There are some cool projects that have… sorry. Go ahead.
Chair Baltay: I agree with Osma. I don’t know that it…
Board Member Lee: I'm not sure about it.
Vice Chair Thompson: There are some cool projects that have really deep, narrow courtyards but it is
cool. It works with the design.
Chair Baltay: My apartment building on 110th Street. David, in Manhattan had a very long, very deep,
and very narrow entry court that worked pretty well, actually. It was like 75 feet by 20 feet.
Board Member Lee: Also, I just wonder if -- Chris, you can correct us -- the motivator is privacy, right?
Some of the reasons why we are doing this here is for entries. Maybe that’s something to think about in
our next discussion.
Mr. Sensenig: Yeah. I think another motivator here or a thought behind it -- I need to check back in
with the rest of the document -- is the frontage court does not subtract from the amount of building that
needs to be up to the build-to line because it is creating a semi-public space that is engaging the street in
a appositive way and creating visual interests. It is still holding the building edge without the form of the
building necessarily holding that edge. There are a few different sections to meet in the objective
standards that I would have to go back and think of their relationship to one another.
Ms. Gerhardt: Chris, if we are talking about the build-to line and the graphic that I am seeing would not
meet my test of the build-to line. If we want to change that we just need to write it out very specifically
because I would have said this doesn’t meet the build-to line.
Chair Baltay: Yeah, I think you need some definitions in here of what these things are. It’s not entirely
clear.
Mr. Sensenig: Yeah, let me go back and rethink that.
Chair Baltay: Okay. Can we ask you to draft through that a little bit. To the Board, I would like to take
a five minute break. I also wanted to finish this up by noon. We have got a couple of other things still to
go over. Can we do a quick break right now?
Board Member Lee: Sounds great.
Chair Baltay: Okay. Five minutes everybody. It is 11:09, so at 11:14. Thank you.
Vice Chair Thompson: Sounds good.
6.a
Packet Pg. 154
City of Palo Alto Page 37
[The Board took a short break.]
Chair Baltay: We are back in session. We are going to go into open space. Staff or Jean, could you
present your intent on this one, please?
Ms. Eisberg: Yes. Just to be clear, open space is regulated in two places in the code. The amount of
open space that’s required for a residential project is regulated in the individual district regulations, and
there are a few things that will be pulled out and put into this draft section of code that relate to the
design of usable open space. I just want to make that part clear. The intent here is to provide various
recreational opportunities, promote a healthy environment, and enhance the experience of living in Palo
Alto. This section describes both common and private open spaces, and talks about integration into the
site access and building circulation providing generous dimensions for usable open space, landscape
elements that support plant growth in terms of soil depth, promote public health located easily accessible
to both private areas of buildings, and promote sustainable practices and community safety through eyes
on the streets. Our first section is private open space and then we will talk about common open space.
Chair Baltay: Anybody have comments about these intentions before we go into the specifics? I am fine
with them. Okay, let’s dive into private open space then, Jean.
Ms. Eisberg: Okay. Here I should note that we do have pone new standard. If you are looking at your
version of the staff report, item three was highlighted in yellow and we now have a new standard there.
Chair Baltay: Yes. Okay.
Vice Chair Thompson: I think that makes sense.
Chair Baltay: Anybody have comments about the private open space requirements? I had noted to
myself clear height of eight feet, not eight feet six. I am wondering if the minimum dimension if a circle ,
not a square, allows for more design flexibility. There are pretty small points. Anybody else have
anything?
Vice Chair Thompson: I would support the circle comment.
Chair Baltay: Sometimes if you have a dog leg in a patio or something the circle can be an easier way to
prove that you have sufficient area. Any other feedback on that? Can we just direct staff… can you guys
try to come up with a less geometrically restrictive minimum area? Does that seem reasonable?
Ms. Eisberg: Okay.
Ms. Gerhardt: This is private open space. We are okay with the six-foot depth?
Chair Baltay: Yes, I think six feet is a good dimension, at a minimum.
Ms. Gerhardt: Okay.
Vice Chair Thompson: Is there anybody else on the Board….
Ms. Eisberg: It’s just the diameter rather than the square?
Chair Baltay: Yeah, I can just see…
Ms. Eisberg: Or six feet in any direction?
Vice Chair Thompson: It should be able to fit a six-foot diameter…
6.a
Packet Pg. 155
City of Palo Alto Page 38
Chair Baltay: No, I think six-foot depth is important; six feet from the wall of the building to the exterior
plane. If you say six-foot in any dimension you could have some really weird spaces, but a six-foot
diameter circle, or about that, you lose a lot of flexibility but still requires the six-foot.
Ms. Eisberg: Okay.
Vice Chair Thompson: We are saying the space should be able to fit the circle in it.
Chair Baltay: Yeah. That’s also a common standard (crosstalk). Go ahead.
Board Member Lew: I have a general comment if we are done with the six-foot dimension.
Chair Baltay: Yes, go ahead.
Board Member Lew: It’s a general comment about where open space is required.
Chair Baltay: Okay.
Board Member Lew: There are a lot of planned community projects that don’t have private open space,
say like 725 Alma, 801 Alma, 488 Charleston, and Wilton Court. I guess my question is with this code
and standards are we trying to get that type of project to fit within the objective standards or are we just
saying that those could still use the planned home community process with the Council and they could
exclude the open space though that process?
Ms. Eisberg: That’s the distinction and let be clearer about my preface remarks. The district regulations
regulate the amount of usable open space that is required in a project or in a specific district. In the case
of the PC, the Planned Community District, there may not be an open space requirement. In that case
that project may be exempt from that requirement and, therefore, this would not apply. However, if
private open space was being provided in a project including in a PC zone these regulations would apply.
(Crosstalk)
Chair Baltay: Go ahead, Alex.
Board Member Lew: I think that is my understanding as well. I am just throwing out there is we are
trying to capture a wider net of projects then I think that this would be an issue for some of the non-
profit housing developers.
Chair Baltay: Are you suggesting…
Vice Chair Thompson: Can I get a little bit more clarification? Are you saying that those projects don’t
have private open spaces for each unit?
