HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 6466
City of Palo Alto (ID # 6466)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 4/11/2016
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Ordinance Modifying Architectural Review Findings
Title: PUBLIC HEARING: Adoption of an Ordinance to Amend Chapter 18.76
(Permits and Approvals) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Modify the
Architectural Review Findings. The Planning and Transportation Commission
and the Architectural Review Board Reviewed and Recommended the
Proposed Draft Ordinance. The Proposed Amendments are Exempt From
Further Environmental Review per CEQA Guideline Sections 15061(b) and
15301, 15302 and 15305
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached draft ordinance (Attachment A),
which is a continuation of the annual planning codes update discussed in December 2015 and
contains amendments to the Architectural Review approval findings contained in Chapter 18.76
of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Title 18.
Executive Summary
Council is requested to discuss the Architectural Review approval findings in the attached draft
ordinance. The Architectural Review approval findings were presented to Council during the
ordinance hearing on December 7, 2015, but the Council deferred discussion and action on
these findings until all members could be present. The changes proposed to the Architectural
Review findings would replace 15 findings with six findings, and are intended to:
• Facilitate easier review, reduce writing and reading fatigue, and improve analysis
• Provide applicants a better understanding of how projects will be evaluated, and
• Improve the standing of projects in court.
The Discussion section of this report elaborates on these points. The revised findings have
been recommended by the Architectural Review Board (ARB) and the Planning and
Transportation Commission (PTC).
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Background
Zoning provisions in Title 18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code are complex and contain any
number of items that could be clearer, making the provisions easier for the public to use, and
for the City to administer consistently. Even clarifying code changes with little or no inherent
change in policy require adoption of an ordinance, however, and require careful consideration
by the City Council following public input and review and recommendation by the PTC. On
December 7, 2015, Council voted to adopt the First Annual Planning Codes Update ordinance
with some modifications, and deferred consideration of proposed changes to the Architectural
Review approval findings. Council meeting minutes from December 7, 2015 are provided as
Attachment B to this report. On January 11, 2016, Council adopted the ordinance on second
reading; these changes become effective on February 11, 2016.
Planning and Transportation Commission Review
The PTC reviewed the Architectural Review approval findings in the fall of 2015 and
recommended that Council approve them. The PTC was aware the ARB had met in public
hearings to publicly review and polish the revised findings, and the PTC did not provide input
into the wording the findings, nor expand upon the merits of making changes to these findings
as presented by staff.
Architectural Review Board Review
The ARB reviewed the revised findings in two public hearings. ARB reports and minutes are
attached via links later in this report. The ARB supported staff’s efforts to reduce the number
of findings and group the findings into similar categories; the ARB reports had reflected the
grouping of findings for nearly a year by the time the ARB considered the revised findings.
Prior to providing input into the revised findings, the ARB stated the positive aspects of the
existing Architectural Review approval findings, including:
short declarative sentences,
concrete nouns,
incorporation of phrasing about bicycle and pedestrian access,
a sustainability finding to ensure green design is not an afterthought, and
phrases found in the code-stated ‘Purpose’ of Architectural Review, about preserving
natural features, desirability of living conditions, and enhancing the quality of life.
During the October 1, 2015 meeting, the ARB provided final refinements that are reflected in
the attached ordinance.
Discussion
The proposed ordinance in Attachment A shows in “strike out” format the existing Palo Alto
Municipal Code Chapter 18.76 Architectural Review findings, and shows the proposed new
findings as underlined text.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
All projects that go before the Architectural Review Board (ARB) are recommended for
approval, conditional approval, or denial to the Director of Planning & Community Environment
(PCE). These recommendations and the Director’s determination (and City Council on appeal)
are currently based on 16 required approval findings. In commercial and multiple family
residential zoning districts, the 16 Architectural Review (AR) approval findings in the current
code are supplemented by Context Based Design Criteria findings. (Most development projects
reviewed by the ARB are subject to this additional Context Based Design Criteria evaluation.)
Some projects also are evaluated with respect to Design Enhancement Exception findings if, for
example, they propose a greater setback than allowed under the current “Built To Line”
standard (which has been proposed for modification). Thus, it is not uncommon for a board-
level Architectural Review application to be subject to 21 separate findings.
Many of these existing findings address recurring concepts and some are unnecessary because
the City has updated the code to address the issue via regulatory requirements since the finding
was established. The ARB recognized these shortcomings and supported staff’s approach in the
2015 staff reports to group topically similar findings in order to facilitate an easier review of the
staff prepared responses, reduce writing fatigue, and improve the qualitative analysis of those
findings.
Findings are legally required for quasi-judicial planning decisions. Findings establish how the
City has evaluated a project, and document a project’s conformance to local plans, regulations
and other criteria. Review of a project with respect to the findings enables staff and the ARB to
recommend conditions of approval or project modifications. If a project is appealed, the City
Council will review the project findings to affirm, modify or reject the Director’s conclusions. If
legally challenged, the findings help bridge the analytic gap between the evidence and the
ultimate decision and must be supported by substantial evidence in the record. For these
reasons, project findings are very important when acting on a project. Increasingly, some
community members and Councilmembers have asserted a need to improve the analysis
provided for project findings.
