HomeMy WebLinkAbout0211.092,
t
1-
April 9, 1992
HONOAABLE CIT\' COUNC I L
Palo Alto. California
it~FORMATION REGARDING PROCESSi.~G OF DESIGN REV!EW
APPlICATIQNS BY THE ARCHITECTURAL RJJl~~QARD
Members of the Council:
Information in this report ;s intended for the joint AR8/City Council meeting
to be held prior to the-Council's regularly scheduled April 13, 1992 meeting.
RePQrt in Brief
This staff report provides information or the processing of applications for
design appro',al under the City's Architectural Review Board procedures.
Inf~rmition i~cludes material regarding 1991 applications in the attac~ed
March 12 staff report (CMR:183:91) plus infor"ation on projects submitted in
1985 and 1990, as well is all projects in the Stanford Research Park from )987
through 1991. The additional information was requested by the Polity and
Services Committee on March 17, 1991. Highlights of the Gata include:
High percentage of ap9l1cations receive action at their first ARB
review;
-Tnere are n~ instances of applications r~ceiving ARB action later than
their third revie~ by the Board;
The number of staff approva1s has increased dramatic~11y from 1988 to
1991; and
-On average, both major and minor applications move through the City
process in a cendse t·;me frame.
Background
The Policy and Services Committee has held a series of discussions regarding
the Stanford Research Park Study issued by the City staff in September 1991.
The issue of the role and procedures of the Architectural Review Board (ARB)
'wrfas specifically raised at He February 4 and March 17. 1992 COlTlTlittee
meetings. On February 4~ the Chamber of Commerce submitted ~Comments
Regarding the Function of an Architectural Review Board.-a four-page document
CMR:ll1 :92
th.t 15 th, first attachment to the attached March 12, 1992 staff report
(CMR:1S~:9'}. lhe March 12 staff report discuSSE~ Architectural Re~iew and
Procedu.res on pages 3, 4 and S. On March 17, the Pol; c,)' anoj Senices
Carrmittee requested additional infonnation on the processing {;f arcnitectural
review applic&t;~ns. Specifica11y, the Comm~ttee requested information on the
processing of ,"RB appl;-Ciit1ons from before proces.s chGnges 'Were initiated by
staff in 1990. Second, the Committee requested information on major projects
developed in the Stanford Research Park, especiallY to further e¥a1uate the
e~tent that the ARB process has extended the appl;cantls process time (i.e .•
the time tax cited' by some mer.lbers of the pub11c at the February 4 Cormdttee
r::.eeting).
1986 and 1999 ARB ApcHcatlol1s
fn prep~ring the attached Mart" 12 staff re~ort. staff reviewe~ all ARB
appl'catic~s submitted in 1991. Attacned Table f compares the information
fro. 1991 w;t~ all appl1cations submitted during the first quarters of 198B
and !990. Attached Table II contains information OM major projects for the
same time peri~ds as Table I. Observations regarding tne data include:
fn 1ge5 and 1990, is in 1991. a nigh percentage Df ARB applications were
lppro~ed during their first ~RB review)
lo. wery small number of applications recf'~ Jed' three reviews, and no
applications receiving a deCision r~om the ARB required mor~ than three
meeting:;;
The number Qf staff approvals hiS increased dramatically, consistent
with t~~ emphas1s on staff actio~s that in lnrge part emerged from staff
discussions witn tne Chamber of Commerce and the Board in early 1990j
and
The precessing time for major applicatiQns~ ~hile hard to generalize
t~cause of the small number of appTicatidns, was shorter in 198B than
1990 or 1991. In some part, thjs is because in January 1991, the StatE
modified erwironmelltal review hw to require a 21-day reviell' period
(ratner than 4 days) for eOYironmental assessments ~ecomme~ding a
finding of no significant environmental impacts. The lCr"tger reliie" time
in 1990 is ,partly diJe to de1ays caused by three projects that were not
in compliance vith zoning regulations at the tim! their applicat)ons
were submitted~ Chinges made in later 199~ to help applicants submit
complete app1ications inc1ud~ pre-a??1ication meetings, a?plic~tion
SJbmltte1 by apPOintment and use of submittal requi~ement checklists.
There .."ere M incomplete major applications submitted in 1~91, except
projects with ~azardous material issues.
Stanf'Jrd Research Pa.rlc. Projetts. 1987-1991
Attach~d lable 111 contains information on a11 ARB applications for Stanford
Research Park projects submitted from 1987 tnrough 1991. Table IV contains
pr~ject ~pecific infcrmuticn on tn£ precessing of 111 of the major
CMR:Zll:9Z
p;\OIlWi!
L
~/9/92
Page 2
. ..J ".~,~ .
• • ,
, ,I , ,
, -
"
app1 ic.it1t:lns submitted (rOil' 1981 through 1991 f(lr sites in tne Research Pa,k..
Observations from this daU include:
Other than two appllcations in ]937, all appltcatfons haw! been acted
upcn by the ARB at their first review;
The number of appl icat10rrs acted on by staff rather than the Board has
increased fY''Jm one of 32 applications in 1387 to IS of 2S appl7cations
in 1991 ;
Bicause Df the role of staff approvals, the average processing ti~e for
m1nor applications has dropped from an average of 4.5 weeks in 1987 to
1.5 weeks in 1991;
Average processing time~ for major Research Park applications in 1990
and 1991 are hard to generalize because of the small number of
applications; and
The number of additional reviews for landscaping and buildjng details
for approved projects was never greater than two actions and averaged
one action.
Respectfully submitt~d,
/!t. , , !duM V~RHEIT ~
Senior Pl anner
~
Assistant City Manager
cc: Architectural Review Board
P]ann~ng CommiSSion
~~ s;;;.~-e.
KENNETH R. SCHREIBER
Directnr of Planning and
Community Environment
Stanford University (Sill Phillips, Ciane Hea1ey. Andy Doty,
Phil Williams, David Neuman)
Stanford Research Par« Tenants and Leaseholders
Barron Park Association
College Terrace P.esfdents Asso(iat~on
Chamber of Co~~rce
Denny Petrosian
CharT es Keenan
John Northway
CMR:211 :92
p:\t::4l:\AREI
4/9/92
Page 3
--
•
AthduTlents: Jib1e I. ARE Applications filed in 1991 .nd in the first
Quarters of 1990 and 1985
CHR:211:91
1':\C"'R\AA8
Tabl. II, Major Project Applications filed in 1991 ,nd in
th. First Quart.rs of )990 and 1988
Table Ill. St.nford Research Park Projects. 1987-1991
Tabl. IV. Stanford Research Par. Major Projects. 1987-1991
CMR:183:92 (March 11, 1992)
4(9(92
Page 4
•
1
r.
(
, '" "~_ . '1_. .... ,,,..,. ~"~'-'ffl:h'!?~#l&lJ
TAIJL£ I
~.lllialll!!i$ FILED IN 19?1 AI!lU!!...Iilli FIRST Q\!IJ\IERS OF mo AHIU~M
ROARD 1ST
REVIEW
2ND lRD BOARD STAFF NO. OF AYG. T1KE
TOTAL APP~ .l!ME~ BEY/Ell DENIEO ArPROVED PilllNINARY WlTHORAIffl !l!\JQRS 10 ACTIO!!
lill
leo 1 60 45 15 101 9
~tr.st Quarter)
51 37 30 6 B 2
1.2M......LFirst Quarter)
74 67 57 7 3 o 5
1 Five of the 1991 applications wfll'l! in prOCess at tl1~ er:d of the year.
~ Does not incjudp. two projects processed as Planned Community or Site ~nd Design
nor 620-640 Page Hi 11 Road wh i ch wa~ 1 ncomp Tete pending hal<1rdous material clearance
from A~QCB.
PI\ll;\~PP
,-.J
4 9 8 wks.z
3 7 10-1/2 wks.
6 6-1/2 wks.
')
, ,
\
)
1
I
i
j
I
I
I
I, :
TABLE II
!!M9J! PRQJEtT "P~I\ED IN l?9j AI!!! IN TilE mSLWA!l1EIIHLmO N!Illi!t~
OATf Of
ARB INIT.
~~U ~O(SCRlrrlQK MIl' 5V!!l!llIE~ R~vIDI
~'2r PrQje£!~ ~-1~
3500 Deer Creek Rd. 45,QOO~sq«~re·foot 3dd~tton l(ll(91 Sn/9l
531 COWp~r Str~et Hew J4.400~5Quare-fQot 4(16/91 5/16(9\
""ildinq
850 W~bster Str~et SeismfC upgra.de of buHding
and add $ervfce elevator
l/30(q[ 6/6/91
41D~461 Jacob~ Court l!HlI1it tOk'lIhQU5t projPct 2/1/91 31Z1(91
1305 Middlefield Rd. A(1oit1ons to thildren's. S/ll/9l 9/19/91
Th1?liltr~
300 Past~ur Oti~~ New 3~levtl park1ng gar~9~ 8(1/91 9/19/91
610,640 Pogo Mill Rd. New lSS,~OO~square-fc~t
bo 11 di"'l
S!)Q/91 3/19/92
J675 fabian Way Hew 18.S0£l~sql!ar@-fout addiUon 9/10(91 11;1/91
900 Blake Wf~bur Nelli 73.000-squar·f!~foot menlcdl 9/19/91 10/17/91
cl ink
\ notice Of IncGmpletf' (NOn p~n(Hl'Ig t.n'lfironlT!enhl I\sses'Sment by n,,@ Department
l Notice of In,omplete {~Ol) pend loy nazar~Qijs mat~rials <leara~c~ from R~QCB
,\UII\C':IUI.rt
OAT( I OF CIlIITIN.
Of llJl!ll FqR INmfJ.
~ M!9!IJlll ~Il!!!L..
Same 16 W!O'.' 0
SOlI»ie J. Wk.5. 0
Sa"", N/A (PC Pr<<<e<s)
Same-7 wks, 0
Same H/A (SH. & 0
De-sign Pr-occs.s)
Siim~ 1 'Ilks.. 0
Same &-1/2 mos.l 0
Silm~ 8 wks. 0
11(21/91 8 wks..
.'1 .. "'~'f'II"<''' ~fl'rJI"l't,'S ,",'
AIlD. REV.
lAljOSCAP£
.J)!IA!J.1..
'. \,.1
t
I )
h9fl' 1
•
"~~"r ,. "",/-.,.".". ikj.i, ~ k'&\iliiJ
DATE OF DATl , Of' COftTIH. IIJD. REV.
ARB INIT. OF TURN FOR INInAl lAIIDSCAP[
WlI!ill lBQJECI QESC~QN DA!U!!I!IlI.lE AYllL mh ~ ACTIO" -~-
HJ.12r ProJgcts First Quar~J!
151 Homer Avenue Remodel warehouse for new 1/19/88 3/17/88 Same 8 wk..'>. 0
1
retail and storage use
\,...,.)
700 Emerson Stl'eet • New two-story rvtall/office 1/19/88 3/3tB8 Same 6 wk.s, 0
bui ld1n9
3391 Middlefield Rd. R~model and expan510n of 1/4/BB 3/3/89 Same 4 wks. 0 ,. Church
456 Untversity Ave. Restoration of New 'IarsHy 2/IB/88 3/ll/88 s,"" 4 wks. 0 , j
theater
456 university Ave. Office addition at rear of 2/1B/88 7/7/a8 9/1/aa 8 wk~.