Board Member Lew: Yes, that’s correct. They have common open space but they don’t have private
open space. That’s been an issue with the Council on occasion. Some of the Council members feel very
strongly about the private open space who voted no on some projects because of the private open space.
I am just saying that we do have quite a number of projects in town that don’t have it.
Vice Chair Thompson: Interesting.
Ms. Gerhardt: Maybe what we can better do is show you the code itself as well. I am looking at the
multi-family districts that do require 50 square feet of private open space. They would adhere to these
objective standards as well.
6.a
Packet Pg. 156
City of Palo Alto Page 39
Vice Chair Thompson: I want to see other code language that does stipulate private open space per unit
and certain square footage for affordable housing and for multi-family otherwise.
Ms. Eisberg: Right. The RM districts require private open space but I believe the commercial mixed use
districts allow you to provide any combination of private or common. The project that Board Member
Lew may be referring to chose to do common for whatever reason.
Board Member Lee: Alex, I thought this would not apply to affordable housing because the private open
space requirement would be trumped by an overall open space requirement that might be connected to
direct funding for an affordable housing project,. That’s why id dint mark it up for affordable housing at
all. Am I mistaken? I understand affordable housing will come in as a PC but I understood that this
would not apply to 100 percent affordable or 50 percent plus.
Ms. Gerhardt: It just depends what zone the project is in. In the commercial zones the requirement for
open space is 150 square feet and there is a footnote that that 150 square feet per unit can be provided
either as private or common or whatever combination.
Board Member Lee: Okay, thank you, Jodie. In that case, I am with Alex. This would be a real
challenge for an affordable housing project to comply with these dimensions.
Ms. Gerhardt: If it is in a commercial zone they could provide zero private open space.
Board Member Lee: Okay.
Ms. Gerhardt: But they would have to have that much more common.
Board Member Lee: What I am understanding, Jodie, is the option for many of these projects given are
for an affordable housing developer to choose the common open space per the zoning requirement.
Vice Chair Thompson: I think this… oh, sorry.
Ms. Gerhardt: If they are in a commercial zone they have options for how to provide the open space.
Vice Chair Thompson: I think we are provided provisions.
Mr. Sensenig: I think what might be missing from this standard and causing confusion is it should just
say if private open spaces are provided they shall meet the following standard.
Vice Chair Thompson: Right.
Ms. Gerhardt: Yeah.
Vice Chair Thompson: I don’t know that that is necessary to write. That was my understanding as well
that per the other code provisions if the project chooses to provide private space to these units we are
not saying how many or whatever, we are just saying if you are giving people balconies these are the
requirements and if you are not we have other requirements for common space in terms of size.
Ms. Gerhardt: Yeah. I am not seeing an open space requirement in the PC section of the code.
Chair Baltay: Alex, are you suggesting (crosstalk). Go ahead.
Board Member Lew: I am just pointing out that there isn’t a requirement in the PC zone and it seems to
me the overall intent of the state requirement is to get these adorable housing projects in under the
objective standards. If we are requiring it, it would be a problem in an RM zone, right? It seems there
6.a
Packet Pg. 157
City of Palo Alto Page 40
are work around in the commercial zones. We should just be cognizant of what we’re doing here on this
particular item. To me, this is the big issue on this particular item.
Vice Chair Thompson: Alex, I don’t think this item is requiring it, though, right? It is just saying that if it
is required through other means then this is what the direction is.
Board Member Lew: But I am saying the bigger issue and the bigger discussion is the intent of the
State’s requirement, right? The State is trying to get these projects that have been going through these
long three-year planned community processes and get them through an expedited process with objective
standards. I am saying this would cause a big hiccup for an affordable housing developer because
(crosstalk).
Ms. Gerhardt: Only in a RM zone.
Board Member Lew: Only in a RM zone.
Ms. Gerhardt: Yeah.
Board Member Lew: I just want to make sure that we understand that. I am not necessarily arguing to
change anything but I think we should just throw that out there for discussion.
Ms. Gerhardt: Part of Jean’s larger project is to look at the code in its entirety. That is something that
we can think a little bit more about.
Board Member Lew: Okay, thank you.
Chair Baltay: Alex suggest, really, to be requiring what the open space is for some of these projects in
this standard.
Board Member Lew: Sure. I do want to say that the reason why the affordable housing developers don’t
like to do the private balconies is because they can’t manage and maintain them well. That’s the reason
why they don’t like to do it. Some of them, others do include them. For staff, we have the AF overlay
zone for housing projects, like on Stanford Research Park property, and that AS zone does not require
private common open space. The projects that have been built haven’t actually included it but it is not
required. Pay attention to that one, too. Again, that is mainly commercial zoning with a residential
overlay.
Ms. Gerhardt: I will look at the Stanford AS zone that you’re talking about. I think we might have built
all of those areas. I was looking at the AH combining district. That is a combining district that goes with
the commercial zone. Okay, that wouldn’t work but I was just thinking maybe we could attack it that
way but I think I understand the concern. I will go back and talk to Jean and Chris about how to address
that.
Vice Chair Thompson: I still don’t understand the concern but maybe I am the only one.
Ms. Gerhardt: In multi-family when you have to do the 50 square feet of private open space and
affordable housing may not want to do that 50 square feet of private open space for a variety of reasons.
Do we want to give them more leeway?
Board Member Lee: I think it would be very important to address that head on and thank you, Alex, for
bringing that to attention. For some reason I just didn’t see this for a situation for a multifamily where
affordable housing would be a proposal.
Vice Chair Thompson: I do think there are other code provisions that stipulate whether affordable
housing is required to have open space or not. I don’t know that that’s the intent for these guidelines.
6.a
Packet Pg. 158
City of Palo Alto Page 41
These are about aesthetics; they are not about counts as much or requirements. I guess what I am
saying is if an affordable housing developer finds somewhere in the code that he is not required to have
as much open space or something he doesn’t have to look at this code section.
Ms. Gerhardt: That’s correct but there is the rest of the code that we are not seeing right now. I think
that’s where Alex’s comment is going and its maybe not to this piece but to the rest of the larger code.