The proposed AR findings are designed to enhance the review process and achieve the
following benefits:
Improve qualitative analysis
Focus project review on key issues
Provide applicants a better understanding of how projects will be evaluated
Reduce writing and reading fatigue (preparing and reviewing redundant findings)
Strengthen the legal standing of projects challenged in court
Help to address some of the recent criticisms related to the ARB process and more
specifically the findings
Eliminate redundant and superfluous findings.
City of Palo Alto Page 4
ARB staff reports and minutes on this topic are viewable via the links below:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/48766 (9-3-15 ARB report)
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/49026 (9-3-15 ARB minutes)
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/49218 (10-1-15 ARB report)
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/49410 (10-1-15 ARB minutes)
The October 1, 2015 ARB staff report is provided as Attachment C. The six proposed
Architectural Review findings ensure a project is/has: (1) compatible, (2) coherent design, (3)
quality materials, (4) functional, (5) well-landscaped, and (6) sustainable. The ARB considered
the proposed finding language, and recaptured the best wording of the existing findings and
purpose section of Architectural Review, since one of the existing findings referenced the
purpose of Architectural Review.
The Architectural Review purpose is excerpted below:
“The purpose of architectural review is to: (1) Promote orderly and harmonious
development in the city; (2) Enhance the desirability of residence or investment in the
city; (3) Encourage the attainment of the most desirable use of land and improvements;
(4) Enhance the desirability of living conditions upon the immediate site or in adjacent
areas; and (5) Promote visual environments which are of high aesthetic quality and
variety and which, at the same time, are considerate of each other.”
Below is a brief summary of how the six findings in the attached ordinance capture portions of
the AR purpose and existing 16 findings:
Revised AR finding #1 incorporates existing AR findings #1 (regarding consistency with
the Comprehensive Plan) and adds consistency with Zoning, Context Based Design
Criteria and Design Guides (to represent such existing guides for the Downtown, South
El Camino Real, and the Baylands).
Revised AR finding #2 incorporates portions of existing AR findings #2, 4, 5 and 11, and
of the AR purpose (sense of order, harmonious transitions, adjacent land
uses/designations, enhancing living conditions on the site and adjacent areas).
Revised AR finding #3 incorporates portions of existing findings #6 and 12, and of the AR
purpose (high aesthetic quality).
Revised AR finding #4 incorporates portions of existing AR findings #3, 7, 8, 9, and 10.
Revised AR finding #5 incorporates portions of existing AR findings #12, 13 and 14.
Revised AR finding #6 incorporates the gist of existing AR finding #15.
If the Council adopts the proposed changes and adopts the attached ordinance, projects
requiring AR approvals would be assessed using the six new findings as well as the context
based design criteria, as applicable.
City of Palo Alto Page 5
All PTC and ARB hearings were noticed in the local newspaper (Palo Alto Weekly) for the code-
prescribed period. Staff had reached out to several local architects and a Google group (Palo
Alto Architects), who are interested in providing feedback and suggestions for additional code
changes for upcoming code change efforts. Staff reached out to the ARB to discuss and refine
the revised Architectural Review findings as described above.
Policy Implications
The proposed changes to the Architectural Review findings will not change the substantive
review of projects, and the revised findings are in conformance with the City’s Comprehensive
Plan.
Resource Impact
Other than staff time, no additional fiscal or economic impacts are anticipated.
Environmental Review
The intent of this modification is largely clerical; it will retain the existing architectural design
goals, but streamline the findings by eliminating duplicate or unnecessary findings and better
grouping and organizing remaining findings. Given that intent, staff has evaluated the changes
with respect to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and determined the proposed
amendments to the Architectural Review findings are exempt from further environmental
review per CEQA Guideline sections 15061(b)(3) (Review for Exemption) and 15305 (Minor
Alterations in Land Use Limitations), because:
(1) the activity (rewording of Architectural Review findings) is covered by the general rule
that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant
effect on the environment, and it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility
that the activity in question may have a significantly effect on the environment, and
(2) this ‘minor alteration in land use limitations’ does not result in any changes in land use
or density.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Ordinance Amending AR Findings (PDF)
Attachment B: Council 12/7/15 Action Minutes (PDF)
Attachment C: Staff Report to ARB 10.1.15 (PDF)
Not Yet Approved
160125 jb 0131503 January 25, 2016
Ordinance No. _____
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 18.76 (Permits
and Approvals) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Pertaining to the
Architectural Review Approval Findings
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION 1. Section 18.76.020 of Chapter 18.76 (Permits and Approvals) of Title 18
(Zoning Code) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
18.76.020 Architectural Review
. . .
