HomeMy WebLinkAbout0503.093~ . .
~" ' ... :"-c' .'.
September 23, 1993
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
Pale Alto, California
Appeal of Architectural Review Board Approval of
Building Facade Modifications, Including Signage, at
388 University Ayenue
Members of the Council:
REPORT IN BRIEF
This report forwards to the City Council an appeal J:ly Mr. Mark R.
Stevens, representing 11 Fornaio, of a condicion of approval for
installation of signage as part of the building facade
modification proposal for II Fornaio at 388 University Avenue.
The approval, granted by the Director of :Pla . ..ning and Community
Environment, based on the recommendation of the Architectural
Review Board (ARB). includes a condition that the applicant shall
eliminate one oval sign on University Avenue in order to retain
two other signs.
BAQlGROlJND
On March 11, 1993, the applicant, II Fornaio Am~rica Corporation,
submitted an application for a minor ARB approval to mod~fy the
exterior building facade, install new signage, make landscape
changes cu~ provide additional outdoor seating fo~ 11 ForDaio
bakery at 3BO University Avenue. The application was recommended
for approval with conditions by the AP..B on April 15, 1993. Among
other items, the approval included two non-illuminated blade
signs (projecting signs mounted beneath tbe canopy), a maximum of
three square feet each, mounted on a new canopy to be constructed
on University Avenue. A third sign was locat.ed on waverley
street.
The applicant submitted revised plans on July 13, 1993, which
modified the or~ginal exterior facade proposal. in order to keep
the project within the construction budget. The revised proposal
included elimination of the canopy at the University Avenue
,-
entrance and replacement cof the two blade signs .. d th a single
gold/leaf glass transom panel above the entry door. Two
additional signs in the form of 4.25 square toot oval signs were
proposed, one each on the University Avenue and Waverley Street
elevations.
At its meeting of August 5, 1993, staEf recommended approval of
t~e revised proposal and placed the item on consent calendar.
The ARB moved the item from the consent calendar to the regular
agenda for Board discussion of signage issues. The ARB voted 4-
0-1-0 (with Board member Maser absent) to recommend approval of
the revised proposal as presented by the applicant subject to the
following conditions: 1) a total of two signs shall be permitted
with the oval sign on University Avenue eliminated, 2) the
letters on the Sign over the entri doer on University Avenue
shall not exceed 10 inches in height, and 3) both the oval sign
on Waverley Street and the entrance sign on university Avenue ~y
be illuminated. The Director of Planning and Community
En ..... ironment approved the Board's action on Aligtlst 10, 1993.
On August 12. 1993. the decision of the Director of Planning and
Community BnviroI"l'..ment was appealed by Mark R. Stevens (appeal
application and letter attached) .
ANALYSIS
The appellant has based the appeal on several issues. They are
addressed below in the order they were_ raised in the letter of
appeal.
1. aThe revised proposal replaces two blade signs which would
have hung from a steel and glass canopy with a single Sign
over the University Avenue entrance door, thereby reducing
the total number of signs :In University A .... enue from three
signs to two signs. The total proposed wall sign area of
16.75 square feet is well bela'", t.he allowed -",'all sign area
of 60 square feet."
The ARB, en April 15, 1993, originally apprc:ved four signs
vith a total area of 14.5 square feet. Subsequently. in the
review of the revised proposal, the AP..B approv-ed two signs
with a total area of 11.38 square feet. While two more
signs were approved in the original approval, the overall
design on University Avenue in the first proposal differed
from the revised scheme due to the develo~~ent of a mare
elaborate entry designated by a proj ecting canopy at the
main entrance. Two blade signs were proposed to hang
perpendicular to the building such that pedestrians
accessing the bakery from either side of the Universit}r
Avenue entrance would see the signs. In the revised
proposal, all signs proposed are wall signs and would hang
""
9/23/93
Page :2
•
--,--,,::::,~-. ------
o
flat against the building which would have broader
visibility from all dir.ections. The Board determined, based
on the design of the second proposal, that one sign on
University Avenue and one sign on Waverley Street, with a
total of 12.5 square feet of sign area, is appropriate.
2. nThe applicant indicates that the oval wall sign facing
University Avenue was more important to their operation than
the sign over tbe University Avenue entrance door for the
foljowing reasons:
a. The en~rance door is recessed 18 inches from the face
of the building, and, therefQre, cannot be seen in its
entirety from the University/Waverley intersection.
h. The street trees on University Avenue block thl2 view of
the sign over the door from the street. The oval wall
sign is much more easily visible.
C. The overall design of the Universi t}' Avenue facade
currently has signage between the arched windows on
each end, creating a balanced organization to the
facade. Deletion of the oval sign ","auld leave an
imbalance to this facade design.
d. The existing II Fornaio signs have historically been
located between the arched windows on University Avenue
and Waverley. Th~ new proposal simply replaces these
signs with our new oval identification signs.~
The ARE in its review of the proposal considered the
applicant's needs and reasons for desiring three signs on
University Avenue and onE on waverley Street. In the
original proposal, the signage was oriented to both
pedestrians and vehicles and tbe blade signs wer~ on either
side of the entry canopy, each visible from only one
dirE:ction. In the second PI-oposal, both signs are proposed
close together on a narrow facade along University Avenue,
orier-ted to vehicular traffic. and do not direct pedestrians
clearly to the bakery entrance. The mere number of signs
prcposed i~ confusing to the circulation of the site for a
small storefront in the downtown. The ARB concluded that
signage at the entries is effective for clear access to the
b~~ery without the need for extra signs. The ARB dete~~ned
that two signs, one on Waverley Street and one sign over the
entr~~ce on University Avenue, would be SUfficient. II
Fornaio's advantageous location on a corner and its
storefront tL-ansparenc}' enables the pedestrian and driver to
understand what is happening in thiD location. A sjgn
placed over the entry door beneath the aL·ch on University
.. ~;. .
. .
9/23/93
page 3
o
Avenue fits into the building symr.etry and architecture and
is a natural placement for a ~ign.
3. "Staff 'Was in agreemer~t with the revisions. as the propos;:;.l
project was p~aced on the consent calendar for the August 5,
1993 ARB meeting.-
The A:R.B/ hO\lro'ever r has the prerogative to remove any it:.em
fr~ the consent calendar for discussion as a r~gular agenda
item. Staff agendized the revised sign proposal on the
consent calendar and recommended approval because statf
found the sign d2.signs, the location of sigr_s, and SigH area
acceptable + Staff felt that the signs were vell designed
with low-level illumination, which $erves as an accent on
the signs rather than making a strong identification
statement. Staff concluded that the sign designs are well
suited to the building architecture. Generally~ when staff
differs with the action of the ARB, the Director refers the
item back to the ARB for resolution of t.he differences prior
to the filing of an appeal. In this caser staff was not
aware that the ARB decision would be appealed prior to the
date of the Director's decision.
Finding and Condition
1. Condition 1 is needed to meet the standards for review in
.section 1.6.4S.120(a) 2, 3, 6, and 7 of the Municipal Code
(copy attached). in that signage on the site would be
comp;,ttible with the function of the site only if it remains
understated and is net excessive. The signag~ design can be
made more appropriate to the function of t.he p-roject, if ::l~e
proposed sign over the entrance on University Avenue and the
one oval sign on Waverley Street are installed, and the
proposed oval sign on University Avenue is eliminated. By
keeping the signage from becoming excessive and by placing
the signage where it better directs customers to t!J.e baker}~,
~he proposal will crea~e an internal sense of order for
circulation and access and prcvide a desirable environment
for oc~Jpants, visitors, and the general community.
CozuUtion
'1. The oval sign on University Avenue shall be eliminated, the
sign over the entry door on University Avenue may be
illuminated and the letters on the sign shall not exceed 10
inches, and both the oval sign on waverley Street and the
entrance. on University Avenue, may be illuminated.
9/23/93
Page 4
...
"--
,,--
UCOMMEmJATIQN
The Architectural Review Board recommends that the City Council
deny the appeal, and uphold the Director of Plalli~ing and
Comrm;nity Envirornnent and ARB decision tc appz:ove the
insts11ation of two ·",all signs for Il Foz:naio at 388 University
Avenue, including one oval wall sign on Waver.ley Street and one
t.ransom. panel wall sign o·.rer the entrance on University Avenue,
subject to the finding and condition listed above.
Respectfully submitted,
~ul.U~
LORRAINE WEIS~
Planner
K~~ R. SCHREIBBR
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
AttachDents: Location Map
cc: Appellant
Exhibit A -Original proposal
Exhibit B -Revised proposal
Excerpt minutes of ARB meeting, April 15, 1993
Excerpt verbatim minutes of ARB meE"ting. August 5,
1993
ARB approval letter to Mark R. Stevens, dated
April 20, 1993
ARB approval letter to Mark R. Stevens, dated
August la, 1993
Appeal Application and Letter dated August 12, 1993
Section 16.48 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code
Project Plans (City Council Members only)
Architectur~l Review Boa~d
9/23/93
Pag,= 5
If I ___ *,_ --~-.----..:..-
~r '
• !
JOHNSON PARK
PF
L 7711' 7 __ 7~'7
. .
. ~"-.:, .-. -,-:
. .#' " ".
•
" ..
Ji ~
'I .;
" CI
'I
'1 \.,
~rcllitedu.r;aI . I~evie\\' fJ
1~8.tr.1
EXr'T minutes of the 4/15/93
~f1ng of the ~\\il'lltes
_________ C~,d~A~c-----------------------------------------------------------
MINUTfS
A. ROLL CAL].
Board Members Pre~ent: Thomas Hise
Michael lyzII:a
Thur;day. April 15. 1993 a: 00 AM
Council Cor.f~rence Room
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, Callfornja
Jul ia Maser
Aino-Vielra-Da-Rosa
Board Members Absent: Shirley Wilson
Staff Members Present: Jim Gilliland
lorraine \l,!eiss
B. APPROVAL OF ~IN!1liJOF APRIL 1. 1993
Approved as re~ised. 3-0-1-1~ (Sh~rley ~jlson absent, Thomas Hise
abstained).
C. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
r~one
D. AGENDA ITEMS
APPROVALS: Thf Architectural Review Board (ARB) decision on the design
of the project is a recc~~endation to the Director of Planning and
Community Environment (the Director), who makes the fjnal decision.
Unless otherwise stated by the ARB or t~e Director, project approvals
general1y incorporate Project Review Committee conditions as mailed t.o
the appl ;cants and staff conditior)s as recommended in the Informatfon
Memorandums.
CHANGES: Any change to an approved design plan must be resubmitted to
the City for approvai. Resubmittal of i project may be ne~es5~ry if
thanges are mandated as a result of comp1ying ... ith Public
W{)rK/Engineel'"'!ng or oth-er City department requir-ements. or any othEr
applicable code or or-dinance reQuirement~.
APPEALS: All major and minor project approvals are subject to an appeal
period, which allows for tne applican.t or f:I.embers of He public to file
an appeal from the decision of the Directo.· on the project. The appeal
period for major prnjects (designated wit., an asterisk "*tt) is eleven
(l1J working days following the date of the ARB's recommendation on the
project. The appeal period for mirror projects is seven (7) \liorking days
a: \.Hb\OII .. '!\J~! 5 Page 1
540 Cowper S1ree~ 93 -ARB-,9
DES Architects and Engineers
vised detans for exterior facade modiflcatfons per previous ARB
ap va 1.
None
ARClilTECTURA [VI [W BO.~PD ACTiON: APPROVED, as presented, 4-0-J-D
(Shirley Wilson sent}, ~;th the following;
CONDITIONS
1.
2_
Sign permits
oc,clJpi ed.
All existing trees shall rem·
fence sh~ll be erected around
construct~on acti~itjes.
3. Th~ applicant shall obtain an
Public Works Department prior
permit.
tenant space is
and a temporary construction
trees to be saved duri:19
4. Th~ applicant shall obtain a construc.tior. permit om the
Publics Work Department prior to submisslon for bu;
permit,
II. REGULAR AGENDA
I.
a: \arb\JlHl\OoIl'5
388 Unfversitv
11 forna10 Bakery
93 -ARB-50
93-HRB-3
Exterior facade modifjcations, new signage, landscape changes and
additional outdoor seating for 11 Fornaio bakery.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY; A letter lHas presented from Jim Baer support 'j ng
the facade char:ges~ but recor.-.llending furti1e.-cnnsideration f.if the
outdoor seating changes.
Jim McFall, representing the Historic Resources Board, presented
the HRB cOrmlents. wnich recommended approval of the project.
Mark Stevens. reprcstntlng 11 Fornaio, presented the pr~posal.
ARCHITECTUAAl REVIE~ BOARD ACTION; APPROVED. 3-J-J-0 (Michael
tyzwa opposed as he ... 'as not suppnrtive of two blade Signs; Shirley
Wilson absent), the building changes with awning as proposed, two
blade signs to be non-illuminated, and each sign reduced to a
maximu~ of three square feet. External lighting of the blade
signs to be staff approved and the following to apply:
Page 3
,
2.
,~ ; .. ' .~
o ,r'\
CONDITIONS
1. The propo~Ed stdewalk seating was continued to allow staff
to address the policy issues of utiJizii1g the pub1ic space
and lrrJill return to the ARB at a future date Wfjen all p-olicy
is~ues have been resolved.
2. The applicant shall submit to the Building Division, plans
without the additional Dutdoor seating.
3. The applicant shall submit installation detail~ of the blade
sign, wall sign, and sign lighting for review and apDr·Dval
to Planning Staff prior to issuanc.e of .. building permit.
4. The appllcant shall obtain an encr~achment permit frem the
Publi~ Works Department for the canopy and brace signs in
<:onjunction w;th obtaining a building permit.
illLEl C'~inQ...~e.l •
Taco B.n
91·ARB-182
92-[lA-3B
Major review of the design and construction of a new 2.014-square
foot fast food restaurant (Taco Bell) l:Ii th take-olIt ser .... ice.
TESTIMONY: Mark Nowak. representing Taco Bell, pre~ented
posal. He stated that this facility wOlIld replace tne
Taco Bell franch~se.
Bob Moss, p sen ted a letter from the Baron Park Association
requesting se a1 changes to the proposal. (Letter on fIle.'
Kich.l. Midkiff,
Kendall Avenue, to
the impacts on the
added p,ople.
ager of the apartment bui:ding located at 529
t rear of the site, e.xpres:;ed c.oncern about
ents. including noise, .... iews? odors, and
Joseph Tripiano, adjacent pro rtj o~mer, stated that he thought
that this was the wrong loc.atio this type ,of proposal.
ARCHIT[CTUR~L REVIEW BOARD ACTION:
\rinson -absent), for the applicant to
• •
•
•
•
Use permit to be obtained prior tc. ; return.
Building siting~ parking, vehicle circu tion, landscaping,
garbage removal and loading and unloading f supplies.
Rethink the arc~itecture furtner for the bUl to appear
as a custom design.
Consider the street appearance of the building i
with the existing streetscape.
({lnsider placing ally excess required parking in land~nE' reserve. .~-,
Page 4
~ '.:-
~ ,.;,.;.-:'
>."
" Arcnttectural Review Board Hearing
August 5, 1993
388 UNIVERSITY AVENUI;
11 rornaio ~estaurant
93-ARB-50
.Hr. Mise; This is a revisloT, to a previously ARB-approved prDject for
bui10ing fa~ade modification. Is the applicant present? (Yes) You nal,lE
fi~~ minutes for a presentatio~.
N2rk Stevens: rh~ reason for revisj~g the plans ar~ included in a letter
provided in your packets. I just want to explain wnat ~~ have done. We
had been approved before fDr some bi-fold windDws along the perimeter of
th~ bu11d1ng to replace th~ existing fixed gla!lng. Also to put a metal
canopy over the front entry door. After we priced 21,1eryHing out. w€
realized that ltIlth our e.xisting bUsiness operation, the cost of those two
items alone ~re 9(':;;:;: to blow our-budget sky h'jgh, and we wO!Jld no lLlflger
be profitable at this location. We still want to do all th~ interior
changes, but we saw an opportunity to really improve our budget by
cnanging, because one of the problems was th~t by having tne one-foot
project on the peir of c~sement windcil/s, we had to build a ne .. wall ir. the
interior of the window fa~ade. Th~t proved to be very costly. Th€ glass
canopy alone was something in the neighborhood of $10 1 000. 50 those two
items we chose to delete. We replaced the casement ~ir.do~s with some
double-hung windows instead. We just want to get the optimal windows so
~e can allow some breezes to flow through thGt corner. It does not
require bunding the additional 'lljall, and we can literally place these
double-hung windows in the eX1sting openings.
Where OlIr glass canopy was projecting out ont(l the cit]' sidewan space, we
just want to put a black glass sign abov~ the entry door to demark that as
our main entrance. Those are the two changes we want to make tn get our
budget back to a place where we can manage it.
Ms. DaRosa: The reason I had this ttem ~ulJed was becaus~ there was some
discussion about the nlJmber of signs the Tast time. Now w-e are 100king at
the University Avenue el~vation. There ire two signs. This one has not
oe~n eliminated, but that one has? (Correct)
Mr. Steyen~: BefDre, we had the canopy that ca~ out, and two blade signs
Gn each side that were the same SiZE as th!se.
Mr. His;,t: Does anyone-else want to speak from the audience? (No) Are
there any questions for staff? (No) Let us begin our comments.
~Ros_~: I want to talk about th~ nlimber of signs on University
Avenue. You ha~e two signs, side by side. with the same wording. I think
it 15 excessive. Could we ask the a~plicant if it is possible to
illuminate the sign over the entry door and eliminate the little oYal sign
on Unhersity?
Mr. Stevens: That might be possibie. What W~ are trying to do 1S to
08/05/93
-1-
•
.. ~ .
•
o
create some ~ynrr~try to HIe two fa~ades that in at rdnety degrees to each
other. This is the Waverley side, where we have the sign between the t~D
arched window~. Similarly~ the ovaT s~gn here is between these two arched
wIndows. They actually replace twa existing signs that are there now on
the face of the building that are-Quite a bit Targer. Again, an we are
trying to do here is to create more of an impressiof1 of centrality of this
entrance and the fact that this doorway gQes all the way to that pOint.
Right now, it ;s just a blank panel that is rather nor/descript? and thea:e
is not much happening there. So ~e wanted to make these focused signs, as
tnat is where our existing sfgnage js right now. Certalnly we could scale
down the words on this sigll, but lII'e would like tD treat that iiS a
composition of the entry. So I prefer not to eliminate these signs. If
worst comes to w~rst? I suppose we cDuld eliminate that sign, but 1 wouTd
like not to. I would like to propose that we do have some signage right
above our front entry door .
.Ms_.~aRosa: You choose to el iminate the sign Ilver-t!le door rather than
the oval sign on the side.
Mr. Stevens: Ves. r would rather eliminate this sign, if I had to, but I
prefer to h~ve all three s1gns. and nave this sign replace the two blade
signs. If you would like me to seal! down the size of the words on that
sign, I would certa;~1y be g1ad to do tnat.
Ms. Wilson: I feel that the signage at the entry is very effective, and
do not quite see the necessity of a second sign on University Avenue.
would like to know how the board feeTs.
Mr. lyzw~~ This whole signage issue is a concern. to me. I I)ope that the
solution, aTtnoug~ r can follow the logic, t~e e(onomy is not nearly as
innovative and creative as the original plans we had seen. I do
acknowledge and recognize tne explanation of the architect. I am having
difficlJlty with tnree signs. r thinK the transparency into 11 Fornaie is
such, and the location is so wonderfully placed on the corner that I think
~aYinQ three signs is unnecessary. Everyon~ knows it is a bakery and the
purpose fo~ tn~ business ~stablishment. I do agree with Shirley that the
main sign over the doorway is ·"ery important. It fits into the
arcnitecture quite we11. But I am net convinced that a11 three signs are
necessary.
Mr. Hise: I agree that two signs on University A~e~ue seem exces~iv~. J
am also surprised that the applicant would rather eliminate the one over
the door than the oval sign. J would like to SEe one of them eliminated.
