HomeMy WebLinkAbout0262.092c--~
-
~. . , , .'--
:'f" ".,_" ' ..
May 14, 1992
HONORAB LEe I iY (oU'1C II
Palo Alta, California
901 San Antonio Road -.ADceal of ,t;rchitect:.Jrnli_nRi:iliew Board Dec 1siofl
Melnbers of the [ounei 1 :
Report In Sri ef
8
Tne project is an appeal, by Mr. Bob Moss, of tlie Architectura1 Re .... iew Board
appro .... al of three ~l'uminatEd wall signs far the Sun Microsystems building
located at 901 San Antonio Road.
At the April 2, 1992, Architectural Re .... ie'l\' Board meeting He Board voted 5-0
to approve findings far an ex..::eptic~ ta the-Sign Ordinance (Sections
16.20.090, 16.20.100(f)(7)), to permit signs to be lost.lled Dn the building
in such a way that they are ori~nted primarily toward Highway 101, San Antoni{)
Road and other pOints distant from the building. The Board then voted 4-1,
Thomas Hise opposed, to approve the signs a§ sho~~ in Optiorl B. This proposal
comprises one 6-foot illuminated logo to be mounted en the parapet of the
entry tower and two 8-foot illuminated logo',; to be mounted near the top of
each end wan of the b'Jilding.
Mr. Moss has appealed the ARB decision or. the grounds that the signs exceed
t~e 50-foot ~e'ght limit, and that the Sign Ordinance does not allow signs
used primarily for advertising nor signs oriented tow~rd the freeway. ~e
further maintains that findings for a~ ex~eption cannot be made in this case,
and that permltting the proposed signs w~uld be unfair tc other bu~i~ess, such
as businesses located along Hjgh~ay 101 and corporate ienants in the Stanford
Research Parle
Staff and t~e Architectural Review Buara recommend approval of the signs and
thus denial of the appeal.
BACKGROUND
The issue of locating the Sun logo on th~ parapet of this bullding was first
raised when the four towers i •• ere added to facilitate seismic bracing of the
bui1ding at 901 Sa" Antonio Road. At both the ARB preTiminary review en
September I, 1988. and at the final ARB revjew on March 16, 1989, Bob Moss
objacted to the di arnond shaped forms proposed on the parapet of each of Ue
CMR:262:92
L
...
,
I
i ,. ,
-
four new towers, m~intaining that they constituted advertising, During the
discussion of the project at these two meetings, several ARB ~em~ers were in
sympathy wHh tnis. concern abot..:t al'oilro'ir"lg a dll"ect reference to the Sun logo
to be locdted on the p~rapet$ of the tawers~ and a condttiQn of final ARB
appro~al was that the proposed Jiimo~d shaped ~et31 panels on the parap~t~
should be deleted~ but a djamo~d shape in stucco relief would be alTuwed.
This 'ssue was also raised at the 20njng Adm~~istratcr's hearing on the
variance to he:ight for the seismic braci:19 towers, and als.o at the appeal of
the Zoning Administrator's approval decjs.ion before the Planning Commission.
At the Planning Commission mee-ting of Jar')u:i!"Y 25, 1989, the Zonir.g
Administrator clarifi€d that the appro~al of tne variance to ~x(Eed the 50-
foot height limit dId not approve or disapprove the Sun logo on the building,
which would be wit~in the pur~ie~ of the ARB in its consideration of the final
design of the towers. The Board subse~uently approved a diamond shape in
stucco rel ief only, a.s riOted above.
SIGN PRO PGSAL
Retently, Sun Microsystpms submitted a new application for a~pr~val of signs
comprising the Sun logo to be locatt"d i~ !evel"'il locations on their bul1d'ing.
On ~ri1 2, 1992. the ARB reviewed two different sign options (.A. and B)
proposed by Sun Microsystems wlth rc~pect tu location of the signs on their
building. The 10gos are ~ to 8 feet high measured on the di agonal. They are
composed of fabricated sheet mJ?tar cha:;l1f~ letters painted the saine blue color
as the building trim. "'hite neon tLibing is installed behind the opaque
letters to cast a halo light at night.
The follcwing ho options Wi!"fe proposed:
Option A proposed 10cating one logo on the parapet of the entry tower
and four additiQrlal logos on the four sides of the elevator tower OIl top
of the building.
Option B proposea lDcatln-g one 10go on tr,€ parapet of the entry tower
a~d two logos near the top of the two end w211s of the building (the
wails facing Fabian Way and S::In Antonio P,oad).
ARB ACTION
In ~eviewing this proposal ~ the Board ga~e conSideration to the following
three issues: I} the aesthetics of th~ design, nu~b€r and location cf the
proposed signs in relation to the architecture of the building; 2) Board
precedent in oot approving high signs. both for aestnetic rea~OfiS and as
inconsistent with the Board's interpretatiQn that Section 16.20.090 (b) of the
Sign Ordinance (attached) precludes advertising; ind 3) Board precedent in
interpreting Sectlon 16.20.100 (f)(7) (attached) as not permittlng signs which
are oriented toward freeways or expressways. These issues were resol~ed as
f~llo.s:
CMR:161:91
p'\t':lllr\9C)l~ .. r;,D'l1F
5/14/91
Page 2
,
t
i
I
I
I
i
I
I
!
I
-
1) After ljiscuHion, there was general COil~er1Sl<S C&~i.Jng Baud members that
the proposed logos were ~~11 designed anJ attra(ti~e and instal ling them
in certain lC'cations on the build1'lg would tie a.?5thet i calTy acceptable,
and might even enh~nce the appeara~ce of the buildlng. Given the
arc~itecture of the building, the best locations fJr the lagos appeared
to be on the parap~ts of the towers, where thej would reflect the shape
of the pdrapet, or rear the top of the bla~k End walls, as proposed in
Option E.
2) With regard to the precedent for not 2pproving high signs, some Board
members conSidered the logo being proposed more in the nature of a
bunding decoration than ad"'E'rt'si~g. ;i'f:iCe 1t was a graphic element
rather than the na!l!e of the compan),. Some melt:bers also felt that the
logo would provide sole and add vt-;ual intert!St to the building.
3) There ~ere dj fferi!nces of opinion 1IrTF)ng Board members as to whether
Section 16.20.100 (f)ll) of the Sign Or~ina"ce ,pplied to this proposal.
This secti:::n of th\: ordinance pro!"libits sir;ns bei~~ erected so that they
are vie-wed from freeways ~pd expre:ssw1I.p, but it makes an exception f{lr
s"'igns ·'Jscd exc1usi .... ely to advert~$e tl1e sale or lease of the property·
or to "designate the name of the .:r .... ner or occupart of the premises upon
which the sign is situa.ted. or to i,jenttfy such ~reiTIises".
The Board has conSistently. for a ~umber Qf years, interpreted this
sectior'; of the coae to allow sigr.age whict. wClu1d otherwise be required
to idenUfy the premises but is incldentally .... 'isible from the freelllay,
but not to allow signage w~ich is intended only to advertiSE the
business for trd'.'elers on the free,,·ay.
To be consistent wTth their past interpretation of the code, tl'1e 8oaf'd
considered findings for an exception to this section of the Sign
OnHnan:.e. The Board' voted 5-0 to mdke findings for exception to al1nw
the proposed logos--to be inshlled on the bl,;ildir.g so that they are
.... ·ie'Wed from the free\lrjay and from San AntonlO Road. In making the
findings tne Board considered the LHH.iStOa~i}" larg<:-'S1ze <ind height of the
bUilding and its headquart~rs stature, the groves of trees which screen
the building from San A~tanjo Read, an~ the desjg~ bein~ more of a
decoratiwe mut~f than a s'g~.
lt is wortl'1 noting that a subsequent appeal at 316.0 ~est Bayshore Road,
scheduled tJ come before the City COljr,cil on JJne e, 1992, wlll address
the issue of freeway oriefited signage even mnre directly than this
appeal, and could prompt direttion to s.taff to clarify the code.
After adopting the findings for an exception, the Board voted 4-1,
Thomas Hise opposed y to approve Option 6 as the signage for the
bunding. Mr. Hise voted against Hie m'JUon becau~,e he believed that i1
different arrangement of the Togos would 1royide a better design
solution.
RECOMMENDATION
CMR:262:91
p: \emr\S'Cl sa." , cmr
L
5/1V92
Page 3:
i
r;:
I ..
I
t
Staff r-ecorrmends that the City (ounci 1 deny the appeal and !Iphold the
decision of the Architectural Review Soard to approve the proposed signs
based on the fo11nwing findings and cenditiDn, as adopted by the
Architectural Review 8C'ard.
1. There ire exceptio~al or extracr~inary circumsta~ces or condit'c~s
appllcable to the pro~erti ~,!'1';,c;' ... ed tflat do not apply tc; prop€'~ty
in the same area in that this bujlding is of a landmark stature
wHr. a stand of mature eucalypt'-1s screE'r.lr;9 ii!. significant pvdion
of the structure. It is awkwardly lDc3ted at the co~f'uence of
San Antonio Road a~d ~ig~wGy 101, a~d set back significantly from
San Antonio Road.
2. The grantir"g of the application js necessary fer the preservation
and enjoyment of a 5~b!tantial property right of the applicant and
dne3 prevent unreasonable property Toss or un"ecessai'Y h,Eirdships
in that the structure is large a~d likely to continue to serve a
corporate headquarter functfcn, serving large numbers of visitors.
A corporate p~esence and visitor visibiljty is a reasonable
property right aSSOCiated with t~;s site and its improvements_
3. The granting of appro .... al of the application would not be
detrimental tc property or 9mpr~~&ments ~n the .... icinity and would
not be detrimEntal to the publ ic health, saf.ety. general welfare
or convenienc~. The proposa1 is not in con~lict ~itr. the City of
Palo AHo Comprehensive PTar}'s Program 4 of Pol icy 1, which
discourages '3.a.ds.h sigl"\s and encourages; signs that blend with the
site and the area, because the proposed logo is handsome and
consistent IrIIith the existing develCipment and acts mor~ as
architectural motif than as advertising.
Conditi on:
I. Option B. one helD-lit loge. on the parapet of Hie entry tower and
twa ha1o-1it loges near the tDP of th~ building end wal1s~ is the
appraued sign plan.
Respectfully submitted, -;::. .. :dAL ~ .~ ~-;e~~
/
. ,
VIRGINIA WARHEIT
Senior P1annE!r
FLEMING ~
Assistant City Manager
CMR:262:92
p:\OfIr\&Ol'San ,c",r
co .
KENNETH R. SCHREIBER
DirectQr of Planning and
Com.,'j1unity Environment
5/14/91
rage 4
!
~ I
\ I.
_ ..
Attachments: Werb~tjm minutes of ARB meet~ng April 2, 1992
Summary minutes. of .ARB r:1€eting:<;: Marcfl 16, Hag,
September ], 1988
Yarja~ce approval, No~e~ber 17, IS88
Sign Ordinance, Sections 16.20.010, 16.20.090, 16.20.100
Plans (Council packets onTy)
tc: Architectural Review Beard
Von Kohorn and Kitzmiller, 812 Sweeney Avenu@, Redwood City. CA 94063
Scott Eckman, Sun jroIjcrosystems, 2550 Garcia ~1 .. en\.Je,
Mountain View, CA 94043
Bob Moss, 4010 Orme. Palo Alto. CA 94306
5/14/92
Page 5
t
i
t
4
I
-
Architectural Re~l~w Board Hedring
901 S~n Antonio ROid
Sun ~iCro$Jstems
Apri 1 2, 1992
Ms. DaRosa: The next item is 901 San Antonio Foad.
Mr. Lyzwa.: I was contacted by the aDplicant and had not revi1?wed the pr<:'ject
yet, so J did not discuss it.
Ms. DaRosa: I have spoken with an architect who was involved at one po'nt
with the project, b~t that was months ago.
Mr. lyzwa: SOlleone fro!"; Sun cal Ted me ab)L:t four months ago.
Mr. DCiin Kitzmiller~ My r,ame is {Jisn Kitzrnilh,.. from Von Kohorn and Kitzmiller
sign makers. We ~;11 be taHir:g about t!ie ratior;ale behind the project, and
will gi¥! a description. What W~ have got are five wall logo signs, four of
w~ich are on the elevator shaft. This Ort-; meaSL1res seven feet high by etght
inches deep. The other logo sign is o~er the ~ain entrance tower and is
located o'Jer the diamond-shaped stucco relief which exists now. The signs are
basically fabricated sheet metai, reverse chanr,el e',ements. meaning tnat each
one of these U's would be indi~idually fabricated. Th~y nave a white neon
inside so that you get a halo effect at night. They would a1l be illuminated,
~e ~ou'd probab1y use half-inch white neon. It would be very subt7e from i
distance. Obviously. these are all ~iew~d from quite a distance, so I think
it will be toned down quite a bit, plus we can play with it if it 's too
bright. We can alway~ ton~ it down like we ~ave done at other Sites in town_
The logos would be spraye~ opaque. The face is opaque; th~ return is opaque.
It is sprayed the blue color, shown here, which would tie in ~ith the trim
color of the tower. We felt that it tied ~n a ljttle better .. ;ih t~e
architecture, as opp~sed to going ~1th the Sun blue, which is a little
different and would ha~e added a third color to the bul'di~g. ~e feel that
the visual impact is somewhat minimized by the fact that. they haYe dropped the
Sun type and have just gone ~ith t~e logo. Also the fact that they have
sprayed tl'1e signs blue versus the Sun blue.
Mr. tyzwa: Would .lIOU explain that again, please?
Hr. Kitzmiller; We feel that the visual impact has been reduced. We could
have come in ~ith a proposal for the Sun lettering, etc., but we decided to
just go with the Togos above. Hopefully, it lJIill be referred to as an
architectural element. Ob'/iouslYt the one on the towers might not be, nor the
elevator shaft, but the one over the mai~ entrance we really fe~l ties in well
with the building, pl~s it fits into the scheme of the architecture of the
buil di ng.
Ms. Maser~ I have a question about the sileo Goes the iogo on the pediment
of the building (not on the ele~at0r tower), does that fit within the inside
or relief diamond shape that already exists tnere?
-------
Mr .. Kitlmiller; Tlie idea 1:i t~~at '~e 'WCluld fill fn that space Irfith a can,
basically. It would be recessed, palrted the co1or of the building. which
would hC:J:5e all of the e1ect,ici!l, etc., H t would then ligM this up. This
does come O'Jt a bit ((uill there. I think tr.€ existing is: abo:Jt fou.r or fi'l€
feet, but not being able to get hold of some plans. I am not sur~ exactly ~h~t
that .as. r believe it is four to five feet, and this 15 six feet high. So
it is a little bigger.
M~! Wilson: Six feet on the dlagcnal?
Mr4 k:itzm.il..l§.r:: No, six fEet on the height. We alse na ... e a second option to
present tc;day.