Theater
(prel iminary review of office addit ion 3/17/8B)
850 H'InS{>n Way New 21,250 a sQuare-foot office 1/19/8S 3/17/08 Same 4 wks.
bunding
2253 Park. aoulevard New 45-unit residential project 3/11/88 5/0/8B Same 7 wks. ')
• SubseQu~nt applications at this addre~s:
Prelim. review of revised design 7/19/Ba 8/4/8B N/A
fur l~story retail/office bldg.
Revised dl!sign for l-~tory 8/l7/aS 9/l5/a8 S.me 4 wh.
r~tal1/office bul1dinq
nevi sed desig" for offlt;e bldg, 5/4/69 5/18/09 6/15/a9 6 WK'i. 1
ptv.lla\Clu.rt Page 3
I
, 1 ~
t
·',~ ",... .~,
~:~.;\"
.-;~:~l;·:f:· -'~-';.
·'r".·'·" , .! TABLE III
STtINFORD RESrARCt! P.A!!UROJECTS. I~~
~lUill(J;AIlON MINOR A~ICATIQH
ACTED ACTED AVERAGE AVERAGE
STAFF ON ON NO. OF TUllE 110. OF liME
~ff&!V~Q !RJ1IG. Z~ I!!§. PRQ~fm TO ACTI~--!J&J[CTS IU<;1
'~§1
)2' 31 0 29 2 2
iJ.!!l!
)8 ,6 0 g 26 N/A 3
1j189
41 71 0 13 22 H/A 6
1~~
19 9 ° 10 9 H/A
im
" 6 0 lB 6 HIA 1
One ~ddition~l 1987 applic~tion filed and withdrawn
Does not include 620-640 Page j.lill Ro"t/ (hazardous material issues and
:. 3.00 Hlll\liew Avenue (Site and Oesign proces~)
. Does not include 611 Hanser] Way (Campus Sign Program), Notice. of Incomplete
appl ication (NOI) sent pending Stanford apprnval
;·1/2 wks.
5-1/2 wks,
8 wks."
IZ wks.
11 wks.4
Does not include 620-640 Page Mill Road, project incomplete from 9/73/91 to
3/12/92 du~ to n~ed for clearance on hazardous material 1ssu~s from th~ RWQCB
-\lC\II1',,1II
.'~
30 4-1/2 wks.
31 3 ·1/1 wks.
23 3 w~s.
lR 4-1/2 wh.)
12 1-1/7 wh.
llillI!..
0
4
6
0
__ ,'''''''''i''''''~
I
II".) I ,
3-3/4 wk. ... r ,
2 wks.
HIA
)
3-1/2 wk~.
I
,"" __ ~l,
, ,
~,-
t
, '
. --~~--~--~~~--+--.-~.' ..... ~-~-~--,-.. ----~ --1-'7'''''''''''I'Ii!"~'-'-·IIII!' ... ""''''''.,..----.~-~r~ . • ,-,----<, &4' * i
TABLE IV
}lM!rnRD REStAACH PAl![( "AJI!IL1l!I1,um. Im-199!
YI!Rlli Pi\OJEq DEstR~ IIAIU!lWllil!
Stanford Re..--5J..ltth Park Prcjects 10r 1991
3500 De~r Creek Road 46,OOO-square-foot addition I/II/!:l
620·640 Page ~111 Rd, Prel imfnary R('vtfl'w
18G.OOO·sq~ar~-foot office
2/12/91
build1ng
620·640 Pa9~ Hill Rd, Hew 185.000-square-foot
bull dln9
8/30/91
Stanfortiesftil.rch 'ark~ojf"cts 'or 19m!
1681 Page-Mill Road NfI'w 6(l.OOO-~QIJilre foot 2/5/9.
bul1ding
I Noth:e of [ncomplete (NOI) pending Envll"o"",ental A~~~Bme"t by flrp. D~p"rt",ent
1 f1roj~ct ilv;o~plelp. 9/23/91 tnl 3/12/92 du~ to hazardous mat~rlal cleanup 1$SIJI.'S
(cle"rallce from RWQCB)
'Notice of Jncomplete (NO!) "pplicatloll b~cau§e of zonIng ordlrhlnce compliance problems
p,\I~\Chtl
DATE OF
AR8 INIT.
_WlI.1L
4/4/91
3/7/91
3/19/91
5/3/90
OATE
OF
Pll1..
SallJl.'
H/A
Sam~
Samp.
AVG. • OF CONTiNo ADD. R[V. i"
TIME TO FOR INIT'At lHOse' ..
=11.. A~nQ!! ..mAlU
I
\j , ,
11 \Ilks. 1 ;
3-1/2 wks. S~(_ond Pre1 illl,
6/1:0/91
6-1/2 IIIDS, I •
12 wlf_s, J • ,
)
Page 1
f
',' "".', >',
," \ ..
"";'~:"rli
• ! ,
I
I
!
I
DATE OF
ARB I"IT.
AIlllW.~ l'ItlllliLll~~ pAlE WMl.illD. REYIEW
llJ!!~Qarch tlr_k .. --'b,.tQr.1.r.~Jtct$ ioL1989
3176 Porter Drive PrellnTinal"y review. new I(S(B9 1/19(89
44, 700-square-foot R&D
building
620-640 Page Mill Rd, 169,900-squar",-foot office 1131(89 5/18/89
building
3330 Hillview Avenue Preliminary r~vlew. 36,000-2/14/89 3/21 89
lqoare-foot R&O buildlng
3401 Hillvtew Avenue l, S3fi-sqlj.re-foDt hili ld'og 6/'/B' 7/10(89
for gas 6 r;"emlca' storagl)
3116 Porter Orive New 42,900 $qu<ln~-fuol R&D 6(13/8' 10/5/89
build\1"o9
15tH Pilge Mill Rd. Prehmlnary rfl'vtew 0' new 8/1/89 8/17/89
'J,aOO-sQlIa.re· foot uf@teri"
addition
-------~~ ..
I Noth.e of Incollpl@te due tfl need for hazardous II'ileriit'l clei!.r .. nce by RWQCB
"1 Notic(' of Inrompletl!! beCiUS@ of loning ordlntnce and code ~otnplhn(.a
1',\lc\[hrl
DATE ~YG, , Of CONTIN. ADO. lEV.
OF TUff TO fOR HUrtN. It<<lSC' l
QID. AlliQ!L AtTIOH .OlTAll'
Prft!lM. 10 nays: 2nd Prelim.
'(6(89 o
'.
7/10 24 ... k!:,l
Prel im, Z-l/l wk!>. 21'\d prel1l1.
4/6/89
S ... 6 wks. 0
Sam~ Hi wks. l 0 1
Prel im. 2 who :) ,
1
~'
Page 2
•
· ___ ~ _____ ,. _____ ~~_~"", ___ ~ ___ L--:~"': ~, . ...".. "~!~; :~~~'~!"''Ii'i'!T~, -"
)'.
I"\I<\C'"1 POige J
•
"". ,_,,, ,~;'''fl'~'"''''''l'f
DATF. Of DATE AVG, • OF COHTIN. ADD. lEY. f "'llI!~" AAB IHIT. Of TI"E TO fOIl INlTl~t UlISC' II. , ~il\.t '
~DBm PROJ£CT PfSCRl!Jl.QPj DATE SUBH1IIm R~YIEV illL Aill2!!_ -&lliIL_ DETAILS .~ ',' I P,', " ,'" •
j'14," ;,>.:
StantClrd Ruell.Yc;h Park, Major Projei:ts for_.198S
{)
I
eso Hans~n "oIIy Ne~ 21.250-square-foot 1/"/88 3/11/68 Same 4 wh. 0
office building
911 Han~'!n Way Prel iminilry Rf>~1ew 8/21/8B 9/1/8B Prelim. }O day§
2.400-squilrf>·foot addition
for Test Cel1\ II & 12
':II I Hansen Way fin.;,l Test Cells II 6. 12 9/22/88 10/,"/e8 Same o411h. 0 0
4001 ~iranda Avenue Pre11MinarY R\?yjew '/11/88 10/10/88 Pre] im, S-1/2 vb.
4 new R&D bul1d1f1IJs totaling
192.000 square fl'et
4001 Miranda Avenue Fi nal 11/18/88 '/19/8, S, .. 9 wks. 0
845 Page ~lll Road Pr~11~lnarY review of major !l/l./e, 11/15/88 Prelim. 4 wks.
,)
renoVlI.tlon
E20-640 Polige Hill Rd. Prelllllinary Review 12/9/88 1/S/8. Prelim. 4 wk5-
165.000~$qlhlre-foot office
building
p'\I~\tMl Pa'j@ "
•
!
I
IJ
~ j
/
_ 1 ...
I
~
J i ,.,
I : r·
-
····r·· . . .
~o , ..
... " " -.. ,. ,',' '.~'
March 11, 1992
HONORABLE CIlY COUNC1L
Pile Alto, Califorr1ia
Attentl0n: Policy and S~rvices Committee
5TANf~BD RESEARCH PARK STUDY
Members of tne {ounen:
Report in Brief
On February 4, 1992~ the Policy and Services Committee continued discu5sion of
the Stanford Research Park Study to the Marc~ 17th Committee meeting. This
stiff report provides additional infornat'ion Orl three items raised at the
February 4th meeting: status of the outfitting of a Fire Department rescue
u0it for response to hazardous material incidents; status of the Utilities
Department Partners Progra~; and information on the functioning and staffing
of th2 City's archttectuiai review process. In addition, a ,ecycling progra.m
update is transmitte~ separately Tn the City Council par.ket (see CMR:1S4:9Z).
Background
The Policy and Services Comittee has discu.ssed the Stanford Research Study 0'
October 29 and December 3, 1991 and february 4, 1992. In December, the
COlmlittee accepted an off~r by the Ct1amber of Commerce to provide comments on
the priority of a rlumber .of pot€nUal Cit,)' actions related to the Park.. ,lie
Chamber's January 30, 1992 response (atta:hed) was the focus of the
Committee's february 4 meeting. During the course of that meeting, dis~US5ion
of tl'H! Chamber's memo raised interest in addit~oniil information Oil a number of
topics incl~ding the ,tems identified in this report.
O~tfittin9 of City Emergency Response Vehicle for
~dZardou5 Materials Incidents ___ _
The Cfty has purchased and will soon rec~ive delivery of a replac~ment
emergency rescue response vehicle. This vehicle snou1d be ready for operation
in July 1992. Expanding the equipment and supplies carried on this ~ehicle to
allow It tc quallfy as a nazardous ~atp.rials response unit will cost S)5,OOO.
This ~um has been request~d by staff through the 1992-93 Capital Improyement
Program. If this funding request is approved by the (cune')j purchase will be
made immadiately after apprcval. It is estimated that acquisition of the
hazardous material incident equipment and supp1ies will take approximately
three months.
CMR:183:92
I
L
.. "
In the period: prior-to av.aiTabi1ity of the City's Mazar-deus material response
vehicle, the City will cC:"ltfnlle to rely on mutElal res,ponse agreements for
o,;ehic1es located in Mountain View, Cupertino 2nd S.an 1-tateJ County for response
to incidents in the City. Reliance on outside vehicles adds appro~imate'y 40
minl1t'25 to the response time.
