HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 7086
City of Palo Alto (ID # 7086)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 9/12/2016
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Ordinance Revising AR Findings with PTC and ARB input
Title: PUBLIC HEARING: Adoption of an Ordinance Approving Revisions to the
Number and Wording of the Architectural Review Findings in Palo Alto
Municipal Code Chapter 18.76 and Approval of an Exemption Under Sections
15061 and 15305 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. The
Planning and Transportation Commission Recommended Council Approval of
the Ordinance
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council adopt the draft Ordinance (Attachment A) modifying the
Architectural Review approval findings.
Executive Summary
The proposed modifications to the Architectural Review (AR) findings are intended to improve
the quality and consistency of staff’s analysis and preparation of written findings, reduce
writing and reading fatigue, focus the ARB’s deliberations, and make it easier for applicants to
understand the City’s objectives, and for decision makers to evaluate the applicant’s success at
meeting those objectives. Attachment A reflects the revised findings as recommended by staff,
the Architectural Review Board (ARB) and Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC).
Attachment B, the PTC staff report of August 10, 2016, includes several draft ordinances
showing the iterative revision process as explained in that report. The proposed ordinance
includes further changes recommended by the ARB in June 2016 and supported by the PTC in
August 2016 following Council review in April 2016. Attachment A reflects the suggested
modifications after review by staff, ARB, and PTC.
Background
This effort was initiated by staff to focus and improve upon the existing AR findings as part of a
code “clean up” ordinance. The goal was to eliminate repetitive findings, combine similar
concepts, and remove outmoded or redundant language. These amendments are intended to
City of Palo Alto Page 2
improve the quality and consistency of staff’s analysis and preparation of written findings,
reduce writing and reading fatigue, focus the ARB’s deliberations, and make it easier for
applicants to understand the City’s objectives, and for decision makers to evaluate the
applicant’s success at meeting those objectives.
Council Action
Modifications to the AR findings in Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.76.02 were included in
the 2015 “code clean-up” ordinance, and Council pulled the AR findings and continued the
hearing of these changes to 2016.
During the April 11, 2016 Council meeting, Council modified the draft AR Findings ordinance for
adoption on first reading; however, Council directed that these additional modifications be
forwarded to the ARB for review and adjustment as needed, prior to the next reading of the
modified Ordinance.
In summary, Council modified:
the preamble to make sure the reader understood each of the applicable findings would
need to be met to allow approval;
Finding #1 to add ‘coordinated area plans;’
Finding #2 to insert adjectives such as “existing,” replace “appropriate” with “relevant,”
insert nouns such as “size” and “mass,” and insert the compatibility criteria from the
SOFA II document;
Finding #3 to add phrases reflecting desirable “aesthetically holistic design…” and
undesirable “avoid superficial and “applied”…;
Finding #5 to use “complements and enhances” verbiage instead of “suitable,
integrated, compatible” verbiage, and to insert “indigenous” to refer to native plant
materials and a phrase regarding “providing desirable habitat;” and
Finding #6 to remove the word “sensible.”
Planning and Transportation Recommendation
In the fall of 2015, the PTC had reviewed the AR findings that were presented in the context of
multiple proposed “clean up” changes to the PAMC. At that time, the PTC did not recommend
any changes to the proposed AR findings and did not expand upon the merits of making
changes to the draft AR findings.
At its August 10, 2016 meeting, the PTC recommended (on a 4-1-1 vote) that Council adopt the
draft ordinance (Attachment A). There were no speakers at the hearing. The PTC report is
attached (Attachment B) to this report, as are draft excerpted meeting minutes (Attachment C).
Several PTC members noted appreciation for the objectives of this effort.
Architectural Review Board Recommendation
The ARB had reviewed draft revised Architectural Review findings on two occasions during
development of the earlier “code clean up” ordinance (September 3 and October 1, 2015). The
City of Palo Alto Page 3
April 11, 2016 Council staff report, found at this link
(http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/51728) provides links to the two
ARB staff reports and meeting minutes; these links were also provided to the PTC in the staff
report and are also provided again below:
ARB 9-3-15 report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/48766
ARB 9-3-15 minutes: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/49026
ARB 10-1-15 report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/49218
ARB 10-1-15 minutes: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/49410
At its June 16, 2016 meeting, the ARB discussed the City Council’s April 11, 2016 request and
additional wording provided by staff for the ARB’s review and deliberation. The June 16 ARB
staff report can be found at this link:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/52834. Excerpt draft ARB minutes
of June 16, 2016 were provided to the PTC and are contained in that report attachment. The
ARB approved the full meeting minutes on August 4, 2016; they are found at this link:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/53305.
Substantive changes are summarized in the Discussion section below. Generally, the ARB and
staff built upon Council’s suggested language in order to address the following goals:
To reduce excess language and inject “compatible” and “compatibility” into findings #1
and #2 to more succinctly address Council’s concern for compatible development
citywide, and
To use industry terms such as “integrated” and “climate appropriate” as appropriate (in
findings #3 and #5).
Discussion
Substantive changes, as noted in the PTC report, are summarized below:
The ARB embraced staff’s suggestion to insert ‘(including compatibility requirements)’
following Council’s insert ‘Coordinated Area Plans’ into AR Findings #1 to address a
concern about compatibility. This structure parallels ‘zoning code (context based design
criteria)’ as an alternative to some of the Council-added wording for AR Finding #2,
which duplicated language already found in the SOFA II Coordinated Area Plan.
In AR Finding #2, the ARB added “is compatible with its setting” to address the fact that
ROLM, GM, MOR, RP, and PF zones do not have context based design criteria nor
compatibility criteria embedded in the zoning code (as do Commercial, Multifamily
Residential, and SOFA). The ARB also added back the phrase “and land use designations”
that Council deleted, since the ARB generally looks at Comprehensive Plan Land Use
Designations as well as zoning.