I woald be willing to propose that we eliminate the one over the door,
Since that is what the applicant has asked for, if he had a chOice of
eliminating one {)r the other. I personally think it wouTd be better {)ver
the door9 and the symmetry would be less noticeable tnan to have a sign
over the door. But I respect the applicant's request.
~: Mr. Hfse: J move that ~e recommend approval. with the initial
condition that we e11minate the signage o~er the e~trance door~ leaving
the two o~al signs.
Hr. Stevens: I say that because these are illuminated signs at the
OB/OS/S3
-2-
.'
~ .. '
-'
.::J<t~~.' ."
~"""; ~
. -'!:':'" ':'" .
. .(~~ •. :"~'
;'c, . /'
-~-~--...;..--
o
corner, so wne~ you come to that intersection, you
very clearly. This is further down the block, and
pedestrian access into the buildin9~ as opposed to
vehicular-oriented signs.
S£CONO: By Michael Ly, ••.
Mr. Hlse: Any discussion?
can see those ~igns
is really more for the
the more
Ms. 1I01son: Yes. I am not ~oing to support this motion. I really feel
that drawing attenticn to the entries is \lfry important. 11 fornaio is a
business that hardly needs any signage. ~ou have lines of people in front
of your door ~very day. ! find it hard to understand why so much signage
is needed. ] think that 'oII'hen a major change ;s made like this, as you
na'Je been forced to make. you have to reevaluate what YOll are t-rying to
accomplish. I think what you are wrestling ~ith is the concept of
symmetry and lighted signs, and you need to take a big step back and ~sk\
what "i s really important to 11 fornido. r think what is important for the
store is to identify the new entries. If you want lighted signs, those
signs should be the signs that are illuminated. J think the sign on
Waverley Stre:!t could easil;-be a different type of sign. It could be a
curved sign over that entfY door that will fit in and emphasize that entry
door. I think this is a matter of getting snme leftover m~terial and not
thinking through, w~at is our new approach to this? You have to take a
step back in a situation lik.e tr,is and reevaluate. So I wiJl not be
supporting this motion.
Ms. DaRo~: r will not be supporting the motion, either. [think that
when you loa;. at the synvnetry of the building and look at the elevation
separately, the little oval sign on Unfversity is cro~ded into an area
where there ;s a lot going on, and a lot of detail. i\n entry o'.ler the
door says. this is where you go in. it is gGing to be conf~sing to people
to gG in at the corner and help orient people to the right door.
Mr. Hise: This door is existing ri~ht now.
~aRo_g: Yes. but the lines go the other way. r would 1 ike some
discussion of the size of the sign Q'.Ier t~e dOGr at th~ end talking about
that sign some more, because right MOW~ the lettering seems to go almost
to the top and bottom edges of the sign. So I ~ill not be supporting the
motfon.
Mr. lyzwa: I would like to ask Aino and Shirley a hypothetical Question.
If we elimin~ted two oval signs and left the sign o'.ler the door, would
that be more appealfng to you than the current option of eliminating the
sign over the door?
Ms. Wilson: The door on Waverley is a new door, correct? (Ves) 1 think
it deserves some attenti~n drawn to it. The way they ha'.le reconTigured
the interior floer plan, it almost creates a fJo~. There is a diagonal
counter inside. I tl~ir.k there is a reason w~y these doors arli not iceabl e
on both sides. I would t~ink that they would want to do that, and I would
think tnat that is where you want to illuminate your slgns so that even in
the late afternoon hour5 in the winter when it is getting dark out, there
V8/V5/93
-3-
•
I
I ,
,,, "
.-~::~:::, ~
/-,',
is somr. light tkE'l"'e at the doorway. J just thiilk it needs a little
reconsideration. I know there is a good solution for this. and they
always done a nite job n€re. I am certainly supportive of it*
~m; It seems to me that th! oval sign fits irl ~ono'erfully in the
arched windows. I agree with the explanation that the architect provided
as to the reasons for and his des:re to reflect that character on both
fa~ades. On the other hand, [ also agree with you abo~t the signage aver
the main entry. r do~'t know wher~ a happy medium couTo' be reached here.
I am somewhat split right now, and do not know which direction to go in.
because [ like the signage , but on the otner hand, r also agree there is
too much of 1 t.
Mr. Hise: There is not enough support for the motion to pass. So I
withdraw the ~~tion and you could withdraw the second. We could try
another IJKItlOrt.
Mr. lVlwa: r withdraw my motion.
Mr, Hise: let us see if someone else 'Wants to try 50mething here.
Ms. DaRosa: I feel comfortable with the sign on Waverley. The o~al sign
seems to be their standard sig~. and there is a place for it there. It is
kind of cr~wded if yo~ staTt to put a sign over the entry door. J think
tnat serves the pedestrian accessing the bakery.
~: Ms. DaRosa: I would support a sign ov€r the front dODr and tne
oval s1gn on WaverTey, and allow them to eliminate that sign over the
front door if they thought it was necessary. We should take a look at
r~ducing the letters so the business name fits within the space better and
not look squeezed into the space.
~~ By Thomas Hise. The motion is for a sign over the entry doors on
University AveQ~e wlth the letters scaled down slightly. and the oval sign
on Waverley remaining, with the option of eliminating both.
M..!:...~: May J ask a question of the board? If the two oval signs were
not illuminated Signs, but ~re j~st placed on the bull ding fa~ade~ and
maybe just the letters, not necessarily the whole Qval shape, would you
then be willing to support t~ree signs?
Ms. paRosa: J don't think so.
Mr.' Stevens: We did ha~e four signs before. Standing here on University
Avenue, you would see two signs on the UniverSity Avenue facade.
Ms. DaRosa: I know. We suffered with that.
Mr. Hise~ would not brag about that. You did not get a unanimous vote
on that. That had a 1 iUTe bit to do with the design you proposed in the
blades, as 1 remember.
All those in fawor? Tnat pas:~s unanimoUSlY.
08/05/93
-4-
•
-.
Ms. Wetss.: nave a question. How much do you want tnem to reduce the
size of the letters over the e~try door?
,IoIr. Hise: Could we have that come back. on consent calendar~ and nave it
sligntTy reduced?
Ms. DaRosa: COlJld we do something 50 it dQes not have tn come back? Can
you bring t~e drawing here? Maybe we can work something out now. You nad
said something about reducing the sign.
Kr. Steve~s: I can get you some more room in here. These l~tters right
now, the I and the F, are twelve inches high.
Ms. Wilson: They just come very close to the border.
Mr. Stevens: That is about 17 inches tall.
Mr, ___ !its~: What would you do if these were l1lumlnatpd?
Mr. Stevens: If r wa~ going t~ illuminate it. tnere would have to b~ a
box stfcking out from the base of the building. r do not really want to
do that, because the frame of the door goes all the way up and back down+
I would have to tear o~t a bunch of the framing and there ;s actuallY a
beam that runs across there on the insidf. The only way r could
illuminate it would be from the exterior side. These were going to be
back-lit, and! showed you the sampie. Tnat wou1d be quite striking, and r don't think I t~uld get that same effect with this sign.
Ms. paRosa: But you COUld do a bracketed light that came out.
~Stevens: Yes, that lS how I would have tn do it. That is 12 inches
right now. I could probably scale it down to ten inches, and tnen work:
with that border so that there is a little more rODm.
Ms. DaRosa: The relationship between the border and the letters.
&........Stevens: There is plenty of roam. There is 17 inches worth of glass.
s~ there is plenty of room around there to do that. That border is only a
quarter of an inch.
Ms. DaRosa: That would be acceptable to me.
Mr. Hise: Do we need to vote on tnat, or just add that to the motion?
Mr.' Ginil~r~; The exact thing you are doing is to r€duce the capital
letters from 12 Inches to 10 inches?
Mr. Lyzwa: Why not just .say the ti'lat the letters shall not exceed ten
1nch~s in height. That lea~es room for some adjustments.
(End of h.aring)
08/0S/93
-5-
-
-------
•
April 2Q, 1993
~r. Mark Stevens
J1 Fornaio America CorpoTcticr.
1000 San some Str~et #200
San Francisco, CA 94111
Dear Nr. Stevens:
The Di rector of Pl anning and Communi ty Environment. upon
recommendation of the Architectural Re~iew Board at fts meeting of
Acri] 15. 1993 has approved the following application per the plans
submitted for review, and subject to the fo1lowing conditions.
3aa University 93-ARB-50
~3-HRB-3
Exterior facade modi ficatior.s, new s ignage. 1 andsclIp-a cn"anges and
additional outdoor seat1ng for 11 Fornai~ bakery.
Revised signage per previous ARB approval and insta.llation of
exterlor light fixtures.
COIIDlTlONS
I. The proposed sidewalk seating was ccnt;nued to allow staff to
address the policy issues of ~tilizing th€ public space Gnd
will return to the ARB at a futu~e date wh~n all policy issu~s
nave been resol\1ed.
2. The applicant shall sub~it to the Building Division, plans
without the additional outdoor seating.
3. The applicant shall submit installation details of the blade
sign, wall sign, and sign ligr.ting for review and approval to
Planning Staff prior to issuance of a bui lding permit.
4. The applicant ~hall obtain an cncrvacnment permlt from the
Public Works Departmel1t for the canopy and blade sigl'1s in
conjunct ion wi th obtaining a bUi lding permi t.
mc!arb\a:\J88 'J"h 25{lHam!1tor,Avenue
pn'Box la231
PaIoAlto.CA 9UD
415.329.2441
41S.3l9 2240F.u
"" '
•
Your ~ext step is
then app1y to tn.
permits, prOVided
1991.
to fulf111 the Con(1itl0r1S at proJec.t ipproval and
Building tnspection Department for t~e appropriate
that n~ appeal of the project is. filed by April 26,
The prcje.c.t must ccmply with tr.-e requi.rements of all ap~licaJ:,'e CHy
CQd~$ and ord;na"t~s fo( your permit.
lhis project ~pprava1 is va1id fer one {l} year from the date of
approval unless specifitllly stat~d otherwise.
In the ~vent the bUllding permit fDr a project is not secured ~ithin
the abo~e specified time 11mit, the approval of the project ~il1
expire and be of no further force or effect.