S~ott Ed.-man: My name is Scott Eckman, and I am an archHect in Sun's design
and constructio~ group. I am one of abcut 800 people who stt in t~is building
which we call PalOne. which is an acronym for Palo Alto. It is the number
{me building in Palo Alto which we occupy. The building is; compri::;€d of
corp,oratt. executive staff and other c<Cl""porate fUf'1c-t~Qr,s s\.l.ch is c.ccou!'ltin9~
finance? human r~sources and marK€ting. It also houses our ~orldwide visit
center, which 15 i demorlstration room and coriference CEnter on the first
floor. We get worldwide ... isitors. This year we anticipate having about 6,000
people, customers 'Worldwide, coming to our visit center. They are comprised
of about one-third from Europe, one-third domestic and one~th;rd ffom our
inter-continental region, which is from Canada through Japan to AustralIa.
There are three matn reasons w~y we think haying building si9nage would be
important to us at PalOne. The first is to improye or increase t~e identity
of our building. Pa1 One, we fe-el, suffers frorr1 211 identity crisis as part c-f
the original Foro .Aerospace compl-ex tliere. As you approacti the builr:ling,
especially from the freeway onto San A~tonio, you really do not recognize t~is
building because of the Ford Aerospac~ ~omplex which is in front of it. So_e
have had comments in the past about Ods building being lost ben;nd the Ford
Aerospace complex) and in addition to tt1e hrge stand of eucalyptus trees
along San Antonio on Charleston, it is set back a considerable distance from
East Ch<rrle~ton. I -am sure all of you have been out there to see trlat. 50
improving the lderlt i fy uf tr:is building Wi: feel wO:.Eld be aidec' bj a building
signage pr'Dgr'aiT;.
The second is t{) impro\fe the aesth~t~cs of the b\Jnd.~ng. !n ~ur or~gi1'l-al
proposal to add the structura1 towers, these seismic bracing elements on th~
building, we had proposed some signage for the bu;~ding. That was denied. At
the time~ we felt that our main interest ~as to take occupancy of the
building. We needed the s.pace, We were ~aj oyerloadE'_d ,r\ MOlJntain View, and
we were linxious to get into this building, So w€' did rlr:t pursue it at that
time. Now we are comir)g baCK to say. can we look at it again? Is there some
way we can get some building s.ignage system on ti1is bLlilding, as improving the
architectural character of the buIlding?
The third reason why we really would like to have building signage Or'J this
building is to improve the signlficance and establish the significance of this
building is Sun Microsystems of Palo Alto. Because of the number of foreign
visitors we have here, the way the visit center js used is that customers that
Architectural Review Board
Pdge 2
4/2/92
-
are sold product around t~e wo\"1d can see the product at <!ny of {lUr' hwndreds
of sales offices around the world, but what the sal~s people lcve to do is to
bring customers to our building in Pale Alto to show tlIelil that Sun i5 a real
tompan},. Most of our sales offices are very small, :ar:d are there just to
~emonstrate products. This building is used as a landmark for Sun
Microsystems. It is our ~orld headquarters, basica11y. Customers Jre brought
here, and what we are hoping this build!ng signag! will do is, Sun 55 a lea~er
in the computer industry and Wf: thi!1k that the building signage 'Will a~d in
that recognition as cu~tcmers and pot€ntial customers come here. Those are my
comments. Thank you.
Andy toe: Mi na~e is Andy Coe, and 1 am a public affairs specialist for Sun.
I also work in Pal One, wh~re Gur corporate affairs department is located. I
want to briefly provide you ~1th some information abDut t~e larger Sun,
particularly SUi1 in the community, as you consfder C(Jr proposal this morning.
We are .a young CQmpany. We are celebrating cur tenth a:nn~yersary this year,
We are-a fast·r;sir.r:1 company (knock. on woad) and ... ·e cros~ed $3 billion in
sales last year. and just announced today that we are 146th ~n the Fortune 500
~ompanies. We also have 12,000 employees in some 25 countries around the
w~rld. Palo ATto 1S our ccr~orate headquarters.
One of the things that underlies our philosophy and our belief is that we are
cQmlitted and .. ant to be tommitted to the communities wl1ere we have
facilities. We have a slogan at Sun at corporate affairs whicn is that we ire
very I!"luch a p.art of the Ct.l!TJ1lllnity, not apart from the community. We try to
put human and financial resoo.Jrces to back up that particul ar claim. PaTo
Alto. as the Site of our corporate headq~arters, is no exception to that. In
the past coupl€ of years, olJr corporate contribution program has donated olle'"
$2 million to various CQIMlI.mity service programs and projects wherever 'W@ ha. .... e
facilities. Almost 25 percent of that has gone for projects in Palo Alto and
East Palo Alto. The project areas are in suc~ areas as leadership
development, eco~omic developme~t, education, employment training and
services, all with a focus on emergtng populaticor~s. In Palo Alto, a couple of
our !lighl ight programs that we a.re "erj" proud of g1 ... e grants to communi ty
ser~icesl which is our youth ]e~dership program in both Palo Alto and East
Palo Alto. we have also sponsored and given a sl.:bstantia1 grant to the Mid
Peninsula YWCA women entreprer.eurship program, and we also support the
Bayshore CmTlmunity Service Program in East Palo ATto. In OIJr latest edition
of the Annual Report, the first article and really the featured piece is on
Palo Alto Youth Community Senices. All of this is to say that we do
contribute substantially to the community in a finanCial way. We also
contribute volunteer time. ~e have a very extensive community action
volunteer program. Over 1.000 of our 12,000 emp10yees contribute on a regular
basis to vOlunteer projects in the corrur,unity. Many of the 30D Sun employees
who live in Palo Alto and many of the 750 en;~loyees who work in the PalOne
building contribute time back into the CO:mIlUr.itjl on their own, at their own
volition and en their own time. I"Ie are .... ery proud of our work in the
community. We obvious1y believe in it. We do not toot our own horn too much,
but on the oJthet ~a'ild, wher. W"e do get recognition, it does make us feel good.
last year we received the Tall Tree Award from the Palo Alto Chamber cf
Commerce. That rarticular award is given to an vrg~nization that has
tontributed Significantly to the benefit of the COftt'l1urlity. We are "ery, very
L
Architectural Review Board --4/2/92
Page 3
-
proud of tMat award, That is just 11 little bit aboLit what we do is a comjJi:lny.
and in partic ... lar, about our commi~ment to the com~:i..Jnity. Both CUI-bus~ness
model and the mod~l that we use wht!r. we work ir. tt1e comr.-.ullity is a rtlod'2T of
openness and honesty and integrity and real commitmerlt to the com"711~nitjl. That
is what dri'oles us as a c.ompar.y, and also wh1lt dri ... es us as we come before you
this ~rnlng with this particu1ar proposa) ,
Ms. Maser: Regarding these two towers, is His sign only going on the
entrance tower?
Mr. Kitzmiller: Just on the entrance tower, t~e rnain lOQby tower. That is
where all the 'oIisitors come into the building.
Ms. W\lsoTl: As I read tliiS tC'lf€''r, it is '1«:'1"'1 dHfe-rent in proportion from the
one that is drawn.
Mr. Kitzmill er:
this photograph?
from San Antanio
that sign.
That is actually this ,.iploo'. Do you 5t!E at the very top of
Th.at is. whel'e the 5ig!'l 1;.:'l\Jld be. You ,.o\Jld not s.ee the sign
Road that we11. ~ou wou1d prcbably see just the very top of
Ms. Wl1son: These propDrtions are so diff~rent from tho~e,
~~itzmil1er: These are straight 011. ihat Of1e is in perspective~ and thfs
15 just a straight-on ~hGt of the bui~ding.
Tha only difference in Option 8 is thzt we have taken the signs off of the
elevator tower and have put them down along that area which you just
Illf!ntiom!d, which is right in here, in line with the top of the parapet. ihis
is Fab1.an and this wouid be the San Antonio view, so you ... Quld have three
signs total. These signs would be eight feet nigh. which as you 100k at the
photographs, they look pretty sma1l on the bul1dlng. even though it sounds
like they are great, big signs. That b",ilding is awfully big and these would
be pretty small, little dots 'When they are all done. That one, again, wCIJld
be OVi!r the-main entrance tow!!r. This is a very impm-tant one, as that is the
main entrance to He building. TnCit is wnat we w:lu1d like to seE. Again,
these are a1l illuminated with a halo effect,
Ms. Wilso~: Don't you have any concerns about the leftover 1~pressjon of the
other tower looking somewhat unfinished?
Mr. Kitzmiller: What we are hoping to do is to be ab1e to direct peop1e.
Right now, the entry tower was to b~ deSignated by that little pyramid
structure out front. Trees are gro ..... ing, cars are parked, and it is a little
more difficult to see than we had hoped. ~hat we are hcping fer with this
sign that marks the entry ;s that as people enter the site, especially from
C.hayle-stan, that we can give the instrlJction. The entry is bE'lo\oi thE sign.
and it marks that particular tower from the others as the €ntry tower.
Th.it is an<lther point I wanted to bring up, that ttle building from Cr)ar1eston~
another main t~Qroughfor~ corning i~to th~ b~llding, )DU rea\1~ do net knQ~
that this is Sun. They have a verj' smal1, existing sign which you can see
Architectural R€vieitOl Board --4/2/92
Page 4
-
from the photographs, You just r~~nQt ~eal1j s~~ it From the Charleston
~iew, all yeu wuuld see would be this sign. yo~ would not see the signs on
the sides. The only time yo:..! would 5:~e th~ signs or; the sides are from Fabian
as you drive by the bu~ldjng anj then also on San Antonio Ro~d as you peer
th~ough the trees.
~$. DaRosa: Thank you. W~ will r.ow return to the SGarO.
Hr. lyzw~: As I mer;tion~dt I wa:; cO-'ltacted by the applicant and 1 have
studied this issue, and i ha~e given it a good deal of thought. I ~ave to say
that I am in support of th-;s proposal today, espe·::ially Option B. My reason
for support1ng it. 1n 'w'iew of our traditional policy on not accepting signs on
buildings themse1vl:!5., is based on a cOt!ple of items. The number ene ihn is
the location of the whole complex. It is truly located in s\.Jcn il place along
Highway 101 and San Antonio Road that due to its locatiGn and due to the
surrounding landscaping, including ~ery mature eucalyptus trees and other
trees that are there, the project is very significantfj screened way from the
traffic that would be coming towaro the co~pl€x.
Secondly, the way the circulation operates in the area, t~e butTding and the
offramp it San AntJnio Read, it mak~:i it e~en more difficult to identify the
comple.)(~ rt could be argut!d that tne company cerhinly has a sign along San
Anton~o Road that gives it a direct;~nal sense of whe~e you have to tUrn into
the c.omplex. but nevertheless, as you are coming into the complex, you could
very easily get lOl;t if you did not se~ that si9n along San ~!'1t,,-:~~ ~::~. 1
do buy into the argument that if they are marketing their product and art!
expecting 6,000 visitors ann:.Jally. the~e peoDle will b€ coming tnrough. and it
does make a lot of'sense to me to al lew for the logo identity on the buildings
to further allow a clear path to the blJilding ar.d a c1ear identity. If I were
visiting this facility for the first time, I think I cou1d relate to that .... ery
easily. Secondly, r think it is just good business policy to get that
representation. At that particular location with no significant residential
ur.its around it anc' it ;s mostlY an office/comrnt!!"'cia1 type of environment, I
would be wining to support this proposal ..,-an Option B. I au not feel very
comfortable with p13ci~g Sun loges on top of the penthouse.
~ .Maser: I have a numbE=r of co~ents to lr.aKe. There are several iSS1J€S
involved here. Again. as ~1th Datasafe, it seems clear form the reading of
the ordinance that this would be accept2ble signage adjacent to a freeway,
:!;inc:e it desigf1ates the name ()f the occupant as it is stated and al1ow€o in
the exception in the ordinance. I read it, as somebody fairly ne~ o~ the
:,oa"'~ wf.,o rlH r'lOt had the history of interprEting this ordinance, as something
that is allowable. CTearly. the ordinance seems to stat~ that, 1 think that
as a boarcf, we need to decide, reexamine and clarify our positiQn on signage
Yis~ble to the freeway 50 that we are not having to constantly ~res~le with
this issue, as we have with three oth€r projects since I have be,.,:r, on the
board: loral, Emery, Oatasafe, and now this item. 1 persoila1ly "r:el th.at a
bu11di~g along the free~ay with a tastefully done sign is prefer~~lE to a
building with no Sign at all. ExampTes of well~done signs are the buildings
in !'!enlo Park that I thjnk \!e are all fiimiliar lIIith. Network General,
I,.,form;x and Sun a little farther up, and acro-ss the street, Mlchael's
building, Failure AnalYSis. ~re examples in Menlo Park of slgf1s that are
L
ArchitectL.iral Review Board ~. 4/?/92
Page 5
re-ally \/ery tastefully don.3. They are not intrus;"'e, yet the identify those
puildings. To me, they are restrairoed and \oIell placed. and they are not
9arhh or I.mp1e:as-a.r.t. What 1:ou1d be <j)'St\jybing to me lfIo'Jid be to Sf;e ill1 of
those buildings with no signs at all. You would begin to wonder what kind of
subvtrs.i'.'e actillity was going on ir, tho$e b",i1dings, Tne:;:: are a11, by t~e
way. backlit signs, as is the sign being proposed toda) ,
So in short, I think we are a11, on the one hand, trying: to encourage
b~sinesses and the resu1tant taxes arid benefits to the city t~at halle been
mentioned, while at the same time disallowing thesE bI.J5inesses a reasonable
degree of identlty to help them SUr:ViilE. I feel that times halle changed, and
we should revisit this iS5~e to decide if we can livE with a more rati~nal
approach, 1~ok'"9 at each application on a case-by-case basis, permitting
ta.stefl.ll identity signs wh.ere it is ~Hropr'a.te, It seems to me that
companies that are 1easing space in these bUlldings along the freeway, from
reiding the ordinance as ~rjttenJ would assumE that the1 can have signage to
desigrate the o\liner cw occupant of the premises. It is very clearly written.
If the board does not wis~ that tn be-tl'le case, then the or-aina!'lce should ba
rewritten. If the tHlard i.s willing to a:::cept the ordinanCE: as written, then
we s~ould be willing to entertain app1ications such as the one before us
today.
Spec1fical1}, on this particular jobt. I feel the !':lost appropriate s.,lut';on
for Sun, in looking it it without having seen the Option B solution, would be
to s1rnp1y put that 1ogo within the four dl amorld-shaoed recesses. in the
p~dime"ts of the building. It ~eems like a very naturaT and obvious place for
the signage_ I don't believe it ~ould be confUSing with the main entrance,
because (rcnt! that photograph Ulat I took after visiting the site and going
int~ the site, once ~cu are in there, it ,s ~ery cb~ious form that l1tt1e
portico canopy entrance that tnat is w~ere you go. It 1;; very strongly
stated. Perhaps right as you enter, there js a tree ob~curing it, but a; soon
as you pull up a '~ttle farther, it is obvious t~at that is the front
entrantt_
I think the Sun logo is a hand§c~e and ~pproprj~te desig~ that w'll enhance
the building in a 'o'er) 5ubt1e mi1nner when piaced ~here these recess?s are now
located. As YOI} dri\/e by on tha free',..ay. the build:ng is Drily fleetinglY
!'Ioticeable, The signage is going to be ."io:;:t ob',.'iows as one enters the site_ r think the logos within those existing receSS2S will add a very nice
finishing touch. As we were shown today. they will not be within those
recesses. I guess the recesses w411 accorT1:11odate the necessary mechartics for
lighting the sign, but the signs wo~ld be ir. t~at locatio~, at least one of
them.