In AR Finding #3, the ARB added “integrated” to ensure that materials are appropriate
to the building design and context.
City of Palo Alto Page 4
In AR Finding #5, the ARB supported the addition of the terms “climate appropriate” and
“when feasible” to improve the clarity of the requirements. Staff understands a Council
desire for California native plants, so the draft ordinance was further amended after the
ARB and PTC reviews. With these changes, the finding reads: “The landscape design
complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is appropriate to
the site’s functions, utilizes climate appropriate plant material capable of providing
desirable habitat when feasible (and preferably California natives), and can be
appropriately maintained.”
In addition to the substantive changes, the ARB also proposed a minor modification to AR
Finding #4 (use of ‘traffic’ instead of ‘access’) and proposed to eliminate ‘green building’ in
Finding #6 to eliminate redundancy.
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.
Timeline
If Council adopts these revisions or further modifications on first reading, the second reading
would be scheduled as a consent calendar review for adoption. Any ordinance adopted on
second reading would become effective 31 days from second reading.
Environmental Review
The April 11, 2016 report to City Council included the reasons the modifications to the existing
AR findings are 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. The report cited 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: PTC Recommended Ordinance (PDF)
Attachment B: PTC staff report of August 10 including attachments (PDF)
Attachment C: PTC 8 10 16 excerpted draft minutes (PDF)
Not Yet Approved
160713 jb 0131537 1
Ordinance No. _______
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Palo Alto Municipal Code
(PAMC) Title 18 (Zoning Regulations), Section 18.76.020 (Architectural Review)
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings and Declarations. The City Council finds and declares as follows:
A. As part of the City’s annual Zoning Code update, the City desires to improve its
Architectural Review findings to ensure robust design review, to eliminate repetitive findings and to
remove outmoded and unnecessary findings.
B. On September 3 and October 1, 2015, the Architectural Review Board (ARB)
reviewed the draft updated architectural review findings and provided input. Subsequently, the
Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) reviewed the AR findings and recommended that
Council approve them without any changes.
C. On April 11, 2016, the Council reviewed the draft findings, suggested revisions and
directed staff and the ARB to review the updated language and offer approval, feedback or changes.
D. On June 16, 2016, the ARB reviewed the updated findings and provided additional
comments.
E. On August 10, 2016, the Planning and Transportation Commission reviewed the
updated findings and concurred with the ARB and Staff’s comments.
F. On September 12, 2016, the City Council conducted a public hearing on the current
draft of the updated architectural review findings.
SECTION 2. Subdivision (d) of Section 18.76.020 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is
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 each of the following applicable findings is met:
(1) The design is consistent and compatible with applicable elementsprovisions of the Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan;, Zoning Code (including context-based design criteria, as applicable),
coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant design
guides.
Not Yet Approved
160713 jb 0131537 2
(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 local resources of the area
when relevant,
(c) is compatible with its setting,
(d) provides harmonious transitions in scale and character to adjacent land uses and
land use designations, and
(e) 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, integrated 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 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.).
(5) The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings,
is appropriate to the site’s functions, and utilizes climate appropriate plant material capable
of providing desirable habitat when feasible (and preferably California natives), and that
can be appropriately maintained.
(6) The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to
energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning.
(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;
Not Yet Approved
160713 jb 0131537 3
(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).
SECTION 3. Adoption of this ordinance is found to be categorically exempt from the
California Environmental Quality Act under CEQA Guideline sections 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense
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.
SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of the ordinance is
for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions
of this ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it should have adopted the ordinance and
each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or
more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared unconstitutional.
Not Yet Approved
160713 jb 0131537 4
SECTION 5. This ordinance shall be effective upon the thirty-first day after its passage
and adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
__________________________ _____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
___________________________ _____________________________
Senior Asst. City Attorney City Manager
_____________________________
Director of Planning and Community
Environment
Planning & Transportation Commission
Staff Report (ID # 7101)
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 8/10/2016
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650) 329-3221
Summary Title: ARB Findings Ordinance
Title: Public Hearing and Recommendation for Council Adoption of an
Ordinance Amending the Architectural Review Findings contained in
Chapter 18.76 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code; Exempt from CEQA
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15601(b)(3) and 15305
From: Amy French, Chief Planning Official
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) take the following
action(s):
1.Recommend adoption of the proposed ordinance (Attachment B) to the City Council.
Background
Proposed are modifications to the Architectural Review (AR) findings that eliminate repetitive
findings, combine similar concepts, and remove outmoded or redundant language. These
amendments will improve the quality and consistency of staff’s analysis and preparation of
written findings, reduce writing and reading fatigue and, focus the ARB’s deliberations. The
changes would reduce the number of findings from 16 to six, and would also make it easier for
applicants to understand the City’s objectives, and for decision makers to evaluate the
applicant’s success at meeting those objectives.
Modifications to the Architectural Review findings in Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.76.02
were included in the “code clean-up” ordinance recommended by the Planning and
Transportation Commission in 2015. The City Council, during its review of that ordinance on
April 11, 2016, directed additional modifications for the ARB to consider. Staff conveyed the
Council’s request to the ARB and offered additional comments for its review and deliberation.
Attachment A reflects findings that had been recommended by the ARB and Planning and
Transportation Commission in 2015, with annotated edits showing changes proposed by
Council in 2016. Attachment B is the recommended draft Ordinance including further changes
recommended by the ARB.