(d) Findings
Neither the director, nor the city council on appeal, shall grant architectural review
approval, unless it is found that:
(1) The design is consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan;
(2) The design is compatible with the immediate environment of the site;
(3) The design is appropriate to the function of the project;
(4) In areas considered by the board as having a unified design character or historical
character, the design is compatible with such character;
(5) The design promotes harmonious transitions in scale and character in areas
between different designated land uses;
(6) The design is compatible with approved improvements both on and off the site;
(7) The planning and siting of the various functions and buildings on the site create an
internal sense of order and provide a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and the
general community;
(8) The amount and arrangement of open space are appropriate to the design and the
function of the structures;
(9) Sufficient ancillary functions are provided to support the main functions of the
project and the same are compatible with the project's design concept;
(10) Access to the property and circulation thereon are safe and convenient for
pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles;
(11) Natural features are appropriately preserved and integrated with the project;
ATTACHMENT A
Not Yet Approved
160125 jb 0131503 January 25, 2016
(12) The materials, textures, colors and details of construction and plant material are
appropriate expression to the design and function and whether the same are compatible with
the adjacent and neighboring structures, landscape elements and functions;
(13) The landscape design concept for the site, as shown by the relationship of plant
masses, open space, scale, plant forms and foliage textures and colors create a desirable and
functional environment and whether the landscape concept depicts an appropriate unity with
the various buildings on the site;
(14) Plant material is suitable and adaptable to the site, capable of being properly
maintained on the site, and is of a variety which would tend to be drought-resistant and to
reduce consumption of water in its installation and maintenance;
(15) ITie project exhibits green building and sustainable design that is energy efficient,
water conserving, durable and nontoxic, with high-quality spaces and high recycled content
materials. The following considerations should be utilized in determining sustainable site and
building design:
(A) Optimize building orientation for heat gain, shading, daylighting, and natural
ventilation;
(B) Design of landscaping to create comfortable micro-climates and reduce heat island
effects;
(C) Design for easy pedestrian, bicycle and transit access;
(D) Maximize on site stormwater management through landscaping and permeable
paving;
(E) Use sustainable building materials;
(F) Design lighting, plumbing and equipment for efficient energy and water use;
(G) Create healthy indoor environments; and
(H) Use creativity and innovation to build more sustainable environments.
(16) The design is consistent and compatible with the purpose of architectural review
as set forth in subsection (a).
1. The design is consistent with applicable elements of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code (including context-based design criteria, as applicable) and any relevant design guides.
2. The project has a unified and coherent design that creates an internal sense of order and
desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community, preserves,
respects and integrates natural features and the historic character of the area when
appropriate, provides harmonious transitions in scale and character to adjacent land uses
Not Yet Approved
160125 jb 0131503 January 25, 2016
and land use designations and enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential
uses) and in adjacent residential areas.
3. The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality materials and appropriate
construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are
compatible with and enhance the surrounding area.
4. The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle access 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.). 5. The landscape design is suitable, integrated and compatible with the building and the surrounding area, is appropriate to the site’s functions, and utilizes drought-resistant plant material that can be appropriately maintained.
6. The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability and green building
requirements in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials,
landscaping, site planning and sensible design.
. . .
SECTION 2. Any provision of the Palo Alto Municipal Code or appendices thereto
inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no
further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to effect the provisions of this
Ordinance.
SECTION 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is
for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent
jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this
Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each
and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or
unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the ordinance would be
subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 4. The Council finds that the adoption of this ordinance is exempt from the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Guideline sections
15061(b) and 15301, 15302 and 15305 because it simply provides a comprehensive permitting
scheme.
SECTION 5. This ordinance shall not apply to any planning or land use applications
deemed complete as of the effective date of this ordinance.
Not Yet Approved
160125 jb 0131503 January 25, 2016
SECTION 6. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first date after the date of its
adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
NOT PARTICIPATING:
ATTEST:
____________________________ ____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
____________________________ ____________________________
Senior Assistant City Attorney City Manager
____________________________
Director of Planning & Community
Environment
CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL
ACTION MINUTES
Page 1 of 6
Special Meeting
December 7, 2015
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council
Chambers at 5:06 P.M.
Present: Berman, DuBois, Filseth, Holman, Kniss, Scharff, Schmid,
Wolbach
Absent: Burt
ATTACHMENT B
.”
