HomeMy WebLinkAbout0183.092j
I
I
I
f
-
;,,"',
'~.'": .. r --~.
Miren 12. 1992
f:mI0AABLE C lTV COUNC r L
Palo Alto, Cal irorn~a
Attention: ,o'Olic1' and Sen/ices Ccrrmltte:e
ST~FORD RESEARCH PARK STUDY
Memb~rs ot the Council;
On February 4, 1992. the Policy and Services Committee (ontinued discussion ~f
the Stanford Reseiorch Park. Study t{l the March l1tn Conrnittee ml;'etin·~. This
staff report pro· .. ides additional information on three items raised a~ the
febrUi\"Y 4th meeting: status of the outfitting of a Fire Department rescue
unit fer response to hazardous lt1iJ.ter;al incidents; status of the Utilities
Department Partners Progrlm; and information an the functioning and staffing
of tne Cit.)"5 architectural review proc-ess. In addition, a reeyc' iog 'progr~m
l!pdate is transmitted separatel.)' if, the City COllncO pack.et (see CMR: 184:92).
Background
The Po1icy and Serwices Committee has discussed the Stanford Re~earch Study on
October 29 and December 3, 1991 a~d February 4, 1992. I~ December, the
(.omittee accepted an offer bjl the Chamber of CClTI'TIerce to pro· ... ide COlTlT1ents on
the priority of a n~mber of potential (ity actions related to the Park. The
Cnarnber's January 30, 1992 response (attached) was the focus of the
Comitteels Febr"uary -4 meeting. Durilig the course of that meet.ing, discussion
of H:~ Chamber's memo raised interest in additional information on a number of
topics including the items identified in this repo"t.
Outfitting of City Emergency ResplJnse Ve~ide for
Hazardous Mat€rial s lncident$'---___ . ____ _
The City has purchased and wi 11 scon receh'e del i .... ery of a repl acement
emergency rescue response vehicle. ihis venlcle should be ready for operation
in July 1992. Expanding the sQuip~ent and supplies ~arried on this vehicle to
allow it to qualify as a hazardous materials response unit will cost S75,OnO.
His sum has been reQtJe'!itP"d by staff through the 1992-93 Capital Impro¥ement
Program. If this funding request is. approved by the Council. purcha.se will b€
made immediately after approval. It is estimated that acquisition of the
hazardous material inCident equipment and supplies w41l take approximately
three Il'f{Jnths.
CMR:183:92
I -
~-~~It:;-,-·-:: .
>
In the period prior to availability of the Clty's halardolls material response
'o'ehic1e, the City will cC!ltinue tfj rel, on mutual, respc·l1se agr-eemcnts for
vehicles locited in M~untain Vie~. Cupertino and San MateQ County for response
to incidents lr. the City. Relian,e on outside vehicles add~ approximately 40
minutes to the response time.
The Cormdttee~s februay,y 4 discllssion included qU2stions regarding the
desirability of !'OOl'ing tlJis funding faNara ahead of tne normal b~d.get
prate-H. At this time, such an action would move forward the availability of
the City vehicle by approximately two months. Such an artior; would be of s~me
benent to the lo<:a.l cOrml,mity and the Fir~ OepartrMnt. Staff bel ~eve!; that
it 1'S important tlJ !'!',aintain the procedlJral validity 'Of the budget precess and
not I!xpedite item:; except in very unusual tircu!TIstar1ces. Palo Alb has been
able: to resprmd to haurdClus rnateria1 incidents without a fully equipped 1 o':.oit 1
eme-rgen<:y rescue · .. ehic1e by reliance on Qutside response vehicles.
ContinlJiition of the clJrrent service 1 evel for the additi or.al two months; s
possible.
lit i 1 it i es Department Pa:-tnel"S P,QQram
Re!nstitutlon of the Part~er~ rebat~ program was not identified in the
Research Par~ Study but was raised by the (hamb~r of Commerte as an additionoitl
Park: tenant priOl"ity adion.
Bac~'round of the Partners Progr~m.
The Partners rebate program ~as implemented in 1984 to provide lnc~nt;ves to
commercial customers to reduce their peak summer electriC use. T~is peak
reduction was important because. during peak times. the-City's electric power
needs were exceeding the ~vailabie iow-cost suppry. As a result, more
expensive power had to be purchased and th~ Partners program was a way to
reduce the City's high ~ower purchase costs.
Meamwhile, the City invested in buildi~g a new hydroelectric facility in order
to have an additional source for the needed electriCity. The hydroelectric
plant became operational in early 19S0 and ther~for~l as planned, the Partne,s
rebate program ~as ended sh~rtly beforl! that time.
Curre!lt Services Provided to SFJP Tenants.
The Utilit1es Department cont;nues to have Resource Advisors assigned to
corporate customers. These advisors provide individualized assistance and
information to meet eacn customer's water and ener9Y management needs.
Examp1es of the program services pro'olided inc1ude on-site audits, technical
consult'ng, product research and evaluation, special topic seminars, facility
manager ~etings and equipment meter loans. A pilot rebate program is now
!.,maerway to encourage indoor water consenation projects. and will c~ntinue
through May 19S2, subject to aViiilabliity of fur-os.
CMR:183:91
p;\.:mr\s.rpcme
3/11/92
Page 1
,
•... fj$ .•
1
~j
I
i
-
FiJt(Jre Plans.
The Utilities Resource Pli1nnir19 stiff is now prep'lrir19 an ir1tegrated resourcE
ph., for City Council approval later thB year. This plan will include
recoll'll1endations for cost-eff.ecti"e, long-t.erm electric cOr1senation programs.
S{1me inc~nti\!e programs may be initialed by latC' 1992 or r~arly 1993.
last yea)"', the Council approved a long-term IJrbar:: Water Management Plan that
outlined a ~ari~ty of water conservation incentive programs to be implemented
over the n~.xt five Jours. Some of thes-e programs, h{Jwe~·er. are not
appropriate to implement, until the drought situaUon eases up and certain
contract iS5~es with t~e City's supplier (San Fr~nr.isco water De~artment} are
settled.
Architectural Revfew PrJ(edJrr..~_LAruLStiliffjng
The attached RCo~nts Regarding th~ Function of an Architectural Revie~
Board" \/tere submitted by the C"'ambi!r of (orrvnerce at the February 4 C.ormli ttee
meeting. Staff reviewed the information and placed the CO!M1ents on the
FebnJary 20, 1992 Architectural Revi e .. Board (ARB) agenda. In response to an
in ... jtation from staff, a Chamber representative attended the ARB meeting. It
is anticipated that an ARB Membe~ will attend the March 17 Committee me~ting.
Staff has U'sed the (.ollY!'tents to issess the functioning of the design review
pr~cess. This assessment included an ana1ysis of ARB applications submitted
iF! al1 of 1991. In late 19S9 and E-ilr1y 19510, staff initiated 3. series of
process modifications in response to significant public criticism of the ARB
process and the role of staff. Staff asked the Chamber of COmlerce to host a
series of meetings of Chamber members and staff to expl~re concerns a~d
suggested precess changes. Also, staff work.ed with iL Planning Corrmission
customer service subcOITmittee to r2vit!· ... and modify development monitoring
procedur~5 and public inforrn~tion. The result of working with the Chamber ind
CommisslQn, is well as discussi~n with ARB members, included the following
proc2ss chilnges:
Oevelopment ind use of application checkli~ts to facilitate
ident~ficat;Qn of miss~ng information and receipt of comolete
applications;
A reQu1red preapp1icatior. meeting with applicants and staff to achieve
complete ipplic~tions at time of submittal;
Detalled plan check forms to minimize situations where a project is
processed with a code-related flaw; and
Published schedu1es for processing all types of Planning applications
(current ARB schedult!s are attaChed}.
A1so early in 1990, staff compTeted preparation and pr nting of the attacht!d
ARB Handbook. A clearer explanaticn {If the design rev ew process has helped
iLppricants prepare for and move tnrough the design rev e~ process.
CMR:183:92 3/12/92
~:\,c;"r\$rpC>l1te Page 3
•
.-~ .,-~.--','
In addition, staff, working with the ARB, 2xpanded the range of applicat
tnat could b~ approve~ by staff. The ARB 0~dinance amendments recently
approved by the CO'Jncl1 in part re-flect recent changEs in the reviEw pro·.c:-olos
an(l in part expand' the s.taff role bpyond the changes that evolved in 19!fO and
1991.
Review of 19S1 ARB app1ications identified the following information;
101 of 180 ARB applications 'SS~} ..,ere apprCived by staff witholJt review
by the Board.
An addition.l 94 nonapplicltion staff approvals wer~ granted --many of
theSE-... ere for detiils Jf projects previously approved by the Boar'd, is
well as changes to projects identified durin,; build',ng permit review and
dur1119 construction.