I think tha.t because of the nature of the 1ogo d~sign itself, we could even
make a strong case that this is not signag~, p~r se, in the true sense of the
~ord, but fs a decorative element, a5 infill to complete the pediment design_
Overall, I do not necessari1y think it is wl'1ether or not we do these things,
but ho .. thf!Y are done. that r'~al1y matters. Certainly Palo AHo Joe's is not
a well done sign. It gi~es the wrong impression, whereas some of the signs
that I have mentioned in Menlo Park are beautifully and ta$tef..:l1y done. ]
think E¥eryone would agree that they d,re a benefi t to the lJccupants of those
---~'_'_"T -"'f':'~"-. --~"-
Architectural ReVl€W Soard
Page 0
4/2/91
,
,
l
0:> ~-"-',' -,~
O~':~t>-: __
i -
buildings, as 'Weil as tc-th~ put;;
and passing by those buj1dings,
and we nee~ to dlSCUSS them, and
c whc wtll be trying to find t~cs~ buildlngs
o we have to deal with a few issues ~ere,
~~n decide how to ~andTe them.
I am in favor of Optian B. I ~ould prefer to see signage in the lDt~t1ans
wnere the reCE'sses are, a~d 1 think they would be ..,isibl€ from Cn~rlestan_
don't th'ink anything 1S g'Jing to be esp-ecially visible fcl"'.-TI the freeway wn~ess
I just didn't leok at the 'in:::tarlt I was supposed to look as I dro)'e by.
Mr. Kitzm;ller~ The signs in Option A are more visible.
Ms Maser: ~el1, it would be, but I Uink it is so
the design: t~at you might net want it to be se~n.
draw attention to a pentnowse.
unfortunate in terms of
~ou realTy do not want to
In the diamonds on the other side of the building aWdj from the entrance side,
-as yo') drive along Charlesto~, particularly heading Wf!5t, yOU do see these two
locetions. Th!j might be eve~ more visible because you are looking at them
ask.ew rather than as you are driving by in a car, k.ind of straight on tc your
left, which is ... he-re that one sign would be t~at you are prcposi{lg. I think
they might b€ as obviOUS as you are proposing jr, Option B.
Ms~ Wilson; Julie has stated the case Ilery wen. I am basically in support
(If some signag€~ too. The ordinance re3ds in .! way that makes that possible,
and she has hlt the nail on the head. It is a matter of how things are done.
That stretch in Men10 Park is exactly the example that .... as in my mind'. It is
far more interesting visually than a blank scenario that we tend to be
perpetrating here.
So I am mere in support of Option B. I am not sure that the placement of
those logos in Option B should not be raised up. do not know why you
dropped it dO\Jr"TI so far.
~r. Kitzmiller: We wanted to cent~r them on tn~t parapet detai1. To be
hone)t. the sign ordinal1ce said .... e are not an owed to go .a.bove th~ parapet
1 eve 1 .
Ms.lllilson: ,"ell, I would pl,.;sh that one up -1,fltC that space. First of 3.n, it
~ould be more ~is1ble, b~cause it wouid not be hidd~n as it is recessed, and
it just feels better t.o me. r know we have the windolll to deal with up there.
At any rate ~ tl'l at, or J'~' ie's suggest 10;, I 1 t ke, too. if you do not feel that
that speciflc designation on the entr) is necessary. If yOll reany fee1
strongly about that, then Option B is probably the ri;ht way to go.
I think your graphics are very ta..;teful and the level of nghting appropriate.
r think this win be i! good exa.!"lple. I certainly support your presence in the
community.
Mr. Hise: think the arguments that my fellow heard merr,bers have put forth
thus far have me reconsideri ng my posit ion. I came into thi s meet ing not in
support of the signage as presented in scheme A. not because I do not find it
to be tasteful signage. : am thinking of the sign ordi~ance, baSically, and
Architectural Re~iew Board
Page 7
4/2/92
•
-
the way We have be~n i~terpretin9 It in th-e re:::ent past, just since I have
been on thi! board. )ie hav€ had Data::>afe come i n jl~5t a ff:.,.· weeks age ... ith a
smaller building, blJt .... itn basically tn~ sarr.e kina OF s1gr.1Ige. They wanted to
Pi..'t sign.age up on the parapet of t~eir bu-Hding to c':marcate their building.
We to1d them.,2 did not a11o .. that because of their proximity to Highway' 101.
If they had been in a fe ... bled's, Hey wauh! ha'o'e been in exactly the same
situation that Sun is. $0 we wouid !'"l-ot ra.'e had that reason to de;:y them. yet
the reasons we denied them had to do wjt~ the sig~ ordinance, the way I saw
it. So I am a 1ittl€ ptluled, j'Jst fro:r. the histor.y of it. in terms of no .. we
have inbrpreted the sigr. ordiMnce since I hav~ been on tile board. r do not
see this &s being a different cO~dition thar ju~t the mast recent two or three
requests we have had in tne past six months. So r do not see the differenc~
in hoW' W2 ha\le interpreted it in the past, as it arpli~s to Sun, So I th1n~
there are some prOblems with cur sign ordinance that put us in this situatlon
of deciding each time, rath~r than its being much dearer. The "'ay [
understand it, t~e sign ordinance is in p1acE, and our role would be to
interpret it like-a,.,y ordi!1anr.e. I think that the COL,Kil ""as wise to giye it
to us to review so that the ordin~r.ct2 (auld be more fairly applied. But it
seems to me that we then h~ve narrower confines of ~hat we can appro¥e or
disapprove. !n other words, something shOUld be very ciose to the ordinance
and very c1ear that this ~s allowed or oisallawed within the ordinanc':!. W~
are just looking: to seE: that it is tastefully dO!'ie or make minor n:odifications
so that it can happen gr1lcefully. Yet we do not h~ve an ordfnance that lets
us do that. Historically, I don't think. we are interpreting it to allow what
Sun is propos~ng. At least that is tne w~y it appears i~ the ttme that I ha\le
been on the board.
Ms. lytle: My suggp.stion is that in struggling wHh this. you hOlve been
extremely consistent iil interpreting the code througt1 time, and not a1lowing
this type of s;gnage. I recognize the difficulty ~ith the ~ay the ordinance
is written. It can be confusing. That "interpretation ;s not well reflecti:d
in the ordinance. r think you can handle t~is interpretation as an exception,
and that ",;11 be much less likely to set ws 'up for litigation wHh other
property owners who h3Ye been denied thrQugh those €;(ception findings, If I
can ;...dd that, for t~e board·s benefit, we refer the matter to the attorney's
office in terms of rlow to deal with it on an ongoing basis, since we do not
.... ant to l1ave this. debate continue every tim..: we get one of these signs. which
we lIIi 11 begin to see more and more as we apprmre them. For ·now, my
conservative al1d non-lega1 ad"l;:e, not having an attorney present. is that you
handle this through the exception findings, which is the way you h1lve treated
other applicants under this sectiof1 of the code.
1f you find that you want to appro'.'e it, ~taff win assist yet: in drafting the
findings so th3:t th.ey will make sense in support of YGur approval.
Hr. Hise: Thank you, Nancy, What I was getting at 101<'5,1 realize we nave the
ability to find some exceptions, so we ~ould narrowly make d~cisjons within
the ordinance and then we can make €xcE'ptions in particlJlar cases. I do l10t
see a strong Cise~ yet, for the exception. 1 would 1 He to go around with
each of you one more time to see what your feelings are about that. I do not
see a stronger cas€ for an exception than we had wltn Datasafe who hav~ people
... ho need to come in there in tI1e middle of the night and get vital inflJrmation
f..rch'ltectLJral Re'o"iew Board --4/2/92
Page 8
,
""c
'.
~il: : ; " ".::c, .... Ii
;-._.' '~'C:
.. '.;:":. ~. -. ,_ .. '
j
L
,-
and havE' to try and find their b:Jilding on the ioIes.t: e.a.Y5hore. So I am not
finding a strong enough 3rg~ment fer the exception. T~e closest thing might
be that they have 6,000 lI'isltors pEr year, but I t!link we a,e then saying that
we are makirlg special exceptlons her-e beciiuse of a c.Dmpany's size i:'l the
corrmunity. Then there are tl1e sma:l:el" busfllS'sses a~ong the Bays-hare, and :>ome
of tho!e other businesses are 30j~9 to hedr about It, so we are opening
ourSelyes to so~ethin9 else. What ill";:: we telling t~~m? I da net have a
problem with t~e sign, per St, I agree wlth the signage that has been cited.
r think these wouid be nice signs~ and I U'Ll1k !t is appropr'late for signage
on th~ t.uildir.g. But I dc~'t think I'll SliDPort It today.
1he ether th'n9 is that when I go back and r~ad the minutes of the other
review meetings that yo·J !'1aye "ad, j!nd Here ,",'as; p'Jblic cor.c€rn aDout the.se
signs, and ther€ was concern coming from the board. The way I t'ead the
minutes is that there was a rear c1ear dj:ect~o~ to the applicant ~ot to
pursue these signs. Yet you let him make the indent in the building. At the
time I would have said, let's put some signs on t~ese buildings; and I would
have supported signage early on. So I also see some inco~sistency here on the
board. You g.al(e them diractior. not to pursue this, and then I s€e t~em coming
back .... ith it today. I cannat tell from the minutes that all of you were
the-reo
Right now. I can find morE' reasons to ~ither cOrltinue this or deny it.
cannot find a reason for an exception. n.ls has been long·windC!d, but I want
to be fair hers. I reany feel :;{liiHj flOW about turning one down which \lias a:1
exact, similar case. W~ c:olJld ha .... e found the exact. ~imi1ar exceptions or
even better exceptions, possibly, just a few WEeKS ago.
Ms. lytle: In making those findings, please bear in mind that it ca~not be
related to the particular us€ that is before you. ihat example you gave of
nighttime use with Datasafe _. the findings; have nothing to do with that.
They de not have to deal ~ith what is this client's needs? Clients come and
go. and this ;s a pemanent right that you ar-l:; granting to this buiiding. So
in this case. you would look at the bu1lding, and you would say, this is a
very large building. !t lends itself to a corporate headqu~rters type
function. D~n't think about Sun. Think ~bout the improvement~ o~ the
property; think about the location of the butlding, its size and configuration
in relation to arteriaTs. DQ not talk use af this particular client, b~cause
it is not rel~vant to the findings.
Mr. Hise: So in oth~r words, the strong exce~tion I hear rjght now, or a
reason for an exception. is that it is a corporate headQliarters. it is a large
building. 6,000 visitors a year.
ML..._illl~: Those are SLin issues, b'Jt if another corporate headqu.arters were
to locate here, which is what this b~ilding le~ds itself to, you are likely to
have a simllar number.
Mr. Hise; J am thlnking mostly of Datasafe. becau~e it is their primary
location. They came in two weeks ago ar.d gave us a very similar arguments for
an except;~n. lhey wanted to locate in Palo Alto. They picked tnat site
because of its proximity. ThEY wanted th~ir 10go to be there and their
ArchH.ectural Review Board .. 4/2/92
Page g
-
· "".;. -..
{":.,:.
identity. -riley made a very perSlJiI:;l,.e orgumer.tl but the b'nrd turned them
down on that exception. I do not see the d~ffHe:'1Ce here.
14s. Lytle: It is important that you do dj~tjngljish. If you are gcing to be
d~nyin9 one, y~u need tn be able to explain why this one is different. So I
appreciate your bringing that to the beard's attention.
Mi..:...Jl_1.8,~ !
improvement
element. !
\ole made a~ exceptiof"1 for the Pac Bell
of the archit€ctural scale and that it
thlnK that might te appropriatE here .
building based on
w~s a good decorative
• lII!i. Wilson: Let Tile gi .... e you a little history. I think wf ·were both on the
board when t~is building came through I and there ~as a ~ot of discussion about
tht squar~ on the diagona1. J~lS proje:t w~s granted a h~i9ht variance in
!lrder to do the seismic retrofit. There was a lot of public CC1!'"~ent during
that and i lot of discussion over t~at ¥ariancE. Mostly b~cause of that
'lIari3nce, when Sun came in Wrl'ith the idN of puttiflSi a logo W~.Y up high on tht!
building, the b()!-:d said nc, af\d there ¥Was general p'Jbiic support for nat.
This bunding could not be bwilt t-oday '.mder current ZC.-111ng, and certain1y, -iI
sign that high would not occur today. ~hat makes this such a difficult
location is that it is i ~ery attracth'e logo afld ~f ),"0' .. were to take the
b.uilding "in the abstract outsi1e of th~ tHy. c.1l<i 100k. a.t the elevation, "it
looks very nice. It seems to add to the buildlng, but within the c.onted of
the c.ornnunity and tne variance issues, it becomes mer-e difficult to place that
lOG~ on the building. That is where I am torn. ArchitEcturally, I think it
lao~s very nice. but net on an ele~ator penthouse. That is ltke building
soaething to support the sign. But Option S looks veri riice. T~e question
is, can we make the findings for a sign e~ception for this building? I c.an
read some of the ideas for except ions that others have mace, but I cannot
support it wholeheartedly. When the entry porte-cochere was des;igned, there
.. as a lot of discussion about making it big~er, making it more of a statement,
giving a sense of entry ther€, and really making pEople pa$s by it and say~ on
y!s, this is Sun Microsystems. It ~a5 fairly s~all. All of these sign 1ssues
and the entrance and all of that was discuised in the original design of the
architecture, and t~ey're are cOr.ling back with a retrofit. I know ttlat tt1ings
change, and we are re-exam!ning it in 1992 instead of 1987, or whatevt!r it
was. But I am hil. .... ir"1g a: liery difficu1t time mak~ng findings fer an exception
that I couid support. I will '!'"eaj the findings Hat tla .... e been suggested so
hr, howe ... er~ ThiS is a .... ery large building, so that architecturally, these
signs !!take sens~ on the building. It lends itself to being a corporate
headquarters, so this type of use wowld cor:tinoJ'!.'. Its location is screened by
mature plantings on the address s=de af the project. !ts location on the site
i$ set way back \IiIith a lot of tree~ in the parking lot in the foreground.
There will be a large number of .... isitors to the site, as there WOUld be tn ar.y
corporate headquarters, with a lot of p~ople comin9 for it'e first time. They
will be coming to visit the headquarters that one ti~e.
There are nc signifjcd~t residential units around it. and this is something
that I did not pay attention to, I!Ihether or rIOt an 11l1..JminatE'd sigl"'1 at night
would have any impact on any of the residential areas.
Arcr,it€ctural Review Board .-4/2/92
Page 10
,-:-,,~ .. ;~:~~.
" ..
.~:;:~~" ..
~1t1: .--1
~
L
", ...
r .. ··· .. ·· '1. --
-----~----------
Ms. ~aser: I alluded to this before. a~d perJ:aps did net e)(press myself .. ell
enough. To me, th's is mere of a decGrati~e malif. rat~er than signage. Most
of us are familiar with the Sur, logo, but to a lot uf people driving by. this
~ould not read as an/thing legible. It would simply be a decorative motif on
the building. Sa a f~nding could be that t~is is not really signage. It is a
decor~tfve logo that ls there to complete the arch1tectural character of the
building, Sut where J am ha'Jing trol,jble !Ii"ith is, whj d·:J 100'.:0 need to make
findings when the orair-ance al1o~'s them to de what t;,€y are d<Jing.