Should )'OU ha: ... e any qIJestions regarding tr,;s ARB .acUOrl, please do
flOt hesitate to call the Plant1ing Oe~h1,rtmel",t at {4H} 329-l546.
lo-rraine Weiss
~RB Staff Liaison
Planner
me! arb\a :\)S8. un\~
•
August 10, 1993
Mr. Mark Stevens
11 Fornaio America Corporation
1000 Sansom. st. #2eo
San Francisco, tA 94111
Dear Mr. Stevens:
City<<: ~o Alto --~" ------------DeportmemofP/an"ingaJla
Community t.nvilOnmenl
The Director of Planning and Community Environment, upon
recommendation of the Architectural Review Board at its meeting of
August 5. 1993 has appro~ed the fol1o~i~g application per tne plans
submitted for review, and subject to the following condition.
388 University Avenue
11 Fornaio Restaurant
Revision to prellious1y ARB approved project for building facade
I":'mdification.
The oval sign on University Avenue be eliminated. The sign ove~ the
entry door on University Avenue may be illuminated and the Tettel"s on
the sign net to exceed 10". The oval sign on Waverl ey Street may be
illuminated.
Your next step is to fulfill the conditions of project approval and
tnen apply to the Building Inspection Department for the appropriate
pfrmits, provided that no appeal of the project is fl1ed by
August 15, 1993.
The project must comply 'With the requirements of all appl icable City
codes and ordinances for your permit.
This project approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of
approv~l unless spe~if;ca11y stated otherwise.
In the event the building permit for a project is not secured within
the above specified time l1mit, the approval of the project wi11
expire and be of no further force or effect.
Should you have any questions regarding this ARB action, p1ease do
not hesitate to call the Planning Department at (415) 329-2546.
1.kr/'/....tt...0~ t,U tc#-'L
Lorraine We; 55
ARB Staff liaison
Planner
a: \388. UN IV 2SJ HamiItmA,,'enue
P.o. Box 1(l'LC;J
PaloAlto,(:A 9-O:I3
415.329.2411
415. 329.Z240F.u
•
r', .~; ;::;.: ." ,r;,:;'~ ! 2 !'~23 CITY OF PALO ALTO .
Office 01 thl! City Cferk
", •.. _.-: .. ,-APP~L FROM THE DECISION OF DIRECTOR OF P\J!'\IIINltlG t.8~ PH 'S3
i: .... ' ~O CO~MU,'!J1'Y ENVIRONMENT (ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW'I!:I>JlOCAi"l flS)
To be flied In dupkate
Appfocatioo No. q 3 -A JOB -C; 0 Receipt No. '70 -'-fG :3
Name 01 Appellant ! t.-~o hMWc:A-0?p. Phone f4iI5 9g~ (~
Address (6"0 ~'¥ME' 0-. 1I'''U>z> Qw fE1'It.'QS0l Ot ""-fll!
Stree! City ZlP
LOCAnON OF PROPERTY: ~sessor's Pare" No. \')..0 -\ t;-O!fi -00 Zone District coc.i§f)(~)
Street Address 'J,ef; liN ('@2§1,T,{-MNUE7 ~M-o~""---.!cfrr,,,,-1!-,-,0"--P; O'r",-,-~.
Name of Property CMrner Of other than appelTant) f?!>< y /2ffl?
Propel1yOwn .... sAdd .... F-<1· &x [4>72. J::4on.~ lWte
Street t--'-""-City
TtK! dedslon of the Director of PlannIng and Community Envfrooment dated ___ ::-__
19 '1'2 wherebylh~appficaUOf1ot It" ~<> ~ ~.
(original apoocar:t)
for architectural review' was ~ Wtnf,~-rs., is hereby appealed ror the reasons stated
{approved /deo'edj
in, die ans.~ letter (In Gi,;plFcate). / /hi..-__ _=-=-
Dare a If -13 Signruure of APPei1an!~/*'~~:===. '= __ _ (;'<i.fof(lL(.,(~ 5-U-C/:;') ~
CITY COUNCIL DECISION;
Om._~ ____ . __ _ Approved __ _ Der.ied ___ _
Remarks arrJ/or Condllions:
SUBMITTAL REOUIREMENTS SAnSFlED;
,. Plans fit--' By; , 1.1 () .: "0---L:
2-Labels ~ By. ?'
3. Appeal Application Forms I By; J.,./.I.J N_-<f:-_Q
•• letter r;1v By: ~~'l.--"-
S. Fe. Ln V By "U2l£~ y
12/89
I
o
RECEIVED
I·,',~ 1 2 i~?3
August 10, 1993 ~' •. '"
,;,: ':'" ' -..
Ms. Lorraine Weiss, Planner Letter No, PA-ARB,OOI
City of Palo AIU;
Department of Planning and Community Development
250 Ha..'Tli1to~ A venue
Palo Alto, Ca 94301
RE.: n Fomaio Paneu.eria
3ag University Avenue
Palo Alto, CA
.Dear Lorraine:
00 AUglL~ 5, 1993 I presented revisions to the exteriN design of our U Fornaio
remodel project which \lad been previously approved by the Architectural Review
Board on April 15, 1993 (Project #93-ARB-50). These revisions had been
included on the COOsel1t calendar for the August 5, 1993 meeting !J.ut were moved
to the regular agenda because of signage issues raised by the Board. The Board
subsequently appxovoo the revisions with the condition thac one of the previously
-approved oval waIl signs be deleted. We disagree wiIh this dedslon and we
wish to appeal tile Board's ruling. Out appeal is based on the follo\\'"g
ciroumsta=:
L
2.
We replaced two blade signs hanging from a steel and glass
canopy with a singIe sign over the University Avenue entrance
door, thereby reducing the toW number of signs on University
Avenue from tbree signs to two signs. Furthermore, the toral area
of sigTlajle remained unchanged. (2 blade sign, at 4.25 sq. ft. =
8.5 sq. ft.; transom sign l'-{j" x 5'-{j" = 8.25 sq.fl). We are also
well below the total wall sign area of 60 sq. ft. with an aggregate
total of 16.75 sq. ft.
\Vhen I presented the revisions, I indicated lhat the oval wali sign
f~g University Avenlle was more important to our operation
than the sign over our University Avenue entrance door. Despite
my statement, the Board decided to allow the sign over the door
instead. \Ve nWntaln our position of L'1e importance of the oval
wall sign (or a number of reasons:
..
0,,;;'
J) ;,.'.,,'
o
{ .
. .?,
Page 2 of LeIIer No. PA-ARB.OOl
Attn: Lorraine Weiss
August 10, 1993
3. The entrance door is recessed 18" from the fac.e of the
building and, therefore, cannot be seer"! in its entirety from
the University/Waverly intersection,
b. The street trees on University block the view of the sign
over the door from the street The oval Wlll sign is mvch
more easjly visible.
c. The overall design of the University facade currently has
signage between the arched windows on each eod, creating
a balanced organization to the facade. Deletion of the oval
sign wowd leave an imbaJ anc!: [0 thl s facade design.
d. Our existing n Forna.io signs :have historically been located
between the arched windows on University and Waverly.
Our proposal simply rrpiaces these signs wHh our new oval
identity signs.
3. Your department apparently was in agreement with our revisions,
as our proposal was included on the CCrisem calendar for the
August S, 1993 ARB hearing.
For these reasons, Lorraine, we uk that the exterior design which we submitted
1D!be ARB on August 5th be approved and that the ARB's changes be rescinded.
Pleoue !al<e a look at the photognphs which you have en file for the building.
Our design rational. will be e>ident to you. We trust that you are co agreement
and we look fOI"'ftm to confirmation of same.
Please let me know if you need an)' addi tiO!lal in fonna.tion in lh rs regard. Thant
you in advance for your assistance on our behalf.
~: Sk/Jr-L, E:?!....
Vice President of Development
~: FIle
o
16.48.010 PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE
CHAPTER 16048
ARcmTECTURAL REVIEW'
16.48.DI0 De-c:laration of' gDals and PUr'
POSp.s.
Tho goals and purposes of litis clupler are to:
(a) Promote: ordeny and lwrnonious devel~
opmen! of Ihe city;
(b) Enhance the desirability of residence or
invesmtern in rJ-.e city;
(0) Enroonge !he attalrun<ru of Ihe most de
s:irible use ofland 31d improvements;
(d) EnlIan<:e Ihe desirability of living condi
tions upoo the immediate sl'te or in adjar.en1 areas;
and
(e) Promote visual envl"'onrnc:nts v.ilicb an:
of high aesthetic quality and variety and which. at
the same time, are considerate of each other.
(oro. 3416 i I (part). 1983)
16.43.0.20 Architectural review board.
Tbae is c:n:ated In arcbitz:cturaI review board
oonsistingoffivcpenlOllS, atleasttlmoe ofwl>om
shall be mhiteets.. Imdscape ardlitects. bulldlng
designers or other design professionals. Each
memberofthe.a."'Chitectaral review boa3'd 9laIl be
appointed by (he city coW]cil and shall serve,
commetXing on the first d:ay of October, fOi ..
letm of three yeatS orunrJ hls or her successor is
.ppoinled and rakes omce. The vchireauraI re
View t:o;U"d silall have the POWt:r5 and duties spec
ified in this chapter. and s11.aIl comply with the
pro<:odures specified in this chBp«r. (Ord. 3416
§l (POrn. 1983)
16.4.8.030 Manner of appoinlment.
In filling vacancies on the archiltctural review
bam!. Ihe following procWures shall be followed
by Ihe cily rouncil:
(8) FoIlo\lr,1ng notification of vacancy on the
arc:hirecrura.I rcvlc:w board:, the city .;Jerk shall ad-
: Prior ordinance history: Ord 2103 as ~nded by
Ords. 2717.2847.2863.2927.2960,2984.3197.
3243 and JJ3J.
1694
veruse me same in a lie~~paper or generJ.l cirrula·
tion in the city. incluC!ing me coun.cil agenda
digest, four times within two weeks.