Of the 79 appli\:ations not appropriate for staff appro'llal, 60 wl!re
approved, one denied, four withdrawn, nine were pre1iminary reviews
considered by the Board and five applications .~re in process a~ the end
of 1991. Of the 60 approved applications, staff estimat~s that 10 would
be appropriate for staff approval under the revised ARB ordinance
wording recer,tly iop'prC'ved bl the Coul'lci 1.
Of the 61 (60 approvals and one denial) applitations acted upon by tne
Board, 45 (75~l were .oted upon at the fir,t ARB meeting. fifteen (25%)
were acted upon at the second ARB meeting and one application was acted
upon at the third ARB r!view.
For the six applicatiQns consi~ered Rmajor R under the Code and fee
schedul e (and ex::l uding t..,o pr~jects reviewed as a Site and Oes-ign and
Planned (ommunjty application), the average processing time (i.e., from
tne date ~f receipt ~f applicati~n through staff/department review,
preparation Df t~e en'llironmental dDcument. pub1ic hearing nctlce period
and to final Board action) was eight weeks. Staff cont4cted the cities
of Mountain View and Sunnyva1e, both noted for their strong custo~~r
service ethic~ and found that their p~ocess:n9 time fer similar
applications is comparable to Palo .A.ltt)'s.
AdditiQnal reaction:; to the Chamber's COrMlents include:
On page 2~ it is obsfrved that "Unless the staff has specific academic
and professional expertise in architectural design, site planning O~
landscape design, they shDuld not comment or become invol~ed in the
evaluation of thfse el€mer.ts.· Staff invol!,1ed in design review include
-one person with a Masterrs Degree in Landscape Arcnitecture; a second'
person with an :Jrbdn and Regi-onal Pianning Bachelor's Degree lrI'ith an
emphasis or. Urban Deslgn, plus CI post-baccalaureate degree 4n
architecture and urban studies end private sector urba~ d~~ign
experience; and a third person with a Bachelor's Degree in Archit~cture.
in the 19805, there has. been a conscious tffort to recrl.iit staff with
de~ign training and e~perience. Failure to recruit this type of staff
CMR:183:92
il; \c:nl'\:srpcmt I!:
}Iit .
3/11/92
Fage 4
".~~:;~~m:~1:~ri ,
~ . '%
-
expertise would not hal(E allo .. ed for the recent significant nUi1lber of
staff reviellfs and ii.pcproIJ:l1s.
On page 2~ the Chamber describes the job of th2 ARB in language that 1l
narrower tnal1 found iT) the ,Ioil':liicipal C.ode.
rn the past four years, staff can ident'ify only one situation where the
Board raised concerns about the ~style· of architecture. (The Board
expressed concern to Jim Baer regarding the extensive U!i2 in Downtowr'1 of
the Spanish Colonial style.) The Board encourages variety and does not
favor or rlisfavor particular architectural styles. The Board can be
quite critical when the applicant prcpos~s ~aterials that are
inconsistent with the applicant 1 s desired building style (e.g., using
aluminum slide windows on ~ traditional style structure rather thar.
divided 1 ig",t wir,dows}.
Req~ired action in one meeting is unlikely to change the actual process
I(ery much, because applicants will request continuance rather than
~i!vi"9' to appeal G denial.
The Chamber's ·overriding prinCiple-that -it is the joo of the
applicant to d~sign and redeslgn-is often stated and reinforced at .4RB
meetings. Howe"'2r~ when the Board has. cTit'icisill of a project, applicar.ts
often request speclfic design comments and suggestions and can become
angry jf they perc~ive the precess only as critical and not ~heipfu'.·
In conclusion l the written and orai comments submitte~ by the Chamber have
provided 1 good basis for valuable rev~ew of the ARB process. fnformation
provided in this rEport casts doubt on whether there is a substantial ~time
tax,· gi'ien that Fai 0 Aitans have often expressed support for having a
muni.dpal desig!l review function that is open to the public and provides
sign1flcar.t public notice of pending major items. Some of the concerns
expressed had substantial validity t~o or mf}!,"E' years ago, \linen i"c(Jmp~ete
applications were often accepted by staff witn a s~bsequent 10ng internal
rev1ew process and continuaUon of appl ications by the Board to resolve code
related InC! other fundamental problems. l"formati~n and conclusions contajned
in this staff re~ort are net on1y appropriate for Ci)r!sideration by the Policy
and ServiCH COrm1itt<a~ but wi 11 be expanded L1pon by staff prior to the
scheduled April ll, 1992 joint meeting of the ARB and Cay Counetl.
Research Park Retycling Programs
A Recycling Program Update is transmitted separately in CMR:lS4:92.
~_Q_Oclusjon and Recommendation
The PoHey and Services Coml'ldtte~ should review and discuss the information in
this report and other aspects of the Research Park Study of interest to the
Committee and, as the Committee believes appropriate, make reco~~ndations to
the Ccuncil.
CHR: 183 :92 3/12/92
Page 5
. J·:,:~~;£L
~:" .-"~~~ ..
-
•
1 .1
'-1
" -
O~gcing revie~ of the Researcn Park Study should remain in Committee. Timing
of t!lg (ormdttee"s next ~iscUSSion of the Study is like1y to be influenced by
thE status of St1lnford Universityl s Research Park plan!1; ng efforts.
Resp~ctfully submltted,
~,,;):£d .;[ ~;-,..f;,;,<-:;::;:?
KEHHETH R. SCHREIBER
01 rector of Pi ann; n9 and
Community fnvironment
Rel.ted Staff Reports: CMR:428:91 (10/3/91)
CHR:S3.:91 (11/27/9!)
CHR:137:92 (1/30(92)
Attachments: Comments Regarding the Functior. of an Ar~hitettural Revi~~ BoarJ
Jotnu.ary 30, 1991 Memo from Chamber of Corrmerce
ARB App1ication S,nedules
ARB H.ndbook
cc: Arcnitectural Review Soard
Planning Commission
Stanford U~iverslty (Slll Phillips, Olane Healey, Andy Doty.
Phil Wil1;~ms, David Newman)
Stanford Resea,'ch Park Tenants and leasi!holders
Harron Park Assoc;atio~
CoHege Terrace Residents Association
Chamber of Commerce
Denny Petrosian
Charl es Keenar.
CMR:183:92
~:\~r\s"'~e
3/12/92
Page 6
,
1
i comments Regardinq the Funct1o~
of an Architectural Review Board
There are three prima players in the A,R.:9. process. Each of the:s..:!
players has distinct responsibilities. If they contino thei~
etfort~ toward meetinq these responsibilities, the process will
function as desi.gn!"'>d .',!rtd i~ ~ reasonably ti::cly fashion.
Tne three prime players are as follo~.:
1. Tho. applicant
2. The A.R.B. Planning staff
3. Tne A.R.B. ~e~bers
Iha Apclicant. It i. the prime responsibility of ths applicant to
de~sign the project. Only the al'plica:lt can "ake changes to the
dasign. ~he desi9n ~ust meet all applicable code~, zones and
re:gulations and be: balisd or, re.ason~bly accepted desi.gn principles,
such as proportion, l&'Jitabilit:t t.o surrounding £nvironrr.ents, safe
and clear circulation Qt vehicles and pedestrians, and the g-eneral
standards and historic cQntent of the city urban desiqn.
Ina A.~.e. Flanning staff. It 1s the pri~e responsibility of the
A.R.B. staff to review the design for confornance to ~ll applicable
codes, zoning and cIty requlatio:.s. If the.re are vic-la.tions of any
of the above, they should be revealed to the applicant and the
,
-
4pplicant ~hould change the dosigr. sO that the final docu~ents ar~
eOUlpl!:t;e when they s.re t"eviewed by the A. FL!.
Unless the staff has specific acad~mic and professional expertise in
architectural desi9nl sita planning, cr landscap~ design, the,
ehould not coit\:ment or beco:ne involv~d in the evaluation of these
~lements. The reason there are three professionals of the A.R.B. is
to provide this 1!"lput to the process.
,'rJ~_~ ___ A.lt.B. Member:s. It is the job of the A.R.B. members to revi~'~
the de.i9n for its confo~anc. to reasonably accepted de$i9n
pl-inciples such aS j p:ro~rtion, sensitivity to surrounding
envlron~ents, safe and clear ~!rculation of vehicles and
pedestrians, an~ the qeneral standards and historic content ot the
c1 ty urban c1eslgr •.
It is not the job of the A.R.B. me~ers to design the project as
they would if ~h~y ha~ the coromission inlt~ad of the applcant. They
snoula clearly state their critt~lsm cf the project as it relate~ to
the above general criteria. If their Coct'.e. are per:ional design
-wis.hes they should be stated .as such.
A.Fl. example of E'J.ch evaluation .... 'ould be a project desiqr~d .. ithir. a
district of th<e cit.y with a. very clear and established architectural
style such as Professo~ville. If the project was designed as a
variation from the historic context, such as a very contemporary
structure the burden of proof as to 'Why this st.r1e should go forward
is on the applicant and the justif1oation for the chosen style is 4
•
~!
