HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-04-02 Architectural Review Board Summary Minutes
City of Palo Alto Page 1
1
Regular Meeting 2
Thursday, April 2, 2015, 8:30 A.M. 3
Council Chambers 4
5
6
Call to Order 7
8
Roll Call 9
10
Present: Randy Popp (Chair), Robert Gooyer (Vice Chair), Alexander Lew, Kyu Kim 11
12
Absent: None. 13
14
Staff Present: Amy French, Chief Planning Official; Rebecca Atkinson, Planner; Diana Tamale, 15
Administrative Associate III 16
17
Oral Communications: None. 18
19
Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions 20
21
Amy French, Chief Planning Official, requested the Board to move Minutes Approval to the end of the 22
meeting due to the number of Minutes presented for review. 23
24
MOTION: Chair Popp moved, seconded by Board Member Kim, to move Approval of Minutes after the 25
Public Hearing. 26
27
MOTION PASSED: 4-0-0-0 28
29
Public Hearing Items 30
31
1. 180 El Camino Real (15PLN-00040): Request by Ronald Zeytoonian of SPG Center, LLC, on 32
Behalf of the Board of Trustees to the Leland Stanford Junior University, for Major Architectural 33
Review of a Master Tenant Sign Program and Tenant Facade Design Criteria for the Stanford 34
Shopping Center, Located in the Community Commercial (CC) Zoning District. Environmental 35
Assessment: Exempt from the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per 36
CEQA Section 15301. Zone District: CC 37
38
Rebecca Atkinson, Planner, reported the project presented a proposed update to the current Master 39
Tenant Façade and Sign Program at the Stanford Shopping Center. Specifically the project would 40
integrate the four new retail buildings into the existing program and update the signage parameters 41
allowed at the shopping center for non-anchor tenants. Currently, the sign program was relatively 42
restrictive compared with Municipal Code sign requirements. The current Architectural Review Process 43
for tenant facades and signs was outlined in the staff report and included the buildings involved in the 44
program versus those that were not. Review of facades focused on width and height as predominant 45
factors influencing whether a project was reviewed by staff or the Architectural Review Board. Proposed 46
signs involving exceptions to the sign program were reviewed by the Architectural Review Board. The 47
project sought Architectural Review Board (ARB) approval for the establishment of updated sign and 48
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
MINUTES
City of Palo Alto Page 2
façade design parameters. Key updates would allow greater diversity in façade design. Key exceptions 1
to sign requirements would allow more overall wall sign canopy and awning signage and allow super-2
graphics without size limits. Staff had not received any public comment. The applicant had updated the 3
Tenant Design Manual (TDM) to respond to comments received on March 19, 2015 from the Architectural 4
Review Board. Staff added draft Conditions of Approval in response to ARB comments. Staff requested 5
feedback regarding draft Conditions of Approval, specifically Numbers 8, 22, 23, and 29. With inclusion 6
of the draft Conditions of Approval as modified by the Architectural Review Board, Staff would support 7
the project and encourage the Architectural Review Board to recommend approval to the Director of 8
Planning. 9
10
Ron Zeytoonian, Simon Property Group Director of Planning and Design, incorporated into the Tenant 11
Design Manual the primary goals presented verbally in his prior presentation. For Goal Number 2, he 12
added a map outlining all areas referred to as precincts. The areas did not affect criteria or design goals 13
in terms of construction or engineering. A single-line sentence described the overall complexion of the 14
areas. Hopefully, the architects working for the various tenants would understand the intent. The 15
Glossary of Terms was repaginated and included new terms. The ARB requested clarification and 16
elaboration of Zone 5 and Zone 7. He provided additional clarification and direction for tenants included 17
in the zone. He considered Storefront Zone 7 to be grandfathered in; however, in the future this type of 18
two-dimensional painted super-graphic would not be acceptable. Page 54 had been updated to clarify 19
the maximum and minimum heights of storefronts. All new storefronts would be required to meet the 20
parapet. He added clarification and definition pertaining to porcelain tile. In order to standardize 21
identification of service doors, egress doors, and utility room doors, tenants and landlords would be 22
required to utilize circular pro font, to limit letter height to 2 inches, and to center signs on doors. 23
Language on page 61 clarified the total allowable signs that a particular tenant could have. At the ARB's 24