Action Items
11. PUBLIC HEARING: Review and Adoption of an Ordinance to Amend
Land Use Related Portions of Titles 16 and 18 of the Palo Alto
ACTION MINUTES
Page 3 of 6
City Council Meeting
Action Minutes: 12/7/15
Municipal Code. The Purposes of the Code Amendments and Additions
are to: (1) Improve the Use and Readability of the Code, (2) Clarify
Certain Code Provisions, and (3) Align Regulations to Reflect Current
Practice and Council Policy Direction. The Affected Chapters of Title 16
Include but are not Limited to Title 16 (Building Regulations), Chapters
16.20 (Signs), 16.24 (Fences), and 16.57 (In-Lieu Parking Fees for
New Non-Residential Development in the Commercial Downtown (CD)
Zoning District), and Title 18 (Zoning), Chapters 18.01 (Adoption,
Purposes and Enforcement), 18.04 (Definitions), 18.08 (Designation
and Establishment of Districts), 18.10 (Low Density Residential RE, R-
2 and RMD Districts), 18.12 (R-1, Single Family Residence District),
18.13 (Multiple Family Residential (RM-15, RM-30, RM-40) Districts),
18.14 (Below Market Rate Housing Program), 18.15 (Residential
Density Bonus), 18.16 (Neighborhood, Community, and Service
Commercial (CN,CC and CS) Districts), 18.18 (Downtown Commercial
(CD) Districts)), 18.20 (Office, Research and Manufacturing (MOR,
ROLM, RP and GM) Districts), 18.23 Performance Criteria for Multiple
Family, Commercial, Manufacturing and Planned Community Districts),
18.31 (CEQA Review - a new Chapter), 18.34 (PTOD Combining
District Regulations), 18.40 (General Standards and Exceptions),
18.52 (Parking and Loading Requirements), 18.70 (Non-conforming
Uses and Non-complying Facilities), 18.76 (Permits and Approvals),
and 18.77 (Processing of Permits and Approvals).
Public Hearing opened at 7:14 P.M.
Public Hearing closed at 7:26 P.M.
MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member
Kniss to adopt Ordinance Sections 1-3, modifying Municipal Code Title 16
(Group 1 Interpretations of 16.20 (Signs)).
MOTION PASSED: 8-0 Burt absent
MOTION: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member
Wolbach to adopt Ordinance changes in Group 2 with Staff’s suggested
changes to American’s with Disabilities Act (ADA) language, and with
changes to Zoning Code Interpretation and Interpretation of Land Uses in
order to include a process to bring changes to Council quarterly for
approval.
ACTION MINUTES
Page 4 of 6
City Council Meeting
Action Minutes: 12/7/15
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to replace in the Motion, “bring changes to
Council quarterly for approval” with “bring an Information Report to Council
quarterly.”
AMENDMENT: Mayor Holman moved, seconded by Council Member XX to
add to the Motion, when a project Staff Report is written that requires a
formal written interpretation as referenced in Municipal Code Section
18.01.025 the description of that determination shall be called out in the
Staff Report.
AMENDMENT WITHDRAWN BY THE MAKER
MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 8-0 Burt absent
MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member
Berman to adopt Ordinance Sections 10-13, modifying Municipal Code
Chapters 18.13-18.15.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “replace in Municipal Code
Sections 18.15.040(b), and 18.15.100(d)(iv), “59 years” with “55 years.”
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “replace in Section 19 of the
Ordinance, Municipal Code Section 18.34.040(e)(3) with “the provisions of
this section are intended to address the density bonus requirements of state
law within the PTOD District. The maximum bonus density available under
this section shall be the greater of the bonus density allowed under this
chapter or under the City’s density bonus provisions contained in Chapter
18.15.”
AMENDMENT: Council Member Wolbach moved, seconded by Council
Member XX to remove from Municipal Code Section 18.13.010(a), (b), and
(c), “with no required minimum density.”
AMENDMENT FAILED DUE TO THE LACK OF A SECOND
MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 7-1 Wolbach no, Burt absent
ACTION MINUTES
Page 5 of 6
City Council Meeting
Action Minutes: 12/7/15
MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member
Kniss to adopt Ordinance Sections 14-15, modifying Municipal Code Chapters
18.16 and 18.18 including Staff proposed changes to Municipal Code Section
18.18.120(a)(2)(C).
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to add at the end of the Motion, “to replace
‘volume of space that is’ with ‘three dimensional shape and space.’”
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “in Municipal Code Section
18.18.060(e), replace “minimum extent necessary” with “incremental square
footage necessary.”
MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 8-0 Burt absent
MOTION: Council Member Wolbach moved, seconded by Council Member
DuBois to approve Ordinance Sections 16-21, modifying Municipal Code
Chapters 18.20-18.52.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Mayor Holman moved, seconded by Council
Member DuBois to continue discussion of the addition of Municipal Code
Sections 18.31.010, 18.31.020, and 18.31.030.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED: 3-5 DuBois, Holman, Schmid yes, Burt
absent
MOTION PASSED: 7-1 Holman no, Burt absent
MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member
Berman to approve Ordinance Sections 22-24, modifying Municipal Code
Chapters 18.70-18.77.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “to continue Municipal Code
Section 18.76.020 to the next available meeting.
MOTION RESTATED: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Council
Member Berman to approve Ordinance Sections 22 and 24, modifying
Municipal Code Chapters 18.70-18.77 with the exception of Municipal Code
Section 18.76.020.
ACTION MINUTES
Page 6 of 6
City Council Meeting
Action Minutes: 12/7/15
MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 8-0 Burt absent
MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member
Kniss to continue Attachment E of the Staff Report to a date uncertain.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Vice Mayor Schmid moved, seconded by Mayor
Holman to set a hard stop of 11:00 P.M.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED: 4-4 DuBois, Filseth, Holman, Schmid yes,
Burt absent
MOTION PASSED: 5-3 Filseth, Holman, DuBois no, Burt absent
Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 10:33 P.M.