(b) Written nominarions and appticaLions
shaD be submitted '0 the .city clerk within such
two· wed:: period. tc be: forwarded 10 the c:ly
council for its :oruiderati~ Notwithstanding the
fo~going, if the nomination or application of an
fncw:nbem board member is not submitted to the
city elm within the period spetified above, said
period .s}u:ll be ell:tended for an additional five
days during 'ilo'IDcb the city clerk shall accept wri[~
ten nominations and applications of no~incum
bents.
(c) TIle city ccuncil s.",an review aD r..omina·
nons and applications and conduct such inter·
views .as it deems necessary prior to selection
(d) FI.Ila1 selection and appoinuneru maIl be
made by the city council al a regular city couru;J.l
meeting aftt.r lhe period for submittal of nomina·
lions and applications has e~..red.
(On!. 3416 i I (pan). 1983)
1',48.040 Proctdu~s or the architec
tural review board.
TIc architectUral review boan:! :shall met:[ at
least monthly and shall prescribe: bylaws, forms.
appIicatiom. Nles and regulations for tbc conduCl
of its buslDess. AD meetings of the architectur.ll
~ew board shall be open to the public. The
arc.hitecO.lt'ill ~Yiew board shaD send a report. not
less than once a year, to the pi:anning commlSSiOD
.00 city rouncil for Ihe purJlOOe of commurticalinl!
Ihe = of the board wilh respect tQ Ihe city'.
plans. policies. ordinances and procedures as
these affect the projects which the board ~iews.
(Ord. 3796 il. 1988: Onl. 3416 II (part). 1983)
16.48.050 Appliubilify or cbapter.
No permit required under Title 16 shall be
issued except after approval of the design of the
pmject b)' the dirmor of planning and community
environment, or by the ellY COWlCiI, as the case
may be, upon a recommend.ation of the architec
tural review board. in compliance with thls cnap..
ter. The architectural review board shall make a
Rev. Ord. S upp. 3192
•
.-.,,:' -'.'·'·'-c:C;:'··
\
"
· ','-'
o
BUILDING REGULATIONS 16.48.050
reccmr.'lend~tion on the 6.~slgn of all of 'the fol
lowing projectS;
(a) New construction. including public proj·
ects and cOllStrUrtion on public pmpeny, aM m~
eluding paved areas, exterior work a."ld signs
which require a permit from the city. but ellcept
.illg singly developed sing1e.family dwellings :,.,d
duplexes. and additions thereto;
(b) Unless the application is di'ler".td for
administrative. approval pu!!uant to Chapter
18.99, a PC lOne district or any amendmerJt
!he_, applied for puzsua!lt to Olapter 18.68:
(1) Ally application for approval of or
amendmem 10 a PC zone dh.-tric[ shall initially be
reviewed by the p)anning commission for con·
formance with Chapter 18.68. \hen the ~evelo~
mcru plan shall be reviewed by tlle arcllitectUtal
rtview board for compliance with this chapter,
and fuWly tile development plan shaJl be ",,,,<ned
to the planning comatission for a f&nal recommen·
<!alion tD !he ctty COIII1Cil.
(2) In !he evem tile planning commission.
at its initial nview. ru.ommen& derJaJ or the
.application, such n:commendation shall be: for
wan!ed <Ii=Ily to w city ""unci!, and tile uchi
lCC'tllr.Il review bow shall make no recommen
dation on the appllcatiOll excep[ as may be d:i.
r=ed by I!le city cooncil
(3) 1n the event of inconsiS1encies in the
=mendalion of <he arcllitecnlral review_
on au application for approvill of or amendment £0
a PC zone district. the commissiDn and board
shaD attempt to resolYe such inconsist=ncies prior
to the commission's making a fl nal recommen
dation to Ute city council. by means whld\ may
include a joint meeung.lfthe in~les are
not, resolved. thea. the S/:,para.te ~ccmmendati.ons
of eadl body. wgaher with the mtm:tes of metr
respective meetings and/or of the joir.t meeting
shall be trnnSmilIed to I!le cit)' rouncil.
(c) Unless the application is diverted for
adm"izUsu-ative approv.al pursuant to Cbapter
)8.99. any deve~opment. construction or im
provement in any OS zone dtstric[,. AC zone
districT or any district. which is combined with a 0
zone district. except sLngly developed' single·
1695
family dwellings, 61Jp1exes ami accessory
buildtngs and \lses thereto. or aroy gasotine
service station whict. mu.st be appro .... ed pan;uatlt
to Chapter 18.82. as required in the CN, ce, CS,
GM and 1M zones;
0) Any such development, corutructicn •
improvemenr or gasoline servia: station shaD. inl·
tiall Y be reviewed by the planning commission
pUI"SilW to Chapter 18.82 a..'l.d then shill be re
vlcwed by lh~ arcttitectura1 review board for com
pliance w:ith this chaptc:r before final a..."""tioo by the
tit)' counciL
(2) In the event: the planning commissi on,
al its initial review, recommends d'mial of the ap-
p1k:.ation. such rtcornmend.;uior! s}1...all be for·
w>nle<l <fite<Uy to \he city coun<il, and the archi
tectural review board shall mae no terommen·
dation on the I!:pplication e~pt as may bt-dl
n:cted by the cit)' rouncil
(3) In ~ event of inconsi.stencies in the
rerummcndation of the pl~g commission and
th~ recommendation of the: a.n:hiu:crural review
boW. the commission and bow "hall =1'< to
resolve such inconsistencies. prior to forwardfng
the appIicacan III the ctty council by moans whicl1
may include a joint meeting. If tile iJJconsiste:ncies
are Dot re:salved, then t..bc. separate recommen
dations of each body. together with the:funuteS of
their ~ ... e meetings and/Or of me jow meet·
ing shall be trulSmiae4 tD the.::it)' counciL
(d) Fences. in any category of architectural
review board jurisdiction enumerated in sub-
sections (a) through (cj oftJ-Js S"'..ction.
(e) Projects ~quiring variances or use per
mits wnen. in the (Hscredon of the zoning admin.
istntc:r OTthe diJ"e:CWT of planning aM conununiry
envtronment.. they may have a. s.t~ificant cffeCl.
upon the atS'.netic character of the cil;t or the
surrounding area.
(t) The foregoing re.q:uiremenlS notwiili
sta."1.ding. the director of plz:nn:ing and community
environment may approve or disapprove 1l:le de
sign of a minor clunge to a. project wllich has
previously received design approval without
procuring a recommendation of the archilecturaI
review board under the following circumsrances:
Re.". Ord. Supp. 31'92
o
l6.48.060 PALO ALTO MVMClPAL CODE
(1) The dlrector dcte:rmlnes that UJ.e change
requested is mi.!1O:', oClinIc visual significance 371d
ousty approved improvements: and
(2) The board has Tecol'llmo"'nd cd to the
di.-eCtor that no funhe. architectl.lCal review board
review is necessary.
(g) In a.:Wltion to the fo~gojng requirements.
\.he director of planning !nd community environ
mcr,t or ci!y councll may request the opL.'1ion of
the architectural revi~w board on other architec
turalmanexs.
(h) The foregoing requirements not
withsLanding. the director of planniilg and
community environment may approve or
disapprove. the design of t'1e following .smaD
projects without procuring a recommendation
from me architectural review board;
(I) Any sign which complies with !he sign
ordina:nce and which is consistent \\ith any desjgn
guideline.s which may be adopted by the
architeclW2l review boanl,
(2) A minor project, intluding minor
ac!wuons or aItenlJ:ions to an e.xlsting building or
10 si,[e improvements, which in lbt discretion of
!he diteClOr does net sipifiCOlllly clwlge the
visual ~ or function or me butlcfmg or site
and which is consistent With any design
guidelines which may be adopted. by the
archi~ectual review board'. Examples of minor
projectS incIu.k, bill are not limited to:
(A) Equipment. wheD screened from
public view,
(B) Fe= orwaJl~
(C) =ges to doors and windows,
(0) StyIi$hts. or
{E) A landscaping projec: ';I.'!"-.icb the
d:ireclor -finds to be an upgrade of uisting
lands<:aping.
While reviewing tbese small projects, the
director MaD follow the sam e design gu:den~s
and recordkeeping procedures ~ are generally
required by the-board when it reviews projects
under this chapter. The director shall send a
report., on a biannual basis, 10 the board
cor.ceming the Dumber and type of project
~p:>ro\'als he or she makes under this ~on. The
1696
din:ctor shall also a.llach to each meeting agenda
of me board a report listing the projecls s':heduled
for review as well as the number aIld types of
projett approvals he or she h~ made under 111 i s
section. NOllater than four working days after L'le
effectivl! date of the dirett:lr's decision and action
on a SOl aD project, any person aggri~ved by tl'le
action of the direclor on the project may file a
request for review of the project by t'lle board.
Under such circumsunces, che 'board shall review
and make a recommetidadon on the d:sig!'l_ of the
smaD project in the same manntr as it reviews ami
makes recommendations on other projects under
this chapter. The same appeals proceCIure set fcl'th.
b Seo::tioo 16.48.090 shall also apply to !he .small
project.
(On!. 4077 ii, 1992: Ord. 3796 12, 3, 198B:
Ord. 3754 §2, 1987; On!. 34.6 §I (PUl), 19SJ)
16.48.060 Application.
Applications for design review of a project
shall be med '!'ill! the pbnning department along
with a fee .as se! tonh in the municipal fee
scbedulc. Unless the applicanl is otherwise
notified in wri ting., the application shall be
deemed complete on the thinieth ca1endar day
after its receipt by the planning depanmeru. or on
the date 1he project is first oonside~d by the
an:h1te.aural review board. whichever comes first
Once the .appli~tion is deemed complete, the
dtl"tttOr shall ~w the appljcarion and. pursuant
to (be California Envi1"01UDental Quality Act
(CEQA). stWi., if the project is DOl ~xemp: from
CEQA. either prep~ a negative declaration or
require an envlronmentaJ impact repon to be
prcpan:d. ]f an environmental im pact repon is
required. the procedures set fanh in the stale
guidelines and the dry of Palo AlW's Procedures
for Implementation DC the California Environ
mental Quality Act of 1970 shall be fanowed. If
no environmen!a1 impact report is tequi red, the
applicat.ioOl win be pJaced on the agenda of lhe
ardtit~ct"Ur'Il review be ard no later thnn the first
regular meeting following the lhiny·nrst calendar
day after receipt of .a complete application,
Rev, Ord. Supp. 3192
..