:·1
I
I
i : .-
valid topic f<:"t'" appro~/al or denial by the Beard.
If the project is d6.signe-~ irl a tnore ec!octic area S1.:ch as the
dOvmtown · ... he:o:-e there is no clearly dominant style the:n the choice of
des1~n styl~ is clearly the per.enal choice of the .t'plicant. This
choice of style should not te dictated ty individu," opinions of
Board lne:mbers.
The deqree of success of the desic;':1 W'il1 :t:.e deter~,ir.ed ty hc'W~ well
the chosen style is ex~c~ted not by whe~her it is a style the Board
member likes or does not like.
If the Board cannot approve tho project it should deny the project
in one review meetinq. It is th~ responsibility of the applicant tQ
either appeal the denial O~ ask fo~ a continuancQ~ These choices
should not be confused. the Board can only continue it the
applicat.ion is no:t co:nplete. It 5hc'jul~ only be ir.cottplete if the
staff toiled to do its job.
The decision to continue 05.n item should only be the applicants ~nd
should only be used. when the c'citicisl!l of the Board is ag'reed '.Iith
ar,d the .!!.ppllcant 'Wishes to change the de.sian.
The Board should not I>e afraid to den,· It project if it 1s not.
a~ceptable. The Board's bosses are the city Council and it is
i~port.nt that they make their policy .t.te~ents in tho fo"m of
approvals or denials with the council reviewing the denials, 1f
requested..
-.
"." "
o
If the :Soard 1.13 being overturned or. a re;lllar ~asis thEY can either
qet the. Illessa;e and chan9'~ thl;ir revie'''' policy or they will be
r~pla¢ed by the Council as their te~ms expire~
In sUl'01D.ary if a.ll of the pliSyers do their jobs and clearly stay
within thair &re6S of responsibility the proc2ss can ~orR in a
direct manner as it ~as designed.
T". overridin, p!"!.ncipal5 should AI>!a)"s b. it 10 the job Of tl1e
applicant to 4 6 sign and redesign.
approve or disappro\'e viti> very clear and direct finding',
\
.'.-
,
I
I ,
i
I
I ,
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
MEMORANDUM
Policy and Services Committee,
Palo Alto City Coucel!
Edie Dorosin
Executive Director
January 30, 1992
Stanford Research Park S)'Jdy
Input from the Stanford Research Park Forum
At the request at Ron Anderson, 1991 chair of the Policy and
Services Committee, the members of the Chamber's Stanford
Research Park Forum have prioritized in order of their
importance to park tenants the '3 potential programs or
actions con:ained within the city study.
The SRPF met December 10 to discuss and determine which
actions were high prfority. The key criteria used was "what
actions most impact industry's ability to be competitive in the
market place".
Members at the SRPF attending the February 4 Policy and
Services Commiltee meeting look forward to discussing each
or the items ranked as top priority as welJ as other actions or
issues !'aised in the city study.
o
Cily of P.lo Allo
Stanford Research Park Stud}
City Should Proceed
• A/!ernative fuel vehicle investigation
• Traffic mitigation fund investigation
• Water reuse and disposal polier
• Integration of Fire Department and Waler Quality Treatment Plant
oatabases
• City coordinated discussions with Park tenants regarding emergency
response .planning
• Development of Research Park eleelric, gas and water forecasts
• Evaluation of Coun!)' property tax allocation process by City
.. .;;
4. s. 2iih: ...
,
•
Cit), of Palo Alto
Stanford Research ParI< Study
Tenant Top Priorities
• The City should continue to pursue simplificatio" of the design
review process for sma!ler scale changes to previously approved site
plans and buildings.
• The City should develop a funding plan for outfiiting the emergency
response vehide recent!y ordered with mme hazardous material
response equipment. (Vehicle is expected to be delivered in fa",
1992.)
• The City should continue efforts simaar to those involved with the
hazardous materials storage ordinance and loxic gas ordinance to
regulate industry by design of fadlities rather than rna,,, precise
regulation 01 uses.
Additiona! Tenant Top Priorities
• The crt)' shotIld create a more comprehensive industrial recycling
program to include sorting 01 wasle vs. segregation by businesses.
PASCO represe"ts a continuing barrier to contracting with vendors
offering a wider range of services.
• The City should reinstitute a "partnerS" rebate program for utilities
investments to reduce consumption.
•
Cily of Palo Alto
Slanford Research Park Study
Tenant Low PrioriHes
• The City should pursue a capita' improvement proiect to upgrade
the appearance of the Page Mill median from EI Camino Reallo 280.
• The City should investigate with Stanford am' with Park tenants a
policy regarding provision of and payment for sidewalks.
• Slanford and the City should continue to emphasize new Research
Park landscaping guidelines for Ihe use of drought-tolerant plants.
I t '. i"~ .....•• ';.. < I ·'~~'~~f. '~J'i .~_~' ... ,fi.> __ ~~;~ .. -' ".'. , I
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD APPLICATION SCHEDULE
MINOR ARB APPLICATIONS (including minor PC zone changes and minor site and
design review). SIGN APPLICATIONS AND PRELIMINARY REVIEW OF MAJOR ARB
SHP
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
llease
,
March 1992 through June 1992
MONTH Of ARCHITECTURAL Q[VI~ HEARING
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION MARCH APRIL /lAY
APPLICATION D['~DllNE' 2/6 2/20 3/5 3/19 4/9 4/23
Department Routing/Completeness 2 week 2 we~k 2 week 2 week 2 week {' week
Rev1ew I period period perIod period period pet'lod
Advertl,. Agenda 2/19 3/4 3/18 4/1 4/7.2 5/6
lnfo Memo Available (p.m.) 2/28 3/13 3/27 4/10 5/1 5/15
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD 3/5 3/19 4/2 4/16 5/7 5/21
flEARING'
Director's D@cision 3/10 3/24 4/7 4/21 5/12 5/26
Appeal Period (xplres' 3/16 3/30 4/13 4/27 5/18 6/1
Nate:
JUNE
5{1
2 week.
pp.r1od
5/10
I
5/29 I
6/4 I
6/9
6/15
5/21
2 week
per iod
6/3
6/12
6/18
6/23
6(29
I
)
. ,
)
If it is d~terlTlined that eflvironmefttal rClIiew is required. the a.ppl1c.,Uon deadlille will be 2 weeb: earlier than /
indicated.
Mp.t:!ting dates ar~ subject to rescheduling due to holidays, length of agendas, or l~ck of quorum.
Thi s appeal peri ad is not app'I1 cab 1 e to mi nor p hnned communi ty zone changes and ml nor site and fjes 1 go re'tll.e\J(
applicattons. An ARB st.aff planner cQn provide information regarding appeal time lines. for these types of
appl ications.
appcJc:lst •. , 1/92
,.,'
.,
I
-,~ ~', II "'~ ~
r •
I
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD APPLICATION SCHEDULE
MAJOR ARB APPLICATIONS
January 1992 through April 1992
MONTH OF ARCHITECTlJMl REVIEW HEARING'
STEP 9ESCRIPTIOH OF ACTION JANUARY FEBRUARY NARCH APRil
I APPLICATION DEADLINE'
~tth Environmental Assessment II/I II/IS 1i/29 12/13 12/27 1/10 I/Z4 Z/7
w/out Environmental Ass@ssment ll/IS 11/29 12/13 12/17 1110 1/24 2/7 1/21
2 Department Routing 10 day 10 day 10 day 10 day 10 day 10 day 10 ~.y 10 day
period period period period period period pe'"lod peri~
3 Completeness Review/ within Within w~thin Within Within Within Wit.hin Within
Envifonmental Asses~ment 30 days 30 days 30 o.ys 30 d.ys 30 days 30 days 30 days 30 days
4 Advertise Environmental 12/11 11/24 I/I~ 1/19 2/11 2/26 3/11 3/25
Assessmpnt/Available Same Day
(only if required)
5 AdVertise Agenda/Notice He.ring 12/18 1/1 1/21 2/5 2/19 3/4 3/18 4/1
6 Info Memo Availabl. (p.m,) IZ/27 1/10 1/31 Z/14 2/28 3/13 3/'/.7 4/10
7 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
HEAKING'
1/2 1/16 2/6 2/20 3/5 3/19 4/2 4/16
8 Oirector's DeciSion 1/7 1/21 2/11 1/25 3/10 3/14 4/7 4/11
9 Appeal Period Expires 1/17 Inl 1/21 3/6 3/20 4/3 4/17 ~/1
[)lease Note: ,
,
~
The,e d.tes will not apply if addltion.l environment.l studie, (e.g., noise study. traffic study) are required, If
the applic.tion is determined incomplete, the dates will be adjusted to the time when additional material, .re
submitted,
The application ftl 1"9 deadlloe for Major ARB applications which do not require EnVironmental Assessment is two weeks
later than the de~dl1ne for applications which do require this review.
Meeting dates arc ~ubject to rescheduling dye to holidays, length of age"das, or lack of quoru~.