Chair Baltay: Jodie, can you report back to us next time we look at this what the actual implications are
of private open space on affordable housing projects in residential RN zones? I think Alex has a very
legitimate point and we want to be sure we have consciously decided on it.
Ms. Gerhardt: Yeah. I can just say that RM properties have to have 50 square feet of private open
space and that may or may not work for affordable housing.
Chair Baltay: Let me get a straw poll with the Board then. Would we support putting in this regulation
an elimination of that? For an affordable housing project it is not required?
Ms. Gerhardt: I don’t know that it would go here. It would go into the code itself, but I still would love
the straw poll.
Chair Baltay: I would support that. I think affordable housing is very important and the balcony
requirement can be a big limitation.
Vice Chair Thompson: I do not support that. I think developers can find a way to put the balconies and
that open space is critical to the enjoyment of living there.
Chair Baltay: Okay.
Vice Chair Thompson: For reference, I have been working with a non-profit co-op affordable housing
community and the issue of balconies got brought up a lot in our outreach shareholder meetings.
Especially during the pandemic, everybody was saying the only saving grace they have is to go out on
their balcony and feel safe and be outside, especially in the early lockdown from March to June. I think
just because a developer doesn’t want to pay for it doesn’t mean that we should compromise the living
quality of the people that live there.
Chair Baltay: Well put, Osma. The rest of the Board, chime in on this one, please.
Board Member Lee: definitely with Peter. I am with you and I do not think this should be a requirement
for affordable housing. I do not want inhibit in any way the review and approval of building housing with
this requirement.
Chair Baltay: Thank you, Grace. David and Alex. Don’t all speak at once here.
Vice Chair Thompson: I think David might not know he's still on mute.
Chair Baltay: Alex, what’s your thought?
Board Member Lew: I am very torn with this one. I think the open space is really important. I don’t
want to prevent units from being built if the balcony is an issue. I think it just needs more outreach and
debate before I weigh in on this one.
Chair Baltay: Okay. I don’t think we are going to have the last word on this topic. My guess is this is
the kind of thing that goes to City Council but they certainly would value our opinion. Does anybody
have anything to add on this? Is David still with us?
6.a
Packet Pg. 159
City of Palo Alto Page 42
Vice Chair Thompson: I think he is on mute.
[Adjusting Audio.]
Board Member Hirsch: I agree with Osma, in part, but I think it’s a balancing act. If a project can afford
more open space on the ground floor for everybody or on the rooftop then individual balconies are not so
significant. I feel it is kind of a trade off. General open space for all residents is another aspect to this.
Public housing or affordable housing ought to have a certain amount of outdoor space for everybody.
The reasons Osma expressed I think private outdoor space like this is also a good thing and could be
used in conjunction with general outdoor space as a requirement.
Chair Baltay: Okay. Why don’t we leave you and Osma’s column on that one? Jodie gets a real split
vote for this. Common open space, any questions or comments about that? Minimum dimension of 12
feet, for example, what do we think?
Vice Chair Thompson: Is that enough for social distancing?
Chair Baltay: That’s a good point. Maybe you should take that into account. It’s big right now.
Ms. Eisberg: I just want to add if you're looking at the screen this is the place where staff reviewed the
open space draft standards and recommended a change to that first item. Instead of a minimum
dimension of 12 feet, the recommendation is that it’s a minimum size of 200 square feet and minimum
dimension of 10 feet.
Vice Chair Thompson: Are we risking long, narrow spaces with that, potentially?
Chair Baltay: Yeah, why not leave it 12 feet? Is there a rationale for the change?
Ms. Eisberg: If it wasn’t Jodie then it might have been Amy and I don’t know if she is on the phone.
Ms. Gerhardt: Yeah, I am not remembering on this one. I think common open space needs to have a
minimum size as far as the dimensions. Do we want to do the circle idea again or…
Vice Chair Thompson: I think that might be a good idea because I was just thinking what if someone has
100-foot length and then they are meeting that ten feet with that 100-foot length and then they just
offset two feet for a planter box or something to say they have 200 feet of open space.
Chair Baltay: You're saying you think 12 feet is the right dimension, Soma, for the minimum?
Vice Chair Thompson: No, I am just staying the way that it is written is that it could lend itself to
unusable spaces.
Mr. Sensenig: What might be needed here is a minimum dimension to be considered common open
space but potentially a requirement that there is at least one minimum size circle that can fit into the
common open space that I would argue would be much greater than 12 feet. The minimum dimension is
more about how big a space needs to be in a dogleg or a flag-shaped open space to consider the pole of
the flag as part of the open space.
Chair Baltay: Sixteen-foot diameter circle gives you approximately 200 square feet. That might be
restrictive; 16 feet is a big dimension for a building.
Vice Chair Thompson: I would say we can keep… we have the six-foot diameter circle for the private;
maybe we have it a little bit bigger like an eight-foot or a ten-foot diameter and call it a day.
Chair Baltay: I don’t have strong feelings about this.
6.a
Packet Pg. 160
City of Palo Alto Page 43
Board Member Hirsch: Does the open space have any relationship to the number of units in the building?
Chair Baltay: Sure, in the code it does, yes. That’s how it is determined how much you need.
Vice Chair Thompson: let’s speed up on this. It’s 11:40.
Chair Baltay: Does anybody else have any other comment son open space? Okay. Then, do we have
the section on rooftop open space? Is that something we want to discuss? It has been a hot-button
issue around Palo Alto.
Ms. Eisberg: On the rooftop open space I just want to mention this is an existing code section that
currently lives in the CDC district and in the CN district. We pulled it out of the district regulations and
put it here.
Chair Baltay: Okay. This is what is done, then.
Ms. Eisberg: Its under little b.
Chair Baltay: Okay.
Ms. Eisberg: Then, under little A is a cross-reference to a section that the ARB discussed maybe two
years ago about specific standards for rooftop gardens.
Chair Baltay: I think we are going to leave it as it is right now. It is to the code; that’s good.
Board Member Lee: Sorry, Peter, can I just add one thing to the b(i) and b(ii)? I assume that
percentage of the required usable open space, 75 and 60, would be revisited if we are talking about an
affordable project to move that is being proposed for any of those sites?
Board Member Hirsch: Yeah.