Ms. Lvtle: Because applications throug~ the years under that ordinance ~a~e
been denied. based on those find',ng5. YOi! 'ItIol.:.ld b~ opening us;.!p to
litigation if you were to suddenly switch the interpr~tatjon of the cvde.
appreciate what you are saying. The code is not clear.
t1i~: The cod-e is really not clear, and th~re is no inter-pretation that
is obvious at all, e~cept what is there.
Ms. lytlr: We keep an interoretation log in the minut€s cf meetings that
people can go back. to. We have alway~ cGn.s.i~tently us.ed them as the staff
report prf:!sents to you. We would be Dpening ourselves up 'Wery, very 'Wid-e for
litigation H we wei"'e sudder:ly to say, we don't n~ed to read it that way
anymore.
Ms. Maser: Is there any wai, in concert with this application, that We! can
start the ba11 rolling to get tMis c1eared up? I am verj uncomf'ortable with
this. Th!re is no reason why we aren't subject to litigation rig~t now with
this ordinance reading as it reads.
Ms. Lytle: We ..,111 certa~nly brir:g this issue before the city attorney, and
we can in1tiate a code amendment to chr',fy it. if they feel It is necessary
and if you so desire. We could eit~ler make it less permjssi~e and read the
interpretation traditionally, if that is the way the board wants to go, or
simply chrify tha.t it is intended to peri'!;it Hds type of thing, provided
whatever you _ant to say. We car. do that, but I want to mE:l1tion that \lie have
abOilt seven c.ode amendments and a follow up actiC!:1 en Hie Gruen and Gruen
report. They ar-e al1 being processe-::i right new, b'Jt .. e are in the midst of
doing a l~t of work on this amendme~t, and we have tied up cur attorney's
office for approximately the neKt sIx months d~jng inter~~l cleanup. We are
making some changes consistent with the struggle that I h~ar reflected today.
It is an attitude adjustment time for the City of Palo Alto. ~e have nat
quite awakened to the 19905, and W2 are beginnlng to do that. So this ... ill
have to c.orne along in time wltr. the other amendment.s that are happening. I
just want to let you knoW' that the ri!dl~,stic tlme fer getting that
accomplished is probably apprDximately six months.
Ms. Haser: I would like to know if, before that ordinance ~orjing is changed
or clarffied. if ~e will have the opportunity to put cur j~put int0 that. I,
for one, feel Wi! should relax our liiews about it. There ma ..... be others who do
not feel that way 1 but we need to d i scu:ss tl'1at b'3'fore it goes to you.
~L
Architectural Review Board --4/2/92
Page 11
,
I -
tis, !.yU",: We would n~\ler do an ARB cc,de ar:1t:';id.'11e:'1t wi:llaut coming to you for
your recormtendatil')r) af1d prior to going to the council, That is: part of the
formal proc€ss,
~Wjlscn_: I w~uld M curiClJs as to "that we are trying to stop \IIit~ this
ordinancE; beCil.:s.e don't k.n{}w~ when ""e dre' .... such a hard 1 ine,
Ms. tytl~: Do you mea~ with the original?
~. wns(Jn~ Ves.
~s. lytle: 1 think the sign being proposed at that time ~as more in line ~ith
the one that Ms. "'!aser mentioni'd. \lie \rro'ere iFIlortilil'lg ilwa.v a let of very
ga.rish signage. We were amortizing them 0""Cl1 and' saying, you ha'o'e to get rid
-of this stuff as you go. It was a diff~rent Droblem. In the i970s; we had a
whole differ.ent situation econorrically, aestheticany, "ihings have cJ;anged~
and we are find'n; this with our ComprEhensive P'a~ and w1th our code. In
many l'reas, it ';lias. wrltt€!1 for th.e Ig70$, and we. haVE MW outgrown it a.nd will
need to updat~ ~t.
Ms. Wilson: To get to t~is particular app11cation~ it is one that is asking
for iI new look. at sOlf,ething nat was already denied. It is something that \Vas
di~coSSEd in the variance that the applIcant asked fOT. So this is ~ot a
surprise to the applicant. this is not a reinterpretation of the code. This
is somethliig the ARB reviel'led; findings were made-for a viiriaroce, with ARB
recomrr~ndations, wjth staff i~put, to allow the applicant to remodel tn~s
bUilding, to add to it, to exceed the height 1imit, to do a lQt to this
building. At that tlmt!? there was a lot of discussion at,out high signs. Part
of that whale packet 'JI'ilS ttJat there Wel'2 to be nO ~igh signs on 'this blJilding.
That is why I am having sud a difficult tiri:e with tl'1is project.
Mr. (itzmiller: ~cu Qr~ right. In the ori9lnal de~1gn, there ~as an ittempt
to have the 10g05 at tt,e'-pediments, or sides. At th.a.t time, our real interest
was in getting occupancy of the building, fer a lot of reasons. we did not
have time to research options that May have bee~ agreeable to the board. What
we want to do now is to come back to you, re:LJisit thL~ thing. and came up with
a signage program that is agreeabie to the boa~d, that can get us wnat we are
~fter, which arE the three points 1 speke of earlier. It is all you find
cOJ'O'Ifortable lliith w!1at .e are trYlng to do witt: the signage program. That is
all. in the ear1 ier scheme~ whi'Ch was fro~ 1987. I be1 ieve, when ""'f came
before you, th.ere 'tIeY'~ so ma.ny issues thiit we 'I(~re trying ttl r-esal ... e. .. ith this
biJi1dil1g that we did not have time to go through all these alter!'lative~. That
is what we w~uld like tCi do now to come up with something tnat 1S agreeable to
you and serves the purpOSES.
Ms. "!iliQn: It always bothers me when W~ ha .... e SiJc'n a hard time doir-'9
sGmethir.g tnat seems so reas0nab1e. Wha~ are we doing here? I knp~ what you
say is right. I know the protlems I had with this building ~he~ it was being
designed, but know the building is there, and life goes on. I think this is a
nice grap~ic element to add to the building. The signage through Menlo Park
is a far better experience than the vacuous experience yeu have driving
through Palo Alto. It gives you no sense of identity. The Sun Microsystems
L
Arcnitectural Review Baal-d ~. 4/2/92
Page 11
L
headq:..a.rVus irt Pa10 Alto 15 Io'ery important to this COIl':"".mity, and 1 think II!/'a
ought to support that. I know that is 3 use aspect that you said we should
not do~ ~!~t und~~ it all, I feel t~is is im~Qrtant. I suppes!, it the worst.
if we felt u~cumfQrtable with our ordj~lnce, we could send our suppert agai~st
the ordinance to the COLJ~cil and JEt thE-f1l maJ.€. a polie), decision.
Ms. DaRosa: We have a process here which is something ~e are relookin9 at
flve yea~s later. It is not a sit~aticn where there is any mjsi~terpretation
of t,~e code. So we can S€t that aside for :010101, We are looking at something
wheore the applicant knows it has beer'] denied. ar;d what we have to do in order"
to approve this is make ar. exception. Then separdteTy, we can d?al witn H,e
code.
Ms. lytle: let's not tie up this aDplicatjo~ on a cede clarification.
Ms, Maser: I agree.
fils. Da!bsa: The.",. already have been through the code fiv·i? years ago. It is
the same code. It has not changed.
Mr. Hise: I have written dewn four things on wr,icr. I think I could base an
exception, to address thoe Hception portion of it. Then 1 would like to
a~dress the architectural design. The first I h~ve is that the height and
sIZe of this bul1ding warrants some identificatior.. Thls makes "tt different
f~~m Datasafe of one of the other buildings that has come before us since I
have been on board. Also, the fact that it is a corporate headquarters and
t~at that will probably be its use in the future, as opposed to the Datasafe
building whfch is a warehnuse type building. 1t could be a mini-storage or
somethlng else in fi'Je years. They wOIJ'ld want to put their Togo up there.
Also, because of its significlnt setback and mature landscaping ~xisting on
the site is. another reason. At least. the mature lar.dscaping has been used in
the past at the Emery Worldw~de, which came up in the Datasafe discussion.
And finally, the actual signage beir19 proposed here has been reduced, or at
least proposed to be mOff decorative motif than actual sig~age that says ·Sur,
Micrcsystems· or UDatasafe-or on~ of these oth~r names. That may be weaker.
but i feel okay with that ar. this building. !n, other words, I think that this
ca" be 1ooke:::! at as a decorative r;,otif. t..t lea::.t it falls in that category.
So for those four reasors, I think I could make an exception for what is be'ng
proposed.
rrom the des'Fgn standpoint, I wO\lld be very supportive of doing four of thesi2"
emblems in the four recessed areas in t~ese parapets, as was probably proposed
in the original design. I third<. I wl)l;ld ha\,le s.upported. it at any time.
Ms~Jti.l.W.: That is not \Iro'~at the applicant is asking for.
Mr. Hise; a is not what the appl icant is a'>king far, but that is wha.t I ",'auld
be supportive of. I still am not supportive of Plan A Dr Plan B. I thif1~ it
makes sense, archltecturallj, for those to be in those areas.
.<-.--'~'-" L
Ar~hitectural Re~iew Board --4/2/92
Page 13
,
I
""""-
~~aser: !Q,s a condition.
ire really supposed to make
are supposed to do there.
Cut of co~rtesy. we are considering Plan B, but ~a
a finding on Pliln A, the way! urlderstand ... hat W~
~.L~: Is t,is , motion?
Mr~: I would be willing tn ~iJt that 1:1 a moticn that, bised on those
four exceptions, W€ could make a general exception for this type of s1gnage.
Then J would propose that tt1€y be relc'.:.ated to tho::;e parapets when: the
indentations originally were on Ue buildfng. ThE-way I understand it i;'l this
view <If the b1.Jilding, ther-e is an ir'lde-rltation here, and that is where they c:;re
going to put the SU;'l 10go. There is aL,>o an !rldentation in each of these four
capitals. or whatever you want to call those things, and that is where they
were origlrlall1 proposing sign<lge to be, at least as far I cou1d tell from the
minutes. It, in fact, had some frame Dr something around it, and the board
asked them to re~o~e it.
Mi. ~11son: Actually, the logo proposed is larger than the indentation.
Mr. Hise: Pnbably so, b\Jt that is okay
l~cation, because tnere is access there.
lQcatior" so ] would support that if the
.. ith 11'102.
It seer1'S
appl icant
I am looking at the
that th~ logo works in
was in fa~or of it.
MLJI_,.er:
if you had
elsewhere.
natural to
A definite design fee1ir.g I had when I dro~e to the s,te was
it in that one 10cat~on. it ~a5. gee, they forgot to put it
What is happen!ng here1 It looked to me as though it W3S so
put it in each one of those spats.
~: Mr. Hise: I 'would p.la'Ke a motion based Oil t.he four findings that
stated earlier, and that ~e make an exception here, if the applicant is
tn.t
that
.. ;11ing to have four symbols in the f.our p.ardpet locations similar to the one
over the entranceway.
"so DaRQsa: There is a ~otion that made some suggestions for modification to
your projec.t. Do yCI~ understand those"? HoII' do y;JU feel about them?
Mr. i.itzmilTer: I am r,oj:'py th3t there is. at least, same mO'Jement towards
some signs on the buildlng. so I do net want to de~~ that. But what I was
hoping to do with Option B was to get some visible logo from San Antonio Road.
If it is agreeable with you, w~at wa would li~e to see, as a combination of
your proposal and Ours, would be to do t~e signs in th~ four pediments and one
on the San Antonio slde, and eliminate this one on fabian, just so there is
some visibility so that as you come ~p San Antonio, you Eee through them an~
see the tap of this. Wherever that i~ located, ~hether it is Sh1r1ey's
suggestion of raising this a little bit, or keeping it as sho~n, we are really
hoping to get some sign that is visible from San ~ntonio. Besides th<ltt the
other four signs are fine. Frankly, we thought it mjg~~ be too c{lntriW'ed to
hil~e loges in all four of those pe-diments. /1a~ing one o~ef the mClin erltry
would enhance the sense of arri~a1 to the e~try. That is why we showed only
one. We thought that the hint of the r~lief of the uth~r wo~ld be a
suggestion of the logo without its locking like a mistake, hopefully.
Architectural Re~iew Board --4/2/92
Page 14
~
,
--1 I
i
I
-
.•. ~~~ ••....
-
Ms. Wilson: We are dOiog a let more dj~,cussjun thall we normally do here.
because we are trying to get ti1is res.ol-..-rd. 5)" wa,)' of comment in regard to
what he said, if r cOiJld go back in the ~is.tory of this ;te-~, of YOLt recall,
was ne\let' ~.1ppy with the entry to this building. and 1 did not support the
project. based an that. 1 think it is very weak, that it really fat's the
build1rg. I am glad to see that that ~as proven to be true! r held a
minority opfnio~ at the time. If you actu2l1y bel ieve that you need to
heighten the awareness of that entry. then I tl,ink there is some reason n0t to
put the-m .;;11 over the bliilding.
Ms. paRosa: Architecturally, I would like tD COri);'7lent 0'1 this in terms of the
exception that we are lOGkif1g at. I do not support the arChitectural design
of putting that logo along the pediments in terms of this exception, because
we are saying that the building is hidden by mature 1andscaping, and it does
nothing to help viewers identify the bu.ilding from Sa" Antonio Road where thit
mat~re landscaping is. So the findings ha~e nothing to do with pu~ting the
logo in the four pediments. I think t~at puttlng the logo four times on a
building like that is really a cas~ of overkill. J don't think it adds to the
archit~cture. I agree with th~ applicant that this one square there is enough
to give you the feeling of the logo, I .... a...zld support Option A. I am trying
hard to support these findings. The thing that troubles me the most is the
height and th&t there was a lot of discussion ~bDut v~rlance. What happens
when there has been a variance and now there is a modification to that
variance?
Ms. l,t1e: The variance did not include a condition that signage not be
allowed. So technicllly, this is not a modificatio~ of the ~ariance
applicatlon. So while there was discussion of the sigr~ge, it ~as deleted
from the ARB apprDva1 of the seiSmi{: upgrade. 'What .... ent before the coundl
did ~ot disa1low this proposal.
Mr. Lyzw9: I would like to try sometnlno;: to amend Thomas' motion to include
Option 8 with his e~cept;cns.
Mr. HiB: My only problem 'Wlth Optior. B is that 1 t'nink, at that point, there
i~ too much signase.
Mr. lyzwa: There ~re three signs.
Mr. Hise: In Option B there are three?
M~. Lyzwa: T~o on either end and one o~er the main entrance.
Mr. His,:.: On, lIm sorry.
motion, and than make that
that. It sounds lik.e this
r !.r,ought tnHe were fi'.'l::'. Let's ·,;ot.e on my
a new motio~. I would be m~r~ comfortable with
motion is not going to pass, anyway,
Ms. Wilson: Whe:'l there is another motior1 comirlg up, do \'It? .... ote on what would
b! the second fTIot1cn first, and then return to tr:e original motion? Is there
50m~ pro,ess to follDw here?