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2
Architectural Review Board Recommendation
The ARB had reviewed draft revised Architectural Review findings on two occasions (September
3 and October 1, 2015). The April 11, 2016 Council staff report, found at this link
(http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/51728) provided links to the two
ARB staff reports and meeting minutes. The links to these ARB staff reports and minutes are
also provided in this report:
<https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/48766> (9-3-15 report)
<https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/49026> (9-3-15 minutes)
<https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/49218> (10-1-15 report)
<https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/49410> (10-1-15 minutes)
On June 16, 2016, the ARB discussed the Council’s proposed edits and recommended the
changes in Attachment B. The ARB staff report can be found at this link:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/52834. Draft excerpt minutes are
provided as Attachment D. Substantive changes are summarized below:
The ARB embraced staff’s suggestion to insert ‘(including compatibility requirements)’
following Council’s insert ‘Coordinated Area Plans’ into AR Findings #1, to address a concern
about compatibility. This is a logic structure to parallel ‘zoning code (context based design
criteria)’ as an alternative to some of the Council-added wording for AR Finding #2, which
duplicated language already found in the SOFA II Coordinated Area Plan.1
In AR Finding #2, the ARB added “is compatible with its setting” to address the fact that
ROLM, GM, MOR, RP, and PF zones do not have context based design criteria nor
compatibility criteria embedded in the zoning code (as do Commercial, Multifamily
Residential, and SOFA). The ARB added back the phrase “and land use designations” that
Council deleted. Zoning designations are also important to the ARB – a site’s
designation may be different than the current use of the site.
In AR Finding #3, the ARB added “integrated” to ensure that materials are appropriate
to the building design and context.
In AR Finding #5, the ARB supported the addition of the terms “climate appropriate”
and “when feasible” to improve the clarity of the requirements. With these changes,
the finding reads: “The landscape design complements and enhances the building
design and its surroundings, is appropriate to the site’s functions, and utilizes climate
appropriate to the extent practical indigenous drought-resistant plant material
capable of providing desirable habitat when feasible, and that can be appropriately
maintained.”
1 The Council-added wording that already appears in the SOFA II Plan and is therefore not recommended for inclusion is: “is compatible within
the context of existing development in that it establishes design linkages with surrounding existing buildings so that the visual unity of the
street is maintained at a minimum by: Siting, scale, massing, materials; The rhythmic pattern of the street established by the general width of
the buildings and the spacing between them; The sizes, proportions, and orientations of windows, bays, and doorways; The location and
treatment of entryways where applicable;”
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3
Planning and Transportation Commission
In the fall of 2015, the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) reviewed and
recommended changes to the AR findings after the ARB had completed its review. The PTC
recommended that Council approve the changes along with other code changes. Staff is seeking
the PTC’s recommendation on the revisions to the original draft ordinance and requests that
the PTC forward the revised ordinance to the City Council for consideration and adoption.
As the PTC did not comment on the wording of the draft revised AR findings during the 2015
review, staff does not anticipate the PTC will have extensive comments on the wording at this
time.
Environmental Review
The April 11, 2016 report to City Council included the reasons the modifications to the existing
AR findings are 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. The report cited 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.
Public Notification, Outreach & Comments
The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper
at least ten day in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Palo
Alto Weekly on July 29, 2016.
Public Comments
As of the writing of this report, no project-related, public comments were received.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Council's Version (DOCX)
Attachment B: Draft Ordinance (PDF)
Attachment C: ARB Edits to Council's proposed draft (PDF)
Attachment D: 06-16-16 ARB excerpt minutes discussion on AR findings (DOCX)
Attachment A
Council Proposed Findings Annotated to Show Council Revisions
“(d) Findings
Neither the director, nor the city council on appeal, shall grant architectural review approval,
unless it is found that each of the following applicable findings is met:
1. The design is consistent with applicable elements of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan,
Zoning Code (including context-based design criteria, as applicable), coordinated area plans,
and any relevant design guides.
2. The project has a unified and coherent design, creates an internal sense of order and
desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community, and
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
appropriate, and provides harmonious transitions in size, mass, scale and character to
adjacent land uses and land use designations, is compatible within the context of
existing development in that it establishes design linkages with surrounding existing
buildings so that the visual unity of the street is maintained at a minimum by:
a. Siting, scale, massing, materials;
b. The rhythmic pattern of the street established by the general width of the
buildings and the spacing between them;
c. The sizes, proportions, and orientations of windows, bays, and doorways;
d. The location and treatment of entryways where applicable; 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, is an aesthetically holistic design of massing and
materials (intended to avoid superficial and “applied” appearance of design), 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 complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings
is suitable, integrated and compatible with the building and the surrounding area, is
appropriate to the site’s functions, and utilizes to the extent practical, indigenous drought-
resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat and 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, and site planning and sensible
Not Yet Approved
160713 jb 0131537 1
Ordinance No. _______
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Palo Alto Municipal Code
(PAMC) Title 18 (Zoning Regulations), Section 18.76.020 (Architectural Review)
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings and Declarations. The City Council finds and declares as follows:
A. As part of the City’s annual Zoning Code update, the City desires to improve its
Architectural Review findings to ensure robust design review, to eliminate repetitive findings and to
remove outmoded and unnecessary findings.
B. On September 3 and October 1, 2015, the Architectural Review Board (ARB)
reviewed the draft updated architectural review findings and provided input. Subsequently, the
Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) reviewed the AR findings and recommended that
Council approve them without any changes.
C. On April 11, 2016, the Council reviewed the draft findings, suggested revisions and
directed staff and the ARB to review the updated language and offer approval, feedback or changes.
D. On June 16, 2016, the ARB reviewed the updated findings and provided additional
comments.
E. On August 10, 2016, the Planning and Transportation Commission reviewed the
updated findings and concurred with the ARB and Staff’s comments.
F. On September 12, 2016, the City Council conducted a public hearing on the current
draft of the updated architectural review findings.
SECTION 2. Subdivision (d) of Section 18.76.020 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is
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 each of the following applicable findings is met:
(1) The design is consistent and compatible with applicable elementsprovisions of the Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan;, Zoning Code (including context-based design criteria, as applicable),
coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant design
guides.