The COrml~ttee's February 4 discussion lnc1uded QUHt10ns regarding the
des;rabil ,ty of moving this funding forward ahe:ld of the norma.l budget
process. At t"'is time, sucn cHi acti~n would move forward the avat1ibility of
the City vehicle by approximately tlNo months. Sud an action would be of some
benefit to the local corrrnur.ity and the Fire Department. Staff believes that
it is impcrt.ant tc; maintain the ,procedural validity of the budget process and
n~t expedite items except in .... ery unusual clrcumstc.nces. P;.10 ATto has been
able to respond to hazardous material incidents without a fully equipped local
emer9~~cy rescue ~ehicle by reliarce on outSide response vehicles.
Continuation of the current service level for the addHional two l"Pontr,$ is
possible.
Uti1itif:~ Department Partners Progr~_m
Aeinstitution of ~he Partners rebate pro9ram was not id~ntified in the
Research Park Study but was raised by the Chamber of Commerce as an additional
Park tenant priority action.
BacicgrrJund of the Partners Program.
The Partners rebate program was implemented in ]984 to provide incentives to
commercial customers to reduce their peak summer electric ~se. Ihis peak
reduction was important because, during peak times, the City's electric power
needs were exceeding the available low-cost supply. As a reo:::ult, more
expensive rower nad to be purchased and the PartnErs program was a way to
reducE the City1s high power rurchase costs.
Meanwhile, the City invested in building a new hydroelectric facility in order
to have an additional sour~~ for tn~ needed electricity. The hydroelectric
plant beca.me operational in early 19;0 and therefcre, as planned, the Partners
rebate prog~am was ended short11 before that time.
Current Se-rvice-s Provided to SRP Tenants.
The Utilities Department evntinues tc ~a~e Resource Advisors assigned to
corporate custo~rs. These advisors provide indio,;idualized assistance and
information to meet each customer1s water and e11ergy management needs.
[xampl~s of the progra~ services provided include on-site audits, :ec~nical
consulting, product research and evaluation, special tap,c seminars, facility
mafiiger meetings and equipment meter loans. A pilot rebate pnlgram is. now
underway to encourage indoor water conservation prGjects and will continue
through May 1992, subject to availability of funds.
CMR: 183 :92
~: \cmr \s rpClPlte
L
3/12/92
Page 2
..
L
4~:
~!t~·:
"?i": . -'1-
. -<',,'" ~j-':"1',;".
':;:'
Future Plat/s.
The Utilities Res.ource P~il.nriing-5taff is noW' prEparing an integrated resource
plan for City (\luncil approval liter t~i.s. year. This plan will include
recol11T1endation5 for c:o$t-effect~ve, long-term eTectric cor.servation programs.
Some incenti.e programs may be initiated by late 1992 or-early 1993_
Last year, the Council a.pproved a long-term Urban Water Milnagement Plan UJat
outlined a viriety of water conservatfon incentive programs to be. impremented
over the: next five years. Some of these program~, hO"';;\ler~ are not
appropriate to implement, until the drought situation eases up and certain
contract issues with the City's supplier {San Francisco Wdter Department) a~e
settled,
Archit~~tural R~\liew Procedures ~nd Staffing
The attached "Corrrnents Regarding the Function of an .8.rditectural Review
Board-were s:.:~mitted by the Chamcer of Com-nerce at the february 4 Committe~
meetlng. Staff reviewed the information and plac~d the Comments on the
February 20, 1992 Archltfctural Review Board (.a.RB) agenda. In response to an
i~~ltatiQn fr~m staff, a Chamber representative attended the ARB m~et;ng. It
is anticipated that an ARB Member will attend the March 17 Committee meeting.
Staff has used th~ Comments to assess t~e functionirg of tnf design rE\liew
process. This assessme"t included an analysiS of ARB applications subiT,itted
in all of 199]. In late 1989 and early ]990, staff initiated a series of
procf!!ss modifications in response to significant pub1ic criticism of the .ARB
process and the role of staff. Staff asked the Chamber of Commerce to hest a
series of meetings of Chamber members and staff to explore concerns and
suggested process chang!s. Also, staff worked with a Planning Commi~sicn
customer s€rvice subcommittee to review and modify de~elopment monitoring
pror.edures a~d pubTic information. The result ~f working with the Chamber and
Commission: as well as discussion with ARB memb~rs, included the following
process chang-es:
Development and use of appl icat ; on ctleckTists to facll Hate
id.::!ntifieation of miSSing information and receipt {)f complete
appl ications;
A required preapp1ication meeting wit~ applicants and staff to achieve
complete applications at time of submittal:
Detailed plan check forms to minimize situatio~s where a project is
processed with a code-related flaw; and
Published schedules for processing ill types of Planning applications
(current ARB schedules are attaChed).
Also early in ]9gn, staff complEted preparation and pr nting of the attached
ARB HandbOOK. A clearer expTanation of the design rev ew process has helped
applicants prepare far and move through the design re\l ew process.
CMP.:183:91 3/11/91
p-\cmr\s.rpl:l!1te-Page 3
•
, • ~.
-
In addition, staff, wod:.ing with the ARB. fxpandel'i the range of -applications
that could be approlJ'e.d by stz.ff. The .ARB ordir'lancE am.endlrlents recently
appro~ed by the Council in part ref1ect recent changes in the rev~ew precess
and 1n part expand the staff r~le beyond the chang~s that e'/olved in 1990 and
I! 91.
Rev~ew cf 1991 ARB appl1ciitions identified the fcl1'Jwlng information:
101 of 180 ARB appl ica:tiO:1S (55") were approved by staff without review
by the Boaro.
An additional 94 nonappiicatinn staff approvals were granted --many of
thesE were for dehns of projects previous1y approved by th€ Board, .as
'tIeil as da.ngoes to projects identified during b'Jildirg permit review o.nd
d~ring construclion_
Of the 79 applications not appropriate for staff approval, 60 were
approved, Cine denied, four wi thdra·,m, nine werE preliminary reviews
co~sidErfd by the Board and five applications were in process at the end
of )~91. Of the 60 approved 3ppl icatior • .!:, staff estimates that 10 'Wo~ld
be ~ppropriate for staff approval under the revls~d ARB ordinance
wDrding recently approved by the Caunc;l.
Of the 01 (~O approvals and one denial) applications acted upon by the
Board. 45 (75%) were acted upon at the fi rst ARB meeti n9. Fifteer, (25';)
were acted upon at the second ARB meeting and one application was acted
upon at the third ARB re~iew.
For the six applications considered -major" under the Code and fee
schedule (and excluding two projects rewiewed as a Site and DeSign and
Planned Community application), tke average processing time (i.e., from
the date of receipt of application through staff/depart~ent review,
preparation of tne environmental document. public ~earing notice period
and to final Board action) was eigM weeks. St.a:ff contacted the cities
of Mountain View and Sunnyvale, both noted for tneir strong custom~r
service ethic. and found tr,at their processing time far similar
applications is comparable to PaTo Alto's.
Addlt;ona1 reactions to the Chamber'S Comments include:
Cn page 2, it is observed that ·Unless the staff has specific academic
and prof~ss~onal expertise in architectural deSign? sit~ planning or
landscape deSign, they should not comment cr beco~ involwed in the
evaluation of these elements." Staff involved in des1gn reviEW include
one person with a Master's Degree in Landscape Architecture; a secone
person with an Urban and Regional Planning Bachelor'S Degree ~ith an
emphasis on Urban DeSign, plus a post-baccalaureate degree in
architecture and urban studies and private se,tor urban design
experience; and a third person with a Bachelor's Degree 11'1 Architecture.
In the 1980s, there has been a conscious eff~rt to recruit staf~ with
design training and experi€nc2. Failure to r~cruit this type of staff
CMR:IB3:91
p: \CJI1r\:l.rpCllte
3/)1/92
Page 4
--
, ":~
---,._-
ex-pertise would not nave allowed f..Jr the recer.t significant nllmber cf
staff reviews and cpprova1s.
On page 2, the Chamber describes the job of the ARB in lang~age that is
narr~wer than found in tr.e Hunicipal Cede.
In the past four years, staff can identify only one situation where the
Soard raised concerns about the AstylE~ of lrc~itecture. (The Board
expressed concerl'1 to Jim Baer regardi"g the: extensive use in Downtown of
the Spanish Colonial style.) The Board encourages variety and does not
{a\Jor or disfavor particular architectural styles. lhe Board carl be
quite critical when the applicant proposes materials that are
inconsistent with the applicant's desired building style (~.g., using
aluminum slide 'liIindows on a traditional style structure rather U:al"l
divided light windows).
'Required action in one meeting is unlikely to ~hange the 3ctua1 process
vf!ry mucM, because applicants w'dl request c()ntinuance rath.c:r than
ha~ing t~ appeal a denial.
The Chamber'S Roverriding principle-that -it is the job of the
applicant to design and redesign~ is ofte~ stated and reinforced at ARB
meetings. However? when the Board has critiCism of a project, applicants
often r~~uest specific deslg~ comme~ts and suggestions and can become
angry if they perceive the precess only is critical and ~ot nhelpful.-
In concTusion, the written and oni coments SUbil'ritted by the Chamber have
provided a good basis for .. 'aluable review of the ARB process. Information
prcllided in this report casts doubt on whettH!r there is iii substantial -time
ta.x,· giv€n that Palo P.ltar.s have often expressed support fer having a
municipal desig" revie ..... function tnat ;s open t.a the public and pro'lides
significant public notice of pending major ;t€ms. Some of the concerns
expresse~ had substantial validity two or more years ago, when incomplete
applicattons were often accepted by staff wit~ a subsequent long inteTrial
review precess and ccntinuatio~ ~f applications by the Board to r~sclv~ code
related ar.d otl'ler fundamental prDb1ams. I~formation and conC~usions contained
in this staff report are not only ~p~ropriat~ far considerat;~n by the Po1icy
and Senices Cornnittee but will be expanded upon by staff prior to the
sc~eduled April 13, 1992 joint meeting of the ARB and City Cou~cjl.
Research Park ~!cycling Programs
A Recycling Program Update is transmitted separately in CMR:!84:92.
Conclusion. and RecomendatiQJJ.
the Polic), and Services Committ€e shou1d review and discuss the information in
this report and other aspects of the Researc~ Park Study of i~terest to the
Committee and, as the Committee believes appropriate, make reco~~endations to
the Council.
CMR:181:92
L
3/12/92
Pag' 5
-
01190in9 review ~f tne Researd': Park. Study shol.lld rem.!:)n in COl1Tl1lttee. Timing
of the Cammittee~s nfxt discussion of the Study is like]y to be inf1uenced by
the status of 5tanfor-d University's Research Park. p1arning efforts.
Respedfully submitted ~ i" In ;fi4t!?~-:?:;{ .£ A./.~:'7 II ---0.j
' ,/ ~ ;;:;Z'-T~-"/-K[~HETH R. SCHREIBER pU~c FLEMING / '-}
Direttar of P7ann.ing and (Assistant City ManW
{ormH.mit..v £n .... iron~nt ',,-,/
Rel.te~ st,ff Reports: CHR:428:9! \10/1/51)
CHR:534:91 (11/27/9!)