L
Architectur21 Re~iew Board .-4(2/92
Page 11
•
,
r
-
--", .
L
··-r····· c'.'
~s. Lytle: Yes, if you could make your conditiors a separ~te motion frem the
main motion. T~e~ it can be voted on s~par~tely. and t~~~ you wo~ld go back
t~ the main motion.
Mr. Hise: I could amend m.)l :notio!} to i:-lclude Be-four fi:1dings for granting
an !xceptiIJ.n. with no ~ropo~a1 for how the: 5,;gns are treated. The four
findings are the hetg~t and size cf this building o~t there, the fdet that it
is used as a corporate headqu~rters and is likely to remai~ th~t in the
futur~. no matt~r who uses it, and therefore ~11 future uses ~i}l hav~ th~
~i.me tYSl~$ of fl~etls. a.lsQ be,cai..ise of tlls setbad.s of the building 2!Tid mat~re
landsc2ping existing on San Antonio ~nd Paute 101 approacn€s to this bUlldi~9,
and the fact that what is being p~oposed js in the realm of a decorative
/I'IOtif. Even though it is Ii corporate 1090, it is not the entire r:orpcr~te
loge. lhere is no verbiage. It 15 in the re31m of a decorative motif.
"'$ DaRosa: Can we yete on that \rrIIithout spec; Fyi ng where it OCCllr'S on the
building, if one of our findings is that it is a decorative motif?
Ms.-WJg: The motion is to grant an Exception, with the following findings.
Then yeu will come back ~ith a separate molion to discuss the conditions that
.are-necessary .
.M.L.....tl.i.B9..u: Ail right, because we are talking about a decorative motif, but
then we a~2-granting an exception. W~ are not saying where this dec~rative
motH occurs. It !eems a llttle peculiar.
Mr. Hise: Per~aps it is a way thGit we can fiM out how many of us agre~ that
there an exception should be made.
'1$. Maser: How f!1any exceptiuns de we have t':J ~ake?
Mr. Hise: we only need to find c reascn fQr an e~c~ptiDn.
~s. Lytle: what I am going to do is put those fowr reasons YOu haye listed
irlto the context of tne (ode language "'n~ch says that there are exceptional or
extraordinary circumstances or cOl1ditlons applicable. I glean from what you
said the landmark stature of the building, the stand of mature tree;, and t~e
aWKward location and confluence of 101 and S~n Antonio Road. The corporate
headquarters I waul d' add under "The 9f'int i n9 cf the appl ieat i on ~ s necessary
for the ,tIl"'eserYatiQn of enjoyment of a substantial property right of the
appl icant and does present unreasonab1 e property loss and unneCEssary hardship
in that the structure is large and 1) it~ely to continue to serye as a
c.orporate headqui.rters function, s~r\l'in9 large numt'-irs of 'fisH.<Jrs." lh~n the
other isslJe would fall under the third findjng Hat "lhe granting of approval
~f the application wou1d be not detr-ir!!Ental to the property arid improvements
in the viCln1ty and ~ould not be detrimental to public hea1th, safety and
9!neral welfare, beca'.Jse the propC'sal is not in conflict with the Palo Alto
program for Policy One which di~caurages gari$h signs and er.courages signs
that blend. because the logo is h~ndsDme, consistent ~ith the existing diamond
reC~SSc5 and acts more as an architectural motif than as ad'w'e~tlsing.·
Mr. Hise: That is ~hat 1 said!
Architectural Revj€~ Board
Page 16
4/2/92
•
I
I
I
I
..Jj
-
r·
Ms. DaRosa: 1s there ~ sac'Jnd for-that?
(Seconded by someon-e)
MOTIeN PASSES UNANIMOUSLV
Ms. DaRoH: Now for the CMdHions of that 1'lGtion.
MOTTON: Ms. Wilson: I would like to propose that we acc~~t ODt1cn B as
presented. by the applicant, 'With the sign raised if they feel they can do
toat.
SECON~: By Mr. HisE.
Ms. DaRosa: There was another motion mace on the ccnditions to the exception.
The acceptance of Option B ~ith the ability to raise the sign en San Antonio
Road a.nd, r guess, on the opposite side of the bujlijing, as -"",ell. if the
architect decides that that is important.
~r. Hise; 1 have lost track of the logos. r can und~rsta~d why tn~ ap~l'cant
is requesting it on the San Antonio Ro;::d :side. DoE's this other one on Fabian
Way serve any purpose? l am 'Wondering, at this point, why that one needs to
bf! tnere. Are we go; ng o~t far enough Cl(1 a 1 imb thiH we could approve the twc!
signs instead of three there? I wou:d then be fl!ore supporti'fe of this. That
one rea11y does focus to,"'ard Fabian 'tray.
Ms. Maser; Do you na'le driveway er]tranCE-s on F~bjan Way?
Ms~ Maser; Are they being used?
Mr, Kitzmiller: One is being used, and the ether is baslcally a fi~e lan',
~~~: One 'is this one here, right next tw t~e ~jgn. alld you co:!!e around
from Cnarleston,
Mr. Kitzmiller: The idea was that there is loral/Fo~d A~rQspace buildings
kind of marching down Fabian, lhe idea. was to identify PalOne on Fabian to
differentiated our building from Ford, espeCially if yJIJ are coming the other
W1.y on Fabian. That was our ratiorlale. We are balancing it on t~e ::~pcsite
side of the building.
Ms. ltIilscn: I have to say, as His cOm'ersation has p>"ogress<ed (ar.d it nas
been highly extended over the issue) that I am more convinced as I listen to
the appricant that tiwy have really gi'l{en this some 'fHj careful thought.
Their rationale is real. They are rlOt trying to fOOl U<.i about anything. I am
feel i1l9 more comfortable now Ulan I did in the beginning. because I know what
it is like to come with arguments for Hdr:gs that you are trying to get. I
L
Architectural Review Board ~~ 4/2/92
Page 17
-
feel that they ha~e really thoyght this o~t clearly, and this logo on Fabian
Way is probably a legitimate ~n~, also. So I am comfortable with it.
Mr. Hi$@; Well. they have tneir mo~ume"t s:gn on Fabian Way .
. fu .... , .... JJilsQ.n: r know. I have always had a real prcbiem with butlc!ings of this
size. 1 think they nEed something on them. It bothers me to have these big
blank spaces. It is kinJj of a C I.A. approach, as someone once said. They
want to c:e1ebrate being here, a~d I thlr-k they are doing it in a tasteful way.
Ms. DaRos'!: I have a question about the-one an Fabian Jlay. ~hen that 15
illuminated, .rtll that be 'IIiewr.d frol':1 the resid'e!"1tia.1 areas, 1 ike Bibbetts and
other? They are just one block away.
Mr. Mise: From the street, with the trees, I don't kno~ that it would even be
visible.
Ms. DaRosa: I think that particular sian ~ould be. A lot of those houses are
'IIe-ry close on the other side of Fabian.
MS4 Wilson: But they are behind a bank of buiTdings. They are not across the
str!!t.
Ms. DaRosa: But a lot of thiJse big buildtng.;: are vis~ble from thos.e houseL
It is right in their back yards.
Mr. Hise: It is not going to be a light pole. however.
Ms. DaRosa: It ~il1 definitely be visible.
Mr. Hise: If that is all the discussion, am ready t~ vote.
Ms.. DaRosa: Th.ere;s a motitln fo1' Option B. A1l those in favor?
(A.H in fa· .... t>r E:Xcept for Mr. Hise.)
Ms. Maser: The Sun will shine.
Ms. Wilson: But it won't be teo brlght.
~ * END Of EXCERPT * *
Architec.tural Ke'Wiew Board ........ 4/2/92
Page l8
-
-
Board r .. 1embers Present:
Soard M'E!m't.ers .A.l:.sem:
Tj-a.:r~C'2.Y, Ma~ch 16, 1 :;89
p..:OO A.I.f.
Civic Cenc<:r
250 Hamdtcn A'oO':',I-,C
Counc~J ConfiO:r-:'Tl::.e RL,Dm
?aIo Alto, CajJfo~;'1i3_
Bob Evans, A~no da R('sa,
Jon Sen i1'.:": , and Shir!ey It'o'ij:;r;n
MichaeJ Lyn','a
Ian.s-e:n, Lyrl~, and Warl-:eit
It is noted lhat there ..... er.e roo abstE'n~;D,'s this meeting.
The meering minutes of March 2, 1989 \'~'€:~e APPP.OVED, 4-0, '.l.'!~h b,ief
.::laj'ificarion.:: by Ajno da Roa and Jon Schink. Tbe ccr~er:rions aff' iilclwded
in the addendum arta..:hed to today's minutes.
~,1erT'.bers 01 t.r.e p'Jti:.:: may speak ;:0 a.ny ~("!p:c wi,hi" A :':;'li,r~cT'..:ra.1. Re',:,e' .. ,.
Boare! (ARB) jl.lr::sdic:ior. that is Ilot Jisr",d a<; an .~gen-:a item.
NONE
APPROVALS: The Archirectural Review Beard (,!,P.3) d~cjsion Coil the design
of lhe ploject is a recorn menda[;on to the Dire-ctor of P!~iln;rJg: a~ld C:Jm!T1Ur,:ry
Er.vironmem (the Direcror), w~,o makps: che final deciS:Q,1. Ur.!ess mherllw"ise
stated by the ARB Or the Djrector, prcjecl approl'als geile~a!ly ir,corpQrate
Project Re~1ew Commjuee conditions as {nailed to the appiicanrs ar.d s;:aff
COl"ldi[lons as recom rr:er'ded in the tnformarion ,\1emc.randums.
CHA1\iGES: Ar.y change to an approved design plan fra.::;! be rest:b;:;~ltt'd to
the City for approval. Resubmi"ttal of a project may also be necessary If
char;ges are r."::!ndatec as: a result of ccmp!yir.g , ..... itM PlJbJic l'.'o:~s/t.l"1gineeri;lg
or other Cit .... departmer..r requirements, or any c,~.he[ apph<..ab:e code -or
ordi na nee .eqt..:; rem ems.
··-·L
3/1.~/89
Fage 1 CG
2.
3.
-
2380 EA;\BARCAGt::RO ROAD*
C;[y--C;r:sa:r;-:A;Tt0::UET\::---;~' .:; =ks
~9-A R 8-26
':9 EL.III.-10
e.9-D -4
FinaJ Review of Lxaticn ar,,j Design cf Permal"E'nt :'''<1;tLral Gao;; Flare
at the Ciry "f Pal;) A!!o L.'1ndfill
Edgar L'gane, Di Public Works/Utilities s.a'id that they ;;.[e i:"l agreement
with the Staff :€.cc;rnmeilGafl,:m to rem·c;ve the barbed wire as ior;g 25 the
fence ca.n be .en feet high, for secL!riry <rnd safety reaSQns.
After discussion, {he :Scad ?e!uct2.~rly RECOMMENDED .4,PPROVAl, 4-0, to
the City Council, of the pjoposed lcca!ion a.nd design of tne f!.He.-equipmetlt,
t:) be painted white, and \,\>'It!-J a 10 foot high fence with flu ba;":;e:(~ ' ... ire.
In edditior1 , it .,,,as the unanimcl':s opinjc;"l of the ARB tI-,at the City Council
should fund a restudy >:;1 the ",:sual irr.pact of this equipm~nt. Th~. ARB
~trongjy recommended tn>:-desjgn ~.nd implemeritarion of a rnirigating art:,Stic
retrofit of tJ'te stack, equipment, and enC:Qs'Jre be utldertakeli, ~o ce
.compatible with '{he oveiali artisTic nature and theme of the P.o.rk .
. "..1 r. Evans stated that a redesign of die flare area shod~ Le consider~d
because the quality and ap.oeara!!ce of !he Slac).: Is nct acceptabie. He
s;Jggested that the park project artisr cCt:ld study the flare stack .and
surrou!"Iding area. to cP",e!op a rr,ore apprQP;-iate tteatmen<. Other Bc'aro
members agreed.
3939 FABIAN 'NAY·
Sun Mlcrosysrems
89-AR 8-46
B9-EIA-iS
Notic€
27,100 Square Foot Addi::ion ;3,.j,d Seismic Bra6ng of Existing Of lice
Building and Related Landscape Modification
Duri'lg the presentation, rhe lar,csc:a.pe arcnite,::t and [hoe ~r(;je'::t architect
described changes to the proposal regarding m .. :mber c,f bih jackeTs and
landscape rEser','e:, a;:,d the "cditio" of 6 light p:JJes in the yalking 18t El
increAse the light level fo~ safety reaSc;;.s.
Staff membE:r Virginia ,,,,'arh~it indicared t:"lat the landscape phn ..... as
submitted for Prellminary F2.e~·iew only, [hat Staff was requesting the
repiacement of sod with a drou.ght tolerant ground cover to .:omply \Iw'irh
the Ciry's objectil/es to reduce water needs. and that tr,e applicant ~.ad
agreed tD meoe~ with Energy Serl/ices staff to evaluate the wa~er IE-quire
ments of the pmposed landscape p1ar..
Two persons e,xpI€ssed their CO."1ceJi'lS regardin'6 th;s p(o,ie::t du;i.ng
pUblic comment:
Marvin Weinslein, 3845 Na~han Vt/a/. Palo Alto -,\1r. Weinstein indicated
that be and SOIT"e of the other neighbor~ are not particularly happy lIo'ith the
building and the c-ondltions. He WaS specifically concerned with t~e possible
loss or one of the larger uee~; he hared tD SE'~ a"y elirr.i'il3tio."1 of
I rees becawse they $cf[en t~e appearance of the bl.!ilding, especially in the
summertime.
3/!6/89
Page 6 CG
i
I
I
i
I
\
i
(
-
-------
Bob Moss, 4010 Orme, Palo ;,:~o -Mr. ~/.0S3 'Sli\~€d tha he is a~sQrL:[ei:,'
:<.lrioJ..:.<; that the 0:(,;1 logo has be~:l included Dn'!he !o'''''~r wht"., it is c!'2a,J::
adverti.6ng; in paniClJrH J he objeCi:t"!d t::l :any mNe sig~s 80 feet in t!'l~ air
in rhts rO',I,'n Secondly, Mr. Moss calred for a ,codesig,' a:ld in-iica:..ed that
he wot.:ld ~rera Or.hH archirect1Jrai SQlurjo~s tr-.ar are rf~S:i irr,?Ds;"g, not
a.'; ;Tlassiv<=, and not as ey~ impac;ing--wirh ress impact {l!l tl-.e c~mmt...:nlt.v.
He slJbmittf:.d three design alte,natives that \/0'0:11:1 ",-lit;, ... , the seismic bracing
to I::le dor:e in a less intrusl'.t: ''''''ar. Of the thH'~ aheln.ari"'E"s, he said troar
he IJked Model "c." best of b;s examples.
Prior to Board me"'rc<er commelllS, St::.if person ~ancy Lytle ir:dicared tbat
s~e would like to rec;Jm",end addi.ng ano!her condition ~Jf apprcvar· that
would recr.Jlte a TDM p!an fa be sl.:bmiL.ted by The applicant by S~ptem::'er
1989. Ms. Lytle stat~d thao: a sim:lar condition had bo!'~n required for
the Ford buildi<1g, and that j, is a s!a.'"}da:d requiremem thrccghout the
Stanford rndustrial Park.