City of Palo Alto (ID # 6158)
Architectural Review Board Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Meeting Date: 10/1/2015
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: ARB Findings
Title: Discussion and Recommendation to the City Council regarding a
proposed changes to the ARB findings.
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Architectural Review Board
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the ARB review the revised draft findings (Attachment A) and forward a
recommendation of support to the City Council.
Background
September 3, 2015 Discussion
On September 3, 2015, the Architectural Review Board (ARB) considered a reduced number of
Architectural Review (AR) approval findings. The current findings are provided as Attachment C
and the 9/3/15 staff report (without attachments) is provided as Attachment D. The ARB
supported staff’s efforts to reduce the number and group findings into similar categories, and
discussed the positive aspects of the existing Architectural Review approval findings, such as:
short declarative sentences,
concrete nouns,
incorporation of phrasing about bicycle and pedestrian access,
a sustainability finding to ensure green design is not an afterthought,
phrases found in the code-stated ‘Purpose’ of Architectural Review, about preserving
natural features, desirability of living conditions, and enhancing the quality of life.
The ARB was provided a copy of the existing AR findings and Context Based Design Criteria
(CBDC). The ARB requested that staff:
re-order the CBDC so #8 appears earlier in the sequence, and
cite ‘sign integration’, to ensure signage is shown in conceptual designs.
Staff noted it is staff’s intent to:
minimize reference to other portions of the code,
ATTACHMENT C
City of Palo Alto Page 2
not reduce or minimize the ARB’s authority, but better focus its review authority
through the revised findings,
give maximum discretion to the ARB to require project modifications,
provide enough specificity to allow ARB guidance of projects,
consider placement of CDBC into one zoning code chapter, and
update the current application checklist (Attachment B) as needed and carefully review
submitted materials to ensure applicants are demonstrating how they are meeting the
zoning standards, context based design criteria, and approval findings.
Staff has revised the draft findings in this report and in Attachment A.
Purpose of Architectural Review
The ARB had noted that several phrases from the code-stated ‘Purpose’ of Architectural Review
were important to include. In PAMC Chapter 18.76, Section 18.76.020 states “The purpose of
architectural review is to:
(1) Promote orderly and harmonious development in the city;
(2) Enhance the desirability of residence or investment in the city;
(3) Encourage the attainment of the most desirable use of land and improvements;
(4) Enhance the desirability of living conditions upon the immediate site or in adjacent areas;
and
(5) Promote visual environments which are of high aesthetic quality and variety and which, at
the same time, are considerate of each other.”
Staff has incorporated the underlined text into the revised draft findings.
Discussion
The six proposed Architectural Review findings ensure a project is/has: (1) compatible, (2)
coherent design, (3) quality materials, (4) functional, (5) well-landscaped, and (6) sustainable.
Changes to the ARB findings will be presented to the City Council in the fall. Revisions made
after the September 3, 2015 ARB public hearing are annotated in the proposed findings below:
Proposed AR Findings
1. The design is compatible with applicable elements of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and
any relevant design guides and context-based design criteria, and enhances the desirability of
the immediate site or in adjacent areas, with harmonious transitions in scale and character. In
cases where context-based design criteria do not apply, the transitions and scale of the project
are compatible with the neighborhood. [Incorporates Findings 1 and 5, and the phrase from AR
purpose #4.]
2. The project has a unified and coherent design that creates an internal sense of order and
desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community, is compatible with
considerate of the surrounding environment and preserves, respects and integrates natural
City of Palo Alto Page 3
features and the historic character of the area when appropriate. [Incorporates Findings 2, 4, 6,
and 11, and words from AR purpose #5 and AR Finding 11.]
3. The design uses high quality materials and appropriate construction techniques, and
incorporates textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with, and enhance the
surrounding environment. [Incorporates Findings 2, 4, 6 and 12.]
4. The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle access 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.). [Incorporates Findings 3, 7, 8, 9, and 10, a phrase from
CBDC #8 and a mention of signage among the specific examples.]
5. The landscape design is suitable, integrated and compatible with the building and the
surrounding area, is appropriate to the site’s functions, and utilizes drought-resistant plant
material that can be appropriately maintained. [Incorporates Findings 12, 13 and 14.]
6. The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability and green building
requirements in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials,
landscaping, site planning and sensible design. [Excerpted from Finding 15].
Prepared by: Amy French, Chief Planning Official
Reviewed by: Jonathan Lait, Assistant Director
Attachments:
Attachment A: ARB findings revised for 10 1 15 (DOCX)
Attachment B: Major ARB Submittal Checklist (DOC)
Attachment C: Architectural Review Findings from PAMC Chapter 18 (DOCX)
Attachment D: September 3, 2015 ARB Staff Report (PDF)
Attachment A
Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 18.76 Sections 18.76.020 Architectural Review
Item (d) Findings
“Neither the Director, nor the City Council on appeal, shall grant architectural review approval
unless it is found that:
1. The design is compatible with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and any relevant design
guides and context-based design criteria, and enhances the desirability of the immediate site or
in adjacent areas, with harmonious transitions in scale and character. In cases where context-
based design criteria do not apply, the transitions and scale of the project are compatible with
the neighborhood.