CHR:137:92 (1/30/92)
Attacnments: CO:mlents Regarding the Function of in Architectural Revl'ew Beard
January 30, 1992 Memo from Chamber of Commerce
ARB Application Scbed"l.,
ARB Handbook
cc: Architectural Rev1ew Board
Planning Commission
Stanfori:! University {Bill Philll,ps. Diane Healey, Andy Dot)'.
PJdl Williams, Davld Newan)
Stanford Research Park Tenants and leaseho1ders
Barron Park Assochtion
College Terrie! Residents Association
Chamber of Commerce
Denny Pe-trosian
Charles Keenar.
CMR;IB3:92
p \Cl'1rh"pCVtfe
'::-(',':;~t--,)
.-._; .
3/12/92
Pa9' 6
-
COI!"J':',ents F.e9ardir.q the Funct.1o':"l
of en Architectural ~evi~w B~ard
~here are three pri~e players in the ~.F.,e. precess. Each et these
players hes distinct responsibilities. If they confir.e t.'leir
efforts toward meeting these responsibilities, the process .ill
f\.<.ncticn as desi9ned a~d in , reasonal::ly timely fa5hion.
The three prime players ere as fol10 ..... '$:
1. The epplicant
2. The A.R.e. Planning staff
The ApDl!cant. It is the prime responsibility of the applic8fit to
de.::!iign the proj eot. Only the. a.PFlicant can m=.ke changes to the
d~sign. The desi9n mut:·t l!'1eet all applicable codes, zones and
regulations and ~e based on reasonably accepted design principles f
such as proportion} s'..litability to surroi,;ndinq enviro-:1rner:ts, safe
and ¢lear circulation o! vehicles and pedestrians, and the qenerat
standards and historic content cf the city urz'ar. design.
The. A,R.B .. rlarming st.aff. It is the F'rit:te responsibility of the
A.R.S .. staff to revie~ the desig~ fer conformance to all applicable
code-s, toning and cit)~ regulatior.s. If there a:'-I!! vic·lations of any
of the above} they should be revealed to the ap~.licar.t. and the
-
applicant should chanqe ~ne design sO that the final documen~s are
complete 'W"hen they are revie'Je~ by the A. R. B.
Unless the staff has specific aca~e~ic and professional expertise in
architectural design, site planning, or landscape design, they
should not cOrJ:l1ent :-r becolne involved in the evaluation 0: these
elements. The rea50n there are three professionals of the A,R.B. 1s
to provide this input to the procoss.
The ".R.S. Members. It is the joo of the "'.R.S. r,embers to revie'"
the design for its confonc.ar.ce to reasonably ac.cepted design
principles such as, propcrtion, sensitivity to surrou~dinq
envirottmQnts, s3fe and clear clrc~laticn ~f vehicles an~
pedestrians, and the qene~al standards and historic content of the
city urban des19n.
It is not the job of the A.R.B. members to design the project as
they woul~ if they had the commission instead of the applcant. They
~hould clearly state their criti~ism of tht project as it relates to
the above qeneral criteria~ If their c:or:.r.e. are personal design
~i5hes they should be stated as such.
An example of such E;valuation \iOl.:.ld.·be. a proj-ect: desi;ned 'Within a
district. of the city with a very clear and established a.rf;hitectural
·style such as Professorville. If tne project ~as designed as a
variation frO'itL the historic context, s\lch as a ve.ry contemporary
structure the bur~en of proof as to why this styl~ should 90 forward
is on the applicant and the justification for the chosen style is a
L
,
b
--------'--~-
valid topic f..: a!'proval or <lenial b)' tt,e Board.
If the project is designed in a mere eclectic area such as the
downtoW'n whe.re there is r.c clearly do~inant style then the choice of
design style is clearly tha personal choice of th~ applicant. ~hi$
choice of style should not be dictated by Individ~al opinio"5 of
aBoard members.
The deqree of success of the desig'n will be det.-err.Lined by t,O""" well
tha chosen style is executed not by ~hether it is a styl~ the Soard
member likes C4 does not 11~e.
If the Soard cannot approve the project it should deny the project
in one review ~eetinq. It is the responsibility of the applicant to
either appeal the aenial or ask for a continuance. ~he5e choices
should not ~e confused. The Soard can only continue if the
application is net _ co~plete. It should only be ir.coI'r'.p.lete if the
staff failed to do i~5 job.
The decision to continue an 1 tern sho'J.ld onl:t be the applicants and
should only be used when the criticism of the Board is agreed with
and t.he apl=11cant 'Wisbes to ch!nc-!. tt.e desicn.
The Eloard should not be afra id to deny !; proj ect if it is TJot
acceptable. Tha Board's bosses are the City Council ar.d it is
i~portant that thei' ~ake their pelicy stater.-.ents in the: ferm of
approvals or der.ials 'With the Council revie ...... inq the cenials, if
reCjuested.
" ..
~ ,
-
It th .. Board is being o"uturned on a regular h.is they can either
get the ~ess.9' and change their revi.~ policy or they will be
replaced by the Council as their terms expire,
In summary it all of the players do their jobs and clearly stay
vithin their oroo. of responsibility the prcc~.s can work in a
~irect manner a. it .as designed,
Tho overriding principals st.ould al,'oys be it is the job o! the
applicant to d~sign and redesign.
•
It 1s the jeb of the A.R.B. staff and ~embErs to revie~( comcent and
approve or disapprove with v~ry cle.ar and direct finding's~
j ,
I
I
i
I
I
Of COi'L'1tRCi:
-
MEMORANDUM
TO: Policy and Services Committee,
Palo Alto City Council
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Edie Dorosin
Executive Drrector
Januarl 30, 1992
Stanford Research Park Study
Input from the Stanford Research Park Forum
AI the request of Ron Ancterson, 1991 chair of the Pol,icy anct
Services Committee, the members of the Chamber's Stanford
Research Park Forum have prioritized in order of the',r
importance to park tenants the 13 potent~al programs or
actions contained withiil the city stL:dy.
The SRPF met December 10 to discuss and determine which
actions were high priority, The key criteria uSed was "what
actions most impact industry's ability to be competitive in the
market place".
Members of the SRPF attending the February 4 Pol:cl and
Services Committee meeting look forward to discussing each
of the items ranked as top priority as well as other actions or
issues raised in the city study.
~ " I
-
City of Palo Alto
Stanford Research Park Study
City Should Proceed
• Alternative fuel vehicle investigation
II Traffk mitigafion fund inves1igation
. • Water reuse and disposal policy
o Integration of Fire Department and \Vater QuaEly Treatment Plant
databases
• City coordinated discussions with Park tenants regarding emergency
response 'planning
• Development of Research Pa.rk electric, gas a.nd water forecasts
• EvaluaHon of Counly property tax allo.cation process b)' Cily
& 5i_-""':"-
,
-
City of Palo Alto
Stanford Research Park Study
Tenant Top Priorities
• The City Sh01l1d continue to pursue simpiifkatioo of the design
review process for smaller seaJe cnanges to previously approved site
plans and buildings.
• The City s"ouid develop a funding plan for outiitling Ine emergency
response vehicle recently ordered witn mOre hazardous material
response equipment. lVehide is expected to be delivered in fall,
1992.)
• The City should continue efforts similar to those im'olved with the
hazardous materials !'torage ordinance and to.\ic gas ordinance to
regulate industry by design 01 facilities rather than more precise
regulation of uses.
Additional Tenant Top Prioritiq
• The City should create a more comprehens;,'e industrial recycling
program to include sorting 01 waste vs. segregation by businesses.
PASCO represents a continuing barrier to contracting with vendors
offering a wider range of services.
• The City should reinstitute a "partners" rebate program for ufdities
investments to reduce consumption.
,".,;"
_,., .... ,-'--">; r,'
.,,'~:-::\ .
---
Cit), of Palo Alto
Stanford Research Park Study
• The City should pursue a capita! improvement project to upgrade
the appearance of the Page Mill median from EI Camino Real to 280.
• The City snould investigate with Stanford and with Park tenants a
policy regarding provision of and payment for sidewalks.
• Stanford and the City should continue to emphasize new Research
Park landscaping guidelines for the use of drought-toleran! plants.
•
1~
'i ..
l'
I r i
1
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW SOARD APPLICATION SCHEDULE
MINOR ARB APPLICA TrONS (including minor PC zone changes and minor site and
design review), SIGN APPLICATIONS AND PRELIMINARY REVIEW OF MAJOR ARB
March 1992 through June 1992
MONTH OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW IiEA.~tI§,._. _____ ,~~
SHP DESCRIPTION OF ACTION HARCH APRil MAY JUNE
APPLICATION DEADLINE' 2/6 2/10 3/5 3/19
2 j Department Routing/Completeness 2 week 2 week 2 week 2 week
Review • period period period period
3 Advertise Agenda 1/19 3/4 3/18 4/1
4 Info Memo Av.ilable (p.m.) l/2B 3/13 3/27 4/10
5 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD 3/5 3/19 4/2 4/16
HEARING'
6 I Oirectorls Decision
7 Appeal Period Expires:'
Please Note;
3/10
3/16
3/14
3/30
4/7 4/21
4/B 4/27
4/9
2 week
period
4/12
5/1
5/7
5/11
5/18
4/13
2 week
period
5/6
5/15
5/21
5/26
6/1
5/7
2 week
period
5/10
5/79
6/4
6/9
6/15
5/Zl
2 week.
period
I
6/3 I
6/11 I
6/18 !
6/23
6/29 J
If it 1S dt-'termined that environmental review is required, the application deadline wfll be l weeks ('arlie)" ttJ.an )
lndicated.
MeetinH dates are subject to reschedu"ling due to holidays. lengt.h of agendas, or lack llf quorum.
Th1~ appeal period is not appll('lIble to minor planne.J cOl!1fJJUnity zone changes and m1nor sHp. and desiqn review
applications. An ARB staff planner" can provide information regarding appeal time 1 ir.es for these types of
appl leal ions,
appcklst. 7 1/92
\
I
l
.... -•.... -, \ •
:r"
'!I;~i:.\· ~;:i:,,'}~{ i
"
;,
"
,
'~'
I
".:,-,
i
-. -_.-----.---
r
L
i • ,
I
··:'·"~'~-"~'~·~.IiI" ••••• I.., -r--
STEP
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
6
9
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD APPLICATION SCHEDULE
MAJOR ARB APPLICATIONS
January 1992 through April 1992
NONTH OF AkCHITECTURAl REVIEW HEARING'
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH
APPLICATION DEADLINE'
w1th Environmental Assessm~nt Il/l Il/IS 11/29 12/13 12/27 1/10
w/out EnYi~onment31 Assessment 11/15 Il/29 12/13 12/27 1/10 1/24
D.part~.nt Routing 10 day 10 day 10 day 10 day 10 day 10 day
period period period period period period
Completeness Reviewl Within Within Within Within Within Within
Environmental Assessment 30 days 30 days 30 days 30 days 30 d.ys 30 days
Advertise EnVironmental 12/11 12/24 1/15 1/29 2/12 2/26
Assessment/Av.ilable Same Day
(only if required)
Advertise Agenda/Noiice H •• ring 12/16 1/1 1/22 2/5 2/19 3/4
Info Memo Available (p.m.) 12/27 1/10 1/31 2/11 2/28 3/13
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD 1/2 1/16 2/6 2/20 3/5 3/19
HEARING' .