~ Bppcklst.5 11190'
f Ij'
1 .'_"~ __ '~~ __ ' __ ~"_"~~ __ .-_______ ~r_~· .
,,'
, ,
,
I •
" ,
I '
~
I
I
I .
I
I
l-I
I
I
j-
Publ1 shed by:
TIlE P~lHS DrpAAT~fNT
FIFTH FLOO~, CIYIC CENTER
250 HAMilTOH AVENUE
PALO AlTO, CA
(415) 32~'244I
ARCH ITECTURAL ~EYr EII--'OARD GU!UEBQQ~
This guidebook to the Architectural Review Board {ARB) has been prerared is an
.aid to the designer, developer. own~r~ appH(:lnt and the average citizen in
urtderstartding the procE-:is for sect,jring ARB r"el.li2W and approval. It is
intended to h~lp the ~pplicant meet the ARB and staff goal of processing and
a.pproYing app1ic.at1ons as rapidly is pcsslble.
The ARB 9uideooolt is Qrganized i~to six sections:
1. Rol. and Authority of the Architectural
Revl ew Board ••..••• , ...................... " .... Page 3
2. &eneral Submittal RoqulrOlller,ts .................. Page 7
3. Meeting Oates and Procedures .•...•...•.••••••..• Page 12
4. After Approval. A?peals~ Ti~ Lim,ts an4
Chang ........................................... Page 14
5. Design '"Idellnes ............................... Page 17
5. Application Fe ................ . . ............ Page 2l
In addition, separate handouts p~ovide ~.
application types. These are:
.. information for individual
SIGNS ~~D MASTER SIGN PROG~4MS
~INGR PROJECTS
PRELIMINARY REV I EWS
rAJOR PROJECTS
STAFF APPRDvAlS
The text in each !ectian of tliis 911ideboak re~ronds to typi:al1y asked
q\.lestiot"ls~ such i.S the introductcr:; questior.s be1ow:
WHERE CAN I BUY 011 SfLA....£gPY OF APPLICABLE ORDINANCES AND.. RfGULATLQNS?
Copies of the Arch~tectlJral Review aoard Ordinance, Zoning Orriinance, Fence.
Ordinance, Sign Ordinance and ~ther regu1ations an~ guideTines are available
at:
THe P~NJNG DIYISION AND BUILDING INSPECTION DIVISION COUNTER
fIfTH fLOOR, CIVIC CENTER
250 HAMILTON AVENUE
PALO AL10, CA
R.,ised 11/;)
Page I
/'
IfJIQ CAN I TALK TO FOR HELP}
General questions may be answered by the Planning Technician in person at the
Planning Division counter !5th floer, Ci¥iC Center), or by phone It 329-2442.
Specific questions related to actua1 prcj~ct design, code interpretation,
~esthetlcs. submittals a"d scheduled dates for project re~iew should be
ilddressed to the Architectural t:ev;ew Board staff 1 i.l,isor:. by apPo"intment or
phone at 329-2364 cr 329-2546_
Pre-a~pl1cat on meet ings with .Architectural ~e\{iew Board staff are encolOraged
and applicat ons must be submitted directly to AR9 shff. ApPOintments may be
made by call n9 329-2364 or 329-2546_
Rev; sed !l/9!
Page 2
'I
1
I
1
I
I
I
I
RObE ~~p AUT~ORIIY OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVl~_BO~RD
!li&..li THf ARCHITECTURM REVIEW BO~?
The Arcni!ectural Revie~ Board (ARB; was created by the City Coupcil to
provide P~lo Alto .ith a thorough design revie~ process. T~e five member
Board is appo1nted by the City Council and at least three of the Board 'lIerr".bets
must be design praf.essionals. The re-conrnendaticns of the ARB are advisory to
the D~rectcr of Planning and COrmlunity Eilvi ror;ment.
The Architectural Review Board serves ~s a link between t~e applicant and the
tommunity's goals for functional and aesthetic standards. Althnugh the
process 15 O~~ of critique, the intent is one of guidance in order to create
excellence in design as the best iiivestment for the (orm1unity.
WHAT ARE THE GOALS AND PURPOSE Of THE ARCHiTECTURAL REVIEW BO~?
To ~rDm<Jte orderly a.nd harmQnious development of inE: City; e;,hance the
desirability of residence or investment in the City; encourii!i9.c the ltta;n~nt
of t~e ~st desirable use of land and impr~~ements; enhance the desir~bilit)
of lh"jng conditions upon the im,ediate site or in adjacent areas; and promote
visual t71'llironments \IIhich are of high aesthetic qua1ity and .... ariety and which,
at the same time, are consi~erate of each other.
WHAT HAS TO BE REVIfWfD BY THE ARCHITECTURAl REVEt", BOARD?
Any proposal to alter the exterior of a building or site that is either a
change from il pre'llious Architectural ~e ... iew Board appro\:'~l or requires a
permit under litl' 16 (Building Regulations) of the 1,10 Alto Municipal Code
(PAHC) must be re~iewed and approved b} the Arc~itectura' Review Board pr1cr
to any construction. ihis includes fences, sig~s. awni~gs, mechanical
eqUipment, landscaping. add!tions, facade changes, new bUildings, etc. Other
pr'Oposa1s as identified by the tity C.ounci17 Dir€::tor of Planning and
Conrnunity Environment, the Chief Building Offic1al or the Zoning
Administrator, may also be referred to Ue ArchitHt-.lTal Review Board.
ARE THfRE EXCEPTIONS?
Sing'e-f~mily residences and duplexes are generally exempt from review except
for concurr~nt developments on adjacent properties by either the ~ame owr.er,
same architect or same builder. Ha~e~er) t~o-unit pr'1ects in the
Neighborhood Presentation (NP) lone and minor 'E!xter;{Ir changes to single
family residences in the as (Dpen Space) district are subject to architectural
revieflll""
Revised 11/91
P,ge 3
•
-
/tHAT ARE THE ESTABlISHED CATfG9RIES FOR ARCHITE£D!fYllfVlf!! BOARD PROJfCTS'
o SISNS AND MASTER SIGH PROGRA.~S,
o HrNOR PROJECTS -small projects of limited scope such as an awning, a
rel~cited door or ~ind'ow. a st{)ref~'ont remodel, limited addHions to
existing tliJilc1ngs, landscapi!'1g. parking lot mcdjfi<:atio\'ls, and minor
cna~ges to previously approved projects;
o PRELIMINARY REV I EllS -fer major project$ Itith sign1f~ca!1t archHecturi:il,
5H~ and cOlltextual l!;stJes;
o MAJOR FROJECTS -ne\li bui1diT1g5 of more tnat'! 5,000 square feet, additions.
of mDre than 5,000 square feet to existing buildings, re~tdential
construction of t~ree or mor€ units, controversial p~ajects or any
project that will significantlY ~lter the existing sit! or ~uildlng{sJt
and
o STAFF APPROVALS - 1 imited t:) very miMI"" changes to prevlcus1y approYfd
projects and certain other inconsequential changes.
The time required to process ail applicatlon .ill vary with the size of the
project. F~r e~ample, a 5ign or a mi~or project such as the add1tion of an
awning may take four weeks, while a ne~ buildi~9 ~f 5,000 square feet or more
could take over si.x months. This time frdme could be s~gnjficantly shortened
if th! proposal to tne ARB is carefw11y ind th~roughly prepared. ~11
applications must be submitted at leist four weeks prior to a me€ting.
WHAT ARE THE MANDATED TJME LI~J1S?
1he Architectural Review Board and City staff endeal,lor to process applicat10ns
as rapid-Iy as posslble; howcv(;r. ITl-3ximi.Jm time limits are ma;.dated by la", for
all projects re.iewed by the ARB. An) project which does not require an
£n\lll"'cnmental Imp.act Report is subject to the following a-:tion dates:
o The City has 30 days from the date an appTication is submitted, to
declare the application compTete or incomplete. Unless the applicant is
otherwise notified in writing, the application sna11 be deemed compTete
on th~ thirtjet~ calendar day aft~r its receipt by the Planning
Oepa.'!"tment. or on the date Uu:: fl{l.al a.pplicat~or, is fi.rsl cons.idered by
the ARB, whichever comes fj rst .
.A. Notic!!! cf Incomplete stops all action 3r;d time limits on a project
until a revised submittal is made. The revised submission starts a new
'30-day period for de-daring a project complete or iTicomp1ete. If a.
revised submission is not made within 50 day~ from the notice of
Revised 11/91
Page 4
I
i
'1
.,
, ~.
incomplete, the file will be closed.
o Fr~m the date en application is declared complete, :otate law mandates
that the City take action en the appl1cation within six months.
o The six-month action date may be extend~d one t~,':le for a period not to
€xceed 90 days. Th1S rEquest must be in writing from th~ applicant and
approved hy the Oi r~::tor of Pl ann; ng and COiT'll!lmit)' Envi rcnment.