request, he added pages concerning the appearance of signs as interpreted from criteria. He added 25
additional descriptions of signs following suggestions of the ARB and staff. Most importantly, vinyl-26
applied graphics were not allowed going forward. 27
28
Board Member Lew inquired about guidelines for logos within allowed sign area. 29
30
Ms. Atkinson asked if he meant the business name incorporated into or supplemental to the logo. 31
32
Board Member Lew indicated that was a gray area. The ARB did not have guidelines for that; however, 33
he imagined it fell under sign area. Perhaps it should be in proportion to the façade or lettering. 34
35
Ms. Atkinson suggested the ARB consider logos and all text as part of overall wall sign area. That could 36
be added to a draft Condition of Approval. 37
38
Mr. Zeytoonian stated the Tenant Design Manual could not be exhaustive. Checks and balances would 39
ultimately prohibit any unsightly sign proposals, poorly designed facades, and facades that could be 40
inappropriate. The sign review process began with the tenant coordination department at Simon 41
Property Group and then moved to him. Once he approved proposals, he submitted them to the 42
University. If the University accepted the proposal, the design package would be submitted to the ARB, 43
hearing or staff level. Medallions and logos that could be freestanding or isolated would have to follow 44
characteristics shown on page 63. Design review would ensure secondary elements were reasonable. 45
46
Ms. Atkinson clarified that logos could be considered as super-graphics. The proposed sign program 47
would exempt super-graphics from the size limitation and any other wall sign limitations. That was the 48
reason staff requested feedback for draft Condition Number 8. The alligator for Lacoste would be a good 49
example for the ARB to consider. 50
51
Board Member Lew asked if there had been discussion of pop-up stores or temporary stores. He 52
understood the City had a permit process for temporary signage. 53
54
Mr. Zeytoonian reported Simon Property Group did not allow pop-up stores or kiosks or those kinds of 55
temporary elements. They were prohibited as a frame sign. 56
City of Palo Alto Page 3
1
Chair Popp did not find within the document any indication of discretionary review by the landlord or a 2
specific policy about exceptions and how those might be handled. The ARB understood that every 3
scenario could not be anticipated within the document. Zoning Regulations included language regarding 4
handling of exceptions. He requested Mr. Zeytoonian illustrate how that might be addressed. 5
6
Mr. Zeytoonian advised that restrictions and limitations could be included in a work letter, a financial 7
document, and lease restrictions. It was also verbally stated prior to negotiations of a lease. 8
9
Chair Popp asked if staff could rely on those other documents for reviewing signs. 10
11
Ms. Atkinson suggested clarifications regarding items the Architectural Review Board would want to 12
review be included in draft Condition of Approval 22. The Master Sign Program and the Tenant Façade 13
Program would be the baseline for review. Any exceptions would be presented to the Architectural 14
Review Board. 15
16
Amy French, Chief Planning Official, understood Chair Popp was seeking guidelines that staff would use 17
to present exceptions to the ARB. 18
19
Chair Popp wanted staff to handle exceptions in order to limit the amount of staff and ARB time. 20
21
Ms. French could place an exception on a consent calendar which would expedite the item. 22
23
Chair Popp asked if staff was comfortable with that course of action. 24
25
Ms. French answered yes. 26
27
Mr. Zeytoonian felt a statement that certain exceptions in design or signage were possible with landlord 28
approval would encourage tenants to reinterpret the Tenant Design Manual. By excluding that language, 29
there was a sense of stringency to the manual. 30
31
Chair Popp believed the ARB evaluated a sign as being the body that included the signage on it. The ARB 32
measured the sign as the graphics and the text rather than the material on which it was placed. 33
34
Ms. French suggested the ARB consider some language in a Condition that provided a maximum amount 35
of wall area that could be considered not part of the sign. Perhaps the ARB could provide a range. 36
37
Mr. Zeytoonian did not want to encourage or allow extremely large signs at Stanford Shopping Center. 38
39
Chair Popp explained the exception required for the Tesla sign that covered an entire wall. 40
41
Mr. Zeytoonian would interpret that as a façade integrated in the sign. 42
43
Chair Popp reported the Sign Code disagreed. He asked if staff felt that was appropriately covered. 44
45
Ms. French felt it should be stated. 46
47
Chair Popp agreed to include a statement. 48
49