Director's Decision 1/7 1/21 2/11 2/25 3/10 3/24
A~peal Period Expires 1/17 1/31 2/21 3/6 3/20 4/3
Please Note;
APRIl.
1/24 2/7
2/7 2/21
10 day in day
period . perlodi. )
Withl" Within
30 day, ~O days
3/11 3/25
3/16 4/1
3/27 4/10
4/2 4/16
4/7 4/21
4/Il 5/1
These dates will not apply if additlon.l environmental studies (e.g., noise study, tr.ffic stUdy) are required. If
" l"
i~
I ,~'
I
the application is determined incomplete, the datf!s will be adjusted to the ~imp. when additional materials are I
submi tted. '{
The ~ppl1cat1on filing deadline fOf Major ARB applications wn1ch do not require [nvironmental Assessm~nt is t~o weeks
l.ter than the deadline for applications which do require thi, revi.w.
Heeting dates are subject to rescheduling due to holidays, length of agendJs, or lack ~f quorum.
lIppcldst.5
Ijt
:'~
11/91
.('
• .1
,
1 ,I'
.~
\ ,
1 l
. \ .~
. " ;
•
:,.;:*,~.'
-+--.
: I
--,
i
r-
1-
\
c'''':
'" I <??er,_:
f. i
-
Publ i.hed by:
THE HAIINING DEPAATMENT
FIFTH FLOOR, CIYIC CENTE~
250 HAHILTC:j AVENUE
PALO ALTO, CA
(415) 329-2441
-
ARCHITECTURAL REV!rl(~QgQ~UIDEBOOK
This guid&book to the Arcnitectural R!view Board (AFB) has be~" prepared as a~
aid to the designer, deve1oper, owner, appiicant and the average citizen in
understanding the process for securing ARB r~~iew and approval. It;s
ir.tende-d to he1p the appl itant meet the ARB and staff goal of ,processing and
approving applications as rapidly as possible.
The ARB guidebook ;5 organized into six sections:
I. Rol •• nd Authority of the Architectural
Review Board ......................................... Page J
2. Genera' Submittal Require=ents ..••.••.•.•..•..•. P;ge 7
3. Me-eting Date-s and Procedures .... , ............... Page 12
4. After Approval, Appeals, Time limits and
Ch'ngos ..••...••..•.•....•••...•..•..•....•.••.• Po;e 14
~. Design Guid.lin.s •.•.•.•.•.......•..•..•...••.•. P.g. 17
6. Application Fees ..•...•.•..•••.••..•..•.•....•.. Page il
In ad~ition. se:parate handolJts provide specific information for individual
application types. These are:
SIGNS AND K~STER SIGN PROGRAMS
MINOR PROJECTS
PRElIMINARV REVIEWS
!'AJOR PROJECTS
SUH APPROVALS
The text in each se-:.tion of thls guidebook responds to typtca11y a:;ked
questions~ such as the introductory questions below:
IIHERE CAlI 1 BUY OR SEE A COpy OF AeP..ilCABL[ ORDINANCES ANi! RfG('(!<TlONS?
Copies ~f the Architectural Review Board Ordinance, Zoning Ord'nance~ Fence
OrdiMnce. Sign Ordinance and other Ti:gulations and guidelines are i'olailable
ilt:
THE PLANNING OIVISION AND BUILDING INSPECTION DIVISION COU.~ER
FIfTH FLOOR, CIVIC CENTER
2~D HAMILTON AVENUE
PALO ALTO, CA
Rev; sed 11(91
;r:\JG\GOIideAJUI Page 1
i ,
-
WHO CAN~LK TO FOP HELP?
General qu~stions may be ans!'I'erecf by thE' P~anning Technician in person it the
Planning Division counter (5th floor, Civic Center), or by phone at 329-2442.
Speciflc Questions related to ict~al project design, code interpretation?
aesthetics, submittals and scheduled dates for project re~iew should be
addressed to the Architectural Review Beard staff liaison ~y appointment or
phone at 329-2364 or J29·25~5.
Pre-apP;;ciit on ~eti~9s witr. Architectural ReYie~ Board staff are encouraged
and applicat {lns. must !)e s:.ibmHted directly to ARB staff. Appointmerlts may be
m.de by call ng 029-2364 or 329-2545.
Revised llj91
Page 2
-
gOLE AND AUTHORliY Of THE ARC~IT~CTURAL REVrEV BOARD
The Architectural Review Soard (ARB) was created by the City (ouncil to
provide Palo Alto with i t~orOu9h design review pro~ess. The five m~~ber
Board is apPointed by tne City Council and at ieast thr&e of the Board members
must be design professionals. The recomm€ndations of the ARB are advisory t~
the Di;ector of Planning and Community Environment.
Tt1e: A.rckite:ctlJral Rtl'Jie'" Board sen'e.s as a link b~twee'n the applicant and the
(~mmunjty's goals fer functional and aesthetic standards. Although the
process is one of critique, the intent is one of guidance in order to create
uce-Her.ce in design as the best ;n .... estme,..t for the community.
WHAT ARE THE GOALS AIIO PURPOSE or THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD?
To promote orderl~ and harmo~ious development of the City; en~ance the
desir~bility ~f residence or investment in the City; encourage the attainment
of the most d~sirable use of land and improvements; enhance the desirability
Gf li~ing ,onditicn~ upon the immediate site or in adjacent areas; and promote
visual en~ircnments which are of high aesthetic quality and variety and which,
at the same t;me~ iTe considerate of each ether.
WHAT HAS TO BE REVWI@_6J THE ARCHITECTURAl RfVIEli BOARD?
Any proposal to alter the exterior of a building or site th,t is either a
change from a pre .... ious .a.rcnitectural Re· ... ie .. Eoard app~ova! or requires a
permit under lit1. 16 (Building Regulations) of the Palo Alto MuniCipal Code
{PAMC) must be reviewed and approved by the Archit~ctural Review Board prior
to any construction. This ~ncludes fences, signs~ awnings, mechanical
equipment, landscaplng, additions, facade changes, new bUlldlngs, etc. Other
proposals as. identified by the City Council, Olrector-of Planning and
Community Env~ronment, the Chief Builcing ~ffic;a1 or the ZO~lng
Admir.istrator, may a150 be referred to the Architectural Review Board.
ARE THERE EXC'PTIDOCS?
Single-family residences and dupli'xes an! generally exempt from review except
for ,oncurr~nt de~elopm~nts O~ adjGcent propertie$ by either the same owner,
same architect or same bUi1der. Howe .... er. two-unit projects in the
Neig~borhood Preservation (NP) zone and miner exterlor changes to single
family residences in the as (Open Space) district are subject to archit~ctural
revie'tl.
Revi sed 11/91
Page 3
._: -A
I ,
1
-
-'. ---<
.-
WHAT ARE THE fSTAaUSHfD CATEGORIES FOR ARCHITECTURAl REVIEW BOARD PROJEClS?
o SIGNS AIID IlASTER SIGH PROGRAMS;
o MINOR FROJ£CTS -small projects of limited scope such is an awning~ I
relocat~d doar or ~indow, a storefront remodel t limited additions to
existing bundings~ landscaping, parking lot modifications, and minor
(hanges to prew~ousiy apprcv~~ projects;
a P.REUKINAR'Y REVIEWS -for major projects with signif)cant irc:nitectural,
site and conte~tual issues;
C' MAJOR PROJECTS -new buildings of marl! than 5,(lOO square feet, additions
of mor~ t~an 5,000 ~Quare fEet to existing buildings, residential
construction of three or mort units, contro~ersfal projects or ~ny
proje~t that wili significantly alter the existing site or building(s);
an,
o STAFF APPROVALS -1 imited to "-ery minor changes to previouslJ appro\led
projects and tertain other inconsequential changes.
HOW lONG liHl THE ARCHlTECTUR.~1 REVIEW BO.~RO PROCESS R[~&IR[?
The time required to process an applicatio~ will vary with the size of the
project. For example, a sign Qr a minor project such is the addition of an
awning may take four weeks, w~ile 3 new building of S,GOO square feet or more
could hke o't-er six months. This ti~ frame c:ou1d be Significantly shortened
if the proposal to the ARB is caref~lly and thoroughly prepared. All
appli:ations must be submitted at lea~t four weeks prior to a meeting.
WIIAT A,q[ TilE IfANDATfO TIllE WIlTS?
Th2 Architectural ~evie~ Board and City staff endea\lar to process applications
IS rapidly as possible; howe\'er~ maximum time limits are ma:"ldated by law for
all praje~ts revi~wed by the A~. Any project which does not require an
Environmental Impact Report is subject to the following action dates:
o The City has 30 days from the dat~ an application is .submitted, to
declare the application complete or incomplete. Un1es!. the .applicant 1S
otherwise notified in ~ritin9, the application shall be deemed complete
on the thirtieth calendar day after its receipt by the Plannir.g
Department, or on th€ date the final application is first considered by
the ARB, whichever comes first.
A Notice of Incampl ete stops all act ion and time limits on a project
until a revised submittal is made. The revised submission starts a new
3~-day period for declaring a !)roje~t ccrr.pleh or tncomplete. Jf a
rev i sed s.ubmi s s i on ; s not made \tfith i n 60 days from tn e not i ce ~f
p:\JGIGw.kAAB
Re\li sed 11/91
Page 4
---_._-_. __ .-.
L
r-
I,
-
incomplete, the file 'W111 be closed.
Ij From the date an applkation ;s declared (omplete, state law mandates
that the City take action on the a~p'ication ~ithin si~ months.
o The sh;·~ol'!th acticn date :najl be extended one tim.o:!' for a pE-riod not to
exceed 90 days. Th~s request IDust be 11'1 writing from the iipplicant and
app .... 'oved by the Dirertor of Planning and Corrrnunity En'f'ironment.
Manaatory action dates are not applicable if a project is appea1ed. For
further information on ap~ea1s see the section titled -AFtH Approyal~
Appeals, Time limits And Cnanges.-
WHAT AR[ THE STANDARDS USED BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD TO REVIEW A
PROJ,CT?
o Consistency and compatibility ~ith applicable elements of the City of
Palo Alto Comprehensive Planj
c Compatibility of desi':ln and harmonious transition 111 scale between the
project site) adjacent sites, natural features, land uses, on-site
improvements, adjacent improvements, and any historica1ly s;9nificant
bui1dings or features;
D Appropriateness of the design to the function of the project i.nd the
creation of a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and the
general community;
o The amount and arrang.ement of opel"! space, access, ancillary functions,
and circulation are~Sj
o The appropriateness and compatibility of mcterials, textures, colors,
construction details, landscaping and plant materials; and
c The en~rgy efficiency of the design.
WHAT AREAS OF A PROJECT ARE ,'!THIN THE AUTHOAUY OF TH[ ARCHJTfCTI!RAL REVIEW
BO.ARD?