Mand~tory action dates are not applicable if a project is appealed. For
further informatior! en appeals see the-sect;.;)n titled -After Approval,
Appeals, Time limits And Changes.-
WHAT ABE THE STAIIOARDS USEO.H1 lye ARCHjWiVRAL REVIew BOARD TO BeVm; A
PROJECT?
o Consfstency and compatibility with appTicabl~ elements of the City of
P310 Alto Comprehensive Plan;
o C"mpatibility of design and narrn{)rlio'Js transitiM in scale between the
project site, adjacent sites, natural features, land uses, on-site
improvements, adjacent improvements. and any historically significant
buildings nr fe.tures;
o App.ropl"'hteness of the design to the function of the prcject and the
creatior. of a d.esirabTe environment for occupants, visitors arid the
general communit1;
o The amount and arrangement of open space, access, ancillary functions,
and cirCUlation areas;
o The appropriateness and compatibility of materhl.s., textures, colors,
construction details. lindscap;~g and plant materialsj and
o Ttle energy effiei ency ~f ·the design.
WIiH AREAS OF A PROJECT ARE WITHIN TilE AU7HQ~ITr OF ~HE ARCHITEQURAI REVIEw
BOARD?
In applying th2 standards set forth above. the Architectural Review Board may
review each of the following items of the proposed project:
o Uses and functions as they relate to the design of the project and
adjacent uses;
o Compatibility, visibility and effect upon view of neighboring proper-ties
and uses;
o Aesthetfcs, quality. character, scale, buiTding ~aterials and color;
p ;\JO\GllidcARB
Revised 11/91
Page 5
.-;;..
"
\
~ Site de~elopment characteristics including but not limited to lot size.
bYildt~g coverage, setbacks, bu~lding height, location upon the 5jt~,
Dpen spa<:e, and pedestrian, bicycie and 'IIehic1€ circulation;
o Environmental factors including blJt not ltmited to noise, ~mlssicn of
smoke. fumes. odors, fjre safety. life: safety afld fir~ access,
d1sturcahce of 'existing topography. trees, shrubs, and other rla'tiJra,l
futures, water Dertoi~tlol'l, g,adi.ng and drainage~ and "impermeability of
soPs;
o Buildings and build1ng (ompone-nts including but net 1 imited t~ stairs,
ramps, es<:ahtors. moving sidi;rwaUs, e-levat<Jr5. downspouts~ flues,
chimneys, -exnallst fans, air-cor.dition1ng eqliipment, elevator eQui~·ment~
fans, (ooling to~ers, antenn3e or simi1ir struct~re5 placed ~pon the
roof or the Exterior of t~e buildingj
o Sun s.hades., awnings, louvers or any vislo1e device for deflecHng,
f;lteri~g or shielding the structure or int~riar from the elements,
balconies, penthouses, laadin9 docks or similar special purpose
appendages or accessory structures;
o Acc.!ssory structures, including garages shed's, utOity facilities and
waste receptacles t
o Other on-site impro\lements, including but not limited to parking and
other paved areas, landscaping, pli.!nting~ plant materials, lighting,
signs, graphi<:s, art work, sculpture. fountai"~ and other artist~c
features;
o Energy efficiel1<:Y a.nd renewable energy deSign elements, including but
not limited to exterior er.ergy design elements, 5nternal lighting
serv1<:e and climatic contral systems, and building siting and landscaped
elements; and
o Such other featurE's as affect He design and JJ1tir'l.ate appearance of the
work, as determim:d by the Architectural Review Board.
IINAT IS THE RQ!.L2f CITY STAFF IN THE A,qCHITECIURAi RfVlEil BOARD PROCESS?
City staff does not vote on Architectural Review Board applications but does
serve in an advisory capdcity to the Board members. Staff supports the ARB by
processing applications, revje'Win9 environmental impacts, (neck.ing plans,
preparing staff reports j making recol1ll1'2r.datfons and assuring impiefllerltation
consistent with ARB approval. Staff also provides guidance to appiicants in
desfgn, rresentatioi1 and consisten<:y with previous ARB approvals, Staff;s
available for preliminary meetings on projects and should be consu1ted early
in the de~ign process,
Rev; sed 11(91
Page 6
-
GENERAL SUBMITTAL ~EQUIP.EMEHTS
BffOiiE SUB~lSS10~ fOR A,~CHlTECTURAl REVIEW WHn OTHER ARPRO~1. ARE REQUI!1£O?
Projects
e.pproval
review.
requiring a Us..:! Permit, .a Variance, or-a tsr,tath'e map must obtain
of the Zon1rlg Administrator prior t!) subi!!ission for architectural
Simultaneous applications will not be accepted.
Major Planrled COlmlurdty (PC) lone changes and' major Site and Des~gn (0)
propcsa1s are reviewed by both the Phr;ning Commission and City Council, as
well IS the Archit-ectural Review Soard. The Planning Department can provide
you with brochures describing t~ese p .. ocedures in more detail.
ARE THERE OTHER REQUIREMENTS, SHOjlD lONING REQUIWIENlS, WHICH I NEfO TO KNQW
PRIOR TO SIJBlIlTUIIJ,FOI{ ARCHrrECTURA~ RFVlfCW?
There are other regulations which can affect the development of p~op~rties in
P.;,.lo Alto. Some of these are list€d below.
Properties Located Within The FTood Hazard lone
Many areas of Palo Alto ar~ located with~" the lOO-y!ar flood pliin.
Within these areas, Federo" reguiation$ apply to a.1I new c<lnstructilJn
and certain types of ramodeling. Th2 Public Works Department
aam;nisters the federal Flood Insurance Program and they can inform you
;;s to the regulations and how they will affect your project. Maps and
inde~es of the properties in the area can be examined at the Fifth Floor
Planning Department counter or ilt the Public Wgrks counter on the Sixth
Floor.
Properties With Underlying tot lines
If your property is made up of two or more lnts which have been
de'teToped is one lot, it .. ill likely boe described as more than one
parcel on your t,tle report and the I.,mderlying lot lines will be
indicated on the Block Book maps (Fifth Floor Planning Oepartrr.er,t
count~r). You will need to apply for a Certificate Qf Compliance on a
parcel merger to consolidate the parcels into cne lot prior to applyin9
for a build~ng permit to make an)' imprOVements on th.e propert)' as one
lot. The Public Works Department located on the sixth floor of City
Hall will assist you in processing the Certificate of Compliance. The
Plann1ng Department can issist in parcp.l mergers.
properties On the His.toric Tnventpry
If your property is listed on the Historic Inventory, y~u ~U$t first
obtain a recommendation of the Historic Resource Board prior to review
p :\,lG\GIl)okARB
Rev; sed 1I/gj
Par; ,
by the ,ll.rchitectural Relliew Roard. The Pianning Technicioln at the fifth
floo\" Planning Departm~nt Cvunter can provide a 11st of the His.toric
Inventory and can a!:sist in application requirements. al1d scheduling.
Sites "'it"-Hazar<fo.us n '1aterials
Some buileing sites lilIithin Palo Alto are subject t~ revie~ for haz~rdous
nl"ot.-arhls contamination. The fire Department, on the sixth ncor of
CHy Hall, should be contacted to determine if you:-site and project is
subjett to hazardous material re\lielot'. Fennits may be required fr-om the
City of Palo Alto fire De-partme.nt, the S;;.nta Clara Val1ey Water
Df~tr;ct, tne State Oeyartment of Health Ser~ices. the Regional Water
Quality CO!'ltrol Board, the Bay Area Air Quality Manag:elfient District Dr
others.
The Uniform Building Code
The Building Division ~as a handout for prepari~g plans and drawings in
compliar.ce witI'! the Uniform Building: Cace (LlBC). The BL.:llding Divis;.:m
is locateci on the fifth flcar of City Ha)l. C.urrently 'cne Cit), of Pale
Alto ;s ~egu1ated by the 1988 edition of the UBC.
Housing Mitigatimi Paments for-nCcmmerciallIndustr~iI' rroiects
A housing mitigation fee is a~p'led to any ne~ ,omm~rcjal or industrial
development that exte~ds 20,000 square f~et of floor area, Gnd t~
additions cf 2 ,500 square feet or more for developments already in
excess of 20,000 squ3re feet. These fees arE used by the City to help
increase tne supply of Tow-a~d mod~rat~-income housing. The fee per
square foot is collect~d a.t the time of building pernit issuance. The
Plan.ning DepartrnEf:t or, the fifth floor can pro .... ide additional
i nfrtrTnat jail.
Traffic Mltjgat ions
A traffic mitigation fee is applied to any ne~ de~elopment that exceeds
20,000 square feet of fleor area ar.d to additio~s of 2,500 square feet
or more for developments already in ex~ess of 20,000 sQuare feet. This
fee is appl'h:able to the San Antonio Road/west 8ayshore area and ir. the
Stanford Resear,h Park. Tne fee per square foot is collecled at the
time of building perm,t issuance. The Transportation Di~isi~n on the
sixth fl~or ~f City Hal1 should be contacted for a.dditional info~ation.