Chair Baltay: Jodie and crew, is that the case?
Ms. Gerhardt: I think this (crosstalk).
Ms. Eisberg: I would say yes, frankly, because if this moves to this section of the code a developer could
-- instead of meeting this specific standard -- meet the intent statement and then the ARB would find
that the development has met the intent statement.
Board Member Lee: I guess this for our further discussion just to make sure we are safeguarding
affordable projects and we all agree in terms of open space requirements.
Chair Baltay: I had noted for myself when reviewing these standards that I didn’t see anything about
landscaping or privacy in here. Am I missing something or is that something that’s not necessary?
Ms. Eisberg: If you are looking at the packet -- I am going to stop and share for a minute -- at the end
of open space we are next going to talk about materials. Then we proposed to move two existing
subsections into this section of the code. Right now there are visual screening and landscaping standards
in -- this is the wrong code reference -- I think it is 18.40, and there are lighting standards. Those
standards would move into this section of code. That is why it is not otherwise discussed.
Chair Baltay: Okay. Are we still waiting for a draft of these things from you?
Ms. Eisberg: Those right now have not been proposed to change.
6.a
Packet Pg. 161
City of Palo Alto Page 44
Chair Baltay: Okay.
Ms. Eisberg: We can provide reference to them.
Chair Baltay: Okay. Any comments from the Board, then, on these topics?
Vice Chair Thompson: In the next version would we see a copy of those standards here or is it just a
reference to… are we expected to go to the other section to look at that?
Ms. Gerhardt: I think we can make sure and add them but if you're wanting to get ahead of the game
they are in the code section right now. If we move them to here we are actually giving people more
flexibility because a streamlined project could meet the objective standard and go through or if they
wanted to do something different they could go to the ARB; whereas right now they are required to meet
that code section.
Chair Baltay: You're saying the material section is already in the code?
Ms. Gerhardt: No, sorry. I am talking about visual and lighting.
Chair Baltay: Okay, that’s fine. How about the material section, then? What are we doing about that?
Ms. Eisberg: Let’s move on to that page. You may recall when we spoke in February, the Board had a
lot of different opinions on how, or if, we should regulate materials including concerns about over
regulating materials, particularly for affordable housing. This is an example that Chris has done for
another community. Instead of setting up materials that are allowed as primary materials, or secondary
materials, or accent materials, or materials that are completely prohibited, such as vinyl siding and chain
link fencing. Rather than a prescriptive set of standards, it is more of a formula that the Board could
review when reviewing a project or staff could review when reviewing a project.
Chair Baltay: Back in February, what was our reaction? Refresh my memory, please.
Ms. Eisberg: There were concerns about being too prescriptive or requiring materials that may be too
expensive, particularly for below market-rate housing.
Chair Baltay: Okay. To my colleagues on the Board, what do we feel about something like this? Is this
appropriate, necessary, over kill?
Board Member Hirsch: I think it is a good idea. I noticed that vinyl siding is in this list. Will that be
eliminated? I think, otherwise, it is very well encompassing and…
Chair Baltay: Vinyl siding is prohibited on this list.
Board Member Hirsch: No...
Ms. Eisberg: The legend up here is P, S, A, and N: primary, secondary, accent, and prohibited.
Board Member Hirsch: Oh, okay,. Fine. I missed that.
Vice Chair Thompson: Oh, I see.
Ms. Eisberg: The N’s at the bottom of the page -- again, this is an example from another community --
are showing prohibited materials: T-111 plywood, vinyl siding, vinyl fencing, and chain link fencing. The
decision making about stucco is important as to if stucco can be a primary material. Obviously, we see
many buildings where stucco is a primary material and not just a secondary material. Likewise, cement
siding.
6.a
Packet Pg. 162
City of Palo Alto Page 45
Vice Chair Thompson: Do we have something like hardie board on there somewhere?
Board Member Hirsch: It should be fiber reinforced cement.
Vice Chair Thompson: There we go.
Chair Baltay: How about the rest of us? What do we think?
Board Member Hirsch: I'm not sure why its secondary material? I mean the selection of the S and the P
is a question here.
Chair Baltay: The question now is if we should have them produce something like this for us.
Board Member Hirsch: Yes.
Vice Chair Thompson: Yeah, I think we should.
Chair Baltay: Osma is in favor of it. David is in favor of it. Grace and Alex, what do you think?
Board Member Lee: I think it is great. I had a question on design standard S1(c) but we can talk about
it later. This is a great direction.
Chair Baltay: Okay. Alex, are you in favor of this?
Board Member Lew: I am in favor of it. I do have some comments. One, is either there are lots of new
materials. We have the wood-like materials that are made with plastic and aluminum. We also have that
new category of materials called prismatic metals. You will see some now on San Antonio Road in
Mountain View. I think there is a line in here that says you can have something approved by the
Planning Commission and I do think we do need something like that for all the other materials that we
don’t even know about.
Vice Chair Thompson: Yeah.
Board Member Lew: All the things in the future. I think that is very important.
Chair Baltay: Could you leave a category here for new materials to be approved by the Architectural
Review Board? Can it be put on the list?
Ms. Eisberg: Yes.
Chair Baltay: Okay. I support this as well. Why don’t we get you guys to put this together for our
package here?
Board Member Lew: One other (crosstalk).
Chair Baltay: Go ahead, Alex.
Board Member Lew: One last comment on metals.
Chair Baltay: Yes.
Board Member Lew: This has come up before like on the junior museum, Castilleja, and the fire station,
that there are different grades of how they are painted. I think that is really important because I think
we should try to distinguish that in there because they do fade a lot. They get a lot of chalkiness on the
surface. For example, there is a CVS in midtown which has a red metal roof and it faded to pink. All the
6.a
Packet Pg. 163
City of Palo Alto Page 46
neighbors were complaining about the pink roof. I think we should try as much as we can to address the
quality issues in there. There are different grades of paint for the metal. I know it’s kind of picky but I
think we should try to do it. Don’t just say corrugated metal but let’s include the specifications of the
paint.
Ms. Gerhardt: Alex, I know on roof material there is usually a warranty period and sometimes we will
regulate based on the warranty period. Is that the same with paint?