In app1ying the standards set forth above, the Architectural Revie~ Board may
review eacn of the following items of tr.~ propos~d project:
o Uses and functions as they relate to the design of the project and
adjacent USES;
c Compatibility? visibility and effect upon .... ielll of n~ighhoring properties
and uses;
o AesU1etics. qual Hy. character, sca1e, building materia.ls and color;
L
Revi'ed 11(91
P'ge 5
.-. ~. ,
f ,
" ~-
-
o Site development charac.teristics il1-c 1 uding but not limited Lo lot slze,
blJi'<li~9 coverage: setbacks, building height, iocatioil upon the site,
open space, and pedestrian, bicycle and venicle circulation;
o Environmental factors including but not 1 imited to noise, emission of
smoke, fumes, odors, fite safety, life safety ard fire access,
disturbance of existing topography. trees, shrub~, and other natural
features. water percolation, grading and dra;nage~ and impe~ability of
soils;
c Buildings ar,d building components including but not limih:d to stairs,
rdl1lpS, escalators, moving sidewalKS, elevators, downspouts, fliJes~
chimneys, exhaust fans, clr-cond1tionlng equipment, elevator equipment,
fans~ cooling towers, antennae or similar structures placed upon the
roof or the exterior of the buiTding;
o Sun shsdes, awnings? iouvers or any visible device for deflecting,
filterin9 or sMielding the structure or intel"'ior from the elements,
bilconies, penthouses, loading dOCKS or Similar special purpnse
appendages or accessory structures;
(J Accessory structures, including garages sheds, utility fGd1it1es and
waste receptacles;
o Other on-site improvements, including but not llmfted to parking and
other paved ar~as, landscaping, planting, plant materials, lighting,
sign~~ graphics, art work, Sculpture, fountains arid other artistic
features;
o Energy efficiency and renewable energy design elements, including but
not limited to exhrior energy design e1ements, interniT ljghting
ser~ice and climatic control systems, and b~ilding siting and landscaped
e1eJM!nts; and
o Such other features as affect the dBign and ul timate appearance of the
\ftiork, as determined b): the Architectural Rellir::w' Board.
~NAT IS THE ROlE or CITY STAFF IN THE ARCHITECTURAL REYIEW BOARD PROCLli?
City staff does not ~ote on Architectura1 Review Board applications but daes
serve in an advisory capacHy to the B<lard members. Staff supports the ARB by
processing ipplicatio~s, reviewing environmental impacts, checking plins,
preparing staff reports, making recommendations and assuring implementation
conSistent witn A~B approval. Staff also p~ovides guidance to applicants in
desi~n, prpsentation and consistency with previous ARB approvals_ Staff is
available for preliminary meetings on projects and should be consulted eariy
in the design process.
Revised 1I/9!
Pagz, 6
-
----.
gENERAL SUBMITTAL RE~UIREMENTS
D.fFORE SUBMISSION FOR AR[HlTfCTVR~L RHIf. wHAT OTHER .4PPROI'A(S ARE REQUIRED?
Projects requiring a Use Permit, a Variance, or a tentati"le m.a.p must obtain
approval of the Zoning Administrator prior to submission for archi\ectwral
revie .... SimuHaneous iippT1cations "'ill not be ac.cepted.
Major Planned CCrMlu!1ity (PC) zone cnanges and major 5jte and De~ign (D)
propcsals are rev;eiNt'd by both the Phnning [omission and City Council, as
well is the Architectural REview Board. The Pla~ning Department can provide
you with brochures dEsc.ribing these procedures in more detail.
ARf THfP' OTHER RfQUiRENENTS. BEYOND lONING REOUJREWNTS. WHICH INfEO TO KNOW
PRIOR TO SUBMITTING FOR ARCHITECTURAL REVfEW?
There are oUler reguiatio11S .... hich can affect the deill:lGpment of properties in
Palo Alto. SQme of these ~re listed below,
Prooerties located ~ithin Th~ flood Hazard Zone
Many ~reas of Palo Alto ~re located within the lOO-year f100d plain.
Within th~se areas, Federal regulations apply to all new construction
and certain types of re~cdeling. The Pub1iC Works Department
administers the Federa1 Flood Insurance Program and they can inf~rm you
as to t~e regulatiops and how they Wilt affect your project. Maps and
indexes of the properties in the area can be examined at the Fift~ Floor
Plarming D~partment counter or at the PubliC Works counter on the Six-th
floor.
Propertles With Underlying lot ____ l . .inl:'!~
If your propertj is made up of tloiO or more lots .... ·hich have been
developed as on~ lot, it will likely be described is more than one
parce1 on your title report and the underl.ying lot li:1es .... i11 be
indi(ated on tl"!.e BTock Book maps (Fifth Floor Planning Department
c.-.Jur:ter). You will need to apply for a. Certificate of Comp1iance on a
parcel merger to consolidate the parcels into one lot prior to apply;n~
for a building permit to make any improvements on the property as one
10L The Public Works Department located or. the sixth ncar of City
Hall will aSSist you in processing the Certificate of Compli;nce. The
Pianning Departmer,t can a.ssist in parcel mergers.
Prooertje:S_On the Historic rn\f~ __ Fl_t..QD::
If your property is listed on the Historic In\lentory. you lI'Iust first
obtain a recommendation of tne Historic Resource Board prior to review
-p-uG'.oui:leAR8
L
Re .... ised 11/91
Page 7
t
i·-! I
JI
" ! > ,
> I
~
,-~~ -;'l§-~-<~;"
;..,0;
:--, -.;.:c.
&,~
-
'.
b.v the ArcnitectlJral Review Board. Th-e Planning Tec.nrdcian at the nfth
fl~or Planning Depa~tment counter can provide a list of t~e Historic
Inventory ~nd can assist ir. application r2Quirements and scheduling.
Sites Wit~ Ha2ard~us Materi~l!
Same building sites wjt~in Palo Alto are subject to review for ~a2ardous
nlater"lals contamfnation. T~e Fire Department, on the sixth floor of
City Hall, should be contacted to determine if your site ind proj€ct is
subject to halardous mat~rial revi~w_ Permits may be required from tne
City of Pale Alto Fire Department, the Santa Clara Valley Water
District, the St~te Department of Health Services, the ~egional Water
Quality Control Boa~dl the Bay Area Air QUality Management District Dr
others.
The Uniform Building Code
The Building Di~isfon has a handout for preparing plans and dr.wings in
compliance with the Uniform Building Code (l!BC)~ The Building Di¥ision
i. located on tne fifth floor of City Hall> Currently the City of Palo
Alto;' regulated by the 1988 edition of the USC
Housing Mitication P~ents for Comm~r~Industrial Prujects
A houslng mitigation fee is applied to any new commercial or industrial
development that exceeds 20.000 square feet of floor area, an~ to
additions of 2,500 square feet or more for de~elopments already in
excess of 20,000 square fe~t. These fees are used by the City to help
increase the supply af low~ and moderate-income housing. The fee per
square foot is c011ected at the time of building permit issuance. The
Planning Department on the fift~ floor can provide additional
i i1 forma ti on.
Traffic Mitigations
A traff;c mitigation fee is applied to any new de~elopment that exceeds
2~,OOO square feet of floor area and to Gdditions of 2,500 square feet
or If,ore for developments already in excess cf 20,000 square fe~t. This
fee is appl icable to the San Antonio Road/lriest Baysnore area and in the
Stanf?rd Research Park. The fee per square foot is co1lected at the
time of b~ild;ng permit issuance. The Transportation Division on the
sixth flcar of City Ha)l should be con~acted for addit;onal information.
Below-Market~Rate Housing
New housing developments of three or more units must p1ace 10 percent of
the units in the City cf Palo Alto 8elow-Market~Rate housing program.
De~elapments of three to nlne units may make an in-lieu payment instead
of providing a unit.
Re~ised 11/91
p'\J(j\CNid.o.AAB Page 8
, , ,
i
1
'I
)
-
Developments of three ar more u~its that cause the less of rental units
must meet two of the fol lowing requirement:;.:
IJ Th~ de .... elopment results in at 1east 100 pertent more units than
previously existing on the site and comply ~ith the Cit) Belaw
Ma;K2t-Rate prosrcm.
o Tt:e number of rental uni ls to be provided by the project is at
least equal to the number of existing rental units.
o kot 1ess than 20 peri:Ent of the units pro'olided are BMR units.
Contact the Planning Department of the flfth floer for
additional information.
The Planning Department on the fifth floor should be contacted for
additional information.
Properties Owned by Stanford University
Stanford University Lands Management Division must approve a,ny proposed
project for a building or site that is owned by Stanford University.
Evidence of Stanford approval must be submitted ~ith the application to
the City of PalQ Alto. The City of Palo Alto application form for
property awned by Stanf~r~ Un;¥ersity must be siyned bj a representativE
of Stanford University Lands Manag~ment un1ess the a~plicition requires
only Architectural Review Baard approval. Stanford UniverSity-owned
lands include the Stanford Research Park. Stanford Shopping Center ind
properties adjac~nt to the Stanford Medical Center.
WHAT a1HER CITY DEPARTMENTS SHOULD BE CONTACTED PRIOR TO SUBMITTAL?
The following Departments wi 11 be routed Yl)ur project for review_ You should
contact them prior to submission to determine their requirements.
a B'}iltijng Division (329·2496} fOj" buildir.g code iriforn;ation;
o Public Works Departmt>t'lt (329-2151) for infomation on construction 51'1
public rights-of-way, flood zone infor~ation and Site drainage;
c Fire Department (329-2184) for firi! code and hazardous material issuesj
a City Ar-borist (495-6905) for i~formation on street trees;
o Transportation O;vlslon (329-2520) for information re1ated to
circulation, driveway locations. and traffic impacts;
a Police Department (329-2666) for (rime Prevention measures;
{I Electric Utilities (329-2386) for location and sizing of electrical
service requirementsj
"L
Revised 11/91
Page 9
--
L
,.-." ~.
':. ..
" . -'c-"r-
--i
C Water--Gas-Wastewater Utilities (329-2381) for 1ocation anlj sizing of
water, gas and wastewater ser~ices; a~d
o Energy Services (,29-2229) for energy conservation measures.
WHAT ~PPROVALS ARE REOUI.RfD AFTER ARCHITECTURAL REVlfll?
Architectur.1 Revie~ Beard lpprcv,l must be obtained prior to submitt1ng for 1
bullding permit. fence permit, sfgn permit or ot"er construction penH as
designated by the Director of Pi1.n.ning and (ontTlunity Environment. Other
permits as spec1fie-d by the Publ;~ Works Oepartm~r.t, Utilities Department~
Trinsportation Division and fire Pepartrnent, may be required.
WHAT ILMQUiREO T~ BE SUBMITTED?
Th~ fol1Qwing items are required for a'1 submittals. Adcfitiona1 information
en spec;fic slJbmittal requlrements is shown on the submittal requirements form
for each individual applicatiorJ type. The Ara,itectural ~eview Board and
staff may r~Quire additional materia1s or submis$ions to cl~rify the proposa).