The Public Hearing open and closed with no speakers. 50
51
Board Member Lew advised that pages 62 and 63 were useful and would potentially exceed the allowable 52
area for signs as stated in the Municipal Code. Most pedestrian streets facing public roads within the 53
shopping center were setback substantially; therefore, it was a different condition than the Municipal 54
Code. With respect to Condition of Approval 22, he shared Chair Popp's concerns about exceptions. A 55
City of Palo Alto Page 4
reference document for Condition of Approval 23 would be good. If the shopping center did not have 1
projections, then fire sprinklers were not necessary. He asked if large canvas awnings were prohibited. 2
3
Mr. Zeytoonian replied yes. 4
5
Board Member Lew would accept the sign program. 6
7
Board Member Kim was happy with revision of the TDM. He inquired about the type of document 8
referenced in Condition of Approval 23. It seemed to be a text document that referred to drawings. 9
10
Ms. Atkinson reported master program documents and façade program documents were common. The 11
TDM was focused to a particular audience; therefore, it was not as clear to members of the public and 12
line staff. A reference document would contain all approved requirements in both text and graphics. 13
14
Board Member Kim questioned whether a separate document would be beneficial in that it could conflict 15
with the TDM. He asked if the reference document would be easier for staff and the public to understand 16
in order to interpret signs. 17
18
Ms. Atkinson responded yes. The TDM was oriented towards the present time. A Tenant Façade 19
Program approved in 2005 was still in place. The TDM for Stanford Shopping Center could be updated 20
when many elements were implemented. The reference document would contain a set of clear 21
requirements while allowing the TDM to evolve. 22
23
Vice Chair Gooyer agreed to placing exceptions on a consent calendar. 24
25
Chair Popp noticed wood siding was a disallowed material. He inquired whether the wood bleachers on 26
the Nike store would be permitted. 27
28
Mr. Zeytoonian explained that the statement was focused on facades constructed entirely of wood. As an 29
accent material, wood was acceptable. 30
31
Chair Popp noted that there were no public speakers. Based on that, he did not feel there was a reason 32
for many sign issues to be presented to the ARB, if staff was comfortable reviewing and approving. The 33
maximum allowable sign area for wall signs should include language regarding signage and graphics 34
versus the panel on which they were mounted. That would provide flexibility in evaluating that. Note 22 35
stated clearly that it did not pertain certain portions of Stanford Shopping Center in Topic A. He asked if 36
that meant the Standard Sign Code and the standard process applied to those specific portions of the 37
shopping center or those specific portions did not have design criteria but the process applied to how the 38
tenant would handle it. There should be a distinction. 39
40
Ms. French understood Chair Popp was questioning the process if one business replaced another. 41
Because the former guidelines for the shopping center had public right-of-way facing signs, staff would 42
refer that to the ARB. 43
44
Chair Popp wanted that to be presented to the ARB in the context of the tenant design criteria rather 45
than the Palo Alto sign criteria. 46
47
Ms. Atkinson asked if the question pertained to a particular building. 48
49
Chair Popp referred to 22A, the master tenant and tenant façade program did not pertain to certain 50
portions of Stanford Shopping Center. Only Palo Alto sign regulations applied to those portions of the 51
shopping center. 52
53
Ms. Atkinson advised that was correct. The ARB could change that. 54
55
Board Member Lew asked if signs on department stores were larger than 24 inches high. 56
City of Palo Alto Page 5
1
Mr. Zeytoonian indicated page 16 clearly illustrated the storefronts that fell in the purview of the TDM. 2
He hoped any of those storefronts would be submitted for staff review as often as possible. Typically he 3
did not write tenant design criteria for outparcel anchors. To produce specific façade criteria and signage 4
criteria would require another volume of the Tenant Design Manual. In some cases, an outparcel anchor 5
could be submitted to the ARB as an exception. 6
7
Chair Popp asked if Mr. Zeytoonian preferred exceptions be handled in that manner. 8
9
Mr. Zeytoonian would prefer that. 10
11
Chair Popp referred to Condition 23 and inquired whether evolution of the TDM would be presented to 12
the ARB if it contained dramatic changes. 13
14
Ms. Atkinson reported the reference document would carry requirements forward. Staff would continue 15
to review according to the reference document. 16
17