Board Member Lew: I think we could probably do it that way because on the cheaper paints they have a
very short warranty. That might be the way to do it. Then there is a comment on one line in there
about ceramic tile. There is about a million porcelain tiles about there and some of them are good and
some of them are awful. I don’t know how we regulate that. I think maybe as you have it saying that it
is only a secondary material is probably the easiest way to address it. That’s potentially big for a project.
Chair Baltay: Okay. This is the kind of detail that will benefit tremendously from us reviewing it offline
when staff provides us with an initial list. If I can ask everybody when we do get that list next time we
look at this to really focus in on these kind of things, like what is the best way to regulate painting on
metal finished, for example. What I would like to do before we finish this topic is discuss the graphics
and what we can do about it. What I would like to suggest is that we ask our subcommittee working on
these objective standards to take an active role to work with the consultants to come up with graphics
that more accurately result what we do in two here in Palo Alto. Maybe we can all chime in if we think
that is an appropriate thing to do and one or two comments on the graphics. Is that okay? It is really
important to present this carefully and it has tripped us up some. I think the public will have an even
harder time with it.
Vice Chair Thompson: I have actually made some sketches or some edits to some graphics that I could
share with Jean and Chris during our subcommittee meeting. If the other three members of the board
have something like that to share with us is that okay to send those to us so we can share it with Jean
and Chris as part of coordination?
Chair Baltay: If you send them to Jodie she can decide the best way to get them to you as a
subcommittee member. You shouldn’t go directly to your colleagues, Osma, I don’t think. Is that right,
Jodie.
Ms. Gerhardt: It would be best if I collect everything.
Vice Chair Thompson: Okay.
Chair Baltay: Are we in agreement that perhaps we could have our subcommittee go back to the
consultants and see if we can just come up with a better way to do this or improve graphics a little bit?
Board Member Lee: I really thank the subcommittee for your extra work.
Chair Baltay: David, are you on board with that? You're on the subcommittee, right?
Board Member Hirsch: Yes. Yeah, I think we should give thought to how those graphics work and
maybe compare them with other graphics that are already in the code. They are pretty good. If I might
take a moment to go back to the materials, isn’t it possible to put some regulation in the design
standards that master what Alex was mentioning under S1 (inaudible) on the Board, Jean and Chris?
Mr. Sensenig: The example of the materials is from Beaverton. We will change this for Palo Alto. It was
just an example. I would really like to hear everyone’s comments on the graphics before we conclude
today. That is important for us moving forward.
Board Member Hirsch: I am fine with doing that. I am just referring this to you to look at.
6.a
Packet Pg. 164
City of Palo Alto Page 47
Chair Baltay: David, I didn’t understand your comment about materials but do you have something you
want to add to this?
Board Member Hirsch: I think that some of the issues of the quality of materials should be addressed in
design standards on that page the way it is shown there. We haven’t discussed that presentation.
Ms. Gerhardt: I think from a staff perspective we agree that we need high quality materials. I think we
will work of off warranty numbers, something that is objective, we will try to put that in the next draft.
This section is very drafty. We can stay at a high level right this minute and we will have another round
to speak about more specifics.
Board Member Hirsch: Fine.
Chair Baltay: Let’s do a round of comments on the graphics that we have been presented so far just to
give them as much feedback as possible. My biggest critical comment is that a lot of these building are
things you just wouldn’t see in Palo Alto, the five and six-story boxy apartment buildings. I think it is just
more important to have buildings that are closer to what is in our community. That’s mu single biggest
issue. Who else wants to chime in on this?
Board Member Lee: I will say I am actually fine with the graphics. The only worry is that -- I think
Planning Commission was worried too -- those examples get a lot of scrutiny and then the worry is that is
the example. If there is a way to present it like here is one example, or if there is a way to provide
graphics that are different. Sorry, Peter, but maybe there is a need to actually look outside of our
community and within our community of different architectural styles. Sometimes when I have worked
with cities there are just photos of built examples in that city. That’s okay with me too, I just think it is
hard sometimes when there is just one example then an applicant is going to follow that to the T, or
have some misconception that that is exactly how it should be done. It is not an easy task. Thank you
so much for trying to do this. Having said that, I think graphics are very important. I think we should
have graphics in this document, absolutely.
Chair Baltay: That’s good feedback, Grace. Who else has something to say about the graphics? Alex?
Vice Chair Thompson: We can go Alex and then I can go after.
Chair Baltay: You were ready to speak, Osma. What do you think?
Vice Chair Thompson: Okay. For example on the next slide where we are talking about façade…
something that could help in terms of cropping all of that stuff out. If we are talking about façade, we
don’t need to see what the rest of the building looks like. I feel if you look at the propositions, this roof
is taking up so much of it, and automatically your brain starts going to things like there is no elevator
penthouse. It just starts going to places it shouldn’t be going. At least when you are talking about the
thing itself I might recommend really being strategic with the crop and just show the item that you're
talking about. I think the graphics are coming along. I like the general styles. The massing ones that
we were seeing, the ones that didn’t have the articulation, concern me a bit probably because I think it
showing the roof and stuff. If it is really about facade maybe that would solve that problem. I think --
adding to Grace’s point a bit more -- we have this tendency to try to be as general as we can and
perhaps the danger of that is now you're encouraging very general architecture by accident. Maybe
there is some merit. There is one graphic, I think, that had those David Baker window shades that are
angled that have a bit of style to them, and maybe adding a bit of style to these drawings might actually
make them a bit more palatable to look at, if that makes sense.
Chair Baltay: Okay. Alex and David, we haven’t heard from you two about the graphics.
Board Member Hirsch: Okay. I could start by saying that I think as I look back at the graphics in the
existing context space of design criteria and I think that they are very good. For example, on one of the
6.a
Packet Pg. 165
City of Palo Alto Page 48
figures, it does exactly what Osma is talking about and only shows a façade where there is a façade and
eliminates a lot of the roof. Take a look, Chris, at the way in which those graphics are presented. There
are sections through the building that show the commercial and the residential above that could well be
defined with dimensions on them. The recesses are shown and then the rooflines are not, in some cases.