2. The project has a unified and coherent design that creates an internal sense of order and
desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community, is considerate of the
surrounding environment and preserves, respects and integrates natural features and the
historic character of the area when appropriate.
3. The design uses high quality materials and appropriate construction techniques, and
incorporates textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with, and enhance the
surrounding environment.
4. The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle access 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.).
5. The landscape design is suitable, integrated and compatible with the building and the
surrounding area, is appropriate to the site’s functions, and utilizes drought-resistant plant
material that can be appropriately maintained.
6. The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability and green building
requirements in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials,
landscaping, site planning and sensible design.
Attachment B
CHECKLIST
ARB Submittal for MAJOR PROJECT
Please provide the following items for the City of Palo Alto to review. Incomplete application packages may not be accepted and will not be scheduled for public hearing
1. An appointment is required to submit all applications. Appointments can be made in person at the Development Center, 285 Hamilton Avenue, or by calling the Planning Division at (650) 329-2441.
2. Final project approval from Stanford University if project is located on Stanford land ___ Signed approval form from Stanford Management Company
___ Plans stamped and approved by Stanford
3. Planning Application Form
___ Items 1-5 on the application form completed ___ Property owner’s signature
4. Written project description: 14 copies of a summary of the project proposal, which shall include: ___ The scope of work to be done
___ The existing and proposed uses
___ An explanation of the design concept ___ Relationship to existing conditions on site
___ Materials, colors, and construction methods to be used
(The proposal will be reviewed by City department representatives and others who have not had the benefit of meeting with the applicant. Therefore, be thorough in your description and submission)
5. Public Outreach Images: USB flash drive or CD-ROM containing proposed site plan, elevations and perspectives. The plans shall be PDF format for posting on the City’s website. The file should be generally 4-6
pages in total, and optimized for printing to 11 inch by 17 inch paper. Revised and final electronic plan sets shall be provided as needed.
6. Photographic display: Photographs showing the relationship of the proposed project to adjacent buildings and to the neighborhood.
7. Plans: Minimum legible size needed, bound and folded to 8 ½” x 11”. Fold-out pages are allowed. Information must be consistent on all sheets.
A. Plan sets: ___ 16 sets for ARB review (2 full-size (24” x 36” max.) + 14 reduced-size sets (18” x 24” max.))
___ 10 additional reduced size sets for HRB review if site is on the City’s Historic Inventory
B. Vicinity map: ___ Small schematic map showing the location of the site within the City
C. Neighborhood context: show project in the context to its surrounding by providing:
___ Dated, aerial photograph of the site and adjacent properties (available at the Development Center)
___ Streetscape elevations, photographs and/or sections showing the proposed project and adjacent properties on each side of the property, including street trees. The drawing should be three times the width of the
site (if site frontage is 50', the context elevation must include 50' on each side of the site).
___ Site plan showing the adjacent streets and buildings (see E below for other site plan items)
D. Project data: provide the following project data on the cover sheet and site plan
___ Lot area ___ Lot coverage
___ Floor area
___ Required parking For Residential projects only:
___ Common usable open space area (total area calculated and percentage of site area indicated) ___ Private usable open space area (total balcony and/or private patio areas)
E. Site Plan: show existing conditions and proposed changes ___ Scale
___ North arrow (orient all sheets in the same directions) ___ Dimensioned property lines ___ Any underlining lot lines
___ Footprint of all buildings and structures on the site ___ Footprint of adjacent buildings and structures ___ Surface parking area, driveways, paths and sidewalks
___ Zoning setback lines (including Stanford setback lines if applicable) ___ Site contours
___ Existing and proposed signs
___ Light fixtures, bicycle parking, trash and recycling (including proposed containers or related equipment) enclosures, fences
___ Improvements in the public right-of-way, including streets, curbs, sidewalks and street trees within 30
feet of the property ___ Underground utilities (sewer, gas, electric, water)