Chair Popp asked if Mr. Zeytoonian would accept language of "other than dimensional changes." 18
19
Mr. Zeytoonian answered yes. 20
21
Chair Popp noted a typographical error on page 61, an extra "a." The language regarding vinyl graphics 22
and the evaluation of the occurrence at the Wilkes Bashford store was consistent with his concerns. 23
24
MOTION: Chair Popp moved, seconded by Vice Chair Gooyer, to accept the application as proposed and 25
as conditioned by the staff report with the inclusion of a statement in Condition 23 for some limitation of 26
future changes to the TDM coming back to the ARB if those changes included dimensional adjustment to 27
the allowable sign size or area. 28
29
Ms. French asked if Chair Popp wished to limit the statement to signs specifically. 30
31
Chair Popp replied yes. His goal was for staff to handle much of the work. If staff accepted adjustments 32
to parapets and other things, then the ARB would agree. 33
34
MOTION PASSED: 4-0-0-0 35
36
2. 2015 ARB Awards: Initial Discussion of the Process, Timeline and Potential Award Categories for 37
ARB-Recommended, Constructed Development Projects Completed from 2010 through mid-2015. 38
39
Amy French, Chief Planning Official, advised that she prepared the report rather than the City Manager. 40
She hoped to utilize the televisions in the lobby to reflect the winning entries. Past and present Board 41
Members could adjudicate entries. She could arrange a retreat for that purpose. She requested the ARB 42
consider a means for the public to provide input. She provided at-places a list of projects she was 43
researching. Parameters were projects constructed since the last design awards in 2010 through the 44
present and projects recommended by the ARB. Traditionally five projects received awards; however, in 45
2010, five projects received awards and five projects received honorable mentions. Board Members and 46
past Board Members wrote descriptions as to why projects were selected. Some older projects were 47
eligible because they had not been constructed prior to the 2010 awards. She noted projects that were 48
additions to historic buildings. She encouraged the ARB to consider a category for those projects. In 49
2010, Board Members assisted staff by photographing projects and conducting site visits. The ARB 50
should focus on process, timeline, and categories. 51
52
Vice Chair Gooyer asked if Set 3 projects were not be eligible. 53
54
Ms. French answered yes. 55
56
City of Palo Alto Page 6
Vice Chair Gooyer would have to review the projects as he had served only a short time on the ARB. He 1
would be flexible with regard to timeline. The public should be allowed to nominate projects whether or 2
not the projects were eligible. 3
4
Ms. French advised that single-family homes were not eligible, because that involved the Individual 5
Review (IR) process. 6
7
Vice Chair Gooyer did not wish to dissuade public participation. 8
9
Ms. French suggested use of a web page comprised of projects the ARB had selected as finalists. From 10
those projects, the public could offer input. 11
12
Vice Chair Gooyer asked if the ARB would prepare a short list of 10-15 projects and have everyone vote 13
on those projects or if the public would prepare the short list. 14
15
Ms. French felt public input on all projects would be unwieldy. Selection of projects occurred over several 16
meetings, one of which was a retreat. The retreat would be a public meeting. 17
18
Vice Chair Gooyer inquired whether the ARB would review each individual project at the retreat or the 19
public would review projects online and prepare short lists. 20
21
Chair Popp clarified that the ARB was inventing the process. He wanted to hear proposals for the process 22
from Board Members. 23
24
Vice Chair Gooyer had no proposals for a process. 25
26
Board Member Kim liked the AIA New York program held in October. However, an October deadline 27
would constrain the ARB. Projects could be divided into categories of new construction, remodel, and 28
reuse. Board Members could nominate three projects per category. 29
30
Vice Chair Gooyer would rather select five, six or eight of the best projects. Six projects in one category 31
would be acceptable. 32
33
Board Member Lew indicated that had been the past process. In 2010 the ARB wanted to recognize 34
parts of projects; therefore, they awarded honorable mention. 35
36
Vice Chair Gooyer suggested a category for a specific aspect of a project rather than awarding an 37
honorable mention. 38
39
Board Member Lew felt the ARB in 2010 wanted to recognize that design was more than just the 40
building. He urged Board Members to consider current design issues and that the awards were an 41
opportunity to address those design issues. 42
43
Board Member Kim agreed with Vice Chair Gooyer not to award honorable mention. He questioned 44