Attachment B
Not Yet Approved
160713 jb 0131537 2
(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 local resources of the area
when relevant,
(c) is compatible with its setting,
(d) provides harmonious transitions in scale and character to adjacent land uses and
land use designations, and
(e) 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, integrated 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 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.).
(5) The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings,
is appropriate to the site’s functions, and utilizes climate appropriate plant material capable
of providing desirable habitat when feasible, and that can be appropriately maintained.
(6) The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to
energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning.
(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;
Not Yet Approved
160713 jb 0131537 3
(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).
SECTION 3. Adoption of this ordinance is found to be categorically exempt from the
California Environmental Quality Act under CEQA Guideline sections 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense
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.
SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of the ordinance is
for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions
of this ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it should have adopted the ordinance and
each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or
more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared unconstitutional.
Not Yet Approved
160713 jb 0131537 4
SECTION 5. This ordinance shall be effective upon the thirty-first day after its passage
and adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
__________________________ _____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
___________________________ _____________________________
Senior Asst. City Attorney City Manager
_____________________________
Director of Planning and Community
Environment
6/16/16 ARB Edits of 4/11/16 City Council Recommendation
KEY: Council edits accepted by ARB ARB Edits (including ARB-accepted Staff edits)
Neither the director, nor the city council on appeal, shall grant architectural review approval, unless it is
found that each of the following applicable findings is met:
(1) The design is consistent with applicable elementsprovisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive
Plan, Zoning Code (including context-based design criteria, as applicable), coordinated area
plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant design guides.
(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 local resources of the area when
relevant,
(c) is compatible with its setting, within the context of existing development in that it
establishes design linkages with surrounding existing buildings so that the visual unity of
the street is maintained at a minimum by:
a.Siting, scale, massing, materials;
b.The rhythmic pattern of the street established by the general width of the buildings and
the spacing between them;
c.The sizes, proportions, and orientations of windows, bays, and doorways;
d.The location and treatment of entryways where applicable;
(d) provides harmonious transitions in size, mass, scale and character to adjacent land uses
and land use designations, and
(e) 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, integrated is an aesthetically holistic
design of massing and materials (intended to avoid superficial and “applied” appearance of
design), 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 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.).
(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 indigenous drought-
resistant climate appropriate plant material capable of providing desirable habitat when
feasible, and 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, and site planning.
Attachment C
City of Palo Alto Page 1
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
JUNE 16, 2016
VERBATIM MINUTES
DRAFT EXCERPT
Item No: 4: ARB Review of Council-Revised Architectural Review Approval Findings
Amy French reported the Council did not adopt the findings but asked staff to return with a Council item
for the findings. The Council then offered modifications. The Council requested the ARB's input on the
modifications. Ms. French reviewed the Council's modifications.
Board Member Furth understood the Council's major concern was that the adoption of context-based
review standards did not achieve the desired results. In response, the Council added the SOFA CAP
findings to Finding Number 2. It was helpful that the Mayor affirmed that a modern building located next
to a much older building could be successful. The Council indicated that the ARB did not seem to think
that all findings had to be made. She wondered whether the problem was the eight or nine findings and
perhaps three dozen possible ways of achieving a project that met the standards. The goal of ARB
comments was to communicate to property owners, neighbors and the community how a project would
be judged. Verbiage should be eliminated. The ARB should consider adopting language that would
inspire confidence in a review in court. She questioned whether the ARB had decision-making powers
that allowed it to carry out the Council's wishes. She supported fewer standards organized around
particular principles. The Council delivered a good message by saying only applicable rules mattered.
The Council delivered a good message by saying the City should have coordinated area plans, but the
staff messed it up by including compatibility requirements. There were two separate issues. One was
whether the standards were adequate. The second was whether the ARB was applying them in a way
that the Council considered to be appropriate. She recommended deleting "including Context Based
Design Criteria" and "including compatibility requirements." Putting natural features and the historic
character in the same subparagraph messed up the standards a bit. She was puzzled by the inclusion of
"existing" natural features. Ms. French suggested it was added to clarify that it was what was there
already. Board Member Furth thought the addition of "contributing positively to the site" was a good
addition, because she hadn't realized trees were included as natural features. She suggested that
Paragraph b end after "contributing positively to the site," and have a new Subparagraph c of "preserve,
respect and integrate the historical character of the area including local historic resources, if any." She
questioned deletion of the power to require that the project be compatible with adjacent land use
designations. Ms. French indicated the Council deleted that language. Board Member Furth urged the
Council to put it back, because the ARB dealt with many neighborhoods in transition. With respect to
Finding Number 3, she supported the staff's formulation as it was clear and easy to apply. With respect
to Finding Number 4, she questioned whether the language was sufficient for the ARB to address bicycle
and pedestrian access along as well as to a site. Ms. French referred to language of ease and safety.
Board Member Furth suggested replacing the word access with traffic. With respect to Finding 5, she
expressed concern that by referring to native or indigenous plants, they could do something undesirable.