____Location of backflow preventers, above-ground electrical utilities, boxes, transformers, meter mains, fire
standpipes, etc ___ Any easements or encumbrances across the property
___ Creeks or waterways on or adjacent to the property Indicate ‘top of bank’.
___ Tree location, species, size, dripline area, including trees located on neighboring property that overhang the project site, consistent with the City Tree Technical Manual, Section 1.28
F. Building Elevations: show existing conditions to remain and proposed changes ___ Elevations of all sides of the buildings
___ Outlines of adjacent buildings ___ Height limit, daylight plane ___ All window, door, eaves, skylights, chimneys, rain water leaders, roof equipment and screens, and other
appurtenances on the building exterior ___ Type, finish, material, and color of all surfaces
___ All signs and lighting on the building
G. Floor Plans: Submit sufficient floor plans to indicate how the interior of the building affects the exterior design, particularly
window and door placement, required emergency exists, space usage, stairs, elevators, etc. ___ Dimensioned floor plans showing how floor area was calculated
___ Fully dimensioned parking garage plans
H. Roof Plans: ___ Heating Ventilation Air Conditioning (HVAC) Units shall be shown
___ HVAC equipment screens ___ Photo-voltaic panels, if proposed
I. Parking Layout and Circulation: ___ Fully dimensioned parking plan and required number of vehicular and bicycle parking spaces
___ Handicapped parking, loading signage
___ Main points of entry and exit and traffic flow
J. Sections: ___ Provide illustrative wall section from parapet to foundation showing foundation, wall, windows, and
doors, parapet, cornice, eave, roof (drawing should be at a minimum ½” = 1’ scale)
___ Provide building site sections showing roof and floor heights, site slope, automobile or pedestrian ramps, basements, underground garages, penthouses, etc.
___ Provide section(s) at adjacent property lines indicating any grade differentials, showing fence height,
retaining walls, ground slope, etc. (drawing should be 1” = 10’ scale) K. Landscape Plan: ___ Statement of design intent: written statement outlining the concept of the landscape design ___ Show common usable open space and private open space dimensioned ___ Schematic Landscape Plan
a. Trees and vegetation to be removed, retained, and planted b. Location, species, quantities, and size of all proposed plant materials (plant list) ___ Fences trellises, pots, street furniture, and other amenities
___ Trash enclosures, bicycle enclosures, etc. ___ Location of backflow preventors, above-ground electrical utilities, boxes, transformers, meter mains, fire standpipes, etc
___ Drainage plan to conform with the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and C-3 Requirements where required (contact Public Works Engineering (650) 329-2151 for requirements)
(The final planting and irrigation plan must be approved by Planning and Utilities Marketing prior to
building permit approval) L. Lighting Plan:
___ Photometric drawing including foot-candle numbers ___ Catalog cuts of proposed exterior fixtures
M. Schematic details: Appropriate architectural details to indicate the quality and nature of the design, including:
___ Details showing how adjacent, dissimilar materials connect. Examples include: siding to windows, siding
to roofs and parapets, eaves, railings, corners, connections to existing structures ___ Details showing attachments to buildings, when these occur (such as railings and awnings)
8. Green Building program: A list of sustainable aspects of the proposed design beyond the minimum code requirements. Consult the City’s
Green Building webpage for more information. 9. 3-Dimensional images: massing model, axonometric or perspective drawings from the most visible locations. 3D
images may be physical models, hand drawings, or computer generated.
10. Colors and materials:
___ Samples of actual colors and materials mounted on 8” x 14” foam board to be retained by the city as part of the permanent file
___ Colored rendering for presentation in the public hearing to show accurately how color will be placed on the
building (duplicate copies not needed)
11. Environmental Information Assessment Worksheet (14 copies)
12. Tree Protection Plan Sheet T-1 13. Arborist assessment and report for protected and designated trees: shall be consistent with the City Tree Technical Manual, Section 2.10
14. Hazardous Materials Disclosure Checklist: if use or storage of hazardous materials on site, see Fire Department for hazardous material permit
15. Fee Schedule If there are any questions regarding submittal requirements, please contact city staff. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/arb, Development Center, 285 Hamilton Ave., Palo Alto, Ca 94301 Planning: (650) 329-2441 Building: (650) 329-2496
Fire: (650) 329-2135 Public Works: (650) 329-2151 This Checklist was Revised 6-11-13
Attachment C
Architectural Review Findings from PAMC Chapter 18.76 Section 18.76.050
(d) Findings
Neither the director, nor the city council on appeal, shall grant architectural review
approval, unless it is found that:
(1) The design is consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the
Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan;
(2) The design is compatible with the immediate environment of the site;
(3) The design is appropriate to the function of the project;
(4) In areas considered by the board as having a unified design character or
historical character, the design is compatible with such character;
(5) The design promotes harmonious transitions in scale and character in
areas between different designated land uses;
(6) The design is compatible with approved improvements both on and off
the site;
(7) The planning and siting of the various functions and buildings on the site
create an internal sense of order and provide a desirable environment for occupants,
visitors and the general community;
(8) The amount and arrangement of open space are appropriate to the
design and the function of the structures;
(9) Sufficient ancillary functions are provided to support the main functions
of the project and the same are compatible with the project's design concept;
(10) Access to the property and circulation thereon are safe and convenient
for pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles;
(11) Natural features are appropriately preserved and integrated with the
project;
(12) The materials, textures, colors and details of construction and plant
material are appropriate expression to the design and function and whether the same
are compatible with the adjacent and neighboring structures, landscape elements and
functions;
(13) The landscape design concept for the site, as shown by the relationship
of plant masses, open space, scale, plant forms and foliage textures and colors create a
desirable and functional environment and whether the landscape concept depicts an
appropriate unity with the various buildings on the site;
(14) Plant material is suitable and adaptable to the site, capable of being
properly maintained on the site, and is of a variety which would tend to be drought-
resistant and to reduce consumption of water in its installation and maintenance;
(15) The project exhibits green building and sustainable design that is energy
efficient, water conserving, durable and nontoxic, with high-quality spaces and high
recycled content materials. The following considerations should be utilized in
determining sustainable site and building design:
(A) Optimize building orientation for heat gain, shading, daylighting,
and natural ventilation;
(B) Design of landscaping to create comfortable micro-climates and
reduce heat island effects;
(C) Design for easy pedestrian, bicycle and transit access;
(D) Maximize on site stormwater management through landscaping
and permeable paving;
(E) Use sustainable building materials;
(F) Design lighting, plumbing and equipment for efficient energy and
water use;
(G) Create healthy indoor environments; and
(H) Use creativity and innovation to build more sustainable
environments.
