HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-04-06 Architectural Review Board Summary Minutes
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Call to Order/Roll Call
Chair Lew: April 6, 2017. Today for the first few items we have – we also have a –
we’re having a joint meeting with the HRB so I think we’ll do the roll call for both
Boards now and we’ll start the joint meeting actually just under Item 2.
Present: Chair Alexander Lew, Chair Bernstein, Vice Chair Kyu Kim, Board Members
Peter Baltay, Wynne Furth, Robert Gooyer, Beth Bunnenberg, Rodger Kohler, Michael
Makinen, Margaret Wimmer
Absent: Vice Chair Bower, Corey
Oral Communications
Chair Lew: Now is the time for oral communications. The public may speak to an item
that is not on the agenda. I don’t have any speaker cards.
Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions
Chair Lew: We can move onto City official reports or I’m sorry agenda changes,
additions or deletions. I did want to check with Staff. Are we going to – we do have a
full agenda today. Are we going to shuffle anything around?
Mr. Jonathan Lait, Assistant Director to the Planning Department: Yeah, we don’t have
any changes.
Chair Lew: Great, thank you.
Ms. Jodie Gerhardt, Manager of Current Planning: Chair, if I may?
Chair Lew: Yes.
Ms. Gerhardt: We just wanted to note that in your packet that some of the tab numbers
were a little bit off but if you look at the address on the first page, you should be able
to align it up with the agenda and the Staff report.
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
DRAFT MINUTES: April 6, 2017
City Hall/City Council Chambers
250 Hamilton Avenue
8:30 AM
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Chair Lew: Great. Thank you.
Ms. Gerhardt: Sorry about that.
City Official Reports
Chair Lew: The next item is the City official reports. I think we don’t – we have a Staff –
we just mentioned that there’s one Staff approval and that we may – I think that’s all
that in here.
JOINT SESSION WITH THE HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD
Action Items
2. REVIEW OF MINUTES OF MARCH 17, 2016 (ARB/HRB)
Chair Lew: We can now start the joint session with the Historic Resources Board and
our first item is actually to review the minutes from another – a previous joint meeting,
which was on March 17th, 2016. So, those minutes are in the packets on tab seven. Are
there any comments from Board Members? I had one for Staff. Maybe Board Member
Baltay, could you confirm this so under the motion – this is for 900 High – 901 High
Street, it says that you were absent but I think in the minutes you – my recollection is
that you were here and you were opposed to the project. My recollection was that it
was a 5-0 vote.
Board Member Baltay: I was here, yes.
Chair Lew: Yeah. Can Staff just maybe double check that?
Ms. Gerhardt: Where are you seeing this? On what page?
Chair Lew: This is on page 6. This is the motion for 901 High Street. It says the motion
passed 4-0, Board Member Baltay absent and my recollection is – but there are
recollections that are was a 5-0 and all members were present as I recall.
Ms. Gerhardt: Ok, thank you.
MOTION
Chair Lew: Well, I’ll make a motion that we approve the minutes as corrected.
Board Member Baltay: Second.
Chair Lew: All in favor? Opposed? That passes unanimously.
MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY 10-0
City of Palo Alto Page 3
3. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 400 Channing Avenue [16PLN-
00380]:
Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Coordinated
Development
Permit (SOFA I) to Allow the Demolition of an Existing One-Story Medical Office
Building and Construction of Two (2) Two-Story Homes, Each With a Full
Basement
and Secondary Dwelling Unit Above a Detached Two-Car Garage. A Preliminary
Parcel
Map Application (16PLN-00381) Requesting Subdivision of the Existing Parcel
Into Two
Parcels Will be Reviewed Through a Separate Process. Environmental
Assessment:
An Addendum to the Certified SOFA Phase 1 EIR has Been Prepared to Clarify
Minor
Site-Specific Issues That Were Addressed in the Certified EIR. Zoning District:
DHS District in the SOFA CAP. For More Information Contact the Project Planner
Phillip Brennan at Phillip.Brennan@cityofpaloalto.org
Chair Lew: Now we can move to item number three, which is a public hearing for a
quasi-judicial matter for 400 Channing Avenue. Recommendation on applicant’s request
for approval of a coordinated development permit in SOFA I to allow the demolition of
an existing one-story medical office building and construction of two (2) two-story
homes, each with a full basement and secondary dwelling unit above a detached two
car garage. A Preliminary Parcel Map requesting subdivision of the existing parcel into
two parcels will be reviewed through a separate process. Environmental assessment is
an addendum to the certified SOFA II Phase 1 EIR has been prepared to clarify minor
site-specific issues that were addressed in the certified EIR and the zone district is DHS
district in the SOFA I cap. We have a Phillip Brennan here.
Chair Bernstein: (Inaudible)
Chair Lew: Yes, and we do have some recusals and maybe we could disclosures as well.
Chair Bernstein: Thank you, Chair Lew. Martin Bernstein, Chair of the Historic Resources
Board. I’ll be recusing myself from this agenda item for 400 Channing as I have an
active project just two houses away but I will return for the subsequent agenda item.
Thank you.
Chair Lew: Great. Thank you, Martin. Are there disclosures?
Board Member Kohler: I have a – I shouldn’t – hello? Hi. I should just note that Ed
Woo the client or the – is a civil engineer that I used for projects of my own.
Chair Lew: Great and Peter?
City of Palo Alto Page 4
Board Member Baltay: Yes, I receive communication at text mail with a neighbor,
Andrew Martin, who lives in the area, who commented to me that he thought this
should be a multi-family development.
Chair Lew: Kyu?
Vice Chair Kim: I will also disclose that I have previously worked with Ed Woo as a civil
engineer but no projects in the past year.
Chair Lew: Wynne.
Board Member Furth: I was just going to say that in the course of a site visit, I – in
addition to being on the subject property. I spoke with the next-door neighbors on
Channing who invited me to look at the property from the very back of theirs so that
was another perspective.
Board Member Bunnenberg: Oh, one more.
Chair Lew: And Beth, thank you.
Board Member Bunnenberg: I should disclose that quite unexpectedly, I ran into the
architect for this and simply talked a bit with her about what the project involved.
Chair Lew: Ok and Staff?
Mr. Phillip Brennan, Associate Planner: Good morning members of the Boards. My name
is Phillip Brennan. I am an associate planner with the Planning and Community
Environment Department with the City. Presenting to you today is 400 Channing
Avenue. As it was previously noted, the applicant is requesting approval of a
coordinated development permit to demolish an existing one-story office and construct
two new, two-story homes. Each with a full basement and an ADU (Accessory Dwelling
Unit) attached to a detached two-car garage on each lot. It should be noted that the
project would be replacing an approximately 3,300-squere foot office building. Most
recently used for a medical office use, which is not a permitted use in the DHS zoning
district. The applicant would redevelop the lot as a permitted land use. The site is part
of the south of Forest area -- coordinated area plan phase 1. It’s subject to SOFA CAP
and coordinated development permit review and entitlement process. It’s detached
houses on small lots zoning district, which is land designation unique to the SOFA area
plan. It must comply with the DHS development standards and design guidelines. The
ARB/HRB review process is required for development in the DHS zoning district to
ensure new construction is consistent with the SOFA CAP plan, specifically with
development standard and design guidelines prescribed by the DHS zoning district. A
little bit about the subject site and surrounding context. The subject parcel is located in
the western corner of a predominantly R2 zoning district block. That’s primarily
comprised of one-story and two-story single family residences. The development
application was submitted in conjunction with a separate preliminary parcel map,
City of Palo Alto Page 5
seeking to subdivide the lot into two separate and equal parcels to develop. The
proposed development would reconnect the land use with the surrounding land use
context. As you can see in the map here, you see 400 Channing at the corner of
Waverly and Channing Avenue. If this project was recommended and ultimately
approved, it would – that intersection would be comprised of --three of the four corners
of that intersection would be DHS land use development. Some cursory project details,
you know one is the interior lot. It’s styled after an English cottage style; two-story
residence. It’s a little bit over 2,600-squre feet in total floor area for the main residence.
Nearly 450-square feet for the detached two-car garage and that has a 336- square
foot cottage on top of that. In the DHS zoning district, this particular style layout of the
main residence with the detached garage in the read with a cottage allows for a
maximum FAR of 65% and you’ll see that the applicant has built close to that maximum
at about 64.7%. Unit two is the corner lot a – budding Waverly and Channing. It’s a
craftsman style, two-story residence. A little bit over 2,500 total -square feet for the
main residence. 450 for the detached garage with a 350-square foot cottage and that is
built just under at 63.5% FAR. The homes are oriented to place the frontages along
Waverly Street. This was done for a few reasons, one is to maximize development
potential but another primary reason was to – it was just the most intuitive and layout
in terms of reducing the impacts of the development. If the cottages or if – excuse me,
if the residences where fronting Channing Avenue, it would compress the layout and
the impacts to the budding properties as far as the massing of the development. It
would be increased greatly and in – and the applicant did speak with the neighbor at
915 Waverly and felt that this addressed the – that concern. The proposed
developments on both respective lots are in compliance with the DHS development
standards and design guidelines with the following exceptions. These are discussion
items we would like to receive input from the respective Boards. There are required
front yard setbacks issues with these developments or consideration I should say as
well as maximum lot size. Both of these items can ultimately be resolved at the
discretion of the Director of Planning but the modification to the front yard setback
would require a formal request for a minor exception to be granted. In the SOFA CAP,
the design guidelines state that the minimum required front yard setback is to be
established at 15-feet when there’s no pre-existing pattern existing. If that’s not the
case, then you’re to use the per block face average in which the property is located,
which in this case would put the block face average at approximately 29 ½-feet; as you
can see in the illustration there. The City’s consulting architect reviewed these plans
and determined that there wasn’t necessarily an existing pattern lot or set back pattern
along Waverly – this segment of Waverly. He did determine that the lot or excuse me,
this segment of Waverly Street was split by 925 Waverly, which is an apartment
building. The lots to the right have front yard setbacks ranging from 33-36-feet. The
lots to the left, including 915 and the subject site, has a 21-foot setback and 428 and
426 Channing have a front yard setback just over 21-feet. In speaking with the
applicant, she initially approved or initially proposed building her – designing her homes
to be set back at just 18-feet but in speaking and consulting with the City’s architect
and myself, agreed to move that setback to be more in line with the budding properties
at 915 and 428 Channing Avenue. She is proposing a front yard setback of 20-feet 6-
inches and 21-feet respectively to match – better match the existing pattern of the
City of Palo Alto Page 6
budding properties. The project satisfies all the required findings necessary for a minor
exception. The SOFA CAP provides a provision where you can have variation from the
development standards and design guidelines through this minor exception process and
upon approval from the Director of Planning. Upon analysis from Staff, we believe that
those finding can be feasibly made. The other talking point was the maximum lot size.
In the DHS zoning district, the minimum lot size required is 2,800-feet I believe but the
maximum lot size – prescribed lot size is 5,000-square feet. However, there is a specific
provision in the DHS development standards that provide an allowance to – for various
from the minimum and maximum lot sizes based on a judgment call from the Director
of Planning. If they’ve determined the lot configuration is consistent with the goals of
SOFA plan and necessary to promote orderly lot patterns. Upon analysis, Staff is
recommending that the ARB and HRB take the following actions in recommending
approval of the proposed new homes with the request for the minor exceptions to allow
for front yard setbacks of 20-feet 6-inches for unit two and 21-feet for unit one. The
applicant is here and is requesting to provide a presentation.
Chair Lew: Great and so that applicant can come up to the front and you have 10-
minutes.
Mr. Jing Quan: Good morning everybody. My name is Jing Quan and I am the architect
with WEC and Associates. WEC and Associates have been – we have been working with
the City of Palo Alto for over 15-years and – thank you. Oh ok. For this project, we have
been working with the City of Palo Alto since September of last – I think it was the
since September of last year so at the beginning, just like Phillip had mentioned, we
proposed a different type of subdivision. We have – the new property line is
perpendicular to Channing Avenue and after we presented the design to the City, we
had a couple meeting this the City and we decided to probably change our design and
have the new property line perpendicular to the Waverly Street. That would keep the
same pattern as the rest of the residence buildings along Waverly Street. We did – we
spend a lot of time working together with the City. We (inaudible) have the leaders –
this is our design. You can see this lot is located on the corner of Waverly and Channing
and it’s surrounded by – there are two and across the street, we have a lot of property
that belongs to the DHS (inaudible). Most of the DHS at the corner of Waverly and
Channing, their setback is even less than we proposed. We worked with the City just
like Phillip mentioned, at the beginning we proposed 15-feet and then we changed it to
15 or 18. Then we looked at the pattern on the Waverly street, we changed it back to
21-feet to be consistent with 915 Waverly Street. This is the existing site plan. The
brown color that is showing is the existing footprint. This is a one-story medical office
and the gray tone is the parking lot. We have two curb cuts, one is on Waverly Street
and another one is on Channing. This – for the existing condition being this, we don’t
have a lot of landscaping area. You can see this lot majority is occupied by parking and
the existing building. This is a proposed site plan so we subdivided it into two lots. Each
lot is 43 – 42.5-feet wide by 125-feet deep. It’s very consistent with the neighbor at
915 Waverly and we have there – lot one, the driveway is on the right-hand side of the
property if your facing Waverly Street and the parking – the garage is leading all the
way to the back. From the street side, it’s – you can hardly see the cottage. Just unit
City of Palo Alto Page 7
one is the English cottage style. Lot two is a corner lot. It’s located at the Channing
corner of Channing and Waverly. The entrance of getting to the main house is from
Waverly Street and the driveway to the garage is on Channing Avenue. It’s almost the
same location as the existing driveway curb cut. This is the existing condition of the
property. I took the photo at the corner of Channing and Waverly. You can see, we
have several trees along Channing Avenue and a couple of the trees are along Waverly
Street so all the trees we are going to reserve. This is the color rendering almost at the
same angle to show the proposed two properties. One – unit two is a craftsman style
and unit one at the back is English cottage style. This is another existing view. I took
the picture along Waverly Street so on the right-hand side, that’s the existing house of
915 Waverly and you can see some of the existing one-story building of the medical
office. A big palm tree located at the front and we have an oak tree at the corner of the
property. This is a proposed – this is another color rendering showing the front one is
unit one that is an English cottage style and the one at the back is Lot two, which is a
craftsman style. Also, I prepared a material board so this is the English cottage style.
We have the curved arch top entrance door with some decorative hardware and also
the garage door will match the color of the entrance door. Both of them will be a
stained wood door and for the window type, we’re using a little bit narrower window
type. For the (inaudible), it’s more like a rectangular or square. The stucco would be a
light color stucco with the slate type comp shingle roofing. This is the material board for
lot one. For lot – unit two, this is a craftsman style so we have – we’re using the –
pretty typical craftsman style entrance door. That would be a wood door as well. For
the garage door at the back, it will be a painted wood garage door. For the window
type also, it’s like a typical craftsman style window. For – also, on the left-hand side, I
showed the color of the trim color and also the eave color. The wall color – is – when
we printed it out, the color is a little bit different from the real color. It’s a little bit gray-
greenish color for the wall. Also, we are going to use some of the stone veneers at the
front of the façade and also at the chimney. Also, this one would be a comp. shingle.
It’s showing in the right corner – upper corner. Also, I took some pictures of the
existing conditions so that’s the four corner houses of Channing and Waverly; that’s the
existing condition. You can see that this corner three – two of the existing houses, the
DHS zoning –the two-story single family residences and also across the street is the R2
so all of the houses are set back; I think is less than 18-feet. These are a couple more
pictures that are showing the existing condition of the lot. This is the end of my
presentation. So, I think the proposed two residences (inaudible), it will be consistent
with the pattern of the DHS zoning requirement and also be consistent with the
neighborhoods. Thank you.
Chair Lew: Great. Thank you for your presentation. I do want to open up the hearing to
the public and I do have a speaker card for this item which is David [phonetics]
[Buamgarden] and you have 5-minutes.
Mr. David Buamgarden: Thank you. Good morning and thank you for the opportunity
to speak today. My name is David [Buamgarden] and my property is the 915 property
along this development. First of all, I want to say we are very supportive of this
transition to residential. In fact, it’s overdue. We are also supportive of the reorientation
City of Palo Alto Page 8
of the properties along Waverly Street. We want to acknowledge the architect for
making those changes. We think it’s a lot stronger design and more appropriate for the
neighborhood. However, there continue to be concerns specific to compatibility and
sensitivity of the project to the existing neighbors. These properties will transition from
high density to single family. It’s paramount that it’s done in a seamless way. We have
five specific concerns. Again, we didn’t want to do a laundry list. I think the group is
more capable of looking at the designs than I am but I’d like them addressed and I sent
an email so that you had some runway to look at these. These challenges have been
discussed with many of my neighbors and quite broadly to our friends in the community
and there’s been pretty universal feedback. I wanted this to be balanced when I came
in front of you. They are prioritized, the first one is around the garage with the
apartment along the Waverly Street line. A recommendation is not to have an
apartment up above the garage because of the density. There’s a reference that I’d like
to point out, which is 857. The development across the street had a similar challenge
and they put a single-family garage. I think it’s a great way to balance existing
neighborhood with the new development. The second one I think has been addressed
and I think the architect – we talked yesterday and it was the balcony on the second
floor and I think that’s already been decided to remove that so I want to thank the
architect for that. I think – again, the privacy and looking down on the property has
been alleviate so I believe that’s a non-issue. Second-floor window facing the property
into our play room upstairs and bedrooms. If I’m pronouncing it right, clear-story
windows above the eye line so that it doesn’t – give them light. I’m – again, 18-inches
above the sight line and I think it’s doable. I think they are in agreement but again,
that’s technical windows that I am not sure what size but just so lighting is abundant
for them but also privacy is good for us. Finally, I don’t have a solution but the family
room downstairs – I think they are open to on how to elevate it but making sure the
two families rooms aren’t looking straight at each other. We’re at a 3-foot elevation, I
think this is at a foot and a half. I don’t want direct line into their family room and I
don’t think they want direct line into ours. The challenge is oak trees, which limits the
ability to put screen age and a driveway with limited – there so I don’t know what the
solution is but I think when we talked yesterday, there has to be some viable way of
elevating that. Finally, we have several protected coastal live oaks. They are pretty
large trees; 3 ½-feet and 2 ½-feet in diameter along the property line. We’re
concerned that the proposed construction, specifically the basement and we have no
issue with basements being built but I just want to make sure that it doesn’t damage
the trees or the root line because they certain would threaten the safety of the
residences. Specifically, my kid’s bedrooms so I want to make sure that there’s a
through arborist report. Again, I hope there is no issue. I don’t think there will be an
issue but I really want that to be acknowledged and ensure that we’re not creating a
problem for the next big storm, which we hope there will be a lot more of. Again, very
supportive of the project but a couple I think I want to make sure that are highlighted
and addressed. Thank you very much.
Chair Lew: Great, thank you and we have one other – one additional speaker which is
[Steve Raina] and you have 10 – 5-minutes.
City of Palo Alto Page 9
[Mr. Steve Raina]: Great, I was afraid I would get three. Good morning Members of the
Board. My name is [Steven Raina]. I live at 840 Kipling street, to put that into context,
this property in discussion is 440 Channing. Across Channing is a collection of four DHS
homes. My property is on the backside of those DHS homes. At the time, I bought the
property back in ’98, that was – those homes were still a Staff parking lot for PAMF and
now I have three DHO –DHO –DHS home properties bordering on two sides of my
property. I want to address two main issues here; privacy and compatibility. As an
example, one of the DHS properties has a two-story cottage garage within just a few
feet of my property – of my fence line. There’s also a stairway and second story landing
going up the side of that cottage garage and from that landing, there’s a commanding
view of my entire back property and they also look into my windows – the back
windows of my property. Additionally, the main house has a very large picture window
and it too has or had a commanding view of my entire back yard. I have to say, on a
daily basis, every time I step out, I am reminded of my lack of privacy. At the time of
construction, conditions were placed on the building permit to plant a row of trees –
screening trees that would eventually grow and cover the picture window and at least
on the staircase landing, there was a – some attempt – we were talking about putting
lattice work on that landing to get some – at least nominal sense of privacy. Although
honestly, whoever stands on that landing, will still get a commanding view of my
property. However, once the new owner moved in, those screening trees – those newly
planted screening trees were pulled out. There is no lattice on the landing and they can
do that. The new owner can do because they have their own property rights. The
condition was placed on the building permit, which affects the contractor but that
doesn’t affect the property rights of the new owner. As a consequence, things like
screening trees and special privacy windows; glazing and other additions or
modifications of a basic structure. These are actually in a sense – in a very real sense –
practical sense, they’re a limited and fragile tool. The new owner can just change them.
For the neighbors who depend on these additional mitigations for a sense of privacy, it’s
a very limited and fragile tool. The image I have is like a candle in the wind and you
just hope the wind doesn’t blow too hard. If you want a firm solution for privacy
mitigation, then it seems like it has to be a fundamental part of the way the building is
constructed. It has to be designed in, it can’t just be added on. There are also serious
compatibility issues and the transition of DHS is significant. FAR bonus and relaxed
setback requirement versus the existing built neighborhood. Even for R1 zoning, there
is a process of individual review, to deal with compatibility and privacy. It was a – it is a
critically needed process because significant problems keep reoccurring. DHS with the
same problems – the same problems with DHS will just be multiplied. Compared with
single-family homes, it’s already been discussed. You can go from .45 FAR up to .55,
.65, depending on a cottage. Whether it’s attached to the main house or attached to
the garage. There are relaxed set back requirements, for instance, sit setback for R1 is
10-feet at a 45-degree angle. Side setback for DHS is 12-feet and a 60-degree angle
and with this additional FAR and the relax setbacks, this just increases massing and
pushes it to the edge. That is kind of the very source of the compatibility and the
potential privacy issues. When DHS is going into a built neighborhood; this being the
case. It’s these very benefits that create – I said that sorry. With the greater benefits
associated with DHS zoning, the intent – I know from having talked to many of the
City of Palo Alto Page 10
original members of the SOFA working group, is to create – increase the pool of
rentable units into the neighborhood. A very good purpose but those benefits are also
the source of the issues we have to discuss. With greater benefits – is that 5-minutes?
Can I get 30-seconds?
Chair Lew: Can you just wrap up really quickly? I think we get the gist of your
argument.
[Mr. Buamgarden:] Just a summary, this is the first one since SOFA I. There’s also a
whole collection of DHS on Waverly between Forest and Homer. This is not a single
standalone issue. This is going to be coming back over and over again and needs a
coherent process in dealing with the issues.
Chair Lew: Great, thank you very much.
[Mr. Buamgarden:] Thank you for your time and attention.
Chair Lew: I will open up the – to the Board for questions. I think we have…
Mr. Lait: Chair Lew, if I may just – just on that last speaker, a couple of comments.
Chair Lew: Sure.
Mr. Lait: One is if the Board chooses to impose conditional of approval related to
screening or landscaping or things of that nature, those allow the City to then – after
the construction and changes of ownership, to go back and enforce those requirements
for screening should there be a complaint filed with the City so that’s something to
think about. Then also, I was just talking with Staff at the table here. We understand
that there are some frosted windows that are – I believe probably on the second floor
of the…
Ms. Gerhardt: (Inaudible)
Mr. Lait: …and some high (inaudible) windows that – if these are designs features that
are important for privacy and things of that nature, we should impose a condition on
those as well. We have a general condition that talks about compliance with plans but
as you know, going through the permit process, some little detail get changed out and
a planner may not know that the frosted windows are important unless we have a
condition to that effect.
Chair Lew: Great. Thank you.
Board Member Furth: Yeah, what’s – I know there’s a minimum density for this district
so I think it’s 8 dwelling units per unit. How – what’s the minimum number of units that
we can permit on this site?
City of Palo Alto Page 11
Mr. Brennan: It would be four units or on the – for each lot?
Board Member Furth: No, on this site, how many units must – there’s a minimum
density; eight dwelling units per acre so how many units – this project has to include at
least three?
Mr. Brennan: Yeah, let me get back to you and I’ll give you the exact number on that.
Chair Lew: Are there any other questions? Peter.
Board Member Baltay: Yes, has there been any geotechnical investigation? Will
dewatering be necessary to do this basement?
Mr. Brennan: I’m sorry?
Board Member Baltay: Will dewatering be necessary to construct these basements? Has
a geotechnical report been submitted?
Mr. Brennan: Right, a geotechnical report has not been submitted. The applicant may
be able to speak better to that with the …
Ms. Gerhardt: There are standard conditions that address dewatering. Our Public Works
engineers will be looking at that during the building stage. To ensure that all the
appropriate reports are turned in.
Board Member Baltay: As of now, we do not know whether that will happen. That’s
correct?
Ms. Brennan: No, we don’t know that right now.
Board Member Kohler: I can add a little something to that. I think we’ve done a home
not too far, one or two blocks away that had – there were two or three of them that
had basements and we didn’t have to water but that of course – dewater but that was
done 10 or 12-years ago so I don’t know if ground water has changed in that area. I
doubt it.
Chair Lew: Margaret.
Board Member Wimmer: Yes, I wanted to ask a couple of questions about the zoning. It
looks like this project is in a DHS zoning neighborhood or area but it’s directly adjacent
to an R2 and I think this page in our packet really shows that boundary line. I was
wondering if you could speak a little bit to why the subject property is excluded from
the ‘R’ district – the R2 district? Then also, it – I mean in summary, it looks like this was
once a commercial project, being a medical facility and now it’s being transferred to a
residential project. Would it make sense to include this project in the R2 zone? Could
you speak a little bit about – because it’s right on the boundary line so – and it – I
City of Palo Alto Page 12
mean I’m hearing from the residences who are wanting it to – wanting to identify this
property more as a residential zone and not a commercial zone because it’s being
transferred. It seems like there’s a little sensitivity that in the change of the occupancy
or the change of the use of the property, would that also require a change of the use of
the zoning ordinance? I’m just asking that.
Mr. Lait: Thank you Board Member for the – Vice Chair for the comments. I don’t
believe that any of us here at the table have that institutional knowledge about the
zoning boundary for why this was zoned one way instead of the R2. I know that there
are some people who may be in the room who may have some deeper knowledge
about that.
Board Member Furth: Thank you. I was not on the Committee Working Group of course
but I Staffed it so I went to all their meetings and worked on the drafting of this. Of
course, all of this is about the transformation of land owned by the Palo Alto medical
foundation, when they relocated to Urban Lane. Urban Lane was going to be 400 or
something housing units and this area was originally designated for far fewer. When
they decided to or decided they wanted to move, there was a comprehensive
neighborhood driven – neighborhood and landowner driven policy. When you read the
SOFA CAP, it’s clear that the biggest struggle was about how much housing and how do
you make it compatible with the existing eclectic, varied, very attractive existing
housing stock. DHS was supposed to be modest houses on smaller lots and it could
include a second unit and there was a lot of concern that – because this is such an
attractive area, people with the resources to do so would want to consolidate property
so that’s why – and that would subvert this effort to provide more housing downtown.
They have minimum densities and they have maximum lot size. DHS in this area was
specifically intended to transition those commercial properties to residential uses. This is
just a shoe falling very late, compared to that process but it was intended -- clearly it
didn’t always succeed, to give the City the tools to require development that would be a
good neighbor to existing residential development.
Board Member Wimmer: I guess my question – because I’ve not – I don’t have a lot of
experience with doing any projects – I’ve never done any projects in the DHS district so
how does that compare with the R2 district? What are the – is there a daylight plane
difference? Is there a FAR difference? What are the fundamental differences? Just for
my own and for the public’s education of what the difference is between the two
districts? Does the DHS get a higher FAR and more lenient daylight plane? Or features
or -- just curious. Sorry, I didn’t do my homework on that. Sorry. I should have.
Mr. Lait: Yes? I don’t think we were prepared to do that analysis of the different zone
between the R2 and the other. No, that’s fine. We can certainly look through the code
and pull together a couple of distinguishing factors about that if you want to come back
to us.
Chair Lew: Any other questions at this time? No. Why don’t we move onto Board
Member comments and why don’t we start with Beth?
City of Palo Alto Page 13
Board Member Bunnenberg: (Inaudible)
Chair Lew: Yes.
Board Member Bunnenberg: I see the lot split as a very good move because most of
the properties in that area at are residential have a shorter street facing and long lots
back so that’s to be – makes it more compatible. I think that – and facing Waverly
makes very good sense. The choice of echoing neighborhood styles; I think is very
interesting. Certainly, bungalows are all over that area. That one is very clear. The
small English cottage, there are smaller examples of that but one really interesting one
is not too far away, which is the William’s house at 351 Homer. That is a modest tutor
and it was built in 1906 so I’ll send this down because you have the high peaked roof
and the major chimney as features of the building. I think to me, there’s good
compatibility there. We always run into trouble when people try to do Victorian houses
because, by the time you get some of the work on the front of the Victorian house,
there’s a question of whether it too closely mimics and one of our standards is that new
work should be differentiated from the traditional work. 30-years from now, it would be
very hard to tell whether that was a real Victorian or a faux Victorian. I support the
choice of style. I think that that the materials look good and feel that it is quite
compatible. Thank you.
Chair Lew: Thank you, Beth. Wynne.
Board Member Furth: Thank you. Yes?
Ms. Gerhardt: Board Member Furth, if I may answer your earlier question. Jodi
Gerhardt, Manager of current planning. Regarding the minimum density, it is eight
dwelling units per acre. This site is a little over 10,000 so the minimum density would
be two units.
Board Member Furth: Ok. I was thinking in terms of commercial acres and then I was
rounding up and I was getting three so good things I asked. Thank you, it’s nice to see
this use converting back to residential after all these years and it’s nice to see that
strong corner in an extremely lovely neighborhood, getting a revisiting. My concerns are
about usable outdoor space within the site. About not properly – not adequately
handling privacy issues for the adjacent property on Waverly and not adequately, it
seems to me, acknowledging and protecting the oak trees on the site. If you look at the
native oak senses in the SOFA Plan on page 65. This has got practically the densest
concentration of important oak trees. They are all important but these are super
important, in the whole area. This dominant thing about – I really enjoyed I must say,
going to look at this project. I mean the dominate thing about this area is the wealth of
trees and it’s not just the oak trees. It’s those spectacular – are those Canary Palms?
You can tell, I think, that there’s been an institutional owner for years because they are
in really good shape. Just as a side, it’s a little unnerving to have a historic importance
analysis site – Larry [Cline]. It always unnerves me when it’s people I know but I’m
City of Palo Alto Page 14
sure it’s true. When I looked at – oh, and then the last thing is this district is different
than R2 or R1. This district intends to provide modest houses on smaller lots, not big
houses on small lots. When SOFA was being developed, it had already become
economically advisable for property owners to install basements with light wells and
what not so it wasn’t that basement weren’t anticipated but they were just beginning to
be part of the development practice in this area. What we have is a proposal for a five-
bedroom house on a 5,000-square foot lot with a very small detached assessor unit. A
so-called cottage but I think the notion of a cottage over a garage is interesting but I
understand the idea is that it should be charming. My first – to get to the first things
first, if you look at – when I look at site plan A2 and look at the – what do you call it?
The coverage of the tree – the oak tree. The canopy, thank you and the document was
prepared by a canopy, how could I forget this. When you look at the canopy of the east
coast live oak on the adjacent property on Waverly, it goes practically all the way over
that proposed second unit if I am reading this correctly. When I went back to look at it
from 426 Channing, that indeed appears to be the case. I’m concerned that by locating
this second unit next to the neighbor instead of the next to the second house that’s part
of this project. You both are having unnecessary impacts on the neighbor on Waverly
and providing insufficient protection to that tree and also, it relates to my other concern
about the lack of good outdoor space that doesn’t front on Waverly. Under an oak tree
is a classic place to enjoy seating and being outdoors so I – as it stands, I don’t think
that that location of that second unit is consistent with our goals with this district. I
don’t understand how the parking actually works; the exiting and entering. I would like
to hear more about steps being taken to address the privacy concerns on Waverly. I
would certainly not support a design that includes a second story balcony looking over
there and I would want to spend some time knowing that the placement of windows
and the materials used were designed in a way to give lots of light and air to the
occupants of the new structure but not unnecessarily deal with privacy problems on the
other. I’d also like to hear about – hear comments from Staff about 420 – and my
colleagues up here, about privacy in 426 Channing. 425 Channing is really interesting
because it’s a very – these are all very deep lots. There appears to be a second unit at
the back. There’s a lot of open space and how is the – how is this treated in terms of
providing good privacy for them? Then my last point and I don’t know if my colleagues
agree with me on this but we don’t have a minimum size for the second unit but we
allow an addition .1 FAR so that’s 500-square feet on these lots, right? I think that to
meet the goals of this district, the 500-square – these units are too small. They’re not
going to support – they just look like instant (inaudible). They do not look like places
where two or more people would live over the long term. I also am unclear as to what
their outdoor space would be so I would like to hear more about those issues. In terms
of the setback, I’m not very comfortable with the finding because saying that we are
going to modify a setback in order to provide housing is the kind of exception that
swallows the rule. Having said that, I think you’ve made a good case that not
recognizing the bifurcation of this block by that large apartment building, give you an
unreasonable result and appears to be a bit wasteful. There is a lot of freedom in the
DHS and in SOFA generally to modify standards.
Chair Lew: Karen.
City of Palo Alto Page 15
Council Member Holman: Yeah, just a couple things just because I was on the SOFA I
and SOFA II working groups. What Board Member Furth is saying is actually one of the
goals that were established by the SOFA working group. The homes were supposed to
be smaller homes, larger cottages so there more – both more affordable. That was the
goal that was established by the SOFA working group. Just a little bit of institutional
memory and then the ones that got built as a part of the redevelopment when the clinic
moved out. Those actually did have smaller units but there’s no requirement of that, to
my knowledge. Maybe Staff will correct me but my memory and just a review of this is
that there’s no requirement. The original intention was to have more reasonable sizes
for both the primary home and the second unit.
Chair Lew: Thank you. Margaret.
Board Member Wimmer: Yeah. I would just like to compliment the architect. I think
you’ve done a nice job in terms of the style and the compatibility with the neighborhood
and the finish materials are all quite nice. What I -- I think I have a – most of a problem
with is the detached secondary dwelling units. When we look at the streetscape on the
Channing avenue streetscape and to reference that it’s sheet A.17 in our packets. We
look at the detached garage with the cottage on the top for dwelling two, which fronts
on Channing avenue and then we look at the adjacent property at 426 Channing. It just
doesn’t – just the height and the massing of the secondary dwelling/cottage structure
doesn’t really seem compatible with 426 Channing. I also looked at where it’s placed on
the site plan and it appears that this is 4-feet from that shared property line. In one
reference, I was just looking at the site plans and on one site plan, it says it’s 3-feet but
maybe that’s the roof line that’s 3-feet from the property line but it looks like this
detached structure is roughly 4-feet from the property line, which is very close. In any
R1 development, we have a minimum of a 5-foot setback from the side property line. I
know that this is probably really the rear – I don’t know how it’s really legally classified
but it seems awfully close to the property line for as tall as it is. If you just look at the
existing residence and the secondary detached structure, it just seems – that just
doesn’t seem compatible to me with the massing. I think that is compromising a privacy
for the adjacent structures. I know that there’s the same cottage detached structure in
unit one – behind the unit one but it’s – that doesn’t have visibility from the street as
much as this one does on Channing. I just think that – and I looked at the sections and
I was trying to see how they could possibly bring the height of that structure down. It
doesn’t look like – it looks like their minimum ceiling heights so it looks like it’s like 7 ½
feet in the garage with a 12-inch floor ceiling and 8-feet for the second floor so you
can’t really bring it down very much. I don’t know what kind of solution we could come
up with for that. Then also in terms of the screening, I know that on some projects the
screening requirement can be part of the covenant. Maybe that’s getting a little bit too
deep into what the laws are but I do think that the – I don’t know. I think that’s my
primary problem with this project, is that incompatible secondary dwelling in the back
and then I also wanted to state that I know that the requirements for the secondary
dwelling units are – the codes have changed. The ordinances have changed since
January and the Cities are much more lenient now in trying to encourage these
City of Palo Alto Page 16
secondary dwelling units to be built. Maybe because of that, we have to accept some of
these compromised situations but I think that there’s – we have to work – it would be
nice to see the applicant work on the compatibility of those detached structures in the
back yards.
Chair Lew: Thank you.