Afrer a qu~stion from M,. Evans about landscapi.ng and lh(! irnp<ict on
d,o\Jg~,t tolerara pfanring objecti"~s of the City. Ms. Lytle stated that tne
City is considering the possibiiity of offer~ng the oprlon of deferring the
installaticn of lanch;cape plan~ing due to tbe d:Gugln.
After deta;!ed diSCU5Sior. and comment, the B('Jard APPROVED, 4-0, ,he
project, including the additic;;al lighing proposed for the parkir>g lor, and
st:pported the E1A checklist and findings; the approval is subjec~ tQ [ne
following conditions:
L Final landscape plans shaH retllrlJ tD lhe Board for a~pro\'al and s}Jall
addJE!ss tne issues rai~e-d below:
2.) Details and dimensions of bicycie parking, including lockers,
structures and screening need to be pro\·ided. Applic.am is er,c'~~.Haged to
r~'.j"west and pJace some of ~he If"-quired bicycle pa~~jng in lancsc<'.pe reser~'e.
Some bicycle parking should be pJovided near ",-U entrances, inciud;n~ the
from enrance. The Scard 02.]:;0 enc.::01",raged ap;!icarn to p;:ovide a more
srructural/archi:e·:!L.!raf design so~t:tion for bike ]c.cf.ers and ~nciosures---to
be compatibl-e .. -j,b the project aIcn:tec~ure.
b) Sod whic'n is nOE intended for seating and recreationa! use s:lould be
re;:liaced with !oJW water use grot:nd CO\E-T. The prelimina;y iandscape
plan shov"s approximately 14,200 squ.e.re fe'er (about 1/3 acre) of s':Jd ,.:hien
is apparentry being used for visuaf effe(:r only. The applicant [T.ay wam to
consider providi,1g a small amount of sed n.ear ,he patio aH~'a wnere it cOIJld
be used fOI sitting, etc.
c) The City .-\;bor~st suggests char tWO Df the iarge rree £pecies
piopo:::ed r.'lay not tole~:J.te soij conditions of lne si:e, ai::d r~e appilCan[
should revie\y this with [he Aroorisr.
(conditions cCllti!"tlH~d)
1/16/89
Page 7 CG
4.
-
1. Buil(Hng materiais and ,:ole:.<: 5;"J.-:IJ be t-:-turned to !~;e ARa fl.-,r '"('''1 e ,.!-'
of the f0iJowing<
.a) A restudy of ~he gl;>.,.zirlg c()Jor
b) Appiic.arn .')flaJ! pr~sen~ a color r.;;"defin;; s.'"]o'''·I[1g t'-,~ mix . .,f glass
coleis.
c) Applican-::: shail reconsider t~~ use of DR '1'\'!7. ar.d if s,(jli prr;)pC's,,::d,
d':!iTID"St!Sre t!;€ er. ... i:onrr:-en:a.J appwpriaren>::ss of t!le ty;::.e of foa'»
selecled (no CFC's).
3_ The proposed diamond shaped rT':.etat paliels on the b:.Jilding p.ara-r,et sha~i
be deleted_ The diamond shape may b~ rendered in s-L..JCCC to:-li;:-f.
4. A fina! grading and drainage p!ar! shall be approved by the l'L:"blic 1,\-'o'Ks
Department prior to issuance of a B;,.;j;ding P-ermit.
5. C~rbs, gutters and' sidewalks shail be :€ptact-d .as te-quir.;d b,' the F<..lb:ic
Works Deparrmer.r_
6_ The a;:'plicam s~a\.J pa.y &. Housing .v'.itigation Fee of $69 .. 3-58.50, hai f
of \lthicr. shall b~ pa~d ro the Cit)' prior to i,,!.-'Jar,ce of a Build:ng F'err:lit,
~;[h !he remaining naif of the HOUSlr.g Fee .-:;:. be-pa.ic p:ior (0 occupaj,cy_
7_ The applicant shall pay a Traffic IrnpaC( Fee of $31 ,954_H ~o tJ·le elt)!
prio~ to issuance cf a Building Fermit.
9_ Appli<:am shali restudy ,he <.Jesign of the cafe-tel:a. and its relationship !':l
th.e design of the entry pcrtico, and upon retu;n tC-the aoard, denl(lnstra.~e
the desigl1 rationale_
10_ Applicant shall preser~t a ne ... , diagra.:n that enlarges !.~e rocf scree[J~ng
so tha.t more closure 15 provided_
480 UNIVE:RSiTY A~.~_!'.IUS
Gu!"'!drun S_
!nstall New Wall Sign
S9-ARB-H
Historic
The Historic Resources Board (f-iRB) re .. ·iew~d and approved this application
en March 8, 1989_ A transmtttal surnmari.zing :he HRE -iecisiQ;; was s~rH
to :ne ARB_
,.c.,iter brief discussion, the Board APPROVED. 4-D, the blade sign C'nl" aio;,g
with {he ·.;,'iJ1do~ signs already in pJace+ The w2.;1 sign \ .... as nOl appfo\led_
3/16/89
Page 8 CC
l
J •
•• 1,
I
-
~rcbitcctC)'il.
I~c\'ic\\'
nom-••
-----------C~i~ ~~cA~o __ --------------------------------------------------------------------
A.
Board Members Preser.t:
Beard Members Abser:t:
Staff Prese!'lt:
1hcrsday. Septe:nber 1, 1988
8:00 A.M.
Ci-o'ic Center
.::;50 Hamilton A."em.le
Council Conference: RO('Jn1
Pale Alto, Calif-afrtia
Aina da Rosa, Bo~ Evans,
Jon Schir.k, and Linn Winterbotham
(Because of Jane Golds:tein's
d'eparrure, she will not b~ present
for the rema~nder of thE' term.)
Cilliland, Lp.le, and Warheit
B. APPROV.~L OF MINUTES OF AUG:~~T IS, 1988
The meeting minutes of Allgust 18, 1988, I.iere APPROVED, 2-0, bv .Q..i.no
da Rosa an-d Jor. Schtnk. Bob Evar::s and Linn Wi.merborha.m abstained from
voting because they ","'ere nm: present at the :'\ugust !S meeting.
c. OR~.L COMMUNICATIONS
,,\1embers of the public may speak to an)' rDpi~ 'W·jth:n An~hit~Cl'.Hal Re-"iev.·
Board (.A.RB) jurisdiction that is iiot lL~t as an ,~genda it~m.
o. AGENDA ITEMS
APPROVALS: The Architectl.lra[ Revi-e .... 80it!d (ARB) declsiC'n on thf:: design
of the projecr is a re:::olTlmendation to the Director of Planning and Com munity
Environment (the Direcror), who makes the final del;~sjon.. Ur.less other'A'ise
stated by' the .A.R8 or the Director, pruject approvals g~ner::.l!y incorporate
Project Re·,riew Ccmrnittee c.ondition.s as mai.'led to the ap?Jicanrs and staff
conditions as recomme:"lded in the Informarion .I\,1emorandums.
CHANGES; Any change to an approved aesigr. plan must be resubmitted to
the Cj~)i for appro\'al. Fesubmitutl of a project may <11.:;0 be necessary if
changes are manda'ted as a result of complying with Public v.,lo.k:'i/Engineering
or other C;ty department r-equiremc[][s, or any other app!icab!e code or
oldinance requi:emellts.
9/1/88
Page 1 CG
,
5.
_. __ .. ___ •. _~""-A.'_··
o
3939 FABIAN V·,rAY· ..;:,
Sun M I C fa-iyst e ms
88-ARn-192
geO~64
PREUMINARV REVIEW of 20,000 Square-Foot ,4..dcirion and Se:'::r;lic Srac;ng
Du:ing the presef'tarion, th~ ap;::!icanr indicare.a that eight 75 fcot tov.'::,;rs
are needed to provide seismic upgrade and bracing. The towers 1.0'111 require
a Varian<;e for height as the plopDsed i5 f,Jot height of the !O\\.'ers \Iro'ill
Exceed rhe SO foot height limit. T~e Variance ~'ill DaVe to be g~amed by'
ttJe ZOr'ling .'!'.dminislra!or prim to final ARB ro:-view.
Also during the presentation, the architect presented thlee diff-ere1"',r o~.-rions
fer the exterior treat rrl€'l"lt: 1) th~ initidly submitted plan; 2) a slightly
,'ariec plan Il.'ith "playful banding"; and 3) a "more dignified pi-a:l'~ wlth ba"dirlg
on the towers only.
The arcnitect stated his personal prefereno:e for option number ~hree.
During rhe question period, afi:er quest:oning the loclition of the cafe!e~;a,
Mr. Evans noted t~<H it 'Ilo'ould be in lh~ shadow of a fiy~-story building which
was not optimum far outdoor seating_
Also during questions, applica;'1t responded to Mr~ \\!imerbotham's qUEstion about
biq..-cle parking, indicating that they wDu:d liKe tD design and build 50 perc€nt
of the rockers ar.d S3\'e space fO::H additianal ins(allatir)rJ if !leeded 1:1 rJ-,e fU1.Uie.
It is noted that 103 Class I bicycie lockers are required for this .size parking lot.
in response to Mr. Evans question regarding the .sign or. top of the building,
Staff member Jim Gillil~nd said that Staff wauld strol');gly recommend against it.
Outing public corwnem l one p£fson spoke as indicated be-loll;-.
Bob Moss, 4010 Or'rne, Paio Alto. "'h. _""10ss stated ~hat he \'-'as speaking in
his capac:~y as Vice Pr€s~dent of the Cl'wic LeagL:oe_ He ex.p.l~~s~d._thf! Dpil'.iol'1
th~t .. lhe de~igT:l Or:! the pal"apet ccnsritur.es ad;:er(lsing a!",d .... ould exceed the
50 foot height limit f(lr ad"er~ising; }..e suggest"ed the need to be very carefui
ab~_i. 1:;-.is. He a]sc' expressed concern aiJout cO:-npJia,i"lCe wiT:h City Cedes
regarding internal bracij"",g. He also lI.-onGeted if this property falis under !ile
requirements and limiTations for the Golden Tr;angle. (Mr. Gi];ilanc clarified
that the Goid€r. Triangle restricti{)n5 are-no longer in effect_) La.'>tly, Mr.
Moss e:o::piessed concern that the Jc,catlo!1 of the cafeteria .... ·ould result in a
view of a Ford storage yauj a!l.d a vDlleybaJl court.
Since (his u,'as 3: PRELIMfNARY REVtEW, no formal acdon ..... as taken. H014'€\'ei,
indi\'idual Board members gave the fol!o\\.';ng comment-
BQb Evans
Mr. Evans began by stating that he thinks the a;>plicanr is asking tht! right
ques;:ions and that soiutions shDuld not be superficial. Although f.1r_ Evans
desired more time to dig':'SI the three uptions pres~nted. he said his pref.~rence
is for a plan that would reflect 3 dignified aprroach_ He sa~d rb;e initial plan
9/1188
Page 8 ~
-_a ... C-----~~-
-
1 -I
:,
~ ,
i .
t
-
-.1-
~~~.,~"
:--:-..---.. ,
'--..
is on the verge c:f creat;n.g a ff:'~;tng ·::-·f :-r;ass:'Yoid; he said tI",a~ impat.·_ C(I:..dd
be !e~uco::-d jf the balarlce slIIo'a}'E:d 3. ii!tle more H"-',,"'crd:; the \"Did arHj less
tow3.rd the miSS. Hi;' s~id b''! w0\.:ld a~;::r(:(;'ate f:-:rther s~\jdy ~nd pos:.ib!e
revision of the dlamo~Jd shape on L~e roof: that he app!~ciated J:,{"'·b Moss's ce;rnmem
ab~ut adyert:s:ing; th.".t he would prefe; tv see less refe-renee to Sun Microsj'stems
on the parap<:.t; and that it is too dose t:. tr-,e form that is cften seen in
Ielr:odel~. He stated that SOro"le o:!-ler fNm might be !e:;s silperficial a.nd rr;ore
digr,ified. Continlling, he indicated tkn ~e obJec.ts to high signs and he ,liGuld
like applicarl~ to C0:1:511-=-1 rer!HJvirg it. He expte:;':;t-d '2Qncern about the
~ocatiDn of Ihe cafet.eria, rJuttng t~,at it lS in a bac Joc2(km f0r the s<jn~
Lastly, he mentio~ed that it m:ght b~ 2. plus t(1 de sO(l"e(i1irq;: of a low-story
natt.Hoe in the front.
Mr. Schink pre:erred the more fO~l':"laj design pre::;ented, and he indicated .he
thOlJght this v,ill be a nice addjtion~ He did coricur ... ·ith some c-f the
peims made by Mr. Evans , panicularly about the cafeteria... H.: suggc~aed
conside-ring a satt"'"Jlite seating area to give -employees oPPo:TL1ni,y to get some
SUri~ He went OD to S<:'i.)I that sOlTl!;thir.g creative is needed fer the bicycle.s;
he stated that no way could 53 regular storage jackers be tolerated. Going
on, he stated his \"iew trlat th~ raised ?aiapet is essential to prc\-ide a sense
of i:nrry; it i,I,"a.s his f'c;eiing that the top plane of the butiding nef::'ds !o
b~ punctuated <,.nd tr.at it s-nouJd be inc!lided in the ';ariance. Las!ly, he said
he thought the proposal is very good a;: this paira.
Li.-m Wlnterbotham ----------------
Mr. Winrerborha!TI b€gan by st.ating t~;at he Go€::m't think rhe pa.apct seJ')es
as an entry detail as sugge::;.ted by the ar'pJicant. He thinks something need:;:
to be dOlle, but he finds .the form disturbing, \!.'eak, a.,d sorne",o;r.:u 01 an
aftenho'Jght in appearance. He ag;E'ed that '<dignifi-ed" wDuld be a · .... ·ay to go.
Concerning the m.'hss/void Df the facade design Mr" Wimerbotha;-;J s.o:id that
maybe the wlnduv.:s ~eed to go in cuns\derabl y"; he t!lour;ht r"r-:at t.he little
notc~ed effect is good and that p~rhap$ more of this 'cou:d be done. He -a.l"o
thought that the ca.rwpy seemed a 1inle ",,:e?k in relation to the rnass "A the
(ower-s; he suggested s:,mplificatiol1 to put it more ii. liDe w;;:h the building.
)o.ino cia Rosa
Ms~ da Rosa staled a pr€fe~ence f(",r the mo~e dignif~ed app~oac~. Sbe ""aid that
she doesn't r.ecessarily see the dl<>.pnal as the Sun logo, but the little pitched
area on the parapet sef.:med too weak to her. Sh-e liked the option where the
horizontal spandrel glass 'J,,'as added" She encouraged the app:icanr !O design
and build a bi.cycte parking strucrure r<!th'2"r than l.lsir:g the "iittle coffins."
Concluding, Ms. da Rosa stated she thinks this: design will definite:), enh"lnc.e,
ai.d she added s;,e thinks the architect is on the rtght track.
That concluded the PRELIMINARY Rt'v"IEW for 3939 Fabian y..·'ay.