When they are in massing drawings, they are shown just as simple massing drawings with recesses, et
cetera, and the roof tops setbacks. In my mind, they are much less specific but more appropriate. Have
a look. For example, here again, is another one that has recesses in the building in the front consistently
along a series of them. There it is important because the front and the back of the building are treated
the same way. The diagram is very good. Also, I note that in a lot of cases we are showing street lines
as if there is a specific border and we are on a corner. I don’t think you should be really showing the
street. A lot of these drawings put the building into a block without defining it as being at a corner.
Have a look at these drawings, Chris; the ones that have been produced here for years in the present
zoning are quite good.
Mr. Sensenig: Thank you, David. I did a lot of them.
Ms. Gerhardt: I was going to say…
Board Member Hirsch: Get back to it.
Chair Baltay: Alex Lew, do you have any comments about the graphics?
Board Member Lew: I don’t have any comments.
Chair Baltay: Okay. Jodie and staff, have you gotten enough feedback from us for this study session
now on draft objective standards?
Ms. Gerhardt: I’ll let Chris and Jean respond.
Vice Chair Thompson: Sorry, can I saw one comment before we close this time?
Chair Baltay: Of course you can, Osma.
Vice Chair Thompson: I just want to address our discussion around affordable housing just briefly.
There is precedent in other affordable housing projects of the past where they have not been built to the
same architectural standard as market rate housing and they have failed as a result. I think it is
incumbent upon us when we are creating these design guidelines to ensure the success of the design of
these buildings. I know there is concern about rumors. I recently had a good conversation with Habitat
for Humanity about one of their affordable housing projects and they wanted to keep the balconies
because they felt it worked for the design. They felt their projects would be more successful that way
and they were willing to make the design work and cut back on other things so that this could happen. I
would like us to really focus and make sure that… we all want affordable housing but we want it to be
successful and we need to create design standards that ensure that success and not try to cut corners
where we think they might need to get cut because we feel like it won’t happen because the success is
more important, I think.
Chair Baltay: I can tell you, Osma, that I am listening hard to what you’re saying. I am not saying you
are convincing me but I hear you very loud and clear.
Board Member Lee: Peter, if I may, on this whole process I want to thank staff but also are we going to
hear about the process moving forward in terms of how we talk to stakeholders like affordable housing
developers, and architects, and people who have built on projects? Are we going to reach out to them?
Chair Baltay: I thought that we had sort of covered that ground and realized that we were not going to
do anything else, but, Jodie, why don’t you tell us what you think? This is a public hearing process,
6.a
Packet Pg. 166
City of Palo Alto Page 49
Grace, and it is completely open and advertised and we are under a real tight time constraint at the same
time.
Board Member Lee: There isn’t a draft online besides our meetings? So, I am just wondering…
Ms. Gerhardt: No, as I said, every project has a website where people can see all of the details. I am
happy to take a second look at it and see if we can do an email blast or something of that sort.
Board Member Lee: Yeah, that would be great.
Ms. Gerhardt: I just don’t have a specific answer right this minute but we will look into it.
Board Member Lee: Thank you so much.
Chair Baltay: Grace, do you have access through your work, perhaps, with a group of Palo Alto architects
you could take the lead in putting together…
Board Member Lee: That is just what I was going to do if that is comfortable for everybody (crosstalk)
cover more ground, right, to just reach out.
Chair Baltay: If you could take the lead to work through Jodie to get her to put out an email blast I think
our Board would support doing that. Josie, if you want us to collectively agree that’s a good idea that
gives you cover. I support doing that. Osma, Alex, and David, do you support?
Board Member Hirsch: Absolutely.
Vice Chair Thompson: Yeah. Should we try to reach out to other entities like Habitat for Humanity and
other people that might have good insight?
Chair Baltay: That’s a good idea, yeah. I guess Grace is going to get Jodie the primary information but
any other help you can give her to reach out would be good. Okay, anything else on this subject?
Vice Chair Thompson: Maybe if there is a list that could be shred maybe we could help add to the list in
terms of distribution.
Chair Baltay: You have to go through Jodie. Okay, Chris, have you go the feedback from us? Yes, okay.
Vice Chair Thompson: I have to jump off, Chair Baltay.
4. Study Session on Ex-parte Communications between Architectural Review Board Members and
Applicants, Developers and Other Persons
Chair Baltay: Can you hold on one second, Osma. Can we push off the ex-parte communications
discussion until next time, Jodie?
Ms. Gerhardt: Yeah, that’s up to you. That’s fine. Let me make sure I let the attorney go.
Chair Baltay: Oh dear. Has he been sitting in on all of this the whole time?
Ms. Gerhardt: No, he just came in a half hour ago or something. We want to push off -- let me get to
my agenda -- ex-parte?
Chair Baltay: Does anybody else have an issue with doing that? I think that can wait. Okay, we are
going to push ex-parte off until the next meeting. The last thing is I would like to get some feedback on
our upcoming letter to Council. Osma, you can sign off if you don’t want to partake in that.
6.a
Packet Pg. 167
City of Palo Alto Page 50
Vice Chair Thompson: Okay. Yeah, I really got to go. Thanks, guys.
Chair Baltay: Thanks for your help, Osma.
Chair Baltay: To the reaming Board Members, the last study session thing was that I would like to draft
a letter to Council, an annual report, of the architectural review process. This will be the second year we
have done that in a row. I would like to establish a precedent where the outgoing chair takes feedback
from the Board right now, at one meeting, then drafts a letter of what it might be then circulates it
through Jodie for feedback, and hopefully approval by the whole Board in the next meeting, or certainly
by the end of the year. I think that is a good policy if we can get that going year after year with our
Board. I am willing to start that this year. What I would like to do is get a round of feedback from
everybody of what items -- not everything but a couple of things -- you might think are really important
that the ARB has observed through our work that the Council should hear. If anybody has any feedback
I would like to hear that so I can incorporate that in our letter.
Ms. Gerhardt: Peter, before we get too far away, I am sorry to go back on the agenda a little bit but we
do need an actual motion to continue the ex-part communications.
MOTION
Chair Baltay: Okay. I move that we continue the ex-parte communications study session to our next
meeting, or should I say a date uncertain?