Vice Chair Kim: Thank you for the presentation. I’m actually very much in favor of this
project. I think it’s been thought out a lot deeper than a lot of the projects that we see
for a first hearing. It seems pretty clear to me that the DHS hold over is from when Palo
Alto Medical Foundation continued to use this property as a medical office and I think
the way that they are proposing the project with the two separate lots and the four
units actually, does a very nice job of complimenting the surround R-2 residential
zoning and also creating that transition. Overall, again, I think the project – I would be
fine recommending approval for. There were a couple small nitty-bitty things but I think
will pass on making any comments on that for now. Overall, again, I think it’s been very
well thought out. The material boards were very nice. If it were to return to the Board,
however, I think it would be nice to see some more 3-D site perspectives, including
some of the surrounding neighbors. Also, to see a clearer first-floor site plan. I did
notice that you were showing that on creating and drainage plan but it would be a little
bit clearer perhaps to see how that landscaping works and to see where those lights
well exactly are. I think for the two points that Staff has asked us to comment on. As
far as the variation of the setback, I think that’s fine. I think it makes sense with the
way that the residences are set back on Waverly and as far as the maximum lot size
being slightly over 5,00-square feet, I am also fine with that. Again, I think it’s that DHS
carry over and it’s been stated that the SOFA 1 CAP also has those specific provisions to
vary from that. I am very much appreciative of the fact that it’s four dwelling units so
thank you for presenting the project.
Chair Lew: Peter.
Board Member Baltay: Thank you and good morning. In general, I think it’s a good
thing that we are going to do here but I have a number of issues and concerns. Let me
start with the zoning, when the lots bigger than the minimum allowable area, we
sometimes say that’s ok. One of the reasons they set a maximum lot area is to get the
maximum house size limit in; that’s what the FAR does. We’ve had this come up before
but it seems to me that we ought to limit the house size, the FAR ought to be
calculated based on the maximum lot size, which would be 5,000 not slightly larger.
That’s the whole point of having this limitation. I also find myself in agreement with
Board Member Furth’s comments about the second dwelling unit. If you are reading the
code, the intent is that extra 1.1 FAR is for the second dwelling unit and in this case,
the house again has been made larger at the expense of the second dwelling unit.
Those are two zoning issues and I don’t know what latitude we have to enforce that but
to me, it makes sense again in that the maximum development should be limited to the
maximum lot size. Even if the lot is slightly large for whatever necessary reason; it’s
historically been that way. To address the two requirements – the two exceptions, I
City of Palo Alto Page 17
guess – again, the lot size is fine to let that occur when it’s slightly greater. The code
allows that and I don’t have an issue with it. I think the front setback as well, I find the
argument that the real context of this site is from that apartment building towards the
corner and so basing the front – the average front setback on that rationale makes
sense. In fact, I think you could take the four house on the corner here and consider
that as part of the context and let the front setback be based on that average even. It’s
important that this house come closer to the street to fit the obvious context. Anyone
standing there would think a 30-foot setback is inappropriate for these small houses.
Then I consider the historic nature of this site and I don’t see anything in the building
that is historic but I see six gorgeous historic palm trees and to me that’s the apodeme
of what a really nice lot in Palo Alto have. Think of the Squire House and I see that five
of them are being saved but one is not and I find that a shame. To me, if we are trying
to preserve history, that’s what’s historic on this property. I also see a garage being put
underneath the canopy of a very nice like oak tree in the back. Again, I don’t know
where the development is being allowed but whenever I propose a house under a big
oak tree like that, you’re not allowed to do it. It’s not compatible so I see that as a
problem. That tree is precious and this property in particular has really, really nice
trees. I certainly would appreciate feedback from my colleagues on the Historic
Resources Board via the trees. If that is a fair consideration, the trees themselves are
historic and what makes the property historic are these palm trees but to me, that’s just
such an important part of what I see when I come up to that corner. I am concerned
about potential dewatering. I’ve also done projects in this neighborhood and we have
not had to do dewatering here but if dewatering is required, it could have a significant
impact on these trees and to me, the trees are really important. Especially, there are
four big mature canary island palms right on the street. Right on Channing Avenue and
when you’re talking about dewatering 5 -7-feet away from that. That – I mean come
on, I’ve been around. That is going to hurt the trees, we all know that and is that really
what we want to do? I think that at the minimum we have to have extremely stringent
requirements that go beyond the requirements even now for dewatering. If dewatering
is necessary and I think that’s the kind of question we should be asking. These trees
are precious and if we are going to put basements that close to them. I mean even just
the shore piers alone are going to be close to these trees. These are some of the nicest
palm trees in town as far as I can tell. The whole question of dewatering to me is an
unknown and it really needs to be known about what’s going to happen there. Looking
at the site planning of the properties. Project 2 I find that the garage – I’m sorry but it
doesn’t work. You’ve go 20-feet to back your car out of that garage and then turn it
around. That’s not going to happen. The result will be someone backing out, blindly
making a 90-degree turn and backing across the sidewalk on Channing. I am fully
sympathetic and aware that this is a tight lot and a tight design problem but in a
residence, you have to – the same standards as everyone else, you need to be able to
turn the car around and on lot two, the space between the house and the garage is just
not enough. I don’t know the answer but I am afraid my opinion once proposed that it
doesn’t function. That’s one of the findings that we have to make. Then if I could, I
would like to address a few more detailed design questions. I have a list of about five
or six tweaks so to speak on the building but a bigger one perhaps is that I find it
disappointing that the architect didn’t design a separate house for each lot. One lot’s an
City of Palo Alto Page 18
interior lot with house on each side and one is on the corner. The floor plans to these
houses are essentially the same and I’ve said this before on other projects but our
finding is that we have to have a high esthetic quality. To me that means that each
building is designed to uniquely to fit to the particular site that it is on. A corner lot is
inherently different from an interior lot and in this case, you have this row of palm trees
right there. It just seems to me that the house should have been designed separately
and not the same floor plan with a different style, craftsman vs. English country,
applied to it, which is what happened here. Again, I that – the façade of the house on
Channing Avenue is fairly flat along Channing behind the palm trees and that’s a result
of it being an interior lot design. Where you have a tight setback and it really needs to
be more modulation to soften it, to bring in some of the characteristics of a craftsman
style home. That means that you need to redo the floor plan. The house will inherently
be different and it just wasn’t done here and that’s disappointing. Then I am going to
go through a couple of comments on each house. If I can start with the English country
on lot number one. I find that the chimney mass is to small and really needs to be with
a different material, perhaps a stone or something. If you look at other English country
style houses that’s typically the case. The window trim on the second-floor gable, then
if I were to compare the images from the Historic Resources Board or if I compare the
images you present yourself, the applicant. For an example of country style house, the
trim around these windows is very simple and that to me, is part of this style. Is a
simple cottage and yet the trim shown on the house here, is rather heavy and the
window is not very deeply reset? Those are details but I’d like to see that thought
through a bit more. I find the front door entry as well – when I look at that plan, it
doesn’t make sense. It really needs to be perhaps a little bit deeper and a little bit more
thought out. Maybe a beveled form with the plaster. There are many houses around
town where it’s been done a little bit more nicely but those three things I think would
improve the façade. On the craftsman style home on the corner lot, I find the front
porch you’re proposing at the depth of – I’m sorry, 3-feet it looks like here is ridiculous.
Porches need to be deep enough to put a chair on it and this one is not. I understand
that you are fighting setback and many other issues but sometimes it means that you
take an extra foot or two out of the house to get a usable front porch. This is a corner
lot on a pedestrian street, close to town where there will be people going by. People
will want to sit out there and this is sort of an (inaudible) porch. It’s not really intended
to be used as a porch. I am bothered by the stone wainscot being broken by the
window, which is just a little bit too large on the front. The living room steps into the
stone Wainscot. If you align those, it would be nicer. When I look at your eave detail
it’s – clunky maybe is a nice way to put it but it’s just not very well thought out. Again,
you need to really look at the way this has been done in the past with the eaves. It’s
not the same size board that is visible on the outside as is structural on the inside and
this one is just not quite there. Again, it just makes me wonder if it’s been thought
about. The chimney also seems a little bit too short. That’s a list of small design things
that could be addressed. I’m sure my colleagues will have their own opinions. Then,
lastly, the issue of the garages in the back and the second story units; it’s a challenge.
This is a zone where we want to have dwelling units in the back then that means that
those garages need to have someone living on top of them. Unless we had less parking
requirements, you need the garage for parking. We want a second dwelling unit, that’s
City of Palo Alto Page 19
where it has to be. The new State laws coming down to us are acknowledging and
pushing that. What I come down to thinking then is that we have to design these
garage units really, really well. We have to do it so that they minimize their impact on
the neighbors. They are going to be an impact, we all know that but in this case, one of
those units could be shifted over perhaps so that it’s not so close to the neighbor. I
think you could have lower plate heights. Closer to 7-feet on the second floor, sloping
inside where the ceiling is not consistently 8-feet but rather slopes with the ceiling. A
lower plate really helps and then honestly, when I look at the design of the garages, it
looks like a different person designed them. They are just a different style. They are not
compatible with the houses. They are just sort of clunky. They are just not – I don’t
understand why they weren’t – the same care wasn’t give to these garages as the rest
of the house. It clearly needs to be done but the eaves are different, the massing is
different, they just aren’t – they are not there at all. I’d like to see the garage
outbuilding be really carefully designed. Very much modulated, maybe more
landscaping somehow between them and the neighbors but really with an eye to
minimizing the obvious impact and that just hasn’t been done here. Again, the second
units just need to a significant amount of work to them improved. Ok, thank you very
much.
Chair Lew: Rodger.
Board Member Kohler: Thank you. I just – a few comments. I was thinking here that it’s
been a long time and I’m getting older but I was on the Committee that tried to decide
what to do with the medical center sites and surrounding areas. I must have been part
of declaring this to be an R-2 zone because I was on that Committee that worked all
that out. That was a – I think that went on all summer. We met every month for a long
time and worked on that and had a lot of input from the surrounding neighbors and
everything. It was quite an interesting project. I’m – I have done a lot of basements in
Palo Alto so I like the use of basements. They are really a huge bonus to homes of any
size and the water issue is – I’ve done so many basements in Palo Alto that I have
never had a problem with the water table. The only problem we ever had once, was
when the tractor over dug and went into the neighbor’s yard with his basement instead
of staying on his own property. I think the basements are really good and I have to
admit, the comments just recently were really quite detailed and there’s not – I’m not
sure I have a whole lot to add to it. I do agree that the garage designs do seem to sort
of come out of a different one – the front houses are – have a lot of details and the
garages look like a lot of other garages look. Unfinished and not responding to the
design of the other homes so I would agree with that. The palm tree – actually, what I
started to mention about the medical center's site was that there were some trees there
that had to be moved and so that – the palm trees, as you know, you can buy a palm
tree and have it – it can be 40-feet high and they bring it in and they plunk it down in
the ground and it grows quite well. They – as long as they don’t get much closer than
the – what shows the line they have here, I don’t think the palm trees will have a
problem with the basement. I have to admit, the – it’s a fairly clever kind of solution
here. You have the main house and then the cottage in the back but I really agree that
the cottage does seem to have been left out of the design features of the main homes.
City of Palo Alto Page 20
I also have a modest issue with the coast live oak opposite the rear garage. That does
seem to me that it looks like it’s only – I don’t know, maybe 8-feet at the most to the
foundation. That’s getting awfully close to an oak tree of that size. Normally, I think we
have to be 10 or 12-feet away so I don’t know if there was a tree report done for that –
those two coast live oaks. I mean, I don’t think I have much else to consider. It’s kind
of a – I guess the debate is whether or not -- the front house is fairly large and
elaborate. The back homes are kind of this little one room cottage effect but I think
that’s what Palo Alto seems to be encouraging; to have these small units in the back.
The State is mandating that you are allowed to do that. Now, I assume from Staff that
requirement is going to be coming forward because we’ve to ask Staff several times on
what’s the new rule with these required units in the back yard and I’ve been told that
you are working on that and you’ll have a little (inaudible) – a little list of rules of what
we can do there. Is that – this is kind of tricky. Similar to that idea but not exactly the
same.
Mr. Lait: Yeah, we’re working on a face sheet to address the new States laws and
Council action when it happens on April 17th to memorialize what the second dwelling
unit standards would be.
Board Member Kohler: Yeah, because I’ve been getting a lot of requests from
homeowners about what can we do. I don’t think I have anything else to contribute so
pass on.
Chair Lew: Robert.
Board Member Gooyer: Ok, let me start with all and all I think it’s a nice design and
basically the overall concept of it. I agree that the orientation ought to be the way it is
as compared to the way it originally was on Channing or I should say oriented that way.
I agree with my fellow Board Members that some of the detailing are really what makes
or breaks one of these designs. I agree with you Peter as far as some of the issues that
you mentioned. As far as the palm tree, I just have an aversion to palm trees and
maybe it’s because of my age because I’m with you. I use to design shopping centers
and stuff, way back in the stone age and we would buy these 40-foot trees down from
southern California. They would ship them up in a flatbed and you want ten of them,
you want twenty of them. No big deal. That’s why you see so many shopping centers
and areas where they have these massive palm trees that don’t really fit here. I don’t
think they are appropriate for the area. Maybe in southern California or in Hollywood or
whatever type thing but up here – so as far as – I mean, as far as I’m concerned, they
can bulldoze those puppies down and it wouldn’t phase me at all but that as it may, I
do agree – talking about trees, is that I do have a big concern about that live oak in the
back and trying to cram a two-story building underneath that. I agree with that
completely. I think that needs to be either reexamined or depending on exactly how
they lay this out; if an arborist says yes, you can do a certain amount of trimming. As
you said, I’ve always had situations where going that far underneath the canopy, it’s
just a definite no, no. Now, let’s see, as far as – a couple of the concerns that the
neighbors had. I’m always amazed that the first concern that people seem to have with
a two-story house is privacy and my neighbor is going to be looking down on me. The
City of Palo Alto Page 21
way I see it, the way – actually, I think the architect had a lot of sensitivity. The house
at 400 Channing that looks down at 915 Waverly is really the only window that has any
sort of peeking tom ability is right in the middle of the stairway. I mean, I really don’t
think my neighbor is going to stand there on their stairway, half way up, to look down
into the neighbor’s house. It a – I just don’t see it. They have been very sensitive in the
master bedroom to put the two small little windows there on each side of which I
assuming is going to be the headboard for the – so, all in all, I think a lot of sensitivity
was given to that. They’ve also put up the wall by the balcony that’s there to prevent
that sort of thing. A balcony I can see more where you’re sitting there having a cup of
coffee and looking down at your neighbor. That’s why I think they’ve done a good job
at that. Let’s see, what else? I also agree that the – I should say, the one on Channing
is – I agree that the 4-feet is a little tight but the benefit is also that for the neighboring
house, the driveway is there so it’s not the typical 5-feet on each side where the two
houses are 10-feet apart. There actually is probably the 15+foot difference between
that so I think the 5-feet or the 4-feet is probably ok. I agree that those – the units in
the back really – I don’t know if you want to call it – where designed by a different
person but they were obviously afterthoughts. I mean the reality of it is, these are spec.
houses so when a customer comes in, they are interested in buying the big residence
not whatever is in the back yard. The effort has been put – that being on both qualities,
detailing, and everything else, the money is thrown in the front house and not the back
house. I agree that they should match more; it’s a single package. Those can be –
again, let me back up a little bit. The sensitivity as far as view or looking into the
neighbor I think was well done. Again, the smaller windows at the property line and
that sort of thing but just the overall design can be toned down somewhat. You can
have a lower plate height so I mean, those things are very doable. All in all, I think it’s
a really good start but it depends on how far we want to push this. That – I think that
probably a redesign or some minor modifications, I think, are probably a reasonable
request.
Chair Lew: Great. Thank you and Mike.
Board Member Makinen: Thank you, sir. I think the project blends in well with the
community. I would say that the main thing that people are going to see is the facades
of these two houses. They are not going to be seeing the sides or the back of the
houses to any real extent so the façade is probably the most prominent things of
interest to these Boards and Commissions. Looking at drawing C- -- C.1, where unit
number one is shown with the close proximity to the lot line, which has been previously
mentioned. It just occurs to me that that really is almost an impossibility to get a car
into that garage. It would seem to me from the space that’s available there and it just
looks to me that there could be a possibility that if the garage was moved closer to unit
number two, you’d have a better shot of actually getting a car in and out. I don’t think
that’s (inaudible) as a garage once it gets built because there’s simply not enough
turning radius. You could go to the exotic solution of putting in a turntable in there to
get your car in and out but that’s probably not in the cards right now. I think the
proximity to the lot line and that I was kind of surprised that it’s that close but I guess
that’s what the zoning allows so they built it as close as they can. I would prefer to see
City of Palo Alto Page 22
a bigger setback from the property line. I think the general appearance of the façade of
the house is in good harmony with the adjacent properties and I generally support the
effort of the architect.
Chair Lew: Thank you. Thank you to all the Board Members for some really great
comments. I don’t think I have anything new to add. I think that the – Beth?
Board Member Bunnenberg: (Inaudible)
Chair Lew: Ok. Thank you, Beth. I don’t think that I have anything to add that hasn’t
already been said. I would just say that my own – the things that popped out in my
mind was – where the carriage house underneath the oak tree and the privacy too –
privacy and screening to the lot on Channing. I forgot the – 426 Channing. Those really
popped out in my mind and – but I do generally agree with many of the comments that
have been made by other Board Members. Beth?
Board Member Bunnenberg: We did not address the historic structures report on the
existing building and I completely agree with that this building could be demolished
because it does not have really any integrity left of the building because it had been
cobbled up from a residence to a business building, with several different additions. I
don’t see any problem with the demolition.
Chair Lew: Ok and I have one follow-up. Robert, you had mentioned the stair window
on lot one that looks onto 915 Waverly. S, I just wanted to point out that if you look on
the elevations, which is sheet A5, right? The architect has got it in the stair landing and
I don’t have a scale with me but I think that we’re looking at something like – that the
window sill height there at the landing itself is 5-feet.
Board Member Gooyer: Ok.
Chair Lew: Right?
Board Member Gooyer: Right.
Chair Lew: The view – I guess – and it’s the opaque glass.
Board Member Gooyer: Yeah, I understand (inaudible)(crosstalk)
Chair Lew: Right so I think they were saying – yeah, I just want to make sure that its’…
Board Member Gooyer: The only comment was that that would be the only one you
could even attempt to (inaudible)(crosstalk)
Chair Lew: Right and I’m just saying that to get a sight line, you would be back – at the
back, into the stair. That was all that I wanted to mention. Any other comments from –
Wynne.
City of Palo Alto Page 23
Board Member Furth: I had one comment to address the issue that Commission Baltay
brought up about the canary island palms, which are not Fiji tall (inaudible), Robert.
These guys like more water but section 2.10 of the DHS standards on page 100 directs
us to preserve significant vegetation on the site; not just oak trees. If we think this is
significant vegetation, then it’s worth of our attention and it’s probably eligible for some
kind of covenant condition that requires its continuation and maintenance.
Chair Lew: Anybody else? Peter.
Board Member Baltay: Well, one of us thinks the trees are significant and one of us
clearly does not. I see nine people up here. The applicant is not getting clear direction.
This is what we are supposed to be here for, is to…
Board Member Gooyer: Seeing thought that I’m the one who said you can bulldoze
those down as far as I was concerned. I don’t think that’s an appropriate thing.
Obviously, I was being somewhat (inaudible). I’m just saying that I am not a fan of
palm trees. That’s not to say that if they are in this condition and from what I saw
there, they’re in perfectly healthy condition and in good shape, then they should stay
obviously.
Board Member Baltay: I would really like to hear whether they are considered historic in
any sense. To me, when I walk around Palo Alto, there are many houses with Stately
palm trees that help set them off from many, many places. Is that something that
should be considered as part of the historic record of these properties? We have the
historic Board here.
Board Member Wimmer: Yes, we have had an extensive conversation about the
importance of the landscape in historic – on historic sites and on historic properties. We
do consider that as one of the elements that we talk about when we are looking at the
Secretary of Interior Standards when we are evaluating a project. Obviously, we look at
the existing heritage trees on the site and try to protect those. In consideration that
those palm trees have been on this site for a significant amount of time, would probably
include those in a historic setting in terms of the landscape but when the landscape
changes so quickly with drought situations and things where – it’s not like a structure.
The landscape is more sort of a – it’s not a structure that can be maintained like a
building. It’s something that – it’s a live thing that something survives and sometimes
doesn’t. The landscape is always changing but yes, I do think that considering that
these palm trees have been on this site, we would probably consider them as part of
the historic fabric of the site, so to speak.
Board Member Kohler: Having just talked about moving it, it sounds like that if those
trees are in good shape, could probably just be picked up and moved on the site.
Chair Lew: Ok, I think – let’s – we’re – I think we’re running a little bit behind schedule.
Why don’t we try to work on motions and we’re going to do that separately? So, HRB
will make their motion first so I’m going to turn it over to Margaret.
City of Palo Alto Page 24
Board Member Wimmer: Right, so because our Chair is – had a conflict and then our
Vice Chair David Bower, is absent today. I’m going to the interim Chair. I wanted to see
if our Board had any comments that we – any discussion quickly. If anyone has any
remaining comments on this project in terms of …
Board Member Kohler: Well, I just have to agree with the previous comments from
other – well, there’s only – well, there’s four of us. I think just in the end here, if that
one palm tree could be moved, I think that would be a nice jester for – that it remain
on the site, that would be a good historic thing to do.
MOTION
Board Member Wimmer: Maybe we can start putting together a motion and I’m sure
that we can have conditions or suggestions within our motion. I guess, to craft a
motion, I would move to accept the project with a couple of conditions. Maybe one of
the conditions would be to protect – Rodger, are you saying to protect the palm trees
or to…
Board Member Kohler: Well, that the existing palm tree that’s being removed should at
least be looked into whether it could – that’s on the site and that we’re talking about
removing. Maybe it can be moved on the site somewhere; relocated. Instead of just – it
might be less expensive too – I don’t know but…
Mr. Lait: Vice Chair Wimmer, if I can offer a suggestion on to (inaudible) process. If you
want to articulate a motion such as the one that you’ve start, which was to move to
approve the project subject to conditions. You could either identify those conditions and
then get a second on that or could start with the base motion of motion to approve the
project, get a second on that. Then we can do some amendments to add some of the
conditions based on the HRB’s interest to add conditions. I think on that first point of
approving the project, there might be some -- it might be good to see if there’s a
second and support for that concept as opposed to an alternative motion, which might
be continued for redesign and based on the discussion that’s taken place this evening
or excuse me, morning. I get confused on my meetings.
Board Member Wimmer: Ok, so…
Mr. Brennan: If could just interrupt real…
Board Member Wimmer: Sure.
Mr. Brennan: I think it’s worth noting that in the arborist report provided by the
applicant, it states that the palm tree #10, which is the palm tree in question was
requested to be removed at the neighbor’s request. It continues on saying that it can
be relocated quite easily with an experienced mover.
City of Palo Alto Page 25
Board Member Wimmer: To get back to a motion.
MOTION
Board Member Kohler: Well, I’ll move that we approve the project with the conditions
that we’ve mentioned or will mention.
Board Member Wimmer: Ok so…
Board Member Kohler: We’re going to make a motion to approve the project as
presented and then we’re going to add conditions? Is that the way you want us to do
this?
Board Member Wimmer: I guess – I know we’re going to put some conditions on the
approval if we do find that we have approved the project. I guess first we are being
asked to agree that we would approve the project and then if – we would amend that
motion, I believe to add some condition. Is that the process that you…
Mr. Lait: Yeah, that’s – I think – exactly right. Based on the dialog that I am hearing, a
motion to approve the project, see if there is a second and then we can go through the
process – without voting yet, then go through the process of adding some conditions to
that.
MOTION
Board Member Wimmer: I guess I’m proposing a motion that we approve the project.
Board Member Kohler: I’ll second that.
Board Member Wimmer: All in favor?
Mr. Lait: I’m sorry before you conclude that section. We’re actually not going to t vote
at this point.
Board Member Wimmer: Ok.
Mr. Lait: We’re going to see if there’s a moment for additional conditions related to
trees or things of that – of the dialog that is taking place and then we can do a vote
when we understand what all the conditions are.
Board Member Wimmer: Ok, so now we should talk about the conditions that we’d like
to impose on the motion.
Mr. Lait: Yes, and these would-be amendments to the motion.
Board Member Kohler: 20-years I’ve been on this Board. It’s the first time that we’ve
had such a precise motion.
City of Palo Alto Page 26
Mr. Lait: I accept that as a compliment. Then you, sir.
Board Member Wimmer: We’re working now on the conditions of approval.
Board Member Kohler: Well, I guess I would see that the palm tree that’s, at the
moment, being removed be relocated on the site.
Board Member Wimmer: Ok, any other conditions?
Board Member Kohler: Is there a second to that?
Board Member Bunnenberg: Do we want to put some protection on the oak trees?
Board Member Wimmer: Well, there will be tree protection. Do you want any other
further protection? They will be required to do a tree protection plan and I believe
there’s a program arborist, is there not on the project? The project will be monitored
monthly by a project arborist who has to come by the site once a month during
construction to make sure that the trees are being taken care of. I think that’s already
something that’s in place with the building permit. I would like – I guess I would like to
have a condition about the detached structure that it at least meets a 5-foot minimum
setback or something because that detach structure is closer to the adjacent property
at 426 Channing. Those – the detached structure is closer to that building than the
main dwellings on the site. I would like to see that those buildings be moved a little bit
further away from the property line. I would impose a condition that they be at least 5-
feet from the property line.
Board Member Kohler: I can’t quite read the dimension. It’s 4-feet something already.
Board Member Wimmer: Yeah, it’s less than 5-feet.
Board Member Kohler: It’s 4-feet 6 or 8, I can’t – anyone with better eyesight maybe…
Board Member Wimmer: So maybe – go ahead.
Mr. Brennan: Are you…
Board Member Kohler: On the one side – the other side is 3-feet something.
Mr. Brennan: Are you referencing the rear yard setback for the accessory or the garage
structure?
Board Member Wimmer: Yes. Mostly the one that’s facing Channing because I know
that -- as long as – I mean, I know that they probably have to comply with the day line
plane (crosstalk)
City of Palo Alto Page 27
Mr. Brennan: To be clear, the garage – the ground floor garage structure is setback 3-
feet, which is the minimum requirement in the DHS zoning district and its tier back at
the second level 4 1/2-feet.
Board Member Wimmer: Ok.
Board Member Kohler: So, it’s 6-inches. I would accept that motion. I don’t see why it
can’t be 5-feet.
Board Member Wimmer: Ok.
Board Member Kohler: Well, I guess you have to take…
Mr. Lait: Yeah, so then is there a second to the – was there a first and second to the
second story being setback 5-feet? Did – I think it was Board Member Kohler who made
that motion?
Board Member Wimmer: I think he’s…
Board Member Kohler: Oh, it is 3-feet. (crosstalk) Oh, I see. Oh, this is very deceptive.
Ok, well, finally after seeing the drawings here. The actual house is now at 3-feet and
the second floor is at 4-foot 6-inches. That’s what I am finally understanding. To move
the house over 5-feet would be another 2-feet – oops. Sorry. How do I turn this off?
Ms. Gerhardt: I think the difference is if you wanted…
Board Member Kohler: Put it down on the floor.
Ms. Gerhardt: Did you want the 5-foot setback for the first story, which is the garage
and/or the second-story, which is the ADU?
Board Member Wimmer: I would prefer to see it for the entire structure; from the
foundation, up. I know that that may be – that’s not fair because if …
Board Member Kohler: All these years, that’s the first time that’s happened.
Board Member Wimmer: …project is already designed in compliance with the local
zoning ordinance, I don’t know if we can overstep that.
Mr. Lait: So yeah, you have authority with your findings where if you feel -- based on
those findings and if you articulate that, that would be great for the record. Why the
building would need to be setback beyond the minimum standard and I understand that
there may be some – there’s been some reference to privacy concerns and interest in
better protection for the trees in the area. I think that’s a sufficient cause for moving it
back.
City of Palo Alto Page 28
Board Member Wimmer: Yeah, so I would like to see it move back so that’s how I
would amend the motion to approve is with the foundation at a 5-foot setback from the
property line because that at least allows a little bit more clearance from the adjacent
Channing property that looks like it’s – that’s probably considered a historic building
itself.
Mr. Lait: Ok, so that’s a motion and then the question would be is there a second for
that?
Board Member Bunnenberg: Second the motion.
Mr. Lait: Ok, so we have a condition to relocated the palm tree and a condition to set
the structure back 5-feet from the (inaudible) property line. Is this from a side property
line or both property line?
Board Member Wimmer: I guess it would legally be the rear property line…
Mr. Lait: Rear?
Board Member Wimmer: …because an interior side, a street side, a front…(crosstalk)
Mr. Lait: Ok, 5-feet from the rear.
Board Member Wimmer: …and that would be the rear.
Board Member Kohler: I have some further information delivered to me by a secret
person. If we do that, then the distance between the garage and the main house goes
from 21 to 19-feet in the back. I don’t know if that’s going to be – or the house – the
main house moves up a foot towards the street.
Mr. Lait: If I can – just a procedural inquiry. If we could take a pause just a moment on
the HRB motion and I’m wondering if the – just on some of the comments that I’ve
heard from the ARB if the ARB is heading in a direction of approval with conditions or
with a redesign – articulated reasons for the project coming back. If the project is going
to come back at least by one of the Boards, then it would come back to both Boards.
I’m wondering if we need to understand all these different conditions if the ARB is not
going to be inclined to approve the project this morning. I don’t know if you want to do
a straw poll or some kind of…
Chair Lew: I was just thinking that why don’t we do a straw poll for – with -- for the
ARB with regards to the carriage houses because it seems like the ARB is much more
split on the – on how the carriage houses are working. I guess I would ask the question
to the Board. Is the – does the Board want to completely redesign – well, why don’t we
start (inaudible). Does the Board want to eliminate the carriage houses? We can take
a…
City of Palo Alto Page 29
Board Member Gooyer: No.
Chair Lew: … a vote on that or should we say both – one or both?
Board Member Furth: No.
Vice Chair Kim: No.
Chair Lew: Ok.
Board Member Baltay: I don’t want to eliminate the carriage houses. I do want to see a
– more design work done.
Chair Lew: Ok, well that’s the second – my second question would be that does the
Board want to see a complete redesign of the carriage houses?
Board Member Furth: I – see if this is helpful. I think this needs redesign work. I don’t –
I think it may involve more than the carriage houses. It may require other…
Chair Lew: Sure.
Board Member Furth: …changes on the site but I’m not prepared to approve it with
conditions as it stands.
Chair Lew: Ok, it’s a redesign and resubmittal?
Board Member Gooyer: Yeah, I think that – I think the term complete redesign is a bit
excessive. I think they need to have the same level of quality as the main residence,
which they don’t at this point. There may need to be some redesign on the main
residence to compensate for that.
Chair Lew: That’s why I said – used the word complete because if we were asking for
like a larger carriage house or if we’re talking about moving the carriage house 2-feet
closer towards Waverly, then that’s going to affect the house. So, that’s… (crosstalk)
Board Member Gooyer: (Inaudible)
Chair Lew: …(inaudible) minor but it is…
Board Member Gooyer: I’m not asking for a larger carriage house mainly because I
understand the City’s concept of what to use it for but I think, in reality, it’s going to
become either a place to – if they are going to rent it all, it’s a student. Either one or
two students, not a family that’s going to live there. I think the size of the unit is ok. I
just think it needs to be – the quality needs to be brought up and maybe the height
reduced slightly; that sort of thing.
City of Palo Alto Page 30
Chair Lew: Peter, I did want to ask you about – you had commented on the backup for
lot two of – from the carriage house. Did you have an inclination about that? Would it
be an attached garage or removing the redwood tree or what are your thoughts about
that?
Board Member Baltay: My thoughts right now, I’d like to address my colleagues on the
Historic Resources Board because I feel that putting a blanket requirement that we
move that carriage house over is going to really make it even more difficult to make
this site developed. What would really be helpful is if the Historic Resources Board could
point to us the historic nature of what we need to be looking out for? The issue of
moving the carriage house over based on privacy is not a historic issue. The issue of
allowing parking is very important and when you make a motion like just move it over
5-feet, that sort of cascades through the system and it results in an impossible design
and really hamstrings other Boards to do their job. At the same time, if the house next
door had some historic aspect that we’re not aware of, we don’t see it here, that’s what
we need to know. If there’s any way you, the Board, could somehow focus on what’s
the historic part of this house, this neighborhood, this property, these trees and inform
us where to go with it, that would really be helpful.
Board Member Gooyer: (Inaudible) there is the driveway in between those two so it’s
not like they are both budded right up to each other.
Board Member Baltay: That’s right. Yeah and I’m not sure I agree that the carriage
house should be farther away. I think it’s not a privacy issue but I’m more just looking
to get some feedback and also, just to make it possible. These are really tight lots.
Board Member Kohler: I’d be willing to not require the 5-foot setback because it does –
now that I am looking at it again and everything. It does – I’m not sure how the
location of that house is – has to do with our historic – is there an existing building on
the site that is that close or anything? I just…
Board Member Wimmer: Maybe as a Board, we just need to better define our scope
and how we’re looking at this project. We are looking – we’ve already looked at the
existing site and determined that we’re fine about it being demolished because we don’t
see it as a historic site. Beyond that, have we identified any adjacent properties that are
historic? Are any of the adjacent properties – I don’t believe that that was in the report
so the adjacent properties are not considered needing protection from the – they are
not deemed historic?
Board Member Furth: Not in the SOFA document.
Board Member Wimmer: Not in the SOFA document, right.
Mr. Brennan: Right, not in the SOFA document. It wasn’t in the analysis – in the HRE
report.
City of Palo Alto Page 31
Board Member Wimmer: In terms of our Board and how we look at projects because
the existing site is not considered historic, we’re fine about the demolition of the
existing structure. I guess because there are no documented historic adjacent
properties that we would have to be sensitive to, I guess our – getting back to our
motion. Maybe we just move to approve the project because of the – it’s not affecting
the historic – existing historic site or the historic – there’s no historic surrounding
structures that are impacted. Therefore, we would approve…
Mr. Lait: Sure.
Board Member Wimmer: …approve the project.
Mr. Lait: Just procedurally, I might offer a suggestion, which would be to – since we
know that one of the reviewing entities here is going to continue the matter. It might
be – I think the record reveals that the Board – the HRB doesn’t have any concern
relative to the historic elements of the project but perhaps indifference to the ARB, I
would recommend continuation of the project. When you reconvene, I suspect there’s
not going to be a whole lot of issues for the HRB to talk about. So, too – if that sounds
acceptable to the HRB, perhaps withdraw your original motion to approve and make a
new motion to continue for redesign and – or just continue the matter to a future
hearing. You don’t even have to say redesign, you can just say continue to a future
hearing.
Board Member Wimmer: Since we don’t – since we’ve already established that there’s
really no historic concern for this property. I think that maybe our Board can just
approve it because of that. Then we allow the HRB to -- excuse me, the ARB to
continue it and discuss the nuances of the project and how it can be improved because
if there’s no historic impact, we’re done right? I mean because it seems like we tend to
start talking about setbacks and heights and things but that’s really the ARB’s purview
to discuss the zoning and if there’s no historic impact then I think our Board can just
improve it and we wouldn’t have to review it again. Is that correct?
Mr. Lait: I think the SOFA I standards set forth the review authority and does require
the ARB and the HRB to come together and be a part of this process. I would
recommend – while I understand your interest in wanting to resolve the matter since it
seems to address the HRB’s issues. That perhaps just a continuation and we’ll bring the
two Boards together again when the project gets redesigned and comes forward.
PREVIOUS MOTION WITHDRAWN AND A NEW MOTION PROPOSED
Board Member Wimmer: Ok, so I’ll withdraw my original motion and I will move to
continue this project for future review. Continue it and have the applicant make some
changes to the project and review it again. Do I have a second to continue the project?
Board Member Kohler: I can second. Sure.
City of Palo Alto Page 32
Board Member Wimmer: All in favor of continuing the project. That’s unanimous with
the HRB.
MOTION PASSES 4-0
Chair Lew: Ok, thank you, Margaret. We’ll bring it back to the ARB. Does anyone want
to try and make a motion?
Board Member Baltay: Can I ask a question of Staff first? I’d like to somehow try to
limit the FAR to being based on the 5,000-square foot maximum lot size and also to
require that the guest house be .1 FAR minimum. Is there any mechanism by which we
can do that?
Ms. Gerhardt: We would just need to take a looking at the findings and see how that
would tie into those.
Chair Lew: I would say that we’re not generally – we’re not a rulemaking body. I mean
that I would suggest that if you want to keep them smaller, that we just – I mean, I
think the easiest thing would be to say that it’s out of scale. Yeah? Anybody? Wynne,
you’re mic?
Board Member Furth: Oh, sorry.
Chair Lew: Yes?
Board Member Furth: We’re required to find that this project is consistent with the
policies, programs, and regulations of the coordinated area plan. That’s why we are
here. I think there are policies in the CAP that would permit us to talk about – first of
all, it’s pro-housing and pro-multiple units so that encourages us to find a way to
accommodate four units on this site with – at least four units on this site without
making things out of scale or with inappropriate impacts on the neighbors. So, I think
that give us the power if the presented design presents those problems to modify it – to
request that it be modified. One of the things that strike me is that – is there no
landscape plan on this application?