whether one small component of a project elevated the whole project to the level of receiving an award. 45
46
Chair Popp advised that the ARB could provide merit awards for projects that overall deserved 47
recognition. Projects that were close to that and should be recognized overall could receive an honorable 48
mention. Special awards could be given for specific aspects of a project. 49
50
Vice Chair Gooyer agreed. He did not want to give an award to a mediocre building with magnificent 51
lighting. 52
53
Chair Popp stated that building could be given a special award for lighting. 54
55
Vice Chair Gooyer believed that was the difference compared to the 2010 competition. 56
City of Palo Alto Page 7
1
Board Member Lew did not believe there was a difference. All the honorable mentions were good 2
projects. 3
4
Chair Popp noted the 2010 ARB had specific criteria for awarding the honorable mention. 5
6
Vice Chair Gooyer explained that a person unfamiliar with the project would not know the aspect that 7
was awarded. 8
9
Chair Popp requested Board Members focus on the upcoming competition. 10
11
Board Member Lew stated the important thing was the ARB's statement about design. The categories 12
would make it work. He was not concerned about the number of awards but preferred as few as 13
possible. He suggested displaying projects at Mitchell Park Library in order to reach a wide variety of 14
people. 15
16
Chair Popp preferred a few specific categories limited to three projects within each category. The ARB 17
could choose to give special awards for aspects of projects. He questioned the amount of time the ARB 18
and staff could dedicate. He asked if funds were available for additional assistance. He wanted to create 19
a website so that the public could provide input. This would act as a survey of public opinion regarding 20
architecture. 21
22
Ms. French reported staff had not allocated funds for assistance. In the past interns had assisted. 23
Perhaps project architects could provide professional photographs of their projects. 24
25
Chair Popp asked if the ARB should narrow the list of projects before soliciting public input. 26
27
Ms. French suggested segregating projects into types such as housing, adaptive reuse and remodel, and 28
commercial; not that the types would be the same as the categories. Board Members could select 29
projects from each type, and those would be placed on a website. The public could then select their 30
favorites from those types. 31
32
Chair Popp believed this was an opportunity for the public to provide their opinions. He did not want to 33
eliminate projects too early. Perhaps the Council would also select its preferences. 34
35
Ms. French stated the ARB could implement a special category for projects with ridiculous constraints. In 36
that way, the public could understand the difficulties constraints imposed on projects. Perhaps the ARB 37
could select the first pool of projects for the competition. Other projects which the public heavily 38
supported could be another pool. 39
40
Board Member Kim would rather have the full list of projects open to the public. The public could vote 41
from the master list, and then the ARB could select from those projects or revive projects the public did 42
not favor. 43
44
Vice Chair Gooyer agreed. 45
46
Board Member Lew felt allowing the public to select projects first would not tell the ARB's story. 47
48
Chair Popp suggested the ARB organize projects into categories of housing and commercial and adaptive 49
reuse and select the best from the categories. 50
51
Board Member Lew asked if it would be a people's choice award. 52
53
Board Member Kim liked the idea of a people's choice award. 54
55
Board Member Lew believed it was critical for the ARB to utilize focused categories. 56
City of Palo Alto Page 8
1
Vice Chair Gooyer inquired whether the ARB would in effect vote when it passed projects. 2
3
Chair Popp answered no. Many projects received approval but were not great designs. The ARB was 4
searching for projects that were exceptional. 5
6
Board Member Kim felt the wording should clearly indicate that projects were not necessarily the best 7
designs but were projects approved by the ARB. 8
9
Chair Popp concurred with the concept of a people's choice award. Perhaps there could be a Council's 10
choice award. 11
12
Vice Chair Gooyer noted the public would have the final vote for a people's choice award, even though 13
the ARB might not agree with the final selection. 14
15
Chair Popp felt the ARB was searching for a sense of the public's appreciation for architecture. 16
17
Vice Chair Gooyer stated the ARB was drifting away from the concept of a design award. The public 18
could select a project that was not the best architecturally conceived project. 19
20
Chair Popp clarified that the ARB would decide which projects were the best. By obtaining ARB approval, 21