1
,
•
~\ . .
o
BUILDING REGULATIONS
pro"ided l1lat, for good cause, 'he dire{:ror of
pianning 2lid community environment shall have
t.~ discretion to place the application on a later
agenda. (Oro. 3796 §4, 1988: 000. 3416 § I
(pan), 198 J)
15.48.065 PublJ( hearing and notice.
(a) Far purposes of this chapter. a major
proje<t 5h3ll 1.<:
(l) A new building or building addition of
five tl"lousand square rea or more:
(2) Any project that is not ellCmpt under
Q";QA:
(3) Any l<Si_l ronsttUCllon project <l>al
will total three ormore units when cornpIe!ed.;
(4) Any I<Sidentiai rollSlruaion proje.."1 that
willlOtal twO or more uni!..S v.hen completed in ..
neighborhood preservation comb~g d:isorict
ucderOlaptel IS.lO of the' Palo Alto munidpal
rode;
(5) Any project which the directo-c of
pl.annioJg aDd community enviromnmt de[C!mUnes
may be CODIIOVenW: or
(6) Any project which the-director
ddennines will significantly aleer 1he tharaCIU or
appearance of a building or si teo All projec.r..s
which are not determined to be major proje~
sbaIl be designated as minor projects.. Minor
proje<:ts shal1 incIll<le small projeas, IS ~efined in
Section 16,48,050(h) .bove,
(b) Notlce of the bearing 00 a major project
by 1he ~ ""itw boa!d shaD be giver. by
publication of Jhe !:>oard's agenda once in a local
newspaper of g~meral circulation not less tt..an
eight calendar days prior to U:!e date of tlle
hearing.
Additionally, notice of such hearing sball be
mailed at least twelve Calendar daYs-prlor--lD 1he
date of the board hearing to the applicant. 10
owners of recon:! of real propeny within ninety·
one aod four IenIhs metm (Ihne hundml feet) of
the ex:l.erlorboundary of the p!Opei1Y involved, as
such owners of n::cord are she 'o1.'fl in the last
equalized assessment roD, and to O'ol.ners or
OCCI,;lP311ts of the propeny wilhln ninety·one and
four tenths meters (three hundred feet) as shown
on ~ city utility customer file. CDrr:pIiance wiLh
the procedures set fonh in lhis secllon .shall
constirute a good [aiLh ~ffon. to provide nDLice,
and' the failure of any owner Or occ'Upant to
receh'e notice shall not prevent 1110: dty [rom
proceeding with th~ hearing or from taking any
~on Dr affeC! the vaiidi ty of any action
(c) Thi:' notice of'public he.ariDg shall (.ontaL,
tl'Ie' followfng;
(1) ~ exact address of the property, if
known. or tl'!e loeation of the property, if t..i.e
euc[ address is no[ 'kno"o1.TI, and Ule natlJre or
purpose of the appliQiiun;
(2) The time, plar;e, and purpose of the
hear'.ng;
(3) A brief description, the content of
which s. .... aU be in the sole discretion of [he dry. of
the >pprov ill sought;
(4) Reference 10 the application on file for
poroCl>l",,,,, and
(5) A statement thai any interested pelVlrl:,
or ag"'..nJ.1here.of. may appear and be heard.
(d) Typograpblcal aru!lor publishing errors
sha!l DOl invalidate the notice nor any cilY action.
At the time and pla:cc: set for such hearing. tlr..c:
board. shan h:ar evidence (or and againsT. the
apptic.atio.,. Eich hearir.g shall be open to the
pubIlc.1De board ma.y continue any hearing from
time to time.
1697
(e) Notice of the hearing on a. minor project
by the: bow shall be given by publication of'the
ag:ndas of regular bow mte1ings: once in a: local
ne ..... !paper of ie.'1erzI cJrculation no! less than
four calendar days prior to the date of [he: meeting
and shall be provided £0 Lie city counc=J in the
next availWIe roundl paclcet Minor projects of
unI_e visual significance as designa:r:d by the
di.rector of planning and community environment,
or projects which have bcell p~iously revieWed
by the boa!d and ~e.signaJed by IIle boaro to retum
on the consent calendar, may be placed on the
board's consent calendar no later lllan 5e"\lemy
two hours prior 10 the meeting. The consent
calendar shall be voted uyon as one item, and the
vote shall not aff-ect Ibt validity of the action tzk.en
upon any such individual item. Any member of
~v. Ord. Supp. 3192
----_.::_-----,----
o
16.48.070 PALO AL TO ~fU1'<lClPAL eOOE
the board may request 111at an individual item be
removed from the con<;ent caJend.u. in whit:h case
chc item shaD be cOflSu;iered 'ur..medlately after the
ccnsem calendar is voted upm..
(Onl_ 3796 is. 1988)_
16.48.07Q Rec(lmmenciatto!l or the
archilectural review board.
The architectural review board shall
recommend to the director of planning and
clJmrnunity environm~nt that UJe design of and
ncgall\le declaration,. if appEcable. for a project be
approved, disapproved or appro .... ed with modi
fications. including the impoSition of conditions,
by maJ.:ing findings in accDrdance with the
standards con!ained in this chapter, and: such
additional standards as may be adopted and
published by 1he city council from ti.me to time.
An application must be acted upon no larer than
sj~ months after the date the application is
determined to be ccmplete pursuant to Section
16.48.060. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if an
environmental impact n-pon: is required to be
prepared far me project pUlluant to CEQA, the
application must be acred upon no lateT than one
year a!\<r the dale 1M application is dctl:rnlined "'
be complete pursuant to Section 16.48.060.
HDwever~ IJlesc timt: limits may be e::uended once
fo!'" a period nol to exceed 'linery calendar days.
upon the cunseru of the di!eaor and the applicanL
(Onl 3796 16, 1988; Onl 3416 II (part). 1983)
16.48 .. Q80 Adioi.) Dr the director or
plnnning·and community environment.
(al No later than three worl<ing cia}' aft.r the
architectural revie'W board's recommendation on
the design and negative declaration, if appUcable,
for a project. the wTtCtOr of plarming and commu
nity c.nvironmeru shall take one of the follo~ng
actions, wlth such action to be-;ome effective on
t.he lhlrd working day (oUowing tlle beard
hearing;
(I) If the director agrees v.1tl1 the recom
mendation of lhe board. he shall a::t accordingly
on !he project and negauvc dec] aration. if appl;·
C>blc.
1098
(2) If the tfirector disagrees v.'ith th: recom
mendation of IDe board. he Shall. 31 his discretion.
either anempt 10 resoi'llc t1le differences with me
bo.ard at t..'1e next aV3J1ab1e bo;arn meeting ..,r shall
refer the decision directly lO the cit}' council.
(A) U the differences are resolved at the
next ava:Jable board meeting. the director shall act
accordingly on the project and negative declara
tion. if appHc:abie, and notify the applicant in
writing of the c:!eci.l>ion.
(B) If the director refers th~ decision
directly to the ci ty oouncil, th: -wuoci1 shaD act \in
the application pursuant ro $tCtlOIl 16_48.090_
(C) If the diret;tor attempts to resolve the
differences a! the ne:u available board meeting but
the differences.an: not resolved, the application
shall be sent to the city council with the:
recommendations of the di!"ector of planning Illd
communltyenvironment and lhe council shall act
on lhc application pUJ'SUant to Section 16.48..090.
If the director disagrees with the boanfs
rerommendarion on a project, he shall man I copy
of his decision and action 10 the appIlcant no later
than cru.e wolltini days afur the boanllIL1kes its
recommendation. RegaroIess of the director's
decision on a project, be shall mail a ~y of the
board bcarini mi."1UtC$ 10 the applicant wi\hin ten
working days after the board mttes its
recommendation. or as .soon as the hearing
minutes are available_ If 1he director agrees with
the board's ~commendation, he shall include a
copy of his decision and action u.ith the minutes
mafie;:110 the appli~
(b) The minule. from !he aMltcaural r<view
board meetings.sh.all be placed in the city council
packet as soon as they are available.. Notice of the
decisions and actions of the dif':;ttor on the items
shaIl also be included in tlle packet jf they a..""e
different from the l'eClImmendations or the: board.
(c) BuHt1ing permits for a major project, as
defined in Section 16.48.065, may be issue.d on
or after the niJ:uh working day afier the e!fecti ve
date of the approval of the director O!l the project.
unless the decision is referred to L'I:le city council
or th~ archilecrural review board pursuant 10
subdivision (2) of subsecLion (a) of thls section.
Rev. On!. SLlJlp. 3.192
..
BUILDING REGULA nONS 16.4B 100
or appealed. pursu:Jnt [0 Section 16.48,090.
Building pennits fOT a small or :ninor project, as
define::! in Sect..io;1S 16.4!L05O(h) and 16.48.065,
may be Issued .on or after l~e fifth working day
after the dfced ~e dale of the a pprov 301 of the
director on the: project. unless the dedsion is
appealed pursuant to Sections 16.48.0S0{h) or
16,48.090. If the decision is referred or appealed.
building penniLS may be iuued onIy after board
or city counc-Ll appro ... aJ of the project, lIS
app!icable.
(Oni. 37% 17, 19BB; On!. 3415 ~1 (p.rtl,1983)
16.48.090 Appeals.
Any pc~OD a.%'rieved by the action of the
dlrectof ofpr.a:.nni"1g and communii: environmcm
may file an appeal with the city coUllcil. An appeal
of an action on a major project shall be filet not
later lh.an eight v."Otking days after the effective
date of Ihc: director's decision and .action OD a
projea. An. appeal of an action on a minor projca
shaD be filed not later than tCIU' working days
following the effective date of the director's
deci,;on an4 _ on. project. Projem ",fem<!
10 the architec:tutal review board by abe director
under provisions o( Cb.apt.er 18.99 may be
appealed. Any such appeal shall be filed in
=rdance wilh!he provi5lons or Cllapa:r 18.93.
Any appeal shall be filed with Ihc city clerl<,
along'9iil!s a lee .as set fonh in Ihe municipal fee
schedule; however. any member of the city
council may file such an appeal without a fee.