She would support staff's proposed language. She did not believe the City Codes were adequate
regarding sustainability. Finding 6 could be read to mean that only meeting the Code was fine. That was
not what she had in mind. Ms. French suggested objectives could capture ideals. Board Member Furth
clarified that the project should be sustainable. Chair Gooyer added that the language was applicable 5-6
years ago, but now was the norm. Ms. French indicated there were green points for innovation. Chair
Gooyer suggested language of meeting LEED levels. The bar should be raised from what was done 5
years ago. Board Member Furth wanted to utilize "achieves maximum feasible sustainability," but that
was a tough standard. Board Member Baltay noted the City had increased sustainability standards above
CALGreen. To go beyond requirements of the Municipal Code was probably duplicitous. Board Member
Furth advised that new things evolved and the Code did not catch up. Vice Chair Lew explained that net
Attachment D
City of Palo Alto Page 2
zero was the new target. The State committed to doing that; therefore, he did not know if the City had
to do more. He asked if Board Member Furth wanted to keep the issue as a discussion point in the
findings. Board Member Furth did not want to approve a project that would not improve the
environment, because there was no sustainability finding. Board Member Baltay referred Board Member
Furth to the finding of "incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability." Board Member Furth
suggested ending the sentence after "sustainability." Ms. French suggested eliminating green building
requirements. Board Member Furth concurred. She questioned whether another finding specifically
about compatibility was needed. Context Based Design Criteria and compatibility requirements should
not be singled out in the first finding, because they were integral parts of the Code. Chair Gooyer would
prefer not to have another finding regarding compatibility. Ms. French explained that she attempted to
reduce the wording in the Council proposal for Finding 2. Board Member Furth suggested the only
change in Finding 1 would be to talk about the applicable provisions rather than the applicable elements.
Ms. French stated provisions would include elements, policies, and programs.
The Board agreed with changes as shown in the preamble.
In Finding 1, Board Member Furth suggested substituting "provisions" for "elements" in the second line.
The Board agreed.
In Finding 2, Board Member Kim felt "internal sense of order" could be confusing. Ms. French indicated it
referred to the interior of the site. Board Member Kim asked if that should be specifically stated. Board
Member Furth felt it could be deleted, because the Board reviewed the whole project. Ms. French asked
if the Board wanted to delete "internal" and retain "sense of order." Board Member Baltay asked if the
language on the screen was the complete finding in placement of the larger paragraph. Ms. French
reported it was staff's suggestion, because they placed compatibility requirements relating to coordinated
area plans in Finding 1. Board Member Baltay suspected the Council would insist on adding something
contextual, that word. Board Member Furth suggested "is compatible with the context of existing
development." Chair Gooyer inquired whether she meant "provides compatibility in scale and character to
adjacent land uses." Board Member Furth suggested a new "c" of "is compatible with its setting," "d"
would be "provides harmonious transitions," and "e" would be "enhances living conditions." Vice Chair
Lew noted the Board had not discussed that large sections of the City were not subject to the
Compatibility Code. This would add it to the Research Park, General Manufacturing, Public Facility zones.
Ms. French explained that the language acknowledged that large sites might not have the pattern that
was found in an urban setting as far as building articulation, rhythm and those kinds of things. Vice Chair
Lew remarked that a house in a residential district next to an office building in a commercial district
triggered a daylight plane. A house in a business district did not automatically trigger a daylight plane.
This would give some discretion over that. Ms. French indicated a better way would be to amend the
Code. The Board agreed to changes as discussed.
In Finding 3, Chair Gooyer preferred "integrated" over "holistic." The Board agreed to changes.
In Finding 4, Board Member Kim recalled the suggestion to change "access" to "traffic." The Board
agreed to changes.
In Finding 5, the Board agreed to changes.
In Finding 6, the Board agreed to changes.
Board Member Baltay inquired whether a Board Member could attend the Council discussion to represent
the Board's views. Ms. French advised if discussion was needed, then an ARB Member would be invited
to attend the hearing.
MOTION:
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Board Member Furth moved, seconded by Board Member Baltay, to approve the Findings as discussed
and agreed.
MOTION PASSED: 5-0
1
Planning and Transportation Commission 1
Draft Verbatim Minutes 2
August 10, 2016 3 4
EXCERPT 5 6
1. Public Hearing and Recommendation for Council Adoption of an Ordinance Amending the 7
Architectural Review Findings contained in Chapter 18.76 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code; 8
Exempt from CEQA Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15601(b)(3) and 15305 9
10
Chair Fine: Let's get on to it then, so Item Number 1 is a public hearing and recommendation for 11
Council adoption of an ordinance amending the Architectural Review Board (ARB) findings 12
contained in Chapter 18.76. And let's get started with the report. 13
14
Ms. French: Yes, good evening; Amy French Chief Planning Official. We are here tonight for this 15
item to discuss the proposed architectural review findings revisions. We are doing this to 16
ensure that projects are compatible, have coherent design, use quality materials, are 17
functional, well landscaped, and sustainable. We’ve recaptured the key aspects of existing 18
findings in the purpose section of the existing ordinance for architectural review and we've 19
included key verbiage to clarify and enhance the public's understanding of the findings. The 20
PTC had seen a previous iteration of these findings back in 2015 as did the ARB. The Council in 21
April of this year proposed further edits to this effort and suggested that we bring those back to 22
the ARB, which we did. And in June they provided additional revisions which are included in 23
Attachment B. The Council did not say go back to the Planning Commission, but of course 24
Planning Commission's purviews is over Title 18 changes so we came back given the extent of 25
the changes. 26 27
So the summary of the recommended changes by the ARB, we ask that you concur with those 28
changes and here they are. The preamble to the finding, this is from the Council. Underlined 29
text, ARB took no issue with that. In Finding 1 the phrase “including compatibility 30
requirements” is proposed to be a parallel construction or logic to go with coordinated area 31
plans as context based design criteria go with zoning codes. That seems to go with that. 32