9/1/88
Page 9 CG
.,
-
, ':. aox t,)"'~O
PA~('; .... ~i':>, C ..... lf()4t~~I ... 94JOJ
Appl i cati or. No. 88-V-35~ ~_glU~ __ ~J~_~ ___ ~~1:
Variance BB·Y-36 is. approved fDr the location and cOI'struc:tion of a seismic
bracing ac!ditlon to an existing building, ,,·ith a h€igh~. of 79 f€et, 9 inche.'>
for the attadments to the Histing main building and 2:2, feet 9 inches for
the additions to the exhting mechanical penthous,t! • .,.,rtere a maximum heigh~ of
SO feet for the m.c.ln bl,,,1ding and 6S feet for C!: mer.r,anical penthouse is
otheNlse permitted, as per attached prans at 3939 Fabian Way. Zone O~:;trict
GI':I., Palo Alto, C2;liforn~a, and is subject to condition listed below.
fINDINGS
1. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumst3nces or conditions
applicab1e to the prop~rty involved that do rmt apply g~ne:ral1y to
property in the same district, in that the existing five-story building
is nonconforming in height, at approxima~ely 70 feet ~ith an B3-foot high
penthous.e. Trre tl'~ilding does nat meet He current seismic safety
re-qui rernent s;
2. The granting of the application is necessary far the preservatbn and
enjoyment of a. substantial property right of the app1icant, and to
pre .... ent unreasonable property loss. or unnecessary r..:p-dship, in that Ute
applicant d-esires to upgrade the safety of the b:.Ji1ding by constr-uctillg
s!ismic bracing addition~ which will achleve the de~ign standards of the
1985 Uniform Building Code. The bracing must be constructed to the
height of the existing building parapet~ and the existing perothouse \11111
ils:o require bracing. At the .same time, the applicant ..... iil be improving
the architectural appearance of the building and adding to the internal
floor area; and
3. Thl::! granting of the ap~lication will net b<!: detrimental or injurious to
property or improvements. in the vicinity, in that it will provide-a
9reater degree of safety within and around the bul1din'j and will impro .... e
the architectural image of s.tructure.
CDNDITIPB
L The final design shall be comp' eted: to the s.atisfaction of the
Architecturll Review Board within the limits of this variance .
.-Jv4 d~ .-!/s
NANCY HADDOX LYTLE
Zoning Administratnr
November 17, 1988
Ci
rag, 1 of 2
-----'''''J;,:
...
<::::>
I
I, ··'.'C",
,
I
-
BUILDING REGuLATIONS 1620.010
CHAPTER 16.20
SIGNS I
1~.lO.QIQ Definitjons~
(al The following woros and phrases when
eyer used in this chapter shaIl be cvnstrued as
dcfu:cd in ~1is sectioc.:
Ifor-StiU!; Iiw autflOcurng-cities tD Rgula'..:. outdoor
,advertising. signs and billboatc1s -s~ Gov. C..A.
U3g']74 and 65850. For signs ~~itted in "..c"
di.strict -Sa: 118.7~.070. Prior ordinance history:
Ords. 2104, 2124, 2134,2144,2391,2392,2428,
2489,2558,2582,2704,2749.2778,2800, lBl!,
2848,2863,2960,29%,3063,3169,3184,32'7,
:'334. 3!U, 3389, 3394 and 3445.
16)5
(1) "Awning" means !. .s..~clter supported
enLire1y from the e~tc:rl{l! ."tall of a biJilding and
C.Q[DPOSr-.d of I coilapsible fram: cov~d: com
pletely with nonrigid matt.rial
(2) ~BuiliJing ra.ce~ mearlS t.1-]e gene:'al OU!eT
surface of a main clttenor wall of a building. For
.e~arnple, a bl1ild.ing whose pl~ is rectangular bas
fOUf main exterior walls and four building faces.
(3) "Design guidelines" mean documents
ajopted by the architel;tural rev iew board' 10 at
fo:-d guidan~ to the publ..i(; a.nd to city staff con
t.ai11ing general design pa.ra."'!le!:~ for areas of the
dty having unified design or historical cCw-actet.
(4) "met" ~ans L'1d tnc!udes erect,. J;on
s~(..1.,.~, moea!:, en!lo""'g~ substantially al:.:r.
anach., suspend. paint, post. mainl:ain and dis
play.
(5) "Flashing s!&rf mea."lS aily sign or ad
vertising structUre which has any flashing device,
intermittent iJluminatio:!. n; .... o1.ving or rotating
light device in which the brilliance J11ereof :s
caused to \i.ary by mechanical or o[."v means,
(6) "Freestanding sign" means any sign
S"..a."1ding CD the ground. Such .iigns are ~a:Dy.
O:.l1 no:: necLSSaI"Jy. suppor<..ci frocJ. the grou."1d by
one or more poles cr posts or similar upri,gtolS,
with or without braces.
(7) "Frontage" means a frontage on a pub
lic=:'
(8) "'Marquee-means any permanent
roofed structun: attached to a."ld 51lppon~d by a
buDding and projecting OYCTpubUC ;xoP'rt)<.
(9) "Moving sign" means any sign or
ach'cl".ising stn.:ct:ure which Ius any visible mov
ing pans, Yisible: revo2ving c r rowing parts or
visible mechanical movement of any d~c;cription,
e=pting c!ocl;s orul_, poles.
(10) "Mural" means. won: of an .pplied "'
a building wall for decorative purposes on!.y. Use
of murals for advertising is nol permitted.
(11) "PiLched root" means a roof Vw'il11 a
slope of a four-inch rise m a twelve-inch run, or
gIUler.
{l2} "Projecting sign" means any sign, other
than Ii wall sign. which is suspended frum or
supponed by a building or wall and which pro-
"-·~·""""'Hif'_
L.
, '
I
I
L
"""" -
16.20.020 PALO a. TO M"0N1ClPAL CODE
it:l."l.~ OU~iL"'rl u~refrcm. Any sign suspended
"under .a; marquee, porch. waU:.way coveting or
similat cO\l~ring strucrure aro.d in a rl.ace approx
~mate.~y perperJii~ir to the wa.l.l of me adjcbing
bu.iJ.ding shall be damed to be a projecting sign.
(l3~ "Roof.sign" means L.,y sign erected
upon or over the roo! OT parapet of lIly buildinB,.
including the roof of any porch.. wa.Lkv.'ay cov
ering or similar covering s:T'.JctU!"e. and supported
by or COrJrI...eaed ID the tcli1ding cr roof.
(\4) "Sign" mean; "'y sign, display bowl,
lundbiD. poster. picture. lithograph. map. plat,
banner, penn.anr. balloon .• valanc:r:. sample. mod
el, graphic or len:red surround, suucrure or ot!ler
devk.e used to 'in.'10unc.e, declare, dellloMtrate,
di'i:olay, advertise or .aur ... Ct the a.tIentiOD of me
r :::, including but nor limited to clods. barber
po ... and si!Dilar d..-vla:>.
{I S) ·Sign .... • means and is de .. nnined ..
follol\ls:
(A) Wb<re!he l<tt<ted or m1ll>tr.IIe<l mate
ria) ot a sign is placed upon a sign board or ether
sign SC\l.CCI.m. MVing a. continuous or essentially
continuous surfa~ or face (whether plane,
CUNed, an"ouIated or otllerwi>e). !he exposed sur
face or face area of such sign board or sign struc
t\lI'O slWl be the sign alU.
(5) Where !he Ie!teted or ilIustla10ed m""'
rial of a sign is not placed as descn1:ed in subdi
vision (I3)(A) of this ",b-..ection, but is framt:d
c,tU:.cr mechankclly or visually by the design or
layout of the sign itself, then the il1U "so framed
sh2!l be ~ rigu a..rea.
(0 Where <he Ic!reted or illustr.i!t:d ",are
ria! is not pla.",c:.d or framed. ill the manner de
scnDed in subdivisions (lS)(A) or (I S)(B) of this
subsection, but is «Imposed either vertically.
"horizontally. diitgonally or otherwise. essentially
in <he fo"" of a ~> paruldogam, pyr.mlid
or similar geometric figure. the area 0 f the:
geomelJ'ic tigt4"'e wlthln whic.'l such material could
be: enclosed shall be the sign uu; except L'lal
~,~ ~71 the space bet" ... een the elements comprising
ril, sign e::tceet1s one and one-half tiJnes L'le
ave:ngt Stze of the elc::ments chemselves, the a.rea
of the eldnenIS m-;;,y be m~ st-Ilarate1y as
H536
provided in sulxlivision {l5)(D) or tt:is sub
sectiort
(O) vYnere me teneTed or iUusuau'o'c m",
renal is not placed. framed or com~sed a! de
scribed in st:bdi"i510ns (i.5)(A), (15}{B) or
(l.5Xc) of tl'Js SlJt~cticn. the total a..-eJ. of the
~cungles m other simple georneuic shapes ..... im
in 'io'hkb thl! individual 9ro'ords. ktrtrs. illustra·
ccru;. or o:h:r elements comprising the sf gn could
be alClosed shall be the sign a.rr.a.
(16) '"TempOta..;: sign" means ar.y 9gn c.~!l:
~ttu't.e'd of paper. (ioth. c:anvlS. tight fatlric.
cardboard, wallboard or o!herlight mal..c'rial, wit.h
Of wichom fraroes.
(tjj "Wall sign'" means any si.gr. PCSte.<;! or
painted or suspended from or oL~r',:.ise fixed 10
the: wall of any hunding or structUre in.an essen·
tiaDy llatpositicn. ofv.itll the C"~pJsed fact o!the
sign in. a pta..-.e approxirearel y par.illellC the p~
of such. wal1. Any sign suspended from. and
placed approximately parallel: w the from of a can
cpy, perea, or similar covering .stnJctU!''t shall "be
dee.mee 1.0 be a wall sign..
(Ord.l559 ~I (pa,'), 1984)
16.20.Q20 Review and permit requirEd.
(a.} No person shall erect or c.al.:.sC" to be
.!rtcted any si,gn upon J,."ly fen~. post.. p-Jle, tree,
"tluildL"lg. or any other structure, or a..tucr,f.d to any
sta..l1ding v~hic1e in lh:. city lI.it.""x>ut f ..... '"S1. applying
far and receiving a.ppro,,-al of the sign's 10t;IDon,
design anj dimensions pursuant to Cr.aprer
16.48, Ard"Jtel.'tlllal Review. il1Y1 obWning i per
rolt from. the building official.
(b) AWlication for ucltiteJ:;tural review shall
be filed with the planning division in such form,
and contain ruch inform.a.tion as the planning divi-
5"10."1 may ~ire. Said .appljcaIion shall be accom·
par&ied by a fee as· ~t fonh in t."h.e ml.tr."1kipat fee
sche,jule. Regulations that are mo~ re.unctive
than those set fOM in this cha.ptU may be re
qui.red purstlarlt to OlapteT 16.480. The an:hitec
rural ftV~':w boatd, in making recommendations
on U>..e de sign of.a sign to tilt director of pla.·LTling
a'1d community environme.nt., shall tak.~ into con-
~.,
\
L
r
sideratiOfJ the design guidelines .:\dopt!d by the
an:hitecw.ral rcvie: 'rill board.
(c) An applic1.Uon fer t peml.il for e<O.ch :;ign
shall be made: to t..'1e building Q.ffidll! L"l such fom:;
and include such In!ormati·::m as L~ builC"Jng offi~
cia! may prescribe. Such app,jcation shall be
.a~compa.nicd by the perntit fee: as set forth in the
municipal fee sd"nule.
(Oro. 3559 t I (pan), 19!!4)
16.20.030 Master sign program.
Upon p.ayment of a fee as set for'o..:' in the lllU·
nicipal fee schedule, an applicarJ: may n:quest
approval of a ma..~r sign program in .~on:lance
with requirements of Cbapter 16.48, or through
t.he city council for tigns in areas or for proje ... "tS
subject to site and design review pursua."lt to
Olaptcr 1&.82. .. Muter sign p:ogram'" means a
program allowing tU occupants of a tRlilding or
project includlllJI number of build.ings [0 com
bine me totaI la·.vfUl sign co\lenge into 'Ore or
molt-lawful signs i.., an integrated design concept.
The master sign prognm :'Shall designate the
sign locations II1d areas of all signs in the pro
grmn. as weD as typical sign desig:ns. colors and
facos.
Suhsequmt to [he approval of the master sign
program, individual sign permits may be issued
by [he building official Ln accordance Wi m pro
\.-tsioo of Section 16.2D.050 'Qoitbout further de
SlgD re.vi.e'oV+ Approv'l1 of the master sign p!O
g:r.iQ does not waiver the permit ~men!S for
indiviaual signs. (Ord. 3$59 § I (P'J!), 1934)
16.2-0.040 Exception pr::Jcedure.
{iii} An applicazion for cxtqlOon from any of
tI>O regulatio!!s oIthis diapltr (cxrep< • temporary
e:tception which is regulated: by Sec[i.oo
I6.20.0SO} may be made in such form and in
clude such information as the building ofli<::a.I
ID<J)' prt:-SCn"be. Such applicarioo .sball be acrom
l'~"'!led (1) by the wri!len CGI15ell1 of the property
owner and (2) by the application fee s<:t fort1:l in
tre: municipal fee ~uIe. 'The appIi cation sha.n.
be referred l!l the architectural review board,
wt-jch s..lWl n:view 11 'PUrsuant to the proced'JTeS
L
1637
10.20.050
..nd s<.......ndards set for-.h in Chaprer 16.48. An~x+
cepLion m ay ~ approved b, the di f""...cwr of plar.
ning and CDmmunity environment or dry COUJl.c1;,
ns appHc.abie under the pro .... isions of Chapr~r
16.48, if on appLic':;,ion andlot the facts pn:
sen"ied. it is fou.td L'I1aL
0) There i.!!:: e;J;o:plicnaJ ore~nordinary
c1rcumstanc-.es cr conditions a~pHcahle to the
property iIlYo~Yed' &oat do not appTy gtner-.Jly to
pt"O?o:rTy in th.! same d istria;
(2J The gr.:a..'1ting of the application is r.ec·
essary for the preservation and enjoymem of a
substanti~ property righl of me applic2.m and te
prevent unT'e2.S0nablc: property loss or urmec
mary lu.'1l>hips;
(3) The gnnting of the a.ppllcation ~ll not
be detrimental or Lnjuri ous to property or im·
provewems in the vicinity 1.1')(1 will not be detri
merual tt> the P1Jhlic be.alIh. sa.."'ery. general wetrare
or convenirm::e.
In granttilg a.'y such t:'-t"eption, sll:.n
reasonabie conditions or restrictions as are
deemed appropriate or necess3..'j' to protect the
public he.a.ltb. safety. general welfare, or conven
iet'.ce,. and w secure the purposes oC this chapter
m.y be imposed. (Oro. 3559 ! I (pan), 19&4)
16.20.050 Tempcrary sien permits.
Ca) General application may be made: for ~
U:mporary Sign as defined in Se>:;ti,:m 16.20.010
upon payment of a.."'l applica13.on fee as 5:1 ton.. .... , 1n
the murjripal fee schedule. The chief buildmg 0[
ficial may, bur need not. refer the application for
architel.'tU!iIl review pursuant to Oupter 16A8. A
l!nlpor4f)' sign permi[ s..'la1l be tssued for an un
Imerrupte.d period of no longer tnm UUny days,
.... im specitied beginning and ending dates. The
period of the pennit may be: extended once for an
addEtion.1.l fifteen days-upon the. p3.}ment ot .a fee
as set for"..h in the municip&1 fee schedwe. In
gr.mtil1g 1. tem.pot3ry sign permit, such rea.sonatXe
conditioriS or testriCtiom as are deemed appropn
ale or necessary to pm[CCt tt.e public health. saf~
ty, genernJ we:lf~, or corrvatience. and to secun::
the purposes of this chapter may be imfXlscd.
fa
: .. . --<, . :'";-:" .