(16) The design is consistent and compatible with the purpose of architectural
review as set forth in subsection (a).
City of Palo Alto (ID # 6087)
Architectural Review Board Staff Report
Report Type: Study Session Meeting Date: 9/3/2015
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Architectural Review Findings
Title: Discussion of Revision to Architectural Review Approval Findings
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Architectural Review Board
Recommendation
Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) discuss the proposed wording and
benefits of a reduction in the number of findings for approval of ARB applications, and
recommend any modifications to the draft revised findings.
Background
The Planning and Community Environment Department (PCE) is embarking on an effort to make
annual zoning code amendments to address outmoded regulations, align codes with current
policies, correct inaccurate references and typographical errors, and introduce changes to
improve department efficiency, the quality of work and enhance transparency to the public.
The first round of amendments is intended to be non-controversial, though some
recommendations will require more consideration than others. The Planning and
Transportation Commission will be responsible for forwarding a recommendation to the City
Council on zoning code amendments. However, one of the proposed changes directly relates to
the Architectural Review Board (ARB), which is the reason for this discussion topic. It is
anticipated that the ARB will review the proposed change, offer modifications if needed, and
forward a recommendation to the City Council reflecting the ARB’s position.
Discussion
All projects that go before the ARB are recommended for approval, conditional approval, or
denial to the PCE Director. These recommendations and the Director’s determination (and City
Council on appeal), are based on required findings.
Findings detail how the local agency evaluated the project and documented its conformance to
local plans, regulations and other criteria. Review of a project to the findings enables the Board
to make recommended conditions of approval or project modifications. If a project is
challenged, the appellant body (City Council) will review the project findings to affirm, modify
City of Palo Alto Page 2
or reject the Director conclusions. A similar review is conducted by a judge if a project is
challenged in court.
For these reasons, project findings are very important when acting on a project. Increasingly,
some community members and Councilmembers have asserted a need to improve the analysis
provided for project findings. Staff agrees.
Palo Alto has a minimum 16 findings that are reviewed for each project that goes before the
ARB. Additional findings are required for any Design Enhancement Exception and several other
findings must be made if a project is subject to Context Based Design Criteria (PAMC
18.16.090). It is not uncommon for a project to be subject to 21 findings.
Many of the existing findings are redundant. Some are unnecessary because city has updated
the code since the finding was established, or do not need to be evaluated at the conceptual
design phase and are checked during plan review for a building permit. The ARB has recognized
these shortcomings too. Recently, staff reports to the ARB now group similar findings to
facilitate an easier review by the Board and public, and improve the qualitative analysis of those
findings.
Now is an opportunity to take this practice one step further. Staff has reviewed the 16 ARB
findings and is proposing to formally codify similar findings, eliminate unnecessary findings, and
strengthen others to give the ARB the tools it needs to evaluate projects and recommend
approval of those that strengthen the urban environment.
The proposed findings have been drafted to retain all the important criteria that exist today. It
is requested that the ARB review and offer suggestions ensure this objective.
It is anticipated that updating the ARB findings will achieve the following benefits:
Improve qualitative responses
Focus project review on key criteria
Provide applicants a better understanding of how projects will be evaluated
Reduce writing and reading fatigue (preparing and reviewing redundant findings)
Strengthen the legal standing of projects challenged in court
Help to address some of the criticisms related to the ARB process and more specifically
the findings
Reduce, to some degree, the amount of paper generated to print reports
The proposed modification to the ARB findings will enhance the review process and make it
more efficient. Moreover, many projects will remain subject to the Context Based Design
Criteria, which imposes significant standards that will be reviewed and evaluated in the staff
report and findings.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
The proposed and existing findings are provided in Attachment A. The Context Based Design
Criteria are there too.
With regard to the annual zoning code effort, at least for the first round, any items that require
a sufficient amount of discussion or turn out to be too controversial will be dropped and
revisited next year. As it relates to the ARB, staff will also be reexamining in the near term, the
ARB application, the staff report template and process to officially document final actions. Staff
can schedule a future discussion on these items and welcomes ARB member comments to help
improve the quality of the application material the Board receives and staff efficiency.
Prepared by: Amy French, AICP, Chief Planning Official
Reviewed by: Jonathan Lait, AICP, Assistant Director
Cara Silver, Senior Assistant City Attorney
Attachments:
Attachment A: ARB Findings (Proposed / Existing) (DOCX)