Finding 2 the ARB added Item C is compatible with its setting, put in the word “local” with 33
respect to historic resources and reinstated the what the code says now about land use 34
designations as an important factor. The Council had a significantly longer statement regarding 35
compatibility that was drawn from the South of Forest Avenue (SOFA) compatibility verbiage 36
and we all feel that the compatible with its setting along with Finding Number 1 regarding 37
compatibility requirements handles that. Finding 3 the ARB suggested the word “integrated.” 38
And Finding 4 the word “traffic” to replace “access” in this context makes sense. Finding 5 39
“climate appropriate plant materials” rather than “indigenous plant materials” which is a 40
different way of looking at things and then that the red words on the screen as you see. Finally, 41
Finding 6 saying rebuilding is really irrelevant or redundant rather. 42
43
And that's it. So we are available for questions. And I don't know that we have anyone from 44
the ARB but, I think the record speaks for itself. 45 46
2
Chair Fine: Thank you very much. Do we have any speaker cards on this issue? None? Ok. So 1
this as Amy was describing is a review of the ARB findings where they have to get all six right in 2
order to move a project forward. And we are essentially looking at Attachment B, which is the 3
proposed ordinance to the Council and to recommend adoption of the proposed ordinance of 4
course we can make comments, ask questions, all the kind of good stuff. So I’d just like to open 5
it up to start with questions from the Commission. Commissioner Rosenblum. 6
7
Commissioner Rosenblum: Yeah, thanks for preparing this. It seems the core of the intention is 8
around compatibility so both with relevant zoning and with the setting. This always seems 9
confusing to me. So this is one of those areas and when many land use items come up 10
discussion often comes down to one group saying, “Well, it meets all [pickle] requirements” 11
and others say, “Well, not compatibility” and they have their of their own view of compatibility. 12 13
I’m wondering is it possible for you or have you seen this done in other cities guides to 14
compatibility that can be referenced? So i.e. using examples of this we consider to be 15
incompatible i.e. there are those who make their own definitions saying, “Oh, I looked at the 16
building across the street,” but they say, “But you didn’t look kitty corner, the next block down 17
is the one you really should be looking at.” And to say that we consider this out of scope things 18
that are more than say one block away. We consider the average of the adjoining end blocks to 19
be the relevant standard for compatibility on height or setback and so we’ve looked at things 20
like setback where there are actual standards around the number of parcels that are used to 21
look at compatibility for things like setback, but I'm wondering how extensive can these 22
guidelines get? Because I think this is where people get tripped up. 23 24
Ms. French: Well as suggested by the findings I mean the context based design criteria 25
referencing this specifically in Finding Number 1 gives us all a good head start on that discussion 26
the ARB and staff and the public so for many or most of the projects that come through the ARB 27
process they are subject to those context based design criteria. Projects in the Research Park, 28
projects on public facility zoned properties do not have those standards, but so compatibility 29
might be something a little bit looser. But I think we still generally rely on those contacts based 30
design criteria which are very extensive and provide examples of what to do, articulation, and 31
following the plate heights and alignments and there's quite a host of specifics that are found in 32
those. Again, I would say 95 percent of the projects that go through the ARB do have… yeah, 33
are covered by those. 34
35
Chair Fine: Commissioner Waldfogel. 36
37
Commissioner Waldfogel: Thanks. I want to say that I'm actually pretty excited about these 38
changes. I really like the direction they're going. I like the Provision 2, the unifying coherent 39
design concept. And I like introducing the idea of high aesthetic quality. I mean that's 40
something that I think we badly need is… as a criteria. So I'm very supportive and very excited 41
about this. 42
43
Chair Fine: Other Commissioners? Vice‐Chair. 44
45
3
Vice‐Chair Gardias: Thank you. So when I was reading this I recalled the words of former Mayor 1
Holman when she was talking that [unintelligible] aftermath of the design process and it may 2
be the case and I know that she was very concerned and she was very engaged in this project. 3
And when I think about this what she said I also think about what we do here because we of 4
course we don't want to be a space, be an aftermath of a design process, a planning design 5
process, right? So that's we would like to have a quality space as well as the quality 6
architecture, but it’s a tough thing to resolve. 7
8
And in general when I was preparing for this meeting I searched through a different municipal 9
codes. I went to Santa Monica and I couldn't find any anything comparable. I went to two 10
other cities and I couldn't find anything comparable either. And so I was wondering as my 11
colleague Eric if you could just provide example of how others are resolving this to have the 12
space and architecture somehow being cohesive. We know that there are detailed plans that 13
are prepared for the key areas that pretty much tie architects, developers, and others with the 14
specific regulations that provide detailed guidelines. Regulation like this has a concern because 15
it keeps a check on the designing party because it's broad enough that pretty much any 16
argument may be brought against the designer or the owner saying that this building is not 17
compatible because there will be many perspectives of this what this is compatible, what's 18
compatible, what's not compatible. So that's my general concern in this perspective. 19
20
And then when I think about this, this document actually ties to the Individual Review (IR) that 21
we're going to have later on today. And so when you were listening to Dan Garber you may just 22
tie his comments about IR to this and then think how this two items should work together in 23
terms of just providing us with the quality space in architecture. 24
25
Ms. French: Through the Chair? Just to put a point on that architecture review findings are 26
generally unrelated to the IR process and program. The only time that they would intersect 27
would be when there are three or more homes coming through the architecture review 28
process. So the architecture review findings would be relevant there. Staff would also provide 29
an analysis with the, of the project with respect to those IR guidelines. 30
31
Vice‐Chair Gardias: I didn't mean legal overlap. I meant planning and space overlap. So that's 32
where they intersect, right? Because they have the same set of the thinking rules that impacts 33
our space and buildings. 34
35
Chair Fine: Any other comments or questions yet? Ok. So I'm generally in agreement with 36