Below-Market-Rate Housing
New housing develQpments of three or more u~its must piace 10 perce~t of
the units in the City of Palo Alto Below-Market-Rate hOlJsi~.g program,
Developments of three to roiT!e l.m~ts may make an in-l ieu paY!Tler.t instead
of ~roviding a un1t,
Re .... i:ied 11/91
Poge 8
;
Developments cf three or more ur.ils that cause the loss of rental units
mList lI'!eet t\rl-Q of He following re{juirements:
c The development results in iit least 100 per-cent rwre lJnits than
pre"io'Jsly existing <In the site and comply wttl"t the City 8e1ow
Ma rket -Rat.e program,
a Tn! number of rental ur.its to b.e pro'lidea by the project is at
least equal to the nu~ber of existin9 rental units.
o Not less than 2() percent of the un,ts prollided arE BKR un; ts.
Contact the Fl~nning Oepartm~nt of the fifth floor for
additional informaUcn.
Tn~ Planning D~partmer.t on tha fiftn floor ~hould be contacted for
additil)nal information.
£;cQ,p.erttgs Owned b't Stanford lIniv~rsity
Stanford tJni'ler:dty lands Management Di' .. ision r.lLJst approve any proposed
PrQject for a building or Eite that is owned by Stanford University.
Evidence of Stanford approval must be submitted with the application to
the (;ty of P3lo Alto. The City of Pa10 Alto application form for
property owoed by Stanford U~ivers'tJ must be signed by a representative
of Stanford University lands Manage~~nt unless the application requir~s
only Architectural Review Board approval. Stanford University-owned
lands include the Stanford Research Park, Stanford Shopping Center and
properties adjacent to the Stanfol'd Medical Center.
WHAT OTffER CTTY DfPART~ENTS SHOUlQ Bf CONTACTED PPTOR TO SU8HITTAL1
The following O1!~artme'lts will be routed ~c~r project for review. You should
co~tact them prior to submission to determine their requirements.
o Building Division (329-2495) for building code infonTlltion;
o Public Works Department {329--~lS1) for infol"rnation on construction in
public rights-af-way, flood zone informatlen an~ site drainagej
o Fire Department (329-2i84} for fire code and hazardous materia.l issues;
o City Arborist (496-6905) for inform,tion on street trees;
a Transportation Divisior. (329-2520} for infcrmation related to
circulation, drivewaJ 1ocat1ons, and traffic impacts;
o Police Department (329-2666) fer Crime Prevention measures;
o Electric Utilities (329-2386) for loc4Ition arod sizing of electrical
servit~ requirements;
,:\JGIGWclcARB
Revi sed 11/91
Page 9
.. -.
•
-
c Water·Gas-' .... astewater Utilities (329-2367) for location and sizing of
water, gas ai1d waste.ater sen;ce'S.; and
o Energy $eivices (329-2229) for energy conser¥at~on measures.
~HAT APPRO~MS ARE REQUlRffLAETER ARCHiTECTURAL REVieW?
Archit~ct~ral Review Board approval must be obtained prior to subrnittlng for ~
building pe!"";1lit, fence permit~ sign permit or other constructIon permit as
desi~natfd b,)' the Director of Plannil'1g and Community Envirnnmel1t. Other
tlermits as ~pecifjed by the Public 'Works Department~ utilitiB Department,
iransportatiQn Oitision and flre Oepartment, may be required.
WHAT IS REQUIRED TO BE SU8I1iTTEO?
The following iti!ms are required for all submittals. Additio!'1al infol"fl'lation
on specific submittal requirements is shown on the SUbmittal reqUirements form
for each ;nd'ividual appllcatior. type. The A.rchitectural Revi-ew Board and
staff may require addHiora1 materials (If submissions to clarify the proposal,
o APPLlCAHOH FORM: This is i standard form used for al1 Planning
Di'llsion appli<:ati~ns. HIe indillidual or firm listed as applicant in
Item S is the only person who will receille notice of the lneetings,
copies of the minutes, or action tak.en and is also the person staff will
contact jf Q~e$tions ari5e about tMe proposal. The application form
must be signed by the owner of tne property.
o IIRITIEN PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Each app1ication shall b. accompanied by •
written description of the project. The 1engtn of the description will
lfary with the size of tnt! project; however, it is very important that
the description include the design concept~ the rationale fer the
design, the project proposal i~ wrltten languagE, the relation to
existing conditions on site, the existing znd ~roposed uses, and unusual
materials, colors, co~struction methods, etc.
o PROJECT DATA SUMMARY SHEET FeR ALL PROJECTS EXCEPT SIGN ONLY
APPlI CAT! O.~S.
o PLANS: An submittals shaH be accompanied by ,phns t"at clearly s.hew
the app1icant's prcpcsa1. The number of plans to be submitted and the
required dra~ings depend on the size and type of projf!ct. All plans
must be stapied and folded in sets. The maximum folded sile is 9 1)2" .x:
13 W
, If a set of plans is too thick to fold. please divide into t~Q
sets. The project address must be visible on the outside of the plans.
An plans shou1d be drawn to scale, scale noted fully dimensionEd
and draioTiings labeled. Provide iI viCinity map~ north arrow,
project a·jdress and appl icant name. Adjacent conditians can be
shown b.)i using aeria1 photographs available at th1! Planning
Department.
Rev; sed 11/91
Page 10
c MATER!AL AND COLOR SANPLES: A 4" x 5" daylight color photograph of th"
proposfd mat~ria' and cOlor sampies should b~ submitted .ith the
opplic.tion (?olaro;d. should not be used). The p~,otograph _111 be
retained for the files for assurance of compliance with the
Architectural Review Soard apprc·".!l. One set of color-presentations or
ele~ations. t~ be broug~t to the ~eetin9. is encouraged.
Samples of materia1s should a1so be brought to the meetin~. Samp:es
should include actual paint chips, tiles~ pa~ers, portions of window
frimes. awning materials, stucco finish. le~an faces, metals, etc. Tnp
sample s1ze5 should be 1n approximately the same p,pportion as requjr~
for the project.
IfP I SHOUlD THE IliFORMA1101/ Bf SU8MITTED?
All written information, plan$ ~"d fees tequir~d for I compl~ted appl:c~tion
mlst be s~bmitted ~t the 5a~ t1~. Copip~ of the application form~ the
written pr~ject ~pscrip~ ;on, the projl::l.t data SUmlary sheet (or sign data
sum..,.a.ry sh'.;et), the ~lA worbheet and any other required submittal information
,hal: bp stapled or attached to .ach set of folded plans. Pl •• s. do not
staple the original set togethe~.
Submission of revised plans will also require the submission of revised sets
of documentation including a copy of the original applicati<Hl form, a written
description of the chaflges~ it; r.e\lised project data $unrnary sheet (Dr sigr. data
summary sheet) and revised pla~s.
The documentation and plans will be sent to City Department represent~tjyes
and to the Board members wn{l have not had the benefit of meet ing with or
talking with the applicant, theref~re, each application set should be complete
and self exp.1anatory.
Submission must be l11adf:! d~rectTy to Architectural Relliew Board !:taff.
Appoint~ents may b. made by c.l1ing 319-2364 or 329-1546.
Re"ised 1l/91
Page II
HEETING PATE AND PROCEDURES
WHEN OO[S THE A"CHI7[CTURM REnE. BOARD MEET?
Meetings .are held twice each month en the first and third Thursday.
WHERe !!JID WHAT TIME A,q.-TI1f MEETINGS?
The meetings are usually held at 8:00 a.m. in th~ Council Conference Room on
the first flO':I)'" of the Ch'ic CentN building at 250 HamiHor, Avenue, Palo
A1to. Tne meetings i~e daytlme me~tlngs and genera11y last apprQ~imately four
hours depending on the number of ltems on the agenda.
WHO S!!QlIL1) ATTfllO THE MEETING?
Any member of the pub1ic is welcome to atte.nd the Architec.tu"ral Re ... ic-iI' BOard
meetings. If') addition, a representative for each project should attend the
meeting. The representat1ve should be fully aware of the prop.)sa'~ be able to
make a shnrt presentation on the proposal and be ab;e to make decisions on
changes or modifications that may be discussed It the R1e€ting.
"'BAr 1S THE PROCEDURE fOR DISCUSSION OF A REGULAR AGENDA ITflJ.?
rUms are considered in the ord~1'" 1 ista~ on the posted agenda un1 E!'SS
specifically changed by majority 'II(.·te cf the Board members i.t the time of
consideration of tne item.
o The Chair will annOUllce the address and title of the agenda item.
o Additional staff corrrnellts. if any, will be presented.
o The Chair wi11 call upcn tMe ij:'.pl"icant to make a presentatiQ!"i to the
Board regarding the proposed pl"oje:::t. Total time for the applicilnt's
presentations is 1imited to five minutes for minor proj€cts and leO!
minutes for major projects. Pres€ntatior;s should be as brief as
possible, to the point and shculd address the design intent and concept.