Mr. Brennan: No comprehensive landscape plan.
Board Member Furth: I find that a bit – it’s making it harder for me because one of the
findings we are supposed to make is that it provides essential usable open space for
each unit and I’m having trouble distinguishing places where a car is going to go over
it, from places where it isn’t. It would be very helpful to have a plan which identifies the
proximate useable open space that we’re supposed to provide by each unit under
2.10D. I also think that because this is a deep lot, this is the biggest possible lot in the
DHS district. To me, that means there’s more freedom if it’s needed to have larger
setbacks for the rear unit for example. I don’t think that we need to feel that we can’t
accommodate housing on the site of the kind that is contemplated and encouraged by
City of Palo Alto Page 33
the plan unless we push everything to maximum setbacks. I suppose my – one of my
concerns is that we not be creating dead and dusty spaces with inadequate light and air
to work. That’s another reason why I am curious about the usable open space. I also
think that the section 2.10C directs us to preserve significant vegetation and while there
are a lot of trees I hate, these aren’t among them so I think that that provides us with
authority to ask for site modifications with respect to the protection of the trees. I will
say that having watched a lot of Stanford oak die during recent construction efforts, I’m
very concerned that the project that is presented needs to be modified in that regard.
Maybe that’s just rattling on too long but …
Chair Lew: Can I…
Board Member Furth: … we have authority under the plan to do anything I’ve heard
discussed today.
Chair Lew: Can I – on your point about useable open space. I think what we have done
in the past on projects – say like on Alma Village, is that we did ask the applicant to
show diagrammatically how the back yard could be used but they weren’t landscaping it
and they weren’t required to install it but they did show possible layouts. Is that what
you’re looking for?
Board Member Furth: Yeah. I’m not asking what plants are going to go in the pots or
whatever but I’m asking what is usable open space. I also – I suppose I want to know
is when they have these setbacks, are they big enough? Do they have enough light so
that they could be used? For example, for screening or not or are they one of those
where nothing grows but Algerian ivy.
Chair Lew: Right. Ok. We could add a condition of approval to show or we could ask if
we are continuing the project, we could ask them to come back with a – what do you
call in? Landscape furnishing diagrams and then if we do require – if we do want
landscaping, I think we can show – we can ask for the planting plan, which actually
shows the size of plants and 3-feet -- I mean, if you’re just going to say 3-feet like a
typical shrub-like an (inaudible) shrub. That would easily be 5-feet in diameter so it
wouldn’t fit without constant pruning. Peter.
Board Member Baltay: I’d like to make a motion in that we continue this project to a
date uncertain. Asking for a redesign from the applicant based on all the comments
we’ve heard this morning and I’d like to give just five basic points that I think that are
important that need to be focused on. One is that we would really like to see the better
effort made for tree protection, especially the large coast oak in the back. Secondly, we
need to be sure that the parking – the garage placement is such that you can get in
and out of these garages properly. Thirdly, we would like to see a geotechnical report
to understand better the issue of dewatering and whether that will be required.
Fourthly, we’d like to see a landscaping plan to understand how the open spaces will be
provided and then we would like to see a number of design detailing – let’s rephrase
that. We’d like to see the accessory structures to be redesigned to be more in keeping
City of Palo Alto Page 34
with the designs of the main house. To me, those are the five major points and I think
we really do the applicant a service to outline what is important.
Board Member Gooyer: I can support that.
Chair Lew: Ok, do you want to speak to the second or no?
Board Member Gooyer: I mean I’ll second that.
Chair Lew: Ok. Yes, Wynne?
Board Member Furth: I just had a question to the maker and secondary whether – you
all raised a number of comments about – design specific comments around the principle
structures. Are those also something you’d like address or?
Board Member Baltay: Yes. My first comment was that subject to all the comments
we’ve made this morning which would … (crosstalk)
Board Member Furth: (Inaudible)
Board Member Baltay: …incorporate many of the design details. I think that was clear
to the applicant and there was enough support but I want to be sure that they
understand that tree protection is an issue and that means that you’re not going to
build under the oak tree. I want to be clear that they understand that. That’s a big
issue and it’s going to affect your design. The parking has to work and that means not
having a 20-foot backup space. A geotechnical report needs to find out about
dewatering. You’ve heard how important – at least some of us feel about that.
Landscaping plan means that you need to show outdoor spaces that are viable outdoor
places that work. I don’t need to say anything about the accessory structure redesign.
Chair Lew: We have a motion that has been seconded. Let’s vote on the motion. All in
favor? Opposed? None so that’s 5-0.
MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 5-0
Chair Lew: We normally allow a – Staff, should we allow a rebuttal period to the
applicant or if it’s a continuation, should we address it later?
Mr. Lait: Yeah, I think – you know, I appreciate the interest in wanting to move on to
get to the other items on your busy agenda. However, if the – there was a lot of dialogs
and it probably is worth giving the applicant a moment or two to at least ask –
responded to any questions they may have in addressing the comments they’ve heard.
Chair Lew: Great. Do you have any—if you have any questions or statements that you
would like to make.
City of Palo Alto Page 35
Ms. Quan: Thank you so much for the comments. Talking about the tree protections for
lot one. The reason we are putting the garage over there is because the existing
building line is in almost the same location at the proposed garage. Also, we talked to
the City Arborist and the City Arborist reviewed our project (inaudible) report and the
City Arborist also reviewed it. That was why we were thinking of the garage location to
be under the oak tree. It should have a pretty minimal impact on the tree but we are
going to take a detailed look because the garage is an (inaudible) and the existing
building; I think the foundation is (inaudible) so we are not doing the basement
excavation in that area so that should be fine. We are going to talk to the arborist in
detail on this issue. The second thing about the dewatering. We did talk with
(inaudible) we do have a preliminary (inaudible) report. Of our finding, we don’t need to
do dewatering in that area but we are going to provide a detailed (inaudible) report
later. We are going to do the landscape plan and also, I think for the parking, Peter, I
think you have a question about how the cars return and how they can get out from the
garage. I did do some studies and I think (inaudible) – City of Palo Alto has a parking
standard so I did study the parking standard. For the public, they don’t have a detailed
standard for residential, only for parking lots – standard parking law. I think they
require that if it’s 18-feet deep or 19-feet deep, they – I can’t remember the number in
detail but I think it’s around 22-feet to return – the backspace but I am going to study
the parking again. I think – basically, I think the five items that we are going to provide
more detail design. Especially for the accessory building because of the accessory
building – it’s pretty close to the property lines so we have to a fire protection issue. For
example, the eave, it’s difficult to put the eave in the detached garage since it is very
close to the property line so we have the fire protection structure for the garage. That’s
why the design is a little bit different from the main house but we are going to tune it
up a little bit for that.
Board Member Gooyer: Can I suggest one thing? What we are saying is that you may
have looked into all those things but we haven’t seen those. Let me suggest, if you can
get an arborist that says that you can put it right where you show it is and it won’t hurt
the tree at all, that would be fine as far as I’m concerned. As far as the – any of the
other items, if you have a report that says that dewatering isn’t necessary, either get
the engineer or whatever, who created that report to write a letter that states that
that’s the case; I’m fine with that. As far as the packability or movability, if you can
overlay the City standard on that and say look, see it works, I’d be ok with it. I mean,
how do you feel – we’re not saying you need to create all this extra stuff. If there’s
already verification that you’ve researched that these things work, all we need to do is
see that.
Mr. Quan: Ok. I will provide some diagrams. Thank you.
Chair Lew: Great. Thank you very much.
Board Member Furth: Alex? It would be -- sometimes when we get plans that are
redevelopments of sites, the new development overlays on the existing structures
footprint and I find that helpful. (Inaudible) (crosstalk)
City of Palo Alto Page 36
Chair Lew: (Inaudible) or having an existing site plan.
Board Member Furth: In thinking about trees, I’m concerned about canopy as well as
roots. Thanks.
Chair Lew: OK. That only took use 2-hour. We might be here all day you guys.
4. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 901 High Street [15PLN-
00052]:
Recommendation on Applicant's Request for Approval of a Coordinated
Development Permit for a 17,942 Square Foot Mixed Use Building With Retail
and 25
Residential Units on a Vacant 20,288 Square Foot Parcel. Environmental
Assessment:
An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was Circulated From February 26,
2016 to March 17, 2016. Zoning District: RT-35. For More Information, Contact
the
Project Planner Margaret Netto at margaret.netto@cityofpaloalto.org
Chair Lew: Let’s move onto – well, we’re going to take a quick break just to get the
Chair back from the HRB. Ok, excellent. We’ll take a – let’s take a very short break. You
have 2-minutes. I’m going to time you guys. [VIDEO STARTED MID SENTENCE] 901
High street. Recommendation on applicant's request for approval of a coordinated
development permit for a 17,942-square foot mixed-use building with retail and 25
residential units on a vacant 20,288-square foot parcel. Environmental assessment is an
initial study/mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated from February 26, 2016, to
March 17, 2016, and the zone district is RT. Welcome, Margaret Netto who is our
planner for the project.
Ms. Margaret Netto, Contract Planner: Thank you. Good morning Chair and Members of
the Board. My name is Margaret Netto and I am one of the contract planners. As noted,
the proposed project would involve demolition of the existing asphalt and construction
of a new 17,000-sqaure foot, three-story mixed used building and surface parking. The
project would be located on a 20,000-square foot lot. The project is located in the SOFA
II area. It’s been one year since the Architectural Review Board and the Historic
Resources Board has seen this project. At that time, the applicant was requesting
eleven residential units, 5,000-square feet of office and 1,00-sqaure feet of retail. The
project was also subject at that time to the interim office growth meter ordinance. Since
then, the project has been revised to include twenty-five residential units, eliminated
the office component entirely and redesigned aspects of the building and parking
circulation to respond to the ARB/HRB comments. This was the previous elevation that
the joint Board looked at about a year ago. The members were generally supportive of
the project but had some comments. The comments were related to the overall
massing of the building, the fenestration, roof forms, landscaping and transition to the
properties east of the property that warranted further study. The proposed surface
City of Palo Alto Page 37
parking lot was another challenging of the design, which included parking lifts. The HRB
commented on the proposed structure in regards to the two historic structures across
the street; Watercourse Way and the Creamery Building. The HRB did request that the
color accent be subtle and subordinate to the accent buildings, requested a correction
in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and sought to have the transition and scale of
the third-floor adjacent to High Street be improved. These items have been addressed
in this submittal. This is the proposed elevation. This is looking at the corner of
Channing and High Avenue. The applicant has made refinements to the colors,
materials, placements of balconies, increased the building setbacks at the upper levels
and articulation. Improved the fenestration and updated the landscapes plans, in an
effort to respond to the Board Member’s comments. This is the site plan. The applicant
eliminated the office component and with that, reduced the required parking and
resulted in the elimination of those parking lifts. The applicant reports that underground
parking is restricted by mature trees along the premiere of the site, reducing the
number of space that could be accommodated with the subterranean garage. Here are
some of the elevations. That top elevation is the south elevation and that’s the view
from High Street. The balconies on the south have been (inaudible) back to provide
modulation and if you look on your sheet A-S9, it shows that the balconies have been
added on second and third level units to articulate that façade. Including using larger
windows in the living room, dinner room and smaller windows in the kitchen. A revised
sheet A-S9 also shows the High-Street elevation as it’s been redesigned by reducing the
accent color to just the retail area. More glazing has been added to the store front and
the second-floor has changed from stucco to metal panel. The west elevation is a view
from Channing Street and the east elevation is a view from the adjacent property and
they have (inaudible). The second and third floors have been stepped back. This is the
north elevation, the rear of the project. A little bit on the ARB/HRB purview, a new
development in the SOFA requires a coordinated development permit as opposed to an
architectural review and other entitlements. SOFA is – SOFA II established its own
review process, which is subject to review by HR –ARB in a manner that is consistent to
the Board’s review process of any other projects. The HRB role in this project is
advisory to the ARB since it does not trigger any of the historic resources. The key
issues talk a little bit about – the applicant has made significant improvements reducing
the height, replaced the butterfly style roof with a series of four flat rooves, added more
thoughtfully designed outdoor space and created pedestrian scale entrances to the
residential units adjacent to High Street. Three areas that we would like Board to
comment on is Staff believes that – both of them relate to a screening of the surface
parking lot. The Channing elevation near the driveway approach is the proposed
location for the building transformer. More information is needed to understand how
landscaping in that area will successfully screen that transformer and the surface
parking spaces behind it. The Board is also asked to explore whether a substantial wall
that incorporates the bench or irrigated landscaping that does not impact the oak tree
as a preferred design solution. Adjacent to High Street, there’s a lattice structure that
appears to be intended to support climbing vines or plant material to eventually screen
the views of the parking area in the back. The three key issues are screening the
surface parking lot, landscaping near the oak tree, and also the lattice structures. With
that, Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Board take the following actions.
City of Palo Alto Page 38
Recommend approval of the proposed initial study Mitigated Negative Declaration,
recommend approval of the proposed project to the Director of the Planning and
Community Environment based on the findings and subject to the condition of approval.
That concludes my Staff report and the applicant is also here to do a presentation.
Thank you.
Chair Lew: Staff, did you…
Mr. Lait: Just to remind you disclosures.
Chair Lew: Oh, yes. Disclosures? Anybody? No? Martin.
Chair Bernstein: Thank you, Chair Lew. I’ve walked past this property and I’ve also
been a customer of 900 High Street; delicious sandwiches and I’ve seen the property as
a – numerous times. Thank you.
Board Member Kohler: Kind of a repeat of what Martin just said. In fact, I drove by
there this morning.
Chair Lew: Great. Thank you. So, we can do the – Kyu, did you – no, ok. Applicant
presentation and you have 10-minutes.
[Mr. Greg Beckencourt:] Good morning still, I think. Yeah, good morning. Greg
[phonetics][Beckencourt], [Beckencourt] and Santana, 900 High Street. A little closer to
the microphone, ok. Thank you. Is that better? Ok, thank you. I don’t want to spend a
lot of time reiterating what Margaret just said but – so, from out last engagement here,
we have come back to you now with a project that we believe substantially answers a
lot of your concerns and questions. Obviously, the nature here has changed a lot.
We’ve gone basically to residential but we’ve kept that retail bottom level component
and we think – we have also achieved a higher aesthetic, thanks to your input last time
as well so we hope that you work with us on this one this time. Thank you very much,
that’s it. Peter, will answer your questions now.
Mr. Peter Ko: Good morning all the Members to the ARB and the HRB. My name is Peter
Ko with Ko Architects. We came in front of you last year which was March 17 of 2016
so that’s been more than a year. Thanks for the Planning Department, we’ve been
working together with the – all the Planning Department in Palo Alto and have come to
a – I think it’s a better design for the property, which I’ve been – our office has been
right across the street and has been there for 20-years. Just the property has been
vacant and it has a picnic table there and for the last – it has been a long time. I’m
looking forward to seeing if we can do something on this vacant lot. I – the first picture
there, I wanted to show that that’s the building we proposed last year and this is the
new rendering from the corner, looking to the plaza area open space and then also, the
Peninsula Creamer Deli across the street. Again, this is the zoning map of the City of
Palo Alto. We are zoning on RT-35 and it’s for multi-residential unit development. This
is our site plan. On the ground level plan, we have parking for all the residential and
retail. We meet all the parking requirements and we have located two units to the
City of Palo Alto Page 39
ground level facing High Street, trying to screen the parking behind. The retail was
located on Channing Street and the design of the retail – last comment was that the
window moldings were too heavy and then we tried to mimic the Peninsula Creamery
design across the street, which is a historical landmark in Palo Alto. We redesigned the
store front and tried to reduce the size of the molding and tried to mimic the canopy
across the street; also, the color. Basically, the retail design has more of the retail
character and residential has its own smaller –more planters and little patio space and
kind of like more residential breakdowns facing High Street. Channing Street is a one-
way street and we just – that’s why we put the retail unit there. This is the elevation
facing Channing – High Street on the top and then another one – the second one down
is the Channing elevation. We just show some context photos and the one on the lower
right is the four-story building that is residential, multi-unit condominiums across the
street. This the view from looking down to where Whole Foods downtown from High
Street. That’s looking down from downtown toward the residential. We tried to stepping
the building down from the downtown (inaudible) to residential. This is the view on
Channing Street looking toward the east or the north – north/east. This is looking
toward the south from Channing Street. That blank wall is the parking garage service
building next to our property and then one thing that it shows there is the tree – the
live oak trees right there that we are trying to preserve. At least from our arborist
report, it told us that you have to preserve that tree. The second-floor plan and on the
third-floor plan you can see the large setback on the rear, close to the right. Exterior
elevation we added a stone base to the ground level and then the second level will be
stucco and then the third level will be metal siding. This is just – one of the comments
was the night time view so we created some renderings from when you approach the
building from High Street toward – walking to downtown. This is just the overall view of
the project and this is a physical model. I brought two models, one is the one we did
for last year’s presentation and also, we built a new model for the new project to
present to the Board if you want to take a look. Thank you.
Chair Lew: Great, thank you. I will open this portion of the hearing up to the public but
I don’t have any speaker cards. Oh – no, that’s for the next item for El Camino. We can
move onto Board Member questions.
Board Member Furth: Could you show me on the tree plan where that big oak that
we’re seeing in the photograph -- the one that looms over this project is? I’m having – I
just want to be sure I’m looking in the right place. Right, that you – got it.
Mr. Ko: On the top left – there’s one existing oak tree on the top left there. That’s a
pretty big size live oak tree.
Board Member Furth: That’s the tree that we’re seeing behind your project in that
previous slide?
Mr. Ko: That’s the one sitting next to the trucks at the current situation. There are two
existing live oaks, one is on the left top there and there’s another one – it’s on the
second right that is aligned with that but that particular oak tree is not on our property,
City of Palo Alto Page 40
it’s on the other property. Most of the coverage is on our property in the parking lot.
Those are the two live oak trees that our arborist recommended to preserve – those
two trees.
Board Member Furth: Right. So that – in the photograph that you show on page AS4,
view from Channing, that – the largest tree that I see in the background, that’s the one
on your neighbor’s property or is that (inaudible).
Mr. Ko: It’s on our property. If you look at the elevation we created…
Board Member Furth: Got it.
Mr. Ko: … you can see that right next to the blank wall garage and our entry to the
parking lot.
Board Member Furth: Thank you.
Chair Lew: Any other questions? Peter.
Board Member Baltay: Yeah, for the applicant, please. I have a question about the
extent of the fascia. What I am seeing is a red tapered fascia over the glazed
(inaudible) coffee shop stuff and I saw in a perspective from the Staff showing that
continuing all the way around to the stair over here. Then on your other view of the
parking garage coming off of High Street, you seemed to show a tapered fascia there.
Well, I’m confused. I’d like to know the extent of that tapered fascia compared to the
flat eave and I’m not seeing that in the drawings. I’m sure I’m not reading it right so if
you could help me.
Mr. Ko: I may go to the floor plan. You can see the retail units on the left, close to
Channing and that’s 1,000-square feet of retail space. The red canopy will cover pretty
much the retail area. If you take a look at our elevation sheet AS-9, the top elevation
on the left covers the retail. That’s the tapered – you can see the tapered red cover and
then also the lower right elevation facing Channing, you can see the red canopy.
Basically, it’s just on top of the retail space.
Board Member Baltay: Then the canopy over the parking entry off of High Street, that’s
all the way to the right-hand side of the south elevation on sheet AS-9. Is that a
tapered canopy as well or…
Mr. Ko: No, it’s just straight overhang.
Board Member Baltay: I’m sorry so I must have misunderstood the drawing.
Vice Chair Kim: I think the confusion was caused by the Staff presentation that had
some older elevations. I actually noticed that and pointed that out to Chair Bernstein
during the presentation.
City of Palo Alto Page 41
Board Member Baltay: So, the intent is that the tapered red elevation is only over the
retail space.
Mr. Ko: That’s correct.
Board Member Baltay: Thank you.
Chair Lew: I think Martin has a couple questions.
Chair Bernstein: Alright, thank you, Mr. Ko. The a – one of the requirements for review
from a historic point of view is that when there are historic buildings across the street
or nearby, the compatibility materials – you’re proposing a stone veneer on the first
floor. Is there a sample that we can see? Thank you and then as that’s being passed
down, there’s also a very visible element on your exterior elevation of the metal mesh
panel. Is there a sample or I didn’t see any details on the plans of what that looks like?
Mr. Ko: Yeah, the sample is on the top with the metal.
Chair Bernstein: Oh, this is the guard rail?
Mr. Ko: That’s the corrugated metal on the top.
Chair Bernstein: Ok. I’m looking for the metal mesh panels for all the guards on all the
balconies. That’s a very visible element. I’m looking for a detail or what does that look
like because that’s going to be very visible?
Mr. Ko; The size – basically, perforated metal with holes – 1 ½-inch holes in it and then
it would wrap around with the metal. That’s -- we have – I don’t know if we have any
drawings in detail on that.
Chair Bernstein: I did not see a detail of that and what I am asking for is if there are
any emphasis on the orientation of that or is it – are the patterns going to be
horizontal, vertical, non-descript, random?
Mr. Ko: I don’t think it will be horizontal or vertical. It’s just going to be perforated
metal. Frame it on every 4-feet of a post so every 4-feet or so, you have a post and
then you have this perforated metal panels in between.
Chair Bernstein: How transparent is – are those panels? They are basically see through
or are they mostly opaque, roughly?
Mr. Ko: Last year we had proposed a glass railing and it was totally transparent and I
think there were some privacy concerns so that’s why we proposed the perforated
metal. It’s about – I don’t think it’s even 50% transparent. (Inaudible) more in the cue
of the privacy of the tenant behind because we have large windows, those are living
space – living rooms and dining rooms behind it.
City of Palo Alto Page 42
Chair Bernstein: What’s the proposed finish from the street point of views? (Inaudible)
what’s the finish of that? Are those mesh panels?
Mr. Ko: The finish will be white – painted white because of it kind of matches all the
aluminum finish. The window finish will be natural aluminum.
Chair Bernstein: Right. Ok, thank you. Those are my two questions for now. Thanks.
Chair Lew: Rodger.
Board Member Kohler: I just noticed – well, I just happened to look at the drawings
here and I think if you look on page AS-3, the red strip of the Peninsula Creamery
building, I assume that’s why you picked up the red over your commercial space in the
front?
Mr. Ko: Yes.
Board Member Kohler: Is that why you did that?
Mr. Ko: Yes.
Board Member Kohler: Oh, ok. Thank you.
Chair Lew: I have a question for Staff. Margaret, in the – this is regarding common
useable open space. Just a question and a comment. On page 1-10 of the packet,
under common usable open space, the staff report talks about private open space. In
the paragraph on the right-hand side is the private open space requirement provides
2,826-square feet. I think it’s mixing up private and common. Yeah, so that’s page 110,
yeah.
Ms. Netto: I don’t have the same packet, give me second.
Chair Lew: My understanding it in the RT zone, that there – for common open space,
there isn’t a square footage requirement. I was reading an old copy of the SOFA II so I
don’t know but you guys might have the latest – is that the – I guess as I was reading
it, it was at the discretion of the Board to determine what is the – to what is
appropriate but there are qualitative standards, which are mentioned in the Staff report.
Like suitable for families and a variety of people and uses.
Ms. Gerhardt: In the SOFA document, it is refereeing to performance standards for
private and common open space. I’d have to – we can look into it a little bit more.
Mr. Lait: You’re correct. I’m reading here that is does indicated that the adequacy of the
open space for the residents of the building shall be reviewed as part of the
architectural review but it’s not saying any specific standards.
City of Palo Alto Page 43
Chair Lew: So then, I’m going to go – then in the plans, they are counting things that
are like bike parking areas on the ground floor, which doesn’t have very much sunlight
and stuff. I was wondering how that was – how their number was calculated? Does it
have to be – it’s partly open to the sky but it’s also being used for parking – for bike
parking so should that be excluded from their counts.
Mr. Lait: So, if I am understanding the question, is there a double counting of parking
and open space area? (Inaudible)
Chair Lew: Yeah, that’s was my question and there is no numerical requirement but it
seems like that’s the …
Mr. Lait: The qualitative consideration for that. We would not think that shared space –
that a parking space or circulation space would also serve as an open space standard.
Chair Lew: Ok. Thank you. Any other questions? Kyu?
Vice Chair Kim: I have a couple quick questions for the applicant. I’m sorry to make you
have to go back and forth. First, just to be clear that bike storage and locker area in the
center of the property, that’s not a table or an umbrella. That’s bike storage, is that
correct?
Mr. Ko: Yes.
Vice Chair Kim: Then the other question is regarding the parking entrance and exit on
High Street. On both sides of that parking entrance, if I look at the elevation, it looks
like there’s some kind of a vertical planter. Could you clarify what the intent of the
design is there?
Mr. Ko: We…
Vice Chair Kim: It would be the south elevation, I guess.
Mr. Ko: Yeah, that’s the elevation on the top. Maybe I can pass along the model and
you take a look. That’s…
Vice Chair Kim: Ok, I’ll take a look at the model. Thank you.
Chair Lew: Any other questions?
Board Member Kohler: I have a general question. These are apartment buildings, is that
correct?
Mr. Ko: Yes, rental apartments.
City of Palo Alto Page 44
Board Member Kohler: The rental apartment requires some much usable open space, is
that correct?
Mr. Ko: Yes.
Board Member Kohler: I haven’t done on in a while. So, your usable – I think it’s follow-
up on the question earlier. Is the one over here where is says bike storage, there’s a
usable area there and the area in the front, that’s the corner next to the retail space?
That’s the other usable open area, is that correct?
Mr. Ko: Bicycle storage was in the middle of the courtyard.
Board Member Kohler: Oh, I see.
Mr. Ko: That’s the circular…
Board Member Kohler: So, it’s not really usable open space, it’s just a parking area for
bicycles.
Mr. Ko: It’s a bicycle storage in the middle of the entrance space there.
Board Member Kohler: I don’t know about -- the Planning Department’s Staff, is this
usable open space an issue or not? I’m not…
Mr. Ko: Last year when we proposed the parking storage, it was in the corner – up on
the right-side corner where the landscaping is. I think what ARB’s concern was that
lockers are away from the tenants so that’s why we relocated it closer to the circulation
area but we still have a free open plaza at that corner as an open space.
Board Member Kohler: The corner up in the upper right-hand corner?
Mr. Ko: On Channing and High Street, yeah. That’s (inaudible)(crosstalk)…
Chair Lew: Then also Rodger, I think they’re counting – if you look on the second-floor
plan, they are counting some of the space in the outdoor hallways or corridors.
Board Member Kohler: Yeah, but that’s – to me, that’s kind of suspect. I mean it’s – you
need a hallway of 3-4-feet and when you do that, you’re ended up with a very small
area. I’m just – at one time, I did a whole bunch of apartment buildings but Palo Alto –
this Staff is saying the useable open space shown here meets all the requirements of
the zoning ordinance? That’s what I am trying to find out.
Ms. Netto: Yes, it does.
Board Member Kohler: Ok. Thank you.
City of Palo Alto Page 45
Chair Lew: I just – I also want to comment that the private open space requirements
for SOFA II are slightly different than our regular code.
Board Member Kohler: Oh, ok.
Chair Lew: It allows like 2-foot deep French balconies, which is a little different than our
regular code.
Board Member Kohler: Thank you.
Chair Lew: Ok. Is that all for questions? Then we’ll move onto Board Member comments
and why don’t we start in reverse this time so Mike.
Board Member Makinen: I think the plan to me, looks -- looked upon favorably. I think
it replaces a pretty much-unutilized piece of property. It looks like it’s vehicle storage
there to something that is useful for the community too I think it’s a net plus for the
community. Sounds like the design has been tweaked over the past year to represent
something that should be acceptable to the ARB. I don’t think the HRB has any historic
issues that are in our wheelhouse for this particular project. Correct me if I am wrong,
my fellow HRB Board Members but I think we don’t have any significant HRB issues. I
think – Martin, do you want to chime in on that?
Chair Bernstein: Yeah. Thank you, Board Member Makinen. The – one of the
requirements for SOFA II is that if there are any projects that are across the street or
nearby a registered or listed historic structure, that the HRB does have review
comments on that. It’s a –
Board Member Makinen: Ok, then the contextuality issue would be something that you
would be concerned with. Martin, with your comment then, I guess I see no impacts
upon contextuality that this project presents so I would support the project.
Board Member Kohler: I could follow up, I just think there has been some reference – I
like the red roof line extension over to the new site with the red commercial area. I
think that’s quite clever and does visually bring over the well-known – where everyone
goes to get their ice cream and things like that; across the street. I think that’s quite a
nice handshake to the existing structure around the area. I’m not going to comment on
the useable space because that seems to be ok but I think this is – Martin, as you said,
is a very – seems to fit in quite well.
Chair Lew: Robert.
Board Member Gooyer: Ok, I guess I don’t see basing the design of a building on a
one-story ice cream parlor across the street to be a really strong statement. I wasn’t
thrilled about the first design and I really don’t see this one having done a whole lot
better. It just blah, there’s nothing there. It’s got a bunch of little elements to it and it’s
very horizontal. To me, it’s too horizontal. There’s one transportation or I should say
City of Palo Alto Page 46
transportation elevator or stairway that cuts that horizontality and I’m just not really
that thrilled about it.
Chair Lew: Peter.
Board Member Baltay: Thank you. I have a bigger concern about this project which has
to do with the parking lot. When I read through the SOFA guidelines transportation
policy T-5 and especially T-6, I’d like to read that. It says to decrease the adverse visual
impacts of surface parking and street level parking by encouraging parking lots for
mixed use and multi-family to be either underground or otherwise not visible from
adjacent roadways. I’m afraid that I find that this parking lot is quite visible from
adjacent roadways. Visible in every rendering we’ve seen. Visible as I walked around
the site. I think it will be visible. I think this is a point that we brought up in the
previous review and to me, the parking needs to be underground. If you take that
premise, it also allows you then to have real open space on this property. If you follow
premise, it allows you to do landscaping. You have now, a building on top of a parking
lot, which is exactly what I said about the first building and I feel that we’re still here.
It’s a building on top of a parking lot in what is becoming a very vibrant pedestrian
oriented park of our City. I think a fundamental issue here is that the parking still
doesn’t work. From a visually, inverse impact point of view and we have a clear
direction in the SOFA guideline which many citizens in our town worked very hard to
create, not to do this. The second issue that I see is that there are two residential units
down on the ground floor, right next to this coffee shop and to me, that is not
neighborhood service oriented things. You don’t have residential units down there,
especially at grade, especially with this particular configuration. It just doesn’t work. In
this one, there is a clear finding for us that is finding number four. It has to be a
functionally appropriate use. Residential units at that point don’t work. It really needs to
be some sort of a retail shop of some kind. I’m going to leave my comments at that
because I think those are such fundamental issues and I hope other people can support
that as well. Thank you.
Board Member Gooyer: Let me just interject. It’s the old – we use to call the soft-story
apartment building, is basically what it is, which you know…
Male: (Inaudible)
Board Member Gooyer: Yeah.
Board Member Baltay: I plead with my colleagues. This is the SOFA District and anytime
you walk around there – when was the last time you were there and not bumping into
somebody you know? Somebody walking by in the street. It’s vibrant, it’s busy, it’s the
up in coming park of our downtown. Do we want it to be filled with a parking lot?
Chair Lew: We’ll go down to the end. Beth?
City of Palo Alto Page 47
Board Member Bunnenberg: Alright, just to clarify a little bit on the historic status of
those two little buildings. The 865 High is a Category 4 on the historic inventory and it
was built in 1931 by Black and [Tambert] builders. Then 800 High is the Peninsula
Creamery and yes, it is a little somewhat streamline, (inaudible) structure but it is – was
the corner of a huge ice cream plant at one point. So, this is like the remaining bit that
says ice-cream was a big, big business in Palo Alto for quite some time. A little Water
Couse Way is a very interesting little building and right now has water fountains and
very, very tastefully done and is – then the buildings on that side of High are lower in
structure. The building on the Alma side of High Street is that huge 800 High building
that is massive block and so, it provides some transition from the great big building to
some interesting smaller buildings. Then there are residences within about a block of
this section so that -- this really is what we’re putting in the middle to try to help to
move from small residencies structures to very large buildings. So, that – I would
rather like the carrying of the colors from the Peninsula Creamery to the building but I
think the tones have been stepped down a bit from the first things that we saw. It is
really nice to see that little open space that says yes, there’s room for people to sit and
to see the neighborhood. I like you – the way the tone of the cream is toned down a
bit. I’m not so sure about the corrugated metal. It seems to me that it’s kind of
discerned at this point and I like the articulation that has happened from the first design
to the second design. The stepping back helps and I think those where my major
points.
Chair Lew: Thank you, Beth. Wynne.
Board Member Furth: Thank you. First all, thank you for coming back to us with so
many responsive changes and thank you for the model, which I find very helpful. I
share the concern about whether it’s possible to do this without underground parking
because I think this is a pretty good approach if you are going to have surface parking
but I’m not sure surface parking works. I don’t think the ground floor units work as
residential units. They look like they are instantly going to turn into – I suppose not
software factories but software workshops. They are not going to be residential uses
very long because they are not designed to be good residential uses. I’m a little
concerned also about – it’s interesting because this is surface parking, it’s unsecured
residential parking and that may be just fine in this neighborhood but I’d want to think
about that a bit more. I like the redesign of the balconies very much. I appreciate no
longer having floor to ceiling glass. I think those are good changes. My fence – my side
yard fence blew down in January and it’s not back up again and the plants are all so
happy. I would like our fence to come back myself but when – if we approve a design
like this, I would like to see that screen admit as much air and light and circulation as
possible as is consistent with privacy. I think given the angles it would – you would be
looking at this, that’s quite a bit. As Beth Bunnenberg said, this is this really interesting
transition block. If you look north – well, that’s not north, towards San Francisco from
here, the tallest structures are buildings. If you look south or towards San Jose, the
tallest structures are trees and this is in between but I think that we need to make this
as literally green as the site as possible as you make that transition. I mean the next
block over is just about perfectly preserved small scale bungalow development. I mean
City of Palo Alto Page 48
it’s about intact -- I’m sure people have made lots of changes but it’s – you could put in
on a register in my uninformed opinion. I don’t think – and so this is a very important
pedestrian way. It takes you over to the underpass in which we spent millions, that gets
you over to the Medical Foundation and Town and Country. It takes you downtown and
it’s good to have the corner plaza. I think that’s important. I am not sure if it’s big
enough but it’s certainly an appropriate use but when you take the half of the building
that is closest to the residential in the San Jose direction. That isn’t a particularly good
thing to walk by. You’re looking at parking and one of the things that really struck me in
looking at the Landscape Plan and the landscape fixtures and there isn’t space to get
the kind of – at least I don’t see it being done yet but to get the kind of softening, the
presence of birds and – you know, which exist on that site right now. Birds and
butterflies and whatnot, the different literal air that you get when you have significant
vegetation. I live in the downtown north and I don’t live very close to the creek and
there’s a big difference as you move from more heavily wooded and planted blocks to
others. This, in my opinion, should be a block where you get that softness that comes
from significant landscaping so I would be very interested to hear from my colleagues
on whether the parking really does need to go underground. Also, as opposed to our
previous project where the thinking is that you can go underground without damaging
trees. In case, there’s a comment that trees make underground parking infeasible so I
would like to hear more about that.
Chair Lew: Margaret.
Board Member Wimmer: I think this is an improvement upon the original presentation
that was given to us and I was recalling some of the concerns that we had then, which
were building height, the use of color and I see that a lot of those things have been
addressed. I know that the maximum height for this building is 35-feet and I think that
– it looks like the elevator tower can exceed that by -- can exceed the maximum height
for a certain area but I wanted to also ask, is there – does this reflect what kind of
mechanical needs the building will have because a lot of times you’ll have mechanical
equipment up on top of the roof, which is then on top of that 35-foot roof deck that has
a shroud around it. So, it gives the appearance that the building is even higher so I was
going to ask if this truly reflects all the equipment that needs – the mechanical
equipment that will be on the building? That was just a question of mine. Then, I don’t
really have a problem with the parking just because it looks like the building on the
street sides – on the High Street and the Channing Street side, there is some pedestrian
landscaping going on and things that screen the parking, which is around the back of
the building. I would encourage maybe even more – I’m calling it pedestrian
landscaping but like little planters and things at the pedestrian level to bring in natural
material as you’re walking by to help screen and help detract your eye I guess, from
the parking entrances. I don’t know if you could even pull some landscaping up on the
balconies. I’ve seen recently – not in Palo Alto but other Cities that have apartments
and condos where there’s actually landscaping on the decks that are a part of the
building component so that might be something to consider. I do – I’m glad that you
minimized the red color because I think that was my comment on the original
presentation. I felt like you were using too much of the creamery red and it – I thought
City of Palo Alto Page 49
it would introduce some confusion because people might think wow, is that another
creamery building or something. So, I’m glad that you minimized – I like the use of it
but the fact that you minimized it and made it a subordinate color; I think is a good
response. Then my last comment was about the use of the corrugated metal. It looks
like you’re wrapping the entire third-floor with the corrugated metal exterior, which I –
when I first started seeing that, I thought that was really cool because it’s sort of
industrial and sort of a new use of material in an urban setting. I just question how is
that going to look 10-15-20-years from now? Is that going to date this building so I just
wanted to bring up that corrugated – I kind of think that it’s a cool look now but maybe
in 5-years, we’ll go oh yeah, that’s when everyone was using that corrugated metal on
buildings. Hopefully, be sensitive to that and this could be a timeless building because
this building is going to be here probably 100-years, right? I think we have to look at –
it could end up being a historic building in Palo Alto someday that is going to be
protected so I think we should think forward and think about are these timeless
materials. Those are my only comments.