Any appeal shall be consid=d an appeal ofhoth
tbe negative declantion, if applicable. an.d the
design of:lt< proj<;;!. The city elm sru.n place the
appeal upon the agenda of the city council for a
regular meetZng not late. than the truny-fim
wo&king day after the rece[pt of lhc -appeal. Iflhe
appellanl is other than the applicant for the
pnlject. tl1e city derl< shallootify the "!'Plic"" of
the appeal. TIl: city couru:il tttay take oru: or l1'1e
following actions:
(a) Pursuant to CEQA. require an
enviroomemaJ impact report be prepared on the
project before the cHy council approves or
disapproves !be projc<t;
1699
(b) Disapprove the project:;
(cl Approve the n~garive cleclaralion, if
applic:a.ble. atld ,approve. or approve ~"ith rnodifl
C:Jt,;ons. tht proj:CL
Bef'J~ raking ar;tion on an appeaL the Cit)'
council may. in its discretioll, refer the appea1LO
the pl.annlng com mlssicn for a n:commendat.i on.
(Ord. 3796 iB, 1918: O.d. 3416 §I (pan). 19S3)
16.48.1 DO Referral fo counciL
Instead of making a recommendation on the
design of a project and the: negative declanLion. if
applicable, to the director of planning and com
munity environment pursl.iant to Section
16.48.070. tho: a.·'crutectural review board may de
termine that me planning issues involving.a proj
ect merit ~iea' by the planning commission and
ciry cour..o1. [n th:u case, the arc:hic.ecrural review
boanl stun make ill recommendation on !:he de5.ign
o[tb: project omd the negative declaration. ifap-
pllC'.a2:tte. These recommendation,1II: sba.ll be UilJlS
mined to L'le pLuming commissj on and shall be
placed 00 the agmla of the planning commissioc
within two months after the arclUtecturai review
hoartl'. mem.!. The planning cornmlssioo sllllll
make a .-ecommenda.tion on the project and the
negative declaration, if applicable. 1be recom
mendations. of both the arctUte.ctural ~w board
and the planning commission shall be ttansrnltted
to tl1e city =CiI for.aion. The city council may
tate one of the following actions::
(a) Pursuant 10 CEQA. r=qu.ire an en .... iron
mer.uJ impact report be prepmd on the project
before the city council approves or disapprove3
the projert;
(b) Disapprove the project;
(el Approve the negativ< declallItion. if appli.
c.Wle. and approve., or approve with modifica
DOns. the project
Before approving. or approving \/rl"ilh
modifications, the project, the cDUlleLl may refer
the projC~['5 design back to lhe an:hitccrural
rev1.ew board for additional recommendallcru.
1h<: bCJ'ard shall make !ts ~.:ommendation directly
to the cO'Jncil.
(Ord. 3416 tl (pan), 1983)
Rev. ~d. Supp. 3192
.-." -
o
16.48.110 PALO ALTO MU1".1ClPAL CODE
16.48.110 Preliminary re·,'jew.
For the P'I'POSt-of Stcuring the advice of the
architectural review boan1 p:ior 10 making an
application for the boud's recommendation on a
project, an applicant, upon paying: a preliminary
application fee. as set forth in Ute muruopal fee
schedule, may bring a design bef.}re the boan! for
preliminary m1cw. If IIle applicaru wish<, to pro·
cte;1 with the project. be or she Qlust then fLle an
application and pay i! regular apptication tee. The
comments oftbe architectural review board memo
bers during! preliminary review shall nol be:
bindi."lg all their formal rec.ommendation. (Oro.
3416 §1 (pan), 1983)
16A8.120 Standards ror review.
(a) 10 addition !O IIle goals and purposes of
thi!S chapter as set forth in Section )5.48.010, the
foD"wing standards shall be used by lhe arc.hl
tecrural. review board. in reviewing projects within
i15jurisdiction:
(1) Wbelbe:r the design is consiStent and
amlpatib!e with awDcable elements of the city's
comprehensive plan;
(2) Wbether!he delign is oompan'ble with
the \:mmedl2!t c:cvironmenr: or She sllC;
(3) Wbether1be design is oppropri.., In 1be
function orllle projea:
(4) In areas considered by the board as
having a unified design ch.aracrer OT rustoric.al
character. whether the design is compatIble with
such character,
(5) Whether the desi,gn prommes hamloru
ous uansitions in scale aM character in areas
belween diffe:reru: designaced land uses;
(6) Vibether the design is compao.ole wiLh
iipptOlled improvements b.>th 00 and off the sire; m v..'J-.ether the pla.nning and siting of the
various functions and buiIaUlgs on the sile create
a.."'l internal sense of order and provide a dcsiruhle
environment for occupants, vl!itors and !he gen
eral comml.l!llIY;
(8) Wnether the amount anj arrangement
of open space are appropriare to the design aO"ld
th<: fuoction of the: SU"l..ictures;
(9) \\'hether sufflcient ancillary functions
are providt':d to suppon the main functions of the
project and whether the same are compatible ..... ith
the projec.1'l-design corlcept;
(10) Wbether access to the prcpeny and
-.:ircuiation Lhereon a~ safe and convenient. far
pclestrians, cyclistS and vehi cles:
{I1) WhetlJer natural features are appro
prialCty preserved and iruegrated 'olroiL'l the project.;
(12) ·V,:'hether the mar.erials. tell:tures, colors
and decalLo;: of construction and plant rn ateriaI are
app!"Oprilte expression to the design and function
and whe~her the same are corn palible wi th the
adjacem and neighboring strucrures, Iandscape
elements and functioru;;
(13) Whelher!..he landscape-design concept
for the sire, as s.'lown by the relations~";p :;! olam
masses, open space. scale, plant forms and folio
age textures and colors cre.ale III desirable and
functional enviton:men: aOO ~ the landscape
concept depiru an .appropriate unity with the
various buiJdings on the sire;
(14) Whether plant marerial is suitahle md
adaptable to the sire, capabie of being properly
maintained on lhe sile. and is of a varlet)· wm ch
wooJd tend to be drought-resistaru and to redu~
consumption of water in its i...~on and main
tt:nana:;
(15) Whether the design is energy e moent
and incorporateS renewable energy design ele
ments including. but not Ii."llited to:
(A) EJtl:erior e."lergy desigr:: element.<;,
(B) lnlemallightlng scr;.ice and climatic
control systems. and.
(C) Building siting and iandscape ~le
moms.
(b) In applying the standards sel forth in sub
section (a) of this section. tl)e architectur.tl review
board may review each of the follol.l.'ing items of
the proposed project;
(l} Uses and funclions as they relate to the
design of the projeci and adJJ.U:nI uses;;
(2) Compatibility wilh. neighboring prop
eITies .and uses;
(3) VLc;ibUity and effect l:pon vie"" at all
'Sile lines;
J6HXl Rc\'. Ord. Swpp. 619::
--------
I
I,
o
BUILDING REGULA nONS 15.48.130
(4) A.sthetic~
(5) Quolity 01 de<;gn;
(6) 0Wa::tcr.
(7) .sc.J,,;
(8) Iluildinj; ma«ria1s;
(9) Color. and
(10) SilC devcl~enl d1.ara.cterlstics 1nclud·
ing. but 1101: limited to:
CA) Lot sUe.
(8) BUIlding coverage.
(C) Setbacks.
ID) Building hei ghl,
(E) Location upon the site,
(F) Open space. and
(O) Pedestrian. bicycle and veJ-.JcJe (jrcu·
Jat;on;
(11) Environmental factors including, but
rot limited 10:
(A) Noise.
(B) Emission of smoke. fumes and
odors,
(C) Frn: safety. Ufe safety and fire Ie·
cess.
(D) Disturtwu:e of el<istin& IllpOgnphy.
trees, shrubs, mI other IWlll2I ~s.
(E) Water pera>hrim. groding and dram
age. an:! impetmeability or soDs;
(12) Building and building romponcnts ",
eluding, but !lOt _ Ul:
(A) Stairs, tamps. esc.alators. moving
sidtwaIks. elevators or dOwnspouts on the Ie':
terior buildines.
(8) FIue>. chimneys, .. haust fans. lir
condi tioning equipment.. elevatOr equlpment,.
fans, cooling lOwers, aruc:nnae. or similar struc
tures placed upon zhe roof or the eJIOtcrior of Ihe
building.
(C) Sun shades., awnings. louvers of any
visible device fordeDecting, filtering otshicldlng
the ~ or iruericr from dlC e1emems-,
(OJ Balconies. penthouses, loading
docks or :rimnar special purpose appendages or
accessory StrUCILI~
(13) Accessory structures, including ga
rages. s.he4s. utility facilities and waste. recep
tacles:
(14) O:lt.er on-site improvements inCludiIlg.
but not limiled 10:
(A) Parking L"ld "mer pa\led areas,
(B) l..2.nd.c;capi.,g.
(0 Lightiilg.
(OJ S;gns alld graphics. and
(E) AnworJc, SCulptu~, fountains and
oi.her anistic features;
(IS) Energy efficiency and' renewable ener·
iY design elemerus including. but noz liruited 10:
(A) Exterior e~rg)' d.:sign elem~.
(B) Iniemallighting se.r\'ite arm climatic
control systems. and
(C) Building siting and 4ndscaped ele
ments;
(16) Suc..~ other features as affect the design
and ulUmal.e appearanct of tlU! werle:. as deler·
mined by the arcrutecrurnI ~iew roartl
(c) The architectural review board mily rec
ommend requirements which. are more restrictive
than the muimum regulations set [onh in TItle 16
and/or Title 18 of this Code, when i[ concludes
""'" requir=enu are neceswy:
(I) To pm."", the .... ma1 integtily of the
dosi8n ofllle project;
(2) To »sure compatibility of1h: propose<!
project', dos;gn With ilS sit< and surrourulings:
:nl
(3) To minimize the envimnmenml effects
of the proposed project; provided. however. that.
L'Je architectural review board's sale
responsibility with respect [0 the 5IOrage of
huardol1S millenals shall be to rtqUire compllance
,.,.ith Title 17 of this Code.
(Ora, 4066 tl2. 1992: 0t1l. 3196 ~9. 1988: Ord.