D APPLICATION' FORM.: This is i standard form used fer ill Planning
Division applications. The indi\lidual or firm listed .as applicant in
Hem S is the only person who will recei'le notice of the meetings,
copies of the minutes, Dr action tak~n and is also the person ~taff will
contact if Questi~ns arise about the proposa1. The app1ication form
must be Signed by the owner of the property.
o WRITIEN PROJECT DESCR1PTlON: Each application sh.ll be accompanied by a
written description of the project. The lEngth of the description will
vary vith the size of the project; however, it is vp.ry important that
the d!scription include th~ design concEpt, th~ rationale f~r the
design, the project proposal in written llngua9~, the relation t~
existing conditions on site, the existing and proposed uses, and unusual
materials, (olers, construction roeth~ds~ etc.
o PROJECT DATA SUMMARY SHErr FOR ALL PROJECTS EXCEPT SIGN ONLY
APPLICATIONS.
o PLANS: All submittals shall be accompanied by plans that clearl)' sho~
the applicant 1 s proposal. The number-of plan,s to be submitted' .and the
required drawings depend nn the ~ize and type of project. All plans
must be stapTed and fOlded in SEtS. The maximum folded SilE is 9 1/2" x
13". If iii! s~t of plans is too thick to ftlld, please divide intD two
sets. The project address must be visib1e on the outside of the plans.
All plans should be drawn to scale, scale noted, fully dimensioned
and drawings labeled. Pro~jde a 'Iicinity map, nortn arrow,
project address and applicant name. Adjacent conditions ca.n be
shown by using aerial photographs available at the Planning
Department.
L
Revi sed 11/91
Page 10
'"
-
o MATERIAL AND COLOR SAMPLES: A 4' • 6' daylight color photograpt, of the
proposed material and color samp1es should be submitted witt: the
appl kat ion (Pol aroids S~O\l' d not be used). The p!Hlt.ograpn wi 11 be
r€tained for the files for assurance of compliance with the
Architectural Review Board apprcval. One set of ca1ar pres~ntations or
elevations, to be brought to the meeting, is encouraged.
Samples {If materials should also be brought to the meeting. Samp1es
should 1nc1ude actual palnt chips, tiles, pavers, portions of window
fraJ'l'll!'s, awning materials, stucco finish, lexan faces, metals, etc. The
5ample sizes should be in approximately the same proportion as required
for the project.
HOW SHOULD THE INFORHATJON BE SUB~ITTEO?
All written information, plans and fees required fer a complt!ted appi i Cit ion
ml:st be submitted at the same time. Copies of the application form, the
written project d~scriDt;on, the pfCJject data slJr.rnary ~h€et (or sign 1ata
summary sheet), tht'! E1A worksheet and any otner required submittal information
shall be stapled or attached to each set of folded plans. Please do not
:;tap1e the orfginal set togetner~
Submission of rev'ised plans will a1sa require the submission of re'.'ised sets
of documentation including a copy of the original application fom. a written
descrlption of the changes, a revised project data summary she€t 'o~ sign data
summary she€t) and revised plans.
Tile documentat~on and p1ans will be sent to CHy Department reprfsentat;ves
and to the Baard members who have not had the benefit of meeting with or
talking with the appl1cant. therefore. each appl ication set should be complete
and self ~xplanatory.
Submission must be made d;r~ctly to Architectura1 Review Soard staff.
Appcint.~nts may be made by callin9 329·235~ or 319-2S~6.
Revised 11/91
Page 11
;1
"' ;'
1
!
-
HEfTING DATE AND PROCEDURES
WHEN DO'S THE ARCHTTfCTURAl REVIEW BOARD Mfa?
Me!tfngs are held twice each mGr.th -on the first .and third Tnursday.
WIIfBE AIID WHAT Tl~f ARE TIiE ~EfTINGS?
The miletings are usually held at 8:00 a.m. in the Ccune" Conference Room on
the first fleor of the Civic Center building at 250 HamlJton Ayenue, Pale
Alto. The meetings are daytime meetings and generally last ipproximately four
hours dep~ndi"9 on the number of items en the ag~nda.
WHO SHOUL" ATTEND THE MEfTING'
Any member ef the public is we1come to attend the Ar(hitectural Review Board
meetings~ In addition, a representati¥'E for each project should attend the
meeting. The representative should be fully aware of the proposal. be able to
make i short presentation en t~e proposal and be able to ma~e deCisions an
changes or modifications that may be discussed at the meeting.
WHAT IS THE PROCEDURE fOR DISCUSSIOI/OF A REGULAR AGENDA IWr
Ite~s are considered in the order listed on the pasted agenda unless
specifically changed by majority vote of the Beard members at the time of
consideration of the item.
o The Chair will announce '"the address and title of the agenda item.
o Additional stiff cOIT'.ments, if any~ .. ill be presented.
o The Chair 'Will call upon the app1icant tc mak€ a presentation to tn.e
Board regarding the proposed project. Total time for the applicant's
presentations is limited to fjve minutes for minor projects and ten
minutes for major projects. Presentations shc~lo' be as brief as
possible, to the peint and should address the design intent and concept.
Any unresolved issues presented in the staff informa:ion memorandum
should be addressed by the person making tne presentation.
a The B03r~ members will ask Questions of the applicant in order to
clarify the proposal.
o The Chair .. ill open the meetirlg for publiC t.estimony on the proposal.
Any interested party ~as five minutes to addrt!ss _the Board members on
the Merits of the proposal. Anyone who wants to address the Board
should complete a name and address card (available at the meeting) and
Revised 1l/511
Page 12
-
present it to the secretary prior to the opening of the pt,.;blic hearil"g.
o The public he~ring is closed and further public testimony is not
accepted unless the Board has furth€r questions.
a Formal motion by a Soard member and discussion by Board memben.
o After th~ discussion and prior to the vote on the ~otic~. the lpplicant
has o~e minute to request a clarlfication of th~ motion.
o \lote on the' m":>l ion.
HOW WI H ! KNOll WHEN A PROJECT IS SCHEDULED?
A ·COpy ~f the agenda and the staff prepared information m~m~,andum on each
project '5 mailed on1y to the individual listed ,iI.$ applicant 01) the
application fol'1r.. The items ari! placed in the mail on the friday preceding
the meeting. The agendas are also advertised in the Palo Alto Weekly one week.
prior to the meeting. Since agenda items are sometimes added or deleted after
publication, the posted agenda at the downtown library and at the meeting
shou1d be checked to confirm t~e schedu1e.
WHAT ACTION W[U BE TAK[N B' THE ~RCHlTECTURAL REI'JEW BOARD?
o APPROVE: The project may be approved as submitted.
o APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS: The conditions of approval will b. summarized
by thE Chiir during the Beard review and will be written in the minutes
of the meeting.
o COlfl"lNUE: The Board members may reQuest additional design~ information
or submittal materials that will require Subsequent revie~. Further
discussion will take place at a later meet,ng. Generally projects wil1
not be scheduled for tne following meeting.
o DENIAL: The project may be denied. Appl icant may appeal the decision
of the P.rcnitectural Re'l'iew Board to He (ity Councll or may s<Jbmit a
new applicatior; with new fees and substantially revised plans.
o REFERRAL: The Board members may determine that certain aspects of the
proposal should be (onsid~red by the Flanning Commission or City
Council. If that is the case, the Board members will make a
recommendation nn the design of the project and refer tn! project to the
Planning Commission or the City Council. Major Planned Community ,PC)
Zone changes and major Site and Design {O} applications ar!
oiIutomatically referred to Planning Commission and City Council.
L
Revised 11/91
Page 13
-
~,-,-,
AFTER APP~OVAl. APPEALS. TIME LIMITS AND CHANGES
AfTfR APPROVAL SY THE ~RCHITECTURAL REVItw SOARD:
WHAT HApPENS AFTER THE ARCHITfCTWA( REVIEli 80_~RIJ ~PPROVES "
PROJECT?
The Architectural tle¥iew 80ard ,ARB) v{)te is advisory to the Director of
Pianfling arid Community Environment. The Djrector must make a decision
on the project within three working days from the dat~ of tne ARB
recommendation. In most cases, the Directcr approves the project as
re:ommended by the ARB. If, however, the Director disagrees with the
ARB recommended action, he may either send the application back to the
ARB for further consideration, or send the application directly to City
Counei 1.
HOW WILL I KNOw OF THE DIRECTOR'S DECISION?
Notices of the Director's decision are placed in tne mail on the third
work.ing day following the date of tne .I\RB recolTiilendation. This notice,
which is malled on1y tei the appl1cant, ;s a copy of the origil'la1
application fom 'With Sections 7 and 8 completed.
HOW WlLL 1 KilO/! THE CONDITIONS OF MPROVA(?
~n addition to being stated at the meeting, the conditions of approval
are written in the minutes of the meeting which will be mailed to the
app1icant. The minutes are usually ~ailed on the sixth working day
following the ARB meeting.
WHEII CAN 1 FUE FOR n PER.¥IT?
If an appeal is net filed, applicatio~s for per"lTIits issued through the
B"nding OivisioJ'l may be surmitted the day after tne appeal period on iii
project. The But1dif19 Divis jon should be contatted for submittal
requirements and fees. Plans submitted to the Building Oivision must be
in conformance with the plans approved by the ARB and must reflect any
conditions of ap ... 1'oval.
ARE OTHER PfR~ITS REQUIRED'
Additional permits may be required by the City of Pale Alto Publjc Works
Department, the Slate Department if Transportation (CalTransj, Santa
Clara County Public Health lJepartment, the State Department of }1ea'Hh
Services, Bay Conservation and Development C'OlTBTlission, and o.thers. See
the section on General Submittal Requirements fer additional
Re¥lsed 11/91
Page 14
L
i:'lformatinn.
APPEALS OF ARCHITECTURAL ~~VI~~OARD PECISIONS:
An appeal Jf the decisinn of the Director ~f Pla~ning and Community
Envircnment may be fi1ed by any person a9grie~ed by the decision,
including the applicant. A~~eals are filed ~;tn the City Cierk by
p .. yment of a fee {specified in thoe fee schedule) and by prolddir.g
Written docu~enta.tion outlirling the basis for the app€ii.1.
WHAT is THE APPEA, PERIOD FOR AN APPROVED PROJECT?
Appe.z.ls of minor prajg£ts il~d s.igns mu:;:t be filed by the close of
business on the se\leTith pt.h) 'WoIork..ir,g day fol \t)~1ng the date of the
Architectural Review Board recommendation on the application.
Appeals of maiar prQiects must be filed by the eTose of business on the
eleventh (11th) working day following the ddte of the Architectural
Review Board recolm,endation on the application.
Appeals of minor Site and Oes1gn applications ()r minor Planned CQlTlTnmity
lone change:; must be filed by the dose of business on the tenth (lOth)
day following advertisement of the deCision in the local newspaper.
This fin~l appeal date ~il1 us~ally be the eighteenth (18th) day
fcliowing the recommendation of the Architectural Review Soard.
Planning staff s~ould b~ cont~cted fer further informatio~ on the
expiration date of appeals.
"HAT HAPPENS If AN APPLICATION [5 APPOLfQ?
The app1icatiorJ .... ill be sded(Jled for a hearing before City Council
with; n 31 \i;ori.;;ng days of the date of the appal. Nc further (lct'ion may
be taken on th~ application nr proposed project until a decisjon has
heen made by the City Councll.