Commissioner Waldfogel here. I think these changes are fairly exciting, their kind of minor, 37
some are a little bit bigger. A few questions and comments; while I agree it's important for the 38
City to have high aesthetic quality and put that into this code I was a little concerned that there 39
was a phrase “aesthetically holistic” and I was wondering if that's a bit prescriptive in terms of… 40
it just made me think are there buildings that maybe we don't want a holistic aesthetic where 41
there may be a few different design styles that make a great building. So I was a bit 42
[unintelligible]. Is that the older draft? 43
44
Ms. French: So that's what the Council Members suggested we take to the ARB and we did, but 45
we came up with something that we feel is will be have greater use and flexibility. And so that 46
4
would be Finding 3 I believe in Attachment B. So we should be all looking at Attachment B 1
which is the proposed ordinance. 2
3
Chair Fine: Ok. Two other quick questions, one is about desirable habitat. Is that for animals? 4
Insects? 5
6
Ms. French: As had been suggested the whole indigenous thing is that's a word that's 7
associated with animals whereas (interrupted) 8
9
Chair Fine: Ok. 10
11
Ms. French: Yeah, so how it reads now and we did consult with our landscape architect that 12
works for the City in Public Works and kind of hammered out this expression that's in the 13
Attachment B ordinance which talks about climate appropriate. That's the lingo used these 14
days to refer to the right species in the right location with the right water needs, etcetera. 15
16
Chair Fine: Ok. Is the climate appropriate language what's replacing the previous like drought 17
tolerant stuff? 18
19
Ms. French: Correct. 20
21
Chair Fine: Ok. That actually addresses my main concern because I was a little concerned that 22
we were removing the drought tolerant language which I think is pretty important in our 23
current situation. 24
25
Ms. French: And then if, and if I might add to that as well Finding 6 does talk about water 26
conservation with respect to sustainability. So if it hasn't been perfectly clear in climate 27
appropriate then it is made more clear with respect to water and Finding 6. 28
29
Chair Fine: Ok. I'm happy to have any other questions or comments otherwise I'm willing to 30
entertain… Commissioner Tanaka. 31
32
Commissioner Tanaka: I have a really quick question. So I just want to make sure I understand 33
this. So one thing that was added to this was each of the following applicable findings is met. 34
So that’s kind of like I just want to understand the process before and process, the proposed 35
process. So was the proposed process, there was a process before that if any one of those 36
were met that was ok or is it now all of them have to be met and it’s ok? 37
38
Ms. French: I think it reads as applicable so and this is no different from how we've been 39
applying these findings. No matter what it says at the top in the preamble we've been applying 40
all that apply to the project. I mean you might have a project that's only landscaping so 41
anything that talks about building may not apply to that project. So we do look at each one of 42
those findings as they apply to each project that comes through. And so that's the intent is 43
they should meet all the projects, all the findings that apply to that project. 44
45
Commissioner Tanaka: Ok, so why was that phrase added? 46
5
1
Ms. French: That was added by Council for clarity. 2
3
Commissioner Tanaka: Ok. Ok, so basically the same kind of rigor as before it’s just trying to 4
clarify that? 5
6
Ms. French: Yes. 7
8
Commissioner Tanaka: Ok, thank you. 9
10
Chair Fine: Questions, comments, Motions? Commissioner Alcheck. 11
12
Commissioner Alcheck: I just want to make a few comments about this, these changes which is 13
that I think that we're talking about commercial property, commercial projects here. And in 14
some well, I shouldn’t say commercial projects. I'm, we're talking about projects that would be 15
subject to the review of the ARB which could in theory be residential if they were what, 16
multifamily? I think that so these six criteria to me are incredibly abstract. I think that I've been 17
in a position where I've had to articulate concepts like this and it's like it's very laborious, right? 18
You go through this process of trying to like be specific and yet unspecific to hint at what you're 19
looking for without being too constricting. And I think sometimes when you're trying to 20
evaluate statements like this it's, it helps to understand sort of the context behind the change 21
which is in my opinion the context behind these changes is essentially a response to the 22
commercial development in Palo Alto, right? So there is this sense that our development has 23
been out of character, has been uncompatible, incompatible. I… one of… to me there we've 24
taken a lot of steps in this to essentially create greater hurdles for commercial and multifamily 25
development in town including the office cap. And to me this is yet another effort to create a 26
set of guidelines that would just make the process… 27
28
I mean look, I understand the ARB’s been involved and I do really appreciate the feedback of 29
the ARB. I, my biggest concern is that some of this stuff is very big and abstract and I wouldn't 30
say it's that it's vague to suggest that it incorporate landscaping that has that is energy efficient 31
or conserves water, but here's a good example of something that's not within these guidelines: 32
does the design serve its purpose well? And I don't mean does it allow for pedestrian and 33
bicycle traffic outside of the project I mean does it, does it maximize the use of the land? Let's 34
say it's a multifamily project. Does it house people in an efficient manner? I mean we're sort of 35
creating these, to me when I read these it has to do with look and feel from externally and to 36
me it just seems like we're creating a greater toolset, a greater vague toolset to provide 37
inconclusive feedback to projects, right? So a project will come up to City Council… my concern 38
is a project will come up City Council they'll just suggest issues based on these design criteria or 39
concerns with these design criteria and they'll be vague and it'll be very hard to satisfy this 40
design criteria because it maybe in the eyes of the… it's like a, it’s almost personal some of 41
these issues. That's my big concern. And I don't know that there's really any answer that you 42
can provide, but I… 43
44
6
Chair Fine: So if I can just interject for a second? I do kind of agree with you. These are vague 1
standards, but this is just an update to what the City has been doing for years and luckily this is 2
on the ARB, it’s not on the PTC. 3
4
Commissioner Alcheck: Agreed, agreed. I'm just I’m sharing these comments. Well you and 5
Commissioner Waldfogel both said you're really excited about these changes and I think the 6
assumption there is that you feel like the process is really broken or maybe I shouldn’t go that 7
far to assume that, but I don't know what you're so excited about. It’s not clear to me that the 8
current process has yielded such poor results. It is clear to me that the, that we've developed 9