Chair Lew: Kyu.
Vice Chair Kim: Yeah, thank you for coming back to us with the revised project. I think
the project is a huge – it’s gone through a lot of changes that I feel are a huge
improvement over the previous design. I’ll try to be quick here. I’m appreciative with
the public plaza at the corner there. I think the elevation along High Street is much
better than before with more play of ins and outs at the building. I think there could be
perhaps better pedestrian connections from the uncovered parking to the building itself.
I also think that there are a couple of site design issues such as the bench that is
located at the oak tree corner, where the transformer is. It looks like the bench is kind
of a little bit of an afterthought. I’m seeing here on the model that you’re proposing
perhaps those vertical planters again but I think that’s an area that could be a little bit
thought deeper. Also, the bicycle parking is really at the opening of the building there.
To me, it seems kind of like a – it’s kind of weak. I think if you’re living up there and
you’re looking down at this atrium, you want to see something a little bit nicer or have
it be a feature or perhaps even a little bit of greenery and not just the top of bicycle
parking. As far as the layout in the parking, I would encourage underground parking
and I feel that a project of this size would certainly benefit from it. I do understand that
there are some limitations there and as far as keeping it on the ground level and doing
your best to screen that. I don’t see how it could be done much better than what you
have so I do applaud the approach there and getting rid of the lifts was certainly a big
benefit as well but if this project were to come back, I would like to see a little bit more
thought out landscape design and those certain little site areas that I mentioned
previously. Again, I think I’d like to applaud the revision and certainly like where this
building is going and I’m excited for the property as it’s certainly underdeveloped
currently. Thank you.
Chair Lew: Martin.
City of Palo Alto Page 50
Chair Bernstein: Thank you, Chair Lew. I appreciate the comments of Board Member
Gooyer about what is the sense of that building? We have 500-years of architectural
design from the renaissance period on and the question that I always – often ask about
new proposed projects is, is this what we’ve evolved to in terms of architectural design?
That’s probably an Architectural Review Board issue and not really historic preservation
issue since this project is not on – this property is not a listed historic property. Also,
referring to Board Member Wimmer’s comment about – whatever is designed today and
certainly we can design things that look good today because of current fashion but will
it look good tomorrow and I – again, because this project is not a listed historic
structure, that may not be a historic preservation issues with this particular project.
Through the – since the public hearing is open and through the Chair, I’d like to have
some comment and then two questions for Mr. Ho, please? Mr. Ho, I’ve got – Mr. Ko,
I’ve got some – two comments and then a question for you. Thank you. Also, I am
familiar with your project on the 1000 block of Apgar Street in Emeryville. I saw on your
website the – anyways, one of the requirements for this project in SOFA II, is that
there’s good articulation from the street facing façade and you're projecting on Apgar in
Emeryville, I think is very successful and I’ve physical have seen it and I’ve always been
impressed with it. Now, I know who the author is so (Inaudible)…
Mr. Ko: Thank you.
Chair Bernstein: …That’s Cantonese for thank you.
Mr. Ko: Just also an urban project. Just like across the street, the two units on the
ground level happens also just right across the street. For the unit – actually, we have
you stepping up two steps so it is higher. The two units on the ground level are 1-foot
higher than the street sidewalk. I just wanted to point that out.
Chair Bernstein: Yeah, thanks. The other comment that I would like to make is that on
that project in Emeryville, it’s – since the Historic Resources Board is looking at
compatibility with regard to local historic character. On that particular project, what you
have done successfully is that you really translated some to of the East Bay – Bay Area
style with those big brackets so there’s the (inaudible) issue and it ties into the Burkley,
Emeryville, (inaudible). Anyway, my point of bringing that up is that I see that you
definitely understand compatibility and context. One of the things specifically with this
project that you’ve done I think, also very successfully for compatibility and that I think
Board Member Bunnenberg mentioned and that is the cornice detail through here on
how that relates to the historic structure across the street at 900 High Street. Again,
another compatibility issue there. There is one detail that I’d like to ask for you to – I’ll
make my suggestion and see what your response on how to fine tune this project to
gain my endorsement for this project and that is, on this corner right here and maybe
for the public you can put – if you have the ability for the slide, that’s the corner of High
and Channing; looking at this corner if that is possible there. Yes, that’s it, right there.
Yes, right – so you can see from this point of view, in that picture, there are two
historic structures; the Watercourse Way and the Peninsula Creamery building. What
would gain my endorsement on this project is if the window header just at that third-
City of Palo Alto Page 51
floor, that’s unit 16. If those window frames at that corner could go all the way up to
the facet, that would then be consistent with what I handed out to members of the
public, you and the Board Members. Showing that there’s again, a good compatible
detail but only at that corner because I think that corner, as you can see in the pictures,
the most dominant corner in this whole project, in relationship to historic – listed
historic projects there. Is that something that you would agree too?
Mr. Ko: Yes. That’s pretty easy to do because in the corner right there, that’s all living
space…
Chair Bernstein: Yeah and it’s all flushed and I can see – I looked at your detail and
that could be a flush framing.
Mr. Ko: We could just mimic the design of the moldings and windows from right across.
That’s not a problem.
MOTION
Chair Bernstein: Ok, great. That would make it consistent with what I handed out to the
public with that detail exactly across the street. Good. Ok, thank you for that. Thank
you. With that, I would like to make a motion, please? We’ve heard from – there are no
members from the public, right? Ok. Alright, so I would like to move then that – with
that agreement from Mr. Ko to raise the detail of the headers at the corner of unit 16
up on the third-floor. That this project is consistent with the SOFA II guidelines for
compatibility requirements in relations to the adjacent and across the street historic
buildings.
Vice Chair Kim: So, with all due respect to Chair Bernstein, it’s my understanding that
the HRB serves as an advisory role to the ARB on this project so is it appropriate for an
HRB member to make the motion and will the HRB vote on the project as well?
Board Member Gooyer: I assumed that that was just for the HRB…
Vice Chair Kim: Just for the HRB
Board Member Gooyer: … portion of it, not ours.
Vice Chair Kim: My apologies.
Board Member Wimmer: I’ll second Martin’s motion.
Chair Bernstein: Alright. (inaudible) that has been moved and seconded. Is there any
discussion on this before we bring it to vote? Rodger?
Board Member Kohler: I’m not sure I’m going to vote for that. I have to – I – so what
you’re doing is your approving of two items on the building that are ok but not the
whole building, is that what you’re saying?
City of Palo Alto Page 52
Chair Bernstein: The – one of our responsibilities on the HRB is to say how does this
project – is it compatible or incompatible with the SOFA II guild lines regarding any new
project that’s proposed or revisited to a project that’s adjacent to or across the street
from a historic structure. My view would be that the design elements that Mr. Ko
introduced into this revised project – the cornice on the vertical stairway there and then
the other details. Then his agreement to bring that window up so that it’s compatible to
across the street. That there’s enough compatibility with the listed historic structures.
That was the reason for my motion.
Board Member Kohler: I’m not sure I – well, ok. Well, I’m just trying to think. I’m not
sure how you can – a building of this scale and size is compatible with the little one-
story homes – buildings around that structure. I don’t quite see – technically, the corner
here should be one-story and the second-floor and all those guys should be pushed way
back. Then it relates – this is a big box with a feature up on top that I don’t think that
anyone is going to – except for the red line, which I like but to have – to say this giant
relates to the other low one-story homes on the corners, I don’t see how that works. I
can’t support that.
Chair Bernstein: Ok, any other comments before we bring it to a vote? I see none. Ok,
HRB Members to vote on the motion. All those in favor by saying? Opposed? Michael?
That passes on 4 yes's and 1 no vote. Thank you.
MOTION PASSES WITH A VOTE OF 4-1
Board Member Kohler: So, we can go. Maybe I can go?
Chair Lew: Ok, we’ll bring it back to the ARB. I had a couple comments that I think
haven’t been mentioned yet.
Board Member Kohler: Is ok if I leave? If I leave now because we’re not needed
anymore?
Chair Bernstein: (Inaudible)
Mr. Lait: Yeah, as long as we have a quorum of the HRB then, that would be efficient.
If we drop below a quorum, then we would ask that all the HRB Members. (Crosstalk).
Board Member Kohler: We have a quorum. Ok because I didn’t have any idea this was
going to go so long. I’ve got people waiting so thank you.
Chair Lew: Yeah, yeah. We’re getting to the ARB motions. Ok. Let’s see, we have a new
finding for native plants that’s – it’s a new thing that started this year and I’m
struggling to – with the project with regard to that. It seems to me that retaining the
oak trees and proposing a new valley oak in the corner goes a long way but a lot of the
other plants, it seems to me, could be substituted with native plants without a lot of
City of Palo Alto Page 53
effort. The entrance – the residential entrance seems to me to be fairly weak. It’s just
like an out – there’s no lobby, it’s just – you’re entering in the parking garage to get to
the main elevator. That doesn’t seem to be very fairly desirable at all. I’m not crazy
about the transformer location mostly because I think it would require trenching in
proximity to the oak tree. I was wondering if there was an alternate for the
transformer? Unit five and twelve seem to be very long and potentially very dark at the
ends near the corridor. Some of the other units seem – I think four of the units seem to
be fairly small. I think it’s the 7s, 8s, and 9s that are right in the middle. I think you’re
also – back to landscaping, I think you’re proposing Italian cypress trees 4-feet on
center, next to the private school and it seems like a fairly dense wall. I think I would
be interested in seeing if those could be space farther apart. I think I would like the
plans modified with regard to the common open space calculations and to not include
the bike locker area or modify the bike lockers so that there’s actually something more
desirable down there at the entrance to the residential – to the residences. I think there
have – I think there were some other comments about the corrugated metal and I think
I share those concerns about it. If the Board is (inaudible) with the corrugated metal, I
think I would suggest that it – you can specify like zinc coated metal so it’s not quite to
shining if you – it can be aluminum or steel and when it’s brand new, it’s fairly shiny
and causes a lot of reflections. There is a way to get it pre-patinaed from the very
beginning. Then I also did want to point out to the Board that the Staff has conditions.
This is like – for example, landscape condition approval number 63, which is actually
changing the planting plan so if you looked at the planting plan, some of the trees in
there have changed or would change based on the conditions of approval by Staff.
Then I think the biggest issue is Peter’s question about parking and I guess this is for
the applicant. My understanding is that you’ve done studies but I haven’t seen it for the
underground garage. I guess my main concern Peter, would be that if you have 125-
foot wide lot and two parking isles are 120-feet, then that doesn’t leave anything for
landscaping, which is what we’ll see on some of our other projects today. I guess, my
take on it is that I would be interested in seeing those studies.
Mr. Ko: We did two option studies for underground parking and from High Street
getting down to the – 13-feet below level and we can only have 23 parking spaces.
Even with the tender parking, it’s only 23. The total required parking was – we have 45
parking spaces. Again, I mean we have the tree preservation plan there on the back
and the arborist requires a setback, from the back there, from those two large live oak
trees so we can’t really cut our parking garage toward the back of the property. That
would really limit the size of the basement parking. That would never even meet half
the requirement of the 25 units – parking requirements.
Chair Lew: Did you – so, I know we had the parking lift issue but we have had – we
have approved projects for residential uses that had underground parking and lifts. So,
you can get more spaces in the basement. Did you consider that?
Mr. Ko: Yep, previously we had 20 parking spaces with a possible lift, which would go
underground just like the adjacent school building. You have the basement parking and
then also one was above grade parking so that’s like three-level parking lift. We can get
City of Palo Alto Page 54
20-parkings but I don’t think that was supported by the Board ARB and Planning so we
eliminated that. Also, we did – like I said, we did two versions of underground parking
layout for the Planning Department and studied how we can – because – first of all, you
require 100-feet of ramp going down there and then the – without using the back of
the property, trying to preserve those live oak trees. You only have a little part of the
front, where under the building can be a parking area. That really limited our
underground parking option. That’s why we kept all the parking at grade at this point.
Chair Lew: Ok, thank you for that. Are there any other…
Board Member Baltay: Can I chime in on the parking? If I remember right, we had an
applicant just adjacent to this property that came in the other day with a full
underground parking lot next to this tree. I – I’ve been around and I think that parking
can be done. We just passed parking on a complicated commercial building on
University Avenue that had significantly tighter, smaller site. They managed to fit it in. I
think the parking can fit here. This is a pretty good size lot. There are many ways you
could get that ramp to fit underneath there. Sure, you have to pull back from the tree
and sure we want to see some landscaping on top. I feel very strongly that the parking
doesn’t work as it is.
Chair Lew: Ok, I guess the way that I was thinking about it, is that the surface parking
isn’t really that desirable but I was willing to support it because of the oak trees. I’m
not opposed to seeing – for the Board to see the actual parking studies. I would be
willing to – I’d be open to doing that but I think I would – if those are – if the studies
are accurate, then I would support the project as proposed with some minor revisions.
So, I think we have some no votes. Is there anyone who would want to try and make a
motion on this? I think we’ve got no votes over here.
MOTION
Board Member Furth: Well, I could move that we continue this item to a date uncertain
and request that staff and the applicant provide us an analysis of what would be
possible and feasible in terms of underground parking on this site. If – including the
use of lifts or other devices. I want Staff evaluation of the applicant’s information on
that score. That – of course, if it’s possible, then a number of our other concerns can be
addressed with regard to functional useable open space. Here’s my question to my
colleagues, should we just do that as a comeback and let us know or do we want to try
to address the issues now, that would arise if we become convinced that it can’t be
done? I think maybe we should just do the focus of let’s see how this works with
underground parking and then go from there? Does that make sense or do you want to
go down both tracks?
Board Member Gooyer: The thing with – I have sort of an intermediate I guess if
anything. I’m in favor of underground parking and I think it can be done. The other
alternative as I said is you lose the two residential units on the ground floor. You turn
that either into retail space or something where there is retail pretty much – other than
City of Palo Alto Page 55
an entry on both streets and the rest of the whole façade is retail so you’re not looking
at a parking garage or a parking facility. That would be the only thing that I would even
come close to considering. Somebody coming in and saying gosh, we can’t do it
underground so you’re stuck with this one, isn’t going to fly for me.
Board Member Furth: Well, because there are so many directions in which to go, I’m
going to just make a motion that we continue this for the reasons stated. To see an
underground parking alternative provided by the applicant and/or Staff and certainly
analyzed by Staff and not try to go out the branching choices further but somebody
else might want too.
Board Member Baltay: Can I be clear Wynne. What we are asking for is to continue it
and asking them to come back to us with an option of underground parking?
Board Member Furth: Yes.
Board Member Baltay: I can support that. Second.
Mr. Lait: Ok, before you vote Chair, if I may interject? I think that the applicant may
have some additional information that they would like to share with respect to the
underground parking. I think it’s a hinge point on this project in terms of whether it
goes forward or not. I think before you continue making an action on that motion, if
you are (inaudible) to at least hear from the applicant as far as their perspective on the
– their studies a little bit more information.
Board Member Gooyer: The only comment I would have to that, is that I understand
that he may justification for not doing it but I also don’t think the way it’s designed now
is the best solution for on-grade parking.
Mr. Lait: That may be and I think that’s a different conversation. If the direction from
the Council or excuse me, the Board is to explore underground parking and the
applicant’s perspective is they’ve explored it and it’s not feasible for this project,
continuing the matter may not be the desirable outcome for the applicant and would
perhaps be looking for direction – action from the Board.
Chair Lew: Yes, Wynne.
Board Member Furth: At this point, I’m not going to be in a good position to absorb a
lot of new information without lunch and try an analysis based on that. I’m actually
asking both Staff and the applicant to give us more information on this topic because if
we decide that this project doesn’t work with surface parking. We need to know that –
we want something on the record as to it is possible – it’s feasibility. We want some
information on that score so that’s why I am thinking of doing it this way.
Ms. Gerhardt: Just to confirm that Staff has analyzed the underground parking with the
applicant. We’ve had the urban forester take a look at some preliminary studies and it
City of Palo Alto Page 56
does seem that about 1/3 of the property couldn’t be used because we would want to
preserve that for the trees but further analysis could be done.
Board Member Baltay: So, I understand it right, a 1/3 of the property can’t be dug out
for a parking lot – for parking underground but a 1/3 of the parking lot can still be used
for a parking lot proper? That doesn’t seem to follow to me. The trees are so precious
that we can’t develop a 1/3 of the lot, then what is this in front of us?
Mr. Lait: I think the – what Jodie was referring to is the excavation of the ground for
the provision of the sub terrain garage. These were some preliminary sketches that I
remember us taking a look at. I don’t know that we’ve done the type of study that I
think Board Member Furth is referring to but again, I go back to my initial comment,
relative to if the Board would be informed by some perspective from the applicant?
Chair Lew: Mr. Ko, do you have any – sure. [Mr. Beckincourt] if you have any other
comments about the parking.
[Mr. Beckincourt:] Thank you for going through this. We looked originally at
underground parking knowing that it would be the more desirable option. The – with
the height limitations and the unit counts that we can get, I know where not supposed
to talk about money but this project is not – I discovered yesterday, is not even feasible
as it is. Now, we can push it forward. I got numbers from a general but if we have to
go underground, it’s dead and I’m not – that’s not any way to say that – it’s just a fact.
It won’t go underground, it won’t gain enough spaces and it won’t provide any return.
It will be negative; no bank will look at it so it’s done. The 25 housing units are gone,
that’s it. That’s just a fact that we have to work within this environment. Housing prices
– the construction costs are skyrocketing. Over $500 a foot now, that’s a fact. This
doesn’t work as it is. We’re planning on holding this long term in the family so we can
absorb that over 30-40-50-years. We can’t absorb another two on top of that and I
know this is taboo to talk cash but that’s a fact here and so we’ll look at something
totally different or leave it to allow as it is and it will be a parking lot and that’s not
what we want to do. We’d like to create a nice project but to say that this is now
hinged on underground parking, can’t work. I’m sorry, it just can’t and that’s just a fact.
Ok? Thank you.
Chair Lew: Great. Thank you for that. Let’s see what the other Board Members think
but I think that our motion should then factor in both situations right? I think it’s fine to
ask for parking – the underground parking study but I think we should clear about all
the other things that have mentioned before as well so that could be addressed. It’s
been two – I think this project has been around for 2-years already? I think we need to
move this – move it along.
Board Member Furth: It seems to me that another question that was much discussed
was whether the two ground floor residential units could be supported. I’ve heard you
all speaking in both directions on that.
City of Palo Alto Page 57
Chair Lew: I – it’s not desirable. I would say the – I know people who’ve owned condos
on the ground floor of 800 High and they’ve lived there for a while. They weren’t
thrilled with it and they eventually moved out but the units do have vertical separation
so that’s better than say 801 Alma. The affordable housing that has ground floor unto
it’s without any vertical separation at all, which is to me, highly undesirable and has
planters in front of it as well. If somebody were to try to convert it or illegally or
whatever, you wouldn’t – with having those steps, it wouldn’t be assessable. So,
technically you would couldn’t – you wouldn’t be able to do that and more parking
would be required, I’m guessing.
Board Member Furth: I’m really asking – although I expressed my skepticism about it’s
likely to use as – since I live around a lot of apartments that are not functioning as
apartments right now. My real question to you all is do the majority of us – would we
approve a project which included these two ground floor units?
Board Member Baltay: No.
Chair Lew: I would.
Board Member Furth: You would?
Chair Lew: Yes, I think I would.
Vice Chair Kim: If you’re taking a straw poll, I would too but could we perhaps have
Board Member Gooyer present an alternative motion…
Board Member Furth: I withdraw my motion if the seconder agrees?
Vice Chair Kim: …with the ground floor being retail or you had said something that I
thought was…
Board Member Gooyer: (Inaudible)
Chair Lew: Microphone, please.
Board Member Gooyer: Sorry. The design, the way that it is done right now is the on
the optimum design for ground floor – at-grade parking.
Vice Chair Kim: Right but I felt that your alternative motion if you make one, would be
at least some clear direction for the applicant such that we would somehow make the
(inaudible)(crosstalk)
Board Member Gooyer: My thought was – I agree with Peter in the sense that this is a
very vibrant area. I don’t want to walk down and look through a metal mesh to a bunch
of parked cars or a blank wall. Their show is – what happens behind that – it could be a
relatively, not very deep retail space and then have parking behind it or whatever but it
City of Palo Alto Page 58
would probably mean the loss of the two units. Now if it turns out that financially they
also can’t absorb the loss of the two units, then it’s sort of a done deal but if they can –
because the thing is, you’re turning that residential space into retail space. Then
actually, the other thing I like about that is that actually becomes more of a mixed use.
Let’s face it, now it’s a 1,000-square foot retail and 16,500-square foot residential. To
me, that’s not really mixed use. That’s an oh, by the way, we’ve got the – a little
commercial space downstairs. I mean it – that would be the only alternative but like
this, I can’t support it.
Vice Chair Kim: Is there a motion that you would like to propose?
Board Member Gooyer: Pardon me?
Vice Chair Kim: Could you make that into a motion perhaps?
MOTION
Board Member Gooyer: Make that – ok, just whatever I said. No, no, that’s fine. Alright.
I move then that if underground parking is not or is out of the realm of possibility, that
the first floor be redesigned in such a way that when you’re walking on the sidewalk –
other than possibly the mandated – I guess it’s 20-foot wide opening could be viewed
but there’s no concept of a parking facility on the ground floor. Something like that?
Board Member Baltay: No, I won’t come close to supporting that Robert. I’m sorry.
Board Member Gooyer: Pardon me?
Board Member Baltay: I will not support that motion.
Board Member Gooyer: Ok, well then.
Board Member Baltay: I think you’re not – I think all of us, we’re – the applicant got up
and stood in front of us and said the issue with the parking is not the trees, it’s the
budget for the project. I support that and we all want housing in town here but I’m
amazed that it's swaying us this much. I mean it works or it doesn’t. We have SOFA
guild lines to follow and we should follow them and because he can’t afford to build it
with underground parking or so they say, that is not…
Board Member Gooyer: I agree, that’s why I’m hesitant about the – even making the
motion.
Board Member Baltay: So, to try to move that we sort of half way design it from the
DHS here about where he can and can’t put the building or the parking, we’re just
going to come back with stacked lifts then and be back right where we started a year
ago. I’d like to see us try to give them clear guidance. If you guys – if we’re fine with
the parking on the surface, let’s say so and if we’re not, let’s say so.
City of Palo Alto Page 59
Vice Chair Kim: I’m fine with the parking on the surface so long as it’s screened and
since the motion has been made, I will second the motion.
Board Member Furth: What’s the motion at this point?
Vice Chair Kim: That the first floor perhaps de redesigned in such a way that additional
screening be provided or that the two residential units be converted into retail or
something else such that additional screening can be provided. Am I on track there?
Board Member Gooyer: But see, that’s the problem with this. I don’t want to sit here
and design it for them. It – I don’t want to see parking. I mean that’s about as basic as
you can get it.
Vice Chair Kim: So, perhaps the motion should then be modified to say the first floor be
redesigned such that the screening of the surface parking is improved or revised?
Board Member Gooyer: No, again that’s not – because the screening means you put a
blank wall there and put some growys in front of it and say hey, it’s better than it was
than looking at a parking garage and that’s not acceptable to me. See that’s why I don’t
want to be put in the situation of making a motion because I don’t really agree with it.
All I said was that was a possible option but to come – as I said with my fellow Board
Member here, to come up and say hey, it’s a money issue. I’m sorry, then maybe that
area shouldn’t be developed in this project. The applicant said maybe we need to come
up with something else and maybe that’s what it ends up being. Maybe that’s going
against the whole mandate of the City where we want more housing; I’m sorry. Just
because we need more housing, doesn’t mean I’m going to approve something in my
own mind, that I don’t think is up to the level that I think is, for me, a minimum for the
City of Palo Alto.
Board Member Baltay: Robert, I – if you were to withdraw your motion, I have an idea
to make a separate motion.
Board Member Gooyer: Ok, I’ll withdraw my motion.
MOTION
Board Member Baltay: I move that we continue the project to a date uncertain with the
direction to the applicant to redesign the project with one of two options. Either provide
below ground parking or provide parking that’s only accessed from Channing avenue
and the building has frontage on High Street on the entire length of High street.
Board Member Furth: I’d second that.
Chair Lew: Martin.
City of Palo Alto Page 60
Chair Bernstein: Question for Staff, the – as the architect Mr. Ko has agreed to raise the
ceiling height – the window height of that unit 16, is that incorporated into the HRB
motion or should that be incorporated into the ARB motion? Just so that it doesn’t get
lost.
Ms. Gerhardt: It should be incorporated into the ARB motion. I think we’re having some
discussions with the applicant as well.
Chair Bernstein: Alright, so if – Chair, would you be able to ask if the maker and
secondary would except Mr. Ko’s agreement that that window head on unit 16 be
raised?
Board Member Baltay: Absolutely. I think it’s a wonderful idea.
Chair Bernstein: Thank you.
Chair Lew: Jon.
Mr. Lait: Thank you, Chair. There was a motion and a second to do one of the two
options. Provide underground parking or only have parking off of – access off of
Channing with the idea of extending the horizontality of the building so that you can’t –
this would be the addition of another couple of units, probably and also probably the –
possibly the requirement for lift parking presumably. I don’t know. I don’t want to
design it right now.
Board Member Baltay: No, you’re putting words in the motion, Jonathan.
Mr. Lait: No, I’m not trying to put words into the motion, I’m trying to summarize. My
understanding that the motion is going to have a – one of the comments I heard from
one of the Board Members – I think it was perhaps Board Member Gooyer, I could be
wrong. Was about the horizontality of the building and this would, of course, extend
that some distance if we’re going to fill in the ground floor area with units. That’s fine,
that may be fine however they approach – I’m not suggesting that’s an (inaudible)
issue or an issue. I only ask that the Board – because you’re talking about some – we
frequently give applicants a chance to respond to some motions that have been made
so you may just want to extend that opportunity to the applicant in giving these two
options that are being presented.
Chair Lew: You’re saying before we vote? Ok, they are deliberating.
Board Member Gooyer: Can I get a clear description of exactly what we are going to be
voting on because I’m confused now.
Chair Lew: Well, ok. Peter made the motion, right? Which is to provide below grade
parking study…
City of Palo Alto Page 61
Board Member Baltay: Well, two options. So, I’m asking – we’re asking them to
redesign the building to fit one of two options. One is to put the parking below grade
and that’s easy or to have it so the parking only comes off of Channing Avenue and you
cannot see the parking. The building extends along the frontage of High Street. I
guess…
Board Member Gooyer: Now, you cannot see the parking or there’s actually something
going on there? (Inaudible)(crosstalk)…
Board Member Baltay: There’s actually something going on.
Board Member Gooyer: … is 100-feet or 200-feet of a blank wall with a couple of
growys in the front of it.
Board Member Baltay: No, no, it should -- the motion is that there’s a functioning
building facility of some kind be they residential or commercial along the frontage. I
don’t want to tie their hands too much. I’m just saying that it cannot be an access to
parking or visible parking. It has to be building. I’m trying to find a compromise that
meets our guild lines and by cutting back half way at least what you can see.
Chair Lew: Right and then there’s an amendment to the motion which is for the flush
header on the third-floor corner. [Mr. Beckincourt], do you have any other – do you
have any comments on the proposed motion?
[Mr. Beckincourt:] Speaking with Mr. Ko, my concern would be what happens to the
parking and the circulation and do we then have to have any different building footprint
changes. I don’t know if we do, to the Channing entrance on the garage – for the
parking area. I guess I have some question that assuming that there’s some kind of
horrible gaping hole in the front on High Street and we have plants on either side of the
entrance and exit, it doesn’t seem that horrible if you consider across the street, you’ve
got parking lot, parking lot, parking lots. If this could go underground as I say again,
that really won’t even be an issue. I just can’t do that. It’s not that we don’t have the
money, it just doesn’t function. It’s not – it won’t pencil at all. We will be putting money
into it and not getting anything out of it and that’s not the idea for anyone. It would be
essentially just a benefit for the City and a burden on us. I guess I’d like some
clarification on what the real issue is with having the entrance also on High Street? It
doesn’t look that awful to me. Now, I also respect what Mrs. Furth discussed in that
part of the structure has some – it’s not as friendly as the other corner and I totally
agree with that. I had mentioned that to Peter before and wondered if we could do
some kind of bench down there. Some kind of a setback there that would allow a
seating area, you know a fountain or something to liven that up a little bit. I typically
have a higher aesthetic than a lot of people and I’d like this to be a beautiful building
and I would like to see – guess what I would like to see why or understand why we
think that that entrance is so terrible and I wondering if it actually might end up looking
funny. Like it was just something that was closed off. That we put some stucco there
and continued the planters and put some kind of vine – creeping vines. I don’t think
that actually has any benefit either. This adds a lightness to it – on the ground floor,
City of Palo Alto Page 62
similar to what you have towards Channing and High Street, in my opinion. This
appears to be a really large building and a really large lot but we took this way down.
We gave it a giant haircut from what it was, to the actual – we actually removed one or
two units through this whole process. When we worked with Jonathan through this
whole thing, trying to add as much housing as we could for the City and make this
thing pencil. It’s tight so I just don’t – I’m not sure – I’m taking up too much time here
but I still wonder why that’s a real problem on High Street. It seems to allow an in and
out that would be helpful for life safety and things like that. Thank you.
Chair Lew: You guys, we need to wrap up but…
Board Member Wimmer: Can I just – I was just brainstorming on this new concept of
the – would it – are there any benefit to making the parking direction one-way so that
there are still two automobile entrances onto the property. However, they are cut in
half so instead of a 25-foot opening on each side, they are 10-feet on each side. So,
you can only enter the off of Channing and you can only exit off of High Street. Would
that offer any benefit to minimizing these gaps and having – still offering the access –
two access points but cutting the access point width in half.
Board Member Baltay: Are you proposing – yeah, I – frankly, I don’t think that would
work very well functionally. Is that a proposal for an amendment because otherwise, to
the Chair, we’ve had a motion moved and seconded and I’d like us to have a vote.
Chair Lew: Wynne.
Board Member Furth: I don’t want to give up on this project. It’s 35-units or however
many it is, I forget. 25, what’s a number? I think that the revised version is engaged
and engaging with the neighborhood in a way that the previous one wasn’t. It seems to
me, when we’ve looked at the number of SOFA II project, we get this recurring
problem. That surface parking leads you to screening parking, which leads to bigger
volumes and sometimes it just doesn’t work at all. Certainly, that was the case up on
Forest. It just doesn’t happen, it just doesn’t work. I’m not convinced that this can’t
work. I am convinced that right now, it doesn’t work along High Street. I –if it’s going
to work, then I think it needs to be much literally greener. It needs to be – I was
interested in – if you’re going to have a three-story building in this neighborhood, you
need three-story landscaping, in some way. Whether it’s vines or trees or hanging
gardens, I have no idea but you – a building like this, in this location, isn’t going to
make that transition from 801 High Street block to further down without being
significantly and literally green; for me. I think that the volume could work. I do not
think the High Street frontage works now. I don’t know what the possible solution is.
I’m thinking about the project on University, where we went around and round and
round. The Masonic Temple project, where we went around and round and round and
we finally got to a place that worked. I would like to see one more try to address our
concerns and I don’t know – I’m sure that it won’t adequately address everybody’s
concerns if we don’t get underground parking but I would like to see one more try.
City of Palo Alto Page 63
Chair Lew: I think we are ready to vote and I would just say – I did want to respond to
your question about the Hight Street parking entrance. If you go to – if you look at
mixed-use buildings like loft buildings in San Francisco. Typically, what happens is
there’s usually – they – there’s usually some metal open gate at the sidewalk and you
look in – as a pedestrian, you look and what you see is the ugliest ceiling that you can
ever imagine. So, you’ve got a concrete floor and typically there is spray insulation that
gets sprayed on there and it's – most of the time it’s left exposed. A rare occasion,
people will cover it with a ceiling but usually, people run out of money. You have the
fire sprinklers, other utilities are dropping down and because it’s a parking garage,
there are often beams – sometimes there are beams and so the utilities are hanging
below the beams and it’s all exposed. That’s the concern and you don’t see it when
you’re looking at elevation but I think what I am hearing from the Board is that we’ve
seen other buildings where that is a weakness. I’ve seen buildings that where it is
addressed. Where it’s exposed but there’s still some screening at the garage door
entrance or – and there’s a door as well. That’s all I have to say. Let’s vote on the
motion. All in favor? Opposed? None so that’s 5-0 to continue the project.
MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY 5-0
Chair Lew: Staff, hopefully, this can be done sooner than a year. I mean, we’ve been
taking…
Mr. Lait: Just for the record, the project will come back to the ARB alone, without the
HRB.
Chair Lew: Yeah because it’s a different – SOFA II is different than SOFA I.
Mr. Lait: Thank you.
Chair Lew: Ok. We still have more items. The HRB is excused. Thank you for baring
with us. Do we want to take the lunch break now? Ok, so we’re going to take a very
short – about half hour or 20-mintue lunch break. It is 12:30 so we’ll reconvene at 1
o’clock to hear the remaining items.
THE HEARING WILL CONTINUE WITH JUST THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
BOARD MEMBERS.
5. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 3877 El Camino Real [14PLN-
00464]:
Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of an Architectural Review
for
the Demolition of the Vacant 5,860 Square-Foot Commercial Building and
Construction of a new Mixed-Use Project. The Project Includes a 4,027 Square
Foot
Commercial Building and 17 Dwelling Units (Flats and Townhouses). Parking for
the
City of Palo Alto Page 64
Project is Provided in a Basement. The Applicant Also Requests Approval of a
Design
Enhancement Exception to Allow the Basement to Encroach Into the Required
Rear
Yard Setback Below Grade. Environmental Assessment: A Mitigated Negative
Declaration was circulated on March 6, 2017 and the comment period will end on
April 7, 2017. Zoning Districts: CS and RM-30. For more Information, Contact
Project
Planner Sheldon Ah Sing at SAhsing@m-group.us
Chair Lew: Item number five which is a public hearing for a quasi-judicial matter. 3877
El Camino Real. Recommendation on applicant’s request for approval of an architectural
review for the demolition of the vacant 5,860 square-foot commercial building and
construction of a new mixed-use project. The project includes a 4,027-square foot
commercial building and 17 dwelling units, which are flats and townhouses. Parking for
the project is provided in the basement. The applicant also requests approval of a
design enhancement exception to allow the basement to encroach into the required
rear yard setback below grade. Environmental assessment is that a mitigated negative
declaration was circulated on March 6, 2017, and the comment period will end on April
7, 2017 and the zoning districts are CS and RM-30. Sheldon, welcome and he is our
project planner.
Mr. Sheldon Ah Sing, Contract Planner: Yes, good afternoon. Sheldon Ah Sing, contract
planner and I do have a PowerPoint presentation for you. The applicant is also here and
they also have a PowerPoint. I’ll try to get through this as expediently as possible but I
do want to touch upon some important points and the introduction was really great for
the project overview but this does show – the first slide does show the vicinity map and
the project does have an odd shaped lot. It’s kind of a boot or an ‘L’. It does have
frontage on both El Camino as well as on Curtner Avenue and there are two zoning
districts. The CS zoning district does front El Camino Real while the multifamily district
is at the back end – the heel of the boot so to speak and on Curtner. There would be a
demolish of the existing vacant building and then the construction of a new mixed-use
project. Within the CS district, there would be a new 4,000-square foot vertical mix use
building that would include retail on the first two floors and then you would have six
residential flat units on the upper floors as well. Then in the back of the property, in the
multifamily district area, you would have elven townhouses and all the parking, as
mentioned in the summary is below in a basement. There is a design enhancement
exception with a read setback to encroach in the – below grade by 4-feet and that
would allow for all the parking again, to be on the – within the ground floor – within the
basement. The (inaudible) of the project does have site and design review and it also
has the environmental document. This was previously reviewed by the Planning
Commission on March 8th so there were some public comments regarding the historic
aspect of the existing building, as well as some of the traffic on the site or coming off
the site or within the vicinity of the area. Since the project does have an environmental
document, the circulation period does end, I believe tomorrow so we are still receiving
comments on the environmental document and a lot of these comments regard the
City of Palo Alto Page 65
historic aspect and the traffic would be addressed in our response to those comments.