3486 tl.1983: Ord_ 341611 (part). 1983)
16.48.130 Time limIts.
(a> For all projects approved after the eff«:
tive date or the ordinance codified in this chapleT.
the appl'O\'al shaD be valid fur one year from the
o!fgtnaJ. date of approval, except that fOi p11ased
projeQS., a specific development scheduk may be
approved. In no event, however, sball such a
devel"l"'eo1 schedule exce<d five years from the
16100,1 Rev, On!. Supp. J 2192
o
16.48.;35 PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE
original date of approval. Approval of minor
cmnses in a project shalJ. not extend the original
date {)( approval. The time period for :a projer;l.
including I phased project. may be extended one.:
for an additional year by the direCtor of planning
sh.aU be appealable. in accord.ance \101m Section
16:48.090. 111:be event the: bWlding permit is rot
secured. for the projeCt \l<i.thin the time limits
specUi~d in this ctiaptcl'. Ille arthittttura1 fl:vitw
board approval shall expire and be of no fur.her
force or effect.
(D) Notwithstanding subsection {a) of t.1)is
sec1ion. whenever a veswJg rentaC\lc map is ap
proved or conditionally approved pursuant 10
Chapl.t.f 21.1:' of \he Palo AltO Mucicipa1 CDde
and. the Subdivision Map Act. the approval pu!.
SllJn1 to thls chapter shall be .,..atid untill1le explra·
ti on of the vesting tentative map OT expiration of
development rights under the final map. Appli·
cations may be made for eJ:tensions, but only in
conjunction with applications for extensions of
the vesting tentative map or lht. fuW vesting map
pursuanr ro Olaptcr 21.13 and the Subdivision
MapA<:!.
(Oro.. 3796 ~ 10, 1988: Onl. 3689 t4. 1986, oro.
3416 t1 (pa't). i983)
Ui.48.13S E'1:c:eptions to Ate de'Velop"
moe.nt , paricin& and. loa.dil\Z requirements
to enhance the design of deytlopment
subject to arcbitectural revie ... r~
(a.) In accordance with the pro'virions oi
Cf1.apter 18.91 of lhis code, and subject to the
provisions of lhis section and. me purpose and
intern of tl'js chapter. \he architectural Wliew
board may recommend that the director of
planning and rommllnhy environment approve
mioor exceptions to the site: ckveIopment. padlng
and loadlng requirements set forth in Title 18.
when sucb exceptions will enhance the
appeannc:e and design of commercial and
mu1Iiplc·fimily development and other
development subject 10 architectural RMew under
this chapter. Jlems for which exceptions may be
grarued include. but ale not llmi ted to, dormers.
~.ave lines, roof d::s.l&n, bay windows, comlces,
p2.rapel..s. columns, aTca-d~s. fountai.ns. an,
omamentat~o.n. a.triums, balconies, treHises,
moldings, baJustr3des:. stairs, entry feat"Jres, and
other minor archit:crural elements and design
fea~s.
(b) No e:~cepdons sh3l.l be gnmted under this
section ~1ljch would increase floor area, decrease
the number of required parking spaces, ~ecrease
the arncu.n.t of required on·site tandscaping, or
decrease the required open space. Gene-rilly,
exceptions shall be llrni~ TO mbDr cJ-.anges to me
:kto.Qck, daylight p!ane, heigh!, lot coverage
limitations. p.ad::ing lot dtsign ar.d lands::ap;ng
tor-Jiguration, a.."'ld additionaJ flexiNlit)l in the
propo:rtion bet1,J,,'ten pri \fate and commQn open
S)l.a.~,
(c) Application, Application for excepUom
shall be made in the same manner and in
conjunction with an applicati on for design !"e\'iew.
pursuant W $:ction 15.48.060.
(d) P\ibl!c hearing IIDd notice, A public
heartng shall be held prior to any action on an
application for exception. Such bearing shaD be
Ute slIDe bearing at which the iipplication for
desIgn r'eVlew is held. Notice of the bearing for
both applications shaD be given in the s.ame
manne1 u the notice for J htaring on a majoI
project, as set for1h ill Sections 16.48.065(b). (oj
a.'ld (d).
(~) R:)le of zor.ing administrator. Tne 7.onlng
admlnistnJDr sh3D. make a recommerdation [0 the
arChitectural review board regarding each
a.pplication for cJ;.ccptiOG prior to the ooard's
review ot the RpPlicarion. The zoning ad·
minisuator or deslgnte .shall also attend !:he public
bearing on each appticatiotl for exC(:ption. .and
shall advise me oo;':&."'d regaroing zoning issues.
(f) Jlecommend'iuion of '!.he archhectural
re'c'ic:w board. After considering, the application
and aD testimony, both oral and Wilen., offered at
Ihe public hearing. and the recommendation of the
zoning administrator. the architectural review
board shaD mm its re'!:ommcndauons tt"gardlng
each app1ication for exception 'to the director of
161002
.~
. ,
BUiLDING REGULATIO:-1S 16.48.140
planning and community env;n,nment along 1J,1th
its recommendations: 00 the application for 6eslgn
review, in accordance with SecLioo 115.48.070.
provided, that the fmdings for approving .an
exception shaU be as set forth in s.ubsection (g) of
this seaiotL
(g) RMmgs. The an:hir:ecru:-al te'\liew board
may I'CC'Jrnmend that the alrector of planning and
community environment gn.'1l: exceptions to the
otheNise applicable sire deveJopment, parking
lI1ld loadingr.qui=ncms of Title 18 uponmmng
<be followi"8 finding<:
(1) 'There are exceptional or e:ara.ordinary
circum stances or conditions appUc.abJe to the
property or site improvements involved that do
not apply generaD.)' to propeny in tl-.c ume l.!JtJe.
district:
(2.) 'The granting of the application will
~ the appearance of1be site or structun:. or
improve Ille neighbolllood clwa<:t<r of!be project
and ptC$ervc an ex:is:tirtJ OT ~ IIZ'rhitectural
style. in a manner whlch 'WOUld DO( otbeJ"\1lise be
ac<omplished through met appIle&tion of the
minimum rcquin:mems of Titlt IS and tlle
IEtI<ldanIs for review ... _ in !!Os cIIapIor; and
("J) The ~oo. is rcla1cd ID • minor
an:IUtecIurol ~ onite imp""'ementlhat will
not be deaimemaI or injurious to property or
im~ in tile _ty aDd will not be
detrimmtallO u.. public beaIIh, safety, eeneni1
welfan:: or convenience.
(ll) Cooditions. 10 =mmonding approval
of such =cptiO!l.S, til< mIlite<:tllnl review bean!
may recommend impolilltg sue!! reasonabJc:
COllditions o!' restrictions as ~ appropriate or
necessary to protect the public bc.alth. safet)'. eeneru welfare or COIlV!:nlence, md 10 = Ihe
JlUXIlOS<S of Tille 18 31'd of 1bis c:hapI<r.
(i) Actioo of Ihe director of planning an1
COOlmwUty environment. 1be director or plannlng
and community environmmt slWI act on lhe
awlication for exception in conjunctioo with. and
in the m&rme.r provided by Sectioo 16.48.080.
(j) Appeals. Any perron aggrieved by til<
action of the director may appeal such action to
the 'ity co!Uldl by filing "" appeal wilh the city
clerk. not later tt.an eighl workirl~ days after Lilt
effective date of the director's 3.ctio~.
An: .appeal sball be in writing. staling the
grounds Ulerefor. and shall be' accompJnied b)' an
appeal fee as prescn""kd by the municipal fee
SChedule. Filing of an a.ppeal with the city clerlc
stull stay all proceedings -in rurt."'lCT31lCe of the
action appealed, as well as aD proceedings in
fuitherance of the action on the .application fOT
design revic.w. until the de:ermimrioll of the
appeal as provided in this section. Th: dey cle rk
shall pliice the appear l!pon t.~ agenda of the city
council for il regul<lr meeting no: later tha.1; ttle
thirty-first wort:.ing-day after receipt of the
appe.tl. U the appenan[ is other tMn the appllca.'1l
fot' the project. the city clerk shaD. nc6fy t!le
applicant of the appeal.
Upon concluslon of the hearing on appeal, the
city council may by motion reverse or affirm, in
woole 01" in pan. or may modify tl1e action of me
director of pla."mi:ng and conun~tY cnvif'tlnrneru.
lbe decislon of Ihe councf] .sJiall be row a..1!d :sP...aIl
be efIea:iVe fmmedia%eIy.
(k) Time limits, The time limirs for any
exception granted pum1l!U m this. section shill be
the same as the time Limits for We accompanying
desi~ «View approyal, as set fon.'1 in Secrion
16,48.130. TIl< gr.m of an exception pu= to
'this section does not constitute a variance, rmd.
shAll be effective oruy "~O the utent that tlle
approved plans are 001 changed in a manner that
affects Ihe gr;mt<d "'cq<ion.
(Onl. 4123 tz. 1992).
16.4a~140 Inte&ro.tioQ with other c.~de
provisions.
Nothing in Illls cb>.p~r shall be construed as
waiving. modlfying, eliminating or mitigating tile
requirement5 of any other provision of lhis code..
The requirements beR:in arc imended to be Sllp
plemem.ary and additional theme. a."ld in case of
iIlly c:on1lict Ihc:rewim. 1lLe most resuicLive shall
apply. (Ord. 3416 11 (pan). 1983)
161003 Rev. Ord. Supp. 12/92
---_ ..
o
16.48.l50 PALO ALTO MUNlCIPAL CODE
16,48.150 Moratorium.
When any Olt>ratorium on construction or the
proC%SSi.ng of an application lor any bWlding per_
mil or planning approv.a1 is adopted by the city
cO'.mcil. regardless of such momoriwn. a project
whictJ has received I final ~commendation for
design approval from the !L."'thicccruraI review
board pu.l'S".J.3D.t 'to Liis. chapter on or before the
date of the counctl meeting at which the mora
torium first appeared on the city council's printed
ageooa. shaD continue to be processed; provided,
thal U>e project complies with aD. Cotter ciry ordi
nances. (Onl. 3575 ii, 1984)
lolOO.4 Rt\l. On::!. Supp, 12/92