we've grown a tremendous amount and we're feeling the growing pains. I don't know 10
necessarily that that has anything to do with the general aesthetics of any of the buildings that 11
have been developed and that's my concern. 12
13
We have an ARB which reviews aesthetics, massing. We're not this isn’t really setbacks. This is 14
much vaguer than that. Harmonious transitions in scale and character to adjacent land uses. 15
To me this is: look, stop building and let's make it even more, let's… look, I think you 16
understand what I’m trying to say. To me there’s, this is… to me to be excited about this means 17
that there's some serious problem in the aesthetics and transitions of the buildings and I don't 18
know if the case has been made for that. It's a comment. I’m not suggesting that it's worth 19
debate, but (interrupted) 20
21
Chair Fine: So I just think the language has gotten a little tighter around some of those 22
parameters, but I see lights from Vice‐Chair and I believe Commissioner Waldfogel as well. 23
24
Vice‐Chair Gardias: Thank you. So I think that this document as well as IR that we're going to 25
just review two topics from now it just addresses our struggle about what to do with the space. 26
And in some cases its deteriorating so citizens ask about the Single‐Story Overlay (SSO) because 27
they disagree with the destruction of their of their privacy by the two‐story house that’s built 28
next to them. Some other folks may not be happy with some commercial development that 29
totally ignores the existing space. And then there is a variety of comments that you can read 30
throughout the newspapers or gather from this meetings or Council meetings that just brings 31
this understanding that we just don't necessarily like this what's happening around us. And I 32
know that we are trying with this document we're trying to improve this process, but I just 33
don't really think that this is going to address it. 34
35
Look when you when you think about just the basic premise about of a building and of a city 36
none of those were based on any regulations. The greatest cities were developed either by the 37
kings or monarchs or were developed based on the commerce concept. There was no 38
regulation like this or any other whatsoever, right? With all respect to this what we're doing, 39
right? And this was the same with the building. The building was developed based on the 40
commerce premise and not on the architectural regulation. The greatest buildings that were 41
developed throughout Europe in the [unintelligible] cities were pretty much based on the 42
commercial agreements and regulations that were that were related to the to the trades 43
establishment not to the space per se, but they resulted with the development of the great 44
space. That's how it's pretty much developed throughout the centuries or millennia. So it's just 45
7
that it’s maybe greater statement, but it just addresses the that I understand totally what we're 1
trying to do here, but I'm not really sure if that is going to resolve anything. 2
3
And then on the other hand, right, it's not our document it's the ARB’s document, but I hope 4
that they will read it and perhaps we're going to one day we're going to meet together with 5
ARB and we are going to just think about just a greater good or [some] that will result with 6
some project how to truly address the public space and how to truly address the good 7
architecture in the City. And with the whole respect I don't think that improvement to this 8
document is going to address it. That's probably a subject of a separate process. Thank you. 9
10
Chair Fine: Thank you very much. 11
12
Mr. Lait: Is it possible to offer a couple of comments? 13
14
Chair Fine: Oh, please. 15
16
Mr. Lait: So thank you Commissioners for all those comments. I just wanted to clarify sort of 17
how we got here and I understand sort of the backdrop of the conversation about development 18
in general and concerns that people have expressed about commercial development. And I 19
would say that that conversation followed this effort which began in early 2015. This is a staff 20
driven initiative and the reason staff has requested these changes is to not change the 21
substantive meaning of the finding, findings, but to collapse the 16 findings that we have today 22
so that we can be more efficient in our review of processing of applications. This was not a 23
response to commercial development. This is a staff, this is staff asking Council for help to be 24
more efficient in how we review and process applications. It gives us a chance to eliminate 25
some outmoded references, tailor it to some issues that we think are repeating themes that 26
happen, and that really is the focus here is to just sort of give us a chance to focus on the 27
quality of the analysis because before we've been criticized of not paying as much attention to 28
all of the details of the 16 findings. And I will tell you as a former staff writer of many reports 29
writing trying to be creative and come up with 16 findings for 100 plus projects year after year 30
is difficult. So the ability to tailor and focus our discussion is really what this is about. And this 31
started in early 2015. I think the growth meter ordinance came around in late 2015, I think 32
December 2015. I understand that since this problem… this and this matter has just kind of 33
lingered on and we haven't been able to resolve it yet. But this is this is not a response 34
necessarily to some of the dialogue that has been taking place in the community. 35
36
MOTION 37
38
Chair Fine: Thank you. I think we're ready to have a Motion to move this forward or otherwise. 39
So the floor is open. Alright, I’ll make a Motion. So I would like to move that we recommend 40
adoption of the proposed ordinance Attachment B to the City Council and that staff please 41
submit our full minutes to them as well. 42
43
SECOND 44
45
Commissioner Rosenblum: I second. 46
8
1
Chair Fine: So there's Motion on the floor. I'm not going to speak to the Motion. Would you 2
like to? 3
4
Commissioner Rosenblum: I’ll just I’ll reflect Commissioner Waldfogel’s comment. I'm excited 5
for this. I understand some of the concerns that this may inject a subjective bar that may be 6
stunting, but I also think that staff’s explanation for the purpose of cleaning this up, simplifying, 7
etcetera makes a lot of sense. And I also think that the objective is clear and exciting. So I'd like 8
to see this move forward and I support the recommendation. 9
10
VOTE 11
12
Chair Fine: Thank you. Any last comments or should we just call a vote? Alright, all those in 13
favor? Those against? Abstaining? Alright, the Motion passes. Alright, thank you all very 14
much. That's Item Number 1. 15
16
MOTION PASSED (4‐1‐1, Commissioner Alcheck against, Vice‐Chair Gardias abstained) 17
18
Commission Action: Motion by Chair Fine to recommend approval for Council adoption of 19
an Ordinance amending the Architectural Review Findings contained in Chapter 18.76 of the 20
Palo Alto Municipal Code; Exempt from CEQA Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 21
15601(b)(3) and 15305. Second by Commissioner Rosenberg, vote 4‐1‐1 (Commissioner 22
Alcheck against, Vice‐chair Gardias abstained) 23