The Commission did recommend approval of the site and design. Also, to make sure
that they – that they take a close look at the historic aspect. There is an appendix in
the environmental document that does include the historic resource evaluation for the
project but that recommendation when onto the Council. The site does have a flat
photography. It is surrounded by both commercial and multipin-family and the
commercial is mainly along El Camino. Multi-family is towards the rear of the property.
Also, mainly low intensity development along El Camino. This area hasn’t been built to
its full potential necessarily just yet. As mentioned, the request does include the site
and design and there are certain findings for those. Part of the process is to go through
this Board. It was reviewed by the Planning Commission and the City Council. There’s a
density bonus concession because the project does include affordable housing units so
that is allowed by law and what they’ve asked for are additional square footage. So,
because of the level of affordability and the number of units, then they would get a
certain amount of additional square footage. The architecture review is – the site design
by this Board and also, a recommendation would be to the Council. As I mentioned, the
design enhancement exception are findings for that deviation of the 10-foot setback.
This is taken from the plans but it does show you the context of the areas mentioned.
It’s kind of a low intensity area, both along El Camino and Curtner and the project is
designed to meet the context findings and be within the context of the surrounding
area. The project does meet the development standards with exception of the setback
for the below grade parking. What that does do, by allowing all the parking to be below
ground, it does allow for a lot of flexibility on the top and I think that was kind of
presented a little bit in the previous items. They have all their open space or common
and private open space areas. There are pedestrian and bicycle circulation is made on
the top there. Then your entrance to the garage is both from El Camino and Curtner
but the exit is only off of Curtner so if you’re wanting to go back the other direction on
El Camino, you would have to go through the signalized intersection there at Curtner
and El Camino. This site plan does demonstrate that there is a separation there. Kind of
a buffer between the larger mix used building and the townhouses but it does all
cohesively work together. Then of course, here’s the below grade parking. They are
utilizing the entire footprint. (Inaudible) ramps going down. Your garbage would be
collected in bins on that level and then they would be brought to the upper level long
Curtner. There is a stage on site and then when the garbage vehicles arrive and they
would service those bins, put them back into the stage area next to the ramp and then
they would be placed back down below so there wouldn’t be any space taken up along
the curbside. Just some project perspectives showing you how the project fits in. The
applicant will describe a little bit more about their architectural details but as we
mentioned in our findings, that we do believe that the project does meet those context
findings. Here’s a perspective of the mix use building itself showing a lot of horizontal
types of orientation. You would have the retail area on the first level. You have some
outdoor space. There wouldn’t be any restaurants per say at this place. There’s no
grease interceptor or other types of facilities that would accommodate that but you may
have a deli or something like that there and other retail uses on the second floors as
well. Then the townhouse is very similarly designed. Maybe a little more vertical with
the wood paneling but these are all consistent with the neighboring development – the
City of Palo Alto Page 66
new development next door that’s multi-family so this is consistent in massing with
that. The affordable housing component of it; the code does require 15% of the total
units. When you do the math, it comes out to 2.7 units so they will be providing two
units on site. The .7 amount is going to be (inaudible) and the concession as I
mentioned, is for the additional square footage at 2,600-square feet for the project. The
project does not seek any parking relief. Again, all the parking is provided on site below
ground. They actually have an excess of several spaces. As I mentioned previously, by
having the parking below the ground, you do allow for some flexibility on the surface
and this diagram demonstrates the connective of open space and some of the amenities
that would be provided again, with the mix use component of it. That’s a good
gathering area and then that transitions to some of other more private areas within the
townhouse are. There’s also some common space area and open space there too. As
part of the project, there was a completed Mitigated Negative Declaration that is being
circulated currently. That our potential significant impact to the biological resources and
that’s actually due with nesting – potential nesting birds and roosting bats. That’s pretty
common type of impact that occurs and there is a mitigation measures for those. After
the review of the project and this initial study, Mitigation Negative Declaration, the
Board shall recommend adoptions or provide comments or recommend changes as they
may deem necessary. We are looking for that type of comments and direction as well.
The next steps for the project is to complete the environmental document period –
circulation period. Respond to any of those comments. We have already received some
and then we would schedule a Council meeting after the Board makes its
recommendation. Then a decision would be on the site and design and the design
enhance exception. The Council would also adopt the negative declaration. The motion
from Staff is to recommend that the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative
Declaration of approval of the review and design enhancement exception application to
allow construction of the mix use project based upon the findings and conditional – the
conditions of approval. That concludes my presentation. I’d be happy to answer any
questions. Again, the applicant is also here with a presentation. Thank you.
Chair Lew: Ok. Thank you, Sheldon. We normally do the applicant presentation and you
have 10-minutes. I do know that we have one speaker from the public who has
scheduling issues and I wonder – we normally do the speakers after the presentation
but if somebody – if you need to leave, we could do it before. We’ll get there. I’m
sorry? Yeah, it is Julian who needed to leave early? Ok, so, I think that may have taken
care of itself.
Board Member Furth: Excuse me, Chair Lew. Before – could I disclose a communication
before…
Chair Lew: Sure.
Board Member Furth: … the public hearing part starts. I was at the site. I met with
Dorthy Bender and we looked at the building from the landscaping down the Starbucks
drive-thru driveway and also from the neighboring property. The property adjacent to
this projects frontage on Curtner and she provided me with her copies of documents
City of Palo Alto Page 67
from the first review of this project, all of which are part of the public record. Provided
me with information about her conversations with the [Silvestria] family, which I believe
are repeated in other communications to us. We discussed, in general terms, the
security of the parking arrangements and the existences of rolled curbs and also
concerns of the neighbor on Curtner about construction impacts. Thank you.
Chair Lew: Any other disclosures? No. Ok, we’ll do the applicant presentation and you
have 10-minutes.
[Mr. Mark Walmack:] Good afternoon. My name is [Mark Walmack], I’m an architect
with EID Architects. We’ve been working together with the City on this project for a
number of years. You – many of you no doubt recall seeing this project in its prior
incarnation. I thought I’d start by just quickly listing what primarily we were responding
to during the period that has passed In between the last time that you saw it and now.
The first two are the more important changes and they were – one was to move the
parking podium level down so that it was flush with the grade to reduce the massing of
the buildings and help with the transition to the multi-family neighborhood that’s next
to our – adjacent to our project. The second one was to add driveway access from El
Camino Real so that shoppers who want to come to the property have direct access to
the parking garage. There was concern that driving all the way around to Curtner to
find the driveway entrance was more than just a stretch so we reconfigured the site
plan to accommodate those two items. There was also a desire to redesign the
commercial façade to be more consistent with the (inaudible) and other requirements
for the El Camino Real district. To improve our open space and enhance its continuity.
To create a path that allowed pedestrians a clear and open access from one side of the
property to the other. Those were the issues that we were attempting largely to
address and I’ll describe how we went about doing that. The project, as you not doubt
have all seen, is an area of El Camion Real that hasn’t seen a lot of development yet.
We’re sandwiched in between the Starbucks restaurant and an older oil lube building.
The project building itself – the existing building is really quite small and doesn’t have
much of a presence on the street, other than the very street frontage there. It's
important I think, to take a look at the overall neighborhood. This community was built
up in the 1960’s, before that it was largely orchards and a few single-family homes.
Excuse me. During the 1960’s, what you see here is that there was a very intense
development of apartment building and this is kind of unusual neighborhood for Palo
Alto. There aren’t many neighborhoods like this and this is why we’ve come to you with
a fairly dense multi-family solution for this project. At the same time, wanting to respect
the existing neighbors, particularly the one directly to the left of us. We broke the scale
and massing of the duplexes on the RM-30 zone, down to be more respectful of that
type of scale and massing. The site itself is really very challenging. The leg that comes
in from Curtner is only 55-feet wide. You can imagine the challenges that would be
associated with any sort of on-site or surface parking solution for this property.
Contextual, the parcel directly adjacent to use is currently under construction with a six-
unit multifamily building that pushes all the zoning criteria, floor area ratios, setback, lot
coverage. It’s perhaps consistent with the kind of residential development that you’re
probably going to see more and more of as the demand for housing continues to apply
City of Palo Alto Page 68
pressure on the city. Directly across the street is another small project that was recently
completed, which contains six units in two buildings. The scale of this is more in
keeping with the overall nature of the – of Curtner and beyond. That brings us to the –
our sitting here and you can see that we’ve got the mix used building up in the CS
zone. Satisfying the criteria for that zoning district by itself and then it transitions down
into a more residential scale, which – you can see based on this slide is really much
more pedestrian and human in scale than most of the other existing construction in the
neighborhood. The site – we started by increasing out setback off of Curtner. We have
a 65-foot front yard setback to the first building – first duplex here and this is in spite of
the fact that the existing condition all the way down Curtner is essential built to the
front yard setback line. You see the eleven townhomes clustered in a duplex in a triplex
on the narrow portion of the lot and three duplex buildings on the leg that extends back
to El Camino Real. Speaking to the point that Sheldon made about the amount of open
space that you see here. One of the advantages of putting the parking underground is
that we do have an excessive amount of open space on this project. In the RN-30 zone,
we have ten times the required private open space than is required by the code. These
open spaces range from just under 200-square feet for the two smaller yards on the
narrow section of Curtner to over 600-square feet for some of the larger yards. That’s
also true of the residential buildings in the mix use portion of the lot. We redesigned
the El Camino Real front to bring the plaza area from the north side of the property
down to the south side of the property. This was done to address some of your
comments but also address some of the concerns that were expressed to us by the
owners of the Starbuck property. Who wanted to make sure that we were respectful of
the view corridor so that customers that are driving south on El Camino Real would still
be able to see and identify their property. They felt that was important for his business
and his retail space. The commercial building shifted to the north side and we shifted
the plaza area to the south. This also allowed us to really enhance the pedestrian
linkage between the commercial portions of the project and the residential RN zone to
the rear. The retail space is on the first floor primarily with the second floor, which
could be a mezzanine or could be a standalone retail space. The residential units behind
it and above it is designed to fill out that building. Meeting all the criteria for FAR and
setbacks and so forth for the CS zone. Those six flats balance out the remainder of the
residential area. Moving down the garage, you can see that we’ve got a one-way access
point in off of El Camino Real. This provides that direct connection that you wanted to
see so that customers could have easy access to parking and get into the stores. It was
believed by many of the stakeholders in the City that having a driveway exit on El
Camino Real would have created confusion in a rather hazardous location so we hit
upon a solution where all the traffic leaving the parking garage would leave on Curtner.
The added advantage to that is being that they would be able to reenter El Camino Real
at a signalized intersection. The parking garage, as was pointed out, has a lot of extra
parking. The peak demand for this parking shifts from more commercial during the day
to residential more during the evening so we believe that give the fact that we are over
parked and given the nature of our being able to cluster guest parking and commercial
parking reasonably close to each other, we think that this project can be built without
creating any real impact on the existing community in terms of their parking needs. The
– Sheldon described to you the character of the commercial building here. You can see
City of Palo Alto Page 69
as you move into here, that you do have this open corridor along the south side of the
property that does connect you with the common open spaces in the rear. The
driveway ramp is designed such that we’re going to have landscaping planters ring it
with cascading vines to soften and lessen the impact of that entry. We’re repeating that
on the Curtner side of the property. Here you can see very clearly the stark contrast
between our front yard setback and the setback of the neighbors. The transition from
the common or the public space to the common space of the residential area helps
create an attractive entrance into the project. Here you see the relative massing of our
duplexes transposed against the two-story apartment building directly to the east. This
shows you the position of the podium on the grade and how that really did drop the
building down and allow us to maximize to full effect the amount of open space; both
private and public open. Then finally, I’d like to point out that we have incorporated
into the townhomes bike lockers essentially, that are bike garages. They are designed
to be as effectively used by the owners as possible. You know how people spend a lot
of money on their bikes when they are into community on their bike and rather than
have these remotely places around the site and inconvenient to the individual units.
These are designed to really encourage the use and the function ability of residences to
use their bike. I’ve run out of time. I’ll stop and take questions.
Chair Lew: Ok, thank you very much. Ok, we have four speakers. I will allow 5-mintues
for each so we have Judy [phonetics][Gittelsohn], [Simon Cintz], Dorothy Bender and
Jeff [phonetics][Levinsky].
[Ms. Judy Gittelson:] Hi, I’m Judy [Gittelson] and I’m a resident at – like the second
slide, third slide, where you show the overview. I’ll just give you an orientation to
where I am. Keep going back. That one. One forward. Yeah, in the other direction. Ok,
so there’s the neighborhood. I am the – right between the – Hi. I’m Judy [Gittelsohn]
and I reside at 399 Curtner and I’m the unhighlighted area. The – one of a few single-
family homes in the neighborhood. The darker yellow is 405 Curtner and I want to
speak to that but I first want to say that I felt that the notification of the City was really
weak. I’ve been paying attention to 405 Curtner because it impacts me and I felt like
the only – we walked by the 387 – 3877 El Camino regularly so we saw the pictures in
the window but I felt like the first notification I got on issues was March 8th. I just
wanted to make a note and I’ve been paying very strict attention to 405 Curtner, which
has been being built since November of 2015 and it’s six units and that – my big point
is traffic. That has completely impacted negatively Curtner Avenue and they have trucks
and they don’t have underground parking. It’s a project the third of the size of this one
in terms of construction and it doesn’t have the underground parking. My big wish and
I’ll highlight the response I did to the Mitigated Negative Declaration, is that you redo a
traffic study in 2017 because I’ve been living at this address since 2010 and over the
past few years, the population has swelled. People in Palo Alto cannot afford to use
their garages for garages. They are storage and living and 405 Curter has glass on both
sides and those two-car garages, in my best view, are not going to be used for storage
of cars. Those cars are going to be on Curtner. The Gabrielle Court across the street
has added another dozen new residence and it just feels like Curtner is constantly
backed up. I just think that 2014 traffic study that you did is applicable to what – the
City of Palo Alto Page 70
conditions that exist with this building. That’s my big request. My letter – my response
to Sheldon was or the four things were traffic exiting from the project onto Curtner, the
underground parking, the studies of the historically significant and the entrance to the
property on El Camino; the 3877. I feel that that driveway is too sharp of a turn in,
right after the exit from the Starbucks. If you’re a pedestrian and I state this in the
letter that I wrote. You are constantly or not constantly but whenever I walk by, people
are leaving Starbucks with their coffee in a hurry and they don’t look that direction and
I – from antidotally, have had near misses – near accidents there on a monthly basis
and I’m pretty cautious. I think that their proposed driveway going in at that point is an
accident waiting to happen from someone leaving Starbuck. I just want to say that.
Exiting onto Curtner is a big problem, which I stated in here. I just feel that the
increasing amount of these 62-cars only leaving on Curtner is really putting a strain on
a street that is – do I get 5-minutes?
Chair Lew: I think you have about a minute left. We started a little late because of the
presentation or the slide.
[Ms. Gittelsohn:] Ok, cool. That Curtner is a two-way street but because so many
people are using the street for their parking, it really – to drive up and down, you really
have to wait for the car to come by. You cannot drive two cars against one another
unless they are smaller cars. Then the trucks for construction that have been on the
street from 405 Curtner, which are a fraction of what’s going to happen with digging an
underground parking, are making it so that not only can one not go by, it’s a real slow
transportation corridor. I don’t think Curtner is sufficiently designed to support the
parking and the exit onto Curtner and I think new traffic studies need to be done to
consider the exit that way. I would prefer to have the exit be on El Camino. Also, I think
that just in a – doing the underground parking is really pushing up against the
environmental aspects of it. I think that’s it. I’d be happy to answers any questions.
Thank you.
Chair Lew: Great. Ok, next speaker is Simon Sims. I don’t see him. Oh, there…
[Mr. Simon Cintz:] Hello, my name is – I was going to say good morning but now it’s
afternoon. My name is Simon Sins. Our family has owned the property that Starbuck
currently occupies. We’ve owned it since the early 1960’s and I’m here to speak in
support of getting this project done. I really don’t know much about the architecture.
To me personally, the project visually looks very pleasing. What I am concerned about
is that right now, right next to us is the old Compadres Restaurant. We really have a
bad situation. The building is – looks terrible; the existing building I am referring too of
the old Compadres restaurant because there’s nobody there. It’s been vacant now for 8
or 9-years. That’s a long time for a property, especially a large property be vacant and
garbage and trash and old newspapers collect on the sidewalk in the front. There’s
nobody there to clean it up. When you go to the edge of our property, I think Ms. Furth
I guess was looking over from the wall down there. What you’ll see are discarded
blankets and sleeping bags and trash. This has been an area where transient people
often stay there. There’s – the property – the subject property here is on grade maybe
City of Palo Alto Page 71
a foot or two lower than our property so we have like a 4-foot wall and on the other
side, people have put chairs and other things to make it easier to get over from their
side to our side. This is a problem for people that are drinking, using drugs, potential
fire. This is not a good thing to have in a neighborhood and it’s not a good thing to
have for a long period of time as we’ve had here. I’m really encouraging the ARB here
to move this project forward quickly because I think that what you have in front of you
is an overall good project. Again, I am not an architect but I would very much like to
see the area improved and the hazards that come with an unoccupied building that has
been vacant for many, many years, be removed and the neighborhood improved. In
terms of just driveways and things like that. If you’re going to have a driveway on El
Camino, the current placement of the driveway, which is next to our Starbucks drive-
thru, in my mind, is a good location simply because it creates more space between my
drive-thru and the buildings that are going to be occupied. In my mind, it’s a – the
proposed location for the driveway for the subject property is in a good location to
separate us from – commercial use from residential use. Again, I hope this project
moves along quickly. I would like to see something happen with that property. Thank
you very much.
Chair Lew: Thank you and Dorothy Bender.
Ms. Dorothy Bender: Hello, my name is Dorothy Bender and I’ve been watching this
project for – well, 45-years. I mean, as long as I’ve lived in the area and when I first
moved into Barron Park, this was my neighborhood restaurant. Then Iron Works and
then it became Compadres and in 2008, I had my retirement party there so I’ve been
watching it and live nearby. This is a photo of El Camino taken yesterday and it’s just a
feeling that I have that we have 9-minute oil, Compadres, we have Starbucks and a gas
station. Wouldn’t it be nice if we had some kind of overall design for El Camino? This is
the Starbucks where a car – you can see a car exiting and a car driving. I’m across the
street in front of the liquor store. This is again, a car exiting Starbucks and see the fire
hydrant there and along – just a long side of that door there, will be – which is now the
– was the entrance to Compadres. Will be the driveway down into the underground
garage. Yesterday, we noticed the Iron Works sign that’s still posted on the side looking
from Starbucks. So, it’s still there and one of our speakers -- we have talked about the
historic relevance of that building, which we would like to preserve and the Planning
Commission did recommend, in addition to three people approving the project, that it
do a full historic – that it continue with historic analysis before approving. This is also a
photo of the Compadres building and I know that the homeless people if they don’t go
there, they’ll go across the street to the alley on Military Way or sleep in the
underground Garage. Last Friday, March 31st, this is Julian [phonetics][Silvestie], he’s
the grandson of the original owner of Compadres and of Iron Works. [Gonzalos
Silvestie] who was born in Mexico in 19 –1898 and he came here to build and run the
store. This is in the architect’s office and we were shown some 28 or so objects that
were saved from the historic building. Here was a diagram that we show off the objects
that, I believe are the Iron Works objects that came from the original shop. This is a
photo of the parking lot that use to be the Compadres parking lot. I’m looking at it from
Curtner. This is what it looks like and there are trees on both sides. I think all those
City of Palo Alto Page 72
trees will be removed by the current plans. This is my – I found this picture. This is
what I assume the parking lot will look like underground and here is the diagram, which
you’ve seen before of the 62-parking spaces. That which is highlighted in blue on the
bottom is the 4-feet density enhancement exception, which they are asking for. I have
a great deal of concern about this underground parking lot. Notice that if I live there
and I come home with my baby and my groceries, I’m going to have to look for a
parking space. I’ve just paid $2.5 million for a townhouse that’s above me and how do I
get to my townhouse? I have no easy way. I’ve highlighted in blue some of the ways in
which you can get upstairs and then there are two elevators but we have packages and
there’s a great deal of issues surrounding this underground parking garage. I have a
statement here from – I checked – is that the 5-minutes?
Chair Lew: Yeah.
Ms. Bender: Ok, thank you.
Chair Lew: Thank you for to speaking and then Jeff [Levinsky].
[Mr. Jeff Levinsky:] I have a hand out for the Board Members. I’ll be referring to that
later. Good afternoon, Board – I'm not used to saying that. Good afternoon Board
Members and Staff. Firstly, a very quick thing. Sheldon mentioned that the ground floor
would be retail but I think the plans say it could be an office so it would be good to get
that clarified if it’s really being designed for retail or office. I have some concerns about
the historic review. The (inaudible) historic review for the building mentions that there
were – are original frescos that have been painted over on interior walls but say the
date and artist – but it doesn’t mention the artist at all and says the date is unknown.
However, the [Silvestie] family has identified the artist as [Renaldo Be Rubio], who
worked for the federal art project in 1930’s. His commissions include the Los Angelos
City Hall and the San Bernardino post office. I think that information should get into the
historic review and there should be an evaluation of the artist significances. The review
should also then evaluate whether the murals are restorable. It says that they have
been painted over but that doesn’t mean that they can’t be restored because that
would lead to some opportunities for historic preservation of at least the murals. Then
there are criteria in three of the historic review. It asked whether the existing building is
an example of a type a building that was once common. Then the review says well,
there weren’t many (inaudible) buildings constructed in Palo Alto in the 20th century so
it’s not common. However, there’s no reason why the review chose that particular
period of time to look at and the Adobe buildings were of course quite common in this
area in the 19th century and not the 20th. It’s – so, if you go back and look at the
criteria, the plain facts are that the building being Adobe, is of a type that was once
common in this area and is now indeed very rare. The review doesn’t get into it but
apparently, it may be the last such Adobe building left in Pal Alto altogether. When said
that way, the building does then appear to meet criteria for #3. Then I have some
questions about the concession for extra FAR and I’ve given you each a copy of some
of our laws. The minuscule code at 1815080A says that any request for concession and
I’ve to highlight this, shall be submitted with the first application for a discretionary
City of Palo Alto Page 73
permit for a development. Becky Sanders of the neighbor association asked the City for
copies of all the materials related to this and the documents she got back were all
dated in 2016, whereas the application went in in 2014. So, there’s a question, how –
was there information about the concession submitted with the first application as the
law requires? It goes on to say that the applications shall be on a form prescribed by
the City. The materials were given to Becky were not on a form prescribed by the City.
Then, down below on item four, there is says that if a concession is requested, there
should be included a brief explanation (inaudible) actual cost reduction achieved
through the concession or incentive and how the cost reduction allows the applicant to
provide the restricted affordable units. Well, there was not such explanation of any cost
reduction associated with the materials that Becky received. In fact, it’s a little curious
and you as Architectural Board Members might want to comment, how does extra FAR
reduce costs? Normally – well, we heard before that it was $500 a square foot to build
FAR so how does extra FAR, in this case, 2,600-square feet, lower the actual cost? I’ve
included for you the State law and the State law says that the – a concession means
something that reduces the actual cost of the project. So, it’s not clear to me what the
City is offering to provide, is actually a legal concession under the State law. There are
some problems there and I’m hoping that you’ll have a chance to address all that.
Thank you very much and I have to go.
Chair Lew: Great. Thank you, [Mr. Levinsky] and I just wanted to say – just give one
more chance to [Julian Selvestry] if he’s back. Excellent and you have 5-mintues.
[Mr. Julian Selvestry:] Good afternoon. Thank you for letting me talk. I just have a
short statement to read. My name is [Julian Gonzalos Silvestie]. I’m the grandson of
[Gonzalos Silvestie], the man that built the building at – on El Camino I would like to
request that you revisit the historical aspect of 3877 El Camino Real. The Adobe
building built by my grandfather [Gonzalos Silvestie] in the 30’s as a representation of
Mexican-American culture in California and my heritage. Many homes and businesses in
Palo Alto like Menlo Park and Atherton, still have the artist iron made from [Silvestie]
(inaudible). Allied Arts in Menlo Park is a treasure of Menlo Park in this great example.
Some of the other clients include Shirley Temple Black, the Dupont family, Sunset
magazine, James Gardner, (inaudible), way before Joe Montana. John Broady, Ricky’s
(inaudible) House, Alta Mesa Cemetery, Town and Country Village and the Romano
Street Historic District and many other businesses and homes in the area. Besides being
one of the last Adobe buildings in Palo Alto, there was also Fresco on one of the inside
walls done by a Mexican artist [Renaldo Bah Rubio]. Not only was the building an Iron
Works, it also served as a gathering spot for other artists and craftsperson in the area
and of the time. It would be a shame to destroy one of the last links between Mexican-
Americans and present Hispanic culture. On March 31st, last week, the architect had
shown us a few iron works saved in his back room, including labeled diagrams of all the
[Silvestie] items preserved. The [Silvestie] family hopes that Palo Alto will do a
complete analysis of this historic culture of the significance of the Iron Works
Compadres building as was recommended by the Planning and Transportation
Commission at its March 8th, 2017 meeting. Thank you very much.
City of Palo Alto Page 74
Chair Lew: Great, thank you. Ok, we’ll close the public comment period and bring it
back to the Board. Questions?
Board Member Furth: Thank you. We saw this project last – when did we last see this
project at the Board?
Mr. Ah Sing: It was in December of 2013 for the preliminary.
Board Member Furth: I don’t believe that’s correct. No.
Chair Lew: We had two – I’m not sure. I’ve seen it twice (inaudible)(crosstalk).
Board Member Furth: I’ve seen it before and I wasn’t here in 2013. So, we’ve got
another set of plans. I just can’t find any reference in the Staff report.
Board Member Gooyer: Looks like…
Board Member Furth: Yeah, November 15th, 2016? I think one of the steps of review fell
out of the Staff report so I found it. It was a preliminary review, was it? I’m not trying
to ask trick questions, I just got quite confused.
Ms. Gerhardt: The preliminary view was in 2013. I had been – you had asked a
question earlier. I was looking for that but I could not find the previous review so I will
keep looking.
Board Member Furth: Well, we have a set of plans dated November 23rd, 2015, which
are not the current version and we reviewed these because I found myself wondering
how many strangely constraint ‘L’ shaped projects next to a drive thru – fast food and
good coffee establishment do we have and I don’t see any reference to our previous
discussion or recommendations except in the applicant’s presentation. Dropping out
that piece of the experience, I think is both confusing to us and the public.
Board Member Baltay: Alex, if I – if she is finished?
Chair Lew: Wynne is you…
Board Member Furth: I’m finished.
Chair Lew: Ok. Mic? Wynne, you need to turn the mic off. Peter.
Board Member Baltay: Do we have any material samples for this project that we could
see?
Mr. Ah Sing: The applicant does have some.
City of Palo Alto Page 75
Board Member Baltay: Could you bring them up, please. If you’ve submitted a material
board, is that available? That would be – this is difficult.
Mr. Lait: I’m sorry, we can’t hear the conversation taking place. We need you to step to
a microphone if you don’t mind and Sheldon, can you respond to the material board
issue.
Mr. Ah Sing: Yes, we do have one. I can bring it down from upstairs.
Board Member Baltay: Yes, I would like to see that, please.
Male: I think you have the answer that you were looking for at this point but if you
another question, I’m more than happy to answer and we have lots of information
about the process that we have gone – come through as well and the chronology if you
like to have further info about that.
Chair Lew: Kyu, did you have any questions? Why don’t we wait – if it’s Sheldon, why
wait till he comes back.
Vice Chair Kim: I have maybe just a quick clarification question for the applicant. There
was some mention in the Staff report about garbage and how it’s going to be taken out.
Could you explain – could you repeat that information and explain to me whether these
are plastic rolling carts or larger metal carts?
[Mr. Walmack:] They are the smaller carts and the procedure will be that property
management will be responsible for bringing those carts from the two areas within the
basement that are designated for collection, up to a staging area on the property
adjacent to the curb by Curtner.
Vice Chair Kim: So, both of the garage garbage areas will be taken out to Curtner
Street?
[Mr. Walmack:] By property management, yes.
Vice Chair Kim: These bins are going up through the elevator or by ramp?
[Mr. Walmack:] No, no, up the ramp.
Vice Chair Kim: Ok.
[Mr. Walmack:] It seems like a lot of work to me but evidently, project management –
property management companies are used to doing this.
Vice Chair Kim: Ok. Then on the second floor of the mix use building on El Camino
where you have that second-floor retail/office space. Is there a restroom that those
office occupants…
City of Palo Alto Page 76
[Mr. Walmack:] The restrooms for the retail space has not been identified yet. The
assumption is that (inaudible) improvement plan will be submitted by whomever it is
that rents those areas, depending on how it is leased. The design solution for a single
occupant would be different than it would be if there are two.
Vice Chair Kim: Ok.
[Mr. Walmack:] Rather than try and anticipate how that might be used, we elected to
remain vague about that area.
Vice Chair Kim: Ok, thank you.
Chair Lew: Any other questions? Peter?
Board Member Baltay: I guess I’ll wait for the material board to get here but I really
want to understand what these materials are on the façade here.
Chair Lew: We can get back – we can return back to that. I have some questions for
you. Where is the electric transformer?
[Mr. Walmack:] The electric transformer that was identified for use on this project
recently is by the Chevron property. Quite a bit of work was put into to working with
the City to determine which of the transformers that are around the property could be
used and there are -- the Chevron transformer evidently wasn’t available when we
made our original application. That has been very well scrutinized by the City, Public
Works, and utilities so that there’s a high degree of confidence that that transformer is
appropriate for supplying this property.
Chair Lew: Ok, thank you. Then the garage – the underground garage is showing
pedestrian – well, wait. Let me go back for a second. For the townhouses, right? I think
you’re showing gates at the pedestrian entrances…
[Mr. Walmack:] Right.
Chair Lew: …but it’s not clear what is happening at the automobile entrances. So, at the
moment it looks like it – the automobile entrance is open but you could go up the
middle staircase to the units.
[Mr. Walmack:] The idea that we’re working on with the gating of the garage. It’s an
interesting challenge because, on the one hand, you want to make sure that customers
have access to the garage during business hours unimpeded. At the same point in time,
you’d like to have some degree of security after hours. So, the solution that we would
implode would be to have gates to the bottom of the ramps that would be deployed
only after hours. Those hours specifically are to be determined. I think probably
somewhere in the 8-9 o’clock PM, they would start to be – they would be closed. Then
City of Palo Alto Page 77
they would be opened again at 6 in the morning but yes, then once you’re in the
garage, our plan is to have one assigned parking spot per unit. Then the remaining
guest and commercial space would be available in a first come first serve basis. Once
you’ve entered the garage and found your parking spot. There are three points where
you can get out of the garage. Since all of the townhome parking is cluster essentially
on the Curtner side of the project and around that first corner. We have two stairways
that give you more direct access from the garage to those two points, plus an elevator
for people when they are carrying more than they want to or can carry upstairs or it
they aren’t able to climb the stairs, we have that elevator. In the mix use building has
its own elevator too, which serves not only to provide access to the flats but also
provide access to retail.
Chair Lew: You’re going to need – then there would be a gate at the – probably at the
middle staircase.
[Mr. Walmack:] Yeah, except that – in the case of where these staircases are, they are
behind the primary gates for the residential area. So, the gates would not necessarily –
like the gates into the garage. After hours, when the garage is closed and the primary
gates into the residential portion of the site are closed, the stairwells aren’t really an
area of concern.
Chair Lew: Ok. I think there were more questions from Peter and Kyu for Staff. Peter.
Board Member Baltay: Ok, I’m looking at your material board and I see Epay wood
siding for horizontal siding and you just presented us with a box of Trespa laminate.
Would you mind walking through the street elevation on El Camino and pointing out the
4 or 5 dominate materials and showing which ones they are, please?
[Mr. Walmack:] The material board which you are lookingg at probably predates the
most current submittal. As you are aware, the project has been before you for a long
time and the majority of the work that’s been done in the past – a couple of years has
been focused on addressing density and building placement and so forth. The one point
that was made very clearly by the Board on the last visit, was that natural wood sidings
really are just not appropriate for use on buildings of this type. What we are proposing
now to do is to use manufactured materials like the Trespa, which are sustainable and
very durable and they don’t fade. The areas on the El Camino Real elevation that you’re
looking at that have the appearance of being a wood like product are not wood. They
area Trespa product.
Board Member Baltay: Could I interrupt you? Please pull up an elevation from El Camino
and just point to the various elements and tell us what they are, please.
[Mr. Walmack:] Whoops, this is not my presentation. Thank you. That’s it. Like this
one? No, I don’t think so. There we go. Ok. Also, on sheet A-2.5, you’ll see the areas of
materials labeled. On the front elevation, you’re not really going to be seeing any
stucco at all. There’s not a lot of material here because there’s a lot of glazing but what
City of Palo Alto Page 78
you do see here that is a solid color or the wood like product. That’s all going to be
Trespa or Trespa like building system with a hidden fastener detail. It will produce a
clean and very durable and very presentable elevation. It will not be subject to the
deterioration that you raised as a concern with a wood product. The window frames
and all the metal components of the building will be a match aluminum finish. Then
we’re employing a sun shade system to help break down the massing of the building.
Maintaining visual continuity between the street and the retail area…
Board Member Baltay: Excuse me, please? I just asked for you to identify the materials.
Which Trespa panel…
[Mr. Walmack:] Oh.
Board Member Baltay: Which piece – I just want to know what is being proposed?
Stuart Welte: If I may assist? The brown color -- on this elevation, the brownish color is
the Trespa products. The horizontal lines are the rain screen products.
Board Member Baltay: Which Trespa product? There is a box of them over there.
Stuart Welte: These are – there are many, many options.
Board Member Baltay: Which one is proposed, please?
Stuart Welte: This one here is proposed. It’s all the same material. They have different
colors and textures and this one is to simulate a wood grain but it is a composite
material with – very durable as Mark was mentioning. That is the “wood” material. The
rain screen product is in the other box. The Tera 5 box, which is a terracotta product
and it – are the horizontal lines that run up along the building. Now, this product line
here, they make all these colors that are on the color chart but when they provide you
the samples, they can’t provide you a sample of that actual color – of your actual profile
in that color until you make an order. We are proposing this profile, which is the -- all
these are also called out by the way, in the set – the current set on the elevation sheets
as note tags but then – so it would be that product in a color to match the window and
door frame curtain walls. That’s an extruded terracotta product that is long so it’s the
long lines on the image that you’re looking at in the elevation. (Inaudible)(crosstalk)
Board Member Baltay: That’s what goes in front…
Stuart Welte: It basically looks like a Venetian blind.
Board Member Baltay: On the exterior of the glazing?
Stuart Welte: That’s correct.
City of Palo Alto Page 79
Board Member Baltay: Would it be the terracotta color or the silver color shown in the
elevation?
Stuart Welte: The elevation color and the color chart here – in – on the cover of the
box, they have their color chart.
Board Member Baltay: Ok and then the material for the columns, there’s these white
post…
Stuart Welte: The material for the columns is either going to be concrete or it’s going to
be clad in stucco.
Board Member Baltay: Beautiful. That’s a nice product. So, the columns are either going
to be clad stucco or they will be concrete but most likely, the structural engineer is
going to recommend that we clad them with stucco.
Board Member Baltay: Ok, I think that’s the end of my question. Thank you.
Stuart Welte: Sure.
Chair Lew: Kyu, did you have another – any other questions? Ok. I have some – I have
a question regarding the landscape. You have some storm water retention areas and I
was wondering if you could explain that and how those are placed in coordination with
the trees that are proposed on the property line? This is the property line or there’s a
property to the north on Curtner. I don’t have the address.
[Mr. Walmack:] The civil engineer on the project and the landscape architect on the
project coordinated and they worked together to concentrate the C3 retention in the
property within the 6-foot setbacks that occur all along either side of the parking
garage area. They recognized the challenges that they would face with making sure
they could plant trees in that space without interrupting the function and flow of the
storm water system. That is something they looked at very carefully and worked
together to resolve.
Chair Lew: So, are the trees – proposed trees in the retention area or are they in
between them? Are they in between the retention areas?
[Mr. Walmack:] They idea as it was presented to me was that the bio-retention area
would start and stop to allow placement for trees.
Chair Lew: Between them, great.
[Mr. Walmack:] Because the trees – they are not – they are incompatible.
Chair Lew: Got it. Ok, thank you. Ok, why don’t we move on to Board Member
comments?