Ms. Gerhardt: Next meeting is good.
Chair Baltay: To our next meeting. Do I have a second?
Board Member Lee: I’ll second.
Chair Baltay: Okay. Moved and seconded. All those in favor? Roll call vote, please, Vinh.
Aye: Baltay, Hirsch, Lee, Lew, (4)
No: (0)
Absent: Thompson (1)
MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSES 4-0-1.
Chair Baltay: Thank you.
Ms. Gerhardt: Thank you.
5. Discussion Regarding the Annual ARB Report to Council
Chair Baltay: We are now discussing our study session for the annual letter to Council. I am eager to
hear people’s input or if there is a different process somebody thinks we should follow instead I’d like to
hear that, too. We should be aware that the letter is something that is in our bylaws that we are
required to present every year to the Council and Planning Commission. This is something we want to
do. I can start this off by patting ourselves on the back in a sense. When I went out to the Marriott
Hotel the other day looking at the signage stuff, I was really pleased with how it’s coming out. I think
our input on that process has made an enormous difference on how it fits in and how it looks. It’s a
much more handsome building than I thought it would be and I think that’s a large part because we
pushed so hard on getting it to step back and worked on the massing of it. I would like to say that to
6.a
Packet Pg. 168
City of Palo Alto Page 51
Council that I think, in that case at least, the Architectural Review process was productive. Anybody have
anything else they'd like us to put in this letter on things to tell Council.
Board Member Hirsch: The Council, at the last meeting, looking at and approving the recent San Antonio
Road project commented on how much we had improved it and it was a pat on the back.
Chair Baltay: Yes, there was a comment to that effect. What are some other things we’ve observed that
we want to just mention to Council?
Board Member Lee: I was wondering -- maybe it’s not appropriate -- if you are going to be speaking
with them at the end of 2020, then, or in this letter we would be sending before the end of this calendar
year?
Chair Baltay: Yeah, my goal is that we should be sending this at the end of this calendar year and sort of
at the end of this cycle of the board. We now have new Board Members coming on and new leadership
and a new cycle.
Board Member Lee: I think it’s a great idea. I just wanted to suggest that since Council priorities for
2020 have been housing and suitability and mobility, is there a way to showcase or highlight some of the
projects where we feel like this Board has made an impact? Maybe that’s just a way to structure the
letter. The other piece that I wanted to ask or consider is how we work with Council if there has been… I
am not sure but it sounds like the Chair and Vice Chair meet regularly with somebody on the Council in
terms of regular contact, and if we, as a Board, feel like there should be some kind of City Council liaison.
I know that’s not offered right now to Boards but is there a way to be more aware of or in more
communication with Council at important junctions during the year or maybe that has already occurred. I
am sorry I came in late (crosstalk).
Chair Baltay: There is not a whole lot of that that takes place and the little contact I have with Council is
when I reach out to them on a case by case basis. We have a lot of contact with the staff.
Board Member Lee: Yeah, I mean how you feel I thought maybe… I don’t know if that is something that
the Chair would like to do but maybe that is a way to be more connected to Council throughout the year.
Chair Baltay: I have always had the idea that the Chair or somebody appointed by the Chair should
attend Council meetings whenever we have anything that references the work of our Board. We could
try to formalize that and get them to accept that they want that. That’s just a way of communicating.
What I have always found is that Council seems to have so many agendas and items going on that I hate
to impose like “hey, our thing is so important. You have to listen to us.”
Board Member Lee: Yeah, and I just want to say from these past meetings that Alex has been part of
the North Ventura and then he is able to report back. Maybe there is some mechanism where something
like that could happen where it is more communal efforts. I don’t know if that goes with Planning
Commission, too, or HRB, but just in terms of the boards that deal with the physical environment and
some of these Council priorities. I am just throwing it out there.
Chair Baltay: Okay, I am going to make a note of it. I’ll put a paragraph in there and we can debate it
as it’s written up. Any other thoughts on that? Any other thoughts from Alex or David? For example, we
just had the discussion today whether outdoor balconies on affordable housing is a good idea or a bad
idea. We can bring that up to Council. My guess is that there are not quite as connected on both sides
of that story. That’s the kind of thing we see in the trenches, sort of speak, both sides of it. Council likes
to hear our opinion on these things even if they're going to make the decision it might be really good to
give them our feedback. Is that something we want to tackle? It’s a big topic.
Board Member Lee: I think on that specific topic we are split and there hasn’t been a lot of discussion or
input from stakeholders to educate us on where we stand as a group. That’s my feeling.
6.a
Packet Pg. 169
City of Palo Alto Page 52
Chair Baltay: That particular one we are split, yes, but even just showing them what the issues are
sometimes is useful. I agree on that one; we don’t have a clear direction. Are there other things like
that?
Board Member Hirsch: Of course I would like us to show the successful projects that we begin from
beginning to end. That’s always what they're going to be most interested in. Then if we go beyond
that… like last year one of our major comments was the street works and the delivery issues, and I don’t
know if that really resonated with the Council very much. We considered it but it’s a transportation issue
and I don’t know if it's a priority for them. I guess I am more inclined to make it more visual. It turned
out they were asking us specific questions at the end of our presentations. Questions that they were
interested in; the process and how it’s been working. It would be better if we were a little better
prepared for some of those questions if we knew what the questions might be and to have specific
answers (inaudible). Last year, I noted we spent a lot of time on trees over the expansion of buildings
as a problem. It interested them, I will admit. It interests them. We should maybe look to see what
other issues are like that that would be of interest. My opinion is we should concentrate more on our
successes and that’s what they will be most interested in.
Chair Baltay: Okay. The issue with the depth for planting trees over a garage is a big one and I think
that was well received in the sense that it’s a rather technical, complicated thing but we have noticed it
consistently affecting larger elements and we have put it out to the Council so they can see that.
Board Member Hirsch: Yes, I know (inaudible).
Chair Baltay: At the meeting the other night for the San Antonio apartment building that was just
approved, the Council approved the individual building fairly readily as a 7-0 vote but they split right
down the middle on whether they should extend the same zoning parameters to the rest of the
neighborhood. Last year we mentioned to them that the San Antonio corridor could really use its own set
of design guidelines or some standards as they try to develop that from one-story light industrial to four
and five-story FAR 2.0 residential. Do we still feel that? Just, for example, another thing.