projects had achieved a certain level of quality and character. Next, the ARB would select projects that 22
deserved a merit award for doing something exceptional, other projects that deserved an honorable 23
mention, and other projects with aspects that should be highlighted. Beyond that, he wanted to know 24
which projects the public felt were the best projects. 25
26
Vice Chair Gooyer suggested it could be a different category. 27
28
Chair Popp stated public opinion would not influence the ARB's selections. 29
30
Vice Chair Gooyer reiterated that a people's choice award would be a category rather than the overall 31
scheme of the entire competition. 32
33
Chair Popp agreed that the public would not drive the process. The people's choice award and the 34
Council's choice award could be secondary awards. 35
36
Vice Chair Gooyer added that it would give the ARB an idea of what the public felt was important. 37
38
Ms. French could confer with the City's Public Information Officer regarding ideas. There could be an 39
opportunity for the public to comment qualitatively on projects selected by the ARB. 40
41
Chair Popp believed the number of people who could attend such a meeting would be limited. 42
43
Ms. French indicated Staff would explore possibilities with Information Technology (IT) staff. 44
45
Chair Popp felt the overall goal was valid. If Board Members did not object, he would like to explore that 46
process. 47
48
Board Member Lew was not clear about categories. He liked to read critic's reviews and public reviews 49
even though they were often split. 50
51
Vice Chair Gooyer did not want the public's selections to compete with the ARB's selections. The people's 52
choice award could be a single project, or first, second, and third projects. 53
54
City of Palo Alto Page 9
Chair Popp would not mind if the public did not agree with the ARB's selections. The public might not 1
have the level of architectural experience of Board Members, but they might have a certain reaction to 2
the types of projects being built. This was an opportunity to receive feedback from the public. 3
4
Vice Chair Gooyer did not want the people's choice award to have the same categories as the ARB's 5
awards. 6
7
Chair Popp indicated the public could select their favorite projects from each category of projects. That 8
would create a body of information that the ARB could consider. The ARB would select the outstanding 9
projects from all projects, regardless of category. 10
11
Ms. French suggested she return in May with possibilities for outreach, for sorting projects into 12
categories, and for displaying projects. 13
14
Vice Chair Gooyer recommended staff contact owners and architects to obtain photographs. 15
16
Chair Popp did not agree. The website could have amateur photos or Google street views of projects for 17
fairness. After the ARB had narrowed the list of projects, then staff could request photos. 18
19
Ms. French suggested displaying the approved drawing alongside photos of the built project to 20
demonstrate the evolution of the project. 21
22
Chair Popp added that evolution of the project could also include it's progress through the ARB's process. 23
24
Minutes Approval 25
26
Chair Popp suggested Board Members first offer comments regarding any of the Minutes. He requested 27
Minutes prior to November 20, 2014 be approved in one Motion, and Minutes after November 20, 2014 28
be approved in a separate Motion. 29
30
Board Member Lew noted two sets of Minutes were added at places. 31
32
Amy French, Chief Planning Official, explained they were included in the agenda, so they could be 33
considered. If Board Members had not reviewed them, they could be deferred to the next meeting. 34
35
Chair Popp announced the ARB would take a break to review the Minutes provided at places. 36
37
Chair Popp reported the ARB had one vacant position and Board Member Kim was not a member of the 38
ARB for a portion of the Minutes. The ARB was in a position of not having sufficient Board Members to 39
constitute a quorum. 40
41
Ms. French advised that those Minutes would be deferred and noted as not having a quorum in the 42
current meeting to approve them. The Midpeninsula Community Media Center captured the meetings in 43
their entirety; therefore, the public could review meetings through that source. Staff had contracted 44
preparation of Minutes, so that they would be presented in a timely manner in the future. 45
46
Chair Popp indicated Board Members could comment on Minutes to enhance accuracy of the Minutes. 47
48
Ms. French clarified that the ARB could comment but not vote on the Minutes. 49
50
Chair Popp stated the October 16, 2014 Minutes, Item Number 2 contained question marks in the action. 51
Number 1 was "a more detailed landscape plant." Item 3 was to reconsider the DEE. The Motion passed 52