."-~/
--
16.20.060 PALO ALTO MUNlClPAL CODE
(b) Privm propelT)'. If !he II:mpor>ry ';1!Il i,
on pr:iY~ prnpeny, (1) frorn the date of issuance
of me petmit. no J.!lcHtional pennit s.hall be issued.
(or OfiC year for .any one plact of busines:! and (2)
the maximum are.a of the: temporary .sign shall be
.::a.l.culated from Table 31 provided, tlur. eadl pta.ce
of business may have up 10 siXty S'f~ fee:...
(c) Public property. A t=por>ry sil!Il roay
be placed en puOlic property only if the sign
commemorates, ot rtl11ts to • 5e1S0n or an his
toric.al. OJlmrai or a..'1isbc evett..
(Oro. 355911 (,"alt). 1984)
16~20.0:S0 Failure to obtain permit.
Whene~r a sign has been e:rec'"...ed without a
permit having boeJllir>t obWnoJ Ih=for, th< fee
for :ony permll ,,,,,ed \Illder :his chapa:r shall be
doubled t) cover the additional expense tD the
cilJl· (Onl. 3559 i 1 (part), 1984)
16.10.070 IJ\5pec:tiQn~
The building offidal or hi!-design~ may I at
any time. make such inspection as may be nec
tssary or appropri.at.e ~ ascertain 1IIbethc:r any
sign ... ;n comply or is COOlplyin;! wi""!his ch.pl<,
and other applicable laws. If req1li!<d by the
bulldlng ollici2l, an inspection shall be called for
m. penni"'" upon !he 00lllpleti0n ofth< Stt\lCtUril
portions 01 every sign m:I befo .. th< structural
connections 10 the building or ~ ~ con
cealed or cove..a. (Onl. :<559 Il (pan). 1984)
16.20.080 E:rempE 5iinJ P1:«pted.
Ncthine in this cbapI<, shall be oonstru<d '"
probiOit any sign, notice or advertisement pre
scnOed or required by law, or any DOIice posted
b~ any l&wfui officer. (0:<1. ,S59 1\ (part),
1984)
16.10.090 Problblled oiJIIIS.
(a) No flashing. moving or roof signs shaD
be en:cwd wil:hic the city. Ramiog or mcvina:
signs f'Jl' ww!;ba sign permlt was Luued prior to
1 Table '3. rd'~ to hI:rt:in, can be found. at Jhe roO
of this ~po:r.
1638
April 3. 1969. are cnntinued to be de.".clared non·
confottning and s.hall be amorti:z.M. in ac.coma.nce
.. ilh tM pt'O\Itsions of this chapter. Roof stgns fer
wtUd'.1 sign pemlL~ Vo-;u issued: priOr tD NOYdD
be r 28, 1973. ar: continued to be JecWed non
confornling aOO ,hall bo arnorti=l i1'. accord"""
wittl the provisicru of Ibis chaprcr.
(b) Unless otherwise exp~ly provide..::! ii"
&J:s chapter, no Sign shall be ~ or used for
advertising pi.Lrp::aes of any kind ucept '$'.lcn
signs 13 5hal! be Jocated O<t I plac< of business,
enl<!prUe orulling and o5ed solely fcrnaming.
Il<signatinJ Of" identifying ,aid bWineu. emer·
pOse or oaDlnJ. No sign shall advertise or display
the make, brand o.amc or marruf.actul"l! r'5 name or
any product, a...ncle or s.erv icc unless the same
assiSt! in and is done incidm1aD.)' 10 the naming.
desigYWing or i<!<n!i fying of said lxlsiness. ",,",.
prise or calling. "Place of business, enterprise: or
caIlini" me-ms <hat portioo 01. building which is
'OCC\l.pi.ed by the business, 'fIlterprl.se Of calling 1D
whim W: sign R:fcrs, c,..ce:pc that. wt£n: I master
siED program has been approved pwruant 10 the
provis!clU of Section 16.20.030. SlJal ~f1D shall
~fer ro the c:ruin: building.
(Ord. 3559 II (pan). 1984)
1'.10.100 ProhIbited locations.
AD signs shaD comply with lhe folloni.g lo
cation requ.imnents:
(aJ Pllblic property. ~o sign shall be pla:erl
on L'1Y public property, including bJt not I.im:ited
to in)' cit)' bc.Wding. si~w6lk, -crosswalk, curb.
=t lamp PO'L hydro>t. _. shnIb, _ stake
or gu.a.rd, railroad [n:Stle, e1earic light or power or
telephone or telegraph. wire pole or wi.lI! appurte.
nance Ehereof or u:poo any fix~ oft.l}( fi~ alaml
system or upon any lightil1g ~. ~ sign or
traffic sign.
(1) Nothing in this section sh1ll apply U)
the instlllanon of tcm.z:zo sidewalks or sidewilks
of simil.a.r constJ1Jct1on, sid(:'IIo'aW permanently
coiored by an aamixture in the mm:riaI of wf'.Jch
the sidewalks is construct&1! .and for which the
depanmcru of public war\:! has gr.wcd • written
pennit
,
BUILDING RWlJLI'.TlON:> 16.20.100
(2) Nothing In t...i.is section s~ apply to
the paim.Lig of house number!' on -curb'S pursuant
to Chapter! 6.36.
(3) A ppliC4Jrion C13y be made for an ~nL
croacn.i1eru permi{ p'J1'S1laT'J 1.0 Chapter 12.1'2 fer
the iMailation of a metal piaque OJml!l.emora.Ung
an hisroricaI. cu1b.l.-aJ or artistic evtnt.lcca::ion or
f'!l'SOnali!)!. TIle depa.''tmem of publi c woru IiJ ay
grant such an e:ncroachmeru permi t only upc.n m:
3pproval of the city c:o>.mcil.
(4) Applic.ation may be made [or an en
..:n:.achment permit puTSUanl to 01zptI!r 12.12 for
a poi.able sign 10 be placed on pubIlc PfC,perty.
'The department of public \i.'orb may grar..t such
an ~tmient pemlil only upon the approval of
the sign, pursumI to Olap<er 16.4! 1I1d pumw-~
to the guidclines fo, po<table signs wopwl by the
azdtiteauraI .m-iew board.
(5) Application may be made, pwsuant to
Section 16.20.050, for iI !t!'mporarJ sign on pub
lic: propcny if !he sign commemorates or relates 1D
a. season or .an bistorical. Ci.lkaIaJ. or arti...Lic event.
(6) Any sign fOW><! posted on p'"b~c pro;>
eny contnry to the provisions of this sectioo m,y
be removed by the division of in£p<uicnaI ,.,.,.
i= or the peEce clepanmen!.
(b) F"" escape,. No sign shall be erected in
such a manner that any portion of the sign or its
support is anached to or will interfere: with the
free use of any tire escape, exit or standpipe. or
ob:souct any required SIairvw'aY, door ventilator or
window.
(c) Marquees. No sign shall be placed upon
the roof or on lhe [ace of any marquee except on a
~.
(eI) Traffic. No sign sIlall be e=«\ in sud! •
manner that it Will or =sroably may be expected
to ~rfe~ with, obstruct, confuse or mislead
naflic.
{~) lntetsectioos. No sign over 1hw:: feet in
heigh, shaI! be erected at Che int.e1'SeCtion of any
street i.m proved for vehicular tmffic, wi thin .II
triangular iILU fonned by Ute curtJ lines., and lhC'ir
projection and I line connecting them at points
thlrry·ftve feet from the intetseaion of the pro
jected curb lines. unless the: sign. in compliance
L
11'539
.... 1ll'l !...,~ provisions of t,hJs cl>..aptc::r, has a clear
a."lCe of at le.a.~ ten feet 300VC cum grade and no
part o( wMse C'iea."\S of suppon: has a singlc or
cro:lbined hori:z.orua.l. c:ros.'H, .. ~ction excee.ding eight
inches.
(f) Residenria! districts. Nc sign. shall be
eremd 1.1 any ~sidem.ia1 district cxeep! as pro·
vf~below;
(1) OlUTChes and other organizations. In
all residential districts dlUrches and other per
mlttt4 or coOOitionai !l5eS.ln the disuia may ;:rect
signs on t'l)e premises idaltIfying the pn:mi.s.es or
annourring acti vices thereon.
(2) lderui1ying signs. L~ aD resi~ential di,·
tricts Cl.ce-pt R·t, R-E and R·2. signs may be
erected identifying ~ property or buuding on
which the sign is siruiJled.
(3) Special purpose signs. Special pufl'lS<
signs may be crc-cted in ru-identiaI dinriCLS in
compliance with the provIsions of Section
16.20.160.
(4) Size and height. Except as ot.'1erwise
prn"ided in Section 16.20,160. wall signs in
re.sidential di:,-,:icts shaIJ rax ex.a::ed an area: of on::
squa."l: foot or sign (Cir eacll Corty square feet of
\l-aD Ilea cxcept that regardles-s of the size of the
building fact. (1) any sucb sign or combination of
:signs may have an area of a.tleast six square fett
and (2) 00 such sign or combination 0 f sigr.s :sh.aIl
have an an:a greau:r than one 'tw.t~~ fifty squ~
feel freestanding signs shall meet the require
melts ofTah1e 11. No project!.ng signs or roof
signs Wll be erect<d.
{S) Lighting of signs. No sigTl in a i"'esi
denrial di.strict shaD be: CO:1StrUcted in such a way
L'lat any ligJU: bulb, light: filament, neOT! tubing or
similar materia] is visible from the front of the
sign or (rom beyond the propeny 1L'1e.
(6) PC planned community diSL."icts.
Unless otherwise pro'o'i dod in ~ ordinance ap
proving the PC deve1opmem, signs. hereaf,er
1 Table I, rd~ co hc::rtin. can be (ol1!ld.at the end
of lhi! che.pta.
.., .
..... :'r
--
.'
16.20.110 P .. .LO ALTO MUNICIPAL CQ{)E
erected ir.: PC disnicts shall be lovc~d hy the
ruIc:s applicable to I!'.Sidentiat districts as set fonh
in this su'N;e..-tion.
(l) Signs on Wldscaped me .... Y'. Not·
withsWlding ""ything <lsewbcr< contained ill Iflj,
WpICT. no sign shall be erected or. Illy property
adja<:enllO • S<CIioo or Jand$caped free",,), •• x· ,
preSS'lo''&Y or any OCher bMsc.aped limitrd acc:ess
meet or highway m SUCI! ...... y IS 10 be vi<W«l
by 1"""''''' ttaVdini OIl ""'" l3rxIsaped freeway.
.. pres, .... y or any OI!ler 1Jlnd.scaped 1lmited
access """" or highway ~ _ such sian is
,.;ed .l<CIaoivdy:
'''' Tu ....... rtise Ihe aaIe or \use of the
property upoii which Ill< sign is silUllOd; or
(B) To desianue die DaCie of Ihe owner
or oc~ of !be __ uPOn iirucb Ill< sijp'l
is si~ arlO idelllif)' IUdI premises.
(Ord 3539 tl (pan). 1934)
16.20.110 Fuel pric. II", ..
(a) Every person or business organiution
offering for sale or se:Ilins any guolinc or other
motor vehicle fucllO Ihe puh!i<: from any pIict of
business shall = . Sign which ir.<!ic>te! the
actull price per gallon, inctw!ini all UXeo at
which such gaso!ino or olller motor Ydlick fuel is
=~)' being offered for sale or sold. Such
sign ,hall be clearly visible from any 5tre<t or
highway adj= 10 wei>. pW:e of business. If
D1Orc. than Dill: gr<I(k of gasoline or other motor
vehicle rue! ~ o!Ic~ fOT sale l'lf sold. t.be price of
aI k:~-~J.IO ,rradc:s of such gasoline or fud sJ"I..aD
be m ;lO(\ on SIlch sign.
(b) Tbe sign required by 1!Jj, sectioo shall
conform 10 tbe ~ of Anicle 8 (com·
""ncir.g with S=ian 20S8O). Olapeer 7, Divi·
:;ion S of Ihe B_ and Professions a.le and
!he o!her ""l.uiremeDIS of !his chapteI; but is ex·
empt from the reqiliroments of Cllap .. r 16.48
(Artruuaural Revi.w) and Olap<er 18.82 (Site
and Deslgn Review) of this COde. "The permlt
requtred by Section 16.20.0:0 shall be issued
-..vithout fee.
(c) If compliance with this section would
cause the \ow ~a of la~)' erecwS. signs to
1640
e,;ceed I.he are.a .aIlo wed by other provisior1S of
thi.s chapter. one frust.anding sign JlO( 0\'1:; five
feet In height and ~ feet by ~'Ju.r feet in dimen
sion may be erected, but only in order to comply
"";1..'1 this section. SudJ sign may have two faces
if both (aces a..-,: bad·[O-back: in 3pproti~.atcl:!l
para1lelp"""".
(Oro. 3559 f! (pan). 19&4)
16.10.110 Freestandinl sians.
Except as ott..erwise provided in this chapter .
every !~st.andi.ng sign shall coa:tply wfL'" the
requJnmmu of tttis sedion.
(il) Frr.esunding signs o--.er five feet. Free·
standtng signs over five feel in hc:ighI shall be
pe:mitte<l only on IIOIlreSidentUl ~'" in !he
OM wnes and on El CilJDino RuI i., tbc CN ODd
CS woes w ror .5e1"Vk.e surir.m, restaunnSs a.'ld
shopping center! e13.ewhc::~.
(I} Alu and hei&ht.. The mwmum &rea
ODd beighl of SIIch signs is se: forth in Tab" 21 .
(2) Location. EveI)' ,ign shall be wholly
on the o'Vt-rers property
(3) Number. Subject 10 !he provisions of
Section 115.20.170. thc:~ may 'be: one such sign
for each frornage and ore additional sign for any
portion of' fror.tage in excess of two lumdn:d fifty
feet. The size of ... ,y additional sign shall be
d=mined from T.t>le 2' by counting as tromag<
Lh.it portion ~reof which is in exceu of two
huro.-ed fifty feet. In <he case or WPPini ccnt<,.,
anc! other multiple ocOJpan:)(::s having Ii rommon
fronu~e, <he frollUlg. shall be d=«! 10 be t.'at
of !he shopping cen:.er or tommOnly used pa."l%l
W IlQt <he fro~ or lhoe U;divi<i"aJ busin<=s
or OCC".:pancies.
(4) Consuuaion. In addition to the ~.
mcnIS of Sectioc 16.20.190, every such sign
shall be constructed whoily of metal,
tru::ombusubIe plastic: or other approved fiil
resistant matcial
1 Table 2,. referred Ie hc:n:in. c:an be frond at abe etld
Qr Ihls cM;><u,
~ . .
.'-...... '
'·t"
~