City of Palo Alto Page 80
Mr. Lait: Chair, you’re getting – I’m sorry…
Chair Lew: Yes.
Mr. Lait: … over at that table. As you’re getting ready for your deliberation, we did find
that other study. Jodie, can or that other discussion regarding the project, Jodie can
speak to it.
Chair Lew: Sure.
Ms. Gerhardt: Yes, so there was a study session on December 3rd of 2015. So, it was a
study session, there wasn’t a vote at that time but there was some discussion about the
width of the courtyard off of El Camino, the depth of the below grade parking,
entrances – entrance routes to the residential units, automobile access to retail spaces
on El Camion Real, the calculation of lot coverage and ensure that that was done
correctly. Location of mechanical equipment and wood siding on the units. The Board
Members commented regarding the permitted office uses, the lack of parking space for
retail uses, lack of open space, height of housing at the rear of the property, the use of
the Epay wood siding, the west face glazing, locations of bike lockers, placement of
BMR units, quality and usefulness of the drawings and linking the building design to
surround businesses. There were questions about an alternate design for egress and
ingress automobiles.
Chair Lew: Great, thank you. Ok, are we ready for Board Member comments. Robert?
Board Member Gooyer: Actually, I’ve relatively happy with this design. I like it much
better than the previous one that we saw. I think the units work more. The – I
remember the – if I remember right, the last one, the parking garage was sort of 3 or
4-feet out of the ground and so now, it’s been pushed all the way down, which I think
is a big help. It just – the flow along the site is much better. I guess the main concern I
have is now seeing some of the – the colors are a little strange to me as far as some of
the mixtures. I think I have a little bit of a problem with that but other than that, I
could probably approve the project the way it is now.
Chair Lew: Ok. Peter.
Board Member Baltay: Thank you. Yes, I share Roberts sentiments that changing the
way the parking is done is dramatically improved a lot of other things about the project.
I also find coming in off of El Camino as a one-way entrance in is a very good solution.
It makes sense to drive in there. I heard and understand the neighbors’ concerns about
Starbucks being right there and it will be more difficult; you are correct. I still think it’s
much better than having people going all the way around to Curtner and come back in.
That would result in no parking. People stopping and looking for a spot and causing
even more trouble. We are compromising. I think this is one of those compromises that
works very well. The same things go to the comments addressed about traffic exiting
City of Palo Alto Page 81
on Curtner. Well, there’s no question that there will be more traffic driving on Curtner
because of this new building. At least it’s kept close to El Camino and there’s enough
space on Curtner now for it to be done safely and properly. The real issue is whether or
not you have this many new housing units coming into the neighborhood and this is not
a Board where we take that kind of issue up. That goes to the City Council. I find the
pedestrian circulation on the project really nice. The way you come in through these,
what I find fairly attractively designed gates. Especially the one on Curtner. I find the
massing on El Camino is improved. It fits, to my mind, more the desirability to the
street line. I find it intriguing that the historical aspect of the site and the older building
but again, I just don’t see what we can do about that. It’s important to save those old
parts of the old Iron Works but the new owner of the building has a right to build this
project and I can’t see what we can do about that. Again, maybe the City Council will
see otherwise. My concern and it’s not mollified by the presentation is that I just really
don’t understand what the materials are and the finished and how this rain screen
works. I’d like to suggest to my colleagues that we might be able to see this as a
consent item coming back to us, just to really understand because everything else
seems ok to me and I could recommend approval. Thank you.
Chair Lew: Kyu.
Vice Chair Kim: Yeah, thank you for your presentation. I also find that this plan is much
improved. Lowering the parking podium so that it’s completely underground is huge to
this project and I feel that the added ingressed to the garage parking from El Camino is
also a nice way to figure out the auto traffic underneath. I was taking a peek at the
older drawings and it – I think overall, it’s just a huge improvement as far as the
circulation throughout the site but I do still have a little bit of concern with vertical
circulation, especially for the residences. If you are living there, you really have no
choice but to park in the underground garage and I can just imagine if somebodies left
and you forgot your bag or something. To have to come back onto the site and to park
underground and then go back up. It – I could see it just being a real hassle. It’s – I
don’t see what else could be done really but maybe perhaps another elevator or just
some other vertical circulation options that would maybe ease that a little bit. I like the
bicycle stores that you have in the townhouse units. I notice that on the elevations,
there seems to be a pony wall of some sort towards the front of that bicycle storage. I
just hope that there’s enough clearance to be able to maneuver your bicycle in and out
of that bicycle storage without that pony wall having been kind of an afterthought. My
questions about trash have been answered. I would be ok recommending approval of
the DEE. I think it makes sense with the underground garage and overall, I think it’s a
great improvement. I think we do still need to see how these materials really mesh and
come together. The Trespa panels, are they going to be divided? It won’t be one
continuous shot of Trespa as shown in the rendering so it would nice to see some
additional construction details about how those come together and where those lines
meet. Overall, I’m pleased with the site planning and I think we’ve got something now
that really works and I’d be excited to see some of those things come back but overall,
I’m very pleased. Thank you.
City of Palo Alto Page 82
Chair Lew: Wynne.
Board Member Furth: Thank you. First of all, I want to apologize to Sheldon for not
trying to figure out what the date was and then asking you if I was right but I was quite
confused about whether if my own memory was correct. I agree that this is a much
more successful approach. I appreciate the responsiveness. I appreciate the more
useful outdoor spaces. I appreciate the attractive common open space that is set back
far enough from El Camino Real so that the noise level should be appropriate. I have
two concerns. One of the – I’m wondering if one of them is gendered, which is, this
looks like it’s designed by men for men. This is not an ok garage parking and access
arrangement. I am not coming comfortably into this building at 9 o’clock at night or
6:30 in the morning or 8:30 or 7 o’clock in the winter and entering a garage where I
can’t see whether there’s anybody else in it. Where I don’t have secure access so I
need to see a security plan for this garage. I don’t know what it involves. Ideally, of
course, it involves gates – roll up gates but this is not – I couldn’t make finding number
four. That this is ok for use by users. Maybe I don’t understand the terrific lighting and
the fact that you’re always in view of somebody else but this just reads as unsafe to
me. I wouldn’t be able to make that finding. With respect to the historic nature of the
site and the [Silvestie] family presence and the Iron Works presence. It was quite
startling to see the side wall and see the Iron Works sign and to see the tile. I suspect
that the lamps that are on El Camino are not [Silvestie] work at all. The remnants that
are shown in the [DUDEC] report is really gorgeous. We don’t have a program of
putting blue ceramic tiles on buildings to identify historic sites but you have some
choices that you can make about how you do things on this site and I would be very
supportive of the commemoration of the importance of this site. This is an important
family and an important person, an important link to the design of this City and you’re
designers and this is a predecessor of yours. One of the things that has been bothering
me a lot as I look at projects that come through is that they seem oblivious both to the
setting here in terms of our light air vistas and our history. We do have a history. We
didn’t just appear last year so I would be most interested in what you could do to
acknowledge and honor that which happened earlier on this site. As I say, my – the
thing that would keep me from recommending approval is that I don’t understand
access for residences to be safe or as safe as I think it should be in perception as well
as reality. I know we have relatively few assaults in this City but relatively few is not
very cheerful when you’re coming home with the groceries.
Chair Lew: Great. Thank you. I guess I have some questions for Staff. I just wanted to
try to respond to some of the public comments. Ok, so, I think Judy [Gittelsohn] has
asked to redo the traffic and transportation study and I wonder if Staff had a comment
about updating the traffic counts.
Mr. Ah Sing: So, the – I mean – the traffic study was conducted inconsistently with the
City standards so there’s not really a precedence to redo that unless there are other
types of substantial evidence that would contradict the information that we have.
City of Palo Alto Page 83
Ms. Gerhardt: That study has been reviewed by our transportation division. With this
comment, we will take that back and we can have our transportation team give a more
complete answer to that as well.
Chair Lew: Right so comment period is still open…
Ms. Gerhardt: We are (inaudible)
Chair Lew: …so they – we do have to – they do have to respond, right? We do have to
respond.
Ms. Gerhardt: We respond directly to the commenter, yes.
Chair Lew: Then I think also Ms. – (inaudible) we had the email – it may have been
from Dorthy Bender but I think there were comments about – by email about parking
on sidewalks and I think that’s outside of the Board – purview of the Board but does
the Staff have any idea about trying to address that?
Ms. Gerhardt: Yes, so our understanding is that there are rolled curbs along this street
and so some people are sort of pulling up onto the sidewalk and that’s blocking the
sidewalk. We would need to further check without Public Works Department, to see
what enforcement action could be done for that type of issue.
Chair Lew: Then Mr. Levinsky had a comment about the concessions and we have our -
- Palo Alto’s ordinance and there’s also the States directive to – for Cities to have their
own ordinance for BMR units. Could you explain how that happens? I mean, I’ve seen
that happen – we’ve seen that happen on other projects. It seems to me that’s held –
that kind of discussion is held at the Council level with regard to concessions. I’m
thinking of the project on Page Mill Road.
Mr. Lait: Yeah, well, on this particular case, I read that was – I’m having a little bit of a
problem now with my computer accessing this but I was glancing through the code
provision and I – the code does – the reference here is – does speak to application
requirements. It’s probably a little more detailed than we might stipulate for other types
of applications but if we don’t have in the record some of this information that’s being
requested and I don’t know if we’ve got the administration file here right now. We
should make sure that we have that as far as a record. As far as the concession goes,
the City does have a list of, what we call, on menu concessions and these are -- by
right a developer could ask for these – for this so there’s not a whole lot of discretion
involved in that aspect of the – of this part of the request. It’s just one of the ones that
are given.
Chair Lew: It doesn’t matter if it’s happening today versus hopping at say like a
preliminary from a year or two ago?
Mr. Lait: Right.
City of Palo Alto Page 84
Chair Lew: Because they didn’t – at the time, they didn’t ask but it wasn’t an official – it
wasn’t a…
Mr. Lait: This is the first formal…
Chair Lew: …first hearing.
Mr. Lait: Application.
Chair Lew: Today is the actual…
Mr. Lait: Well, the…
Chair Lew: I think this is the trigger that he sent. I mean, he’s saying that there’s…
Mr. Lait: What it says is that – shall be submitted with the first application for
discretionary review. This AR – I don’t know what are planning number is for this thing
but this is the first formal application and you know, the project also adjust and modify
in response to Board comments. I’m not particularly concerned about the timing of this
issue as it relates to our code.
Chair Lew: Great. Thank you. Ok, and I have a comment for Staff. If you go to – it’s my
packet, page 192. I think it’s condition of approval number 78 and 79. This is landscape
and trees. So, we actually – there are two 78’s and there are two 79’s and they are
different with regard to trees details and what not. This is just a – the conditions of
approval are a draft so I sort of understand that but I was wondering if there – do you
have a sense for which ones are the correct one or should we just follow that up in a
feature…
Mr. Ah Sing: I think they’re just formatting. Just a continuation of a number list.
Chair Lew: But they are actually different. I was reading them last night.
Mr. Ah Sing: I’m just saying that it goes 77, 78, 79 and then the second 78 should be
80 and then so forth.
Chair Lew: They are sort of different topics but they’re overlap – they are kind of
overlapping. Some of them are about landscape and some of them are about trees.
Anyway, I – let’s – I just wanted to point it out that there’s some inconsistency there.
In general, I’m also supportive of the project. I have a couple of concerns as well. The
one I mentioned before, which is the security. I think to Wynne’s point, I know female
friends who will not even go into the Whole Foods parking lot in Los Altos. It has the
underground garage. They won’t even shop there. They will only park on the surface lot
and if that’s full, they’ll go to another grocery store, which is crazy to me but that’s how
they feel. I have some concerns about that and also because it’s long and dark and
there are corners. So, it’s something unusual but it is a very difficult site I’ll grant you.
City of Palo Alto Page 85
Townhouses number one through five have second-floor balconies that look down into
397 and 399 Curtner. There may be 397 and 399 Curtner – it seems like it’s two units
and it seems like there are trees in there. They are not shown on the drawings that we
have but I did look at aerial photos and I have been to the site previously. I mean
normally the Board is concerned about second-floor balconies impacting privacy on
houses and it seems like this has five units looking down into a house. I’m concerned
about that. There are also townhouses – 8-11 also have balconies but there are trees
proposed on the project that would mitigate it but I don’t see any trees – new trees on
that shared property line. I think I also had a concern about the land – the quality of
the landscape drawings. I think that – I think some of the ideas that they see in the
landscape drawings look great but the conceptual planting plan isn’t showing any of the
location of the shrubs. I think we just have locations of some of the trees. You’re
showing a lot of the podium above the garage as green but I’m presuming that’s paved
or maybe there’s a raised planting area on top of the podium but there isn’t really any
information on that. Then we also have a native plant finding and I think a large – I
would say on the landscape, there are some really interesting California plants that we
don’t see on other projects so we do want to acknowledge that there’s something
interesting going in there. That there are a whole bunch of Australian and I think
maybe South American or south African plants there in the shrub list that --conceivably
to me, those could be – some of them could be native. Maybe a 1/3 or ½ of them could
be native plants without too much of a challenge but I don’t know where any of those
plants are going so it’s hard for me to make a judgment on that. It seems to me that
that needs more development before I could make the finding for landscape. I guess
my comment for the applicant is how are you thinking about the balconies up on the
second floor? How did those come about and are there mitigations for that to protect
the privacy to the neighbors?
[Mr. Walmack:] Those balconies were intended to just allow more light and air into the
bedrooms. They are very small balconies. In most cases only about 50-square feet so
they don’t function very well for a gathering spot for more than one person. I do
understand your concerns about privacy. We do not need these balconies to satisfy the
(inaudible) or open space requirements or any of the criteria of the zoning analysis so if
you would like to direct us to remove those, we can do that.
Chair Lew: Then could you comment on the existing property line plants or trees. Are
they all being removed?
[Mr. Walmack:] Most of those trees is invasive trees that were planted by birds and
squirrels. The trees that are on our property were identified as not working well without
landscaping plan with our C3 drainage so to the extent that we have to accommodate
so much infrastructure into the property. Yes, the trees on our side do need to go. The
two most important trees on this project are the oak tree behind the lube oil and then
the large Eucalyptus tree that is behind Starbucks. Our site plan was developed so that
we would make sure that we did not adversely impact either of those trees. The
arborist has looked at the plan and has (inaudible) a solution in terms of protecting
those trees. The City arborist was involved in that analysis.
City of Palo Alto Page 86
Chair Lew: Ok. When we have a – when we put in a multifamily project next to a
single-family house – actually can I ask is the Curtner (inaudible) is that zoned multi-
family as well? I guess my question is the performance standards. Do we have to – the
performance standards require screening of 10 – isn’t it 10-feet to single-family houses
and maybe duplexes. I think I need to see the exact language of the code, which would
include trees and shrubs that would provide screening within 5-years but let me confirm
with Staff. If this is all multi-familied, then does that – does the perimeter screening
requirement kick in? It’s under the performance standards. Yeah but this is in the
performance standards. I think in the RM-30, that’s where the link is. If it's next to low
density, then you have to do the performance standards.
Ms. Gerhardt: The contact space design criteria applies. Performance standards are not
in the RM section.
Chair Lew: Rm-30.
Ms. Gerhardt: Correct.
Chair Lew: Ok, those are – they’re in the commercial –it’s like when you have a
commercial project or a mixed use project next to a –but is this – would – since part of
this project is commercial, CS zoning. Would part of it be required to have the…
Ms. Gerhardt: Yes, so we look at whatever portion of the site is zoned commercial.
Then yes, you would be using those standards but for the rear portion of the sight that
is zoned RM-30, then you would be using the RM standards.
Chair Lew: Got it. Ok, thank you. Then my last comment is on building height. I don’t
know. The rest of the Board seems to be ok. When I was looking at the drawings, I
mean my first thought was that they are a little too high. Your 10-foot ceilings, I was
thinking could be 9-feet without affecting much. It might affect the retail space because
retail typically has higher ceilings but my thought was the 10-foot ceiling could come
down but I am the only one. I don’t see anybody – I didn’t see any other support or
comment about that from the other Board members. Ok, yes?
Board Member Furth: I’m sorry to be so iterative in my thinking. When I was looking at
the traffic study, I was looking at the discussion of pedestrian circulation and I didn’t
see much or maybe even any. I’m concerned – I think we need to have some
information about whether the time for rolled curbs on Curtner is over because it’s not
that a few cars are parked on the sidewalk. The entire sidewalk is blocked and infringed
upon and it’s not – I think we can also assume that enforcement will not solve that
problem. It’s going to require reconstruction of the sidewalk. I realize that this – that it
will be interesting to hear what experts have to say. I realize that this project has a
very small frontage on Curtner but this is a site and design review because this is a
complex project and a complex lot. It would not be unreasonable in my view if the
traffic engineers think that it would be a significant improvement to pedestrian safety
City of Palo Alto Page 87
and good access to reconfigure the sidewalk down to their – from El Camino down to
their frontage to do so. You do not ordinarily generate this number of trips out of that
kind of frontage. I don’t know what experts will say but I think it’s a problem as it
exists. Also, this is a small matter but this is going to be the most attractive section of
this block of El Camino Real for a pedestrian and I think it would enhance people’s lives
and wouldn’t diminish your project if, to the right of your entry and the left of your
driveway, that planter is an actual bench with a back facing the sidewalk.
Chair Lew: Ok. I did get a correction from Staff is that the performance standards are
required in the multifamily zone. I don’t think that I’ve seen – I think that has to come
back because we – I don’t think there’s enough information in the packet today for that
to make – for me to see that this is conforming. Peter.
Board Member Baltay: Let me bring Robert and my discussion here to the public I
guess. I am looking at the elevations of your buildings. Showing the second-floor
balcony as a large – A-3.9. It’s a large stucco projection with a metal railing on top and
by the elevation shadows alone, it seems to be projecting out at least a foot and I just
don’t see that on the floor plan anywhere.
[Mr. Walmack:] You’re right. That’s an architectural project, it’s not a balcony that
projects around the corner of the building. The shadow lines are somewhat deserving
because of a sharp sun angle but no, the balconies do not extend that far around.
Board Member Gooyer: So, the left elevation is basically the reality of what it actually
is?
[Mr. Walmack:] West elevation…
Board Member Gooyer: No, the one right next to that. That same sheet, it looks like it
bumps out…
Chair Lew: Like 6-inches or something.
[Mr. Walmack:] Yes, Yes. (Crosstalk)
Board Member Gooyer: (Inaudible) balcony, you can’t stand there or do anything there?
[Mr. Walmack:] No, n. You can’t even sneak out there.
Board Member Gooyer: If even that. Yeah.
[Mr. Walmack:] Yeah.
Board Member Baltay: I guess I’m maybe coming to listen more carefully to what my
colleague Lew is saying about the height of the buildings because frankly, these
drawings are a bit deceptive. Then having a projecting balcony like that in the middle
City of Palo Alto Page 88
does help to mitigate the height and yet, in reality, that’s just a decorative horizontal
piece that…
[Mr. Walmack:] It is.
Board Member Baltay: …is not projective.
Board Member Gooyer: (Inaudible)
Board Member Baltay: A couple times in this presentation frankly, I’m finding things
that just aren’t constant or fully thought through. The materials, the balconies now, the
trees and I’m wondering if this is intended to be a formal application for approval or is
this still at a schematic stage because these things count and we’re trying hard to find a
way to get this through. I don’t know if I am the only one feeling that but I think the
privacy issues (crosstalk)(inaudible).
Board Member Gooyer: (Inaudible)
Board Member Baltay: Robert is pointing out that there are very tall plate heights
relatively.
Board Member Gooyer: I’m just going by – if you look at 3.10, the section across the
top shows basically a clear space, it looks like, of 10-feet for the lower level. Floor to
ceiling and the top floor on -- the lowest point on a sloping ceiling is 9-feet. We could
easily – to lower the whole thing down, lose a foot or a foot in a half on the ground
floor and a foot on the upper floor or something like that.
[Mr. Walmack:] Well, you could but I would make the case that given the nature of the
existing neighborhood, which includes – well first of all, this example of the height of
our building visa via the flat roof 8-foot plate of the apartment building next to it and
then in relation to the massing of – come on – that building, which is pushing the 30-
foot height limit to the extreme. I think that – the applicant has done an excellent…
Board Member Gooyer: Wait a minute, you said that building is pushing the 30-foot
height limit?
[Mr. Walmack:] This building here is pushing the 35-foot height limit to the extreme. I
have a copy of the CDs and the average height of the highest roof on that…
Board Member Gooyer: You’re pushing 30-feet for two-stories; that’s three stories.
[Mr. Walmack:] No, I agree. I agree that we have volume in the middle of our building
to try and make the hallways more dramatic. I would feel more comfortable with
looking at lowering that massing of the building than I would in taking height out of the
living areas.
City of Palo Alto Page 89
Board Member Gooyer: Yeah but I have a feeling that if you do that, it’s going to make
it less – I like the proportion of the central part versus the other one…
[Mr. Walmack:] Right.
Board Member Gooyer: … so I think it makes more sense graphically if you want to call
it, to lower the whole thing, let’s say a foot and a half, than it would to lower just the
central part a foot and a half. I don’t think the result is going to be as good as if you
just – because the average person is never going to notice that.
[Mr. Walmack:] The people living inside will though.
Board Member Gooyer: You really think somebody is going to notice whether they have
12-feet or 13-feet?
Male: Yes. Absolutely.
Board Member Gooyer: I disagree with that.
Male: We question – we when are proposing the design that we feel has more interest
(inaudible)(crosstalk)
Board Member Gooyer: I tell you what, look, we’ve already been here for god knows,
what? 7-hours or something so I really don’t want to argue a foot, ok?
Male: We are happy to change it.
Board Member Gooyer: What we are doing is we are discussing – trying to get this
project through…
Male: Yes.
Board Member Gooyer: … and there have been some people that have a problem with
the height so I’m trying to come up with something – then maybe on your behalf
(crosstalk) (inaudible)…
Male: (Inaudible)
Board Member Gooyer: …let me finish. On my or on our side it’s, what can we do to get
this passed. So, if there is some concern here about a height issue, we’re now talking
about the possibility of doing that. It’s not where – you’re at 8-feet and if we cut a foot
out of it, people are going to be walking around with a 7-foot ceiling.
[Mr. Walmack:] I have a recommendation.
City of Palo Alto Page 90
Male: We do appreciate your creative thoughts. We do. We just sometimes feel like we
want to remind you of why we did what we did. We didn’t just do it haphazardly and
some of the elements that we have on the elevations that are bands, that are drawn in
a program called [Revit], which you fudge. So, the band (inaudible)(crosstalk)
Board Member Gooyer: I’m not worried about how it’s drawn. I’m just going by what
the dimensions are.
Male: So, the – I just want to remind everyone that the elements that we have on the
building as they are designed as thought out and they do have a meaning and a reason
to be there.
Board Member Gooyer: I understand.
Male: But thank you very much.
[Mr. Walmack:] I would recommend that we drop the upper story plate to 8-foot 6-
inches and that the clear story areas that define the center of the building be dropped
additionally. Not so much as to force the architecture and imbalance the design but
enough to bring some of the architectural elements down. There’s also the possibility of
the – that the – second – lower of the Chevrons, we might be able to look at
eliminating or altering that architectural element so that the overall perceived massing
of the building – because if you think of this building with just a standard gable roof on
it…
Board Member Gooyer: Ok. Well, I’m not the one that had the issue about the height so
what are we talking about? Are we talking about lowering the whole building a foot or a
foot in a half or what?
Chair Lew: What I –well, now I want to say two things. One is that I find this project is
much more desirable than the project – the recent project on Curtner because I voted –
and I voted against that one. The – because it is the three stories and we argued about
the roof for 4 or 5 hearings or whatnots. So, I think this project is way ahead of that
other project by far because you put the parking underground so I’m willing to – my
height thing is just something that -- I looked at the drawings – when I was just looking
at the drawings, it seems like they were high. I’m not necessarily – I won’t necessarily
require that the building is lower.
Board Member Gooyer: Ok.
Chair Lew: How’s that?
Board Member Baltay: My comment about the height Alex, has to do with the fact that
without these projecting balconies…
Chair Lew: Yeah, the balconies…
City of Palo Alto Page 91
Board Member Baltay: … it changes things…
Chair Lew: Yes.
Board Member Baltay: … and I’m just not sure we’re really understanding or seeing
what’s really being proposed.
Chair Lew: Yeah, the balcony thing seems odd. Ok.
Board Member Gooyer: The balconies you can’t even walk (Inaudible)
Chair Lew: Do we…
Mr. Ah Sing: Sorry, (inaudible) Chair…
Chair Lew: Yes?
Mr. Ah Sing: …(inaudible) packet does include the performance criteria for the project.
Chair Lew: Ok.
Mr. Ah Sing: I know you mentioned previously about that. (Inaudible)
Chair Lew: Ok, thank you. So, why don’t we get an (inaudible) with the Board? It seems
that there is support – generally, support of the project. If there are the thing that can
come, they could come back to subcommittee. Peter, you mentioned consent. I think
Staff is saying that we don’t really have a consent (inaudible)(crosstalk)
Board Member Baltay: I meant subcommittee. I misspoke.
Chair Lew: Is there – so for all the items that have been mentioned, do we want – do
we think that subcommittee is appropriate?
Board Member Gooyer: What’s that?
Chair Lew: Like the landscaping (inaudible)
Board Member Gooyer: Yeah, I think those – the same thing with the whole relationship
of the exact colors and all that sort of thing.
Chair Lew: The colors and materials.
Board Member Gooyer: I think – to me, it seems like… (crosstalk)
Chair Lew: If it comes back to subcommittee, we don’t all see it.
City of Palo Alto Page 92
Board Member Gooyer: … it seems like the longer I sit on things like this or whatever.
Everybody is always worried about privacy. I swear it seems like everybody assumes
their neighbors a – trying to peek into their – I mean, I’m not that concerned about the
balconies. I really don’t think – it’s not a huge balcony. Basically, 99% of it is tucked
inside the building envelop almost so you’re – and it you sit back there, with a 3-foot
rail, you’re not going to really see anything anyway. Not down to the neighbor next to
you. So, I don’t have that much of a concern about it.
Chair Lew: Ok.
Board Member Gooyer: I think if we leave the design with the balcony, then the
proportion for the height is ok.
Chair Lew: Got it.
Board Member Baltay: Can we get the privacy issues mitigated with landscaping at the
boundary? I mean that would make more sense I think, in this case, to get a
landscaping plan (inaudible)(crosstalk)
Chair Lew: Right, so I think we don’t have the landscaping plan, which is – right?
Board Member Gooyer: We were talking about maybe (inaudible) (crosstalk)…
Chair Lew: This is not that…
Board Member Gooyer: … have better-refined landscaping plan for a subcommittee.
Board Member Baltay: If I could ask Staff, does this – goes before the City Council as
well for approval?
Chair Lew: Yes, (inaudible)
Mr. Ah Sing: Yes.
Board Member Baltay: So then, I think it’s incumbent on us to make sure that this is
well presented to City Council with – a lot of these question that we are asking for
(inaudible). The thought of City Council looking at this and saying we approve it and
then these questions coming up is not good. Maybe it is better if this comes back to us
directly and not on subcommittee but rather we can really see that these things have
been resolved and get this presentation also so that it’s clear. Honestly, gentlemen,
there have been a lot of questions that should have been already presented.
Chair Lew: Any other thoughts? Wynne.
Board Member Furth: Yeah, the – I would like to see the parking lot security issue
addressed. I want to know how that’s solvable. I do not have a parking lot phobia.
City of Palo Alto Page 93
Board Member Gooyer: I think with a gate – I don’t think – I mean I think that’s easily
enough solved. This isn’t the first…
Board Member Furth: In my experience as a human being wondering around the
peninsula, it frequently isn’t. If this was going to be gated – my sister lives in a Seattle
apartment building with roll up a gate but it’s in a mixed used building but there’s a
separation between residential parking and non-residential parking.
Board Member Gooyer: Right, there usually is. There’s an intermediate rolling gate.
Board Member Furth: So, that doesn’t appear to be possible here. It maybe that lighting
and cameras and where you locate – which kinds of spaces can make this reasonable
but I do not think it’s a trivial issue and I don’t think it arises out of unreasonable
perceptions. It may very well arise out of different perceptions.
Chair Lew: Ok, so I’m hearing – here’s my list. So, parking and security, landscape
screening that complies with the performance standards, all the materials, colors
labeled on the drawings and then Wynne, I think you had a suggested some sort of
commemorative something. I don’t – whatever that could be.
Board Member Furth: And a bench.
Chair Lew: A bench.
Board Member Gooyer: And a bench.
Chair Lew: Did you not see the seat mounds?
Board Member Furth: It doesn’t have a back (inaudible). (Crosstalk)
Chair Lew: Ok, have I missed…
Board Member Furth: (Inaudible)
Chair Lew: Sure. Another – that’s not a motion. I shouldn’t make the motion. Somebody
else should make the motion but I did want to highlight those five items.
MOTION
Board Member Gooyer: Well, why don’t we just say that if you have all those items, I’ll
make a motion that uses those items.
Chair Lew: And we’re – you’re saying it’s a motion to continue the project…
Board Member Gooyer: Sure.
City of Palo Alto Page 94
Chair Lew: … and are we picking a date?
Board Member Gooyer: Do you want to do a date or I guess a lot of that depends on
how quickly you can get back or do you just want to leave at a date uncertain?
Chair Lew: It’s better to pick a date because then we don’t have to notice, right? We
don’t have the same notification and then if you have to – if something comes up and
you have to bump it, I think that the Staff can work with that.
[Mr. Walmack:] The sooner the better.
Chair Lew: Then…
Board Member Gooyer: So, what’s the next available…
Chair Lew: Well, the next – well, I’ll let Staff do this.
Ms. Gerhardt: I mean, I’m assuming you’re wanting at least a short Staff report that
summarizes these things and so 5/4 – actually, we’re already late for that Staff report
so really 5/18 would be – that only give us maybe a week or two to fix up the plans.
Board Member Gooyer: Ok, let’s go – I guess go with that then.
Ms. Gerhardt: So, May 18th.
Board Member Gooyer: So, we’ll do it a date certain of 5/18.
Vice Chair Kim: I’ll second that motion.
Chair Lew: All in favor? Opposed? None. That’s 5-0 so we will see you in May. Thank
you.
MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY 5-0
Mr. Lait: Chair, if we can have just a couple minutes to set up for the next item?
Chair Lew: We will take a 5-minute break.
6. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 744-748 San Antonio Avenue
[15PLN-00314]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a
Major Architectural
Review to Allow the Demolition of Two Existing Commercial/Office Buildings at
744
and 748 San Antonio Avenue and Construction of Two, Five-Story Hotels
(Courtyard
by Marriott with 151 rooms and AC by Marriott with 143 rooms). The Site Will
City of Palo Alto Page 95
Include Surface and Two Levels of Basement Parking. Environmental
Assessment: A
Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) has Been Prepared Pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Public Comment Period for the
DEIR
is From March 27, 2017 to May 10, 2017. Zoning District: CS. For More
Information,
Contact Sheldon Ah Sing at sahsing@m-group.us
Mr. Lait: Is he back here?
Chair Lew: Kyu?
Mr. Lait: Yeah, did he leave?
Chair Lew: Kyu left so I need to his recusal for him.
Mr. Lait: Are you going to explain why’s he’s recusing?
Chair Lew: Yeah, and then we have disclosers as well. I should make an
announcement. We have item number six. Is a public hearing on a quasi-judicial matter
for 744 and 748 San Antonio Avenue. Recommendation on applicant’s request for
approval of a major architectural review to allow the demolition of two existing
commercial office buildings at 744 and 748 San Antonio Avenue and construction of
two, five-story hotels which are the Courtyard by Marriott with 151 rooms and AC by
Marriott with 143 rooms. The site will include surface and two levels of basement
parking. Environmental Assessment is a Draft EIR has been prepared pursuant to the
CEQA and the public comment period for the DEIR is from March 27, 2017, to May 10,
2017, and the zone district is CS. We have the Staff report but I think that I should
announce that Vice Chair Kim is recused on this item because he has a working
relationship on another project, not related to this one, with Randy Pop, the project
architect for this item. I think we also have disclosures from other Board Members.
Board Member Baltay: Yes, I did meet with architect Pop in my office last week where
we discussed the project and he outlined what he was where the various merits of it. Of
interest was that he felt that he and the City Council were in agreement with what the
contextual nature of this site was and then that this was very much in context, in his
opinion. That’s – thank you.
Chair Lew: Wynne?
Board Member Furth: I met with architect Randy Pop in his office. I – we went over the
images that are part of the official packet but more slowly and larger setting. We
discussed my previously raised concern about how to minimize the risk of up back-ups
from the hotel driveway into San Antonio travel lanes. He mentioned that there would
be 24/7 valet parking to address that. The shuttle would be unloaded to the rear of the
City of Palo Alto Page 96
properties and there was no event space in the hotels. I’ll just mention that in looking
at the TDM, I don’t think I saw references to all those and I don’t believe that there’s
anything else that is not in the public record that we discussed. (Inaudible)
Chair Lew: Robert? No. I will disclose that I talked to Randy Pop on the phone on March
14th about some other items as well as this particular project and there’s nothing that
we discussed that isn’t in the Staff report or the drawings. Sheldon?
Mr. Ah Sing: Ok, thank you again. I do have a PowerPoint presentation and the
applicant is here with their PowerPoint as well. You got a good introductory there. The
location it’s along San Antonio between Leghorn and Middlefield and it’s right on the
boundary of the City of Mountain View, as well behind. We are here this afternoon,
Staff – while we did provide findings, they’re just the base findings. There’s no
recommendation of approval for instance so just reconsideration to conduct a hearing.
Seek input on the EIR, which is now in circulation. As well as input on the architectural
review itself. I do want to mention that the Draft of the Environmental Impact Report,
there is one unavoidable significant impact to the historic resources on site. There’s no
mitigation to demolish a potential eligible historic structure so just to highlight that. The
project requests for architectural review. There’s also a parking adjustment up to 20%,
that is for the valet parking or parking spaces that are within the drive aisle so they are
not standard parking spaces per code. There where previous meetings for this project.
The preliminary Board meeting in June of 2015. There were concerns at that time
regarding massing compared to the surrounding. Some of the relationship of the
building to the driveway and entries. There was one formal ARB meeting in December
2015. At that time, the applicant did revise the plans to step back the front façade.
They did push the mechanical equipment to the center of the buildings. Generally,
though, the buildings are separated. The brands, the two brandings are separated.
There is also an additional meeting that was specifically for the Environmental Impact
Report. It was a required scoping meeting that was conducted in March of last year and
we hear from the public concerns about traffic, water, esthetics for instance. The site
plan for the project, there’s a 24-foot special set back along San Antonio. The street
trees would remain there but the balance of the site would be raised and that includes
the two different buildings – the two different properties and also the eligible historic
building. The projects include two different branded hotels by Marriott; just different
brands. They are five-stories at about 50-feet. That includes a driveway down the
center. There’s a circular round-a-bout there that would service the lobbies and the
applicant can describe a little bit more about the operations there in regarding the valet
parking. There is some surface parking towards the rear and there’s a ramp that leads
down to a full basement and there’s like a smaller second level for basement parking.
Not a full site level but just a smaller segment. This drawing here demonstrates the
front elevations. They have some perspectives there but it’s a little difficult to tell from
the front of what’s going on but you can see where the applicant has proposed some
erosion of the building to step back from San Antonio. That’s their response to some of
the massing along that street and there’s some articulation along the sides, although
that is still roughly about 10-feet setback but there’s some articulation there. This does
show a little bit more about what’s going on in the cross section of that and especially
City of Palo Alto Page 97
in relation to the residence across the street. You can see that line demonstrates the
height of the greenhouse residences and how that relates to the new buildings where
they do step back from the street from the third-level. There’s approximately about
200—feet difference between the buildings there along San Antonio. I thought this was
maybe one of the other better drawings to show the stepping back. The roof plan, you
can see again, from the different levels of how that occurs at the front. That doesn’t
necessarily occur on the other sides or the rear particularly. Again, I wanted to stress
the side. There is – you are going up five-stories and it kind of just drops down. In
adjacent to the site, you’re going to have existing buildings that are relatively low
intensity at this time. It could go to .4 FAR but they probably wouldn’t be as passive as
this project is because it does allow up to 2.0 FAR. Some of the keys issues there that
we want to highlight and we do in the Staff report, is the architecture, the context
compatibility, the site plan and some of the environmental issues. As I mentioned, that
the surroundings include low-scale commercial residential institutional buildings. These
are all FAR around 0.4 or less, along that stretch. The project again, would include two,
five-story hotels and that’s – on this block, is – would be the tallest structure. San
Antonio road is a wide infrastructure. It’s four lanes and it’s a divide street. This exhibit
does – diagram shows the present FAR along San Antonio. You can see, again it’s
roughly .4 or so. You have some really low ones there because they are gas stations.