Board Member Hirsch: It seems to me that talking about the street issues like that what we are going to
get is a lot of different looking buildings happening on the street. I wonder what other Board Members
feel about that because the one we just approved is a very bold specific design personality. What will the
next one be like? Will we have a street that is made of all bold designs? The hotel itself is, as you say,
(inaudible) and then what appears next to it? How will that speak (inaudible) and other buildings with
similar design (inaudible)?
Chair Baltay: The question right now is should we put that in our annual statement to Council that this is
something they might want to think about or at least something that we have noticed as something that
might be an issue. Okay, I am not hearing a whole lot of feedback from you folks. Should I write
something up and circulate it, then?
Board Member Hirsch: Yes (inaudible).
Chair Baltay: We will work it out but I hate to write a bunch of stuff and then have nobody want to
support it.
Ms. Gerhardt: Peter, related to San Antonio guidelines, Council did direct us to come back with a corridor
on survey or study I should say, but that’s more related to the street or the public improvements
themselves not necessarily the land use and the design. Our objective standards that we were just
working on could be applied to those projects and we haven’t talked about it as much but we could have
specific standards for specific areas. If we want to add that to the objective standard somehow.
Chair Baltay: I intend to put it in the draft of this letter that the City may be well served by having a
design standard for the San Antonio corridor but I want to see if we get the Board beyond that. It’s a big
6.a
Packet Pg. 170
City of Palo Alto Page 53
process and then the Council has to decide it is important enough to get the resources to go forward on
that. This is just the first step saying, hey, this is an issue. David brought up with strong feelings the
whole idea that this objective design frame was just not worth doing. Ultimately, we shouldn’t have
these standards. We should just stick to the Architectural Review. This letter to Council is a good place
to put that. If that is really how we feel as a Board, we say it here and tell them our piece and they can
decide how to behave accordingly or take it accordingly. Is that something that we should put in this
letter?
Board Member Hirsch: I think I was voted down four to one.
Chair Baltay: The letter is the proper format for that, David. I mean, if we have an issue on how the
politicians are managing design review that’s where you tell them.
Ms. Gerhardt: I think the only trouble with this one is that it is a state mandate. I think where we have
the most control is how big or small are we making the box for objective standards.
Chair Baltay: What I heard David saying is it is incumbent upon us to fight these things, even at the
State level the City should be fighting it.
Ms. Gerhardt: As long as we are fighting and doing the work at the same time.
Chair Baltay: That’s what I tried to do is get us to do the work today but the decision to fight those
things, David, is a City Council decision, certainly not us.
Board Member Hirsch: Not ours.
Chair Baltay: Look, they want to know from us what do we think about things and this is the opportunity
to put it out there.
Board Member Hirsch: That’s a likely question that’ll come back to us at the Council meeting.
Chair Baltay: I think it’s a very valid question. It’s not clear to me what the Board as a whole thinks
about it and we need to speak with one voice in this. Okay, even though. Does anybody have any other
thoughts? Let’s tell them to me and we can go from there.
Board Member Hirsch: (Inaudible).
Chair Baltay: I can’t hear you, David.
Board Member Hirsch: Could I just add one note on the (inaudible)? I mean, I want to commend
consultants who are off-camera right now. They have done a lot of work. It’s a tremendous task and,
Jodie, I know you coordinate with them and add a tremendous amount of information that they need to
continue. Where am I going with this, now? The Board question is whether or not we are going to
follow this is whether or not the code itself… is that inadequate the way it’s written. I mean, I really
think there's an awful lot in our code that’s pretty good the more I read it. Therefore, I wonder if it has
ever been thought that you look specifically at the code and language to make it more appropriate
(inaudible). Why is it considered so subjective (inaudible)? That’s a philosophical question maybe but…
Chair Baltay: Yeah. Look, David, let me draft this thing. There will be a paragraph about it and then we
can work on it from there.
Board Member Hirsch: Okay.
Approval of Minutes
6.a
Packet Pg. 171
City of Palo Alto Page 54
6. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for October 15, 2020
Chair Baltay: Okay. I just wanted to collect ideas. We are going long overdue here. Can we close this
study session on annual report to Council? Next item on our agenda is approval of minutes. This is the
draft Architectural Review Board minutes for October 15, 2020. Do we have any comments on those
minutes?
Board Member Lew: I have some corrections on phonetic spellings and I can send those directly to staff.
Chair Baltay: What are the corrections, Alex? Are they more than just typographical?
Board Member Lew: Its phonetic spellings like La Patesion Yuvete [phonetic].
Chair Baltay: Oh, okay. That’s fine. Anything else? Can we have a motion, then, please?
MOTION
Board Member Lew: I will move that we approve the [distortion] for October 25.
Chair Baltay: So moved. Second on that?
Board Member Hirsch: Second.
Chair Baltay: Moved and seconded. Let’s have a vote. Staff, can we have a vote, please?
Aye: Baltay, Hirsch, Lee, Lew, (4)
No: (0)
Absent: Thompson (1)
MOTION TO APPROVE PASSES 4-0-1.
Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcements
Chair Baltay: Thank you very much. The next item is Board Member questions, comments, or
announcements. The North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan working group update, Alex?
Board Member Lew: Sure. On November 5th, there was a joint meeting with the Parks And Rec
Commission to review naturalizing the creek. On December 9th, the North Ventura will be presented at
the Planning Commission. I think that staff will present the three alternative concepts at that meeting.
Chair Baltay: Okay. Anything else? Is that it?
Ms. Gerhardt: I think that’s it. I think everyone is eluded to the 788 San Antonio project which we are
very excited to see that get approved. That’s actually the first housing incentive program project. Then
the Council also added the housing incentive program to the two blocks of San Antonio. We will
hopefully see more projects along that corridor.
Chair Baltay: Okay. With that, we are adjourned. Thank you everybody for a long and productive
incumbent. Have a great day.
Ms. Gerhardt: Thank you all.
Adjournment
6.a
Packet Pg. 172