TlM£ liMITS ON PROJECTS APPROV,DJY THE ARCHITECTURAL RQ'lJJ( BOARD;
IS THER( A TJlff LIMIT O~ ARCHITECTURA! REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL~?
Appro~als are valid for one year from the date of final action by
e,ther the Oirect~r of Plan~in9 and Cornmunit) Environment or th~
City CounciL The permH to be issued by the Building Division
must be obtained priQr to the eXDiratiQn of the ~ne-yea~ time
1 imit.
Revised 11/.1
Page 15
-
CAN THE TIME LIMIT 8E [rT~?
An approval may be extended once fer ene year. Applications for an
extensi~n mwst be made in writing to the Director of PTanning and
COlllnunit), Erwironment prior to the expiration date of the initi11
approval.
CHANGES TO APPROVED PROJECTS:
CAN CHAN§ES BE MADE TO AN APPROVED PROJECT?
Once a project has been approved by th! Architectural ~eview Board,
~odificaticns c~nnot be made unless approved by the ARB. A new
application ~ith new f~es is r~quired. ARe staff sh~uld be consulted
about any proposed changes.
DOES APPROV4( OF IIINOR CHANGES TO AN APPROVED PROJECT EXTEND THE
PROJECT EXPIRATION DATE?
No. The one-year deadline fer expiration of pr~ject approval is based
on the date of approval of the original project.
WHAT IF INACCURACIES ARE LATER FOUIID 1/1 THE SU8f(lTT£O PLANS
REVIEWED AI/D APPROVED BY THE ARCHITECTURAl REVIEW BOARD?
Inaccuracies in the plans submitt~d to the Arc~itectural Review Board
~ay invaliaate your appro~al. This includes inaccuraC1es in the plans
that show e~istlng site conditions such as p~operty lines, property
dimensfons, building locations, easements, trees, plants and other site
features. It is imperative that the origina1 base maps be thoroughly
researched and accurately dr"awn.-
p. \JOIG.lidflARB
L
RfVised Ill;)
Page )6
-
DESIGN ~UIQElINES
[JOFS THE CIT( OF PALO ALTO HAtE_GUIDELINES FOR ACCEPTABLE DESIGNS?
Th! Palo Alto CHy COlmeil has adopted Cf!rtai n gIJlde1 ines and ordl nantes that
should be used in designi~g an acceptable proposal. Th~se ir.clJde the
following;
c Sign Ordinance (PAMC Chapter 16.20)
o £1 Ca;:,ino Real Design GuideiinEs
o Pedestrian (P} District Guidelines
o In addition to the regulations of the Zoning Of dina nee for individua1
zones, the fo11c~;ng specific Zoning Ordinance sections relate to
design:
Multiple Family Des;gr. "uidel;nes (PAMC Chapter 18_28)
Parking lot landscape requirEments [PAMC Section 18.83_060(0)J
Bicycle parking requirements [PAMe Section 18.83.060(c))
Additional sit! development regulations for Corrrnercial and rndustrial
Districts (PAMC Chapter 18.64)
o tradir:g and drainage requirements (Department of Publjc Wor~s)
a Drought tolerant landscaping (Util ity Department,. Energy Senice
Division)
DOES Tl1f-~RCHIrECTURAL PE"J[!LQOARP HAVE GUIDFLlJiiS FOR ACCEPTA8LE DESIGNS?
The Architectural Re','ie ... Board has also adopted certain guidelines tnat
apply to some specific projects but can be applicab1e to all others.
T,'JEse guidelines may change as the composition of the ARB changes.
o Mechanical and.--.Ell1mbing: Al1 plumbing vents and mechanical vents:
shall be clustered "in chimneys or roof wells. Permit and
construction drawings must note this requirement.
All air conditioning u~jts must be indicated. Generally, through
wall i;r conditioning or ventilation equipment is not appro~ed.
p:'JG\Ciuir.h:U!
Revi sed 1I(9l
Page J7
-
o Site: location of electric/gas meters and electric t'ransformers must be
indicated Qn site plan.
1~.sh enclosures shall have ste~1 frame gate. Trash facilit1es should
be desigl1ed to acccrmlOdate at least four receptacles for the p'Jrpose of
separit~n9. re~$ir,g or recycling all solid ~aste mat~ri,ls.
Street trees ffiay be removed nnly ~ith the concurrence of th~ City
Arbor) t. All existing trees oYe-r 4-in diameter shall be ind'icated on
plans. Retention of all trees ;s encourag€d and any tree larger than
)2~ in diameter should not be removed. Remo~al of any oaks or redwoods
is strDngly discouraged.
(I.Es.n.ill.; Details _!If any and all fences sha11 be provided. Wood fences
should be constructed ~ith 2 x ~ horizontal ri;ls and 6 X 6 posts.
Barbed wire is not allowed [PAMC Section 16.114.070(1)]. Chain link
fencing wtth redwood or meta1 slats is generel1y n~t approved.
c M!te~;l~: Type ~f ~cod siding ~~st be )nd~cated. Maturally w~athE~ing
materials. are preferred. Materials should t·e -genuine,-should be
appropriatE to t~e design and shou;~ age we11. Kasonite 1ap siding,
compositE bQard siding or T·)I) plywood is generally not approved.
Stucco te~ture sMould be indicated.
For roofs. naturally weatnering materials are
is prQPosed~ a true clay tile should be used.
tile are discouraged.
encouraged, If clay tile
Asphalt tiTe and concrete
Wlndows shouTd be of good quality appropriat~ to tne building type and
conslste~t with existing buildjngs or neighbor~oods. Wood windows are
generally preferred in residential projects. Horizontal or ~e!"'tical
division of windows shou1d be integral to the window structure.
Bltklignted or poly~inyl awnings Gre g~r.eri11y not acceptab1e.
Black, opaquE and refl€cti~e 91455 art dis:ouraged.
o The El Carnine Real Design Guide1ines limit the arE" of sign along El
(~ino Real to 1/2 to 2/3 the maximum size permitted by the Sign
Ordinance.
o The area of signs along major streets is generally not required to be
less than 20 square feet.
o The E1 tami no Rea1 Deign Guidel ines 1 imit the height of freestanding
signs alcng the El Camino Re.l tc 10 feet if placed at the property line
and slightly higher if setback from the property line.
'L
Revised 1l/!1
Page l8
i
I
:' I , i
i
"
-
a lJan signs are generally p,nt allcwed above the first floor level.
c Strict limits 2.ie pliced on the ilr1CiJnt of signs allowed on Automiltic
Teller Mac1'dnes (.-t.IM) and ATM: surrounds.
;:I Reader board and c!langeable signs are genera11y not appro-.:ed. Ctl'.Jrches
anc community organilaticrs should limit 519n copy to the name, address
and pastor/director cnly. Mem. box signs for restaurants and
infonTIi?:tiM signs for community service ~r9ar;izat;lJns and churches are
accepta.~le if 10cated !"lear a building entrance and desigr,cd to provide
1f1.formatiorl to someone already on-site.
~ S1gns shoui d flot be oriented to freeway or expressway traffj c.
~ Ext~rna' illumination of signs is preferred and il'~m1nation is
gen~ral1y limited to the hours of operation of a bUsiness.
Co A-frame-Signs are 9,,=nerally not acceptable and should be .applied fDr
Qn1y whe~ a group of businesses does not have a street frontage or
acceptable wall arEa for a directory sign.
o No flashing, movln9~ banner, flag~ ~enr.a!'1t or changeabl.e signs are
allowed [PAMC Section 16.'0.090(a)].
c Advertising copy on signs is lim~ted (PAMC Section 16.20.090{b)]. Signs
shou1d contain only enoLlgh informat;"n to identify the business. For
example) the lriords ·A Di .... ision of Xli Company-or ·CocUa~1s, Dining and
Dancing-are advertising and generally not allowed.
WHAT ARE THE GUrDEUNES F08...f2fSIGNING IN THE OS DISTRICT?
o The development sho~ld net be visually intrusive from publi~ roadways
and public park lands. It should be sited so that it is hidden from
Yie", as rnuch as pass ibl e.
:) Development should be concentra.ted, or closely grouped~ in relation to
the area surro~nding it. This is conststent with th~ Wtluster
prinCiple-which makss develoPQent 1ess conspicuous.
o Built forms and landscape forms shou1d mimic the natural topography.
Building lines should follo'oII the line of the terrain~ and trees and
bushes should appear natural from i distance.
o ~here grading is needed to enable the development to blend into the
nat~ral topogr~yhy, it should, nevertheTess, be minimized to prevent
erosion.
o large, flat expanses af jmpervious surface should be avoided to reduce
the need for cut and fill and to reduce pote~tial runoff.
p.\JG\Ould.ARP.
L
Revised 11/91
Page 19
-
o Buildings stJould use natur-ill l17ateri;a;s. and eartntone or s'Jbcued cciors.
" landscaping should be native species which reQuire littlE" or no
irrigation (except i~~djitely adjacent to structures as a fire
pr!vention technique).
o lighting shou1d be lo~ intensity and shieided from vie~ from surr~unding
publi' poi'~. (road a,d park,).
o Acces.s roads should be of .a rural nther than urban c~,aracter (staildard
curb, gutter and concrete sidewalk are usu~11y inconsistent with the
fo.othill s env; ronment).
o Ground coy-erage shoOJld be in ge:'leral conformance s,.-ith PaTo .o6.lto':$ Dpen
Space District regulations.
p:VV\GIl.i6eAAll
Revised ll/91
rige 20
,
.~. ' .. "
... '.
':..;+. ': • :>.
' .• -~~~~7~:1 ... _ ~.
-
APPLICATION FEES
WH)IJLTHE FEE FOR ARCHITfCTUPAL REVlf"-? .. '-;;;..
The fee for a project is dependent on the type of project and is set forth in
the Municipal Fee Schedule adopted as part of the City Budget. The base fees
for fiscal year 1990-91 are as follows:
Sign(s) application ....................... $ ISO
Sign{s) erected without approval ....... ' .. $ 300
Sign(s) requiring an exception ......... _ .. S 300
Minor projects ....... " •.................. S 2SC
Pre'iminar,)' reyiew ...... , ................. S 300
Major project. ............................ $1, 000
Minor (hanges to approved project~ ........ S 300
Staff approvals ........................... $ 250
Major changEs to approved major project ... S 600
Add 52.CO per page of or",ginal set ()f plans for microfilming fee (onh for
page. gr,ater than B 1/2" , ]4').
Add $250.00 fer each miner site znd design appliCation. Site and design
properties are indicated by a {D) designation in the zoning classification.
In addition. ill ser .... lce stations and mixed commen:ial/residentia.l projects
are site and design applications.
Add $250.00 for each minor PT~nnsd Cammu~ity (PC) zone change. Planned
Community zones are j~dicated by a PC ir. the zoning classification.
ADDITION~( FEfS?
Additional fees apply for projects requlrlng environmental impact assessment,
environmenhl impact report, variaI"!C~, use permit, etc. A ccmplete fee
schedule is available at the Planning Department.
Bul1ding permits, sigf1 permits, fence permits, demolition permits, plan check
and other fees collected by the CHy of Palo Alto Building Di~ision and
Encroachment Permits and street opening permits collected by the Public Works
Department are in addition to the above.
-L
Revised 11/91
Page 21
I
1
!