There’s not really much – but definitely at 2.0, this would be one of the larger buildings
in the area. I wanted to mention a little bit about the parking. This project provides 294
spaces, 278 of those are in the two-level basement. There are 236 self-park and 58
valet spaces and valet spaces are located in the drive aisles as I mentioned as they are
not standard parking space so therefore they have to apply for the parking adjustment
and the 20% equates to 58 spaces. A transportation monument program has been
proposed for the project. That reduction was not calculated into the traffic study so the
traffic study just shows what the net trips would be on the traffic and it didn’t not count
for the transportation demand management so they wanted to be on the conservative
side there. Moving on to the CEQA. The Environmental Impact Report was required
because of – mainly the cultural resources unavoidable impact. The scoping meeting
was conducted on March 3rd to get comments on what should be studied for the impact
report and that draft impact report was circulated on March 27th and that will be – we’ll
be getting comments on it through May 10th. Again, the potential impacts would be on
air quality, that’s with construction. You have biological resources, again, some of the
same things we had mentioned in the past project. The cultural resources, there’s an
existing building on site that I’ll mention in just a little bit that’s eligible for historic
listing. Then you hazardous and hazardous materials on the ground that there’s
mitigation for so all those can be mitigated except for the cultural resource. Just
speaking to that, the structure was erected in 1961. It was used as a mortuary -- a
funeral home and there was a significant rear addition in 1983 but end despite that,
based on the evaluation, it’s eligible for listing on the California Register due to its age
and also the characteristics of its mid-century modern architecture. Just the timeline on
the EIR and what’s coming up next. Responding to public comments that do come in, to
complete the mitigation monitoring program. We’ll have to come up with statement of
overriding considerations for the unavoidable impact and the then the certification of
the final EIR by the City Council. In conclusion, the project complies with the objective
City of Palo Alto Page 98
developments with the exception of parking. They are asking for that adjustment. The
ARB has identified some issues in the past regarding compatibility and overall massing
in previous meetings and we do believe that many of those concerns have not been
adequately addressed so we are – in the next steps, seeking some direction from the
ARB on this. We want to concluded the circulation period, respond to those comments,
received recommendation from the ARB and then that would be forwarded on to City
Council to decide on the architectural review with the parking adjustment as well as
certification final EIR. Today what we are asking is to review and comment on the draft
EIR and continue the project to a date uncertain for redesign. That concludes my
presentation and I’d be happy to answer any questions you have.
Chair Lew: Why don’t we – are there any questions or we can do the applicant
presentation now? Why don’t we do the applicant presentation and you’ll have 10-
minutes and then we’ll do the public comment period and I do have four speakers for
that. Sure, Wynne.
Board Member Furth: So, I just wanted to ask Staff to explain the CEQA process on this
project a little bit. We’ve been looking at this, at least on an informal basis, for some
time and the scoping session was held March 3rd on the environmental review?
Mr. Ah Sing: Of 2016.
Board Member Furth: Thank you. I was thinking that you were running on a very
compact schedule.
Chair Lew: Ok, so you have 10-minutes.
Mr. [Mont] Williamson: Good afternoon Board, it’s nice to be here. My name is [Mont]
Williamson representing the owner of this development. I just have a couple thoughts
before our team does their presentation. We were here in front of you 16-months ago
and we were in front of the community in a session about 18-months ago so it’s been
that long since we were in front of you all. We’ve been busy this last 16 and 18-months.
I want you guys to know that we listened to what he heard from the community and
we listened to what we heard from you. The two issues we heard where from you folks,
mostly massing. The idea of taking this project that was designed around the perimeter
of the land and putting it more in the center is what we feel we heard. I want to know
that we studied those options and we have some slides to show you the effort we put
into it. More mentally, the slides are simple but we did really work hard to come up with
a successful hotel using just the very center of this land mass. We didn’t think it was
super successful so we went back to our original idea and have a presentation for you
to show what we’ve done to improve. On the community side, traffic is what we heard
the most. We’ve spent the last 16-months with the City on an environmental impact
report that we feel shows the facts on the impact of traffic and we worked hard at that.
We also care about that issue so we’re hoping the whole group can look at those facts
and understand the true impact of traffic. So, we are here hoping to get approval. I do
want you to know that we’re – we want you to understand the efforts we’ve put forth
City of Palo Alto Page 99
and we’re here to listen. If there are some tweaks that we can do to gain that approval
but what we have in front of you is roughly what we think works and we are on a
timeline with Marriott. We have convinced Marriott to stay with us for the last year and
a half, largely because Council went on record about 16-months ago saying they like
the project and they’d like us to push forward. That helps us convince Marriott to stay
with us. We are still on a tight timeline so here’s our team presentation.
Mr. Randy Pop: Alright thank you. Randy Pop, architect. We all know each other so
thank you for sticking around so late today to go through this with us and I’ll try and
move through this very quickly. As everyone says, we’re trying to move forward and we
know what the issues are and we feel we’ve responded to those in a thoughtful way
and I’ll take you through that quickly. In regard to the EIR process, Sheldon did a great
job summarizing that for us but I wanted to just point out that everything other than
the historic aspect of this site, which we hear Council is going resolve through a
statement of overriding concern, produces a less than significant impact. Traffic,
acoustics and even aesthetics that wherein the EIR were resolved. Just very briefly,
right? Here’s our context. This hotel – this site as many of you have said is in the right
place and we’re near demand. We’re going to reduce (inaudible). It’s on Palo Alto land.
Many of you have heard, this generates $3.5 million dollars of (inaudible) a year so a
very valuable project for the City. This is our context – there is goes. Not what today’s
zoning encourages. Over time this area is changing. The JCC, Hausner, it’s near Linkin,
it’s near Google. I would be challenged to bring something like this to the Board today
and so we heard you and we tried to really study what we heard from you. These three
diagrams are really simple little diagrams but there was a lot of work and a bunch of
days spent the sort of studying these things and I’m just trying to bring you along with
us in the process. I apologize because over the course of the time that we were
working on them, we were sort of rotation the diagram and so San Antonio is on the
left and then at the bottom and then on the right so I’m sorry about that. What we are
looking at here is how to shift the mass of the building to the center and if we do that,
we need a fire lane that goes around the outside, there is parking that goes around the
outside. We lose the brand identity because we don’t have the duel brand buildings
anymore; pretty difficult. Even farther from that, there’s just no way to keep the room
count. We’re dropping from 294 down to 220 to 210. I didn’t even show you the option.
It’s just a single bar building in the middle that was down at like 140 and so they are
just no longer economical. It just loses its ability to really be a financially viable project
at that point and beyond that, we really felt that surrounding a building in a sea of
asphalt is not really an appropriate tactic. Based on all of that, we went back to our
earlier concept and thought about how can we really start to adjust and respond within
the framework of what we had and so doing that, looking south, we really wanted to
show you what it looks like. I went out in the street. I took pictures. We had a renderer
insert these pictures into – insert the model into the pictures for us and want you to
really see how things will change and what it will look like. We’ve – as Sheldon has
mentioned, made some changes to this building where the last version you saw kind of
had some eroded corners but still had a five-story mass on El Camino. We’ve pushed all
that back to the middle of the site now and the three-story element that’s on San
Antonio really a response to the pedestrian experience and to the contextual
City of Palo Alto Page 100
compatibility guild lines to the scale of the buildings that are in the vicinity of that and
what is coming in that area. Just moving on, still looking south but this I the pedestrian
perspective and I want to – oh I lost my clock. I don’t know how far I have gone here
in terms of time. My clock turned off.
Chair Lew: 4- minutes.
Mr. Pop: 4-minutes, alright thank you. I’m going quickly so we get through this. In the
for the ground you see (inaudible) and the trucks and the chain link fence and it’s too
close to the street. Then beyond that at 760, you see the concrete box and beyond
that, in the current photo, you see this corrugated metal building and that is something
that we are planning to replace. Frankly, what we are proposing improves on all of this.
It really is just so much better to resolve this 24-foot setback and terrace the building
back and maintain that kind of height that is so consistent with what is across the street
from it. Then looking north, again you can see, I think how successful the terracing is.
Really pulling the mass of the building back and away from the street in a way that we
heard everyone wanted and what we’ve attempt to really resolve. Taking a look at that
in this other direction, Sheldon already took you through this section so I won’t belabor
that but what we did is in order to achieve this changes the types of rooms that are in
the AC. We had some rooms that were two keys and modified that so it’s just one key
so we’re taking mass out there and we’re shifting the mass around to the back and into
the inside to where that green area is. It’s really much easier to see on this upper level.
Sheldon showed you kind of a roof plan of this but just diagrammatically at the top
floor, you can what we are doing is removing the double loaded corridor at the front.
We’re creating some really deep terrace and pulling the building back and all of that
mass is either being removed or shifted around in other ways but we’re staying at that
2.4 or 2.0 FAR. I wanted to just touch on that FAR for a minute. What we heard from
Council recently in their discussion of the Comp. The plan is that they are moving the
FAR. They are moving the FAR to 2.5. They want bigger hotels, they want more of this
and you zone for what you want. Hoping that your incenting people to create it. Then
it’s up to use as architects to craft that on the site in a way that works. Hopefully, I'm
bringing you along in a way that shows you that we’ve gone back, we’ve tried to study
how to compress this more to the middle. I resisted putting a picture of the Luxor Hotel
in the presentation but I think that what we are trying to do here is pretty reasonable
with buildings that have a base, a middle, a top. They’ve got character. The corners are
different from the middles. There’s a lot of articulation here and responding particularly
to Board Member Baltay’s comments. This three-story glass element that opens the
building up and is very inviting. The same thing is happening at the Courtyard. We’ve
got very similar tactics that we’re taking. You can see how just the eroded corner from
the 12/15 hearing has changed now to a much broader building and just – I want to
just touch on materials before my times up. These are some examples of what
Courtyards and ACs look like in other areas. For Silicon Valley and for Palo Alto in
particularly, we know that those need to be elevated. We bring you A+ materials here.
They are beautiful, they are durable, they are crisp. You’ve got the sample board and
we brought some additional material to show you what the metal panel – the thickness
of it. What the character of that Venetian plaster. It’s very smooth and hand applied.
City of Palo Alto Page 101
These are beautiful, durable, crisp material. Really consistent with the brand standards
are but at the same time, elevated in quality. I dropped in really quickly this image of
the shading to show you that there really is very little to no effect, that the building
height is creating around it. The only place that we’re really impacting is a wall that has
no windows. Just in summary here, we’ve spent quite a bit of time studying the site.
We’ve got other information here that I can take you through if you like but I want to
leave it – ah, perfect. I want to leave it with this image and let use have some
discussion about where we are and hopefully come to some resolution. We’re open to
any ideas. Thank you.
Chair Lew: Thank you, Randy. I’m sure we will get back to you with a lot of questions.
Let’s do the public comment period now and so we have Pat [phonetics][Starett] and
then followed by Joan [phonetics][Betzurey], then Joan [Lariby] and Nancy Martin.
Ms. Nancy Martin: First of all, I’m not Pat. I’m Nancy Martin but Pat had to leave and
she gave me her objections to read. They are hand written to bear with me. I’ll have
trouble with her handwriting. Her main concern is traffic and where is the emergency
vehicle problem addressed in the EIR? We know under CEQA, I guess emergency
vehicles are exempted but are they exempted under all codes? Where is this
addressed? Which code exempts this problem? I mean constantly you’re hearing
emergency vehicles going to accidents and problems down on 101 and they use San
Antonio and they use Rengstoff and this is going to cause huge problems – traffic
problems. The left on Leghorn is the – is inadequately addressed. It is a tragedy waiting
to happen. How do the emergency vehicles get around to attend a fire or a medical
issue? Nowhere did I see in the EIR where this problem was addressed. What about
emergency vehicles going to 101 to help with an accident? Please tell me why these
issues have not been researched? How many people are going to use the shuttles? Not
discussed. Numbers from the studies do not override the human element – do not
consider the human element in the area. They count. They are real and are already
there. The tables used in the report are just numbers. It looks like they share this
information and then wave the magic wand and they see how the problem disappears.
A good fairy is a children’s fairy tale and how modern problems disappear. This is Pat.
Thank you.
Chair Lew: Thank you. Joan [Betzurey].
[Ms. Joan Betzurey:] This have been a marathon. I’m here as a concerned homeowner
and I’m at Greenhouse one and I would like to strongly request that the ARB will not
and I repeat will not approve demolishing of the two existing buildings at 744 and 748
San Antonio Road. My reasons for that are as follows. 744 has been designated as a
historic resource per EIR point 3.4.3 and I quote, “744 San Antonio Road demolition
would result in the loss of a California Register eligible structure and mitigation
measures would not reduce this impact to a less than significant level. The project,
therefore, would result in a significant unavoidable impact to historic resources.” Also,
we find that there are realistically major problems and issues that continue to be
associated with this project with Marriott and as a result, approval could be
City of Palo Alto Page 102
questionable so why demolish two perfectly viable buildings? Some of the major on-
going problems and issues are being addressed at today’s meeting. We are submitting
comments to the EIR and as a majority of its conclusions of less than significant impact
is not based on complete or current data or information, which therefore makes those
conclusions questionable. As an example, I would like to refer to the Comprehensive
Plan policies, especially to the aesthetics and visual resources that apply to this project.
That would be L-5 and L-5 states, maintain the scale and character of the City. Avoid
land uses that are overwhelming and unacceptable due to their size and scale. With L-5
in mind, I refer Board Members to EIR 3.1.2.2, which has a questionable conclusion,
which is impacts to existing visual character. Comparison pictures are included showing
the existing site compared with the proposed site. I’ve brought here a high tech. copy
of that picture of the comparison. When you look at this, you can’t help but question
how the existing site comprised of single-story commercial buildings with trees, with
open space, is not visually degraded – thank you. Is not visually degraded by the
proposed massive, high-density, unattractive, five-story hotel structures, which are not
compatible with the neighborhood. I again ask the Board to deny permission of the
demolishing of the two buildings. Thank you.
Chair Lew: Great. Thank you and Joan [Lariby].
[Ms. Joan Lariby:] Good afternoon Board Members. It’s nice to see you all again. I’m
Joan [Lariby]. I’m a longtime resident and property owner here in Palo Alto; at 777 San
Antonio Road which is Greenhouse One. I’m opposing the construction of two hotels at
744, 748 and 750 San Antonio Road. This two-acre site should be reserved for housing.
The Comprehensive Plan is stating that in the next several years, we can expect 3,400
more employees – people working here in Palo Alto. These 3,400-people come but not
by themselves. They bring a spouse, the bring a baby and increasingly they are
bringing the grandparents so these families are going to need a place to live and we all
know that Palo Alto has quite a shortfall in available housing. This is a good are for
families where I have lived for the last 34-years and where my daughter graduated
from Gun High School. We have the Mitchell Park library, we have the Mitchell Park
Community Center, we have the YMCA that’s open to everybody, the Jewish Community
Center is open to everybody. We have the San Antonio station for Caltrain just down
the block. The primary land use along San Antonio Road from 101 to Alma Street is
housing. We don’t see it when we drive by because everything is very nicely landscaped
with nice pretty walls. One whole – about three blocks of it is single-family housing.
There are two schools as we know. There’s a daycare center so this is a good place to
live and I would suggest that the 2-acre site could have maybe what, 30-35
townhouses or condos. That’s my primary reason for opposing it. The next reason is
because of reading the EIR. The Environmental Impact Report is incomplete for two
hotels. The soils and water studies were done at least two years ago and they only
studied in one of the parcels, 744. I couldn’t find any data for the 748 and 750 acres;
it’s almost an acre. That’s the site where the Courtyard by Marriot is being planned.
They were done when the planning was only for one underground level of parking.
Now, we have two underground levels of parking but the studies were only done down
for one level of parking so you’ve got to go down another 10 or 12-feet; certainly, more
City of Palo Alto Page 103
than that. The water underneath this site is a major aquifer for Santa Clara County and
in 2015, the engineers in the EIR said that it would take 10-months to dewater this site.
This is under appendix H section 3.3. At that time, the water table was at 7 ½-feet
below grade but they pointed out that during wet years, the water table rises to only 4-
feet below grade and friends, we know we have had a very, very wet winter. Palo Alto
goes 28 ½ inches in the last – since last July 1st. We are expecting a category storm
two to come in and so we know Ben Lomond got 99-inches of rain. That water is
coming down both underground and through the creeks. In conclusion, I would like to
see townhouses there to at least help with some of the housing needs that we have for
new families coming in to work here. It’s zoned for housing and housing would not
need to go down below grade, except for putting in the utilities. It would not need to
go down 20-feet for the excavation, which is going to cause some pretty hardship
lateral taking away – I think the lateral support of the adjoining buildings and for all of
our utilities, which are under San Antonio Road. Again, thank you for your attention and
I would like to again, recommend housing. Yeah! Thank you.
Chair Lew: Thank You and Nancy Martin.
Ms. Nancy Martin: This time it really is me, Nancy Martin. I’ve been a resident at
Greenhouse One since 1976. My comments are going to be a bit scattered as I read
through the EIR. First, one that jumped out at me was cancer exposure for children,
less than significant. Excuse me? If it’s even a little bit significant, it is significant and
there are many schools in the area. There are schools on Middlefield, schools on San
Antonio, schools over off Charleston so to me, that is significant. Hazardous material
contamination. In reading through, it didn’t sound like tests had been thoroughly done
on hazardous material contamination. Why was this not done prior to issuing the EIR?
Many of the issues brought up are cumulatively less than significant – well, not
cumulative. I’m cumulative. Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated
but if you take all those issues and I went through and tagged off six or seven. Those
added up cumulatively to significant impact. Noise impact, how long? I don’t think the
noise impact studies counted for all the trucks that are going to be coming and going in
San Antonio. I jumped to the section in the EIR of a summary of alternatives; needed
hotel. Excuse me? We have so many new hotels on El Camino, we do not need hotels in
San Antonio. Loss of Hyatt Rickeys. Excuse me, two new hotels went up within yards of
Hyatt Rickeys. This area is designated that it could handle 38-57 housing units. Seems
to me that that should be more of the focus of what Palo Alto is looking at. Taking care
of our own residents, not those that are coming into town. One of the things that I’d
read is that the City Council was saying housing should be built closer to transit. Excuse
me? If the hotels are going to use transit and its close enough for them to be putting it
in their report, it’s close enough for residents to use the transit. Project objectives, I’m
sorry, I only see the project objectives as money, money, money. Money for both the
developers and money for Palo Alto through the hotel tax. They refer to this area as an
under-utilized area. I’m sorry, it’s not underutilized as far as the businesses are
concerned or as far as the residences are concerned. Traffic, you can access the hotel if
you are coming from 101 by going up – coming up San Antonio, making a U-turn and
turning right. Everybody that’s going to be staying in that hotel is not going to be
City of Palo Alto Page 104
working at Google. They go to work in the morning, they are going to drive down San
Antonio, make a U-turn at Leghorn and go to HP or Google up the street or all these
other companies. The traffic impact is going to be horrendous. Sometimes it already
takes me 3-mintues to get out of the driveway at Greenhouse One onto San Antonio if I
am going straight onto Leghorn or turning left. Nowhere do I see anything addressing
as far as the number of employees? Where are the employees going to drive from? We
know they aren’t going to live in Palo Alto. They’re going to be driving in. Where are
they going to be parking? We are very concerned about parking on the street, which is
already a huge problem and the fact that people will sneak into our property to park.
That is a real concern. Where will the valet parking be? I know they’ve said around the
circle but you can’t tell me that those valets aren’t going to sneak out when things are
crowded in there and park on our streets. The number of cars, the traffic is going to
greatly increase the ozone and pollution levels and the trucks are going to just be
horrendous and we’ve only recently redid San Antonio. Trucks are going to make a
mess out of that again. Five-story hotels are incompatible with the one and two-story
buildings in the area. One last point? I think of the Greenhouses as being two-stories.
You cannot see our garage from the street and what are we going to go about
dewatering? Where is that water going to go? Thank you very much. I see nothing
positive and I’m for the 38-57 housing units that could be built there. Thank you.
Chair Lew: Great. Thank you. Thank you for speaking and thank you for being patient
with us for the previous items and the EIR comment period is open and so the Staff will
respond to the EIR comments. Yeah, Jon.
Mr. Lait: Yeah, that’s correct. We’re taking notes and we’ll include those remarked into
the final EIR, draft EIR that comes out and then also, we have an opportunity for the
applicant to have a rebuttal if we’re done with the public testimony.
Chair Lew: Did you want to rebut – you can also – I think we can – you can reserve
time and (inaudible) later too as well. Ok, are there any questions? Wynne.
Board Member Furth: How many feet above sea level is this site?
Female: (Inaudible)
Mr. Pop: I’m not sure exactly what the height level is but -- oh, I’m sorry.
Female: (Inaudible)
Mr. Lait: I’m sorry, Chair. Thank you.
Chair Lew: I’m going to…
Mr. Pop: I was going to – so, I was going to say my recollection and you know, I’d hate
to be held to this but it’s…
City of Palo Alto Page 105
Board Member Furth: Right. That’s alright.
Mr. Pop: …for sure (inaudible) but my recollection is that we’re around 15 or 18-feet,
something like that.
Board Member Furth: Thank you.
Mr. Pop: I think that Nancy…
Female: (Inaudible)
Chair Lew: Excuse me, I – hold on.
Mr. Pop: My recollection is that we’re about somewhere around 15-feet. Something like
that.
Chair Lew: For the members of the public, I think – I’m going to close the public
hearing portion of the – if you have an additional comment, you can send them by
email but also, when you speak out in the – from the audience, it’s not on the
microphone so it’s not getting recorded and it’s not getting put into the transcript. Ok,
Wynne, did you have a follow-up to that?
Board Member Furth: No, thank you. I appreciate being referred to the appropriate
section of the EIR, which I clearly didn’t read as fairly as some people.
Chair Lew: Peter? Robert? Anybody? Questions – this is just questions. I have a
question for Staff. One of the members of the public mentioned about the hotel's room
count and do we have a—has anybody been keeping a tally of the loss and net
increases of hotel rooms across town? Is that maybe PTC? Anyway, I don’t need to
know but I do think that maybe a feature report – I think the Council would be
interested in knowing where we are with hotels rooms because we do have 3 – oh,
Randy. We have three new hotels, right? We have Clement…
Mr. Pop: Again, I’m just…
Chair Lew: …Hilton Gardens Inn…
Mr. Pop: …(inaudible) I’m sorry, I’m sorry to just be doing this from memory but my
recollection that since Hyatt Rickeys closed. With the constructions of all of the hotels
that have been built since then, we’re still about 30 rooms shy of where we were when
Rickeys closed and so this project would then tip us up above that level. I’ll just share
briefly that the studies that we’ve done show that the hotel occupancy rate in Palo Alto
is beyond 98%, which is unusual and challenging.
Chair Lew: Thank you for that. I have another question for Staff. Please correct me if I
am wrong, I think that maybe in previous hearings, we were talking about increasing
City of Palo Alto Page 106
the turning lane – the left turn lanes on San Antonio or am I just – is that just – is that
incorrect or am I mixing up projects? No. Ok, that’s fine. It’s not – I don’t think it’s
critical at the moment.
Mr. Lait: It doesn’t look like we have any recollection…
Chair Lew: I may be mixing it up from -- we have projects on Page Mill Road that – Ok,
thank you for that. Let’s move onto Board Member comments then. Who wants to go
first? Wynne, do you want – thank you.
Board Member Furth: I’ll be the right wing. First of all, thank you to the applicant for
the new presentation and particularly for the visuals. Those are very helpful to me.
Thank you to David Powers and Associates for the really informative cultural resources
information and thank you Sheldon for putting the period drawing of what the – how
the semi-sacred space of the funeral home viewed itself in this context and thank you
of course to the public for your careful study of the project and continued discussion
with us. Most – as I listen to the public discussion, I keep being struck by the fact that
in most cases in regard to most of the issue that is raised, as my great grandmother
would say, I’m not on that Committee. I’m not making the zoning decision. I’m not
making the discussion about whether or not a hotel should go here or housing should
go here. The only thing I get to comment on is given this proposal, does it comply with
the City standards for this place and this use. With respect to CEQA, we could, of
course, comment on the adequacy or inadequacy of its analysis just as any member of
the public can. I keep being struck by the fact that saying that something is not a
significant impact on the environment, does not mean that it won’t be both perceptible
and adverse – have both a perceptible and adverse effect on people living there. An
impact on the environment is different than an impact on us. A significant health impact
surely should be addressed but on our – in some of the other ways, I can see things
that I believe would be adversely affected as well as things that would be positively
effected about this project but I am not convinced they rise to the level of
environmental – adverse environmental impact except the removal of the interesting
mid-century building. I don’t find anything – any fatal flaws in the CEQA document
based on what I know so far. I’d be interested to see what later drafts look like. For
me, there are two areas that I think we can and should address. One of them is high
local traffic flow and traffic flow on the site. The other is what this thing looks like and
on the first, I think it could work with really aggressive management on site, that pulls
vehicles and people and shuttles off the street fast and pulls them deep into the site. I
think that could work almost all the time and that’s probably about as much as we can
require. With respect to aesthetics, one of the things that I didn’t discuss about my
previous time with Mr. Pop was that I did rant at him about – in general, I am
distressed by buildings that come to this town, which does have a specific geography
and light and setting and aesthetic and climate and tradition and give no difference to
any of those things. Now, that’s – I’ve overstating that a bit. We have a wonderful
temperate climate and I think this hotel does provide more access to the outside than
some of its other designs and I also believe and I’ll be interested in hearing from my
colleagues on this, that it’s accurate that when they say that the building materials
City of Palo Alto Page 107
being used at better than those that we frequently see when we drive by similarly
badge or flagged hotels. However, I don’t particularly see things about the design that
say to me, we looked at the tradition. This is south Palo Alto, it had this – it was a post
war – post-World War II phenomenon. It – a lot of plain trees. It backs up to these
gorgeous hills and there where particular kinds of indigenous design and materials that
flourished here. By indigenous, I’m really thinking about post-World War II Blue Skies
architecture and not earlier settings. Instead, it has a great deal to do with the need
and desire of an international corporation to have its product easily identified by those
who it wishes to attract as customers and so that they will both be attracted here and
feel comfortable when they are there. Having said that, subject to hearing from the rest
of you on this topic, I think the site-specific traffic problems that most worry me, which
is that this project blocking the difficult flow of traffic on San Antonio could be
addressed with City required and enforced on-site mitigation. With the 24/7, hot and
cold valet service and the unloading of whatever to the back. I so appreciate that we’re
seeing the TDM proposals now rather than later because, at this point, they are so
integrated into our evaluation of the project, that we need to see that and I think it
needs more work. Not to say onto flippin but with respect to the building itself, I think it
has lots of virtues and I don’t think that – I like the Greenhouse Project. I’m not – I’m
very fond of the JCC as a person who uses it and I like some of its frontages. Some of
them I think is quick beautiful. Some of them are less successful but my – this is Palo
Alto. We are a City masquerading as a suburb. That means that we have lots of
significant vegetation. If we’re going to build five-story buildings, we need 4 ½-story
landscaping. My basic feeling on this, once you do what is possible with respect to
stepping things back, opening them up, using materials that we like, is to plan it out
where that makes sense. I am interested in hearing what my colleagues have to say
about what’s possible with landscaping as oppose to what’s been achieved so far and I
couldn’t figure out where the – couldn’t figure out where the artificial turf goes. It’s one
of the listed materials but I forgot to ask that question. So, those are my comments at
this point.
Chair Lew: Thank you, Wynne. So, you know one of my friends from New York City
come and visit. They always tell me that Palo Alto is a City masquerading as a soap
opera.
Board Member Furth: Well, that too but that’s the people they talk too.
Chair Lew: Ok. Peter.
Board Member Baltay: Thank you. I’m going to focus my comments on two areas of
concern that I’ve struggled quite a bit with and given it an awful lot of thought too.
They have to do with the overall building massing and whether it’s compatible with the
context of the building. Then the question of the parking in the local sense the way
Wynne was discussing it. I distinctly made some strong comments at the last hearing
about this needing to be one building in the middle of the site and I greatly appreciate
the applicant studying that option. It seems coming to the conclusion that it’s just not
viable for this site. I also appreciate them stepping back the front of the building. I find
City of Palo Alto Page 108
that the massing of the building as it’s seen from San Antonio is much improved and I
think acceptable. I spent quite a bit of time last Sunday, really trying to drive up and
down San Antonio and get a sense for what is the context because I -- this is
something that is going to come up quite a bit as the City grows. Especially as we allow
larger hotels into areas zoned otherwise for small buildings. I find myself further up San
Antonio, close to the shopping center up near El Camino and there are some very large
buildings there. I didn’t realize I had gone that far up and it’s been a few months since
I was there. They are quite large…
Chair Lew: They are 84-feet high.
Board Member Baltay: Then I found myself turning at the JCC and that’s also quite a
tall building. Then I was driving up El Camino and there are quite a few large buildings
like this as well and I guess I’ve come to the conclusion that this is contextually
compatible. In a broad sense, what’s on El Camino – on San Antonio is compatible with
the way this is going to look. It’s been a tough, head scratching, really thinking hard
about it because it’s not an easy call to me but in the end, I feel the building is
compatible. I feel that they’ve done quite a bit with the massing to make it step back
and fit into the area and then I can support it. That leaves with the question of the
traffic and rather than going on and on, I support what Wynne said. I think with
aggressive management; the design can work. I’ll leave my comments at that. Thank
you.
Chair Lew: Robert.
Board Member Gooyer: I had the same thing. I mean obviously, the biggest problem
with this is just the sheer size of the building and then I -- we have the same thing. Out
of the blue, my – couple of weeks ago, my wife decided that she wanted to have dinner
at Chief Chu’s, which we hadn’t been to in quite a while. Driving up San Antonio, all of
sudden what use to be the Sears building is now a – I don’t know, six-story, seven-
story straight vertical walls up and it’s like my goodness, this area really is changing. As
you said, it – if you look and see the larger pictures rather than just the one or two-
story buildings immediately adjacent to this building. A lot of the buildings there are
getting to be four or five-story buildings. I mean it’s the same on the peninsula itself. I
mean for years, people who moved into the peninsula in the 60’s and 70’s – let’s face it,
the various Cities, no matter what they are, are no longer bedroom communities. I
mean they are – they’re Cities unto themselves and no longer an adjunct to either San
Jose or San Francisco. Having said that, I was actually very pleased – having kept the
older presentation that you had. When you put the two next to each other as to the
amount of effort you really did do to relate or I should say to tone it down for the
residences across the street. I have to give you credit for that. There are a couple of
minor things that – I think you made the comment that – I guess Peter made the
suggestion about the three-story – sort of the larger entry on the building. I like the
way it works for the AC. For the courtyard, I think it’s just too big. I’d rather see – if
you’re going to do something like that and you want to keep it open, I’d rather see it go
up two stories and then angle back as a glass roof like an atrium type entry if you want
City of Palo Alto Page 109
to do that. Where you still bring the light in but yet again, tone it down as much as you
can do. This is a good example, the one we’re looking at here, that you really have
done a good job at stepping it back and I really do appreciate that. Now it’s a matter of
– I agree with a lot of those areas. You can work with some landscaping up there so
you get the landscaping up higher and it begins to tone the sort of severness of it
down. I think it’s come a long way. The issues as you said, is traffic and the problem is
we don’t really regulate traffic here but the – I agree with my Board Members that a lot
of that is going to depend on the management of the hotels. One advantage is if this
was an enormous group of or if it was a large condominium process, where there are
all kinds of individual owners, then you wouldn’t really worry about who was in charge
of making sure that the parking got taken care of. With a hotel like that, it – there’s sort
of a boss that can regulate these things and actually get it done. For that reason, I
agree that if it’s done properly, there are a lot of hotels that I’ve stayed at in very large
urban environments that do it beautifully. I mean, my god, before you turn around,
your car is gone. I don’t know where it goes but it’s gone. That sort of thing and that
could be done here also. You know, it’s that sort of thing. Other than that, I mean
we’re not making any final decision here but I think it’s a definite improvement and I
haven’t gone into the nits and bolts of exactly – I think maybe this ought to be trimmed
up a little bit or that sort of thing. I think that’s very doable. Other than -- like I said the
lobby, I think needs to be – there are two – the whole idea of being totally separate,
these two almost look like their sort of a kid brother of the other. The only thing is the
one at the Courtyard seems to be bigger and more dominate, which I don’t think it
what you really want over the AC. I think I’ll leave it at that also at this point.
Chair Lew: Ok, thank you for the revisions. I think the stepped massing on San Antonio
is a significant improvement. I think I had a different reaction than the rest of the
Board, maybe. I – how do I want to say this? I don’t think your site is (inaudible) – I
want to say that your building, I think looks larger in the drawings than it actually is.
Like when I look at the frontage, 280-feet, that’s similar to the Hilton Garden Inn on El
Camino, which is maybe 300-feet. 280-feet is about the same size as the Mayfield
housing on El Camino, which is 50-feet high. When I look on your elevations, the
building looks – for whatever reason, however you’ve designed it, to me, it looks huge.
It looks like the projects on San Antonio Road in Mountain View, which are way taller;
84-feet high. Your project is nowhere near that big but when I look at the drawings, it
looks that way and I so think that there’s something is amiss and I don’t know – I can’t
put my finger on it exactly. I have – I save all the drawing for all the hotels that come
by and I’m going to hold you to the same standard and I think you’re close but there’s
– I think that there are little things that are missing. I would say for example, on the
Homewood Suite, the cornice is like 4-feet deep, the windows are recessed. Not all of
them but are recessed 12-inches. Sunshades are probably like 3-feet deep. There’s a lot
of quality materials like there’s brick, there’s a lot of variation in the color and I think
that on these four or five-story buildings, you actually do need to use all of those tricks
that architects do to make it work. Actually, I should back up for a second. Also on the
Hilton – on the Homewood Suite, there are balconies, there are deep recesses in the
modulation and in the massing and I think some of those are missing. I think you’ve got
– I mean you started it. Some of it’s there but I’m finding it a little bit chaotic and my
City of Palo Alto Page 110
take on it was that you need one more revision to sort of tie it all together. If I can give
you an example, if looking on some of your elevations, you’ll have one thing in the first,
something different on the second floor, something different on the third floor. I think
it’s making it kind of chaotic.
Mr. Pop: I’m going to just bring it up so you can be specific for us.
Chair Lew: Yeah, so let’s say for example…
Mr. Pop: Do you want the front elevation? Is that what you’re looking for?
Chair Lew: Try – actually, you can do it on this or what about the (inaudible). I think
you have some 3-D and I’ll get…
Mr. Pop: Start with the Courtyard?
Chair Lew: Yeah, so why don’t we do – yeah, the Marriot (inaudible). I would say for
example – well, just – let me – in general, the Marriot Court Yard Hotel, I think the
beige color scheme with the wood. I think that you’ve made design linkages to the
(inaudible) company next door. It’s the same pallet. It has a wood-textured concrete
thing so I think you’re making design linkages there. I would say also with regard to
landscaping, you’ve made designs linkages. Say the olive trees, the New Zealand Flax,
some of the [Raphael Lepus], you’ve taken some of the plant pallets from the
Greenhouse and brought it over to this site so there are linkages. Here on the Court
Yard, like if I just look on the [Axon] here, the – right at the corner. You have one thing
on the first floor, you have something different on the second, something different on
the third floor, stepping on the fourth and yet more stepping on the fifth floor. Does it
really need to be chaotic? Can it be simplified? That’s just one example, I think there
are others if you go in – on the interior Courtyard side. On landscaping, I’m a little
troubled that the basement garage extends beyond the footprint of the building.
Particularly on the sides – side property lines. It seems to me like your only – you’re
proposing shrubs or maybe Italian Cypress there because you only have 5 or 6-feet to
plant.
Mr. Pop: You mind if we (inaudible)(crosstalk)
Chair Lew: Sure, and why don’t we – we have Gary Layman the Landscape Architect
here. I think – Gary, thank you. I don’t think we have the exact plant proposed for the
– no, you do. Excellent.
Mr. Gary Layman: We do. Along the side elevations, we wanted to get something that
was very fast growing; evergreens. So maybe give us some good scale there. Create
some layering. We have a sort of semi-transparent wood fence right on the property
line and the step back behind that we have the Italian buckthorn shrubs, which are
coming up vertically against the building edges there. We’ve chosen that because that’s
one of the fastest growing, drought tolerant, you know really resilient plant materials
City of Palo Alto Page 111
who can really thrive in that kind of environment. So, we’re expecting that hedge -- it’s
unbelievably fast growing, to be in the realm of 20-feet after about 5-years. So, it’s a
very impactful shrub planting there and it would work well within that 5-foot zone. We
are taking advantage of those areas where we have the garage slab (inaudible) of the
building wall and on many of those areas, we have out stormwater treatments. So, we
have flow through planters that occur there so we have shrub planting in those zone in
addition to the hedge planting along the property line.