Any unresolved iss~es presented in the staff information memorandum
sho~fld be addres!·ed by t~e person making t""e presentation.
o The Board members will ask. qu~stions of the applicant in order to
clarify the proposal.
o The Chair wi1.1 open tne meetbg f,')!'" public testimony on tha propo-sal.
Any interested party has five minutes to ~ddress the Board members on
the meri t5 of the proposal. Anyone who. wants to address th.e Board
snou1d complete a name and address card (available at the meeting) and
Revi .. d 11/91
Page 12
· i
J
I
!
'/
I
I
I
-
'"
pr1!sent it to the secretary prior to the opening of t.~e public heal"'ing.
o The pub 1; <: hear~ n9 is closed an(i flJrther pub 1 i c tes~ i :ncny is not
accept~d Ynl~ss the Board has further Questions.
~ Fonnal motlon by a Board member and d;scuss~on by Board members.
a After the discuss;Qn and pri<:lr to the vote on He mot1c-n, the app1itant
has one minute to request a clarification of the motton.
a Vote Ctn the roQtion.
IiOW WILL I KNOll IIHEN A PROJeCT IS SCHfOUlED?
A c~py of th~ agenda and the staff prepared information memorandum on each
project is mailed only to the individual listed as applicant on the
application form. The items are placed in the mail on the rrida) preceding
the meeting. The agendas ari! also adllertised in the Pal·:J Alto Weekly one week
prior to the meeting. Since agendi it~ms are sometimes added or deleted aft€r
pub1ic~tion, the posted agenda at the downtown library a~d at the ~etlng
should b~ checked to conf1~ the schedule.
WHAT ACTION WTLl BE TAKEN BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOIRQ'
o APPROVE: The project m.y be approved as sUbm;tted,
o APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS: The conditions of approval will be su"""rized
by the Chair during the Soard review and will b", written in the minutEs
of the meeting.
o CONTINUE: The Board members may request additional design, ir.formation
or submittal mater-j al s that IIWi 11 reQuire subsequent review. further
discussion will take place at a later meeting. Ger.erally projects will
not bE scheduled for the fo)lCiwing meeting.
Q DEHrAL: The project may be denled, App1icant may appeal the decis-!on
of the Architectural Rf"vl~w Soard to He City C.ou.1cil or-may submit a
new applicat1Qn with nelrl" fees. and substantially re.ised plans.
o REFERRAL: The Bea.rd members may determine that certain a.spects cf the
proposal should be considered bi the Planning Commission or (ity
Council. If that is the case, the Board members will make a
recormendation on the design of the project and refer the project to the
Planning Commis~ion or th~ City Council. Major Plann~d Community (PC)
zone changes and major Site and Design (O} applications are
automatically r-eferred to Planning Comission and City (nunci'.
--. --'-'-~'"
R" i sed 11/91
Page 13
-
.--__ .. ..;0:; • !If z-tu IS-B _
AFTER APPROVAL, APPEAlS. TIME lI"ITS ~D C~N~~!
AFTER APPROVAL BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARQ:
The Architectural Review Board (ARB) vote is advisory tc the Director of
Plan~ing and Community EnvlTonment_ The Director must make i deClsion
on the project within three working days from the date of the ARB
recolTlTlei1dation. In most <:ases, tile Director approlies the project as
recolTlTlended by the ARB. If, however, the Director disagrees wit'"' thp
ARB recQmmended act ian, he may either send the applicatior. back to the
ARB for further conSideration, or send the application directly to City
tm..'nci 1.
HOW WILL I KNOW OF THE OIRECT~R'S DECISION'
Notlces of tne Director's decision are piaced in the mail on the third
working day fc11owi~g the date of the ARB recommendation. This notice,
which is mailed only to tne applicant, is a copy of the .original
application form with Sections 7 and 8 completed.
HOW jlllL J KNOW THE CONDITiONS OF APPROVAL>
In addltion to being stated at the meeting. th~ conditions of approval
He written in the minutes of the meeting which will be mailed to the
applicant. The minutes are usually mailed en the sixth working day
following the ARB meeting.
~lHEN CAN 1 F!L~ FOR MY PER/lfJT?
If an appeal is not filed, applications for permits issued through the
Building Division 'I1ay bE submitted the day after the appea.l period on a
project. TMe Building Divis;,an s.hc'J.ld be contacted for submittal
requirements and fees. Plar~s submitted to the Butlding Division must be
in conformance with the p1ans approved by the ARB and must reflect any
conditions of approval.
ARE OTlffB_££RI'ITS REOUIRED.'
,'dditinnal permits may be r~quired by the City of Palo Alto Public Works
Department, the State Department if Transportatic~ (Ca1Trans), Santa
Clara County Public Health Department, the State Department of Health
Ser~lces, Bay Con$~r~atiQn and Development Commission. and ethers_ See
the section on General SoJbmittal Requirements for additional
Ravised 11/91
Page 14
~'i
'I . ,
1
'I
-"'.
information.
APPEALS OF ARCHITtCIURAL REVI~~ BOARD DECISIONS:
An appeal of t~€ decision ~f the Dfrector of Planning and Communit)
Environment Il".ay be filed by any person aggrieved by the decision.
including the .~'plic.nt. App.,ls are filed with the City ClerK by
pilyment of a fee (specified in the fee schedule) and by pnHtiding
~ritt~n documentation outlining the basis for t~e appeal.
IIHAT IS THE APPEAL PERIOD FO.q All APPROVED PROJECT?
Appeals of minor PIoiects and signs miJSt be filed by the close of
business on the seventh {7th, war!c.ing day fol1ow~n9 the date of the
Architectural Re'".iew Board reconr:1endation on the application.
Appeals of rndjor projects must be filed by th~ close uf business on the
eTeventh (lith) work.ing day following the date of the Archit,ectural
Re~iew Board recorurnendition an the application.
Appeals of minor Site and Oes;qn appli r ations qr minor Planned Cqmmunity
Zone changes must be filed by the close of business O~ the tenth {10th)
day follo~1ng advertisement of the dec'slon in the local ne~spaper.
This fin.l appeal date will usually be tne eighteenth (18th) day
following the recommendation of the Architectural Rev~~w Board.
Planning staff s~.o(jld be contacted for further infornJ.ticf\: on the
expiration date of appeals.
IIHAT HAPPENS IF All JfPLICAnON IS APPEALED?
The application wi1l be scheduled far a hearing before City Council
within 31 ""orking da.ys of the date of the appeal. No fu!'"th€r action may
be taken 011 the appiicatfon or proposed project until a decisior, has
been made by the tity tounci1.
TINE llKlTS ON PROJfCTS YPROVED BV THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD:
IS THERE A TJHE L1~IT ON ARQilTECTURAL REVIEW BOARD APPROVALS?
Appravals are valid for one year froD the date of f~nal action by
either thi? Director of Planning and Corrmunity Environment or the
City Council. The permit to be issued by thE BUilding Division
must pe obtained prior to tne expiration of the une-year time
1 imit.
., :\JG\Glli.kA1lB
Rev; sed 11/91
Pagot: 15
f
!
...
o
CAN THE TIME i [{;1 i "E EXTENDED?
An apprQ~el m~y be extended ~nce fo~ one year. Applications for in
extension "hust be mad'! in \IIrHing to the Director of Planning and
Community Environment prio( tQ the c~piratio" date of the initial
appro,,].
CHA~ES TO APPROVED PRGJfCTS:
CAN CHANGES BE MADE TO AN APPROVED PROJECT?
Once a project has been approved by the Archite~tural Review Board,
madifh:.atiGins can.not be made unless appro~ed by the ARS. A new
applitatfon with new fee$ is required. ARB staff s~ou'd be c~nsulted
about any proposed ,hanges.
OOES APPRO~OF Ml@R CHANG'S TO AN APPROVED PROJECT fXTEHD TH£
PROJECT EXPIIiATIOIi DATE?
No. The one-YEar deadline for expiration of project approval is based
on the date of approval of the original project+
Illac:curacies in the p1a.ns submitted to the Architectural Re-view Board
!!lay invalidate your approval. This includes inaccuracies in the plans
that show existing s~te conditions such as pr~perty lines, property
dlmensions, building 1~cation5, ease~~nts~ trees t plants and other site
features. It is imperative that the original base maps be thorou'9h1y
reseiI,'ched and accurately drawn.
p:\1GlOuiOcAJUI
R.,is.d 11/91
Pag. 16
-,-'"' ...;
QQfS THE ClTY Q£1MQ ALTO HAVE GUrDELTNrs FOR ACCfPTA8'E DESIGNS?