with Claire Malone-Prichard recused. 53
54
City of Palo Alto Page 10
Board Member Lew stated the November 6, 2014 Minutes, subcommittee members should be himself and 1
Board Member Malone-Prichard. He asked if staff would provide verbatim Minutes of the appeal of 429 2
University on January 15, 2015. 3
4
Ms. Frenchman noted verbatim Minutes for all three meetings were available on the City's website. 5
6
Board Member Lew indicated the title should be changed from Agenda to Minutes for the February 5, 7
2015 Minutes. 8
9
Board Member Kim noted the City of Palo Alto logo had been resized at the beginning of 2015. 10
11
MOTION: Chair Popp moved, seconded by Board Member Lew, to accept the Minutes as amended for 12
the period between September 18, 2014 and November 6, 2014 with the exception of September 18, 13
2014. Minutes of the September 18, 2014 meeting were excluded due to a lack of a quorum present at 14
that meeting and capable of voting in the current meeting. 15
16
MOTION PASSED: 3-0-1-0 Kim abstaining 17
18
Chair Popp indicated the vote for the third item in the Minutes of March 5, 2015 should be 3-0-1-0. 19
20
Board Member Lew stated the vote for Item 1 in the Minutes of February 19, 2015 should be 4-0-0-1. 21
22
MOTION: Chair Popp moved, seconded by Vice Chair Gooyer, to approve the Minutes as amended for 23
the period between November 20, 2014 and March 19, 2015 with the exception of March 5, 2015. 24
25
MOTION PASSED: 4-0-0-0 26
27
MOTION: Chair Popp moved, seconded by Vice Chair Gooyer, to accept the December 18, 2014 Minutes 28
as amended. 29
30
MOTION PASSED: 4-0-1-0 Kim abstaining 31
32
Board/Staff Announcements, Updates, Reports, and Comments 33
34
Amy French, Chief Planning Official, announced the 429 University Project was appealed and would 35
appear on the Council's consent calendar on April 6, 2015. Should the Council remove the item from the 36
consent calendar and schedule it as an action item at a future date, the target date was May 4, 2015. 37
38
Chair Popp volunteered to be the liaison for that item and asked if he should attend the Council meeting 39
on April 6. 40
41
Ms. French answered yes, if the Council heard the item on April 6. 42
43
Chair Popp could offer the Council an explanation of the Board's actions. 44
45
Board Member Lew indicated the Council seemed to feel compelled to comment on appeals of signage. 46
Many community members wanted to speak to those signs. He was expecting the Council to remove the 47
appeals from the consent calendar. 48
49
Ms. French reported staff prepared full reports for items on the consent calendar. The public felt 50
constrained by not being allowed to address the Council. By its nature, the Council could not conduct a 51
de novo hearing at the time of the meeting. 52
53
Chair Popp would not be available for the Council meeting on April 6. He would contact Mayor Holman 54
and request her opinion of whether the Council would hear the appeal at the meeting on April 6, if it was 55
removed from the consent calendar. 56
City of Palo Alto Page 11
1
Ms. French would contact Chair Popp if she received information regarding the appeal. 2
3
Adjournment 4
5
Subcommittee Members: Randy Popp and Kyu Kim 6
7
SUBCOMMITTEE ITEMS: 8
9
3. 420 Ramona (15PLN-00041): Request by Brendan Canning on Behalf of Leheng Cheng for a 10
Façade Remodel and Tenant Improvements to Establish a New Restaurant within the Former 11
"Mandarin Gourmet" Restaurant Space in the CD-C(P) Zone District. 12
13
Subcommittee Item #3 was continued to the next meeting on May 21, 2015. 14
15
STAFF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW 16
17
Project Description: Removal of a tree and planter at the area of the building and the addition of tree 18
bollards to prevent damage to an existing transformer 19
Applicant: Robert Zontos 20
Address: 550 Waverley Street (14PLN-00483) 21
Approval Date: 3/16/15 22
Request for hearing deadline: 3/30/15 23
24
Project Description: Construction of a minor addition enclosing a 450 square foot recessed area within 25
the existing building footprint 26
Applicant: Scott Walker 27
Address: 4085 El Camino Real (15PLN00033) 28
Approval Date: 3/16/15 29
Request for hearing deadline: 3/30/15 30
31
Project Description: Modifications to an existing landscape plan including removal and replacement of 32
existing trees 33
Applicant: Neil Woolner 34
Address: 3175 Hanover Street (14PLN-00497) 35
Approval Date: 3/16/15 36
Request for hearing deadline: 3/30/15 37
38
Project Description: Historic Review for façade improvements including new signage, an awning, paint 39
colors, heaters, illuminated menu boxes, and sidewalk tables and chairs 40
Applicant: Reza Javandel 41
Address: 271 University Avenue (14PLN-00473) 42
Approval Date: 3/19/15 43
Request for hearing deadline: 4/1/15 44
45