Chair Lew: Then for the – is it you're saying it’s Indian Buck Thorn and then have you
factored in that there’s basement waterproofing – Italian buck – Italian? The basement
waterproofing. I mean that would typically take a foot out of the soil areas so I think –
where you have – what is it? We have 5-feet now or 6-feet?
Mr. Layman: Yeah, we tried to illustrate that there in the sections and the
waterproofing and the dewatering and such would be right up against the building wall.
It actually would be a fairly narrow profile so we have a generous amount of soil to be
able to sustain the planting in those areas.
Chair Lew: Then how do you get access for maintenance there? I mean you’ve got a
raised planter and the Italian Buckthorn and you’re planting. I mean it seems like a
challenge – I mean, it seems challenging to me to maintain that in the narrowest
locations.
Mr. Layman: It is a narrow location but there is enough room to be able to access those
areas. It’s a – part of what we were trying to do as well was not to make those areas
inviting for those – other than for those people who are going to be doing maintenance
but there’s enough room there to be able to survive those areas.
Chair Lew: Then are you aware that we have the new finding for native plants and
providing – or plants – or non-native plants that provide beneficial habitat in…
Mr. Layman: That’s right and we’ve included a lot of native plants, as well as
Mediterranean, adapted plants as a part of the plant palette. As you said, these are –
we tried to borrow from the adjacent sights to help continue that context.
Chair Lew: Thank you, Gary.
Mr. Layman: Thank you.
Chair Lew: Yes, Wynne.
Board Member Furth: Alex or my colleagues, I would be interested in – what Alex’s had
to say about the Court Yard has – if this project resonates for me, that is somehow sits
in the site better and ties in better than the AC portion and maybe it’s that cold gray
white and when I particularly look at the corner – looking at 3.0, if you look at the right
City of Palo Alto Page 112
most corner on the second row, that all – that whole frontage – it’s hard for me to read
an elevation but it doesn’t…
Board Member Gooyer: I think part of it…
Board Member Furth: …work.
Board Member Gooyer: … is that I think the AC is more formal – I think they want to
press a higher end.
Board Member Furth: I’m fine with formality. Apparently in Europe – another piece of
information I picked up that I forgot to disclose. They use more white. I wouldn’t mind
more white but this cold gray black…
Chair Lew: And there’s green too.
Board Member Furth: It doesn’t – for me, when I look at this, it seems harder to
assimilate into the setting and when I’m thinking about how – I must say, we should
remember that sun microsystems use to be down the road. I mean we use to have
significant height but people were use to low-rise residential vibe. Sorry, atmosphere,
there and I think when we evoked San Antonio at El Camino, we probably terrified
people. That as much – as nice as it might be to go to a three-story Safeway, this is not
what they want to live in or near so I’m still trying to figure out – I don’t think this is
the destruction of a great view. I think it could be a creation of an attractive view.
There’s nothing inherently awful about a nicely scaled, welcoming hotel where I can
walk in and get a drink but I don’t – I would like your thoughts on could – is there a
manageable way to make the AC section work better from the street?
Chair Lew: I have a question? Yeah?
Board Member Gooyer: I have a question and I’m – it was just brought to my attention
and we just talked about this. We were talking about the – and I made the totally
incorrect statement about a three-story entry space that I said about sloping it. When
in reality, if you look at that and it’s real deceiving. They are just rooms above those
two and the reality of it, that means there’s just going to be curtains that are drawn in
front of that and that’s going to destroy the whole look of the, I think entry.
Mr. Pop: May I respond?
Board Member Gooyer: Sure.
Mr. Pop: Yeah, thank you. So, you’re correcting correcting. Those are – at the lower
level its lobby space and common space that’s downstairs. At the upper level, it
translates to rooms – to guest rooms.
City of Palo Alto Page 113
Board Member Gooyer: I mean it’s a three-story space basically but the top two stories
are rooms.
Mr. Pop: Three stories of glass but the top two stories are rooms, that’s correct. You
know, I would draw your attention to the Hilton Garden Inn that was just built on El
Camino Real. I live near that and I drive by it all the time. That’s got some tall glass –
you know, Alex mentioned a couple other hotels and the Homewood Suites is one that
I’m intimately familiar with because I designed that one but the Garden Inn has this
similar type of glass, where it’s multi-stories. At night, you notice that the shades are
pulled because you can see into the building but during the day, you really don’t. It just
looks…
Board Member Gooyer: (Inaudible)
Mr. Pop: …you’re moving past it. The glass is pretty successful but you know, this is
what’s interesting about architecture.
Board Member Gooyer: The classical example is the Four Season (East Palo Alto). At
night when you drive by, you’re looking basically in the hallway. The first time that
happened it’s like what the heck is that and it turns out it’s the hallway and it destroys
the whole look of it, to me. Here, it’s got this perceived grand entry and to me, the
thing that kills it and I’ve seen it done in other or I’ve seen it happen in other hotels.
It’s main not so much even the designer, who maybe had a vision of some sort but the
reality sets in and like you said, in the day time the curtains are all closed or open or all
this and it just destroys the whole concept of entry.
Mr. Pop: I understand.
Board Member Gooyer: If that’s the case, for the Court Yard, maybe just treat it as part
of the hotel and then do something of an (inaudible) or whatever. Something that just
says this is the entry and you showed the other various Courtyards that you have.
Almost all of them have a Porticulshare and it’s that sort of thing or something at least
just to say that -- well, that isn’t actually the main entry but still, it’s perceived to be or
then just change that so that it doesn’t look like an entry.
Mr. Pop: I’d just take your comments in concert with the comments that Chair Lew
described in terms of variety and the differentiation that’s happening in the building. To
tell you clearly, what we were trying to do is break down the massing.
Board Member Gooyer: (Crosstalk)(inaudible)
Mr. Pop: (Crosstalk)(inaudible)
Board Member Gooyer: … what’s next to it and extend it over. I wasn’t thinking that.
Mr. Pop: I’m comfortable doing something like that. These other hotels – particularly,
the Court Yards that you’re seeing.
City of Palo Alto Page 114
Board Member Gooyer: Right.
Mr. Pop: Unfortunately, we have a 24-foot setback, that’s a special
(inaudible)(crosstalk)
Board Member Gooyer: (Inaudible)(crosstalk) Like I said, I’m not even worried so much
about the…
Mr. Pop: We can’t put a cornice, (inaudible)(crosstalk)
Board Member Gooyer: (Inaudible)(Crosstalk)
Mr. Pop: Nothing can extend into that and so that’s the struggle with – 24-foot setback
is…
Board Member Gooyer: Oh, I understand.
Mr. Pop: …really difficult zoning issue.
Board Member Gooyer: Anyway, I just thought I’d – (inaudible) and I realized
(inaudible). Oh well, ok.
Mr. Pop: I appreciate that though, thank you.
Chair Lew: Can we go back to Wynne’s comment about the pallet the AC hotels. You’re
proposing (inaudible) colored stucco, not painted.
Mr. Pop: Yeah, I wanted to make sure that you had (inaudible)(crosstalk)
Chair Lew: (Inaudible) we haven’t reviewed – I saw the sample board but I just wanted
to mention to you – so, I haven’t seen it. I’d like to see it. The buildings that I’ve
worked on at Stanford and Stanford generally uses (inaudible)colors stucco. It’s much
richer and has suddenly far more than a painted stucco or…
Board Member Gooyer: (Inaudible)
Chair Lew: … I know – well, it cracks.
Board Member Gooyer: No, not even that but when it rains (inaudible)(crosstalk)
Chair Lew: The color looks darker. Yes.
Board Member Gooyer: The only way to do stucco is integral ocolor and then paint it.
Board Member Baltay: No.
City of Palo Alto Page 115
Board Member Gooyer: I’m serious. I’ve done that for years. That way it (inaudible).
Mr. Pop: So, Mont has just a comment for you about this but I just want to make sure
that you understand what you are seeing in there because there’s a bunch of different
materials. We have a sample board that reflective of most of the materials and the
colors that we’re doing. Then we brought some individual pieces that are floating along
with that, which are indicative of the character and the quality of the materials. We
have a physical sample of the plaster that we’re talking about. This hand troweled
venetian finish that’s an integral color finish. That’s it and then we also have a piece of
the metal that would be painted in the colors that you see on the board that Wynne has
now. The reason why we brought that metal along is to show you sort of the…
Chair Lew: This is not the color. This is (inaudible)
Mr. Pop: That’s not the color, that’s the thickness and the weight and the durability of
that material. We wanted to bring the actual physical samples of what we’re using so
that you could really see that because they really are A+ materials. I think Mont has
something he wants to share.
Mr. Williamson: Just a comment on plaster. So, this is near and dear to our heart. We’re
a hotel here that’s across the country and in general, we don’t like plaster. We don’t do
– I wouldn’t consider this plaster. This concept of a Venetian plaster, it is – there are a
lot of labor in the steel troweling and it closes all the little capillary breaks in the
concrete. It doesn’t look like a typical plaster that soaks the water in. It is a different
effect so it’s almost like stone. I want to make sure we’re communicating. It’s applied
like plaster and then there’s a ton of labor, like they do in Europe, to close all those
pores and make it very high polished.
Board Member Furth: What’s the material that the (inaudible) go is stuck on?
Board Member Gooyer: Stuck on?
Board Member Furth: It says AC hotels…
Board Member Gooyer: That could be the metal.
Board Member Furth: … what’s the material (inaudible)(crosstalk) What’s that?
Chair Lew: It’s P8.
Mr. Pop: That’s the Venetian plaster.
Chair Lew: P8.
Board Member Furth: It’s the lighter color?
City of Palo Alto Page 116
Mr. Pop: When you think of that – you know what I’d like for you to be able to visualize
when you look at that is it’s essentially like having stone panels on the building. That’s
almost how it’s going to appear when you see it.
Board Member Furth: There are two different colors of that?
Chair Lew: P8 is the darker color.
Mr. Pop: There are two different colors of the plaster finish.
Board Member Furth: In the drawing it looks like the lighter color, right?
Chair Lew: Yeah but it’s labeled P8.
Board Member Furth: Ok, so I’m having trouble…
Chair Lew: If you go to sheet A4.0, P8 is the darker color and P7 is the lighter color.
Board Member Furth: Does that match what we’re seeing?
Mr. Pop: I just want to make perfectly clear to all four of you. This is the kind of stuff
that we are happy to adjust and temper and come to some terms with whether it’s in
this process or if you wanted it to come back to the subcommittee and just deal with
tweaks to the color. We would be – we’re very flexible about that. There’s a certain
brand recognition that I have spoken about in the past but Mont has told me that
there’s a lot of flexibility about this. We can adjust here if we need to but Board
Member Lew’s comments --Chair Lew comments about the Courtyard being on the side
that’s on – to respond to 760 and the character of that. I’ll say this and maybe it gets
me in trouble but my expectation is that the Cross Roads World Market that’s on the
other side is a very underutilized parcel. I’m expecting that that’s something we’ll in a
few years or maybe a little bit longer than that, be a parcel that is renewed and that we
would see something a little more contemporary over there. The idea is about
indigenous architectural and this was something that we talked alto about when we
were building the JCC. Should we build what’s old? Should we try and reflect that? You
know, that becomes a little Disney Land. It’s not really architecture in the same way.
What we want to do is we want to build for 2017 and something that’s appropriate for
now and his reflective of the history maybe in some way but really looks forward. That’s
how I tend to approach that and so, you know everyone has their opinions about
architecture and that’s what’s fun about it but that’s where we are.
Board Member Furth: (Inaudible) To defend my own honor esthetically, I would never
be asking you to build Soto whatever. I ask you to acknowledge where you’re building.
Mr. Lait: So, Chair…
Mr. Pop: Understood.
City of Palo Alto Page 117
Chair Lew: Yes, Staff?
Mr. Lait…just in the effort of…
Chair Lew: Yes, it’s 3:15.
Mr. Lait: … moving us along. We have one more item after this in our record breaking
ARB meeting. We do have to come back with some findings. It did sound like – I don’t
want to speak for the Board but it did sound like this was moving toward yes and if –
we do need to come back with some findings, we can do that. It sounds like there are
some very specific things that maybe need to be fine-tuned when we come back and if
we can articulate those, we can get this scheduled back for the Board within probably
the month or so.
Chair Lew: You would like comments on the draft findings?
Board Member Furth: Can I request one more thing and then I’ll shut up?
Chair Lew: Yes.
Board Member Furth: (Inaudible) If would be very helpful for me to see the drawings
we sometimes get, which show – for example, sheet A -3.0 with the plants. I know you
gave it to use with no landscaping so we can see the building. It’s very helpful for me
and I think also for the City Council to see those elevations with 5 or 10 or 20-year
landscaping in front of it.
Mr. Lait: That’s the kind of thing I think we should get in a motion as far as what you
want to see coming back.
Board Member Baltay: I’d like to throw one more thing out there I guess. Randy, I’m
looking at this and I’m really bothered by this three-story glass element on the front. As
I really studied these plans, it’s really wrong that you would put that out there and say
that’s a three-story space. That’s what I asked for and it’s not. It’s a bunch of rooms
above it. There’s no change in the building itself that justifies that. Looking now at the
facade for the AC building, I think it – you need one more pass at the just organization
of the massing. You’ve done a fine job getting it back in a big sense to me, our
concerns about contextuality but you just can’t have a three-story wall of glass and it is
two hotel rooms above it. I mean the people in there aren’t going to be happy. The
people outside aren’t going to be happy. It’s going to look different all the time. There’s
no door underneath it. You’re just trying to sort of appease one comment without really
taking it to heart as a designer and designing it differently, which is what I asked. I’d
rather – I think you need to go back around once more and maybe get rid of it if it’s not
working. You don’t want to put the door there. You can’t afford the three-story space.
Well, don’t try to trick me and show me something at first (inaudible) looks like that.
That said, I think Wynne’s comments about the pallet of materials also on the AC
City of Palo Alto Page 118
building. I think you could make it a warmer, softer gray. Try to get the grays to be
more compatible with the warmer (inaudible) (crosstalk)…
Board Member Gooyer: (Inaudible)
Board Member Baltay: …after so I can move that – if – are we ready – are we looking
for a motion Alex or do you want to do that?
Board Member Gooyer: If that’s the case, I’d like to see the same thing occur on the
three-story space at the….
Board Member Baltay: Oh, absolutely. Yeah, on both of them. Yeah, I mean as much
as I’d love to see a three-story glass lobby. If that’s not going to happen, don’t just put
the glass there without everything else. That’s just not going to work and because
you’ve done that, now I’m afraid you’re back to the drawing board to figure it out so it
really does work. I don’t support approving it now. I think you are in for another round
but the basic idea works. I’m ok continuing this – shall I make that motion Alex?
Chair Lew: Right, I think the Staff recommendation is to continue it to a date uncertain.
Board Member Gooyer: Uncertain or certain?
Chair Lew: Well, the Staff recommendation that – the thing that I have says uncertain.
Mr. Lait: Right so that’s the Staff recommendation. Based on the Board’s dialog it does
seem like there’s some discreet – I’m hearing it’s not there yet but there are some
discreet things that need to be addressed that, I think the applicant could probably do
within the next couple of weeks and we can schedule this to a date certain, to come
back in a month’s time.
Board Member Gooyer: Would you be happier with a date certain?
Mr. Pop: Yeah, I was just going to say that I really appreciate how specific everyone
has been today. It’s very helpful to hear the precise comments the way you have
delivered them. 5/18 would be an easy option for us.
Board Member Gooyer: I don’t know. We did the last one at 5/18, can they…
Mr. Lait: Yeah, we’re looking at the schedule now to see what’s on there but…
Ms. Gerhardt: Yeah (inaudible)
Board Member Gooyer: (Inaudible) use to long days.
Mr. Lait: Yeah, let’s not make a habit of this
City of Palo Alto Page 119
Mr. Pop: Don’t want to beat you up but we’re anxious to come back to you and we can
certainly turn this around thoughtfully but quickly.
Board Member Baltay: I will not be present at the meeting on the 18th. If that’s
combined with Kyu being recused, then that’s not a good idea.
Board Member Gooyer: Ok. That’s true. That’s right because you’re stuck with four
people rather than…
Chair Lew: Peter, you had sent out an email on the dates that you are going to be
absent and then I think Robert, you had mentioned that you’re going to be absent?
Board Member Gooyer: (Inaudible)
Chair Lew: Ok, so you’re not…
Mr. Pop: 6/1?
Chair Lew: Is it 6/2? I’m just looking at the schedule.
Mr. Pop: Oh, do I have the date wrong? 6/1 I think.
Chair Lew: OK, I think our schedule is off.
Female: (Inaudible)
Chair Lew: No, I think we’ve closed the public hearing but you can – please do continue
to send – you can send emails to Sheldon and we can keep the communication open.
Female: (Inaudible)
Chair Lew: I have to say the – we can’t – everything that you say now is not being
recorded as part of the hearing.
Female: (Inaudible)
Chair Lew: Actually, it does need to be recorded.
Mr. Lait: We just need a motion from the Board as to whether you want to continue it
to – what is it June?
Ms. Gerhardt: 6/1.
Mr. Lait: June 1st and then with a discreet list of things that need to be addressed upon
its return. Alternatively, you could push it to the 18th but you’re going to have three
members.
City of Palo Alto Page 120
Board Member Gooyer: To a date certain.
MOTION
Board Member Baltay: Ok, I’ll move that we continue this project to a date certain of
June 1st with a request that they revise the design. The massing of the three-story
façade of both buildings to not have a three-story wall of glass and perhaps slight
better articulate the overall integration of the forms.
Board Member Gooyer: Different – a warmer…
Board Member Baltay: Then secondly, to go for a warmer pallet on the AC building. The
grays are fine but a warmer tone instead of grays.
Board Member Gooyer: And a better landscaping to show what it would look like with
mature…
Board Member Baltay: The third one is about the landscaping. Is it the landscaping
itself or the presentation of the landscaping?
Board Member Furth: What I would like to be able to do is see it but my goal is to have
landscaping that is significant with regard to this building. We pushed up the
landscaping…
Board Member Gooyer: As Gary was saying, what is it going to look like in 5-years?
Board Member Furth: And what I am saying is that I want it to be up there. We had
Mercedes get taller trees…
Board Member Gooyer: Right.
Board Member Furth: …. because it’s a taller building. I want tall trees.
Board Member Baltay: So, the third condition is then to get a more detailed landscaping
plan with larger, taller trees per Board Member Furth’s comment and then present it on
the plan’s set…
Board Member Gooyer: Nice to show what it would look like.
Board Member Baltay: …to really show what it would look like. Did I cover it? That’s the
motion then.
Board Member Furth: (Inaudible)
Board Member Gooyer: I’ll second that.
City of Palo Alto Page 121
Mr. Lait: I don’t know if – Chair, you had your comments about the recesses and the
canopies and so forth. The depth – adding some depth to the façade wall.
Board Member Furth: They eyelashes on the upper stories.
Board Member Baltay: That’s what I meant by that first comment about…
Chair Lew: I think that’s…
Board Member Baltay: … improving the articulation of massing.
Chair Lew: …in the articulation of forms and there are built to requirements and
building code requirements for cornices and projections with regard to the property line.
I mean – I think that’s stuff that Randy has to work out so I think we’ll just leave it at
articulating forms. Ok, so we have a motion by Board Member Baltay and seconded by
Board Member Gooyer. All in favor? Opposed? None and we have Vice Chair Kim
abstained.
MOTION PASSED 4-0 WITH VICE CHAIR KIM ABSTAINED.
Chair Lew: Ok. It’s 4 – it’s almost 4:30 and this is a record.
7. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 2555 Park Boulevard [17PLN-
00064]:
Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of an Architectural Review
of a
Minor Project to Allow Design Changes to Exterior Materials and Architectural
Features of a Previously Approved Project to Construct a 23,269 sf Three-story
Office Building with One Level of Below-grade Parking. Environmental
Assessment: Environmental Impact Report was Certified and Statement of
Overriding Considerations was Adopted on June 1, 2015. Zoning District: CC(2)
District. For More Information, Contact the Project Planner Phillip
Brennan at phillip.brennan@cityofpaloalto.org
Chair Lew: Item number 7. Public hearing for a quasi-judicial matter at 2555 Park
Boulevard. Recommendation on applicant’s request for approval of an architectural
review of a minor project to allow design changes to exterior materials and architectural
features of a previously approved project to construct a 23,269-square feet three-story
office building with one level of below-grade parking. The environmental assessment is
that the EIR was certified and statement of overriding considerations was adopted on
June 1, 2015, and the zone district is CC2. Phillip?
Mr. Brennan: Thank you again Members of the Board. I have a very brief presentation
and the applicant also has a presentation that they would like to provide to you. This is
City of Palo Alto Page 122
a previously approved here-story office building with one level of below grade parking
in the CC2 zoning district. The project essentially consists of exterior materials
substitutions and finishes and minor architectural changes. The building footprint has
not been changed nor has any square footage been added. The proposed rooftop tinsel
structure and stair towers were removed from the design. That’s not part of the project
proposal currently but it’s just a note that was a change to the design. The project –
just a really brief background. The project was originally reviewed at a preliminary ARB
meeting in June 2014. October 2014, the ARB recommended approval for the AR –
architectural review and design enhancement exception. The project was approved and
a final EIR certified by City Council in June 2015. The DEE, however, was denied. The
applicant – this is a current rendering. The applicant is providing the Board with a more
– excuse me, the Board will or excuse me, the applicant is going to provide a more
thorough walk through of the proposed changes but some of the primary modifications
consist of steel and wood trestle replacing the concrete slab roof deck at the third-floor.
Glass barrier replacing out the steel cable barrier. Providing a more transparent
perspective. The green vine wall is being wrapped around Grant Avenue for – to
enhance the pedestrian experience and environment. Porcelain and tile siding is
replacing the cement plaster and finish of the wall curtain surrounding the vertical
(inaudible) system. Staff is recommending the ARB to take the following action and
recommend approval of the proposed exterior revisions and based on findings and
subject to the conditions of approval.
Chair Lew: and…
Mr. Brennan: I’m sorry, the applicant is – would like to present – make their
presentation.
Chair Lew: Then for Staff, do we – sometimes we allow 5-mins for minor projects or 10-
mintues for major projects. Is – what are your thoughts about that?
Mr. Lait: I think that this is a regular application so it’s 10-mintues. I don’t know if the
applicant needs that much time but of course, they’ve been waiting around all day.
[Mr. Rob Zirkle:] Do you guys want to open it for public comment first?
Chair Lew: No, we’re going to put you up first.
[Mr. Zirkle:] Hey everybody. Rob [Zirkle] from Brick. Very pleased to a part of this
historic day. You can imagine with the last name [Zirkle], I’ve been at the end of the
line may times throughout my 46-years so this is regular business for me. Thank you
for your service. This is a long day doing what you do and I appreciate it. If no one else
says it, I know that other people do to. I have been asked by new ownership that have
purchased this asset that was previously entitled and designed by a very capable
architect. To come in and move the project forward, which is now under construction.
There are a lot of moving parts and pieces, some of which involve making some minor
changes, which we think and hope you agree, enhance the aesthetic proposition of the
City of Palo Alto Page 123
project. We’re here before you today to just sort of go over what those are so you
understand and we keep the process moving forward. I’m going to quickly walk you
through those. We tried to give you in the packet the side by side of the affected sheets
so you could do sort of a before and after comparison but I just wanted to summarize
things for you quickly. Just in the three main areas that we are focusing on. As Phillip
said, the project footprint stays the same. The area of the building stays the same.
Ingress points, egress points, vertical circulation, all this stuff stays the same.
Landscaping stays the same. Previous proposal is up on the screen so there are three
things that we were trying to consider when asked what we could do to help kind of
raise the bar on the materials and aesthetics a little bit. Do so within a restrained way
because we know that this is already entitled so we really focused on the element at
the corner with the cement plaster and the curtain wall. We focused some energy
around the axes points, both the pedestrian access points but also the vehicular access
point off Grant. We started to think a little bit about the stair towers which have a
presence on both streets and wanted to try and create a strategy that threw those
three areas in investigation and we could knit these three areas together a little more.
Quickly, the building corner. This is the 3-dimenisonal view showing yellow cement
plaster with a curtain wall with vertical aluminum fins that sit proud of the plaster. What
we’re proposing is exposing the slab edge of the concrete frame to basically frame the
curtain wall as opposed to having the curtain wall feel like it’s applied to the building.
To try to unify that move across the corner. Substituting glass – frost glass fins into the
curtain wall system in place of the aluminum vertical extrusions as well. We are
recommending that we change the yellow colored cement plaster to a porcelain tile.
The dimensions of these tiles are quite variable in size as you know but we are
operating within a jointing pattern of 1-foot by 4-foot panel to try to bring a little more
richness to that corner element than cement plaster. The entry points; on the screen
now are images from the previous proposal. Some of the things that we thought were
actually nice about this was the wood picketed guard rail at that second-floor lobby and
wanted to think about the warmth that that presented and how we might use that as a
device in other areas of the building. Also, started thinking about the view of the
underside of the concrete decks from the sidewalk and wondered if there was maybe a
different viewpoint that you can see as a pedestrian as the underside of those concrete
decks and maybe think about a different material proposition there. What we’re
proposing is to keep the nice wood picket in place as an identifier to the front of the
building but we are introducing a metal panel on the underside of the first-floor facet
and then utilizing Resysta wood siding. Well, it’s a wood composite. It’s made from rice
husks and bound by resin but it looks like wood and its stains like wood. Operationally,
it’s more durable and last longer and looks very similar. What we are doing is wrapping
that up the sides of the first two stories and underneath the facet of the third-floor deck
so that when you are standing on the sidewalk looking up, instead of only raw concrete,
you’re seeing metal panel and Resysta to help increase the quality that you see. Thirdly,
you start to also see the comparison of the – in both of these images of the attitude
about the third – about the roof. The roof in the previous design as you can see here
on the left and this is thru both the pedestrian entry that you can see here trellis on the
third-floor and a trellis that you can see here. Instead of having that roof come all the
way over and fully cover that upper area. We wanted to propose using a steel and
City of Palo Alto Page 124
wood trellis to help give a little lighter appearance again, from the ground but also filter
the natural light up onto that deck as opposed to the heavy concrete roof that came
over the top of both those. You can kind of begin to see that there’s a little bit more
access to the sky through the laciness of that trellis as opposed to the concrete roof.
Lastly, it’s the stair towers. These are images of what the previous stair towers look
like. The on the left is on Park and the one on the right is on Grant. There was an idea
about using glass in the stair in a way to create a marker and we quite like it in these
small buildings. Especially that the stairs feel nice so people take the stairs as opposed
to relying on an elevator. We wanted to try to unify the aesthetic of those a little bit
and leverage the board from concrete that are proposed for the project. You’ll see that
on Park, we’ve created a corner element here with (inaudible) glass at the corner, that
returns on the interior property line. Only a short distance because the building code
limits how much glazing can face that interior property line but use that as element that
provides a better experience in the stair and is also a little more visible on the street to
use as a little bit of a marker. You can imagine especially, at dusk or even in the
evening that that presents its nice little warmer beacon effect there. Similarly, on the
Grant Street tower. Well, going back to this one real fast. You’ll see in plan in the upper
left that we’ve actually battered the wall in a little bit to kind of create a little shape
there at the window. On Grant, it’s a little bit different. The engineer needs a little bit
more mass there for sheer purposes so we’re using the same attitude about expanding
the width of that window, just to give it a little more prominence. Visually connect the
two together on the various street but no batter on that side just because we need a
little bit more girth in the concrete to perform the structural job. Materials as I had said
before are really very similar and we’ve levered in some of the porcelain tile. Continued
with the board from concrete aesthetic on the stair towers. Introducing the Resysta
siding for the facing of the first floor/second floor underside of canopy. A little bit of
metal panel accent on the underside of that first level overhang. Again, still keeping the
same idea about landscaping and the green wall that screens the parking structure
from view. Again, a nice curtain wall with frosted glass fins and that’s what I’ve got for
you. 5-minutes.
Chair Lew: That took 7 ½-minutes. Thank you, Rob. Ok, we’ll open this up to the public
– this item for the public comment but I don’t have any speaker cards. So, we’ll move
to – I’ll close the public part of the hearing and move to Board Member questions.
Mr. Lait: Any disclosures if we have any.
Chair Lew: Yes, any disclosures? No.
Board Member Furth: I have a question?
Chair Lew: Question, yes Wynne?
Board Member Furth: Why did the removal of elements not constitute a project to the
needed reviewing? I understand – you’re saying that addition of elements does but
City of Palo Alto Page 125
removals don’t? I thought you began your report by saying that various elements were
removed?
Chair Lew: The Council removed the roof deck.
Mr. Lait: Yeah, Council did not approve the DEE.
Board Member Furth: I see, sorry. So that was part of that stage of the review process
then. Got it. This was all before my time.
Chair Lew: Any other questions? No. I have some questions for you. Are there any – my
recollection is that on the glass curtain wall that was on the previous project. My
recollection is that that architect was proposing a film – like an obscure film to hide
anything below desk height and I was wondering what you’re thinking of with regard to
that?
[Mr. Zirkle:] Yeah, we have no plans for film. We have mullion at desk height. So, in
case the final tentative improvement plan that there is desk that sort of move there,
there’s logical (inaudible) that’s there but we don’t have any plan to film it. We quite
like the idea of there being floor to ceiling glass.
Chair Lew: Great. At least mullion gives us an option for requiring…
[Mr. Zirkle:] Yes.
Chair Lew: …blinds below that or something. It gives us some flexibility. Do you have –
are you far enough along to know what the glass is going to be? Is it tinted or reflective
or clear?
Board Member Gooyer: (Inaudible)
[Mr. Zirkle:] I think we’ve run the energy model.
Chair Lew: I – sorry, I haven’t seen the spec. of it. I don’t even know – what did…
[Mr. Zirkle:] Yeah so…
Chair Lew: Do we know what this is?
[Mr. Zirkle:] … well, the energy model is still underway so exactly what the spec. is. If
it’s going to end up being solar band because we have – you know, we have an
exposure there where we’re going to be concerned about southwest facing sun. We –
that gets to be determined but the idea would be that this is transparent and non-tinted
as we can possibly have it.
Chair Lew: I think the project description was mentioning a coding on the concrete
instead of painting. I was wondering…(crosstalk)(inaudible)
City of Palo Alto Page 126
[Mr. Zirkle:] Yeah, so the…
Chair Lew: … graffiti coding?
[Mr. Zirkle:] Yeah, clear. The coding that is mentioned on the concrete is specifically
related to the interior property line elevation so those aren’t public accessible.
Previously proposed, they were supposed to be painted and we would prefer a clear
sealer over the concrete just to help kind the unify the idea that the board form
concrete elements in the previous proposal. What we would like to continue forward
just unifies that idea of concrete all the way around the buildings so we proposed a
sealer as opposed to paint.
Chair Lew: Ok. Then is it – I see. The back – the interior portions aren’t board formed?
[Mr. Zirkle:] No (inaudible)
Chair Lew: Those are just panel formed?
[Mr. Zirkle:] Yeah, paneled formed.
Chair Lew: Right and you’re changing the board formed orientation.
[Mr. Zirkle:] Well, what’s interesting is that it was horizontal in the ARB package but
what was drawn at permit, it was vertical so we’re continuing forward with vertical
board form, which we feel like is actually a good move on the part of the previous
architect to help accentuate the verticality of those towers.
Chair Lew: Ok. Thank you. Comments? Peter.
Board Member Baltay: I don’t have any comments. I can recommend approval at, is it?
Chair Lew: Wynne.
Board Member Furth: Thank you. Thank you for bringing up the issue of film because I
don’t like floor to ceiling glass unless the building is being used in a way where that
makes sense and our usual experience is that it doesn’t because there are offices or
people wearing skirts or something that makes this not a good approach. I would ask
my colleagues or the applicant that there is a condition that would enable the City to
require some kind of – category two storm? – film or treatment once the design is
determined if that’s appropriate? There may be a better way of saying that but to avoid
the problem we have for example, on Litton. With the floor to ceiling windows and the
close-up view of waste baskets and the back to desks.
Chair Lew: Do – yeah. Can we do that? It sorts of interior furnishings of the building
but…
City of Palo Alto Page 127
Board Member Furth: They’re just asking not to do it now but (inaudible).
Chair Lew: Ok. Do we have…
Mr. Lait: Yeah, I mean I think you can impose a condition that requires the film unless
the interior is not going to have…
Board Member Furth: (Inaudible)
Chair Lew: Yeah, it’s tricky because you realize that over a long period of time, the
tenants are going to change and so it’s going to be hard to – yeah, it’s a tricky one to
enforce.
Board Member Furth: I want to give them maximum freedom but I want to avoid that
unfortunate condition that (inaudible).
Ms. Gerhardt: Chair, if there’s – because we haven’t figured out the actual glass
material at this point, is there a possibility that would be dark enough where it wouldn’t
need the extra film on the bottom? You could somehow say that.
Chair Lew: Possible. It’s hard because we can say – say the building looks one way and
say in the evening when the lights are one, then it looks completely – it totally reverses
so it’s tricky. I would say that the film is being used on 278 University Avenue. That’s
one of Ken Hayes’s buildings, below deck height and the previous architect noticed that
and wanted to – and proposed using it, I think on this – on the earlier version of this
scheme.
Board Member Furth: Maybe we should – does it make sense to just require it because,
in real life, we are going to have these problems? Other than (inaudible), where are you
going to put it (inaudible), which they are not going to do. What are you going to put
up there that doesn’t create this problem?
Chair Lew: I don’t know but the – open – once upon a time, offices were all cubical but
that’s completely changed. If you look at what offices look like now, they’re – yeah.
They’re doing things way out of the box. I don’t know. My take on it is to require it and
then see – and then we will see what happens.
Board Member Baltay: I say looking at this design, they’re doing a lot to minimize the
floor plate in the middle of the glazing and I think the film is going to actually have a
detrimental effect. I’d rather see a few wastebaskets than a consistent film line when
otherwise twelve pieces of glass here.
Board Member Gooyer: Then you’re going to have the big band in the middle.
City of Palo Alto Page 128
Board Member Baltay: When I’m looking at the previous design with the band, I don’t
find it that desirable but it does help that you have another band with the middle floor.
I was looking at this drawing. There’s a white band there.
Board Member Gooyer: That’s why the gray band above it is not as noticeable.
Board Member Baltay: This design also somehow –I can’t put my finger on why but it –
maybe it’s not as much as a frame with a piece of glass in the middle. Whereas the new
proposed design really is a heavy frame around this glass and I guess I think we’re just
making it less good architecture by benign worried about garbage cans. That’s my
opinion.
Chair Lew: Now, I was going to say that I do like your Visa project around the corner
and you have a very good eye for proportions and details. I wish more architects had
your talent but they don’t.
[Mr. Zirkle:] Thank you.
Chair Lew: I will – ok, so – why don’t you propose a motion?
MOTION
Board Member Baltay: I move that we approve this – we recommend approval of this
project based on the findings in the packet.
Chair Lew: Any seconds?
Board Member Gooyer: I’ll second.
Chair Lew: OK, all in favor? Opposed? So, that passes 4-0 with Board Member Kyu
absent. Thank you.
MOTION PASSES 4-0 WITH VICE CHAIR KIM ABSENT
[Mr. Zirkle:] Thank you, thank you. Thank you for surviving attrition. This was a
marathon. I am amazed and impressed.
Chair Lew: We’re not completely done.
Approval of Minutes:
8. March 16, 2017, Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes
Chair Lew: We have the minutes. Going to – we did the minutes for the first portion
under tab seven in the packet but we do need to approve the minutes for March 16th,
City of Palo Alto Page 129
2017. I don’t think I have any comments on them. Does anybody else – I didn’t see
anything.
Board Member Furth: Staff asked that we give them our transcription corrections offline
so I will do that. my favorite one was when one of you said misled, you know
something misled somebody and it said m-i-s-s-l-e-a-d. Followed by all the young men.
MOTION
Board Member Baltay: I’ll move that we approve the minutes.
Board Member Gooyer: I’ll second.
Board Member Furth: Seconded.
Chair Lew: All in favor? That’s 4-0 with Board Member Kim absent.
MOTION PASSES 4-0 WITH VICE CHAIR KIM ABSENT
Chair Lew: OK, it's 4:45, you are now excused.
Ms. Gerhardt: I just wanted to let everyone know that as a tiny reward, there will not
be an April 20th hearing so we do get a reprieve there. I know, tiny reward.
Board Member Furth: We have no meeting on the 20th? Yea, if I was flying down here
for every meeting.
Subcommittee Item
Board Member Questions, Comments, Announcements
Adjournment