The Palo AltfJ Cit,Y COlJn(il has adopted cerhin guideHnes and ordinances that
shou1d be used In designing an acceptabie proposal. T~e-se include the
follow; ng:
o S1gn Ordin,.c, (PAMC Chapter 16.20)
o f1 Camino Real Design Guidel ines
o Pedestrlan (Pj District Guidel ines
o In addit:on to the regulations of the Zoning Ordinance for ~ndividual
lones, the following specific Zoning Ordinance sections relate to
design;
Multiple Family Design Guidelines (PAMC Chaptgr 18.28)
-P.rking Tot landsc.pe requirements [PAMC Section 18.S3.060(d)J
Bicycl. parking reqUirements [PAMC Section IS.83.060(e)J
Additional site development regulations for Co~rcjal and Industrial
Di.tricts (PAMC Chapter 18.64)
o Grading ilnd drainage requirements (Department of Publ ic Works)
Q Drought toler-ant landscaplng (Utility Department, Energy Service
Division)
DOES THE ARCHITECTIlRAL R£VJ£1i BOARD HAYE GUJDEtINES FOR¥CEPTA8Lf DESIGNS'
The Architectural Review Board has ~lsc adopted certain guidelines that
apply to some specific projects but can be applicable to all others.
These guideiines may (~ange as the composition of the ARB changes.
o Mechanical and plumbing: All p1 umbing 'IIents and mechanical vents
shall be clustered in chimneys or roof wells. Permit and
con$truction drawings must not~ this requirement.
All air conditioning units must be indicated. Generally, through
wall air cQndtt"ioning or lIentilation equipment is not approved.
Revised Ilj91
Pag. 17
':, . ...:.
'.
. i
o.ii..U: Location of electric/gas meters and t!1ectr ic transformers must be
indicated on sit~ plan.
Tr~sh e~closures shall have steel frame gate. Trash facIlities !hc~'d
be designed to ac~o!MIodate at 'least four r~ct!ptacl es (0"-the purpose of
separating, reusing ~r recycling all solid waste materia1s.
Street trees may be remo\;ed o~l)' with the conCurrence ~f the City
Arbor1st. All existlng trees o~er 4" in d'&met~r shall be indicated en
pla11S. Retent ion of all trees. ; s enc.ouraged a.nd any treE large-r than
12" in diameter should not be remo\led. Removal of any oaks or redw{)ods
is stron91y disccuraged.
o Fences~ Details of any and ail fences shan be pro""ided. Wood fences
should be constructed with 2 x 6 horizontal rails and 6 ~ 6 posts.
Barbed wire is not allo~~d [PAMC Section 16.1Z4,070'a)1. Chain link
fencing with redwcod or metal slats is ger.erally not appt'"oved.
o Materia.ls: Type of wood sidi'ng must be indicated. Naturally weathering
materials are preferred. Material s should be agentJine," should be
appropriate to the design and should age well. Masonite lap siding~
composite board siding or T·lll plywoQO is ge~erally not approved.
Stucco texture should be indicated.
For roofs, naturally weathering materials are
is proposed, a true clay tile should be used.
tile are discouraged.
encclJraglF'd. If day tile
Aspha1t tile and concretf
Windows shouid be of good quality appropriate to the building type and
consistent with existing buildings or neigh~orhiJods. Wood windo~s are
generally pn:ferred in residentlal proj!c.ts. !-!orizontal or vertical
di'Vis.ion of windows should be integral tc th~ window structul'e.
Backlighted or polyvinyl awnings a~e generally not acceptabie.
Black, cpa~ue and ref1~ctiye glass are disco'eJraged.
WHAT .4RE THE GUIDElINES FOR.SIGNJJ.fSiGN?
a The El Camino Real Design Guidel ines 1 imit the area of sign alcng £i
Camino Real to 1/2 to 2/3 the maximum size pennltted by the Sign
Ordfnance.
o The area of sigtls along major streets is genera11y not required to be
less than 20 square feet.
o The E1 (amino Real Oeigr. Guidelines limit the height of freestanding
signs along the El Camino Real to 10 feet if placed at the property line
and slightly higher if setback from the property line.
p:\JG\Gui';"AR..II
RevHed 1l/91
Page 1&
---.;;.-....
D Wall signs are generally not allowed above the first f10cr level.
a Strict 1 imits ilre placed on the 3.m:Junt of s.igns allowed on Automatic
Tell •• MachIn,s (ATM) and ATM surrounds.
o Reader board and' changeable signs are generail,)1 not approved. Chun::rrflS
and community orga!'lizations shou1d 1 imit s~gn copy to the name, address
and pas.toridirector only. ftferPJ box signs for restaurants and
information signs for community service organizations a~d church~s art
acceptable if located n.ear a building el1tril,.c:e and de-sigl'1€d to ~r{Jvide
information to someone alreadj on-site.
!) Signs should not be oriented to fr~e.::i.)' or expressway traff~c.
o External illumination of signs is. pr'E!ferred and l1lumination 1s
generally limited to th~ hours ~f operation of a business.
c A-frame signs are g:en-eral1y net ac.c.eptab1e ilnd shoi.i1d be appl ied for
onl,)1 when a group Df bU$inesses does not have i street frontage or
acceptable wall ar!l for a directory sign.
~ No flashing) mov1ng, banner, flag, pennant or changeable signs are
ollowed [PAMC Section 16.20.090(0)J .
• Ad,ertising copy on signs is limited [PAMC Section 16.l0.090(b)]. Signs
should contain only enough information to identify the business. For
example, the words "A Division of XYZ Company~ or ·Cocktails, Dining and
Oanctng-are advErtising and generally not allowed.
WHAT ARE THE riUIDflIlifS FOR DESIGNING IN )~E OS DISTRICT?
o The development should not be visually intrus;~e from public roadways
and public park lands. It shou1d h~ sited so that it is hideen from
vie. as much as possible.
Q Development should be conce:ntrated, or close1y grouped, in relation to
the area surrounding it. This is consIstent wlth the ·cluster
principle" which makes d~';elopment less conspic.uous.
o Built forms and landSCape forms should mimic the natural topography.
Bu;lding lines shnuld follow the line of the terrain, and tr€!s and
bu~hes should appear natural from a distance.
o Where grading is needed to enable the development to hlend int<l the
natural topography, it should, nevert~e1ess? be minimized' to prevent
erosion.
o large, fl at expar,ses of impervi ous surface should be avoided to reduce
the need for cut ind fill and t() reduce potential runoff.
Revised ]J/91
Poge 19
· .
---I-..
o Buildings should use natural materials and earthtone or subdued colors.
'0 landscaping shou'rd be native species ..,hfch require little or nG
lrr1gation (exc~pt immedt;tely adjacent to structuras is a fire
prevention technique).
o lighting s.hould be 10111 it'ite~I'2.it.!" and sh~elded fro-om vielit from surrcunding
public pOints (roao and park,).
() Access roads should be of i j"'1"ira1 rather than ur-ban chGractp.!" (standard
cLi.rb. gutter and concre-te sidt!W3.H:. ire usuallY i'1cC}nsistent ,.ith th2
foothills environment).
o Ground coverage shCtuld be-in general conf~""ance with Palo Alto's Open
Space District regulations.
Revised 11/91
Page 10
11 ~l ~ •. '. r
II
I
i
I
t. __ ._<
~PPllCATrON FEES
WHAT IS THE Ff£ FOR ARCHITECTURAL REnEW?
Tne-fee for a project 1 s dependent on the type of project and; s s.et forth; n
th! Munlcipa1 Fee Sc~edu'e adapted ;s part of the City Budget. The base fees
for f1scal yeir 1990-91 are as fcllc~s:
Sign IS, applic.tion ....................... $ 150
Sig!'!(sj erected without apprc-val. ....... ,,$ 300
S)gn~s) reQuiring an ~xception ............ S 300
Mi nor projects ........................ , ... $ 250
Pre' iminary rev'iew., ...................... S 300
Major project. ............................ $1,000
Minor changas to approved projects ........ S 300
Staff .pprova's ........................... $ 250
Major changes to approved major project.,.S 600
Add $2.00 p!r page of original set of plans for microfilming fee (only for
pages greater than S 1/1' x 14').
Add S2S0.00 for eath minor site and design application. Site and design
properties are indicated by a {DJ desig~atlon ~n the zoning classification.
1n addition, alT ser~ice stations and mixed comme~clal/r~sidential projects
are site and design appl;cation~.
A~d .$e50.00 for each minor PT ar!flea Community (PC) zone change. Planned
COrMlunity zones are indicated bJi a PC in tr.e z.oning classification.
AOQITIONAL FEES?
Additional fees apply for projects requiring environmenta1 impact assessment,
environmental impact repol't+ \iarianc~, use ,permit, etc. A comp1ete fee
schedule is available at the Planning Oepartment.
Building permits, sign permits, fence p~rmits? d€molition permits, plan check
and other fees colTected by the City of Pa10 Alto Bu11ding Division and
Encroachment Permits and street opening permits collected by the Public Works
Oepartment are in addition to the above.
Revised 11/91
Page 21
, ..